Dispensationalists Bringing Back ANIMAL SACRIFICES? | Theocast

The Reinstitution of Old Testament Sacrifices in Dispensationalism

Most people don't know this if you're new to dispensationalism. They're reinstituting Old Testament sacrificial system, okay, the old animal sacrifices. And I love my brothers, and many of them, the conservative ones who understand the complications of this, they say that those sacrifices are a memorial for remembering the wonderful gift of the law and the gift of Christ and what he's done for us.

So during this thousand-year reign, as a way of remembering, like we take the Lord's Supper now, right, the bread and the water, sorry, water, bread and the wine, the sacrificial system will be instituted, and that will be as a memory.

Here's the problem, okay? If we're going to take the text literal and read it, we have to ask ourself, is there anywhere in any of the book of Ezekiel that would allude that it's a memorial sacrifice?

And there is nothing. This is the challenge I've often placed upon a lot of dispensationalists as I'm interacting with them, asking them to show me, hey, look, if we're going to let the text guide us, and you are the one saying we have to let the text guide us.

Ezekiel 45 and the Question of Atonement

There's nothing in the text that says this is a memorial. The dangerous part of this is the text multiple times says it's not just as a memory, but it's for atonement. The technical word is efficacious, that actually does something.

We're not remembering the act. The act in and of itself is producing atonement. Here are the verses. If you're going to go to chapter 45, it's verse 15, 17, and 20, dealing with the sacrificial system.

I'll just read them to you. 45, 15, and one sheep from every flock of 200 from the watering places of Israel for grain offering, burnt offering, and peace offerings to make atonement for them, declares the Lord.

You will not put that word atonement, meaning payment for, if it's a memorial. Same thing, Ezekiel 45, 17. It shall be the prince's duty to furnish the burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings at the feast, the new moons and Sabbaths, all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel.

He shall provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, so we got sin, grain, burnt, to make atonement on the behalf of the house of Israel. So we're seeing multiple times that these sacrifices, according to the reinstitution of the temple, they are actually efficacious.

They're creating for atonement. Last verse, verse 20, you shall do the same on the seventh day of the month of anyone who has sinned through error or ignorance, so you shall make atonement for the temple, right?

So there are dispensationalists who reject the memorial view, saying that during the millennium, there will be a temporal atonement for sins. Even though Christ has paid for all of our sins, we're still going to need to make atonement for sins.

I'm really uncomfortable with that position, and here's why.