Ezekiel's Temple

[gcubbage]

It is impossible to interpret Ezekiel 40-48 in a strictly literal manner in reference to a future millennium without denying the clear teaching of
Hebrews on the final sacrifice of Christ. To do so introduces a contradiction
into Scripture that is easily avoided by seeing Ezekiel's descriptions as
figurative. If the Old Testament prophets could prophesy about Christ in
figuratively in terms of the Levitical sacrifices, why could Ezekiel not have
"prophesied the church age [figuratively] in terms of the Old Testament
religious system with which ancient Israel was familiar? Jesus did not come
as a literal lamb with four legs and wool, and neither will a future millennium
come with literal bloody sacrifices. Dispensationalist cannot be consistently
literal in their interpretation of this passage. That would demand the re-
storation of bloody, atoning (not memorial) animal sacrifices, which is
impossible now that Christ has offered Himself as the final sacrifice.
Dispensationalist must realize that context determines whether a given
passage of Scripture is literal or figurative.

[Rev. Watch]

Dispensationalist must realize that context determines whether a given
passage of Scripture is literal or figurative

Actually, they do. Disspys place context of the passage above all else and use Scripture to interpret Scripture.

That said, they do first apply a literal translation to the passage, if this should produce something that translates as ridiculous then an allegorical interpretation is investigated.

[joelkaki]

I would concur with what you say, gcubbage. Honestly, to me, the very idea of the reinstitution of sacrifices in some future millennium is revolting.

Joel

[Dee Dee Warren]

Rev, you mentioned looking for allegory if something is ridiculous.... though I never saw that rule anywhere in the Bible by the way, but besides that, the reinstution of animal sacrifices is not only ridiculous, but I feel blasphemous.

[TedO]

One might even say it's an "abomination of desolation"?

I really think Ezekiel's temple must be referrent to what the second temple was supposed to be. The specificity of it gives the impression that this is something physical, not allegorical. And the specification of sacrifices is hard to give allegorical meaning to anyway. Why did the Jews apparently not build to this spec? I don't know. But the idea of the second temple giving life to all nations does make sense in the light of Jesus having taught there.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Gcubbage posted:

It is impossible to interpret Ezekiel 40-48 in a strictly literal manner in reference to a future millennium without denying the clear teaching of Hebrews on the final sacrifice of Christ.

Um, we (orthodox Jews) interpret what Ezekiel has to say about the Temple without any reference to Jesus. See http://www.templeinstitute.org/faqs/...emple-faq.html for a good read on this particular issue.

http://www.templeinstitute.org/main.html is about the best web material available on how (orthodox) Jews understand the Temple.

About the reinstitution of the order of offerings, we pray for this three times a day & eagerly await the day when the Temple & the order of offerings to be brought therein will be reestablished in full!

I hate the word "sacrifice"; it really is a gross mistranslation of the Hebrew word korban (singular), which comes from a root meaning "to approach" or "to draw near/close to".

Following is an article by Rabbi Shlomo Riskin here in Israel. I saved it from many years ago. It is his column on the weekly Torah portion of Vayikra, which is both what we call Leviticus & the name of the first weekly portion from that book. (His column still appears in Friday's Jerusalem Post.)

“Sacrifices from the heart”

Much of the third book in the Torah, Leviticus, is devoted to the priestly character of Israel and the world of sacrifices. Although there is a vast difference between an animal sacrifice brought in Jerusalem and a human sacrifice to Moloch, all one has to do is mention animal sacrifices to a liberal Jew and one sees how quickly he winces.

As long as Judaism deals with universal concepts such as freedom, justice and the prophetic dream, then everything is sweet and light and palpable. However, from a public relations perspective, it might be best to leave those sacrifices buried in the closet. After all, there is no Temple today, and a culture of animal sacrifices smacks of primitive cults, a form of Judaism alien to the modern spirit.

It should not come as a surprise, therefore, that when any particular segment of the Jewish people decides to make a change, the first place they use their scalpel is on the Book of Leviticus, and the ancient world of sacrifice portrayed in this week’s Torah reading, Vayikra.

It’s the first thing to go, and anyone can find more modern and sophisticated prayer books with gaps or changes when the service ordinarily recalls the Temple sacrifices brought on festivals, Shabbat musaf and Rosh Hodesh; they make a quick, clean incision with nary a look backwards. There is just too much good material around in Genesis and Exodus to get stuck in the quagmire of Leviticus.

However, sometimes an incision can miss the mark completely, creating a new wound where there wasn’t one to begin with. I’m afraid that in dedicating their lives to the “cultural revolution” in judaism, certain Jews may have overlooked the ethical structurepresented in the text itself, which would be clearer if only one stood back a moment and read carefully.

Maimonedes ( http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/bio...aimonides.html ), in his Guide to the Perplexed, suggests that the entire sacrificial cult was a carry-over from the Egyptian experience; the Jews had to be given a substitute sacrificial ritual which would direct their energies to God. Although Nachmanides ( http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/bio...chmanides.html ) in his biblical commentary strongly disagrees with the approach in the Guide, Maimonedes’ approach expresses a crucial educational principle. That is, the individual must be directed in accordance with his inherent predilection and historical context, ennobled and elevated naturally and spontaneously.

Nachmanides himself finds symbolic and mystical meaning underlying sacrificial ritual, imbuing each detail with transcendant and eternal significance. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch ( http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/Hirsch.html ) and Rabbi David Zeff Hoffman, in their respective biblical commentaries, develop the symbolic themes reflected in each category of sacrifice.

There are four – almost like archetypes. The first is the korban olah, or “the whole burnt offering,” in which everything is completely sent up to God, and neither priest nor penitent gets an opportunity to eat any of it. This expresses the truth that we owe the very fibre of our being to God, and must dedicate our lives entirely to His service. Although he survives the binding, Isaac is nevertheless called a “whole burnt offering,” a figure who personifies total commitment to God.

Morever, this sacrifice is brought when a person, struggling to overcome his “evil inclination,” finally empowers it to the extent that he even rids himself of evil thoughts. In an act of recognition top his new determined state of mind, he offers a complete and total sacrifice, in effect his own being.

It is for this reason that the korban olah is brought during the festivals, each one of which signifies a turning point in the year and in the individual’s life, a contain a message of renewed dedication and devotion.

The second kind of sacrifice is the mincha, the meal offering, something simple, easily accessible, as flour and oil. If the person is so poor that he cannot afford to bring either a bull or a goat, or even a turtle-dove, he need not feel shame because ofg his meager funds. The Torah calls his offering of meal, oil and frankincense a holy of holies.

With this we see that everybody can serve God on his own level. No matter how unfortunate one is, there is always someone less fortunate who would do anything to be in your position. And an offering of meal given by one individual may be more precious in God’s eyes than the most expensive cattle given by another. “The Compassionate One desires the heart most of all.” Furthermore, since so many of us tend to take the basics – the flour and the oil of life – for granted, as if owed to us, isn’t it important to thank God for these as well?

The third category is the hatat, the sin offering. When a person brings this sacrifice, he places his hands on the head of the animal and recites the confessional. In effect, this offering says that every person is given life and the correct way to live it. One wrong move could be your last move, and although the sin may have been committed by accident or temporary amnesia, it still must be expiated. Sin is serious. A person cannot ignore the ramifications of his actions and must be given a physical means to atone for them.

The fourth category is the exact opposite of a sin offering. A thanksgiving or peace-offering takes place when there is an overflow of feeling because of a special event, like a birth, or a large inheritance, or the accomplishment of a significant milestone. All you really want to say is: Thank God. Most important, these sacrifices are eaten by those who bring them, and by the priests, amid songs of thanksgiving and lessons of Torah, enabling every Jew to partake, as it were, at God’s table as His honored guests.

Sacrifices aren’t simply a tapestry of blood and guts, the fetishes of a primitive cult seeking to drown itself in the mystery of the blood and the ecstasy of the fire. They actually provide a broad overview of overcoming pitfalls, trials and tribulations. Occasionally, they are even a way of celebrating.”

I think Rabbi Riskin sums it up pretty well.

Let me clarify something. The order of Temple offerings was merely one part of the process whereby a Jew could repent of his/her sins; by itself, isolated, bringing an offering was insufficient. Since the order of offerings is, to our sorrow :cry: , temporarily suspended, we must rely, for the time being, on the other steps of the process.

What are the other steps of the process? Hosea 14:2-3 (read in synagogue on the Sabbath between Rosh Hashannah and Yom Kippur) says:

Return, O Israel, unto the Lord your God; for you have stumbled in your iniquity. Take with you words, and return unto the Lord; say unto Him: 'Forgive all iniquity, and accept that which is good; so will we render for bullocks the offering of our lips.

From this & other verses, we learn that the repentant sinner must understand, confess & acknowledge his sin (before God), promise not to do it again & then actually not do it again. This is basically it. A korban that was unaccompanied by a contrite heart, sincere confession, etc. was less than useless.

Rabbi Riskin also quotes Rav Avraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook ( http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/bio.../Rav_Kook.html ) as teaching that, “The most significant part of the sacrifice was never meant to be the savoury smell of the burning meat, but the trembling sincerity of the human heart.”

See http://www.jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm for a very good read on the whole issue of korbanot.

Be well!

ssv

[TedO]

Hi SSV,

I just want to say upfront that I always appreciate the information you attach to your posts. Your posts are always worth reading. With that said, I must say I find this post to be somewhat off topic with the initial post, but it spurs me to make a few comments.

Today @ 08:44 PM post located here
stillsmallvoice:
Um, we (orthodox Jews) interpret what Ezekiel has to say about the Temple without any reference to Jesus.

Of course that is not too surprising.

About the reinstitution of the order of offerings, we pray for this three times a day & eagerly await the day when the Temple & the order of offerings to be brought therein will be reestablished in full!

This too is a redundant thought - if you do not accept Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice, of course you wish it to be reinstated as you believe that order of business is still required. Why those who do believe Jesus was the sacrifice made once for all think there would be sacrifices in the future is another matter.

I hate the word "sacrifice"; it really is a gross mistranslation of the Hebrew word korban (singular), which comes from a root meaning "to approach" or "to draw near/close to".

This sounds like political spin doctoring really. The writer of Hebrews - who would know what the word meant in 1st century parlance - uses the words [greek]doron[/greek] translated "gifts" and [greek]thusia[/greek] translated "sacrifices". The word gifts is the same one Jesus used when talking about korban (Mat 15:5). The combination of these two words adequately covers the four categories mentioned by Rabbi Riskin. I think the charge of gross mistranslation is off base.

Your comments about the need for a repentant heart to go along with the gifts and sacrifices was well stated.

[gooner]

[i]
It is impossible to interpret Ezekiel 40-48 in a strictly literal manner in reference to a future millennium without denying the clear teaching of
Hebrews on the final sacrifice of Christ. To do so introduces a contradiction
into Scripture that is easily avoided by seeing Ezekiel's descriptions as
figurative. If the Old Testament prophets could prophesy about Christ in
figuratively in terms of the Levitical sacrifices, why could Ezekiel not have
"prophesied the church age [figuratively] in terms of the Old Testament
religious system with which ancient Israel was familiar?

But honest exegesis is not about "easily" avoiding difficult passages.The passage in Hebrews is a very strong one in favour of your argument but the OT prophets do make literal prophecies re the Messiah.Is 53,Ps 22 ,Mic 5.2.Dan 9 24-26 off the top of my head.Jesus literally fulfilled the spring feasts in Lev 23 and on that basis alone we can expect Him to do the same with the fall feasts at His return.Jesus must fulfill Tabernacles.

Jesus did not come
as a literal lamb with four legs and wool, and neither will a future millennium
come with literal bloody sacrifices. Dispensationalist cannot be consistently
literal in their interpretation of this passage. That would demand the re-
storation of bloody, atoning (not memorial) animal sacrifices, which is
impossible now that Christ has offered Himself as the final sacrifice.
Dispensationalist must realize that context determines whether a given
passage of Scripture is literal or figurative.

You say "Dispensationalist cannot be consistently
literal in their interpretation of this passage."....that is true.But just because Dispensationalism falls down as a system does not mean that everything it says is wrong.A "strictly"figurative interpretation of Zeke's temple does not work either.This is a hugely detailed picture which is most UNLIKE the Church.It is as detailed as the descriptions of Solomons Temple and the Tabernacle.When I read Is 53 I see a perfect picture of what Christ did on the cross....when I read Ez 40-48 I have to force meanings into things to make them "fit".

[Rev. Watch]

Rev, you mentioned looking for allegory if something is ridiculous.... though I never saw that rule anywhere in the Bible

Dee Dee, yes at face value--like when Christ states he will come back as a thief in the night, we don't look for Him to return at night (impossible as half the world is always in the sun's light) wearing a Hamburgler costume.

If you truly feel this way in general, then you take great issue with most of eschatological world including Dr. Kenneth Gentry and Gary Demar who treat anything that impedes the preterist view from a literal standpoint as allegorical.

by the way, but besides that, the reinstution of animal sacrifices is not only ridiculous, but I feel blasphemous

This could be true, but prophecies concerning a third temple
do not reflect its necessity, only that it will be rebuilt. Given the context and the Jews long doubt of Christ as Messiah, I think God will allow a temple in spite of themselves.

Interesting side note: A July survey taken by the Jerusalem Post found that 54% of Israelis polled supported the rebuilding of a third temple--a result that shocked the newspaper.

RW

[Rev. Watch]

I would concur with what you say, gcubbage. Honestly, to me, the very idea of the reinstitution of sacrifices in some future millennium is revolting.

Joel, okay I can see why you would consider it revolting but it doesn't mean that the prophecies concerning a thrid temple are less true. If God truly cut off the Israelites from His blessing, how is it that you can explain the miraculous survivial of a revied Israel (one that was foretold in the Bible)?

RW

[Dee Dee Warren]

Rev, I do not believe the current nation of Israel has a thing to do with prophecy. I am a supporter of Israel for purely political reasons, nothng to do with prophecy. So if I am correct, I would say, so? It was not prohesied, in fact Jesus prophesied quite the opposite. If anythng if you are pointng to this as prophetically significant, it would falsify Jesus words, not confirm them. I don't think it has to do a thing with either,

[Rev. Watch]

Rev, I do not believe the current nation of Israel has a thing to do with prophecy. I am a supporter of Israel for purely political reasons, nothng to do with prophecy. So if I am correct, I would say, so? It was not prohesied, in fact Jesus prophesied quite the opposite. If anythng if you are pointng to this as prophetically significant, it would falsify Jesus words, not confirm them. I don't think it has to do a thing with either,

Acutally, I think this view is unsupported by the Scriputres. Read Ezekiel 38 and 39 and apply it to history. You simply will not be able to apply it to any known event--Rome, a single nation, surrounding Jerusalem with but a fraction of its armies does not count.

Beyond this there are several passages I can think of the supports a revived national Israel: Isaiah 2:2-3, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Zephaniah 3:24-25, Romans 11:25-27 to name a few.

A national Israel does not falsify Jesus' words, it just destroys the preterist view that misapplies the "time texts" concering the fallacy that Christ returned in 70 A.D.

RW

P.S. Dee Dee, I still miss that old avie!

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 07:33 PM post located here
Rev. Watch:



Acutally, I think this view is unsupported by the Scriputres. Read Ezekiel 38 and 39 and apply it to history.

Do you believe Armegeddon will be fought on horseback with javelins and stuff? And darn, I also thought those black cobra helicopters were the ticket

You simply will not be able to apply it to any known event--Rome, a single nation, surrounding Jerusalem with but a fraction of its armies does not count.

Handwaving. but I don't apply those passages to Rome anyhows.

Beyond this there are several passages I can think of the supports a revived national Israel: Isaiah 2:2-3, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Zephaniah 3:24-25, Romans 11:25-27 to name a few.

No some of those speak of the salvation of Israel by being grafted back into the tree with us who are already there. The days of ethnocentric Israel are over.

A national Israel does not falsify Jesus' words, it just destroys the preterist view that misapplies the sacred "time texts" concering the fallacy that Christ returned in 70 A.D.

I am sorry you don't like the time texts. I didn't either as a futurist. CW Lewis was candid in adnitted that Matthew 24:34 was the most embarassing verse in the Bible. But I wasn't referring to a time text BTW, you shouldn't assume, you know what happens. :newddw:

P.S. Dee Dee, I still miss that old avie!

Which one? It is time to change......
this one was in honor of mrs yxboom's bday who's image it is

[Rev. Watch]

Do you believe Armegeddon will be fought on horseback with javelins and stuff? And darn, I also thought those black cobra helicopters were the ticket

Of course, the nations of the world will trade in tanks for chariots...

No some of those speak of the salvation of Israel by being grafted back into the tree with us who are already there. The days of ethnocentric Israel are over.

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Perhaps I'll start a new thread on this as this topic will get us far from the threads rather quickly... But Israel, like it or not, will play a future role.

I am sorry you don't like the time texts. I didn't either as a futurist. CW Lewis was candid in adnitted that Matthew 24:34 was the most embarassing verse in the Bible. But I wasn't referring to a time text BTW, you shouldn't assume, you know what happens.

Well, the verses themselves I have no problem with, its the preterist interpretation I have issue with. Should you refer Mat. 24:34 as meaning Christ's contemporaries then Christ is made (impossibly I might add) a liar via Mark 8:12.

Quite simply one of these verses dispells the notion of "generation" refering strictly to Christ's contemporaries and I think you'll be harder pressed to dismiss Mark 8:12 as meaning anything but the current generation.

Which one? It is time to change......
this one was in honor of mrs yxboom's bday who's image it is

Well, it was the preterist priestess titled one...the pink girl aname icon that looked like a character from Speed Racer.

RW

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 07:52 PM post located here
Rev. Watch:



Of course, the nations of the world will trade in tanks for chariots...

if you say so... the passage is clearly describing an ancient battle with ancient weapons. And if that ten million man army from China is going to be on horseback I would remind you that there are not that many horses on the planet.

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Perhaps I'll start a new thread on this as this topic will get us far from the threads rather quickly... But Israel, like it or not, will play a future role.

It already is. The Church. The Jews will come to the Church, back home.

Well, the verses themselves I have no problem with, its the preterist interpretation I have issue with. Should you refer Mat. 24:34 as meaning Christ's contemporaries then Christ is made (impossibly I might add) a liar via Mark 8:12.

let me give you what I smacked Jaltus with this whne he tried this trick abuot two years ago :myjaltus:

Mark 8:12
“Why does this generation seek a sign? Assuredly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation.”

You say that “if it means generation, then Jesus lied since that generation DID get a sign.” That is a very reckless statement, and I am sure glad that you did not say it to a skeptic who would have had a field day with you with that one. You fail to think there the logical implications of what you just said…. By your own logic, if it means “people” then Jesus ALSO lied because the same sign that you claim that generation got, WAS GIVEN TO EVERYONE, which is why you and I are Christians! Without going into how to explaining this very common Bible difficulty (it is not hard to explain), it is apparent that it was that generation to whom Jesus was speaking, and it was the people back then who were clamoring for a sign! NLT translates it “why do YOU PEOPLE, keep looking for a sign?” So it means people limited in time to the direct audience… or drum roll, please…………..contemporaries!!

Quite simply one of these verses dispells the notion of "generation" refering strictly to Christ's contemporaries and I think you'll be harder pressed to dismiss Mark 8:12.

Not hard pressed at all. If you would really like to to go through all the uses of "genea" in the NT I would love to thras..... err discuss it with you.

Well, it was the preterist priestess titled one...the pink girl aname icon that looked like a character from Speed Racer.

RW

Blossom?