This question is directed to followers of the Catholic Faith, why do they believe that the dead can still be saved if we intercede for them when scripture explicity states that it is appointed for men to live once after which death and judgment follow. *Hebrews 9:27* >And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment I interpret the verse above to mean that after we die then there is nothing we can do to either glorify or provoke God and that is why we await judgment for works done while in the body. The story of the rich man and Lazarus also shows that the dead can't be saved because the rich man would have applauded to Abraham to intercede for him to enter into life but that didn't happen, the brothers of the rich man were the ones who were still in the world and their hearts were hardened against the prophets and the oracles, which mean that you can still be saved while still in the world and not when you have departed from it. Why do Catholics believe so?

Please note, I am not asking what was inside the Ark of the Covenant (question asked in June 2013) but what happened to Aaron's budding staff and the jar of manna by the time the Ark of the Covenant was placed in the temple built by Solomon. Exodus 16:33-34 says the jar of manna was placed in the Ark in front of the stone tablets. Numbers 17:10 says Aaron's budding staff was placed in front of/before the Ark of the Covenant. 1 Kings 8:9 and 2 Chronicles 5:10 both say that by the time the Ark of the Covenant was placed in the temple built by Solomon there was nothing inside the Ark except for the two stone tablets of the testimony/covenant. However, Hebrews 9:1-4 says the Ark contained the two stone tablets (the terms of the covenant), Aaron's rod (or staff) and the gold jar containing manna. What happened to Aaron's budding staff and the gold jar of manna? Were they lost or were they stolen? And why does the writer of Hebrews mention them?

Genesis 2:2 says God rested on the seventh day after finishing His work, and Hebrews 4:9–11 speaks of a Sabbath rest for the people of God. Meanwhile, Jesus says in John 9:4, *“We must work the works of Him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work.”* How do these concepts relate? Is “rest” purely eschatological, or is there a present spiritual rest for believers? And how should this impact how we understand the timing and urgency of Christian labor?

How do the proponents of the idea that salvation once received cannot be lost explain the following verses: Hebrews 6:4-6: > For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have > tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy > Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the > world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto > repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, > and put [him] to an open shame. and Hebrews 10:26-29: > For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of > the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain > fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall > devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy > under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose > ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of > God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was > sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of > grace? It seems to me that both places are about Christians who had once received salvation, but later lost it due to their change in mind or in faith.

There's a suggested duplicate to this question but that question deals with how the Jehovah's Witnesses explain the begotten divinity of Jesus while still maintaining that He is unequal to God. This question is directed toward the distinction between the Son and angels as portrayed in Hebrews chapter 1. I've included the entire chapter so that the context is plain in the reading (bold is added for focus): > Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. **For to which of the angels did God ever say**, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.” **Of the angels he says**, “He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.” **But of the Son he says**, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” **And to which of the angels has he ever said**, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? Hebrews 1:1-14 Twice the question is raised "To which of the angels has God ever said...?" and sandwiched between these questions is a direct contrast between angels and the Son. The answer demanded by any plain reading within context for these questions is 'God has never said any such thing to any angel.' In claiming that Jesus, the Son of God, is Michael the archangel Jehovah's Witnesses appear to be stating that God did, in fact, say such things to an angel. My question is, how do Jehovah's Witnesses explain this seemingly clear contradiction to the context?

Hebrews 2:11 NRSV >For *the one who sanctifies* and those who are sanctified *all have one Father*. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them *brothers.* According to this passage, the one who sanctifies is Christ and those who are sanctified are the saints. We are all one family from one source, which is God the Father. Jesus therefore calls us his brothers, as we are sons of God just as he is the firstborn Son of God (Col 1:15). But if Jesus is God, how could we be brothers with him if both we and him come from the same source which is God our Father? How could we all be brothers of God if we are sons of God? We would no longer be sons of God but would instead all be God together. A son of God and a brother of God are two entirely different things. Are we not brothers of the Son of God rather than brothers of God, which implies that Jesus is not God but the Son of God?

Hebrews 10:4 states that 'it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins'. However, the book of Leviticus introduced sin offerings for the purpose of atoning for sins (be they unintentional). How can these two statements be reconciled? I've read another thread on the same subject , but the answer provided simply seems to say that this problem is cleared up by the fact that the nature of the sin offering was a temporary removal of sin, while Jesus' sacrifice resulting in atonement was a *permanent* sacrifice. While this is of course true, Hebrews 10:4, in all translations I have seen, declares that the blood of animals cannot take away sin***s***, plural; this implies no sin whatsoever can be atoned by the sacrifice of animals.

I noticed Hebrews is really the place where the Priesthood is discussed as how the priestly ceremonies are related to the Christian faith. It seem rather complete and in depth. Hebrews says a whole lot about the priesthood and even goes into ‘great depth’ explaining things ‘difficult to understand’. It covers many great mysteries fulfilled in Christ through the priesthood. As far as I know, Catholics view the mass as kind of mystical repetition of the sacrifice of Christ. Not that Christ is sacrificed again but that his one and only past sacrifice is somehow 'redone' by himself in an unexplainable way. Catholic priests officiate in the mass so that Christ, as the high priest ‘sacrifices himself’ in the present tense. This is done in order to further sanctify those who partake of the ceremony. If this were true, I can’t fathom why the author of the Hebrews would not somewhere indicate recognition of the existence of this practice. Would he not link it into his teaching of the priesthood and the high priest? **If believers were regularly partaking in a ‘mass’ with an understanding that Christ was sacrificed over and over, why does the Epistle to the Hebrews not seem to be aware of such an important aspect of the priesthood while it explains the meaning of the priesthood?**

**Summary of the question**: How can the "angel of the Lord" be the pre-incarnate Jesus if Hebrews 1:5 makes the point that God never said "Thou art my Son" to *any angel*? Those who believe Michael the archangel is Jesus (JW, SDA, and others) usually get Hebrews 1:5 quoted by those who don't share their belief about Michael in an effort to disprove their belief. But what about those who believe the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Jesus? Doesn't the same verse disprove that belief? This is a fairly widely accepted stance, in my opinion. We even have the following question with good answers on this very site: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89609/on-what-basis-do-some-protestants-believe-the-angel-of-the-lord-is-the-pre-incar However, some groups like Jehovah's Witnesses (due to the belief that Jesus is Michael the Archangel) have to respond to questions like this one: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78168/dont-the-questions-of-hebrews-15-and-113-demand-an-answer-of-none-so-how-c **How would a Protestant who believes the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Jesus (or any Christian who believes this) respond to a very similar question?** If one believes that the angel of the Lord was the pre-incarnate Jesus, how can that be reconciled with Hebrews 1:5 (KJV): > For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? I've heard some explain this by saying that the angel of the Lord was not a created angel so that excludes him from the context of "the angels" in this passage. However, the verse doesn't say, "For unto which of the *created* angels said he at any time"... Of course, the basic meaning of "angel" in both the Hebrew and Greek is "messenger". But that doesn't really change the meaning of the passage either. I'm curious how this could be answered satisfactorily.

[Hebrews 1:4–14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+1&version=GNT) contrasts Jesus with the angels. How do groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, who see him as an angel, understand these verses?

Heb 4:12: > For the **word of God** is **living** and effective and sharper than any double-edged sword, penetrating as far as the separation of soul and spirit, joints and marrow. **It is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.** (CSB) > For the **word of God** is **quick**, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and **is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart**. (KJV) is quoted a lot by evangelicals in promoting devotional Bible study as though *the act of reading the Bible text in itself* produces the benefit that the Pastor of the book of Hebrews mentions in the verse, i.e. "judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart". But technically, isn't it true that it is **NOT** the text on paper that "judges" but **Jesus (God the Word)** speaking to us? Jesus is the one living, not the text. The theme of the sermon makes it clear what "word of God" refers to, *cf* Heb 1:1-2: > Long ago God spoke to our ancestors by the **prophets** at different times and in different ways. In these last days, **he has spoken to us by his Son**. God has appointed him heir of all things and **made the universe through him**. (CSB) > God, who at sundry times and in divers manners **spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets**, Hath in these last days **spoken unto us by his Son**, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (KJV) which more precisely refers to the words God spoke by the OT prophets, culminating in His word by Jesus's body, life, action, and words. V. 2 alludes to the words through which God spoke creation into existence (Gen 1) that the Pastor implied as "through Jesus". It seems clear to me that proper exegesis should center the referent of "the word of God" in Heb 4:12 on Jesus who *indeed* is **living and present** preaching to us through the various ways alluded by Heb 1:1-2: - prophecy to OT fathers by the prophets - voice of our conscience (part of the created order), - the beauty & order of nature herself (testified in Job, Psalms, etc.) rather than ***ONLY*** through the words of the text of the Bible (though of course the Bible is the inscripturated word of God also). Furthermore, the more immediate context of Heb 4:12 is Heb 3:1-4:13 about the warning from the lesson learned at Kadesh Barnea's rebellion where they didn't heed the word of God delivered through Moses. Thus the warning of that passage is so that we heed Christ's words to our soul TODAY (*cf* frequent reference to Ps 95:7-8) now that God has spoken to us a lot more clearly by sending Jesus, His own incarnation, greater than the word He spoke to Moses. So why do Evangelicals, whenever they cite the verse in many sermons, Bible study guides, proof-text for apologetics, etc., regularly shift the referent of Heb 4:12 from Jesus to the text of the Bible itself, even broadening the scope to the NT text that has *yet* to be recognized as Scripture? ### 2 illustrations of the consequence of bad exegesis I think my concern for my evangelical brothers and sisters is important when considering **the two disturbing practices I notice** which seems directly to follow from this bad Evangelical exegesis: 1. In several evangelical churches I have attended, they imply that to obtain the benefit in Heb 4:12b, reading the Bible text in itself *is more efficacious* than other books (such as a good theology book, the Catechism, or a C.S. Lewis book), as though God works in a MORE SPECIAL MANNER in producing the benefit when the text read is the Bible but not other books. They seem fearful as though theology books can be more corrupting than the effect of uninformed straight reading of the Bible that has the risk of bad private interpretation if not checked by the church's interpretation mediated by the pastor's sermons. Some even eschew using a commentary, fearing that the commentator's interpretation obscures Scripture rather than making it brighter to the mind! To me this is not coherent. Doesn't the **agent** need to be someone LIVING rather than words on a page? But Evangelical careful readers (adopting the Berean discernment) certainly prioritize the teaching in Scripture to serve as a norm and a rule to judge whether a book elucidate or distorts the orthodox teachings of the Bible. Thus they pick and choose better parts of C.S. Lewis books and quote judiciously from writers such as Dallas Willard / A.W. Tozer. When a Christian reading those books became convicted of their sins and obtained more wisdom to know their hearts more clearly (thus obtaining the benefit of Heb 4:12b), can we *not* say it was Jesus speaking through those books? Can we *not* say it was Jesus speaking through a Biblical sermon prepared with lots of research including the use of commentaries, philosophy, and theology books? No one is going to mistake those books as "word of God", put them on the same level as the Bible, or attribute the author or the pastor as "Jesus speaking". By the way, I am in no way disputing the status of the text of the Bible as Scripture, nor am I excluding Scripture from the "word of God". Evangelical doctrines of - Verbal inspiration of Scripture - Infallibility of Scripture - *Sola Scriptura* as the norm for interpreting other sources such as tradition, council canons, patristic writings, church doctrines, post-NT prophecies, etc. - Protestant understanding of canon of "recognition" instead of Magisterium can be derived from other parts of the Bible instead of misusing this verse in support of the above, which in turn make the above doctrines stand on a less secure foundation. 1. The advice I got from several fundamentalist leaning evangelicals is that to evangelize you HAVE to look for an opportunity to cite a series of strategic Bible verses as though by the very act of reading them aloud to the non-Christian you're speaking to, the Holy Spirit can work BETTER in convicting him/her. One such sequence is this: 1. Romans 10:9 1. John 1:12 1. John 3:36 1. Rev 3:20 1. Rom 6:23 They say I am NOT supposed to let my own explanation to cloud over the reciting of those verses, even explanation of the CONTEXT of each verse! Nor is it necessary to let him/her talk about his/her current misunderstanding of the gospel or the difficulties he/she has with Christianity. **One should simply recite the verses to let them "work" in the hearer's heart unmediated by explanation**. I think I'm justified to say that this practice is adding a mystical element to the Bible text itself, as though the text has mystical power akin to incantation. So my question is: **Why do evangelicals tend to conflate "word of God" in Heb 4:12 with the "text of Scripture", thus with a meaning that ascribes animacy and agency to the words of the Bible text instead of to the Living God?**

Related: Why does the author of Hebrews render their quotation of Jeremiah 31:33 differently in two places? ### Background The book of Hebrews uses the Hebrew Bible as support for its arguments many times. The author cites Jeremiah 31:33 in two different places and chooses to render the verse curiously differently each time. The first citation occurs in Hebrews 8:10: > ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι **τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰσραὴλ** μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγει Κύριος, διδοὺς νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς, καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς Θεόν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν. (NA27) > > For this is the covenant that I will make with the **house of Israel** after that time, declares the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. The second citation is in Hebrews 10:16: > Αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι **πρὸς αὐτοὺς** μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγει Κύριος· διδοὺς νόμους μου ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς (NA27) > > This is the covenant I will make **with them** after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws on their hearts and write them on their minds For reference, Jeremiah 31:33 reads > כִּי זֹאת הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר אֶכְרֹת **אֶת־בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל** אַחֲרֵי > הַיָּמִים הָהֵם נְאֻם־יְהֹוָה נָתַתִּי אֶת־תּוֹרָתִי בְּקִרְבָּם > וְעַל־לִבָּם אֶכְתְּבֶנָּה וְהָיִיתִי לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים וְהֵמָּה > יִהְיוּ־לִי לְעָם׃ (MT) > > But such is the covenant I will make with the **House of Israel** after these days—declares Hashem: I will put My Torah into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their hearts. Then I will be their G-d, and they shall be My people. ### Definitions The definition of misquoting is to repeat something someone has said in a way that is not accurate . ### Question Which of the two citations is the accurate one? Is this an example of misquoting the Hebrew bible? Why does the author of Hebrews use "**house of Israel**" the first time and "**them**" the second time?

We read in Psalm 110:4 (KJV): > The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 6:13-17 gives an explanation on why God swore: > When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself, 14 saying, “I will surely bless you and give you many descendants.” 15 And so after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised. People swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. 17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. One is inclined to conclude that God manifested his Human Nature by making an oath in the way human beings did. What is the take of Bible scholars of different denominations, on the subject?

> *1 Kings 8:9 (NIV)* There was ***nothing*** in the ark ***except*** the > ***two stone tablets*** that Moses had placed in it at Horeb, where the Lord made a covenant with the Israelites after they came out of > Egypt. > > *Hebrews 9:3-4 (NIV)* Behind the second curtain was a room called the > Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense and the > gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark ***contained*** the gold > jar of ***manna***, Aaron’s ***staff*** that had budded, and the > ***stone tablets*** of the covenant. 1 Kings 8:9 says that inside the Ark of the Covenant there was only the two stone tablets of Moses. But Hebrews 9:3-4 mentions three things, the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. Keeping in mind that the Ark of the Covenant was no more during the time of Jesus, the writer of Hebrews simply recalled from the Torah or from tradition about the contents of the Ark. In fact, even the writer never saw the Ark with his own eyes, let alone what was inside. Regarding the pot of manna, > *Exodus 16:33-34 (KJV)* And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a pot, and put > an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up ***before the Lord***, to > be kept for your generations. As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron > laid it up ***before the Testimony***, to be kept. This verse only says "before the Lord/Testimony" and not *inside* the Ark. Regarding the staff of Aaron, > *Numbers 17:10 (NIV)* The Lord said to Moses, “Put back Aaron’s staff > ***in front of the ark of the covenant*** law, to be kept as a sign to the rebellious. This will put an end to their grumbling against me, so > that they will not die.” This verse also says that the staff of Aaron was placed in front of the Ark. **Questions:** 1. Do these verses from the Old Testament contradict the Epistle to the Hebrews? 2. What exactly was kept inside the Ark of the Covenant?

The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is an open question. The common scholarly opinion is that the author certainly wasn't Paul. Most modern Bible translations make no mention of the author, but some older ones such as the King James Version do: > Personally, I find it hard to believe that Paul would have written Heb 2:3-4. In his other letters, he always highlights himself as one of the apostles; here the writer has a very humble attitude and certainly doesn't count himself an apostle. > [**Hebrews 2:3-4 (KJV)**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%202:3-4&version=KJV) > 3How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; > 4God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? Was Paul the author of Hebrews? What supports Pauline authorship?

> When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy. One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel. (["Apostasy"](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/apostasy?lang=eng)) But Hebrews says > Hebrews 2:17: Therefore, He/Jesus Christ had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. > Hebrews 5:6: just as He says also in another passage, "Thou art a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." > Hebrews 7:23-25: And the former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers, because they were prevented by death from continuing. but He, on the other hand because He abides forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Hence, also, He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. By His death and resurrection Jesus Christ secured the priesthood for sinners forever. His death provided a covering for sins. In view of this on what basis can the LDS Church say the priesthood authority was withdrawn from the earth?

Hans-Joachim Kraus’s monumental work on the Psalms often refers to Hermann Gunkel’s commentary on the Psalms. In his commentary on Psalm 28,2, Kraus writes the following: “H. Gunkel suggests that we supply הביטה: ‘Look up when I lift up my hands. . . . !’” (Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalm 1-59 (Minneapolis, MN: Crossway, 1993), p. 339). This is suggested to ‘force fit’ a certain meter for verse 2 (“two five-pulse meters”). I couldn’t find a reference anywhere regarding the inclusion of the verb ‘נבט’ (look, consider: (Hiphil)), and the Massoretic Text does not indicate any such variant reading: Basically, I’m looking for any reference of Gunkel’s to his suggested modification to this particular verse in Psalm 28. I believe there are also others examples.

Did Ellen White say that the book of Hebrews was written by Paul? According to the Seventh-day Adventist Commentary, the book of Hebrews has many differences compared to Paul's other writings.

Exodus 30:1 > You are also to make an altar of acacia wood for the burning of incense. Place the altar in front of the veil that is before the ark of the Testimony. Hebrews 9:2 > A tabernacle was prepared. In its first room were the lampstand, the table, and the consecrated bread. This was called the Holy Place. Why does the altar of incense for the Heavenly Sanctuary not appear to be located in the Holy Place by the writer of Hebrews? Is this of any significance considering the Lamb of God, who was without sin, had now become High Priest? We find a significant difference in explanation between the KJV and other versions here too. Other versions have interpreted the Golden Censer as being the Altar. This is not the case with the KJV (I think the KJV is the correct translation here). In any case, here is my theory: After Jesus' crucifixion, the incense (which normally flowed into the Most Holy Place from the Altar of Incense) was no longer needed to protect our High Priest from death of the glory of God on the mercy seat. Jesus had already redeemed us, he paid the price for sin, he can't die twice! Second, I follow the Trinitarian view that Jesus is God, he can't be killed by his own Glory! Therefore, the incense from the altar is no longer needed for the same purpose as in the Old testament sanctuary. Rev 8:3-4 makes an interesting observation: > And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand. At this point in time, even though he approaches the altar, the Angel in Revelation does not get his incense from the Altar. It is given to him (placed in His censer) and he then offers the prayers of the saints on the Altar! I feel that the key to all of this is Matthew 27:50-51 > Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; The heavenly sanctuary is an antitype of the earthly. The earthly temple veil was torn in two at Jesus death and I think this is significant in explaining Hebrews 9:2&3

From my understanding of dispensationalism , at some point in the future, I believe either prior to or just after the rapture, the temple on Moriah will need to be rebuilt. However, presumably, the reason for rebuilding the temple would be to resume the temple sacrifices that were going on there until the Romans destroyed it. This motivation seems even more likely (to me), given the imagery of the Millennial Temple in Ezekiel 40-48 , where animal sacrifices are taking place. But, if, as Paul seems to be saying below that all Israel will be saved, then what would the motivation be to rebuild a temple, given "sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary" (Hebrews 10:1-18 ) ? Romans 11:25-26a > I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and > sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a > hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, > and in this way all Israel will be saved. How do adherents of dispensationalism explain this? Where is my confusion?