So I was reading Ezekiel and noticed when the last temple is built and The Lord comes back to reign that the sacrifices will begin again. What is the purpose of those?
Also there is a man called "the prince" who is not Jesus and has to prepare sacrifices for his sins and the sins of the nation Israel. Who is he?
A THIRD TEMPLE? by S.E. Murel
Since AD 70, many Jews have longed for a rebuilding of the Temple. Some people in the Christian community encourage such a construction. The concept and prophetic expectations for a third Jewish Temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem is being promoted today. Recent publications advocate a third Temple and prophetic speakers are strongly suggesting that all is ready for the Temple to be constructed. Talk goes on about how easy it would be to destroy the great Mosque of El Aksah that has occupied the site of Solomon’s Temple area for 1000 years. Talk is made of secret plans for the construction of a third Temple and it is said that the very cornerstone has already been cut and dedicated. While the speculation continues it is often forgotten that God has already spoken on this whole matter.
THE NEED TO REFOCUS
It should be remembered that there was a Temple that once existed and which saw the establishment of all God’s promises and purposes in Christ realized. The Temple was the second Temple rebuilt under the leadership of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zerrubbabel following the Babylonian captivity of BC 606-538. The first Temple or Solomon’s Temple was destroyed in BC 586. The second Temple was built by the Jews after they returned from the Captivity. The second Temple was not as impressive as the one built by Solomon and yet the prophets arose to tell the people that the Lord would honor the second Temple by sending the Messiah to it. Here are the wonderful words of Haggai with the Divine promise:
Thus saith the Lord of hosts: Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land; And I will shake all nations and the Desire of all Nations shall come, and I will fill this house with the glory, saith the Lord of hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of hosts. The glory of this latter house shall be greater than the former [i.e. Solomon’s Temple] saith the Lord of Hosts, and in this place will I give peace, saith the Lord of Hosts (Hag 2:6-9).
Haggai was speaking at the dedication of the second Temple built by Ezra and others who returned from the great captivity. He was declaring that despite the more inferior structure the second Temple would still be honored and it was for the Lord Jesus did come to this very Temple. With the coming of the Messiah, heaven and earth shook. The shaking of heaven and earth denotes the passing of the Old Covenant and the establishment of the New Covenant. On the day of Pentecost, Peter quoted a similar prophecy from Joel to prove the same thing (Acts 2:19-21).There are some very serious theological problems for the conservative Christian if the Temple vision of Ezekiel is to be considered to be a prophetic reference to a third Temple that is literal and is to be built in the future. The following points should be considered.
Continued in the next post...
EZEKIEL’S TEMPLE VISION
1. A restored third Temple would invalidate Christ’s current eternal priesthood for the sons of Zadok would have the last, exalted position over Melchizedek and Aaron’s priesthood. (Ezek 18:27)
2. Sin offerings would again be made by the blood of bulls and goats. It has been suggested that the sacrifices of a future third Temple during the millennium period would be for a memorial but many times in Ezekiel the sin offering is mentioned without qualification. (Ezek. 43:19, 21, 25, etc.) The word memorial is used twenty-nine times in the Old Testament and three times in the New Testament. The term is not used in the book of Ezekiel.
3. The whole purpose of Ezekiel’s vision is lost if it be literal. The Lord spoke to Ezekiel and told him that the very object or purpose of the vision was to show the perfect holiness of the Lord by which the people of Israel might measure the extent of their iniquities. (Ezek. 43:10-12)
4. If Ezekiel’s vision Temple is to be interpreted literally and still futuristic then circumcision must be re-established as a requirement of access to God (Ezek 44:9): "Thus saith the Lord God; No stranger [i.e., Gentile], uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.” Long ago the apostle Paul found it necessary to withstand Peter face to face over the very issue of the return of the Church to circumcision. (Gal 2:11 ff) Now, once again, in a very subtle way the concept of having mandatory circumcision for the people of God is being embraced within the body of Christ.
5. If Ezekiel’s vision Temple is literal and futuristic, then the Lord will again dwell in a building (Ezek 43:1, 2). The New Testament teaches that the Lord does not dwell in Temples made with hands. (Acts 7:8)
6. If Ezekiel’s vision Temple is to be understood literally and in the future then there will again be priests of a Levitical order who will be required to avoid woolen undergarments lest they sweat. (Ezek 44:18) These future priests must also have a hair cut according to a certain length. (Ezek 44:20) They must avoid contact with the dead (Ezek 44:31), and receive the first of the sacrificial flour in order to bestow a priestly blessing. (Ezek 44:3) The whole book of Hebrews forbids the Christian community to consider the re-establishment of a Levitical priesthood for there is a better way.
7. If Ezekiel’s vision Temple is to be understood to be literal and yet future, there will be again on earth, following the Second Advent and with the Lord’s approval, all that Christ came to abolish: sin, suffering, sacrifices, and death.
8. In Ezekiel 47, the highlight of the Temple vision is found in the living waters rising inside the Temple and issuing from the threshold. The river flows from the Temple, getting deeper and wider in its course as it sweeps across the country till it empties itself into the Dead Sea where it heals the waters. Everything springs to life where the water flows. Fishermen stand upon the banks of the river and fill their baskets and spread their nets. Trees of paradise flourish on either bank yielding a continuous harvest of fruit and yielding their leaves as healing medicine. Spiritually, this could be a wonderful description of the gospel river of grace flowing from Jerusalem until it comes to cover the earth with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the seas. (Jn 2:21 cp. Jn 7:37, 38)
9. Hebrews 9 teaches that the tabernacle and of necessity, therefore, the Temple is only a type of heavenly things and figures of the true. There is no need for a literal Temple to teach anyone anything, for the reality has come in the Person of Jesus Christ. There is no need for a literal Temple to fulfill any prophetic utterances, for all that the prophets spoke has been fulfilled in the Lord.
In light of these gospel truths there is no need for the Christian community to anticipate or promote the rebuilding of a third Jewish Temple. If such a Temple is every rebuilt in the course of human history, it will not be based upon any biblical mandate.
The early church fathers, those who heard the apostle John teach, said the anti-Christ would stand in the [rebuilt] temple and proclaim himself to be God during a literal 7 year tribulation, before a literal millennial reign of Christ.
Pre-Millenialism Ken Johnson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b25M-Xz74Dw
all Ken Johnson's youtube videos here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/biblefactsorg/videos?view=0&sort=dd&shelf_id=0
Bible facts site:
www.biblefacts.org
The idea of a rebuilt temple with animal sacrifices should be repellant to any Christian.
Here are some more quotes to consider.
Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) in his Dialogue With Trypho c. AD 140, a Jewish man, made the following premillennial statement: "But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then he built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare."
Two of the greatest ante-Nicene fathers were Irenaeus and Tertullian (AD 160-230). Irenaeus grew up in Asia Minor and was discipled by Polycarp, who knew the Apostle John. Irenaeus had a very extensive view of Bible prophecy in his last five chapters of Against Heresies, which were suppressed throughout the Middle Ages by anti-premillennialists and rediscovered in 1571. (7)The restoration of a more literal interpretation and reading of the early church fathers by many post-Reformationists led to a revival of premillennialism in the early 1600s. (8) Irenaeus' writings played a key role because of their clear premillennial statements. "John, therefore, did distinctly foresee the first 'resurrection of the just,' and the inheritance in the kingdom of the earth," he says, "and what the prophets have prophesied concerning it harmonize [with his vision]."
quote source: http://www.ldolphin.org/premillhist.html
I can't access YouTube so I won't be able to watch those.
Savannah and TMK,
Both of you tell me what those prophecies don't mean. What is their interpretation if not literal and futuristic?
The truth is that I never have studied Ezekiel so now that I am, I am having difficulty reconciling what it says with what I standardly thought. In Isaiah I asked myself the question , " will some form of the law be back in place during the millenial reign?" And again I see it in Ezekiel.
Not trying to pick a fight here but int would be nice to ask questions to people who can answer them.
Havoc--
Some people believe the Ezekiel passage is literal and some think it has spiritual application.
I think the whole of scripture especially Hebrews would negate any reason to reinstate animal sscrifices.
I am sure you could read tomes supporting both views and obviously there is disagreement in the Christianity about this.
There are actually some Christian groups who are trying to breed a perfect red heifer to use when temple sacrifices are reinstated. Preposterous in my opinion of course.
From this video I posted:
Papias AD 70-155
Fragment 6 - After the resurrection of the dead, Jesus will personally reign for one thousand years. I was taught this by the Apostle John, himself.
Tertullian AD 190-210
Against Marcion 3.25 - The Millennial Reign, resurrection, and New Jerusalem are literal.
Irenaeus AD 178
Against Heresies 5.35 - The Resurrection of the Just takes place after the destruction of the Antichrist and all nations under his rule. Many believers will make it through the Tribulation and replenish the earth. The new heavens and earth will be created, and then the new Jerusalem will descend. These are all literal things, and Christians who allegorize them are immature.
Against Heresies 5.25 - In 2 Thessalonians, the "falling away" is an apostasy and there will be a literal rebuilt temple. In Matthew 24, the "abomination spoken by Daniel" is the Antichrist sitting in the temple as if he were Christ. The abomination will start in the middle of Daniel's 70th week and last for a literal three years and six months. The little horn [11th] is the Antichrist.
Against Heresies 5.26 - The Roman Empire will first be divided and then be dissolved. Ten Kings will arise from what used to be the Roman empire. The Antichrist slays three kings and is then the eighth king among them.
Against Heresies 5.30 - The name of the Antichrist equals 666 if spelled out in Greek. Don't try to find out the number of the name until the ten kings arise.
Barnabas
Epistle of Barnabas 16:5-7 - You can perceive that their hope is vain[the Romans wanting to completely destroy the Jews]. Furthermore the Lord said, "Behold, they who destroy this temple, even they will again build it up once more." This prophecy was fulfilled because the Jews went to war against their enemy[Rome]. But even though they are now no more than servants to Rome, they will return and rebuild the temple. It was revealed that the city of Jerusalem, the temple, and the people of Israel were to be given up.
Prophecies:
-Roman Empire split then divided - AD 395-476
-Return of the Jews - AD 1948
-Rebuilt Jerusalem Temple - ______
-Rise of the ten nations - _______
-Rise of the Antichrist - ________
-Seven-year Tribulation - _________
-Physical return of Jesus to rule for 1,000 years - ______
Premillennialism was replaced with Amillennialism in the third century.
Cyprian, AD 250
Epistle 67 - Cyprian states the prophecies of the Antichrist foretold of heresies rising up in the church at the end of the world. He speculates the prophecy of the church's end-time apostasy is[might be] starting in Rome.
If we were Premillennialists from the first century to the third, what happened in the third century to change all of that?
-The Schism of Nepos, AD 290
Basically Gnostic teaching of a Millennial "indulgence" pushed the Church in an Amillennial direction.
Taken from video by Ken Johnson:
Pre-Millenialism Ken Johnson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b25M-Xz74Dw
-Sorry for the long post just wanted to get most of this video out there in text for anybody interested without access. Blessings
Jesus and the apostles are clear that believers gathered together comprise the new temple.
John 4:21-24 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, ***nor in Jerusalem***, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
I think it can be dualistic. A physical temple with spiritual temples (people) going about it. Jesus has a physical body, but also a life-giving spirit. God is Spirit and yet he dwells in a temple in heaven.
As for the Prince offering sacrifices. I don't know. I tend to think its Jesus offering memorial sacrifices. Scripture for that might be Jesus being baptized with John's baptism of repentance, which he didn't need.
Can Jesus offer sacrifices as the Prince of the Ezekiel's temple, and also be the real and true Lamb of God? maybe dualistic again here. Both covenants were everlasting (Olam Heb, Aionios Grk.) and Jesus said
"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
(Matthew 5:18 NASB)
The Law is not a means of justification, but it is an instructor that hasn't ceased to be that for anyone, and wont until the eternal state, New Heavens and New Earth, 7000 AM onward.
just some ideas
blessings
Noah-
Just wondering where you get the idea that Jesus is living in a temple in heaven. I am sure there may be verses you have to support this but not sure what they are.
TMK,
Please sir. Rather than negate just about everything everyone says on this, please offer an alternative explanation. Thanks.
I did-- see below. The "third temple" is made up of believers-- described as living stones.
You certainly don't have to accept that explanation. The idea of Jesus offering "memorial sacrifices" is repugnant to me. Doesn't have to be repugnant to you, however.
All I asked Noah was to show me where in scripture it says that Jesus resides in a temple in heaven. I am not sure where that is.
And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm.
(Revelation 11:19 NASB)
Thanks Noah
no problem.
also about Eze 44:1-3.
Then He brought me back by the way of the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces the east; and it was shut. The LORD said to me, "This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut. "As for the prince, he shall sit in it as prince to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the porch of the gate and shall go out by the same way."
(Ezekiel 44:1-3 NASB)
The Prince here sits in the outer East Gate to eat bread before the Lord. Like a child with his father. It seems only the Prince can enter through the east "porch gate" of this outer east gate. I'm not sure though.
also Eze 46:1-3. there's something to it I think.
But the people have a different command:
"When the prince enters, he shall go in by way of the porch of the gate and go out by the same way. "But when the people of the land come before the LORD at the appointed feasts, he who enters by way of the north gate to worship shall go out by way of the south gate. And he who enters by way of the south gate shall go out by way of the north gate. No one shall return by way of the gate by which he entered but shall go straight out. "When they go in, the prince shall go in among them; and when they go out, he shall go out.
(Ezekiel 46:8-10 NASB)
I thought this was interesting from Matthew Henry's commentary:
Matthew Henry's Commentary
Ezekiel 44:1"Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut."
44:1This chapter contains ordinances relative to the true priests. The prince evidently means Christ, and the words in ver. 2, may remind us that no other can enter heaven, the true sanctuary, as Christ did; namely, by virtue of his own excellency, and his personal holiness, righteousness, and strength. He who is the Brightness of Jehovah's glory entered by his own holiness; but that way is shut to the whole human race, and we all must enter as sinners, by faith in his blood, and by the power of his grace.
Ezekiel 44:2
Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.
Ezekiel 44:3
It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.
Hi Noah--
I am not sure if you read all of mr Henry's commentary on Ezekiel 40 and onward- coincidentally I checked him out as well and he does seem to lean toward a non-literal interpretation of these passages.
One problem that he and other commentators note is that the size of the temple described by Ezekiel is larger than the entire city of Jerusalem and the size of the city he describes is problematic as well.
This discussion is locked.
