Posted on 10/20/2009 8:00:19 AM PDT by Gamecock
So, it was a type?
Type is probably an ok word. The OT sacrifice was effectual only as much as it signified the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. It looked forward to the true sacrifice.
That does not preclude any other sacrifice from being offered now or in the future, illegitimate or legitimate.
Will there be a legitimate sacrificial system in the future that looks back at Calvary rather than looking forward to it? It could be. I don't see anything that is necessarily opposed to it.
Rom. 11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
It seems to me that God is not done with Israel.
It was am obvious red herring.
Type is probably an ok word. The OT sacrifice was effectual only as much as it signified the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. It looked forward to the true sacrifice.
So it would not make any sense, and in fact would be repugnant to go back to an old covenant type such as animal sacrifices. Would you agree?
That does not preclude any other sacrifice from being offered now or in the future, illegitimate or legitimate.
Why not? Would it not a supreme affront to the Lamb of God?
Will there be a legitimate sacrificial system in the future that looks back at Calvary rather than looking forward to it? It could be. I don't see anything that is necessarily opposed to it.
But is there something explicit in favor? Are people who get all excited about such things new temple and the possibility of animal sacrifices just self-deceived?
With all the strong language in the NT about the nature of the once for all sacrifice of Christ, and similar strong language in the book of Galatians about judaizing and a return to the law, you don't see anything necessarily wrong?
Absolutely true. The error usually comes about by defining "Israel" in a way other than how it is used in the Bible.
Jesus himself told us how to read the OT; it's all about him.
I speak as one who went the opposite direction ... from being brought up in the Reformed camp and eventually embracing the Baptist tradition.actually seem to me to be born of a fairly poor, almost inexcusable knowledge of the actual "Baptist Tradition." What, with the great works of the Reformed champion, the "Prince of Preachers" Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the beloved Puritan preacher and author John Bunyan, and the signatories of the Great Baptist Confessions of Faith (1644/46 and 1689) so readily available? I actually should find it quite surprising that the majority of Baptist Churches in America aren't Reformed. That is, of course, if I weren't fairly well versed in the history of the American Evangelical tradition post Ryrie, Schofield, and Finney. So, well, I'm not surprised, but still sort of shocked at what I can't escape calling "misstatements." Perhaps a better statement would be:
I speak as one who went the opposite direction (towards dispensationalism)... from being brought up in the Reformed camp and eventually embracing the American Evangelical tradition in a (Free Will; Trinity; Southern; American) Baptist Church.I dunno. Either way, like any other church that clings to the dividing of God's people or watches the horizon for a new temple to be erected and sacrifices to begin again, yours is not of the Baptist tradition but of 160 year old mostly American tradition.
no Baptist church I have ever been in that even had a hint of Covenant theological perspective.Well, allow me to introduce you to one of many (who are, happily, spreading again). Rockdale Community Church is a Reformed Baptist Fellowship in Conyers, GA. We are, in fact, adherents to Covenant Theology (of a slightly different brand than my friend topcat54, to be sure). And, to introduce you to a Reformed Baptist covenant theology adherent:
My name is Ray Nearhood. I, along with my family, am a Particular Baptist. I confess with the Great Creeds of the Christian Church (the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds) and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689. My children are being catechized and taught the creeds. My eldest son, upon his confession of faith, was baptized just a few short years ago (to this day, the gladdest day of my life - to be equaled only by seeing youngest confess and be baptized). My faith is, undoubtedly, of a Puritan bend, in that I daily strive at mortification, I hold to a Regulative Principal of Worship, and I understand daily my wretchedness and try to depend wholly on the strength and guidance of the Sovereign Lord who saved me and daily saves me (though I fail in all these things too often).Well, there you have it. You've "met" one Calvinist Baptist over the interwebs. Here's hoping you meet more.
The current debate is really about the meaning of literal interpretation. My conjecture is that covenant theology and dispensational theology believe they are each employing literal interpretation. But they cannot both be consistent in that application because of the huge chasm between them in the area of eschatology. Certainly I would not claim that reformers are not interpreting the NT literally ... but when approaching the OT the literal interpretation used in the reformed camp breaks down IMO. By projecting a NT understanding on the OT text in the interpretive process you are ignoring the OT background and removing the OT from its historical context ... which can have the effect of shifting meaning and replacement theology.
Why do dispensationalists see future promises for the nation of Israel? Because the literal interpretation of the OT text shows that the promises to the nation of Israel have yet to be fulfilled in their entirity. So, for example, the discussion on Daniel 9:24-27 (which I think started the whole discussion) the dispensationalist would come to a different understanding of this prophecy that the reformed theologian. Why? Well, as I have mentioned previously, the reformed perspective will substitute meanings for details in the text that the grammatical historical context does not support. How could you ever get that the "abomination of desolation" is the continuance of the sacrificial system between Christs death and 70 AD? You have to impose a NT theme on the OT text. At that point you have abandoned any sense of literalism.
I can see why it would be outdated, don't see why any part of the law would be repugnant. After all, Paul says that the Law is holy; and Jesus said not one jot or tittle would fail. Those are 2 pretty powerful statements of support.
I see no reason for it to be an affront. I'm sure Jesus is aware that His was the only effectual sacrifice, and that the others were signs of the better that was to come. Likewise, I doubt He'll find bread and wine repugnant or an affront in some future dispensation.
Judaizing
The Judaizers were castigated for suggesting to Gentiles that salvation required cutting one's flesh. As Jews, they were perfectly free to engage in temple ritual. In fact, Paul and friends did so in Acts 21.
Its quite simple.
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, (1 Tim. 1:8)
The OT law had it place prior to the coming of Christ. It was lawful to offer animal sacrifices in the manner stipulated by God.
Once Christ came and made the final, once for all time sacrifice for sin, that OT command no longer had any lawful use. That is the plain testimony of Hebrews, Galatians, etc in the NT.
So to suggest that in the future, after the coming of Christ to atone for the sins of His people, that such OT sacrifices would again be made, is repugnant and an affront to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Dispensational confusion comes about by failing to see the distinction between the OT sacrifices and the new covenant sacraments of baptism and the Lords Supper, which were specifically given by our Lord to the Church to be done often until He comes again.
What evidence do you have from the Bible that this use of literal interpretation as proposed by dispensationalists is even valid? Esp. one that ignores or minimizes the way that Jesus and the NT writers approached the subject.
You take issue with the way covenant theology reads the OT in light of the NT, but that is exactly what the apostles did. Remember, it was the apostate Jews who took a literal interpretation of the OT prophecies and failed to see Jesus, looking instead for a carnal political ruler who would wage a carnal political war. The same sort of person many modern dispensationalists expect to appear after the rapture and during the futurist millennium.
Dispensationalism is the odd man out since there is no justification for their definition of literal interpretation.
Amen!!
44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. (Luke 24)If you dont see Jesus in the prophecy you probably do not understand the Scriptures.
The law is holy.
There is nothing in the bible that I can find that says the old sacrificial system became “repugnant” after Calvary. In fact, Acts 21 shows both Paul and the Apostles deeply involved as Jewish Christians in the Temple ritual.
I don’t know where you come up with “repugnant.” Even with the 1 Tim 1:8 verse, there is a clear affirmation that the law is good. And there is no scripture that says that the sacrificial system is “repugnant.” It does say: (1) that the sacrifices weren’t what really was effectual in atonement; and (2) they are not required of Gentiles (Acts 15).
What would the bull being made a sin offering for atonement mean to a Jewish believer living in the days of Moses?
.................................
Are you saying they were deceived, or just incompetent when it came to the words spoken to them by God? Or are you saying that then God said a sin offering for atonement He meant something different, we are not to take it in a honest and normal fashion?
Fascinating discussion. What WOULD a Jewish believer of the day (an OT righteous, saved in fact by grace through faith) have said if you asked him why he was performing or participating in animal sacrifices? Would he have said "I do this because God commanded it, though I know it does not really atone for my sins. It points toward a future and perfect sacrifice that will TRULY atone for my sins of today."?
Also, would a non-dispensational answer likely or necessarily disagree with a dispensational one?
How exactly does it work in the first place?
I steal something from my neighbor. I kill a sheep. How does the dead sheep make my sin for stealing go away?
Any answer you give, other than “God said so.” is less than satisfying.
You need to ping Buggman for his take on this issue.
Possibly because the innocent sheep was sacrificed in your place. The death (blood, Heb. 9:22) of the sheep atoned (paid for) your sin. I have also seen the idea that OT animal sacrifices actually DID atone for sins, but only temporarily. That is why they had to be repeated over and over. With Christ of course the sacrifice was all encompassing, total, and forever. A couple of verses given to support this are:
Lev 4:35 : He shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the lamb of the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the Lord by fire. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven.
Lev 5:10 : The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for him for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven.
I'm not sure what to make of this. If this idea is correct, then while it is easy for us to say that Christ died for all of our sins because He preceded us, did Christ atone for the OT sins of the righteous whose sins were already atoned for through animal sacrifice? I wouldn't think there could be "double atonement".
10. And whatsoever make there be of the house of Israel. God here not only condemns to death whosoever shall have polluted themselves by eating of blood, but declares that He will Himself take vengeance on them, though they may escape from the hands of the judges; for He not only prescribes to the judges what it is right for them to do, but asserts for Himself the office of inflicting the punishment. For, if we consider the intention of the Law, is there anything to surprise us in this; for although it be not consistent that the blood of a brute should be compensated for by the death of a man, still we must remember that this mode of instruction[22] was necessary for a rude people, lest they should speedily lapse into barbarism. But, lest they should complain that no use remained for the blood, He reminds them that since it was given for atonement, they would be very ungrateful if they were not content with so great a blessing; and surely, since it was the price they were to pay for appeasing God, this was an employment of it far to be preferred to food. If, then, they desired to exchange into ordinary food the blood, which was destined to the altar for the reconciliation of God, Moses indirectly reproves their ingratitude; for when God took away the right of eating it, He left them something better, which should have abundantly satisfied them. But we have elsewhere[23] seen in what manner blood atones for souls, i e., in a sacramental manner, upon which it must be observed that what properly belongs to Christ is thus transferred by metonomy to figures and symbols, yet in such a way that the similitude should neither be empty nor inefficacious; for in so far as the fathers apprehended Christ in the external sacrifices, atonement was truly exhibited in them.The details of the law of Moses represented Christ to the people (cf. Luke 24:44,45).Notes: 22 Hanc paedagogiam. Lat. Ceste doctrine puerile. Fr.
23 See on Exodus 12:21, ante vol. 1 p. 221.
21. Then Moses called for all the elders. His address is especially directed to the elders, that they might afterwards repeat it to the multitude; for he could not have been heard at the same time by so great a number of people. But, although the disorganization of the people had been terrible under that severe tyranny, still God willed that certain relics of order should be preserved, and did not suffer those, whom He had adopted, to be deprived of all government. This also had been an availing means of preserving their unity, so that the chosen seed of Abraham should not be lost. But Moses here only speaks of the sprinkling of the blood; because he had already addressed them as to the eating of the lamb. He therefore commands branches of hyssop to be dipped in the blood, which had been caught in the basin, and every ones lintel and two side-posts to be sprinkled with this. By which sign God testified that He will preserve His people from the common destruction, because they will be discerned from the wicked by the mark of blood. For it was necessary that the Israelites should first be reminded, that by the expiation of the sacrifice, they were delivered from the plague, and their houses preserved untouched; and, secondly, that the sacrifice would profit them, only if its conspicuous sign existed among them. We elsewhere see that the Paschal lamb was a type of Christ, who by His death propitiated His Father, so that we should not perish with the rest of the world. But, already of old time, He desired to bear witness to the ancients under the Law, that He would not be reconciled to them otherwise than through the sacrifice of a victim. And there is no doubt that by this visible symbol He raised up their minds to that true and heavenly Exemplar, whom it would be absurd and profane to separate from the ceremonies of the law. For what could be more childish than to offer the blood of an animal as a protection against the hand of God, or to seek from thence a ground of safety? God, then, shows that He spares the Israelites on no other condition but that of sacrifice; from whence it follows, that the death of Christ was set before them in this ordinance, which alone constituted the difference between them and the Egyptians. But at the same time He taught that no advantage was to be expected from the blood poured forth, without the sprinkling; not that the external and visible sprinkling produced any good effect, but because by this familiar rite it was useful that the ignorant should be brought to perceive the truth, and that they might know that what was put before them Visibly must be spiritually fulfilled. It is notorious from the testimony of Peter, (1 Peter 1:2,) that our souls are sprinkled with the blood of Christ by the Spirit. This was typified by the bunch of hyssop,[141] which herb possesses great cleansing power, and therefore, was often used in other sacrifices also, as we shall hereafter see in the proper places.Notes:
141 There has been much discussion as to the plant to which this name is given. In no instance, says the Illustrated Commentary, has any plant been suggested, that at the same time had a sufficient length of stem, to answer the purpose of a wand or pole, and such detergent qualities, as to render it a fit emblem of purification. The author himself has no question but. that it was of the genus Phytolacca; which combines, in a remarkable manner, these two qualities. Dr. Royle, however, considers it to have been the caper-plant, (Capparis spinosa,), which possesses another important condition wanting in the Phytolacca, viz., that it still grows in the countries to which it is attributed in Scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.