( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/083085 ... 18?ie=UTF8 ).
I can't recommend this book highly enough!
Here's an excerpt:
The theological purpose for rebuilding the Jewish temple
Dispensationalists disagree on the reasons for rebuilding the temple. Most believe that the intention is to reintroduce the Levitical sacrificial system, but they disagree on what kind of sacrifice will be offered and its purpose. Based on his reading of Daniel 12:11, Walvoord, for example, insists temple sacrifices must be reintroduced because, ‘Judging by scriptures, this is precisely what they will do as it would be impossible to cause sacrifices to cease if they were not already in operation..’ Scofield in his reference Bible claims that the sacrifices mentioned in Ezekiel 43:19 will, however, only be a ‘memorial’ offering: ‘Doubtless these offerings will be memorial, looking back to the cross, as the offerings under the old covenant were anticipatory, looking forward to the cross. In neither case have animal sacrifices power to put away sin (Heb. 10:4; Rom. 3:25)’ (p. 890). However, the verse quite explicitly refers to the sacrifice of a ‘young bullock as a sin offering’. While Scofield compromises on the issue, The New Scofield Reference Bible goes further, undermining the entire hermeneutical foundation of dispensationalism:
"The reference to sacrifices is not to be taken literally, in view of the putting away of such offerings, but is rather to be regarded as a presentation of the worship of redeemed Israel, in her own land and in the millennial Temple, using the terms with which the Jews were familiar in Ezekiel’s day (p. 864)."
If this particular reference to sacrifice need not be taken literally, then the whole presuppositional base of dispensationalism is seriously weakened, flawed by its own internal inconsistency. Following a literal reading, the sacrifice of a young bullock cannot be synonymous with a memorial offering which consisted only of grain and oil (Lev. 2:2, 9, 16). The immediate context for Ezekiel’s vision of a rebuilt temple is the promised return of the Jews from Babylonian exile, not some long-distant eschatological event. Furthermore, if Ezekiel were referring to some future millennial age, according to Mosaic Law, Jesus Christ could not serve in such a temple because he is not of the tribe of Levi. But even if in some way he could, it would surely be incongruous for Jesus to offer animal sacrifices when the New Testament asserts he has replaced them by the shedding of his own blood. Such an interpretation undermines the New Testament emphasis that the sacrifice of Christ was sufficient, final and complete (Heb. 2:17, Rom. 3:25). If religious Jews do indeed rebuild their temple and reinstitute sacrifices for the atonement of sin, it will simply demonstrate their rejection of the atoning work of Jesus Christ. However, for Christians to support the reinstitution of the sacrificial system is surely a sign of apostasy since they would be, in the words of the writer to the Hebrews, ‘crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace’.