The temple of Ezekiel 43, 44, and 45

[Lili]

Ezekiel 43:10-11:

"Son of man, describe the temple to the people of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their sins. Let them consider the plan, and if they are ashamed of all they have done, make known to them the design of the temple--its arrangement, its exits and entrances--its whole design and all its regulations and laws. Write these down before them so that they may be faithful to its design and follow all its regulations.

Ezekiel 43-45 gives a very detailed description of a temple where there will be animal sacrifices offered for atonement. Is it a description of the second temple, or is it describing a future temple? I saw a Jewish site arguing that it is a future temple, and proves that God will command sin offerings that will be offered in the future, long after Christ's death. The author said that this proves that Christ was not a final sin offering.

[technomage]

I've also heard arguments that it was a future temple, however, Ezekiel worked as a prophet during the Exile. He could very well be speaking of the restored Temple that he hoped the Jews would build when they were allowed to return to Jerusalem.

[Lili]

Did the second temple fit the description that Ezekiel gave? Or did those who built the temple not follow Ezekiel's description.

[technomage]

Did the second temple fit the description that Ezekiel gave?

I doubt it. Ezekiel is not describing the Temple as it would be physically--he is extolling the virtues of the Temple as a place of holiness, and using metaphorical language to exemplify that it was to be a special place.

[seanD]

Ezekiel 43:10-11:

"Son of man, describe the temple to the people of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their sins. Let them consider the plan, and if they are ashamed of all they have done, make known to them the design of the temple--its arrangement, its exits and entrances--its whole design and all its regulations and laws. Write these down before them so that they may be faithful to its design and follow all its regulations.

Ezekiel 43-45 gives a very detailed description of a temple where there will be animal sacrifices offered for atonement. Is it a description of the second temple, or is it describing a future temple? I saw a Jewish site arguing that it is a future temple, and proves that God will command sin offerings that will be offered in the future, long after Christ's death. The author said that this proves that Christ was not a final sin offering.

It's future. The way to get past the discrepancy of atonement is to assume that there is a time limit of acceptance for those few who make it into the Christian program of atonement, hence, won't be available for those who miss it or those in the future, which is why "the elect" is used in the context of Christian theology.

[xcav8tor]

... Ezekiel 43-45 gives a very detailed description of a temple where there will be animal sacrifices offered for atonement. Is it a description of the second temple, or is it describing a future temple? I saw a Jewish site arguing that it is a future temple, and proves that God will command sin offerings that will be offered in the future, long after Christ's death. The author said that this proves that Christ was not a final sin offering.

Hi Lili,

Is it a description of the second temple? No. The temple in Jesus' day looked nothing like the one described here.

Is it describing a future temple? I'd say yes. From my understanding as a Futurist, I believe there will be two future temples: one built during the 7 year Tribulation period (the third) which will be profaned by the antichrist, and the final one (the fourth) built at the beginning of the Millennium. I believe the description given by Ezekiel applies to the Millennial temple. It is possible, of course, that the third temple may be built by the Jews following the "blueprints" provided in Ezekiel, and after it is defiled by the Antichrist, the temple is merely purified by Christ and reused in the Millennium instead of being rebuilt from scratch. Only those around at the beginning of the Tribulation will know for sure if the plans were followed.

With all due respect I must disagree with Technomage about all the exact dimensions and details merely being metaphor, especially since we have the historical precedent set in Moses day where all the details provided for the tabernacle in the wilderness were followed literally in its construction. Besides, there's great deal of verbiage in Ezekiel merely to say "it's a special place." Unless these details can each be shown to offer a particular allegorical truth, to me personally, such explanations lack credibility.

As for the Jewish argument that the building of a future temple with sin offerings "proves" that Christ was not the ultimate sacrifice for sins, although it may sound like a valid argument on the surface, it simply does not hold up. For one thing, after Christ's death, the Mosaic sacrifices continued to be offered by the priests until the temple was destroyed by Titus' legions in 70 A.D. Did God accept them? Of course not. They were rendered null and void by Christ's "once for all" offering. In the same way, no future sacrifices offered during the Tribulation in the newly rebuilt temple will cover the sins of the Jews at that time either.

So what about the Millennial temple described by Ezekiel? Since we know that Christ's death on the cross paid for the sins of all humanity for all of time, any sacrifices in the Millennium would have to serve a different purpose. What could it be? Well, if we consider the context, there is a plausible explanation. They would not serve to cover sin, but to be a visual-aid of the deadly seriousness of sin and a daily reminder of the great cost paid by God to procure our salvation to people living in a virtual paradise. While the immediate survivors of Armageddon would have no problem remembering the horrifying consequences of sin and rebellion, those born during the Millennium - living to a thousand years of age in perfect peace in paradise conditions with Christ ruling from Jerusalem - they would not easily appreciate the horrors of sin and death (just like the Israelite growing up in the promised land who had grown up hearing stories of the miracles of Passover, but since they never lived through them would be more prone to doubt). Such sacrifices would serve as a memorial of Christ's death, and a constant warning of the wages of sin. These sacrifices would in no way repudiate Christ's work on the cross, but rather confirm it.

Regards,
xcav8tor