Skip to main content

Posts

The Hidden Assumption Behind Future Sacrifices (Part 3): If Temple Sacrifices Remain Valid, Why Did God End Them?

Prefer listening instead of reading? Click here to listen to an AI-generated podcast discussion of this article. Click here for part 1 and here for part 2. In Part 1, I argued that D. Thomas Lancaster’s case for the continuing validity of the Aaronic priesthood ultimately depends upon his protos/deuteros framework. According to Lancaster, the protos refers to this present world and the Levitical order, while the deuteros refers to the World to Come and Messiah’s priesthood. My concern was that Hebrews 8 never explicitly establishes those categories. Rather, they appear to function as an interpretive framework brought to the text rather than derived from it. In Part 2, we turned to Hebrews 9, the central passage upon which Lancaster builds his argument. There I argued that the author’s focus remains on the covenantal contrast between the old and new covenant administrations rather than on a symbolic map of two cosmic ages. While Hebrews acknowledges that the Levitical sacrifices g...
Recent posts

The Hidden Assumption Behind Future Sacrifices (Part 2): Does Hebrews 9 Actually Support Future Sacrifices?

Prefer listening instead of reading? Click here to listen to an AI-generated podcast discussion of this article. If you didn't read part 1 yet, click here . In the first article, I argued that the real issue behind the case for future sacrifices is not Jeremiah 33 or Hebrews 9:13–14 by themselves, but the larger protos/deuteros framework Lancaster brings to Hebrews. According to that framework, the protos refers to this present world, the Sinai covenant, the earthly sanctuary, and Levitical service, while the deuteros refers to the World to Come, the new covenant, the heavenly sanctuary, and Messiah’s priesthood. My concern was that Hebrews 8 does not clearly establish that framework. Hebrews certainly contrasts a first covenant and a second covenant, but Lancaster moves beyond that covenantal contrast and identifies the protos with this continuing present world. That move becomes especially difficult in Hebrews 8:13, where the old order is described as becoming obsolete, ...

The Hidden Assumption Behind Future Sacrifices (Part 1): Does Hebrews Teach Two Separate Covenant Systems?

Prefer listening instead of reading? Click here to listen to an AI-generated podcast discussion of this article. I recently had a discussion on social media with a friend regarding the validity of the Levitical priesthood, specifically as it relates to offerings and sacrifices. He challenged the common Reformed and evangelical view that Christ, as the great high priest after the order of Melchizedek, fulfills and thereby renders obsolete the Aaronic priesthood. His argument is grounded in Jeremiah 33:17–18, where the Lord declares that David will never lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel and that the Levitical priests will never lack a man before him to offer sacrifices. The argument is straightforward: if Christians rightly believe God has fulfilled the promise regarding the Davidic king in Christ, then how is God also fulfilling the promise concerning the Levitical priesthood? Since Christ is not a Levitical priest but comes from the tribe of Judah, the promise appears to ...

Mere Theonomy

Click here to listen to an AI podcast of this article. There is a great deal of confusion surrounding the word theonomy . For many Christians, the term immediately evokes images of a theocracy, Mosaic civil legislation, or attempts to reconstruct ancient Israel within modern society. While some advocates of theonomy have argued for stronger continuity between Mosaic judicial law and modern civil government, that is not the issue I want to address here. By mere theonomy , I mean something much simpler: the recognition that God is the ultimate source of justice, righteousness, morality, and law. In that sense, some form of theonomy is unavoidable. Every society appeals to an ultimate standard by which it determines what is right and wrong, just and unjust. The real question is not whether a society has an ultimate authority, but what that authority is. Any nation that rejects God as the ultimate source of law does not become neutral. It simply substitutes another aut...

Review of Inmillennialism: Redefining the Last Days by Michael A. Rogers

Michael A. Rogers’ Inmillennialism: Redefining the Last Days presents a redemptive-historical proposal that seeks to reconfigure standard eschatological categories through sustained attention to the New Testament’s temporal framework. Writing as a pastor with an engineering background, Rogers develops a structured and internally coherent model that prioritizes logical consistency and textual integration. His theological trajectory was significantly shaped by his interaction with The Parousia by James Stuart Russell , a work that initially destabilized his assumptions but ultimately led him toward a more comprehensive synthesis of New Testament eschatology.  The volume, approximately 330 pages in length, includes extensive appendices containing the Synoptic Olivet Discourses and other relevant texts, reinforcing Rogers’ commitment to grounding his argument directly in Scripture. The book is organized around six diagnostic questions used to evaluate major eschatological syste...

Must Christ Return to Reign? Rethinking the Debate Over the Davidic Kingdom

Click  here  to listen to an AI podcast discussion of this blog post.    I was recently listening to a debate between Steve Gregg and Joel Richardson on the question: will Jesus reestablish a Davidic kingdom of Israel when he returns? As I listened, one issue stood out almost immediately. A number of New Testament passages were being cited with futurist assumptions already built into them, and those assumptions were never actually challenged. The case was not simply argued; it was, at key points, presupposed. The central claim being advanced was straightforward. Christ is not yet reigning in any meaningful sense because the world is still filled with evil, disorder, and rebellion. Therefore, He must return in the future to establish His kingdom, understood as a visible, earthly Davidic reign in which such conditions no longer exist. That argument has an intuitive appeal. But it rests on a definition of “reign” that Scripture itself does not use. The pushbac...

Was Matthew 16:28 Fulfilled in Six Days? — Examining the Claim that Jesus’ Promise Was Fulfilled in the Transfiguration

Click here to listen to an AI podcast discussion of this blog post.    Matthew 16:27–28 is one of the most debated sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. Though the Transfiguration is often presented as the fulfillment of Matthew 16:27–28, the argument below shows that this reading does not cohere well with the passage’s grammar, context, or Danielic background. The view has a long pedigree and appears attractive due to narrative proximity. A careful examination of the immediate context and Matthew’s broader use of “Son of Man” language suggests a different conclusion. Matthew 16:27 reads: “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will repay each according to what he has done.” The language draws directly from Daniel 7:13–14, where the Son of Man comes before the Ancient of Days and receives dominion, glory, and a kingdom. The reference to angelic accompaniment and recompense places the saying within a judicial framework. ...