If the death of Jesus was the fulfillment of the sacrificial system, why do the prophets anticipate sacrifices when the Third Temple is built?
I’m glad you raised this objection, since it has the merit of acknowledging the importance of sacrifices and offerings in the prophetic books (which is the exact opposite of the premise of objection 3.9, above). However, from our current vantage point, it is difficult for us to know exactly what God was speaking through the prophets concerning a future Temple with restored sacrifices.
Was the language merely symbolic, with the Temple speaking of God’s presence among his people and sacrifices speaking of their worshipful response? Or will the prophecies be literally, not symbolically, fulfilled? In that case, were the prophets speaking of a Temple to be built by the Messiah in the age to come? If so, then we could cite the Rabbinic tradition that in the age to come all sacrifices and offerings will be abolished except for thanksgiving offerings.
These sacrifices would then be of a non-atoning character, and therefore would have nothing to do with the once-and-for-all atonement purchased for us by the sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah. In any case, we should use caution in our discussion here, as did the Talmudic rabbis, realizing how difficult it is to clearly interpret some of the key, relevant chapters in the Tanakh.
There are several passages in the prophetic books that appear to anticipate sacrifices in the context of an end-time, Messianic vision—in other words, in passages that Christians would interpret with reference to the second coming of Jesus. However, the New Testament seems to indicate that Jesus, through his death and resurrection, made any future sacrifices completely unnecessary:
Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.
Hebrews 7:27
First [the Messiah] said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus [the Messiah] once for all.
Hebrews 10:8–10
“That’s the whole point,” you say. “Since these texts state that Yeshua’s death on the cross made future sacrifices unnecessary, why then would God say through his prophets that sacrifices would be restored in a future Messianic Temple? Doesn’t that contradict the message of the New Testament? Doesn’t that contradict the entire Christian gospel?” Let’s see exactly what the prophets had to say.
We will consider first the vision of Ezekiel recorded in the last eight chapters of his book, in which the prophet describes a Temple that was to be built, complete with an altar, sacrifices, and priests. Ezekiel saw the glory of God fill that Temple, the very same glory that years earlier he had seen leave the Temple in Jerusalem, shortly before its destruction (see Ezekiel 10). The Lord gave a wonderful promise:
Son of man, this is the place of my throne and the place for the soles of my feet. This is where I will live among the Israelites forever. The house of Israel will never again defile my holy name—neither they nor their kings—by their prostitution and the lifeless idols of their kings at their high places. When they placed their threshold next to my threshold and their doorposts beside my doorposts, with only a wall between me and them, they defiled my holy name by their detestable practices. So I destroyed them in my anger. Now let them put away from me their prostitution and the lifeless idols of their kings, and I will live among them forever.
Ezekiel 43:7–9
Ezekiel also received detailed instructions regarding the Temple altar and the restored sacrificial system, including commands to offer sin offerings and guilt offerings, with the blood being used for atonement (see, e.g., Ezek. 42:13; 43:18–21; there are references to making atonement for the altar, the Temple, and the people of Israel; see 43:20, 26; 45:15, 17, 20). Based on these chapters, it would seem clear that Ezekiel, writing by divine inspiration, described a fully functioning Temple where the sins of the people of Israel could be expiated by means of blood sacrifices. How then do I reconcile that description with the verses we just read from Hebrews, pointing to the once-and-for-all nature of Yeshua’s sacrificial death?
On the one hand, I believe this portion of Scripture presents potential problems for traditional Jews as well as Messianic Jews, since traditional Judaism teaches that prayer, repentance, and charity replaced the sacrificial system—in fact, as we saw above (3:9; cf. also 3:8, 3:13), anti-missionaries claim that prayer, repentance, and charity were superior to sacrifices and were preferred by the Lord to sacrifices—yet Ezekiel is telling us that the glorious, end-time Temple will have a restored animal sacrifice system. Based on the anti-missionary logic, this would be a decided step backward. On the other hand, the fact that there would be future blood sacrifices offered up for Israel’s atonement presents difficulties for Messianic Jews, since it seems to make void the Messiah’s atoning death on our behalf. So again we ask, What’s the answer?
Before responding directly to that question, let me share with you the comments of leading traditional Jewish authors. Rabbi Dr. S. Fisch, in his compendium of the most important Rabbinic commentaries on Ezekiel, made these telling remarks concerning chapters 40–48:
These closing chapters present almost insuperable difficulties. They contain discrepancies, contradictions with Pentateuchal laws, and terms which do not occur elsewhere.… The Rabbis of the Talmud (Men. 45a) remarked that only the prophet Elijah, who will herald the ultimate redemption, will elucidate these chapters. They added the observation that had it not been for Rabbi Chanina ben Hezekiah, who explained several of these difficulties, the Book of Ezekiel would have been excluded from the Scriptural canon.287
Similarly, Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer, writing from a thoroughly Orthodox perspective, introduced these difficult chapters in Ezekiel with the following remarks:
We will not presume to give a detailed commentary on these passages. We will merely attempt to set down some thoughts they engender, and even that only with the greatest circumspection. Especially when the Prophet deals with Jewish law, we have followed the interpretations of our Sages and Commentators and, in particular, those given by Rashi, even where those clearly pose problems. In many instances we will have to do without a complete explanation. Our reticence is justified by the comment of the Rambam: “The future structure to be built, even though it is written of in Ezekiel, is not interpreted or explained” (Hilkhot Bet HaBehira, 1:4). Hence, the writings of Ezekiel pertaining to the future Sanctuary are beyond our clear and detailed understanding.288
In light of these comments, I think you would agree that it is unwise to build a major theological doctrine from Ezekiel 40–48—especially a doctrine that you would use in an attempt to deny the validity of belief in Yeshua the Messiah. What if the shoe were on the other foot and I were using these chapters to prove to you the necessity of faith in Jesus? You would surely say to me—with ample justification—“This is hardly the place from which you can deduce Messianic proof texts. Maimonides even told us that Ezekiel’s Temple vision could not be interpreted from our present, limited vantage point.”
Over and again in the Talmud (b. Menahot 45a), as apparent discrepancies are found between Ezekiel’s Temple laws and the comparable laws in the Torah, the sages respond with, “Elijah will explain it in the future!” And as mentioned by Rabbi Fisch, it is Chaninah ben Hezekiah who is credited with saving the Book of Ezekiel from being suppressed (Hebrew, nignaz, literally, “hidden away”), since the tradition states that he stayed in his attic until he finished expounding these chapters, using three hundred cruises of oil to—literally—keep the midnight oil burning.289 However, as Rashi explains, because of our sins, all of Chaninah’s interpretations have been lost.290 In the light of such difficulties, how can anyone possibly use these chapters in Ezekiel to prove a major doctrinal point? If traditional Jews struggled to reconcile Ezekiel’s words with the words of Moses without much success—leaving most of the problems for Elijah to figure out—why should Messianic Jews be faulted if they don’t all agree on one, airtight, dogmatic interpretation of these chapters that is in full and complete harmony with the words of the New Testament?
There is one other major problem that we should note with regard to these chapters: It seems clear that Ezekiel was led to anticipate the building of this Temple in his lifetime. Remember, Ezekiel had been in exile for years when the First Temple was destroyed (note Ezek. 33:21–22), and now God was speaking to him about revealing his glory, forgiving his people, and bringing the exiles back to the Land (see Ezek. 39:21–29). It is in this context that the Lord gave Ezekiel the vision of the Temple. In other words, God said that he would have mercy on his people, restore them to the Promised Land, and call them to build a Temple that would be filled with his presence. How then was Ezekiel to know that this vision did not refer to the Second Temple (which was, in fact, built by the returning exiles just a few decades later), but rather to a Third Temple, which, twenty-five hundred years later, has still not been built?
In addition to this, God actually said to Ezekiel in this vision,
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 43:10–11
Ezekiel was commanded to share with his contemporaries the design of the Temple with a view toward bringing them to repentance in order that they, in turn, could build the Temple according to the divine specifications. We can safely say, then, that things did not turn out as Ezekiel might well have expected.291
This difficulty is underscored by the comments of the illustrious Rabbi David Kimchi (Radak), who actually finds proof of the resurrection of the dead in Ezekiel 43:10. Explaining the words “let them measure [NIV, consider] the plan,” he writes:
They will measure the design of the form of the House which you will show them, and they will understand it as a sign that they will yet rebuild the Temple in the future when the Redeemer comes and the dead are resurrected. They will understand it as a sign that those who see this form will be alive when the Temple is rebuilt in the future, and this is proof of the resurrection of the dead.292
What an interpretation! Ezekiel will show the Temple plans to his contemporaries who will one day build that very Temple, but that day will not come until the Messianic age—which proves the resurrection of the dead. So instead of the plain and obvious meaning of the text—namely, that the Jews to whom Ezekiel would show the plans would repent and then build the Temple in their lifetimes—Radak tells us that the very fact that those same men will build the Temple thousands of years later demonstrates that they will be raised from the dead. What eloquent testimony to the fact that these chapters present problems to all interpreters, Jewish or Christian.
Radak also draws attention to Ezekiel 43:19, where the prophet is told, “You are to give a young bull as a sin offering to the priests, who are Levites, of the family of Zadok, who come near to minister before me, declares the Sovereign Lord.” (See also the following verses, in which Ezekiel is told, “You are to take some of its blood … You are to take the bull for the sin offering … you are to offer a male goat without defect for a sin offering … you are to offer a young bull and a ram from the flock … You are to offer them before the Lord … you are to provide a male goat daily for a sin offering.” Similar expressions are found in chapters 44–48, where Ezekiel is told how he is to perform other Temple functions, allot the land to the tribes of Israel, and divide the city.) As rendered by Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg, the prolific translator of Rabbinic commentaries into English, Radak writes:
God tells Ezekiel, who is a priest, that he will give the sacrifice to the priests to offer up; but he himself will sprinkle the blood to make the altar fit for atonement. For although Aaron will be there, Ezekiel will be the High Priest, or perhaps Ezekiel will be Aaron’s assistant. Accordingly, this verse refers to the future resurrection of the dead. According to the Rabbis, who say that these verses are speaking of the altar of the Second Temple, it is possible that Ezekiel returned from Babylon with the former exiles. However, there is a tradition that Ezekiel was buried in Babylon. Moreover, sacrificial procedures delineated here were not performed by the returnees from the exile, who built the altar before building the Temple (Ezra 3:1ff.).293
How fascinating! Traditional Jewish translators actually wonder if some of these verses apply to the Second Temple—based on the most obvious reading of the text, which would make Ezekiel a central figure in the actual building and serving of the Temple. But it is also obvious from reading the text that the promised restoration—which would be glorious and transforming in its effects—did not come to pass either. This really presented some problems, as we learn from Rashi’s commentary on Ezekiel 43:11. As explained by Rosenberg:
Just as Joshua entered the Land in a miraculous manner and vanquished the peoples of Canaan, so should Ezra have entered the Land in such a manner and vanquished its inhabitants. However, since the people had sinned, they did not merit such a conquest. Rashi adds that the redemption then would have been permanent and that they would have built this Temple described to Ezekiel. Rashi adds that their sin was that they had not truly repented of their previous sins. They had not taken upon themselves to cease sinning. He quotes others who attribute their failure to attain this miraculous conquest to their intermarriage with gentile women in Babylon.294
Rashi is stating that Ezekiel’s Temple should have been built in the days of Ezra—in other words, within decades of Ezekiel’s prophetic vision—but because of Israel’s sin, it was not.295 Therefore, the vision had to be postponed until a Third Temple would be built, although that was not what God originally intended, nor could it have been what Ezekiel understood.
Now, in quoting these commentaries at length, I in no way mean to belittle the likes of Rashi and Radak, both of whom were intellectual giants and brilliant scholars of the highest order. Rather, by quoting their remarks, I mean to underscore the interpretive difficulties found in Ezekiel 40–48, as the commentaries of Rashi and Radak illustrate so well. Given the fact, then, that the Talmudic rabbis could only wait for Elijah to come and explain the apparent problems in these chapters, I ask again, “How then can these same chapters be used to argue against the Messiah’s once-and-for-all atoning death on the cross?”
“I think I have the answer,” you reply. “The details may be unclear, but the principles are perfectly clear. In the future there will be sin offerings and guilt offerings, and that fact by itself proves that your emphasis on the atoning power of the blood of Jesus is unsupported.”
Not at all. First, the sages never said it was just the details that were unclear. Rather, the difficulty of the details made the entire section of Scripture difficult to interpret. If the specific laws governing the sacrifices were unclear, how then can we say that the function of the sacrifices themselves was clear? Second, other Rabbinic traditions state that in the age to come, all sacrifices will be abolished except for thanksgiving offerings, leaving us to wonder exactly where this Temple visions fits in. (Is the Messianic age separate from the age to come, or are the two one and the same?) Third, it is fair to ask why the people of Israel will need atonement during the Messianic age (according to Radak, meaning the resurrection age), especially in light of the glorious vision of Ezekiel 47–48, where it is prophesied that the whole land will be filled with the glory of the Lord and with healing life. Fourth, as I said before, you would not believe me if I used these chapters to prove a point about Jesus. Instead, you would remind me of the Talmudic teaching that we’ll have to wait for Elijah to come and straighten things out.
How then should we interpret these chapters? Obviously, I’m not entirely sure I grasp their full significance either, and it would be foolish to be dogmatic. But let me offer a few thoughts that might be helpful. In fact, let me begin by asking a question: What was God’s purpose in calling Israel to build the Tabernacle? It is expressed in Exodus 25:8: “Then have them make a sanctuary [Hebrew, holy place] for me, and I will dwell among them.” (Note that the verb for “dwell” is sh-k-n, from which we get the noun shekina, speaking of God’s presence in our midst; see above, 3.1–3.2, and note Exod. 29:45.) This was also God’s purpose in allowing Solomon to build the Temple: “As for this temple you are building, if you follow my decrees, carry out my regulations and keep all my commands and obey them, I will fulfill through you the promise I gave to David your father. And I will live among the Israelites and will not abandon my people Israel” (1 Kings 6:12–13; the Hebrew here is identical to Exod. 25:8; instead of “live” the text should say “dwell”).
What is God’s central promise in the Temple vision of Ezekiel? “Now let them put away from me their prostitution and the lifeless idols of their kings, and I will live [Hebrew, dwell] among them forever” (Ezek. 43:9). Once again, we see God’s desire: He wants to dwell in the midst of his people. But you may have noticed a pattern in the three cases cited. In each of them, holiness is required. The Lord will not dwell in the midst of sin and spiritual filth. This leads us to another interesting observation on the part of Rashi and Radak. They believed that Ezekiel’s vision coincided with the Day of Atonement, namely, the tenth day of the New Year (Hebrew, Rosh Hashanah, occurring in the month of Tishrei), and, following the Talmud (b. Arachin 12a), they claimed that the year he received his vision was actually a jubilee year.296
Why was this so important? According to Leviticus 25, the jubilee was to be celebrated every fiftieth year, beginning on the Day of Atonement. During this year, all debts were canceled and all slaves freed. It was the year of release, and according to the Talmud, Ezekiel’s Temple vision was given on this particular date because it was the time for the Jewish people to be released from captivity in Babylon. As Radak observed, “Since slaves are released on this date, the Day of Atonement in the Jubilee year, God chose this time to show the prophet Israel’s emergence from exile and the building plan of the future Temple, indicating that he would forgive Israel and no longer remember their sins.”297 This is highly significant, since it would mean that three themes of great importance were all intertwined here: (1) the theme of the Temple and God’s dwelling among his repentant people; (2) the theme of atonement, because of the Temple sacrifices and the timing of the vision on the Day of Atonement; and (3) the theme of the release of God’s people from captivity.
The problem is that the vision fell far short of fulfillment. Exiles did return, but not all of them, and the return was hardly glorious; the Temple was rebuilt, but it lacked the glory of Solomon’s Temple (see vol. 1, 2.1), and it was not built according to Ezekiel’s specifications; and Ezekiel never got to be a part of it.
What then do we make of all this? Could it be that Ezekiel, being a priest, spoke of things to come in the only language he had available? In other words, could it be that the vision is completely symbolic?
“Why do you suggest that?” you ask.
That’s a fair question. I suggest it because of the problems mentioned above, namely, the many apparent contradictions between Ezekiel’s vision and the Torah coupled with the fact that the promise to Ezekiel was not fulfilled in his lifetime, although the text seemed to indicate that he would be part of its fulfillment. We must ask then, Is there more to this than meets the eye? Perhaps the Scripture passage was never meant to be literally fulfilled.
Consider also that the prophets who spoke of Israel’s return from exile (Jeremiah and Isaiah) or who spoke of the Second Temple being built (Haggai and Zechariah) described events so glorious that they could only be described as a new creation and a second exodus (see vol. 3, 4.5). But none of this panned out the way the prophets described, even though they made it clear that the glory of the Second Temple would be greater than the glory of the First Temple and that final atonement for Israel would be made during the days of that Temple (see vol. 1, 2.1). What happened?
I’ll answer that in a moment, but first let’s examine the possibility that Ezekiel’s vision is filled with symbolic meaning and may not be intended to be interpreted literally. In other words, we’re not waiting for Elijah to come and explain the details because it’s not certain that the details were ever meant to be implemented. Rather, this vision was God’s way of saying to his servant, “I will forgive my people, wipe away their sins, and bring my glory in their midst again. See it, taste it, touch it. It will surely happen!”
Ezekiel the priest was shown a vision of future glory, and for him, nothing could be more glorious than a restored Temple. And for a priest like Ezekiel, nothing could more certainly speak of purification and atonement than blood sacrifices. Nothing could convey a greater sense of promise that God would again favor his people than a vision such as this. (This is similar to the traditional Jewish notion that heaven will be something like an endless yeshiva on high. For a rabbi, what could be more wonderful?) Let me also remind you of the Rabbinic comments we just cited regarding the timing of the vision, namely, that “God chose this time to show the prophet Israel’s emergence from exile and the building plan of the future Temple, indicating that he would forgive Israel and no longer remember their sins.”
This brings us back to the theme of the prophesied return from exile and rebuilding of the Second Temple. Either the words of the prophets were not fulfilled because the Bible is not true (not an option for a traditional Jew or for me); or the words of the prophets were not fulfilled because of Israel’s sins, a solution sometimes suggested by the rabbis (in which case God’s detailed, specific, prophesied timetable goes out the window, again not an option for me and hardly one acceptable for a traditional Jew, despite the Rabbinic traditions); or God fulfilled his promises through the coming of the Messiah into the world (which makes sense in light of dozens of other Scripture passages).
What do I mean by “God fulfilled his promises through the coming of the Messiah into the world”? The answer is simple: The purpose God had for sending the Messiah into the world was that God might dwell in our midst forever. In fact, just as the Pharisees downplayed the importance of the Temple in Jerusalem by emphasizing the importance of the local synagogue and the individual Jewish home, the followers of Jesus pointed to a different kind of Temple, a spiritual Temple, a Temple made up of redeemed Jews and Gentiles, a Temple suitable for God.298 Here are some New Testament descriptions of the people of God functioning as the Temple of God. He now dwells in us! “In him [namely, Jesus] the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit” (Eph. 2:21–22). “Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple” (1 Cor. 3:16–17).
It is a Temple requiring holiness:
What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people. Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.” Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.
2 Corinthians 6:16–7:1
It is a Temple in which we now offer spiritual sacrifices to the Lord, beginning with the offering of our own lives: “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship” (Rom. 12:1). “As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him—you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus [the Messiah]” (1 Peter 2:4–5). “Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that confess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased” (Heb. 13:15–16).
The point I am making is this: Ezekiel was given a vision of a soon to-be-built Temple in which the glory of God would dwell in the midst of a purified people, yet the details of this vision make it questionable as to whether it would be literally fulfilled. Rather, it was God’s way of assuring his prophet that restoration and redemption were near at hand, that the captives were about to be released, and that atonement and forgiveness of sins would be provided. Through the atoning death of our great High Priest, Yeshua the Messiah, Ezekiel’s vision has been set on the road to complete (spiritual) fulfillment, and the Temple of God is now being built with living stones—with Jews and Gentiles cleansed and purified with the Messiah’s blood.
At the end of this transition age (see vol. 1, 2.1), Ezekiel’s vision, along with the rest of the prophecies of the Tanakh, will reach complete fulfillment. Take away the Messiah, however, and there is neither partial fulfillment, nor is there gradual fulfillment, nor is there any hope of fulfillment ever coming. It would have been proven long ago that the prophets were liars or dreamers, since they made it clear that certain key events, including a divine visitation and final atonement, had to occur before that Temple’s destruction in 70 C.E. (see again vol. 1, 2.1 for details). In light of the New Testament’s teaching that the Lord is now building a worldwide spiritual Temple, it is certainly interesting that there has been no earthly Temple almost this entire time. Do you see the significance of this?
There is something else worth considering, namely, the language used elsewhere by Ezekiel and the prophets. Although they were divinely inspired, they spoke in the language that they had, and so, when Ezekiel wanted to describe his own people living without defenses, peaceful and unsuspecting, he spoke of them living in “unwalled” villages (Ezek. 38:11).299 Today we would speak of them living in “unarmed” cities. Similarly, when Zechariah described an end-time invasion of Israel, he spoke of armies coming on horses and mules (Zech. 12:4; 14:15). Today we would speak of troops coming in tanks, flying in jets, and launching scud missiles.
How then would the Spirit, communicating through Ezekiel, speak of God providing atonement for his people, of him dwelling in our midst, of the provision of forgiveness and reconciliation, of freedom from slavery and oppression? Could it be that he would do so through a glorious Temple vision, complete with sacrifices, offerings, and priests? I think that this is a possibility worthy of consideration.300
If, however, there will be a literal Temple built when the Messiah returns—a possibility we must consider, since we stated from the outset that we can’t be dogmatic about this—and if there will be literal sacrifices offered for atonement on the Temple altar, this still does not make void Yeshua’s sacrifice on our behalf. In fact, many biblical scholars—evangelical Christians and Messianic Jews—fully expect that this Temple will be built by Yeshua himself.301 Further, one of their strongest arguments is that no such Temple was ever built and that there are differences between the Mosaic regulations and those given to Ezekiel, proving that this will be a millennial Temple built according to a new Torah. After all, in the new age, is it unthinkable—even to a traditional Jew—that there will be changes in the Torah? A new age would actually necessitate changes, since the Torah was made for Israel in this world, not the world to come.302
“I don’t understand,” you protest. “How can there be future animal sacrifices without such sacrifices constituting a denial of the Christian faith?”
The answer has to do with the nature and function of the sacrifices. That is to say, the sacrifices offered up according to the Torah—in other words, the sacrifices anticipating and pointing toward Yeshua’s sacrifice for our sins (see vol. 3, 4.1)—were primarily related to the cleansing of outward defilement or the temporary (at best, annual) pronouncement of forgiveness, whereas the atoning death of Jesus actually transforms our natures. As expressed in the letter to the Hebrews:
When [the Messiah] came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not manmade, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place [i.e., in heaven] once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of [Messiah], who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
Hebrews 9:11–14
Just as sacrifices were offered for forty years after Yeshua’s death and resurrection—and Messianic Jews apparently participated in some of those sacrificial rites (see Acts 21:17–26)—it could be that sacrifices will be offered in a future Temple, without being in conflict with the atonement provided for us in Jesus. They could even point back to his atoning death, just as the Torah sacrifices pointed toward it. In this way, the sacrifices would be memorial in nature, just as the regular reenactment of Yeshua’s final Passover meal—known as communion or the Eucharist in Christian circles—serves as a constant reminder of his sacrifice for us: “While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat; this is my body.’ Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins’ ’ (Matt. 26:26–28). “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26; the words of Paul to followers of Jesus in Corinth).
Just as the Lord’s Supper serves as a memorial to his death, so also could animal sacrifices serve as a memorial to “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). In this regard, Ralph Alexander, a Christian biblical scholar, summarizes his view of the purpose of the sacrificial system in Ezekiel’s vision:
The sacrificial system will be used as picture lessons to demonstrate the need for holiness in the consecration and purifying of the temple and the altar. They will be visual reminders of man’s sinfulness and his need for redemption while at the same time being pictorial memorials of the finished and completed sacrifice of the Messiah who provided atonement for mankind once and for all. The pictures of a holy life and the need for continual commitment to the Messiah’s lordship will be demonstrated in the regular burnt offerings. Thanksgiving to God will be visually expressed in the fellowship offerings. In addition, the sacrifices will provide food for the millennial priests even as it did for the Mosaic priests (44:29–31).303
May I raise one more question, however, that might put a different slant on all this? Should we really expect the restoration of animal sacrifices? Let me share with you the comments of Chief Rabbi Hertz, although he was coming from a slightly different angle on this:
The Rabbis, however, hoped that with the progress of time, human conduct would advance to higher standards, so that there would no longer be any need for expiatory sacrifices. Only the feeling of gratitude to God would remain. “In the Messianic era, all offerings will cease, except the thanksgiving offering, which will continue forever” [For the source of this last quote, see below.].304
From this point of view, then, it would seem that the restoration of animal sacrifices would be a decided step backward, not forward, and it would also seem to be out of keeping with the concept of a glorious Messianic era. This was to be the age of once and for all forgiveness and complete, undefiled righteousness. What need is there for sacrifices of atonement?
“Well, then,” you ask, “how do you explain all the other prophecies about sacrifices in the Third Temple? It’s one thing to point to the difficulty of interpreting Ezekiel’s vision; it’s another thing to ignore all the other prophecies.”
Actually, out of all the prophets whose words were recorded in Scripture, four others make mention of future sacrifices, namely, Isaiah, Zechariah, Malachi, and Jeremiah. But there are three things that are highly significant about the relevant passages. (1) Only Jeremiah speaks of the Jewish people offering sacrifices in the future, while the others speak of Gentiles worshiping the God of Israel with offerings. (2) None of them speak of atonement or forgiveness of sin in the context of sacrifices and offerings. (3) The references to future sacrifices and offerings in Isaiah, Zechariah, and Malachi take up a total of three verses. They are hardly major subjects in these prophetic books.
The one brief reference in Zechariah occurs in the context of the nations of the world coming to worship in Jerusalem after Israel’s final victory:
Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.… On that day holy to the lord will be inscribed on the bells of the horses, and the cooking pots in the Lord’s house will be like the sacred bowls in front of the altar. Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the Lord Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them. And on that day there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord Almighty.
Zechariah 14:16, 20–21
At most, if read literally, these verses say that sacrifices will be offered by the nations every year during the Feast of Tabernacles, but the sacrifices could be thanksgiving offerings just as well as they could be atonement offerings. And notice the horses! A literal reading presents some problems here too, since it is quite a long trip by horseback from New Zealand or Alaska to Jerusalem. It could be, instead, that the phrase “come to sacrifice” is a metaphor for “come to worship,” just as the statement that “there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord Almighty” probably represents “anyone who is morally or spiritually unclean—anyone who is not included among the chosen people of God (cf. Isa. 35:8; Ezek. 43:7; 44:9; Rev. 21:27).”305 This would then tie in with the word of the Lord given to Malachi in the days of the Second Temple:
“Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands. My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord Almighty.
Malachi 1:10–11
Thus, it could well be that the day will come when the nations of the world will literally burn incense and bring pure offerings to the Lord. It is also possible, however, that verses such as these are to be interpreted metaphorically—with incense and offerings representing prayer and worship—especially in light of the fact that it says this will happen in every place, not just in a future Temple in Jerusalem. In any case, there is no reference to a need for future atonement, but only a reference to the universal adoration of the Lord. This is also the theme in the relevant passage in Isaiah: “So the Lord will make himself known to the Egyptians, and in that day they will acknowledge the Lord. They will worship with sacrifices and grain offerings; they will make vows to the Lord and keep them” (Isa. 19:21). Once again, these sacrifices and offerings are expressions of thanksgiving and worship from Gentile nations, and once again, the context makes no mention of atonement. No honest reader can use this passage to question the once-and-for-all nature of the Messiah’s atoning death.306
Looking now at the key texts in Jeremiah, we find two principle passages that could be understood with reference to sacrifices that will be offered in the future by the people of Israel. Note, however, that the first prophecy (in Jeremiah 17) was delivered before the destruction of the First Temple, and therefore, it is possible that it was never fulfilled:
But if you are careful to obey me, declares the Lord, and bring no load through the gates of this city on the Sabbath, but keep the Sabbath day holy by not doing any work on it, then kings who sit on David’s throne will come through the gates of this city with their officials. They and their officials will come riding in chariots and on horses, accompanied by the men of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, and this city will be inhabited forever. People will come from the towns of Judah and the villages around Jerusalem, from the territory of Benjamin and the western foothills, from the hill country and the Negev, bringing burnt offerings and sacrifices, grain offerings, incense and thank offerings to the house of the Lord.
Jeremiah 17:24–26
We could easily argue that God offered the people of Judah an opportunity to repent, but they failed to heed his call and missed their chance to receive the promised blessing. This is certainly a fair reading of the text.
The other key prophecy, found in Jeremiah 33, was delivered after the destruction of the Temple and promised a restored city and a restored sacrificial system. It is very possible that this prophecy was actually fulfilled in the days of the Second Temple:
This is what the Lord says: “You say about this place, ‘It is a desolate waste, without men or animals.’ Yet in the towns of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem that are deserted, inhabited by neither men nor animals, there will be heard once more the sounds of joy and gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, and the voices of those who bringthank offerings to the house of the Lord, saying, ‘Give thanks to the Lord Almighty, for the Lord is good; his love endures forever.’ For I will restore the fortunes of the land as they were before,” says the Lord.
Jeremiah 33:10–11
Again, a fair and honest reading of both of these passages does not necessarily imply or require a future Third Temple and a restored sacrificial system in the coming age. On the other hand, should it be argued that the prophecy in Jeremiah 17 will be fulfilled one day and that the prophecy in Jeremiah 33 did not yet come to pass in its fullness, we still have no problem. Just look carefully at the texts. They make explicit reference to burnt offerings, thank offerings, and grain offerings, but they make no mention of sin offerings or guilt offerings. This is significant. In fact, the second prophecy is the proof text that supports the Rabbinic teaching cited above by Rabbi Hertz, namely, that in the age to come, all offerings will be abolished except the thanksgiving offerings.
- Phinehas, R. Levi, and R. Johanan, in the name of R. Menahem of Galilee, said: In the time to come all other sacrifices will cease, but the sacrifice of thanksgiving will not cease. All other prayers will cease, but thanksgiving will not cease. As it is written (Jeremiah 33), “… the voice of joy and the voice of gladness” (Leviticus Rabbah, 9:7; see also Midrash Psalms 56:4, with reference to Neh. 12:40).307
Of course, Jeremiah also mentions Jewish worshipers coming to Jerusalem on chariots and horses—no buses, cars, or planes—and we could still ask whether the passage is simply a picture of joyful celebration, a prophetic symbol of complete restoration. Even if it does indicate that one day sacrifices and offerings will be restored, however, it makes no mention of offerings for atonement or purification, which is highly significant.
To review the evidence, a few prophetic passages indicate the possibility of a future Temple with a restored sacrificial system. However, (1) the only passage making any reference to atonement (Ezekiel 43 and 45) is part of a section so difficult to understand that the Talmudic rabbis said only Elijah could interpret it, while later rabbis (such as Maimonides) said that the prophecies could not be adequately interpreted at this time; (2) the other passages, totaling only a few verses, could refer to past events (such as Jeremiah 33) or to future events (such as Zechariah 14), but none of the passages make any reference to sacrifices for atonement or forgiveness. Rather, specific reference is made to incense, burnt offerings, and thanksgiving offerings, and most of the passages refer to Gentiles, not Jews, bringing these offerings.
What then do we say to the objection presented here, namely, that prophecies of a future, restored Temple with sacrifices contradict the New Testament teaching that the Messiah’s death provided once-and-for-all atonement? We say that there is no conclusive evidence to support the objection, and we find nothing in these texts that makes us question the finality, power, and efficacy of Yeshua’s atoning death for the sins of the world.
287 Rosenberg, Ezekiel, Soncino Books of the Bible (London: Soncino, 1950), 265.
288 Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer, The Book of Yechezkel: Translation and Commentary (New York: Feldheim, 1993), 354. I supplied the literal translation of Maimonides, which was cited in the original Hebrew by the author.
289 Note that according to b. Hagigah 13a, it was the Talmudic rabbis themselves who sought to suppress the Book of Ezekiel because it was thought his words contradicted the words of the Torah. In contrast with this, I do not know of any Christian leaders who sought to exclude Ezekiel from the canon, indicating that they felt less threatened by Ezekiel’s vision than did the Talmudic rabbis.
290 His name is sometimes given as Chananyah or Hananiah. Commenting on Ezekiel 45:22, Rashi wrote, “Our Rabbis (Hag. 13a) said that they sought to suppress the Book of Ezekiel for his words contradicted the words of the Torah. Indeed, Hananiah the son of Hezekiah the son of Gurion is remembered for good, for he sat in his attic and expounded on it. But because of our iniquities, what he expounded on these sacrifices—why a bull is brought on the fourteenth day of Nissan—has been lost to us.” See Rosenberg, Ezekiel, 406.
291 This leads to an important principle of prophecy and fulfillment that we will return to when discussing Messianic prophecy; see vol. 3, 4.5.
292 As translated by Rosenberg, Ezekiel, 381.
293 Ibid., 386–87.
294 Ibid., 382–83. Rashi was following a Talmudic interpretation of Exodus 15:16 which was taken to mean that Israel would enter the Promised Land twice, once with Joshua and once with Ezra.
295 This is reminiscent of the famous Talmudic tradition we reviewed in vol. 1, 2.1, namely, that the Messiah should have come two thousand years after the inauguration of the Torah (according to many interpreters, meaning two thousand years after the time of Abraham), but because of our sins, the Messiah did not come and these years have been lost.
296 Some interpreters believe that Ezekiel’s Rosh Hashanah referred to the ancient biblical calendar in which Nissan (around April) was the New Year. However, the Rabbinic view is also quite possible. For details, see Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1990), 229. If the vision was received on the tenth day of Nissan, that would be four days before the Passover began.
297 Rosenberg, Ezekiel, 342.
298 For the Qumran community being a spiritual Temple, see Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 180–82; note especially The Manual of Discipline [1QS] 8:5–10; 9:4–5; and see further the references in Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 85–86. There is extensive literature on the Temple Scroll, one of the most important Dead Sea Scroll documents.
299 It is a foundational observation of the medieval rabbis, following the Mishnaic sage Rabbi Ishmael, who differed with his contemporary Rabbi Akvia, that “the Torah speaks in the language of men.” However, that dictum primarily applies to grammatical forms and expressions; cf. the discussion in Moses Mielziner, Introduction to the Talmud (New York: Bloch, 1968), 124–28.
300 This same line of interpretation would also tie in with Ezekiel’s vision of allotment of the land of Israel; according to Allen, Ezekiel, 215, “Land and temple become symbols of solid hope for the renewal of social identity, for full fellowship with God and for ‘a kingdom that cannot be shaken’ (Heb 12:22–24). The concern with the correction of pre-exilic abuses becomes God’s call for the translation of theology into the stuff of worship and of daily life, so that, ‘as he who calls you is holy,’ you may ‘yourselves be holy in all your conduct’ (1 Pet 1:15; cf. Ezek 43:10–11).”
301 For example. Messianic Jewish scholar Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, in his book Messianic Christology (Tustin, Calif.: Ariel, 1998), 96, commenting on Daniel 9:24–27, can make reference to “the Jewish Temple which is to be rebuilt when Messiah comes,” stating that it is “the same Temple that Daniel’s contemporary, described in great detail (Ezekiel 40–48).” For a well-reasoned argument for the literal fulfillment of this passage, see Ralph H. Alexander, “Ezekiel,” EBC, 6:942–52, although it becomes apparent from reading Alexander’s position that problems remain for all interpreters. As expressed by Allen, Ezekiel, 214–15, “Readers will find themselves embarrassed by these chapters.… To some extent at least they were presumably presented as normative for the future. Yet the post-exilic community, even when adoption of its rulings was within its power, found other models for its worship, while the different orientation of the Christian faith has left these chapters outdated. [Note well what Allen is saying: When the exiles returned to Jerusalem, they could have implemented much of Ezekiel’s plan, but they did not.] Must one relegate them to a drawer of lost hopes and disappointed dreams, like faded photographs? To resort to dispensationalism [which is the position held by the two previous authors cited in this note] and postpone them to a literal fulfillment in a yet future time strikes the author as a desperate expedient that sincerely attempts to preserve belief in an inerrant prophecy. The canon of scriptures, Jewish and Christian, took unfulfillment in its stride, ever commending the reading of them as the very word of God to each believing generation. Essentially they spoke first to their own generation, and one must overhear them before hearing them for oneself.” For a scholarly analysis of the entire section, see Jon Douglas Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976).
302 On Rabbinic statements concerning changes in the Torah in the world to come, see W. D. Davies, Torah in the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come (Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1952), and vol. 3, 5.30.; note also Montefiore and Loewe, Rabbinic Anthology, 669–70.
303 Alexander, “Ezekiel,” 951.
304 Hertz, Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 562.
305 As explained by Kenneth L. Barker, “Zechariah,” EBC, 7:697.
306 There is no compelling reason to apply Isaiah 56:7 to a still-future time. However, even if it is yet future, it is in keeping with the other passages we have reviewed so far from Isaiah, Zechariah, and Malachi.
307 Cited in Montefiore and Loewe, Rabbinic Anthology, 350. The rabbis also cite Psalm 56:13 as a proof text.
Brown, M. L. (2000). Answering Jewish objections to Jesus, Volume 2: Theological objections (169). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.