The Millennial System of Priesthood and Sacrifice –
Ezekiel 44:1-46:24
These three chapters
of Ezekiel are concerned with the various laws regulating the millennial system
of priesthood and sacrifice. To summarize, there will be a sacrificial system
instituted in the Millennium that will have some features similar to the Mosaic
system, along with some new laws. For that very reason, the sacrifice system of
the Millennium must not be viewed as a reinstitution of the Mosaic system,
because it is not. It will be a new system that will contain some things old
and some things new and will be instituted for an entirely different purpose.
A common argument
against taking these verses literally is the question as to why such a system
would be necessary since the Messiah has already died. If the death of Christ
was the final sacrifice for sin, how could these animal sacrifices provide an
expiation for sin? Therefore, some way, these chapters would suddenly become
meaningless. Furthermore, if all that detail is intended to be symbolic, the
symbols are never explained and the non-literalist is forced to be subjective
in expounding them and must resort to guess work. The literal approach is the
safest method to gain understanding of these passages.
What will be the
purpose of these sacrifices in light of Christ’s death? To begin with, it should
be remembered that the sacrificial system of the Mosaic Law did not remove sins
either (Heb. 10:4), but only covered them (the meaning of “atonement” in
Hebrew). Its purpose was to serve as a physical and visual picture of what the
Messiah would do (Isa. 53:10-12). The Church has been commanded to keep the
Lord’s Supper as a physical and visual picture of what Christ did on the cross.
God intends to provide for Israel in the kingdom a physical and visual picture
of what the Messiah accomplished on the cross. For Israel, however, it will be
a sacrificial system instead of communion with bread and wine. The purpose of
the sacrificial system in the kingdom will be the same as the purpose of
communion of the Church: in remembrance of me.
Dr. John C. Whitcomb
of Grace Theological Seminary provides an additional and significant
dispensational perspective on the millennial sacrifices (John C. Whitcomb,
“Christ Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel,” Grace Theological
Journal 6;2 [1985]:201-217). The subscript of the article summarizes his
position:
The future function
of the millennial temple (Ezekiel 40-48) has long been problematic for
dispensations in view of the finished work of Christ. Light is shed on this
problem by noting the original theocratic purpose of OT sacrifices. This
purpose was functionally distinct from that of the redemptive work of Christ.
Millennial sacrifices will not simply memorialize Christ’s redemption but will
primarily function in restoring theocratic harmony. The differences between the
Old Covenant stipulations and those of Ezekiel 40-48 can be accounted for in
terms of this solution. (Ibid., p. 201)
Whitcomb emphasizes
that there was a functional difference between the purpose of the animal
sacrifices and the purpose of Christ’s sacrifice (Ibid., pp. 208-210). To the
question, “What was the true function of animal sacrifices in the Old
Covenant?” Whitcomb responds that “animal sacrifices could never remove
spiritual guilt from the offerer,” citing Hebrews 10:4 and 11 as evidence.
This, of course, is something that has general agreement among all theologians
of all schools. But Whitcomb also points out that “it is equally erroneous to
say that the sacrifices were mere teaching symbols given by God to Israel to
prepare them for Messiah and his infinite atonement.” While this was certainly
a purpose of animal sacrifices, “it could not have been their exclusive purpose
from the perspective of Old Covenant Israelites.” Citing a number of clear
statements form the Law of Moses, Whitcomb shows what the animal sacrifices did
with regard to forgiveness and atonement. The real issue is not whether
forgiveness and atonement took place, but rather the “precise nature” of this
forgiveness and atonement. Whitcomb states that whatever happened was
“temporal, finite, external, and legal—not eternal, infinite, internal, and
soteriological.” His point is that this forgiveness and atonement was not a
spiritual one, for “No one was every spiritually regenerated by works, not even
by fulfilling legally prescribed sacrifices, offerings and other Mosaic
requirements.” The Old Testament believer received his spiritual salvation
because of “a heart response to whatever special revelation of God was
available a that time in history,” but this saving faith did not necessarily
include a knowledge of a crucified Messiah since such a view “does not do
justice to the progress of revelation.” While the death of the Messiah “has
always been and always will be the final basis of spiritual salvation,” this is
not the same as saying that it was the “knowledge-content” of saving faith. It
was faith and not the work of an animal sacrifice that saved. What the animal
sacrifices of the Law of Moses did achieve was “national/theocratic
forgiveness” for “national/theocratic transgressions.” They provided for
external cleansing and outward efficacy. Under the Mosaic Law, the choice was
not “either faith or sacrifices; rather, it was to be both faith and
sacrifices.” The former resulted in spiritual salvation and the later for the
cleanness of the flesh in accordance with Hebrews 9:13.
Applying these truths
to the millennial sacrifices, Whitcomb affirms that “future sacrifices will
have nothing to do with eternal salvation which only comes through faith in
God.” However, these future animal sacrifices will also be efficacious, but
“only in terms of the strict provision for ceremonial (and thus temporal)
forgiveness within the theocracy of Israel.” Whitcomb’s conclusion on this
point is:
Thus, animal
sacrifices during the coming Kingdom age will not be primarily memorial (like
the eucharist in church communion services), any more than sacrifices in the
age of the Old Covenant were primarily prospective or prophetic in the
understanding of the offerer. (Ibid., p. 210)
The distinction
between ceremonial and spiritual atonement is by no means a minor one, for it
is at the heart of the basic difference between the theocracy of Israel and the
Church, the Body and bride of Christ. It also provides a more consistent
hermeneutical approach for dispensational premillennialism. (Ibid., p. 211)
Whitcomb also rejects
the notion that the millennial sacrifice is a reinstitution of the Mosaic and
notes that the differences between the two systems means that the millennial
sacrificial system is a distinct system arising out of the New Covenant, not
the Mosaic Covenant. (Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israeology: The Missing Link
in Systematic Theology [San Antonio, Tex.: Ariel Ministries, 1989, 2020],
745-47)
