The Problem of Animal Sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48

[Makarios]

In Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (July-September 1995) Jerry Hullinger writes:

"One of the most difficult passages to harmonize with dispensational literalism is Ezekiel 40-48. In these chapters Ezekiel recorded a vision of a new temple in which sacrificial ritual occurred. This immediately places the dispensationalist in a dilemma. If the temple is viewed as in the eschaton and the sacrifices are literal, then this seems to be at odds with the Book of Hebrews, which clearly states that Christ's sacrifice has put an end to all sacrifice."

The problem of interpreting this passages is not confined to dipensationalists, however. Hullinger notes, "Nondispensationalists have as much difficulty harmonizing the passage with their theological schemes, for if they reject a literal interpretation of these passages, they are unable to offer any real exegesis of the texts. Beasley-Murray explains, 'To tackle the vision verse by verse and try to take symbolically thirteen cubits, hooks a handbreadth long, the sixth part of an ephah, place names like Berothat and Hauran is out of the question, to contradict all reason'"

Hullinger believes there will be a literal temple in the millennium where animal sacrifices will be conducted for ceremonial uncleanness. He argues this is harmonious with Christ's sacrifice, which cleanses the conscience.

I'm not a dispensationalist and I find Hullinger's conclusion absurd. Jesus and his people are the new temple-- there is no need for another. Jesus' sacrifice did away the need for all others.

However, I don't have a good explanation of what Ezekiel was writing about. Beasley-Murray has a point. It is hard to imagine everything described in these chapters as symbolic of Christ.

Thoughts, comments?

[Ted]

Makarios,

You indeed have a well-disciplined mind. It is far too easy to accept explanations of others that seem to (without factually doing so) resolve difficulties. And you are right, Hullinger's conclusion is absurd. The reason for it is failure to look at the purpose Ezekiel recorded for the vision.

The following is from chapter 8 of I Want to be Left Behind. (Shameless plug for my book!)

“As for you, son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the plan. And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the house, its structure, its exits, its entrances, all its designs, all its statutes, and all its laws. And write it in their sight, so that they may observe its whole design and all its statutes, and do them. (Ezek 43:10–11)

Ezekiel was instructed to “describe” the temple to the “rebellious people” (44:6). In doing so, the people were to “measure the plan.” It was intended that the plan of the temple would cause the apostates to become ashamed of what they had done. If the intent was that the construction diagrams were to cause shame among the house of Israel, that would be very surprising. But if the word “plan” describes the plan of salvation offered in the temple, everything fits. The people would see that the temple pointed in every way toward an ultimate salvation to be provided for them by a loving God. He would even provide the sacrifice (45:17)!
This message was not to be presented to faithful Jews. It was only to be given to the rebellious ones! If they would become ashamed when they saw God’s plan, they would repent of their wickedness. Only then would the laws of the temple be ex-plained. Once the statutes were understood, they could be ob-served. There was no hint of construction. It was designed to be an object lesson by which the evil in the hearts of apostate Israel could be turned back to the Lord, so that they could understand His laws to “observe . . . and do them.”

Ted

[Dee Dee Warren]

I too will give a plug for Ted's book. I think of course he is utterly wrong on the Millennium but the book is very good even in the parts I disagree with, which is really that one part

[Faramir]

Great thread!!!! In fact, I was reading that very passage about two weeks ago as part of my routine daily bible reading. (Read, I was not reading it for any particular reason) and thought to myself that this is one that needs further study.

I really like Ted's explanation, but would like more detail. (maybe I should get the book ), and from what I gathered it is not incompatable with preterism.

I would like to hear other interpretations of this passage as well.

[Tim C.]

Ah, yes. Thank you for bringing this issue back to the forefront. It had slipped off the bottom of my "to do list" (sorry bout that, Ted).

This subject has been discussed a bit at the following thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...2&page=1&pp=16

(Ted, see post #31)

-Tim

[Tim C.]

The problem of interpreting this passages is not confined to dipensationalists, however. Hullinger notes, "Nondispensationalists have as much difficulty harmonizing the passage with their theological schemes, for if they reject a literal interpretation of these passages, they are unable to offer any real exegesis of the texts. Beasley-Murray explains, 'To tackle the vision verse by verse and try to take symbolically thirteen cubits, hooks a handbreadth long, the sixth part of an ephah, place names like Berothat and Hauran is out of the question, to contradict all reason'"

Good point. The funny thing about the non-literal interpretation is this: Not only do our opponents offer a strange and arbitrary "spiritualized" meaning, but they cannot even explain to us what this "spiritual meaning" is!

-Tim

[Ted]

Tim,

I went back to the thread you mention. You state:

I, however, think that the obvious parallel between Exodus 25:9 and Ezekiel 43:11 is clear and easy to understand.

What parallels? There aren’t any. Exodus 25:9 is a direction to the Israelites in the wilderness to build the portable sanctuary. There is no evidence that this is to be taken as instruction to any later people about anything. Nor is there any reference in Ezekiel that it should be taken that way. Your conclusion is a gratuitous assumption, completely devoid of scriptural basis.

It’s time to do some heavy lifting. If you wish to show how, after:1) the Levitical priesthood has been permanently abolished (Heb 7),

I don't see where this passage rules out a service of Levitical priests (actually, sons of Zadok) during the millennium. I do, however, see where your interpretation of Hebrews 7 violates the clear teaching of Ezekiel.

Whoa! Hebrews EXPLICITLY declares that the law of the priesthood has been changed forever. That’s not an interpretation. It’s a clear didactic statement. See chapter 7. It’s said at least 7 times in different ways. This is a clear statement of scripture that MUST be used to interpret the less clear, of which Ezekiel is clearly one. There is NO teaching in Ezekiel that the temple will be built. If you think there is, then show it to us.

Here is the problem for non-dispensational premillennialists: Israel is not going to enter into New Covenant blessings until the close of the Old Covenant administration and return of the Lord and establishing of the Messianic Kingdom (Isaiah 11:6-9, Jeremiah 31:31-37, Ezekiel 34:25-31, Daniel 9:24). So, this passage can not be used to question the fact that Israel is under the Old Covenant administration prior to the Lord's return.

The number of errors in this is too many to count. In particular, Daniel 9 has been completely fulfilled. The 70 weeks ENDED in AD 34 with the covenant lawsuit brought against the Jews by Stephen in Acts 7. The verdict was “guilty,” and the execution of judgment described in verses 26-27 took place in AD70. The birthright blessing was removed from the Jews, transferred to the church, and will never come back to them.

There should be little doubt that Ezekiel is describing a temple structure in this section of his book.

That much is true. But you forget that it’s a vision. You still haven’t put forward a single word from scripture that shows that the temple in Ezekiel’s vision is commanded by God to be built any time at any place. Until you can do that, all you are doing is trying to drown me out by yelling louder. Now, as I suggested in the other thread, do the heavy lifting and show us the biblical command to build that temple. If you can’t find it, then do us a favor and be quiet until you do.

Ted

[Mickey]

I'm not a dispensationalist and I find Hullinger's conclusion absurd. Jesus and his people are the new temple-- there is no need for another. Jesus' sacrifice did away the need for all others.

However, I don't have a good explanation of what Ezekiel was writing about. Beasley-Murray has a point. It is hard to imagine everything described in these chapters as symbolic of Christ.

Thoughts, comments?

Makarious,

The sacrifices that will be performed in a future dispensation will serve the same purpose as the "passover sacrifice".It will be a "memorial" of the Lord's death upon the Cross:

"And this day shall be unto you a memorial;and ye shall keep it as a feast unto the Lord throughout your generations;ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever"(Ex.12:14).

In Christ,

Mickey

[Makarios]

Makarious,

The sacrifices that will be performed in a future dispensation will serve the same purpose as the "passover sacrifice".It will be a "memorial" of the Lord's death upon the Cross:

"And this day shall be unto you a memorial;and ye shall keep it as a feast unto the Lord throughout your generations;ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever"(Ex.12:14).

In Christ,

Mickey

Mickey,

As Hullinger points out, there are several problems with the 'memorial' view: 1. Ezekiel nowhere stated or even hinted that these sacrifices would be memorial in nature, 2. These offerings are said to make atonement (45:15, 17, 20).

Alan

[Makarios]

Ezekiel was instructed to “describe” the temple to the “rebellious people” (44:6). In doing so, the people were to “measure the plan.” It was intended that the plan of the temple would cause the apostates to become ashamed of what they had done. If the intent was that the construction diagrams were to cause shame among the house of Israel, that would be very surprising. But if the word “plan” describes the plan of salvation offered in the temple, everything fits.

What evidence can you provide that the word translated "plan" refers to the plan of salvation? 43:11 makes clear that the word has reference to architecture, "...make known to them the design of the temple, its pattern, its exits and entrances, and its whole design..." Granted, they were also to know the statutes and laws, but one cannot exclude the building plan itself.

The people would see that the temple pointed in every way toward an ultimate salvation to be provided for them by a loving God. He would even provide the sacrifice (45:17)!

When you say "he" would provide the sacrifice, who are you referring to? God?

There was no hint of construction. It was designed to be an object lesson by which the evil in the hearts of apostate Israel could be turned back to the Lord, so that they could understand His laws to “observe . . . and do them.”

When you say 'no hint of construction' do you mean it was never intended to be contructed? If so, how do you justify that claim? What is the point of all the details if this was only to be an object lesson?

[Tim C.]

What parallels? There aren’t any. Exodus 25:9 is a direction to the Israelites in the wilderness to build the portable sanctuary. There is no evidence that this is to be taken as instruction to any later people about anything. Nor is there any reference in Ezekiel that it should be taken that way. Your conclusion is a gratuitous assumption, completely devoid of scriptural basis.

The parallel is obvious, Ted. You seem to take some temple instructions as referring to actual temple structures, but the Ezekiel temple instructions you take as some sort of "illustration" of salvation. That is not consistent, and there is no Scriptural warrant for your peculiar interpretation.

Whoa! Hebrews EXPLICITLY declares that the law of the priesthood has been changed forever. That’s not an interpretation. It’s a clear didactic statement. See chapter 7. It’s said at least 7 times in different ways. This is a clear statement of scripture that MUST be used to interpret the less clear, of which Ezekiel is clearly one. There is NO teaching in Ezekiel that the temple will be built. If you think there is, then show it to us.

Hebrews 7 contrasts the Melchizedek priesthood against the inferior Levitical priesthood (and contrasts New Covenant to Old Covenant). But it doesn't state that there will be no service of the Sons of Zadok during the Messianic Kingdom. As I said in post #6 of the other thread:

"The millennial system described in prophecy probably has to do with retaining the mortal nation Israel's, and gentile nations', proper relationship with God. In the mean time, it will reflect Christ's sacrifice and guide mortal individuals in the kingdom age to place their faith in Christ. It will serve a similar "schoolmaster" purpose as did Mosaic Law for the Jews."

There is nothing in our view which violates the book of Hebrews. There is, however, something about your interpretation of Hebrews 7 which violates Isaiah 56:6-8, 66:20-21; Jeremiah 33:15-18; Zechariah 14:16-21, and etc.

(Note: I am disappointed that you did not answer my point: "Why do you think sacrifice during the millennium is taught in several other books (Isaiah 56:6-8, 66:20-21; Jeremiah 33:15-18; Zechariah 14:16-21, etc.)?")

me: Here is the problem for non-dispensational premillennialists: Israel is not going to enter into New Covenant blessings until the close of the Old Covenant administration and return of the Lord and establishing of the Messianic Kingdom (Isaiah 11:6-9, Jeremiah 31:31-37, Ezekiel 34:25-31, Daniel 9:24). So, this passage can not be used to question the fact that Israel is under the Old Covenant administration prior to the Lord's return.

Ted: The number of errors in this is too many to count. In particular, Daniel 9 has been completely fulfilled. The 70 weeks ENDED in AD 34 with the covenant lawsuit brought against the Jews by Stephen in Acts 7. The verdict was "guilty," and the execution of judgment described in verses 26-27 took place in AD70. The birthright blessing was removed from the Jews, transferred to the church, and will never come back to them.

Daniel 9 has not been completely fulfilled. This according to solid Scriptural exposition and church history. That is an error on your part. If you wish to discuss Daniel 9 in particular (as I have requested of you in the past), then I can start a new thread on it.

I noticed you failed to address the basic point in my above comment. It is a Scriptural FACT that Israel does not enter into New Covenant blessings until the Messiah appears and establishes the kingdom. Your "covenant premillennialism" cannot account for this simple fact.

me: There should be little doubt that Ezekiel is describing a temple structure in this section of his book.

Ted: That much is true. But you forget that it’s a vision. You still haven’t put forward a single word from scripture that shows that the temple in Ezekiel’s vision is commanded by God to be built any time at any place. Until you can do that, all you are doing is trying to drown me out by yelling louder. Now, as I suggested in the other thread, do the heavy lifting and show us the biblical command to build that temple. If you can’t find it, then do us a favor and be quiet until you do.

Boy, Ted. Don't you realize that it is YOUR inconsistent interpretation which needs direct evidence in the Scripture? Where do you get off violating an obvious pattern in Scripture, and then demanding that the opponent needs to produce a verse that says "by the way, the obvious meaning of this passage is to be observed, and the obvious Scriptural pattern upon which this passage stands is to be observed"?

-Tim

[Tim C.]

Also, Ted, I notice that you have not yet gone through the temple prophecy and explained this alleged "spiritual significance" for us. Why will you not share this "spiritual" interpretation with us? Oh, thats right, its because the Scripture spiritualizers themselves don't understand the alleged "spiritual" significance of the temple details.

-Tim

[Tim C.]

Also, Ted, I notice that you did not bother treating my comparison between Ezekiel's temple description in ch.40-48, and Ezekiel's temple description in ch.8-11. I would think you should at least wish to comment upon this subject.

In the future, Ted, if you are not going to address the points I raise, then just don't bother responding at all. Okay?

-Tim

[Faramir]

Warning Rant ahead:

Good point. The funny thing about the non-literal interpretation is this: Not only do our opponents offer a strange and arbitrary "spiritualized" meaning, but they cannot even explain to us what this "spiritual meaning" is!

-Tim

I’ll give you dispies one thing. You are really good at word games.

<Sarcasm>

Well I guess that has to compensate since you are apparently not very good at exegesis.

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

Give me a break. This literal interpretation v. spiritual interpretation that [some] dispies pull out every chance they get, is getting on my last nerve. [some] Dispies want to have their cake and eat it to. They claim to have some exclusive claim to literal interpretation, and they claim to apply it consistently. However, when dispies are called on the fact that they do not take every passage at it’s literal value they claim, that literal doesn’t really mean literal, but it means a “grammatical/historical” interpretation.



However, when a non-dispie disagrees with them (I.E. Ted) they claim that their (I.E. Ted’s) interpretation is ‘non-literal’ and therefore “spiritualized”. When Ted also uses grammatical/historical context for his interpretation.



This whole literal v. spiritual laguage used by the disies is just a cheap shot to make their interpretation look superior because it is (or at least they claim it is) literal which is (for some reason only known to dispies) superior to the (so called) spiritual interpretation of their opponents.



I for one don’t give a rodent’s hind quarters whether or not an interpretation is “literal’ or not. What I want to know is whether or not an interpretation accurately reflects the intent of the author as it would have been understood by the original intended audience. If an interpretation happens to be literal, but does not convey the authors intended meaning, then it is wrong. No matter how “literal” it is.



I think that bears repeating. Just in case you missed it the first time:



If an interpretation happens to be literal, but does not convey the authors intended meaning, then it is wrong. No matter how “literal” it is.



But of course that doesn’t sit to well with dispies. Who insist that a “literal” interpretation of the battle in Ezekiel, which talks about horses and spears “literally” means tanks, airplanes and nuclear bombs. Or they insist that the locust in Revelation “literally” means a Black Cobra helicopter.



To sum up:



Dispies say that a literal interpreation is superior to a “spiritualized” interpretation (though they never given a reason as to why). They efectivly define literal interpretation to be the same as dispy interpretation.



IOW:

• Literal interpretation is correct
• Literal interpretation is dispy interpretation
• Threfore: Dispy interpretation is correct

Of course they never bother to defend their premises, just assert them.







End of rant.

[Tim C.]

What I want to know is whether or not an interpretation accurately reflects the intent of the author as it would have been understood by the original intended audience.

I agree. And in this instance, we have a prophecy from Ezekiel which describes a temple structure on earth during the age of the Messianic Kingdom.

-Tim