At the end of my four-part New Covenant series, I explained that the Levitical Covenant is promised to continue within the New Covenant described in Jeremiah 30–33.

‘For this is what Adonai says: “There will never be cut off from David a man to occupy the throne of the house of Isra’el. Nor will there ever be cut off from the cohanim who are L’vi’im a man before me to offer burnt offerings, burn grain offerings and offer sacrifices every day.”’

Yirmeyahu (Jer) 33:17-18 CJB

For further discussion, see the New Covenant articles available on this site.

The logic is that since the Davidic Covenant is promised to be kept in the same breath, we have to take this just as literally as we take the promise of David’s throne being maintained within the New Covenant. Further, we established that God specifically mentions the Levites. This leaves no room for this to be fulfilled by non-Levites any more than the promise to David could be fulfilled by the sons of Pharaoh or the Chinese dynasties. Now before we go further, I want to be very clear: in no way do animal sacrifices provide salvation. If you’re concerned about that, I suggest reading my article “The Gospel” – https://thelionscall.org/2025/12/02/the-gospel/.

But this raises an important question: Why does God promise that these will have a place within the New Covenant, and what will their purpose be?

Within typical church frameworks, many of which have at their roots some version of replacement theology, there is no room for the Temple, the priesthood, or animal sacrifices. The foregone conclusion in many Christian theological systems is that the Temple and the Levitical priesthood are defunct and will never again have any purpose. In fact, many would argue that it would be heretical! That it would make Yeshua’s death in vain if the physical Temple system and its animal sacrifices were ever to operate again. Some even go so far as to say that God never really wanted those sacrifices to begin with. Then there are others who believe that perhaps, after Yeshua returns, such things may be in place again; but only on a purely memorial basis. In that view, they would serve no real function beyond symbolic remembrance. 

But is this really what the Bible teaches? Or are we reading our theological systems and assumptions into the text rather than allowing it to speak for itself? Does the Word of God actually allow us to frame things this way, or does it push us toward a different conclusion when we truly examine what He says about it?

I ask that you bear with me, because to explore this honestly requires setting aside some long-held theological assumptions so that we can read these passages with fresh eyes – not through lenses that, while well-intentioned, are ultimately man-made.

One of the key principles in reading Scripture is that truth must be internally consistent. If we have clear Scripture telling us “X,” and then other passages that seem to say “not X,” then the issue is not contradiction, it is interpretation. I have found that many apparent contradictions arise because we are not using the correct, Bible-defined categories when interpreting difficult passages. Other times, we create our own categories and try to force the text into them. This often leads to treating passages like Jeremiah 31 as purely allegorical, even though the text presents them as literal, especially given that they are stated in the same breath as the Davidic Covenant.

At other times, we take passages completely out of context to support conclusions we’ve already reached. In our modern reading, we often get so focused on chapter and verse that we forget Scripture was not originally written that way. A perfect example is found in Psalm 51:

‘For you don’t want sacrifices, or I would give them; you don’t take pleasure in burnt offerings. My sacrifice to God is a broken spirit; God, you won’t spurn a broken, chastened heart.’

Tehillim (Psa) 51:18-19 CJB

This passage is often used to argue that:
“God never really wanted animal sacrifices! He actually hates it and was just waiting for His Son to come so He could do away with the whole system.” 

And to be fair, that can sound convincing. The wording seems strong and clear. But those verses are not the full context. This is similar to hearing a short soundbite from a modern speech and assuming you fully understand a 30-minute message based on a few seconds, without any surrounding context. I say this because people—from laymen to pastors—have used these types of verses to build the idea that God was always planning to abolish the system He established at Sinai. But the issue becomes clear when we continue reading:

‘In your good pleasure, make Tziyon prosper; rebuild the walls of Yerushalayim. Then you will delight in righteous sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then they will offer bulls on your altar.’

Tehillim (Psa) 51:20-21 CJB

What we see is David acknowledging his brokenness. He recognizes that the true issue he sees is the “heart of the matter” the issue is internal. God does not want sacrifices performed merely as ritual. He desires genuine repentance, a sincere seeking of forgiveness, not someone simply going through the motions as if offering a sacrifice were a kind of automatic pass. In fact, once that proper heart condition is present, the expectation of sacrifice remains. What God is doing here is not setting up the future abolition of the system, but correcting a misunderstanding of how the system is meant to function.

In the book of Acts, we see that believers went to the Temple daily to worship. They actively participated in Temple life. This necessarily means that animal sacrifices were still taking place among believers in a post-resurrection world.

‘Continuing faithfully and with singleness of purpose to meet in the Temple courts daily, and breaking bread in their several homes, they shared their food in joy and simplicity of heart, ‘

Acts of Emissaries of Yeshua (Act) 2:46 CJB

Further, we see Paul participating in a Nazarite vow. More specifically, in Acts 21, Paul even pays for others to complete their vows. In that context, he does this to demonstrate that he keeps Torah and does not teach that it has been done away with.

‘The next day Sha’ul took the men, purified himself along with them and entered the Temple to give notice of when the period of purification would be finished and the offering would have to be made for each of them. ‘

Acts of Emissaries of Yeshua (Act) 21:26 CJB

Now, many will correctly point out that not all sacrifices were related to sin; there were also thanksgiving offerings and others. That is absolutely true. However, the Nazarite vow includes multiple types of sacrifices, including the sin offering.

‘“‘This is the law for the nazir when his period of consecration is over: he is to be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, where he will present his offering to Adonai — one male lamb in its first year without defect as a burnt offering, one female lamb in its first year without defect as a sin offering, one ram without defect as peace offerings, a basket of matzah, loaves made of fine flour mixed with olive oil, unleavened wafers spread with olive oil, their grain offering and their drink offerings. ‘

B’midbar (Num) 6:13-15 CJB

So here we have Paul actively participating in them and even funding others to do the same. This is the same Paul whom many often cite to argue that these things have been done away with! And in Acts 21 specifically, he does this as a public demonstration that he does not teach their abolition. This is extremely important for understanding what Paul is, and is not, saying in his letters, though that is a topic for another article.

And remember: all of this is happening after the resurrection of Yeshua.

For the apostles – the leaders of “the Way” appointed by Yeshua – there was no issue with continuing animal sacrifices even after the ultimate sacrifice had been made. So why, over the course of church history, has this become such a problem? Perhaps they understood something about these sacrifices that we do not.

At this point, someone might argue:
“Well, that was only while the Temple still stood. After 70 AD, the sacrificial system was done away with.” 

That is a fair point, but it does not fully address the issue. The New Covenant itself already establishes that this system still has validity. While it is true that sacrifices cannot currently be performed without a Temple, the question becomes: 

Does Scripture speak of a future Temple?

In my discussions with others, perhaps the most overlooked, yet clearest example is found in Ezekiel chapters 40–48. If you are not familiar with these chapters, I strongly encourage you to pause here, read them, and then come back.

If you’ve read them, then you likely noticed something very striking! A future Temple where the Messiah reigns, complete with detailed measurements, a functioning priesthood, animal sacrifices, and the Levites.

This aligns directly with what God promised in Jeremiah 30–33 when defining the New Covenant. This is not presented as allegorical or symbolic; rather, it is described as a literal future reality. This period is often referred to as the Messianic reign or the thousand-year reign. Notice that all types of sacrifices are present in this Temple, including the sin offering.

‘He said to me, “Human being, Adonai Elohim says, ‘These are the regulations for the altar when the time comes to construct it, offer burnt offerings on it and splash the blood against it: you are to give to the cohanim, who are L’vi’im descended from Tzadok and who approach to serve me,’ says Adonai Elohim, ‘a young bull as a sin offering. ‘

Yechezk’el (Ezk) 43:18-19 CJB

Which leads us to the central question:

Why would such sacrifices exist in the future if they were truly abolished?

In Part 2 we will explore this in depth and see what purpose the sacrifices will have, and have always had. In addition, we will look at what the sacrifice of Yeshua accomplished, which was something far greater than any animal sacrifice was ever intended to do! When we are done, we will see that animal sacrifices and Yeshua’s sacrifice neither contradict nor compete with one another but instead complement one another.