The Problem of Animal Sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48

[InChristAlways]

And since we couldn't build this beautiful Temple, completely free of all defilement...Jesus died on the cross, and became the Temple on our behalf, ushering in the presence of God because we couldn't usher it in on our own...just as John described in His vision of the new Jerusalem, in which the "God and the Lamb are the Temple."
Perhaps Ezekiel, in a BC prophecy, sees the Temple that we couldn't build...and John, in the shadow of the cross, the Temple that God built on our behalf.
Just a thought.
Love,
Panda

Hi Panda. Revelation and Ezekiel are both highly symbolic and use OT jewish symbology. If you read hebrews, it essentially explains the "types and shadows" between the OC and NC.
Actually John views the NJ twice! It is compared to as the Glory of God in vs 11. We are now the new Temple, with God dwelling in us through the faith that is of Jesus.
Is this a "literal" city coming down or sybolic of something like the Holy Spirit or the glory of God that is not only in us, but also what we shall see upon our death.
This seems to be after the new heaven and earth and the destruction of the Great City and old temple of God(which shows the smoke of "her" burning going up "forever). Jesus said we would never again worship in Jerusalem and Paul said the Jerusalem above was our MOTHER, so we are essentially "born of it". Besides, how can a New Jerusalem come down before the Old one is destroyed(such as the one in the first century)
I wish I had a better answer but I haven't done a thourough study on Ezekiel's temple and NJ together, but I am sure others have, both literally or symbolically. God bless.

reve 21:2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them [and be] their God.

9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, "Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife." 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God. Her light [was] like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal.

Revelation 11:1 Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, "Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. 2 "But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot [for] forty-two months.

reve 18: 9 " The kings of the earth who committed fornication and lived luxuriously with her will weep and lament for her, when they see the smoke of her burning, 10 "standing at a distance for fear of her torment, saying, 'Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! For in one hour your judgment has come.'
Reve 19:3 Again they said, "Alleluia! Her smoke rises up forever and ever!"

[Ted]

Panda,

You said:

until I reached chapters 47-48, and the imagery was so similar to that of the New Jerusalem in Revelation, that it stopped me cold...

Sounds consistent with Zeke's "title" of the city: "The Lord is There."

I also noticed that in both Ezekiel and Revelation, there is a river in the city with trees growing on either side, and the waters of the river are "healing waters." (Ezekiel 47, Revelation 22)

After reading these things, I concluded that Ezekiel isn't prophesying the period before the tribulation, or even during the millenium...but rather, the post-millenial, New Jerusalem that John spoke of...

Perhaps Ezekiel, in a BC prophecy, sees the Temple that we couldn't build...and John, in the shadow of the cross, the Temple that God built on our behalf.

Exactly! And notice the time. It’s after the millennium, in the earth made new. Are you sure you’re a Dispy?

InChristAlways,

You said:

Jesus said we would never again worship in Jerusalem and Paul said the Jerusalem above was our MOTHER, so we are essentially "born of it".

Quite true. That is the impact of truly being “born again” (John 3:3). It literally means “born of the land” (Exod 12:48), and has the social impact of conversion to Judaism. But Jesus meant it to say conversion to TRUE Judaism, which is what He taught the apostles the church was. Of course, if we are born of the land (heavenly Jerusalem), we are now citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, and that is what Hebrews 12 says. Curious how all scripture agrees...

Ted

[Terral]

Ted:

Ted >> Quite true. That is the impact of truly being “born again” (John 3:3). It literally means “born of the land” (Exod 12:48), and has the social impact of conversion to Judaism. But Jesus meant it to say conversion to TRUE Judaism, which is what He taught the apostles the church was. Of course, if we are born of the land (heavenly Jerusalem), we are now citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, and that is what Hebrews 12 says. Curious how all scripture agrees...

Greek is not your major, Ted. Even the transliteration of ‘born again’ is not accurate. The Greek here for the term again is ‘anothen’ (#509) which means ‘from above’ in places like John 3:31, 19:11, etc.. The Lockman Foundation Scholars only translate ‘anothen’ into ‘again’ right here with Christ speaking to Nicodemus [ carry over from the Old King James ]. Christ is not saying that one must be born ‘again.’ He is saying that the believer is born from above, as in from heaven. Your ‘born of the land’ definition is the exact opposite of the truth. Christ demonstrates by using this term again here in the Gospel of John.

John 19:11

“Jesus answered, ‘You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above [ anothen #509 ]; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

John the Baptist gives the best illustration on how this word applies to heaven above, when giving testimony about Christ:

John 3:31

“He [ Christ ] who comes from above [ anothen #509 ] is above all, he who is of the earth is from the earth and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all.”

For your transliteration of ‘anothen’ to be accurate, then Christ came from the earth and not from heaven above.

In Christ,

Terral

[Ted]

Greek is not your major, Ted. Even the transliteration of ‘born again’ is not accurate. The Greek here for the term again is ‘anothen’ (#509) which means ‘from above’ in places like John 3:31, 19:11, etc..

No argument about the word. But it doesn’t change Jesus’ point.

Nicodemus had already been born. Jesus tells him that unless he is “born from above” he cannot enter the kingdom. Now, if Nic has already been born, and he has to be born from above, that is a second time for Nic to be born. He has to be “born again.” Now, I hope that’s not too complicated for you.

Yes, the translation is traditional rather than literal. But the meaning is identical, once you parse the statement. And the rabbis used the expression “born again” as a way of expressing the conversion to Judaism. They were using Exod 12:48 as their source. Let’s look at the Jewish New Testament Commentary on John 3:3.

“While the wide-spread currency since the 1970’s of the expression “born-again Christian” originates here, the concept itself is Jewish, as demonstrated by this example from the Talmud: “Shim‘on Ben-Lakish said, ‘...a proselyte is like a newborn infant’” (Yevamot 62a); likewise Rabbi Yosi (Yevamot 48b). The idea resembles that of the “new creation” (2C 5:17&N), which too is found in rabbinic literature (e.g. in Genesis Rabbah 39:11).”

Of course, John 3:5 goes on to point out the water and the spirit. Of course, the process of becoming a Jewish convert involved baptism in the Mikva, “the water.” Again, the Jewish NT commentary makes this point. But if we look at Exodus 12:48, there we see the “new birth” of someone who had been a foreigner, who is now “born of the land.”

At this point we must ask, “What difference comes as a result of the more literal translation?” The answer is: “Not much.” Sure, it adds to the understanding of the source of the new birth, but doesn’t change the fact that it is a process of being “born again.”

Ted

p.s. I didn't try to transliterate anothen at all. You should look up the definition of "transliterate." Further, in my last post, I didn't try to translate it, either.

[panda]

Ted,

Exactly! And notice the time. It’s after the millennium, in the earth made new. Are you sure you’re a Dispy?

No, I guess I’m not sure! I haven’t got all the “labels” down …maybe I don’t know what a dispy is. Here's what I believe - I believe that we’re living in a time period between Christ’s ascension and the seven year Tribulation…I believe the millenial reign is, just as the Bible says, a period of 1000 years, after which the Great White Throne judgment will take place…basically, I take the book of Revelation pretty literally because I haven’t been given a good enough reason not to. I’ve noticed that a lot of OT prophecies concerning Christ’s first coming were quite literal indeed, and so I view the NT prophecies with a similar lens.

At the same time, I acknowledge that I could be wrong in some of my interpretations, and that prophecies tend to be pretty enigmatic until they become reality. I’m not arrogant enough to think that I know everything…I just have my opinions. Whatever that makes me – that’s what I am.

In Christ,
Panda

[Ted]

Panda,

Your candor is refreshing. May I brashly suggest you get my book before you let the Dispy teachers lead you astray?

Key points:
1. Jesus only returns ONCE (The Dispy approach is 2 returns, separated by 7 years.).
2. There is no secret rapture. It's the loudest event in history (2 Thes 4:13-5:2).
3. When Jesus returns, the saints are raptured, and the wicked killed. (Matt 24:36-42)
4. There is no 7-year "Great Tribulation." Daniel's 70th week was completed in 34AD.

That's enough for now. Keep studying. And be sure to let scripture interpret itself. Don't wear a tin hat.

Ted

[Tim C.]

me: This is not a command to simply ponder the design and discern its "spiritual" significance, Faramir. The absense of the term "construct" does not help you much. Your interpretation is violating the patterned meaning of such temple instructions, and it is your side of the fence which needs to produce a text from Ezekiel ch. 40-48 which says it is simply an "illustration" or something.

Faramir: I keep telling you this is not my position.

I am trying to get an understanding of both positions. I do think that Ted's arguments thus far are much more persuasive than yours.

And I think you both are in fantasy land, but what do opinions matter?

Faramir: However, I am not trying to refute you are support Ted.

I haven't addressed Ted directly, because IMHO he has articulated his position very well. Ted has also addressed your arguments against his position.

No, Ted has yet to answer my basic points in this thread. These points are as follows (see post #20):

1.) The nature of the text. It would be absolutely ridiculous to suppose that the original hearers did not understand this text to be describing a temple structure near Jerusalem during the Messianic Kingdom.

2.) The pattern upon which the text is built. For some reason, my opponents seem to think that only these temple instructions in Ezekiel 40-ff are to be taken as a "symbol" rather than blueprints for an actual structure. This is an OBVIOUS violation of the Scriptural pattern underlying the text.

3.) The inability of the opponent to present a coherent exposition of the text. As mentioned earlier, my opponents seem to think this text provides a cryptic symbol of salvation which nobody on earth has ever been able to decode. My opponents' complete failure to provide the "spiritual meaning" of the temple details is a death blow to their spiritualized interpretation.

This settles the case in my mind, Faramir. Not only is my opponent unable to justify his strange departure from the clear meaning of the text, and from the Scriptural pattern of "blueprint for the temple." But also my opponent cannot even explain to me what these "spiritual meanings" are! How can you expect me to buy such nonsense!?!?

Faramir: What I have not seen much of so far is you addressing (other than raw assertion) Ted's counter arguments against your position.

With that said, I think I will bow out of the discussion at this point, and just follow the exchange between you and Ted, since this is Ted's position and he can articulate it much better than I can.

Not that I have been trying to articulate Ted's position. But since you seem to think I am a proponent of Ted's position I will remove myself from this discussion to avoid further confusion (on my part, if no one elses).

So. Instead of restating which of Ted's points I find most convencing. I will paste them, along with a brief explanation as to why I find them persuasive, so you can address them directly.

So if you can address these points that Ted made, I will set back and enjoy the conversation.

"Tim,

You state that the parallel between Exodus 25:8-9 and Ezekiel is "obvious." If it’s so obvious, then perhaps you could show what in it is parallel. The bare facts of the case deny your assertion.

Exodus: Command to "build." Ezekiel: No command to build.

Exodus: Historical account. Ezekiel: Vision.

Where is your parallel? SHOW US!"

Tim has on several occasions asserted that the parrallel between Ex. and Ezek. is "obvious". However, Ted points out some major differences. Instead of addressing the differences Tim just dissmisses them as:

Sure. But I do not think that little scrap of "evidence" justifies the notion that Ezekiel is merely presenting a "'symbol' of salvation."

What I want to know is why you dismiss the difference between these two passages. Or at least give some explanation as to why the difference are not significant.

What differences? The absence of the word "construct"? Are you serious? There are bigger differences between the Synoptics!

"OK, I’ll comment. This is very simple. In 1-11, the temple is the existing structure, as can be seen by various elements of the vision. It is an existing historical referent. The result of what he is shown is the departure of God from the Temple which allows Nebuchadnezzar to destroy it. This is a clear historical outline.

"On the other hand, 40-48 is clearly a vision. In it, the only command is to show the "plan" to the rebellious house of Israel to make them ashamed and repent. There is nothing in this that indicates anything other than a visual. The temple does not exist at the time of the vision, unlike the earlier vision. The plan, with the sacrifices supplied by God is supposed to bring repentance. This element clearly looks forward to the Cross. And now you have one element of the vision interpreted."

Faramir: IIRC Time has not addressed this. I look forward to his response.

Instructions were given to Moses prior to the construction of the tabernacle, you know. I see NOTHING in this argument that causes me to question my interpretation. Absolutely nothing.

"Where does this vision say that it happens during a millennium on earth? That is a gratuitous assumption on your part. If you think it happens then, perhaps you could support that assertion from scripture. Show direct statements, please."

Yes. Please show some conection between the temple in Ezek. and the Millennium, from scripture. And please do not just throw out passages, but explaine the connection.

Duh, look at the land divisions in the final two chapters. The "river of healing" descriptions in the final chapters also make it obvious that the golden age is in view.

"You are making a huge assumption here. Ezekiel 40:2 says in introduction that he saw a "structure like a city." This alone tells us that it wasn’t a city. Thus, "the temple" is almost certainly not a physical temple."

IMHO this is Ted's strongest point in his favor. I would like to see Tim's refutation of this.

You think this is Ted's strongest point? I'm not even sure what the point is! How is "like a city" supposed to refute the fact that Ezekiel is describing the temple complex?

-Tim

[Ted]

Tim,

Let’s cut to the chase.

1.) The nature of the text. It would be absolutely ridiculous to suppose that the original hearers did not understand this text to be describing a temple structure near Jerusalem during the Messianic Kingdom.

That is ludicrous. The prophecy was given IN BABYLON about 40 years before the return to Jerusalem. IF the hearers were to think about building that temple, it would be in Jerusalem on the return from Babylon promised by Jeremiah.

But even that won’t fly. The explicit instruction in the text is that Ezekiel is to present the PLAN to the rebellious Jews in Babylon to MAKE THEM REPENT. It is only after the return and the failure to build that temple that anyone even thought about placing it in the end-times. Of course, the second temple was built under God’s direction through the prophets Haggai and Zechariah.

2.) The pattern upon which the text is built. For some reason, my opponents seem to think that only these temple instructions in Ezekiel 40-ff are to be taken as a "symbol" rather than blueprints for an actual structure. This is an OBVIOUS violation of the Scriptural pattern underlying the text.

It’s equally obvious that you are the only discussant that sees this supposed pattern, after detailed discussion. The explicit divine purpose for the pattern has been noted in #1, and you refuse to accept the word of Yahweh. I wasn’t the one who told Ezekiel what to do.

3.) The inability of the opponent to present a coherent exposition of the text. As mentioned earlier, my opponents seem to think this text provides a cryptic symbol of salvation which nobody on earth has ever been able to decode. My opponents' complete failure to provide the "spiritual meaning" of the temple details is a death blow to their spiritualized interpretation.

And once again you are trying a classic switch. My point is simply that there is no evidence whatever in the text of a command to build, either express or implied. Since this vision does not describe an intended physical structure, it must be symbolic. Whether I can decode the symbolism is completely irrelevant. You can’t show any evidence that it is supposed to be built. The burden of proof lies on you, but you try to deflect that with an irrelevant demand.

Put simply, I have thoroughly and completely demolished all of your arguments. And this isn’t the first time. Don’t lie by saying that I haven’t dealt with them.

Ted

[airbornisgood4u]

I found this interesting. It supports a symbolic interp.

First, the prophecy cannot be interpreted literally and still make any sense. When God places the prophet on a very high mountain (40:1-2) he sees something like a city (obviously Jerusalem). Yet, there is no such high mountain near Jerusalem from which the prophet could have had such a vantage point. But this literal high mountain is required by the dispensational view. Where is it? Given the nature of Ezekiel's prophecy, this language should alert us to the fact that what follows is given the symbolic geography of the prophet.

-Riddlebarger from http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...ilezekiel.html

I am satisfied now that it is symbolic, but the sacrifices still bother me. why sacrafices? what do you think they symbolize? thanks guys, this thread really helped.

[John Goddard]

I found this interesting. It supports a symbolic interp.

-Riddlebarger from http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...ilezekiel.html

I am satisfied now that it is symbolic, but the sacrifices still bother me. why sacrafices? what do you think they symbolize? thanks guys, this thread really helped.

This implies prayers of repentance replace animal sacrifice:

Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Hosea 14:2 Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.

So praying in repentance to Jesus as Melchizedek, who has the power from God to judge, is the sacrifice that asks for mercy and forgiveness of sin.

Edit, additional:

Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

Revelation 8:3 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.

[brainout]

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?

This one is easy to answer for a Dispy. Let me use my pastor's explanation: the sacrifices are MEMORIALIZING the past. In the OT, they memorialized the future. In the Millennium, when Israel is again in her 'time' (dispensation), they memorialize the past. Notice how the sacrifices CHANGE versus the OT. I went through some of that in my http://www.geocities.com/brainout1/PassPlot.htm webpage, in the introduction. But the main focus of the page wasn't on the topic, so not much is said.

Just use logic. Christ is ON earth during the Millennium. But we are all around the earth, He in His Humanity in one place, the suspended New Jerusalem. So again, like the OT, there's a need to TEACH BIBLE via some ritual, but now it's all PAST information. People find ritual helpful. So they need it in the Millennium, especially since it's perfect environment -- the harshness of sacrifice will contrast strongly with the niceness of the environment. I'd bet money that the sacrifices will be telecast, so everyone all over the world can see them live, daily.

How's that for a simple answer?

[ProtectionET]

For the first time created a replica of Ezekiel's Temple.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8JREEKnaXE

http://ezekiel-temple.narod.ru/i/temple_77.jpg

http://ezekiel-temple.narod.ru/i/temple_70.png

The English version of the site: http://ezekiel-temple.narod.ru/ Alas, horrid translation from Russian.

[Guido Biebaut]

If one of you has the ’New Scofield Reference Bible’, O.U.P., 1970 on page 888 there is a fine footnote on the offerings in Eze. To be published here. I tried to make a scanned copy but cannot flatten the pages enough to succeed.

[TyRockwell]

The temple in Ezekiel 40-48 is a temple Israel could have had after their return from the Babylonian exile, IF they had repented. But, since they did not repent, Ezekiel was to show them the plans TO MAKE THEM ASHAMED, as it says here:

9 Now let them put away their whoredom, and the carcases of their kings, far from me, and I will dwell in the midst of them for ever. 10 Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern. 11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.
Ezek 43:9-11 (KJV)

[Hitch]

This one is easy to answer for a Dispy. Let me use my pastor's explanation: the sacrifices are MEMORIALIZING the past. In the OT, they memorialized the future. In the Millennium, when Israel is again in her 'time' (dispensation), they memorialize the past. Notice how the sacrifices CHANGE versus the OT. I went through some of that in my http://www.geocities.com/brainout1/PassPlot.htm webpage, in the introduction. But the main focus of the page wasn't on the topic, so not much is said.

Just use logic. Christ is ON earth during the Millennium. But we are all around the earth, He in His Humanity in one place, the suspended New Jerusalem. So again, like the OT, there's a need to TEACH BIBLE via some ritual, but now it's all PAST information. People find ritual helpful. So they need it in the Millennium, especially since it's perfect environment -- the harshness of sacrifice will contrast strongly with the niceness of the environment. I'd bet money that the sacrifices will be telecast, so everyone all over the world can see them live, daily.

How's that for a simple answer?

Ridiculous, well you asked.

The passages used state plainly that these are 'sin' offerings.

Now if you have the anatomy put your money where your mouth is, $100 says you cant locate a single NT passage that teaches ANY animal sacrfices will ever be a 'memorial'.

And for gents always claiming to be literalist,,,


This bovine excerment is clearly extra-apostolic and therefor cultic