March 31 - Jesus Christ Is Superior to the Ceremonial Law

“‘Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill’” (Matthew 5:17).

The ceremonial law governed the form of Israel’s worship. When Jesus died on the cross, He fulfilled that law as well as the judicial. Sacrifice was the heart of all Old Testament worship, and as the perfect sacrifice, Jesus brought all the other sacrifices to an end. While He was on the cross, “the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom” (Matt. 27:51). Christ Himself became the new and perfect way into the Holy of Holies, into which any man could come by faith.

In this way, the Levitical, priestly, sacrificial system ended. Though the temple was not destroyed until A.D. 70, every offering made on its altar after Jesus died was needless. Symbolically, they had no more significance. Of course, the Tabernacle and Temple sacrifices that were offered even before Christ’s death never had power to cleanse from sin. They were only pictures of the Messiah-Savior’s work of cleansing, pictures that pointed to that supreme manifestation of God’s mercy and grace.

The ceremonial law ended because it was fulfilled. Since the reality had come, the pictures and symbols had no more place or purpose. From Genesis 1:1 through Malachi 4:6, the Old Testament is Jesus Christ. It was inspired by Christ, it points to Christ, and it is fulfilled by Christ.

What does the magnificence of God’s story stir in you as you consider it again—the signs and fulfillments created by God’s design before the foundation of the world and forged through long centuries of human history? Sit at His feet again today in awe-filled worship.

“In this way, the Levitical, priestly, sacrificial system ended. Though the temple was not destroyed until A.D. 70, every offering made on its altar after Jesus died was needless. Symbolically, they had no more significance.”

I’m not sure what he means by this. Seems to me the symbolism is the same, no different than how the Lord’s Supper pictures Christ’s body and blood.

The apostles and other Jewish believers continued to participate in the ceremonies of the temple until its destruction in 70 A.D. Why would they do this if it was “needless” and with “no significance”?

Acts 2 and 3 shows the early Jewish church worshipped in the temple daily and participated in the daily sacrifices (such as those that accompanied the ninth hour prayer in 3:1). This was before, during, and after Pentecost. These were Spirit-filled, Spirit-led men. God did not tell them to do otherwise.

In Acts 21, Paul does likewise. Verse 26 says he made a sacrifice (prosphora) in accordance with the Law. This would be an animal sacrifice as required by Numbers 6:14-16.

Further, it is clearly part of God’s plan to restore the temple and the daily sacrifices.

Matthew 17:11 (NKJV)
Jesus answered and said to them, “Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things.”

Revelation 11:1-3 (NKJV)
Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months. And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.”

Daniel 11:31 (NKJV)
And forces shall be mustered by him, and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation.

Matthew 24:15, 16, & 21 (NKJV)
Therefore when you see the “abomination of desolation,” spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains...
For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Of course, but John MacArthur is saying that any further sacrifice is needless and without significance.

He adds:

“Of course, the Tabernacle and Temple sacrifices that were offered even before Christ’s death never had power to cleanse from sin. They were only pictures of the Messiah-Savior’s work of cleansing, pictures that pointed to that supreme manifestation of God’s mercy and grace.”

This is correct, but wouldn’t this be equally true AFTER the crucifixion as long as the temple is standing? Isn’t that one of the main functions of the temple?

The veil being torn did not end the sacrifices (other than temporarily). The temple being destroyed ended the sacrifices.

I think the significance of the temple being destroyed is that God rejected the sacrifices being offered by unbelieving Israel, not that the sacrifices in general were no longer meaningful.

And I don’t see any evidence that the sacrifices the Jewish church and apostles offered were displeasing to God. According to Acts 6:7, there were a large number of priests who were “obedient to the faith.” It appears that they continued to carry out their priestly duties while the temple remained.

I’m not trying to be argumentative. My main study Bible is a John MacArthur NKJV. He knows the Bible incomparably better than I do. But it doesn’t mean I accept everything blindly, or that I never have questions.

I just looked up MacArthur’s commentary on Acts 21 and found that he does not question Paul’s temple sacrifice as being a mistake or wrong. And he addresses this point in detail. He describes Paul’s actions as “a matter of Christian liberty.”

But part of the reason Paul did this was to make it clear to all of the Jews (believing and unbelieving) that he himself continued to observe the Law of Moses.

“But does he say that as a Jew he is REQUIRED to do so?”

Perhaps this is the question we tend to want answered but it is the wrong question.

For example, I might ask if I should buy a Bugatti. Christians might reasonably debate the merits and the drawbacks of buying a car that starts at $1.7 million. How could a real Christian waste that kind of money? But didn’t Solomon spend extravagantly? Maybe a Christian could use their social influence in a positive way when driving such a car.

But I think you see the obvious problem. I, like probably most people on this forum, cannot afford a Bugatti. So, the question is moot.

Likewise, no one has ever kept the Law of Moses except Jesus.

Believers are bound by the Law of Love and the Law of Liberty. Paul observed the Law of Moses primarily out of love for his fellow Jews. His obedience could never make up for earlier disobedience. Paul could not redeem himself for his sin (i.e. “transgression of the Law”). But he could most effectively reach his fellow Jews for Christ by adhering to the Law as strictly as possible.

Here are the important issues:
1. The Law of Moses was written for the Jews to keep, not Gentiles.
2. The righteousness of God is revealed in the Law and serves as a moral foundation for ALL people.
3. No one except Christ has ever fully obeyed God’s laws.
4. Because of this, no one has been or ever can be saved by Law-keeping.
5. Jewish believers in Christ remain Jews.
6. Gentile believers in Christ remain Gentiles.
7. A person can only keep God’s moral Laws through faith and by being led by the Holy Spirit.

Paul endeavored to follow the Law of Moses in his life even after He trusted in Christ. This was God’s will, plan, and design for him as it is for Jewish believers in general. Gentile believers are not called to convert to Judaism as this would serve no purpose.

Descendants of Abraham are commanded to be circumcised. Others are not so commanded. However, for both Jew and Gentile, (and male and female I will add), what is more important than physical circumcision is the spiritual circumcision of the heart. This is spoken of in the Old and New Testaments.

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.