If a Christian were to read the OT as having a sacrifice that actually took away sin, then they'd be guilty of not reading the NT, wouldn't they. And the grammatical historical method wouldn't have been followed.
Right; that's the amill dodge in the hopes of avoiding the embarrassment of explaining why eight meticulously detailed chapters of prediction end up meaning (A) nothing at all, at worst; or (B) nothing even remotely like what they say, at best.
The blood of bulls and goats never did take away sin. They didn't 3000 years ago, they won't during the 3000 years.
Dr. Feinberg well asked, "Why is it OK for Gentiles to have a commemorative sacrament, but not Jews?"
It's the subtle, usually wholly-unintended anti-Semitism of the amills, robbing and mutilating the Jews' promised blessings, and leaving them the curses.
Dan
You are correct. Give that man a prize.
So you can understand that when those of us who follow the grammatical-historical method (as opposed to the dispensationalist "literalist" version) interpret the typology of the temple, the sarcifices, the priesthood, Israel, etc. in terms of Christ and His finished work on the cross, and conclude that prophecies like Exekiel 40-48 are descriptive of Christ and His church, we are being consistent with that method.
If you read OT prophecies in isolation from the NT to support your literalist presuppositions, that's a fundamental failure to follow the grammatical-historical method. Worse yet, if you read into the NT in order to support your theories (ala the recent discussion on Acts 1:6,7), then you do additional violence to God's revelation.