IS THE RESTORATION OF SACRIFICES COMPATIBLE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST?

Dear Brother:

My attention has been lately called by one of our friends at Nottingham to certain testimonies of Ezekiel and Paul relating to the re-establishment of Israel in Palestina under the New Covenant, between which there is an apparent discrepancy. Paul’s argument in the tenth of Hebrews, that the remission of sins promised to them therein removes the occasion for further propitiatory offerings, seems to militate against Ezekiel’s representation of the restoration of these at the period referred to. Paul argues in the eighteenth verse, that “where remission of these (sins) is there is no more offering for sin;” whilst Ezekiel shows in chapter forty-five, and verse seventeen, that at that epoch sacrifices shall be offered by their Levitical priests, the sons of Zadoc—“the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for them.” “Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more,” says the Lord. In the subject which Paul illustrates by this citation from the New Covenant, he is showing how the one offering of Christ excelled and superseded all the shadowy sacrifices of the Mosaic institution—how in putting away at once and for ever the sins of those sanctified by it “it perfected them for a continuance,” or so long as they should abide in Him; and even thus, his teaching indicates, that God’s pardoned Israel will be perfected in conscience by the blood of a new and “everlasting covenant;” by which they seem to be placed at the period of their reinstation into his favor, in the position of the baptised believer now, to whom in Christ Jesus there is no condemnation. Wherefore, then, the reinstitution of those “sacrifices which can never take away sins?” And that the sacrifices Ezekiel speaks of are not simply commemorative is evident for their being “to make reconciliation for the House of Israel.” Again, the Levitical “service” Paul distinctly states to have been imposed until the time of reformation—Hebrews 9: 10; thereby intimating its discontinuance then. He appears to indicate its abolition in the Future Age by the establishment of the “better” covenant; whilst Ezekiel exhibits it as restored at that epoch.

The above is briefly the difficulty as it presents itself to us. If you, or any correspondent of the Herald, can furnish us with an exegesis exhibiting these apparently conflicting testimonies in their real agreement, it will be esteemed a favor by several of your friends here. Will you remember us in your next Herald, state the difficulty, and reply to it? In so doing you will also greatly oblige your sister in the faith and hope of the kingdom.

ELLEN MILNER.

Derby England; June, 1851.

EXEGESIS.

“THEOLOGY” IRRECONCILABLE WITH SCRIPTURE.

We have thought that in “stating the difficulty,” we could not do better than in giving it to the reader in the words of our much esteemed and intelligent correspondent herself. The difficulty, then, being thus lucidly exhibited by our sister friend, we shall endeavour to remove it in presenting the apparently conflicting testimonies adduced in their real, or prophetic and apostolic agreement.

The apparent discrepancy, and it is only apparent, has originated in the old leaven of an antiquated theology, which in its interpretations, or rather glosses, has no regard to the prophetic teaching concerning the rebuilding of the Tabernacle of David “as in the days of old”—Amos 9: 11-15; Acts 15: 16—by the Lord Jesus, Israel’s king, who is, “The Repairer of the breach, THE RESTORER of paths to dwell in.”—Isaiah 58: 12; 49: 5, 6-8. This is an element in its exegesis hidden from its view, and therefore entirely omitted. Being ignorant of the gospel of the kingdom, and consequently of the nature of that kingdom, it has denied in the face of the most palpable and positive testimonies, that sacrifices are to be restored at all; and taking refuge in the assumption, that Ezekiel’s doctrine was either figurative or fulfilled at the restoration from the captivity in Babylon! Thus the difficulty was got rid of, but not explained; and by a bounding leap in the dark, it came to the conclusion that the sacrifice of Jesus was the final and entire abolition of “the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make reconciliation for Israel.” Our beloved sister in the faith and friends for whom she speaks, are hearty believers in the Restoration of the kingdom again to Israel—Acts 1: 6; and having mastered many difficulties in their way by which they have been enabled to attain to the understanding of the gospel of the kingdom, are desirous of going on to perfection in divesting their minds entirely of the miserable traditions which have been imposed upon them by the Gentilisms in which “they happened to be led.” They see that a Temple for the third and last time is to be erected in David’s tabernacle, when Jerusalem shall put on her beautiful garments, and Zion shall arise and shine because her Light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon her. —Isaiah 60: 1; 52: 1. They know that this temple is to be built by the man, whose name is the Branch—Zechariah 6: 12, and that it will then be a house of prayer for all nations—Isaiah 56: 7; and they are well assured that the rams of Nebaioth shall come up with acceptance as burnt offerings and sacrifices on the altar of the God of Israel—Isaiah 60: 7: they believe all this with full assurance of faith because it is written as with a sunbeam on the sure prophetic page. But then their difficulty is, how can it be reconciled with the received interpretation of Paul’s saying, that the Levitical service was imposed only until the time of reformation? It cannot be reconciled, for truth and error are irreconcilable. Paul and the prophets are in harmony; for he declares that he said none other things than what they testified—Acts 24: 14; 26: 22; but Paul and the prophets are at antipodes with the gentile interpreters of their testimony. We shall abandon the idea, therefore, of attempting to reconcile them; but, by the undeviating magnet of truth, which ever points to the kingdom as the polar star in the voyage of faith upon life’s stormy sea, we shall shape for ourselves a new course, which we doubt not, will conduct us without wreck or disaster into the haven of our sister’s desire.