THE OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM
The writer of
the Epistle to the Hebrews has much to say about the endless repetition and
the futility of the ancient sacrifices. He shows that their only value was to
symbolize and point forward to the one true sacrifice that was to be made by
Christ. "We have been sanctified," he said, "through the offering of the body
of Jesus Christ once for all And every priest indeed standeth day by day
ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which can never take
away sins; but he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sin for ever, sat
down on the right hand of God; henceforth expecting till his enemies be made
the footstool of his feet. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them
that are sanctified" ( Heb. 10:10-14).
Rev. Harold
Dekker, one of the speakers on The Back to God Hour radio program, says
concerning the futility of the animal sacrifices and the finality of Christ's
sacrifice as set forth in this passage: "Continually, day by day, year after
year, God's people made their sacrifices according to the Old Testament law.
The writer calls to mind the mountains of herbs and grain and meal offerings
which had been brought before the Lord, the rivers of blood which had flowed
from millions of sheep and goats and droves of cattle. And then he raises the
question, Why the constant repetition? Why the endless pilgrimages to
Jerusalem? Why the interminable fires upon Israel's altars? Why the shedding
of blood? The reason, says the inspired writer, is that none of these brought
lasting relief to troubled consciences. So on and on went the sacrifices." But
of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary he says: "He was surely the sacrifice to end
all sacrifices. Let the blood now dry on the horns of the altar. Let the ovens
that bake meal offerings now be cooled. Let the sacrificial animals go back to
pasture. Final atonement is accomplished! Let all men everywhere now look to
the one sacrifice of Christ finished on the cross!"
In its
doctrine of an earthly Kingdom with a restored temple, priesthood and
sacrificial system, Premillennialism is a recrudescence of Judaism. Snowden
has set this forth quite convincingly, and we quote him at length:
"It is one
of the plainest universal teachings of the New Testament that the
sacrifices of the Mosaic economy were fulfilled in Christ and were then done
away as vanishing shadows that prefigured the substance, or as morning
stars that heralded the rising of the sun and were then lost in its light."
Paul's warnings against a return to these are cited: "How turn ye back to
the weak and beggarly rudiments, wherewith ye desire to be in bondage over
again? Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years"; "For freedom
did Christ set us free: stand fast, therefore, and be not entangled again in
a yoke of bondage" (Gal. 4:9,10; 5:1). "The Epistle to the Hebrews," says
Snowden, "is one long and conclusive argument that the old ordinances are
fulfilled and done away in Christ, 'who needeth not daily, like those high
priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the
sins of the people; for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself
(7:27).
"Who would
ever have expected that in the face of all this teaching and of these earnest
efforts to rid the Christian Church of these old ordinances that had served
their day as the withered and empty husk has served the corn, there would
arise among believers in later times a school of interpreters who would teach
that the whole Mosaic system, with its temple and central seat of worship and
its seasons and feasts and sacrifices, its passover and its unleavened bread,
its daily peace offerings and bloody burnt-offerings and sin offerings, its
altar streaming with blood and its smoke and incense, was to be restored in
Jerusalem after the second coming of Chris Who would have believed this
incredible thing? And yet this very thing has come to pass and now is...
"This
doctrine is first rooted in the logic of the system. It is a cardinal
principle of Premillennialism that the prophecies of the Messianic kingdom in
the Old Testament apply, not to the first but to the second coming of Christ
and to the millennial kingdom He will inaugurate. It is a further principle of
this system that these prophecies must be interpreted in a literal sense in
accordance with its teaching that the Bible means what it says, and to abandon
this mode of interpretation in its application to these prophecies would be to
concede the principle of figurative interpretation and this again would wreck
the system.
"Premillennialism is therefore required by its own logic to take the prophecy
of Ezekiel, chapters 40-48, in which an idealized vision of the temple is set
forth, including the passover and all the bloody offerings which are expressly
commanded (45:2l- 25), and transfer it bodily and literally to the millennial
kingdom in Jerusalem after the second coming of Christ. And this system must
do the same thing with all similar prophecies. Isaiah declares: 'And they
shall bring all your children out of all the nations for an oblation unto
Jehovah, upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and
upon dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith Jehovah, as the
children of Israel bring their oblation in a clean vessel into the house of
Jehovah. [Here we notice that the means of conveyance have long since been
outmoded and belong to a distant age. Surely they would not be appropriate for
the very advanced and prosperous kingdom that Premillennialists expect in the
millennium]. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and
from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith
Jehovah' (66:20,23). Zechariah prophesies: 'And it shall come to pass, that
every one that is left of all the nations that came up against Jerusalem shall
go up from year to year to worship the king, and to keep the feast of
tabernacles' (14:16); 'and all they that sacrifice shall come.' "The
inescapable logic of Premillennialism requires that all these and similar
prophecies be literally fulfilled in Jerusalem. This is 'judaizing
Christianity' with a vengeance. And this is revolting; and some
Premillennialists do revolt at it. David Brown quotes Increase Mather, a
premillenarian, as saying, 'And a most loathsome work they do perform, both to
God and man, that dig up the ceremonies out of that grave where Jesus Christ
buried them above sixteen hundred years ago'" (The Coming of the Lord, pp.
206-209).
Let there be
no doubt but that Dispensationalism does teach the re-establishment of Judaism
following the Church age. Lewis Sperry Chafer, late President of Dallas
Theological Seminary, says that after the Church age has run its course there
is to be. "the regathering of Israel and the restoration of Judaism"
(Dispensationalism, p. 40). And Merrill F. Unger, also of Dallas Theological
Seminary, says; "At the second advent Christ will restore the Judaistic system
with far greater glory and spirituality than it ever had in the Old Testament
period until its complete dissipation with the destruction of Herod's temple
in 70 A. D. The heart and center of re-established Judaism will be the
millennial temple, in connection with which Judaism will enjoy its final state
of development" (Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan.-March, 1960).
Only to a
literalist does the re-establishment of the sacrificial system and temple
ritual seem sensible. To a Post- or Amillennialist it is too materialistic.
Premillennial logic, however, does not permit these sacrifices to be
"spiritualized." To do so would remove a cornerstone from the system, and, if
consistently carried out would lead straight to conclusions that they are most
anxious to avoid.
Some
Premillennialists say that the sacrifices to be offered in the Millennium will
only be "memorials" of the work that Christ accomplished on the cross.
Scofield gives this explanation when he says: "Doubtless these offerings will
be memorial, looking back to the cross, as the offerings under the old
covenant were anticipatory, looking forward to the cross" (p. 890). This
explanation is also given by G. Campbell Morgan in his book, God's Methods
with Man (p. 118). But that explanation contradicts the premillennial
principle of literal interpretation of prophecy and cannot be allowed. Ezekiel
says plainly that "the priests," "the sons of Zadok," shall again serve, that
they shall be given "a young bullock for a sin-offering." He says further:
"And thou shalt take the blood thereof, and put it on the four horns of it
[the altar], and on the four corners of the ledge, and upon the border round
about: thus shalt thou cleanse it and make atonement for- it" (40:46; 43:19,
20). Those who are so insistent that "the Bible means what it says" cannot be
allowed to "spiritualize and allegorize" statements such as these when found
in sections which they themselves say describe the restoration of the Jews in
Palestine during the millennial era. Ezekiel chapters 40-48 is at least twenty
times more extensive and detailed than is Revelation 20:1-10, which
Premillennialists say must be taken literally. So those who insist on literal
interpretation find here a program for the restoration of the Levitical ritual
and priesthood, despite the fact that Galatians and Hebrews each makes it
plain that the temple, the human priesthood and the ritual have been abolished
forever.
In any event,
the re-institution of a sacrificial system could not do other than dishonor
the sacrifice that Christ made on Calvary, which the Scripture represents as a
"once for all" sacrifice (Heb. 7:27). The New Testament has absolutely nothing
to say about such memorial sacrifices, nor anything about rebuilding the
temple. Furthermore, all memorials are unnecessary when the one to be
memorialized is present in person, as Christ will be after His Second Coming.
We may also add that one feature of Roman Catholicism that we find
particularly offensive is its doctrine that in the Mass the sacrifice of
Christ is repeated, that the bread and wine actually are changed into His
flesh and blood -- "the unbloody repetition of the Mass," as it is called.
Concerning
the subject of animal sacrifices during the Millennium Allis says:
"The thought is abhorrent that after Christ comes, the memory of His atoning
work will be kept alive in the hearts of believers by a return to the animal
sacrifices of the Mosaic law, the performance of which is so emphatically
condemned in passages which speak with unmistakable plainness on this very
subject. Here is unquestionably the Achilles' heel of the Dispensational
system of interpretation. Its literalistic and Old Testament emphasis leads
almost inevitably, if not inevitably, to a doctrine of the millennium which
makes it definitely Jewish and represents a turning back from the glory of the
gospel to those typical rites and ceremonies which prepared the way for it,
and having served that necessary purpose have lost for ever their validity and
propriety" (Prophecy and the Church, p. 248).
Snowden's
conclusion regarding this phase of Premillennialism is also worth quoting. He
says:
"Enough and
more than enough has been said to prove that Premillennialism is a
recrudescence of Judaism. It is Juristic in its method of establishing the
kingdom, and above all, in its restoration of the sacrifices after the second
coming of Christ. This is indeed renouncing the logic of Paul and 'turning
back to the weak and beggarly rudiments' and putting our necks again under the
Mosaic yoke of 'bondage.' This is turning the clock of religious development
back two or three thousand years. It is putting the altar back in Jerusalem
and going back to 'the blood of bulls and goats.' If any Premillenarians pause
at this or say that they do not hold it, we must repeat that we are not
dealing with individuals but with the logic and literature of the system, and
there can be no doubt whither the logic leads and what the representative
writers teach.
"Truly old
forms of religions die hard. Judaism has strange tenacity and still clings to
the Christian Church... Judaism is a withered husk; the corn has gone out of
it. Jerusalem is a splendid memory. The eagle, once it gets out, can never be
crowded back into its shell. Christianity has taken its Height from Mount Zion
and never will it officially be back there. Jesus Himself swept the kingdom
off that mountain-top as its central seat and released it to go into all the
world and make disciples of all nations that men everywhere may worship the
Father in Spirit and in truth...
"Paul with
one stroke of his pen 'spiritualized' the whole Old Testament economy when he
wrote, 'And if ye are Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to
promise' (Gal 3:29). Peter also 'spiritualized' the Old Testament and buried
the Jewish eschatology when he wrote. Ye also, as living stones, are built up
a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices,
acceptable to God through Jesus Christ' (I Peter 2:5). This is the way the New
Testament throughout spiritualizes the Old. This is 'the glorious liberty of
the children of God' (Rom. 8:21); and when we read these premillenarian
interpretations and arguments we hear Paul's earnest and eloquent voice
ringing across all these centuries and bidding us, 'stand fast therefore in
the liberty wherewith Christ made you free, and be not entangled again with
the yoke of bandage' (Gal. 5:1)" (The Coming of the Lord, pp. 217-219).
It is
admittedly difficult in many instances to determine whether statements in
Scripture should be taken literally or figuratively. As regards prophecy, that
often cannot be determined until after the fulfillment. Most of the Bible,
however, particularly the historical and the more didactic portions, clearly
is to be understood literally, although some figurative expressions are found
in these. But that many other portions must be understood figuratively is
also clearly evident. Even the Premillennialists must take many expressions
figuratively or they become nonsense. Since the Bible gives no hard and
fast rule for determining what is literal and what is figurative we must study
the nature of the material, the historical setting and style and purpose of
the writer, and then fall back on what for lack of a better name we may
call "sanctified common sense." Naturally the conclusions will vary somewhat
from individual to individual, for we do not all think alike nor see alike.
It should
hardly be necessary to point out that true Postmillennialism is
supernaturalistic through and through. Pre- and Amillennialists sometimes
represent this system as though it taught the conversion of the world through
merely humanistic and evolutionary processes. Present day Modernism does set
forth a program of world betterment by natural rather than supernatural means,
and opponents sometimes represent that as Postmillennialism. But by no stretch
of the imagination does such a system have any moral right to be called
Postmillennialism. That is not the sense in which the term has been used
historically, yet comments of that kind have given rise to much unjust
criticism. Representative postmillennial theologians, such as Augustine,
Brown, Hodge, Dabney and Warfield, have been consistent supernaturalists and
have believed in a fully inspired and authoritative Bible and in the
regenerating work of the Holy Spirit as the only means by which an individual
can be brought to salvation.
On the other
hand the distinguishing feature of present day Modernism by which it is to be
identified wherever it shows itself is its more or less consistent denial of
the supernatural, i.e., denial of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures,
the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, blood atonement, miracles, final judgment,
heaven and hell. It is concerned primarily with this life, and it proposes to
reform the world through education, social and economic progress, improved
health programs, better relations between capital and labor, etc. Those things
are good as far as they go and, wherever possible, should be encouraged. But
they are only the by-products of true Christianity.
The fact that
different views concerning the Second Coming of Christ and the Millennium
have been held and are held should not discourage anyone from making an
earnest search for the truth. This situation in the field of Theology is
no different from that in the field of Medicine, in which eminent doctors hold
differing views as to how certain diseases should be treated or how the human
body should be cared for. We have, for instance, medical doctors,
chiropractors, osteopaths, surgeons, dietetic specialists, physical exercise
enthusiasts, etc. But that does not prevent us from believing in health nor
from seeking the best methods to preserve health; nor does it save us from
suffering the consequences if we choose wrongly. Nor is the situation in the
realm of politics and statesmanship any different. We have various political
parties, Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Labor, Communist, etc., each
advocating different principles as to how the nation should be governed, and
particularly at election time we hear very conflicting opinions. There are
various theories of education and of church government. In each of these
spheres it is our duty to search diligently for the truth and so far as
possible to separate truth from error. Our beliefs concerning the manner and
time of the Second Coming of Christ will not change that event by one iota,
but what we believe concerning those matters will very definitely affect our
lives and conduct while we are waiting for that event.
It is to be
regretted that these differences of opinion even among those who accept the
Bible as the inspired and authoritative word of God cannot always be dealt
with by unprejudiced exegesis and friendly discussion rather than made the
basis for quarrels or tests of orthodoxy. As a general rule Premillennialists.
basing their views on a more literal interpretation of Scripture, have a
tendency to feel that those who do not accept their system hold a lower view
of Scripture and that they are not consistently Christian. One might easily
receive the impression from reading premillennial literature that only they
believe fully in the Lord's return. It has even reached such a state in some
dispensational circles that if one questions the personal reign of Christ in
an earthly kingdom he is met with a question such as, "Then you do not believe
that Christ is to return?" An examination of Bible institute catalogues
reveals that most of them restrict faculty members to the premillennial view.
Some are reluctant to graduate a student, or at least will give him a lower
grade, if he does not accept that view. Prophetic conference literature
presents a one-sided futurism and encourages the inference that opposing views
are not evangelical. Some make a hobby of Premillennialism, ending it with
remarkable ingenuity in almost every prophecy and vision and promise from
Genesis to Revelation, and giving it undue prominence in their preaching --
Gray places the number of New Testament references to the coming of Christ at
a minimum of 300, and Morgan says that on an average one verse in each 25 in
the New Testament refers to it. The differences between Post-, A-, and
Premillennialists, which should be treated as comparative non-essentials,
actually divide the churches and becomes a serious impediment to Christian
fellowship. Unquestionably the vagaries of dispensational extremists, not
merely in such sects as Jehovah's Witnesses, Millennial Dawnists, and some
Pentecostal and Holiness groups, but also in the conventional evangelical
churches, have divided Christians into antagonistic groups and have done much
harm to the cause of Christianity.
In discussing
these problems, then, two important facts should be kept in mind: (1)
Evangelical Post-, A-, and Premillennialists agree that the Bible is the word
of God, fully inspired and authoritative. They differ not in regard to the
nature of Scripture authority, but in regard to what they understand Scripture
to teach. And, (2) the three systems agree that there was a First Advent, and
that there will be a Second Advent, which will be personal, visible, glorious,
and as objective as was the Ascension from the Mount of Olives.
It should be
added that while the Church has debated and reached conclusions and has
embodied these conclusions in her creeds as regards all of the other great
doctrines of the faith, the subject of Eschatology still remains in dispute as
to the manner of Christ's return and the kind of kingdom that He is setting up
or will set up in this world. For this reason the Church in practically all of
her branches has refused to make any one of the millennial interpretations an
article of the creed, and has preferred rather to accept as Christian brethren
all those who believe in the fact of Christ's Coming. Hence, while personally
we may have very definite views concerning the manner and time of His coming,
it would seem that our motto should be: "In essentials, unity; in
non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."
