Monday, May 31, 2021

Robert Bowman: Still Lying about the "Temple of Solomon" being an Anachronism in the Book of Mormon

A friend shared this with me just today:



And this is why I stand by my claim that Rob Bowman is a liar and a disingenuous hack. For a reproduction of a to-and-fro he had with Christopher Davis, and how Amos 9:11-12 refutes his "temple of Solomon" nonsense, see:


Amos 9 and "the booth of David" 


For other articles on Amos 9, see:


Elena Butova on Amos 9:11 and the Tabernacle/Booth of David being a Temple Reference (cf. Elena Butova on James' Use of Midrash and LXX Amos in Acts 15)


Richard Bauckham on James and the Author of Luke-Acts Interpreting the Tabernacle of David in Amos 9:11 to be the Temple


Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. on the "Hut" (Tabernacle/Booth) of David in Amos 9:11 being the Temple


John Anthony Dunne, “David’s Tent as Temple in Amos 9:11-15: Understanding the Epilogue of Amos & Considering Implications for the Unity of the Book,” Westminster Theological Journal 73.2 (Fall 2011): 363-374


Craig Koester on James' Interpretation of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15


Loveday Alexander on the Use of Amos 9:11-12 by James in Acts 15 during the Council of Jerusalem



cf. The Book of Mormon's Knowledge of Gentile Inclusion in the New Covenant: Does it Contradict the Bible?


It should be noted that Bowman did concede the point with Christopher Davis:


"Christopher, let's see if you are willing to accept a compromise conclusion that I would consider really unassailable. I would argue that my article proves beyond reasonable doubt that the expression "temple of Solomon" is not good, positive evidence FOR the claim that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient Hebraic text. This modest conclusion would leave open the question of whether the Book of Mormon is such a translation, but it would reject the claim of several LDS scholars and apologists that the expression is good evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. In other words, even if "temple of Solomon" is a possible literal translation of an ancient Hebraic expression (which I have argued it isn't), the fact remains that there is nothing about the English wording that validates or constitutes evidence that it is such a translation. What say you? Can you meet me this far?"



TL;DR: Rob Bowman is not an honest individual and more than willing to lie through his teeth if it serves his needs, or, as a friend put it, "Looks like he has hit rock bottom with integrity and then grabbed the blasting caps."


Update: On a facebook group dedicated to LDS/Evangelical discussion/debate, Bowman doubled down. He was not happy I gave him the benefit of the doubt, thinking his low IQ posts were co-authored. And notice again: no refutation of the arguments against his retarded (no other word for it, and rather apropos here) "Temple of Solomon" argument. Just his typical "Boylan is mean" routine (though it is a change of pace from his proclaiming "I has a PhD!!!!!! while marinating in Dunning Kruger):












Thursday, May 27, 2021

Will be at MHA from 10-12 June!

 I will be at the Mormon History Association's 2021 Conference from 10-12 June at Park City, Utah. There are some presentations that seem super interesting, including Sarah Rounsville, “A Nation of Murderers’: Abortion Rhetoric in the LDS Defense of Polygamy.


If you see me(*) feel free to say 'hi' and would love to chat/nerd it up.


(*) only exception would be if your initials are "CR" and like to falsely accuse people of being "rape apologists."

Sunday, May 23, 2021

Some Updates

 I know I have not been blogging a lot, but (1) I have been working and (2) trying to survive the heat here in Mexico (Irish people struggle with the heat, and as a chronic migraine sufferer . . .red rum red rum red rum . . . )

 

Just thought I would update people about a few things--


(*) I hope to be in Utah beginning 1 June, initially for 3 months, and then, when I return from Ireland after a short while, permanently.


(*) I am currently scheduling the date of the debate on the Immaculate Conception. It will be held at a Catholic Church in Layton, Utah.


(*) Either in this initial 3-month stint or when I am back later this year permanently, I will be debating a Reformed Baptist on Sola Scriptura


(*) I hope to arrange a dialogue with a Reformed apologist on baptismal regeneration and also the nature of justification. I sent him my book on baptism, so once he reads it, we will schedule something. More details to follow.


(*) I hope to be at both the FAIR Conference in early August and will be at the Interpreter BBQ/ dinner weekend, also in August. So if you want to meet in person, I will be available.

Tuesday, May 18, 2021

On Post-Manifesto Marriages and the Authority Question

 

 

. . . by the 1880s the saints had a well-established hierarchy, and government persecution of the saints for plural marriage made it better for John Taylor to uninvolved himself from plural marriage. In 1884, President Taylor was subpoenaed to answer questions at the trial of Rudger Clawson about the Church’s priesthood authority and records pertaining to plural marriage. In the trial, he made a number of interesting and informative remarks about these subjects:

 

“Q. Now are there no other places than those you have mentioned [i.e. the temples and the Endowment House] where the church authorizes the rite of plural marriage to be performed?

A. The right of plural marriage can be performed in other places. There is no place set part specifically for it. . . .

Q. Is there any other proper places for the performance of these rights?

A. The ceremony of marriage can be performed outside of any of those places.

Q. Would [members] not require a [special] dispensation from the church to authorize its celebration elsewhere?

A. Yes.

Q. What are the circumstances necessary to the obtaining of a dispensation?

A. It would be very difficult for me to say. There might be twenty or thirty different circumstances.

Q. Well, do you know some circumstances that would authorize such a dispensation?

A. I do not know particularly.

Q. Did you say it would require a dispensation?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. For the performance of the act, but not for a specific place?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who gives the authority?

A. I gave that authority.

Q. In call cases?

A. Generally in all cases.

Q. Is there any other person authorized to grant the dispensation?

A. There are persons I might appoint.

Q. Have you conferred upon any person that authority within the past three years?

A. Yes, Sir.

Q. Who?

A. Sometimes Joseph F. Smith, sometimes George Q. Cannon.

Q. Do you remember any others upon whom you conferred that authority within that time?

A. I do not remember any at present.

Q. When this authority is conferred upon any one by you, is it an authority limited to some particular case, or a general authority?

A. It would be a general authority until rescinded. . . .

Q. I understand it is you from whom the authority comes?

A. Yes, sir; but I have nothing to do with the details of the matter.

Q. But you are the person who confers the authority?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then you do know upon whom you do confer authority?

A. There are hundreds of people who have authority.” (Published in the Deseret Weekly News, 22 October 1884 and re-published in Saints’ Herald vol. 31 page 723)

 

In the above excerpt, President Taylor makes it clear that he was the ultimate source of authorizing “dispensations” of the sealing power, and indicated that an individual’s authorization could be “rescinded” by him. He indicates that he did not personally confer the ”dispensation” of this “authority” but that he had authorized Joseph F. Smith and George Q. Cannon to do so, and that “hundreds” had been given authority to seal by them. Later on this testimony he would reiterate this:

 

“Q. Who in this city is authorized to celebrate plural marriages?

A. A great many have been appointed—hundreds.

Q. Could you give me the names of those in this city who are now authorized to perform plural marriages?

A. I could not.

Q. Do you mean there are so many?

A. There are a great many that would be authorized under certain circumstances.” (Deseret Weekly News, 22 October 1884 and re-published in Saints’ Herald vol. 31 page 724)

 

In cross examination, he further explained that this delegated authority that “hundreds” held to perform plural marriages was the authority to perform all temple ordinances in general (This is with the possible exception of the second anointing. John Taylor likely believed that this delegated sealing authority was not enough to perform the “highest” ordinance unless an individual had received their second anointing themselves), that delegated plural marriage sealing authority was not a distinct or separate authority:

 

“Q. President Taylor, in your direct examination you spoke of having appointed or authorized persons to celebrate plural marriages. State whether or not such authorization of appointments extended only to plural marriages, or whether the appointees had had the authority to celebrate first marriages also. In other words, was the authorization general as to marriage or confined to plural marriages only?

A. It was general in all these matters, and things performed in the house.

Q. And as to all classes of marriage, Mr. Taylor?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Whether plural or first marriage?

A. Yes, sir.

. . .

Q. You stated in answer to Richards’ question as to the scope of the authority?

A. My answer was that it pertained to all matters performed in the house. I refer to the Endowment House or to the Temple.” (Deseret Weekly News, 22 October 1884 and re-published in Saints’ Herald vol. 31 page 724)

 

Shortly after President Taylor’s testimony, George Q. Cannon was called on the stand and gave similar answers, including an interesting comment that “formerly the apostles were the ones who attended to these marriages, but latterly a great many others have been authorized” (Deseret Weekly News, 22 October 1884 and re-published in Saints’ Herald vol. 31 page 726) Cannon’s statement that “formerly the apostles were the only ones who attended to these marriages” is a telling echo of the Nauvoo statement of Wilford Woodruff to William Smith on October 9, 1844 that marriage sealings were a “right exclusively belonging to the quorum of the Twelve or the president of the quorum” and the reality in the early 1850s that marriages were almost universally only sealed by the Quorum of the Twelve.

 

Thus President Taylor originated the policy that would be adopted by his successors—Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith—where they would publicly deny performing plural marriages and uninvolved themselves from the details of new polygamist unions, all while privately indicating approval of the secret perpetuation of plural marriage. (Jacob Vidrine, “The One Anointed and Appointed over the Sealing Power,” One Eternal Round: A Magazine Dedicated to Mormon History and Theology, issue 7 [15 December 2019]:44-48)

 

Israr Ahmad Khan and the Qur'an's Lack of Perspicuity on the Nature of Predestination

 

 

Proponents of predestination point to two particular verses of the Qur’an: (1) “Dost thou not know that God knows all that occurs in heaven as well as on earth? All this, behold, is in [God’s] record: verily, [to know] all this is easy for God” (22:70).

 

(2) No calamity can ever befall the earth, and neither your own selves, unless it be [laid down] in Our decree before We bring it into being: verily, all this is easy for God. [Know this,] so that you may not despair over whatever [good] has escaped you nor exult [unduly] over whatever [good] has come to you: for, God does not love any of those who, out of self-conceit, act in a boastful manner” (57:22-23).

 

However, āyah 22:70 simply shows that Allah knows all that exists in the heaven and on earth. His knowledge is preserved in the Book. It in no way conveys a message concerning predestination.

 

As for āyah 57:22-23 when understood and interpreted in the light of other ayāt which highlight man’s freedom to think, choose, and act, it will mean that Allah has outlined laws and principles for the universe, that are immutable and written in the Book. The Book does not contain precise information of each and every event related to man. For example, Mr A suffers burns from a fire on 29th July 2009 at 3pm at his house number…etc. Is this event written in the Book with such precise detail? Certainly not. What is written in the Book is that fire burns; whatever comes in contact with fire will get burnt; the fire will not cause anyone, anything, any place to feel cold. (Israr Ahmad Khan, Authentication of Hadith: Redefining the Criteria [London: The International Institute of Islamic Thought, 2010], 193 n. 28)

 

Michael Martin vs. William Lane Craig on An Actual Infinity in Mathematics

 

 

Craig admits that the concept of an actual infinity in mathematics is perfectly consistent. But he fails to show that there is anything logically inconsistent about an actual infinity existing in reality. Moreover, in some of his examples he even fails to show that there is some nonlogical absurdity.

 

Consider his example of the library with an infinite number of books. Craig maintains that since each book had a number on its spine, no new book could be added to the library. But this, he concludes, is absurd (presumably in some nonlogical sense), since “entities that exist in reality can be numbered.” This argument is unsound, however, for books can be added and numbered by simply renumbering the books already in the library. The new books would then be given the numbers of old books—the books that had already been assigned numbers—and the old books would be assigned new numbers.

 

Although it is condensed and enthymatic, Craig’s argument that one cannot construct an actual infinity by successive addition can perhaps be reconstructed as follows:

 

(1) For any point, it is impossible to begin at that point and construct an actual infinity by successive addition.

(2) In order to construct an actual infinity by successive addition, it is necessary to begin at some point.

(3) Therefore, an actual infinity cannot be constructed by successive addition.

 

It should be clear that (2) begs the question, since there is an alternative—namely, that an actual infinity can be constructed by successive addition if the successive addition is beginningless. To suppose that an infinity cannot be constructed in this way is to assume exactly that is at issue. (Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification [Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990], 105)

 

Julian Baggini on the Cosmological Argument

 

The cosmological argument in a nutshell is that since everything must have a cause, the universe must have a cause. And the only cause of the universe that could be up to the job is God, or at least that the best hypothesis for the cause of the universe is God. The cosmological argument is there whenever someone turns around and says to the naturalist, 'Ah, well the universe may have begun with the big bang, but what caused the big bang?'

 

The argument is to my mind utterly awful, a disgrace to the good name of philosophy and the only reason for discussion it is to expose sloppy thinking. One fatal flaw among many is that the argument is based on principles it then flouts. The intuitive principles that lie behind the argument are that nothing exists uncaused and that the cause of something great and complex must itself be even greater and more complex. But it ends by hypothesizing God's existence as simple and uncaused. If it is possible for God to exist without a cause greater than God to exist without a cause greater than God, why can't the universe exist without a cause greater than itself? Either the principles that inform the argument stand or they don't. If they stand, then God requires a cause and the causal chain goes back ad infinitum. If they don't, then there is no need to hypothesize God.

 

The second fatal flaw is that even if the logic of the argument works, we do not arrive at God. What we arrive at is a cause which is greater and more complex than the universe itself and which is itself uncaused. Whether or not this resembles the traditional God, who is much more like an individual personality than a super-universe, is surely open to question. So the argument cannot really establish that the cause is anything like God at all.

 

Viewed as an example of an apologetic, however, we can see the true merits of the argument. It shows how it is possible for the religious to reconcile their beliefs with what we know about the universe. It is compatible with reason and what we know to suppose that the big bang was caused by God, and it is possible that all things within the universe must have a cause but that the causal chain, since it must stop somewhere, stops with God. So just as long as the believer does not mistake the argument as evidence for God's existence, they can maintain the argument as a demonstration of the rational possibility of their belief in God. This leaves open the question of what really justifies belief in God, which we will come to shortly.

 

One further caution is that this kind of argument is precarious as it essentially hypothesizes a 'God of the gaps'. God is invoked to explain what we cannot currently explain. This is a risky strategy. After all, people previously invoked God to explain all sorts of natural phenomena we later explained, and each time God had to retreat further back into the unknown. In this case God has retreated to behind the blue touch-paper that started the universe going. Such a God is fast running out of places for believers to hide him. (Julian Baggini, Atheism: A Very Short Introduction [New York: Oxford University Press, 2003], 94-95)

 


Monday, May 17, 2021

Eric Wendt on the use of "Bible" in the Book of Mormon

 Former Latter-day Saint Eric Went, in a youtube interview where he gave his "testimony," stated that one of the biggest historical "mistakes" in the Book of Mormon is the appearance of "Bible" therein. The offending passage is 2 Nephi 29:3 where we read, “Many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.”


The word “Bible” is the English form of the Greek term meaning “books.” The term was not used until the fifth century C.E. to describe the entire collection of sacred books, so of course the word “Bible” was not used in Nephi’s time. But when Joseph Smith translated the gold plates, he knew that the collection of books or scriptures the Prophet Nephi was talking about in 2 Nephi 29:3-4, 6 was the latter-day Bible, so he used that word so there would be no doubt to the world what the prophecy was about. Using the word “Bible” would be expected since the Book of Mormon was translated from an ancient language to a modern-day language. There are other places in the Book of Mormon where apparently anachronistic words are used to convey the meaning of the text, such as the French word “adieu” at the end of the Book of Jacob, because at the time Joseph translated it, that word seemed the most appropriate 19th century word to use to represent Jacob’s feelings as he said good-bye. Bible translators also used French derived words such as “tache” (Exo 26:6) and “bruit” (Jer 10:22) to best convey the meanings of the Hebrew words they are translating.

Interestingly, other translations of ancient texts use "Bible" in the same way the Book of Mormon does. The Letter of Aristeas is a text that is variously dated from the third century B.C. to the first century A.D. One can read it on-line, such as Charles’ 1913 English translation here, or the Greek text here. The relevant text reads thusly:

I have also received from Theodectus the tragic poet (the report) that when he was about to include in a play a passage from that is written in the Bible, he was afflicted with cataract of the eyes. He suspected that this was why the affliction had befallen him, so he besought God for many days. (v.316) ( "The Letter of Aristeas" translated by R.J.H. Sutt in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2: Expansions of the "Old Testament" and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 7-34, here, pp.33-34; emphasis added. The underlining Greek is ἐπισφα-λέστερον ἐκ τοῦ νόμου προσιστορεῖν (alt: "unreliable translations of the Law" [Charles]). As Shutt notes(p. 34 n. 3), this is a reference to the texts of the Old Testament.)

Additionally, in his translation and commentary of Galatians, Craig Keener offered the following translation of Gal 3:13:

Christ purchased our deliverance from the above-mentioned curse of the law, by becoming a curse on your behalf. This is because the Bible says, “Everyone who was hanged on tree is cursed.” (Craig S. Kenner, Galatians: A Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2019], 253 [the Greek is ὅτι γέγραπται, "for it is written"])

If scholarly translations such as those of R.J.H. Stutt's and Craig Keener's can use "the Bible," so can Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon.

Friday, May 14, 2021

Lutheran Debates Catholic on Justification (Jordan B. Cooper Vs. Jimmy Akin)

 I am currently travelling to Utah (will be arriving on 1 June!). Currently in London, so I don't have a lot of time to blog, but did manage to watch the recent discussion/debate on justification between Jimmy Akin (Catholic) and Jordan Cooper (Lutheran):


Lutheran Debates Catholic on Justification (Jordan B. Cooper Vs. Jimmy Akin)









Sunday, May 9, 2021

New Youtube Page: "Temple Light"

I just found out that Jasmin Rappleye of Book of Mormon Central has a Youtube page "Temple of Light."


Here is the video on baptism (which, as an author of a book-length treatment of the topic, is always of interest to me . . . )


The Beautiful, Rich Symbolism of Baptism







The Ongoing Intellectual and Theological Disingenuousness of Michael Flournoy

 A friend recently sent me this blog post by Michael "Living proof of Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-29" Flournoy. It is an eisegesis-driven attempt to defend his Protestant soteriology. Needless to say, Flournoy has already been refuted, and, as he is a self-deceived and intellectually disingenuous individual, repeats the same falsehoods over and over again, such as the claim a truly justified believer can not lose their salvation.


For those who want to know more, see:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness cf. my 7-part Λογιζομαι in texts contemporary with the New Testament series

 Part 1 (LXX Apocrypha)








Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Full Refutation of the Protestant Claim Romans 10:9-10 Teaches Sola Fide

My recent book, "Born of Water and of the Spirit": The Biblical Evidence for Baptismal Regeneration is also apropos here (I hope to arrange a debate with a Reformed friend of mine on the topic of baptismal regeneration soon, so watch this space)

Can a Believer Ever Fall from the (Salvific) Love of God? (a direct response to Flournoy on eternal security/perseverance of the Saints). cf: James White (and John Owen) on Hebrews 10:29


King David Refutes Reformed Soteriology (King David, one of the two examples of justification used by Paul in Romans 4, alone refutes Flournoy's nonsense)

Hebrews 6:4-9: Only Hypothetical?




Other previous responses to Michael "Living Proof of 'Novak's Rule'" Flournoy, see:




Friday, May 7, 2021

Update: Hopefully heading to the U.S.A. in early June

I hope to be in the USA for 3 months (early June-early September) and hopefully, after a brief return to Ireland, move to the USA permanently.

 

During my first stint in Utah, I will be debating a Roman Catholic on whether the Immaculate Conception is Apostolic in origin. When I return, I hope to arrange a debate with a Reformed Baptist on the topic of Sola Scriptura.

 

From next week onwards, I will be busy packing/travelling to Mexico (can't travel directly to the USA, so will be heading to Mexico and then Mexico to USA [Holladay, Utah])/etc. So my blogging may be minimal for a short while.

 

For those who wish to continue to support this blog (and want to help my travel/moving expenses) one can donate viaPaypal.

Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum on the Millennial System of Priesthood and Sacrifice in Ezekiel 44-46

 

 

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)

 

Blog Archive