The Compatibility Of The New Covenant And Future Animal Sacrifice

By Jerry M. Hullinger

[Jerry M. Hullinger, Th.M., Th.D., professor of Bible, Piedmont International University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina]

Dispensationalists have generally argued that the Temple of Ezekiel 40–48 will be realized and functional during the millennium. The dispensational belief has received sharp criticism from those of a nondispensational persuasion. While there are many legitimate issues to be discussed, this article will focus upon one factor which will lend credence to the dispensational approach. The one factor is that the realization of the Temple seen in Ezekiel 40–48 is closely connected with the restoration of Israel in Ezekiel 36–39; or, stated differently, the full realization of chapters 36–39 is seen in 40–48.[1] If this is true, then the enactment of the New Covenant[2] will be seen to be compatible with the future Temple and millennial sacrifices.

The Provisions Of The New Covenant

There are several provisions to be found in the New Covenant.[3] First, Israel will be regathered. Second, Israel will be one nation ruled by one king. Third, Israel will no longer be idolatrous. Fourth, Israel will be cleansed and forgiven. Fifth, God will tabernacle among Israel in a visible way. Sixth, Israel will be known to the Gentiles as a nation blessed of God. In addition, the Covenant promises the fullness of the Holy Spirit, the universal knowledge of God, an obedient heart on the part of the nation, and the establishment of a new city that will be characterized by holiness and immovability. The present age reveals that Israel is not experiencing these provisions nor have they ever experienced them. Furthermore, they are not being blessed by God in a covenant sense, they are not recognized as the people of God, and God is not visibly dwelling in their midst. Moreover, the sequence of events stated by Jeremiah in his New Covenant text (ch. 31) revolve around the nation being regathered and restored to the land and then experiencing blessings. There has never been such a historical sequence. Therefore, it is concluded that the New Covenant has not been fulfilled by the nation but will be during the kingdom age envisioned in Ezekiel 40–48.[4]

The Fulfillment Of The New Covenant

The opinion of this writer is that the New Covenant referenced by Ezekiel and Jeremiah was unconditional and immutable in purpose and nature.[5] The statement of this position was articulated by Freedman.

Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Second Isaiah recognized the essential validity of both covenant types . . . through an eschatological fulfillment of their ultimate intention to produce a society well pleasing to God and embodying his purposes among men. . . . Yet they were convinced that the divine promise to the Fathers and their descendants had not been annulled. . . . Both covenant types would be fulfilled and transcended in the age of the New Covenant . . . every man would be filled with the Spirit of God, and all would obey His will. The Covenant would never be broken.[6]

The position stated herein can be validated by several observations. First, the covenant is called “eternal” (Isa 24:5; 61:8; Jer.31:36, 40; 32:40; 50:5). Greenberg noted, “the five-fold repetition of ‘forever’ stresses the irreversibility of the new dispensation. . . . The future restoration will have a guarantee of success.”[7]

Second, the repetition of the “I will” phrase demonstrates that God is taking the obligation of this fulfillment upon Himself.[8] Therefore, unlike the Mosaic Covenant, the ultimate success of the New Covenant rests upon God’s faithfulness.[9] Beecher concurred: “In its character as expressing God’s purpose of blessing for the human race, we should not expect it to depend on the obedience of disobedience of a few. . . . The promise is for eternity, and Israel shall be maintained in existence, that the promise may not fail.”[10]

Another support revolves around the statement in Jeremiah 31:35–37 that if the heavens could be measured and the foundations of the earth searched out, then God would abandon the nation of Israel. The statement certainly argues for the ongoing purpose of God revealed in the covenants.

A fourth support for the unconditional nature of the New Covenant is that the covenant is largely occupied with issues of salvation from sin and the impartation of a new heart which is solely the work of God. As a consequence of the ineradicable human tendency to do wrong, God must make a unilateral commitment to the human race in order to see the fulfillment of His purposes. He will have to transform people’s minds and hearts so that they will want to obey, as they are empowered by His Spirit to do so. The point herein was stated well by Klein.

Ezekiel’s eternal covenant will be cut in the future. Like Jeremiah’s new covenant it emphasizes forgiveness and new obedience. Yahweh remains faithful to forgiveness as the sine qua non of a new covenant. . . . Like his older contemporary Jeremiah, Ezekiel was aware of the necessity for covenant obedience. Jeremiah solved the problem of recalcitrant Israel by announcing that Yahweh would inscribe the heart with law. Ezekiel promises a whole new heart and a new spirit. Gone forever will be the hardened heart of stone, and in its place will be a heart of flesh. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel seem to be saying that God expects a change in behavior from those who love him, and they recognize that such good deeds can only be done with the aid and help of God.[11]

A fifth support for the future fulfillment of the New Covenant revolves around Ezekiel’s stress upon the name of God. There is a great concern in the book of Ezekiel for God’s reputation and the vindication of His character. LaSor expressed this concern thusly: “The vindication of God’s character is an important emphasis for Ezekiel, as seen in his use of the expression ‘they shall know that I am the Lord.’ When He is finished, his people will be like Him in holiness.”[12] Furthermore, Luc noted that Ezekiel could not avoid another crucial question after the Judahite crisis.

How could God’s name not be despised in the eyes of the nations when they would inevitably interpret the event as weakness on the part of Israel’s God? That this was a major concern of Ezekiel can be seen from the following statement of God: “I had a concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel profaned among the nations where they had gone.”[13]

The concern for God’s name[14] in the book is shown by the recurring phrase “then they will know[15] that I am Yahweh.” Zimmerli observed that of the 947 verbal occurrences of the stem ידע (to know), not less than ninety-nine are found in Ezekiel, with virtually all of them making significant theological statements.[16] Bullock calculated that the phrase “you shall know” occurs more than sixty times in the book, more than any other prophet.[17]

The result of this concern for the name of Yahweh is an indirect assurance of salvation to Israel, which is absolutely necessary if God’s name is to be vindicated because of Israel’s sin. “Instead of Israel’s history moving towards the objective of the knowledge of YHWH in the heathen world via Israel’s sanctification, it had moved in the opposite direction and resulted in a history of scandal via Israel’s profanation.”[18] The knowledge of God is also an implication of the oracles of judgment and salvation,[19] and is the teaching of the dry bones vision that brought hope to the exiles. Fox concluded that the message of the dry bones not only preserved the nation’s hope and will to survive, but also implanted in them an understanding that their future would be a transformation of character by the power of God.[20]

Sixth, Ezekiel 40–48 convincingly argues for a restored Jewish temple and land with the resultant phrase, “the house of Israel will never again defile my holy name” (43:7).

A final support deals with the relationship between the covenants and God’s hesed. God’s love has pledged himself to an unalterable course of action to the nation of Israel. Though lengthy, the following citation from Merrill is appropriate.

In an even tighter parallelism, Psalm 89:28 reads, “I will always preserve My faithful love (hesed) for him, and My covenant with him will endure.” The reference here is to David and the Davidic covenant through which the Lord promised David and his dynasty an unending reign (vv. 20–29; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12–16). Isaiah, clearly dependent on both the original word to David and its reiteration in the psalm, spoke the message of the Lord who said, “I will make an everlasting covenant with you, the promises (hesed) assured to David” (Isa. 55:3). Micah reached even further back in sacred history, recollecting the ancient promises to the patriarchs with which the Davidic covenant had such vital linkage: “You will show loyalty to Jacob and faithful love (hesed) to Abraham, as You swore to our fathers from days long ago” (Mic. 7:20). Daniel connected hesed and covenant even more closely, making them virtual synonyms. In his great prayer he prayed, literally, “Ah, Lord—the great and awe-inspiring God who keeps His gracious covenant (hesed)” (Dan. 9:4). The construction is a hendiadys to be translated “covenant of hesed.” The Lord’s hesed, as an element of his character is unending. The derivative nouns ‘emet and ‘emuna commonly occur with hesed in covenant contexts; and these are best translated reliability or trustworthiness.[21]

Therefore, the elaborate vision of Ezekiel 40–48 including Temple, glory, and sacrifices is assured based on the name of God which Ezekiel is jealous to honor. If the events of chapters 40–48 are not fulfilled as specified by the prophet, then God’s plans and covenants with the nation have been frustrated and His preeminence as God will not be established.

The New Covenant And “Calvinism”

The well-known sine qua non of dispensationalism is the glory of God. The claim to this truth has been challenged by many covenant theologians who cling to Question #1 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Some nondispensationalists argue that dispensationalists cannot be truly Calvinistic in their soteriology.[22] However, there is an important parallel to be drawn between God’s gracious election and Israel’s future.

Calvinistic theologians (dispensational or not) agree that the doctrine of unconditional election includes God’s selection of both individuals and the nation of Israel.[23] God’s glory in saving (or not saving for that matter!) is really the heartbeat of Calvinism. If God chooses individuals, fulfills His promises to them, and keeps them for His glory, would it not make sense that God would do the same for the nation that He has chosen? The following quote from Thomas Ice is insightful.

In concert with the Calvinistic impulse to view history theocentrically, I believe that dispensational premillennialism provides the most logical eschatological ending to God’s sovereign decrees for salvation and history. Since dispensational premillennialists view both the promises of God’s election of Israel and the church as unconditional and something that God will surely bring to pass, such a belief is consistent with the bible and logic. A covenant theologian would say that Israel’s election was conditional and temporary. Many Calvinists are covenant theologians who think that individual election within the church is unconditional and permanent. They see God’s plan with Israel conditioned upon human choice, while God’s plan for salvation within the church is ultimately a sovereign act of God. There is no symmetry in such logic. Meanwhile, dispensational premillennialists see both acts as sovereign expressions of God’s plan in history, a logical consistent application of the sovereign will of God in human affairs.

I personally think that if systematic dispensationalism is rightly understood then it still logically sense only within a theocentric and soteriologically Calvinistic theology. . . . Dispensationalism is a theology that I believe is properly derived from biblical study and lets God be God.[24]

Thus far, several necessary points have been suggested to demonstrate a connection between the New Covenant and animal sacrifices in Ezekiel 40–48. First, there is a link between the New Covenant section (chs. 36–39) and the Temple vision of Ezekiel in chapters 40–48 as it presents the outworking of the Covenant. Second, the provisions of the Covenant include such things as the land, a new heart, the Temple, the physical presence of God, and a universal knowledge of God for the nation of Israel (which, of course, implies their continued national existence). Third, the nation has never experienced these blessings, and therefore the fulfillment of this Covenant is posited in the future (together with the Temple of Ezekiel 40–48).[25] Fourth, this Covenant is unconditional and therefore guaranteed in its realization because of the person of God. Fifthly, this covenant is a means by which God demonstrates His glory by fulfilling His purposes in election. With this as a basis, the following points can be made regarding the relation between the New Covenant and the resumption of animal sacrifices during the kingdom period.[26]

The Relationship Of Sacrifices To The New Covenant

Given the points previously summarized, the following statement is proposed: the prophets foresaw the future operation of the New Covenant to include the renewal of animal sacrifices. To the modern thinker, it seems incompatible for these two items to go together. To the prophets, however, there was no incompatibility whatsoever. Whitcomb commented as follows:

Isaiah not only foresaw God’s New Covenant with Israel, but also a temple in the holy land (2:2–3; 56:3; 60:13). Here animal sacrifices would be offered on its altar by Egyptians (19:21) and Arabians from Kedar and Nebaioth (60:7) through priests and Levites (66:21). . . . Jeremiah, in stating the total demise of the temporary old covenant (31:32) and in anticipating the national regeneration provided in the permanent New Covenant (31:31–34; 32:38–40; 33:6–13; 50:5), included animal sacrifices offered by Levitical priests as permanent aspects of the new covenant for national Israel.[27]

One may conclude that the prophets foresaw a New Covenant age, which is yet to be experienced, which will include animal sacrifice. Again, the crucial point to be kept in mind is: the prophets were comfortable in linking the promises of regeneration and a new heart with animal sacrifices. The point herein suggests that animal sacrifices and Christ’s sacrifice were functionally different and therefore compatible.[28]

The State Of The Theocracy During The Kingdom Period

The Temple envisioned by Ezekiel in chapters 40–48 will be literally built during the kingdom age. Not only will the Temple be built, but it will also include all of the concomitants seen by Ezekiel, including sacrifices and the glory of the Lord. The purpose of this section is an attempt to correlate the findings from Leviticus and Ezekiel with the future theocratic administration.

One of the criticisms against dispensationalism is its belief that animal sacrifices will be reinstituted. The criticism arises from a laudable concern to protect any possible besmirchment to the cross of Christ. However, from the cultic literature, sacrifice served a variety of important functions none of which involved the gaining of justification.

The Purposes Of Sacrifice In The Kingdom

First, sacrifice will serve to restore the individual Israelite to the theocracy of which he or she is a part. Von Rad said:

Sin was thus an offense against the sacral order. . . . But there was more to it still. Sin was also a social category. Through ties of blood and common lot, the individual was regarded as being so deeply embedded in the community that an offense on his part was not just a private matter affecting only himself and his own relationship to God. . . . The evil which an action had brought into existence inevitably had effects which destroyed individual and community alike, unless the latter solemnly and clearly cancelled its solidarity with the offender. Thus, in an utterly realistic and direct sense, an offender was a danger to the whole people.[29]

Whitcomb also affirmed this view of sacrifices in the millennium. “Future animal sacrifices will be efficacious and expiatory only in terms of the strict provision for ceremonial (and thus temporal) forgiveness within the theocracy of Israel. Thus, animal sacrifices during the coming kingdom age will not be primarily memorial.”[30]

The truth of this assertion can be illustrated from the impairment caused by sin in this community relationship in the Old Testament. For example, if the consequences of sin were not removed, the physical destruction of the sinner was inevitable (Lev 26:14–39).[31] The same will be true in the millennium. Any outbreak of blatant sin will be punished by physical death as Christ rules with a rod of iron (Ps 2:9; 72:1–4; Isa 11:4; 29:20–21; 65:20; 66:24; Zech 14:16–21; Jer 31:29–30). The function of sacrifices in the future will have nothing to do with eternal salvation or the forgiveness of sin before God but rather with the community adjustments within the theocracy (this will be elucidated as the discussion progresses).

Second, it is seen in the meal and peace offerings that thanksgiving and worship were part of the sacrificial system. There is no reason to think that this would not continue to be an important function during the kingdom period as shown by Ezekiel’s many references to these. Cave suggested that the meal offering represented the “full dedication of one’s material possessions to God.” Oesterley noted concerning the peace offering, “just as the very fact of friends eating together affected a union between them, so Yahweh, by coming into the sanctuary and joining the worshipers in the sacrificial feast made them one with Himself.”[32] In addition, it was seen that the burnt offering functioned in part to demonstrate one’s complete devotion to God, which also could be a function of the burnt offering during the kingdom. Wood indicated that it “symbolized complete consecration of the life to God, being consumed entirely to the altar.”[33] The brief examples herein demonstrate that there is nothing heretical in suggesting that sacrifices will be reinstituted, for there is nothing “backward” about the sacrifices, except that to the modern mind they are culturally different, and belong to a dispensation with which none are familiar.

A third reason for the reinstitution of sacrifices during the future theocracy is the very important fact that the divine presence will once again be dwelling in the land; it is clear that impurity was contagious to both persons and sancta. Furthermore, it was inimical to Yahweh who would refuse to dwell among His people if uncleanness remained untreated. Because God has promised to keep His presence on earth during the millennium (the New Covenant) His withdrawal is not an option. Therefore, it will be necessary to reinstitute sacrifices so that judgment against impurity will not break out on earth.[34] Leviticus teaches that the purgation offering served primarily to purge the sancta of uncleanness. Furthermore, Ezekiel has numerous references to the same offering, and ascribes to it an identical function during the kingdom period. Therefore, this offering will be reinstituted in order to purge the sancta so that the divine presence will be protected.

A fourth function of renewed sacrifice during the millennium will be the reparations made on the human level as embodied in the reparation offering, which would preserve horizontal relationships between persons within the theocracy.

A final suggestion for the function of millennial sacrifices is that ceremonial cleansing will be made on behalf of people for their uncleanness or inadvertent sin. For example, a sin offering was required for ritual cleansing after childbirth (Lev 12:6–8), leprosy (Lev 14:13–17), contact with the dead (Numb 6:11, 14), or for those suffering from abscesses and hemorrhages (Lev 15:15, 30). Again, this cleansing would be related to the guarding of the sanctifying presence of the divine glory; it should also be kept in mind that these items had nothing to do with personal sin, but simply with the impure state of the human race in a non-glorified condition.

Each of these functions of the sacrifices operates in a different sphere than does the cross of Christ. There is no contradiction between the two, as there was not in the mind of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.[35]

The Jewish Context Of The Kingdom

Throughout this study, it has been argued that God’s program for the Jewish nation will be completed by God because of His promises. Therefore, it is important to remember that it has always been God’s purpose to bless the world through the nation of Israel. As God groomed the nation for this function, He gave them distinctives which made them unique from the other nations around them. Because of their rejection of the prophets and the Messiah, God temporarily set Israel aside. However, in keeping with the covenants and the New Testament (e.g. Rom 3:1–8; 9–11), it is God’s intention to restore again the nation and her distinctives during the kingdom age. That God would reinstitute the nation together with her distinctives is only fitting.

The vision given to Ezekiel was intended for the house of Israel (40:4). As Alexander noted, “this terminology is used by Ezekiel to describe Israel at any time of her existence—past, present, future.”[36] The significance of this was stated by Freeman: “it is Israel at worship which the prophet portrays in 40–48.”[37] Therefore, no matter how strange it seems to a twenty-first century Gentile, sacrifices are an integral part of Jewish history.

The Kingdom As A Different Dispensation

According to amillennialists, there can be no other dispensation between the present one and the eternal state. They assume that because Christians are in the church age, those with whom this prophecy deals must be in the same class and relationships. However, Ezekiel is dealing with the nation of Israel during the last days (while Hebrews is dealing with believers in the church age). As Kelly pleaded, “Let us leave room for the various evolutions and displays of His glory in the ages to come, instead of making His present ways . . . an exclusive standard.[38] There is no reason to believe that the conditions which prevail in this age of grace must continue from now until the end of time.

The Teaching Of The Sacrificial System

While several specific functions have been suggested for sacrifices during the kingdom period, it is also reasonable to say that their reintroduction will be valid from a teaching point of view. On the one hand, they will be necessary by virtue of God’s presence, but conversely, they may have much to teach. There seems to be an unconscious tendency to disdain the Old Testament sacrificial system when, in fact, it was a marvelous display of the wisdom of God; it is doubtful that any scholar has fully grasped all that God intended to teach by that system. Therefore, it is reasonable to see a renewal of some aspects of it as God continues to teach humanity of Himself and His work. As Saphir has suggested, “Even the church has as yet only a superficial knowledge of the treasures of wisdom in the Levitical institutions and its symbols.”[39] The sacrificial system is thus to be regarded as a great educational institution which develops the proper conception of sin and life and service to God and man.[40] Therefore, God will “provide a final demonstration of the validity of animal sacrifices as an instructional and disciplinary instrument for Israel. The entire world will see the true purpose of the system.”[41]

The Kingdom Different From The Mosaic System

Dispensationalism is often misunderstood to teach the reimplementation of the Mosaic system, which is a false representation, for it is not claimed by dispensationalists that the Mosaic order will be brought back during the millennium. While there may be similar elements, this does not mean there is complete correspondence. For example, the amillennialist would agree that it is wrong in the present age to commit murder. The same was true under the Mosaic order, but this does not mean that they are advocating a submission to the Mosaic Law; rather, this is simply an example of similarity and transference, the same as in the case of animal sacrifices. Consequently, it becomes clear that what is being proposed is not a reintroduction of the entire Mosaic scheme, but rather an institution of regulations which will be necessary because of the divine presence.

Conclusion

In his landmark work Dispensationalism Today, Charles Ryrie summarized dispensationalism by viewing the world as a household run by God according to his own will in various stages over the course of time.[42] He also articulated the enduring sine qua non of dispensationalism: the distinction between Israel and the church, literal interpretation, and the glory of God.[43] Nowhere have these three features been more challenged than in the interpretation of Ezekiel 40–48.

Ezekiel is but another stage in world history to come. Though this interpretation has been criticized, it is supported by numerous factors, and a viable alternative is still lacking.[44] In this future Temple, Ezekiel foresaw the five main offerings mentioned in the Levitical code to be functioning. The bloody atonement offerings will be necessary because of the transcendent, physical presence of Yahweh as He dwells among mortals. Other offerings will express praise, thanksgiving, and devotion to God through the trappings of the Jewish theocracy. Spiritual salvation will come, as in every dispensation, through faith alone in the finished work of the Messiah. The millennial era of world history will be a doxological one as God is found to be faithful to his covenant promises. During that era, it will then be sung, Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out. . . . For of him, and through him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen (Rom 11:33, 36).

Notes

1. For additional defense of this perspective, see Marco Nobile, “Ezekiel 37:1-14,” Biblica 65 (1984): 476-89; and, Werner Lemke, “Life in the Present and Hope for the Future,” Interpretation 38 (1984): 165-80.
2. The issue of covenant forms is an extremely complex one and will not be addressed here. For a discussion of the different covenant types, see Cleon Rogers, “The Covenant with Moses and its Historical Setting,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 14 (1971): 141-56; K. A. Kitchen, The Bible in its World (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1977) 79-85; George E. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition, Biblical Archaeologist 17 (1954): 50-75; Dennis McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents in the Old Testament (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963) 21; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972; reprint, Winona Lake: IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992); idem, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 90 (1970): 185; David Freedman, “Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: The Covenant Theme,” Interpretation 18 (1964): 420-21; Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “The Old Promise and the New Covenant,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 15 (1972): 12, 21; Bernard Keller, “La Terre dans le Livre D’Exechiel,” Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuse 55 (1975): 481-90; William Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1979) 114, 116; D. J. McCarthy, “Covenant in the Old Testament: The Present State of Inquiry,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27 (1965): 217-40.
3. John F. Walvoord, “The New Covenant with Israel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 110 (1953): 197.
4. The conclusion is supported by its unconditional nature (see text), the fact that the items have never been fulfilled, and the time frame suggested previously concerning the realization of the Temple in 40-48.
5. Jeremiah is the only writer who used the phrase “New Covenant.” However, both Isaiah (55:3; 59:21; 6:8) and Ezekiel (16:60-62; 36:24-28; 37:26-27) include similar promises and content which can be equated with the term.
6. Freedman, “Divine Commitment and Human Obligation,” 421. Freedman’s reference to “covenant types” refers to the obligatory and promissory type genres. Fruchtenbaum added: “When dispensationalists speak ‘of an unconditional covenant,’ they do not mean that the content of the covenant contains no conditions, obligations, or commands. What they do mean is that God intends to fulfill the terms of the covenant regardless of whether man fulfills his obligations” (Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology [Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1989] 335).
7. Moshe Greenberg, “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration,” Interpretation 38 (1984): 182. See also, Moshe Weinfeld, “בְּרִית” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 15 vols., eds. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 2:270. In answer to the objection that “eternal” does not always mean “unending,” see Walter Kaiser Jr., “The Land of Israel and the Future Return,” in Israel: The Land and the People, gen. ed. H. Wayne House (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998) 220. Ironically, amillennialists see no problem in appealing to the word “eternal” when speaking of the unending nature of heaven and hell.
8. Implied in these statements is the belief that there is a national future for Israel which is evident from the unconditional nature of the covenant and even post-exilic passages such as Zechariah 10:8-12 and Romans 9-11. Concerning the importance of Romans 9-11 in this regard, Cranfield remarked, “It is only where the Church persists in refusing to learn this message . . . and so fails to understand God’s mercy to itself, that it is unable to believe in God’s mercy for unbelieving Israel, and so entertains the ugly and unscriptural notion that God has cast off His people and simply replaced it by the Christian Church. These chapters emphatically forbid us to speak of the Church as having once and for all taken the place of the Jewish people. And I confess with shame to having myself used in print on more than one occasion this language of the replacement of Israel by the church” (C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary onthe Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975-79] 2:448). There is in a sense a paradox here. If Israel has not been cast aside, why is she in the state she is in today? The answer lies in the fact that Israel’s enjoyment of unconditional promises (i.e. the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants) was conditioned upon obedience to certain stipulations (i.e. the Mosaic Covenant). Upon failure to obey the Mosaic Covenant, the promises were temporarily forfeited. However, because the original promises were unconditional, God took it upon Himself to provide—in the future—the ability for Israel to become obedient, and thereby enjoy the original blessings (i.e. the New Covenant).
9. Jeremiah contrasted the New Covenant with the Mosaic Covenant when he said that the New Covenant would not be like the one made with Israel’s forefathers (i.e. the Mosaic). The contrast implies that the Israelites will not break the New Covenant as they broke the Sinaitic one. Such assurance is based upon the fact that God will give Israel a new heart and the inner empowerment of the Holy Spirit. As Unterman explained, “The giving of the New Covenant may be described, perhaps, as an internal act which takes place within the recipient and transforms the torah into an organic part of the individual” (Jeremiah Unterman, From Repentance to Redemption [Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1987] 98). The establishment will rest upon the covenant faithfulness and love of God.
10. Willis Judson Beecher, The Prophets and the Promise (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & Company, 1905) 220.
11. Ralph W. Klein, “Yahweh Faithful and Free—A Study in Ezekiel,” Concordia Theological Monthly 42 (1971): 497. See also, Gleason Archer, “Covenant,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001) 278. Similar statements are also recognized by many writers, such as: Jesus Asurmendi, “Ezechiel: Mort-Vie,” Le Monde de la Bible 40 (1985): 31-33; Toru Yamazaki, “The Idea of Repentance in the Book of Ezekiel,” Studies in the Christian Religion 30 (1958): 23-28; Jim Maya, “Covenant Theology in Ezekiel,” Restoration Quarterly 16 (1973): 23-31; Frederick L. Moriarty, “Prophet and Covenant,” Gregorianum 46 (1965): 817-33.
12. William Sanford LaSor, David A. Hubbard, and Frederick W. Bush, Old Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) 476.
13. Alex Luc, “A Theology of Ezekiel: God’s Name and Israel’s History,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 26 (1983): 141. Virtually all writers agree with regard to this point. Simon J. DeVries commented, “Ezekiel’s primary concern seems to have been the vindication of Yahweh’s honor. . . . Thus Ezekiel’s view of history and of the covenant is decidedly theocentric” (“Remembrance in Ezekiel: A Study of an Old Testament Theme,” Interpretation 16 [1962]: 59). See also, A. B. Davidson who said, “Jehovah operating for His own name’s sake. It is His regard for His name that explains Israel’s history, which indeed has given her a history, for otherwise she would have been cut off for her iniquities. Therefore He cannot destroy Israel for this would undo the first steps of His great purpose already taken” (The Theology of the Old Testament, ed. S. D. F. Salmond [New York: Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1914] xliii-xliv). See also, Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker (London: SCM Press, 1961) 30; Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962; reprint, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001) 2:240; John Bernard Taylor, Ezekiel (London: Tyndale Press, 1969) 40; Werner Berg, “Die Eifersucht Gottesein Problematischer zug des Alttestamentlichen Gottesbildes?’’ Biblische Zeitschrift 23 (1979): 197-211.
14. Bullinger suggested that “name” is figuratively a metonymy of adjunct denoting nature, inner being, or essence to that which it belongs (E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible [London: Eyre and Spottiswoorde, 1898; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003] 608).
15. Herbert Huffmon expanded the idea of “to know” in relation to the technical terminology of the Ancient Near Eastern treaties and concluded that “to know” involves the recognition of the authority and claims of a sovereign (“The Treaty Background of Hebrew Yada‘,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 181 [1966]: 31-37).
16. Walther Zimmerli, I Am Yahweh (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982) 29-30. Zimmerli also affirmed that the verbal element “then you will know” is derived from legal language in the context of a process of proving (e.g. Exod 20:2). He defined this self introduction as the “form of self-revelation of a person in his name.” In Ezekiel, the formula is only connected with two kinds of divine action: punishment or restoration of Israel (Ezekiel, 2 vols. [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979, 1983] 1:38).
17. Hassell Bullock, “Ezekiel, Bridge Between the Testaments,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (1982): 26.
18. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 495.
19. William McKane, “Prophecy and the Prophetic Literature,” in Tradition and Interpretation, ed. G. W. Anderson (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979) 173.
20. Michael V. Fox, “The Rhetoric of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Valley of the Bones,” Hebrew Union College Annual 51 (1980): 6, 15. A comparison should be made here with the plagues brought upon Egypt at the time of the Exodus. The stated purpose of such plagues was that the Egyptians might know that Yahweh was the true God. One is suspicious that if the plagues brought upon Egypt were future and part of a prophetic book (like Ezekiel), the astounding nature of the plagues would not be taken literally by non-dispensationalists.
21. Eugene H. Merrill, Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006) 69.
22. R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997) 190-204; John Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth and Hyatt, 1991) 2. Though not within the scope of this article to support, it is this writer’s firm contention that reformed soteriology is compatible with dispensational eschatology. Even some Presbyterians will, at least, embrace premillennialism as the best view of Christ’s return (Gordon Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe? [Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 2001] 271).
23. Robert Peterson and Michael Williams, Why I Am not an Arminian (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004) 47-48; Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1997) 119-20; Thomas Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 497-98; idem, “Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election unto Salvation?,” in The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, ed. idem and Bruce A Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995) 99.
24. Thomas Ice, “The Calvinistic Heritage of Dispensationalism,” The Conservative Theological Journal 4 (2000): 129, 147. In defining sovereignty, John Feinberg made the statement that “God’s will and purposes are immutable” (No One Like Him [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001] 294). Surely, there is enough biblical evidence that a large part of that will includes God’s promises to Israel. Oddly, most commentaries on Romans give a futuristic interpretation of Romans 11. James Boice wrote: “During my student days I was told that the future explanation [of Romans 11] was a dispensational view only and that no Reformed theologians held to it. Having studied these views carefully, I find instead that the majority of the great commentators on Romans, including Reformed commentators, recognize that the passage is speaking of a future day of Jewish conversion. Moreover, they see a future gathering-in of Israel as the point to which the chapter has been moving” (Romans: God and History [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993] 1362). At the least, this implies literal interpretation and a distinction between Israel and the church at some level, as well as the glory of God as a tenet of dispensationalism since Romans 9-11 ultimately is a justification of God’s character. Boice then cited eight reasons from Charles Hodge’s commentary on Romans that the passage is looking forward to a time of future blessing for ethnic Israel (granted, Hodge was postmillennial, but Boice could just as easily cited from John Murray’s commentary). Some amillennialists deny that they teach supersessionism. A case in point is the release by Samuel Waldron, Macarthur’s Millennial Manifesto (Owensboro, KY: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2008) 6, 11, 12, 29, 30, 33. Despite his aversion to terms like “replacement” and “supersessionism,” statements to the effect that the church is the “continuation of Israel” (p. 7), “Israel in a newly reformed and expanded phase of existence” (p. 7), a “reconstituted Israel” (p. 33), and that God is fulfilling his promises to Israel by simply saving some ethnic Israelites (p. 30) while denying a future, national conversion of Israel (Appendix One) belies the same underlying philosophy (for a critique, see Jerry Hullinger, review of MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto, by Samuel E. Waldron, Journal of Dispensational Theology 13 [August 2009]: 84-90).
25. Some have expressed skepticism that what Ezekiel prophesied will come true. David Greenwood suggested that this was patently false prophecy, and that the predictions regarding a restored Northern Kingdom are errant (“On the Jewish Hope for a Restored Northern Kingdom,” Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 88 [1976]: 367-85). However, among most scholars there is a lack of consensus on who participates in the benefits of the covenants. The general covenant opinion is that the promises are being now realized in the church while the general dispensational opinion is that the covenant will be fulfilled by Israel in the future (with debate regarding church participation). There are several views among scholars as to who participates in the New Covenant. First, some feel that the New Covenant is simply a restated Mosaic Covenant (Harry D. Potter, “The New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34,” Vetus Testamentum 33 [1983]: 347-57; Guy Courtier, “Jeremiah,” in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 2 vols., eds. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1968) 1:327; Nathaniel Schmidt, “Covenant,” in Encyclopædia Biblica, 4 vols., eds. T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1902) 1:928-37; Frederick Homgren, “A New Covenant? For Whom?” Catholic Quarterly 43 [1985]: 41). The first view fails to see several distinctions between the Mosaic and New Covenants: one is “new” and the other is “old;” one is conditional and the other is unconditional; one is everlasting while one is not; one is external and the other is internal (Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978] 234). Second, others have affirmed that the New Covenant applies to Israel alone, with no participation by the church (John Nelson Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, 5 vols. [Addison, IL: Bible Truth Publishers, 1979] 2:261-62; 5:329; J. Arthur Thompson, “Covenant,” in TheInternational Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 vols., gen. ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 1:792; von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 212ff). Von Rad denied that the covenant is eschatological since it was addressed to meet an immediate need. The second view is weakened by its avoidance of important New Testament texts such as 2 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 8. Third, the classic amillennialist position teaches that the church alone participates in the blessings by virtue of its replacement of Israel (John Murray, “Covenant,” in The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (London: InterVarsity Press, 1962) 267-68; Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1945) 154; William Cox, Biblical Studies in Final Things (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1966) 8; Loraine Boettner [postmillennial], The Millennium (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958] 123). The third view removes Israel from a national future which contradicts the prophets and the book of Romans, and the fulfillment in the church age does not do justice to the provisions of the covenant. Fourth, some “older” dispensationalists (at one time) suggested that there were two new covenants (Walvoord and Chafer). However, because of the textually tenuous data for this view it has been abandoned by present day dispensationalists (Craig Blaising, “Development of Dispensationalism by Contemporary Dispensationalists,” Bibliotheca Sacra 145 [1988]: 278). A fifth view (and more satisfactory) is that future Israel will experience the fulfillment of the New Covenant, but the church will participate in some of the blessings in the future, and is now participating in the soteriological benefits. The fifth view protects the unconditional nature of the covenants, provides a future for Israel, and deals honestly with the New Testament data (C. F. Keil, The Prophecies of Jeremiah, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968) 47; Werner Lemke, “Jeremiah 31:31-34,” Interpretation 37 [1983]: 187; Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology, 235; Charles L. Feinberg, “Jeremiah,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 10 vols., gen. ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986) 6:575-77; Rodney Decker, “The Church’s Relationship to the New Covenant: Part 2,” Bibliotheca Sacra 152 [1995]: 454). Decker noted well that terminology like “partial fulfillment” is not necessary, and therefore it is better to speak of “participation” to speak of the present aspects.
26. Feinberg offered this helpful summary of the New Covenant (“Jeremiah,” 6:574): The Time (v. 31)—the time is coming; The Maker (v. 31)—the LORD; The Name (v. 31)—new; The Parties (v. 31)—house of Israel and Judah; The contrasted Covenant (v. 32)—not like the old covenant: based on merit and works, susceptible of infraction, no enablement, did not give life. The Nature (vv. 33-34)—not dependent on external law nor human interpretation; law written on the heart; gives intimate knowledge of and fellowship with God; forgiveness of sin; peace of heart. The Immutability (vv. 35-37)—the unchanging purpose of God reflected in the fixed order of nature. The Physical Aspects (vv. 38-40)—rebuild Jerusalem in holiness and permanence. The Guarantor (vv. 31-40—“declares the Lord” or “the Lord says” as though to swear by Himself.
27. John Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel,” Grace Theological Journal 6 (1985): 206. See also, Joel 3:18; Micah 4:1-5; Haggai 2:7-9; and, Zechariah 9:11; 13:1; 14:21.
28. One finds a similar situation with Paul in Acts 21 when he was involved in animal sacrifice. In his expository studies on Acts, James Boice entitled his chapter on this incident: “When a Good Man Falls.” He proceeded to state that what Paul did “at this time of his life was wrong” (Acts: An Expositional Commentary [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997] 356; for a better alternative see Darrell Bock’s discussion, Acts [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007] 647-49). Whatever the precise scenario, the fact remains that Paul engaged in this ritual. Furthermore, he did so after Christ’s death, after the Jerusalem Council, and after writing Romans and Galatians—the two clearest, inspired statements of the gospel.
29. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2:264, 266.
30. Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel,” 211. Charles C. Ryrie agreed with this function of sacrifices. “Under the law the individual Israelite by birth was related to God through the theocratic state. He sustained this relationship regardless of his spiritual state. . . . When sin occurred, it was both a governmental and a spiritual offence, because of the nature of a theocracy. Thus an Israelite’s sin has to be viewed as affecting the position and privilege of the offending party as a member of the . . . commonwealth of Israel (Dispensationalism Today [Chicago: Moody, 1965] 128).
31. Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament, 319.
32. W. O. E. Oesterley, Sacrifices in Ancient Israel (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1937) 172-73; William Kelly, The Offerings of Leviticus: An Exposition of Leviticus I.-VII (London: F. E. Race, 1899) 33; W. Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1889) 136.
33. Leon Wood, A Survey of Israel’s History (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976) 87.
34. Sacrifices will cease following the millennial kingdom, because in the eternal state every individual will be glorified and there will, therefore, be no impurity, uncleanness, etc.
35. The assertion here does not mean to imply that Jeremiah and Ezekiel were necessarily thinking of Christ but simply demonstrates that they did not ascribe soteriological benefits to the sacrifices.
36. Ralph H. Alexander, “Ezekiel,” in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 6:946.
37. Hobart Freeman, An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophets (Chicago: Moody, 1968) 323.
38. William Kelly, Notes on Ezekiel (London: George Morrish, 1876) 219. On this point, see also, Arno C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Ezekiel (New York: Our Hope, 1918) 311; Clive Thomson, “The Necessity of Blood Sacrifices in Ezekiel’s Temple,” Bibliotheca Sacra 110 (1953): 344. Merrill Unger made these helpful distinctions: “One has in view members of the body of Christ, the church, since their redemption while Christ is on high. The other is concerned with earthly Israel, and embraces the glory of Jehovah once more dwelling in the land of Canaan. . . . Others presume that the fall of the Jew is final, and that the Gentile has supplanted him forever” (“The Temple Vision of Ezekiel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 105 [1949]: 170).
39. Adolph Saphir, Christ and Israel (London: Morgan & Scott, 1911) 182.
40. J. J. Reeve, “Sacrifice,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 5 vols., ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947) 4:2651.
41. Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel,” 217.
42. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 31.
43. Ibid. 43-47.
44. Jerry Hullinger, “The Realization of Ezekiel's Temple,” in Dispensationalism: Tomorrow & Beyond, gen. ed. Christopher Cone (Ft. Worth: Tyndale Seminary Press, 2008) 375-95.