- “The Jews Did Not Believe Sacrifices Took Away Sin”

Messianics assert—on the basis of restoration prophecy—that the entire Law will be reconstructively restored including the sacrificial system. Indeed, several prophecies (Isa. 56:6-7; 60:7; Jer. 33:18; Zech. 14:16-21; Mal. 3:3-4) refer to animal sacrifices in the Restoration Age. The prophecies about sacrifices together with a restored temple will be the focus of our next point.

But in anticipation of that discussion, we deal now with the twin “law-faith compatibility” argument used to defend restored animal sacrifices. Knowing that Hebrews says such sacrifices cannot “take away sin,” that God “takes no pleasure” in them and that Christ was offered “once for all,” Messianics must show how a return to animal sacrifices neither competes with faith in Yeshua’s finished sacrifice nor conflicts with Hebrews, but fully comports with them.

As before, some Messianics respond,

“Old Covenant salvation was always by faith. Forgiveness was never obtained by sacrifice. The animal sacrifices were never meant to take away sin, but to serve only as fore-types of Yeshua’s sacrifice. So reinstituting them as millennial ‘after-types and shadows’ has no competing effect with Christ’s death. Rather, just as animal sacrifices previously pointed ahead to Christ’s death, in the Restoration they will point back to Christ’s death to lead people to faith in Him.”

This line of thought sounds immediately plausible—until one digs into the “fine print” to discover Messianics are arguing from a half truth which evades the complete case made by Hebrews.

·        The Problem of Atonement

·        The Problem of Sin Commemoration

Even if the Old Covenant sacrifices were merely types and shadows with absolutely no real effect regarding sin, the concept of their reinstatement still can’t be justified with Hebrews. This is because of their purpose, which Hebrews tells us is to provide a continual reminder of sins:

10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.

By contrast, the effect of Yeshua’s final perfect sacrifice is to cleanse the conscience so that there is no more memory of sin,

10:16—He then says, 17 "And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." 18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Verse 18 is saying that where there is forgiveness of sins, there is no more memory of sins; therefore there can be no further animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice only provides reminder of that for which there is no more memory!

It is oxymoronically impossible to have a sacrificial system in force dedicated to reminding of sin in conjunction with one that removes all memory of sin (—kind of like trying to obey the command, “Don’t think.”) For this reason alone, it is impossible that animal sacrifices can ever be reinstated under Yeshua’s reign, or therefore that any prophecies of future animal sacrifice have a reconstructive fulfillment.

·        The Problem of Replacement

Hebrews finishes its case regarding animal sacrifice by offering the same conclusive separation between sacrificial covenantal orders as Paul does between Law and faith, allowing no possibility for the compatible co-existence of the two:

10:8 After saying above, "Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you have not desired, nor have you taken pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Through the unambiguous concept of replacement due to failing inadequacy of the first order, Hebrews rejects the notion of any present or future side-by-side existence between the old and new sacrificial systems. Messianics simply can’t defend a return to that which the apostles have summarily declared obsolete. Once something is made obsolete, it is forever obsolete and can never become “unobsolete” if what replaces it is eternal.

Given all the above, the argument justifying a future return to animal sacrifice because “all past salvation was by faith in Christ, not in the sacrifices” utterly fails if Hebrews is to be accepted as the word of God.

- The Self-Defeat of Law-Faith Compatibility

As a middle position between pure New Covenant apostolic teaching and Judaism, Messianism’s hybrid law-faith belief leaves it vulnerable to fire from both sides. Ultimately, in attempting to circumvent Paul’s teaching against the Law, Messianism’s Old Covenant advocacy for restored “faith under Law” defeats itself before pure Judaism.

Messianism is defeated on its own ground by pure Judaism which also can claim “faith in God under the Law” as sufficient for salvation—and therefore sees no justifiable need for Yeshua’s sacrifice. Messianism has no way to distinguish its faith-Law argument from Judaism’s so as to prove a need for Yeshua. Since Jews “always had salvation by faith” under the Law, what could Yeshua offer that they did not already have?

As long as the New Covenant is not defended as a distinctly separate Law-free covenant, there is no defense against the Judaistic contention that the “new” covenant is merely a “makeover” or “renewal” of the legal covenant that points to nothing but itself as “faith in God under law” for salvation. The only way the need for and sufficiency of Yeshua’s sacrifice alone can be defended is by contrast against the Law and by proving the Law’s obsolescence, as the apostles do.

The vulnerability of Messianism to self-defeat before Judaism will continue to demonstrate itself as we now face off more deeply with the issue of return to the Mosaic sacrificial system.