Does Ezekiel’s Vision of a Temple Contradict Christianity?

On today’s podcast, Greg received a question about the detailed vision of a temple at the end of Ezekiel (chapters 40–48)—specifically, about the section on offerings introduced by verse 45:22: “On that day the prince shall provide for himself and all the people of the land a bull for a sin offering.”

If this is a reference to the Messiah at the end of the age, then clearly this is a problem for Christianity because Jesus, “having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God” (Hebrews 10:12). He won’t be offering any sacrifices in a future temple.

This is something I’ve looked into in the past, and interpretations of the chapters describing Ezekiel’s vision vary. Here’s a brief summary of a few different positions from the ESV Study Bible:

With regard to the meaning of this passage as a whole:

(1) Some interpreters understand this vision as a prophecy that will be fulfilled literally, with a rebuilt temple and Israel dwelling in the land according to its tribes—a future millennial kingdom on the earth…. Many who hold this position believe that literal animal sacrifices will be offered, but that in the future millennial kingdom they will function as reminders of the complete and sufficient death of Christ, a function different from what they had in the OT.

(2) Other interpreters see this vision of a new temple and a renewal of the land of Israel as an extended, detailed metaphor predicting the presence of God among his people in the new covenant age (that is, his presence in the church).

(3) Another view is that the vision predicts God’s presence among his people in the new heavens and new earth (cf. Isa. 66:17; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1), not as physical details that will be literally fulfilled but as symbolic indications of the great blessings of that future age. In this interpretation, the details about worship and sacrifices are symbols of the centrality of worship of God: the temple represents the orderliness and beauty of God’s heavenly dwelling place; the priests and their sacrifices represent the service and worship of all God’s people; the division of the land represents the allocation of places to live for all God’s people; and the river represents the outward flow of God’s blessings to his people forever.

(4) Finally, it is possible that there are both literal and symbolic elements in this vision, and that, as with the visions in Ezekiel 1, this vision describes future realities that cannot be fully expressed in terms of Ezekiel’s present realities. Almost all interpreters agree that Ezekiel 40–48 is one of the most difficult passages in the entire Bible.

It’s also possible the answer is simply this: Ezekiel’s vision conveys instructions, not predictions. There’s a clear break at the beginning of the vision in chapter 40 from the prophecy in chapter 39, and from this point forward, the chapters read like commands (“You shall do this,” “These are the statutes,” etc.), with warnings for the people to repent and follow these commands (e.g., 45:9), rather than descriptions of the future. Though the instructions for the building and running of a temple are given in a vision, the genre of the passage is more like the tabernacle instructions in Exodus than it is like the prophecy in the previous chapter. There’s no unconditional announcement in chapters 40–48 that this is what will take place. In fact, there’s a conditional element introduced in 43:9–11:

Now let them put away their harlotry and the corpses of their harlotry and the corpses of their kings far from Me; and I will dwell among them forever.

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

“If they are ashamed…let them….” “Now let them…and I will....” “Write it…so that they may observe its whole design.” In other words, these last few chapters are instructions God was calling the people to follow, conditional instructions with conditional results. They did not repent and follow them, and so the temple was not built and God did not dwell among them in this way. Instead, Christ came with His unconditional salvation, and the Lord filled His new temple (His people) with His Spirit in a way that far surpassed the way in which Israel failed.

They failed because, as fallen human beings, we’re not morally capable of the kind of obedience required to deserve the dwelling of God among us. This is what God taught all humankind through Israel’s history. We needed to understand that even when given perfect knowledge of all of God’s commands, we could never save ourselves through the Law because the problem lies in us. His Law doesn't have the power to change our morally broken souls, and no merely human prince could perfect us with his sacrifices. We have an undeniable, absolute need for God’s merciful, undeserved redemption and regeneration. The purpose of Israel and all its history was to prepare the world for Jesus and the Gospel.

For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. (Galatians 3:21–22)

For now, in terms of Israel, we remain in Romans 11:25–32:

[A] partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in…. For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

And how beautiful that mercy will be!

Now if [Israel’s] transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! … For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? (Romans 11:15)

Comments

[Judah Gabriel Himango]

A literal interpretation of Ezekiel's prophecy -- Messiah offering sacrifices in the rebuilt Temple -- need not be a problem for followers of Jesus.

We know from Acts that the disciples and apostles met at the Temple and celebrated the Biblical feasts (Acts 2), which involved offerings in the Temple. Moreover, we know Paul's Nazirite vow (Acts 18) required sin sacrifices to be brought at its conclusion (Numbers 8), and Paul himself affirmed he "walks according to the Law of Moses." (Acts 21)

If sacrifices are a problem to Christianity, the disciples and apostles were not aware of it.

I propose the problem lies in our modern understanding of Hebrews, which implies Jesus abolished sacrifices. We need not read the text that way. Instead, we can understand that Messiah's sacrifice serves a different function than that of Levitical priests.

[dave]

“God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands” (Acts 17:24)

When the Old Testament says Abraham’s seed is Israel, the New Testament clearly identifies Jesus as Israel (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:15).

When the Old Testament says God will restore David’s Kingdom along with Israel, the New Testament says it happened when God raised Jesus (Israel) from the dead (Acts 2:30; 31).

When the Old Testament speaks of the Temple, Jesus says he is the Temple of God (John 2:19–22). Jesus and the Church are God’s Temple made without hands (1 Corinthians 3:16.)

[Amy]

A literal interpretation of Ezekiel's prophecy -- Messiah offering sacrifices in the rebuilt Temple -- need not be a problem for followers of Jesus.

The first option noted above is that the sacrifices continue as representations of Christ's sacrifice, and I do think that's a possibility. But I don't think the prince referred to in the verse quoted could be Jesus if he's offering sin offerings for himself. Part of Hebrews' point as to why Jesus is superior to the Levitical priests is specifically that He didn't need to offer sacrifices for Himself "because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself."

[dave]

In order to have a literal fulfillment of Ezekiel's Temple vision in the future, God would need to remove the New Covenant and replace it with the Old. Because technically speaking there is no such thing as a physical Jew since the time God removed Circumcision. It was circumcision that made one a Jew.

A better way to view Ezekiel's Temple is through the New Testament, especially the closing chapters of Revelation where too many similarities exist for it to be coincidental.

In this case Ezekiel's Temple is John's New Jerusalem (the Church) where God is the Temple. “And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.” (Revelation 21:22)

[Amy]

Dave, I agree with you that there are problems with position #1 above. While I don't think we can know for sure, I think the option I proposed in the second half of the post is the most likely of the options above (mainly because the way the instructions are expressed doesn't come across as metaphorical), though some people I respect take one or other of the positions noted above.

But even if it's not metaphorical, it's still (like many aspects of the Old Covenant) a shadow of the end times, something that pointed to a fulfillment in Christ. Like I said in the post, I think the connection between the two (i.e., between the temple of Ezekiel's vision and the New Jerusalem) is that the Old Covenant system (including the temple) was always pointing to Christ; Christ came and brought about a better covenant because the Law was never enough to save us. In other words, I don't think the vision is referring metaphorically to the future end times but literally to a present shadow of the end times (i.e., a possible physical temple). There were shadows throughout the Old Covenant that pointed to a fulfillment in Christ. The end times will be everything that the temple system pointed to, though it won't be the temple system itself. This passage, however, appears to be talking about the temple system. The similarities between it and Revelation exist because similarities were purposefully built into the system so that it would act as a shadow of what was to come.

[dave]

@ Amy; Thanks.

What I see wrong with the animal sacrifice/memorial position held by some is that it would duplicate what the Eucharist already provides (Luke 22:14–20; 1 Cor 11:23–26).

To say that the sacrifices are simply “memorials” of Christ’s sacrifice means that there is likewise no reason to take the temple itself “literally” (i.e., as a physical structure). Jonathan Menn. Biblical Eschatology.

[Jeffrey Marsden]

Amy
I want to thank you for your thoughts on the Ezekiel passage. The last explanation that you had given seems to make the most sense, since it was all conditional on how the Jews responded and there obedience, which was never the case through there history, that is there obedience.
As I reflect on the Jews and there lapses of obedience and failures, I see my own life and am hesitant to be condemning of the Jewish nation, but as you said this would ultimately usher in the messiah, Jesus the Christ.
I appreciate your insight.

[Castedcrown79]

It's very important to understand the historical context of Ezekiel's time. Ezekiel in chapter 1 verses 1-3 explains that he was one among the captives in the land of the Chaldeans. The Chaldeans were also known as the Babylonians, showing that Ezekiel's time relate to the Babylonian exile. The visions that follow speak to the judgement of Jerusalem as the kingdom of Judah was in sin(see Ezekiel chapters 4,5,6,7,8, and 9).This shows that Ezekiel was a part of one wave, but it also shows that there was another wave of judgement on its way. One that would include the complete and utter destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Ezekiel and Jeremiah who were contemporaries both prophesied concerning this. Concerning its fulfillment, the book of 2 Chronicles 36 says,

And the LORD God of their fathers sent warnings to them by His messengers, rising up early and sending them, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place. [16] But they mocked the messengers of God, despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against His people, till there was no remedy. [17] Therefore He brought against them the king of the Chaldeans, who killed their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion on young man or virgin, on the aged or the weak; He gave them all into his hand. [18] And all the articles from the house of God, great and small, the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king and of his leaders, all these he took to Babylon. [19] Then they burned the house of God, broke down the wall of Jerusalem, burned all its palaces with fire, and destroyed all its precious possessions.

Thus, Ezekiel knowing the climate of his day, and that the temple of Jerusalem would be destroyed, is only talking about the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple from the Babylonian captivity in Ezekiel 40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48. That's the same temple and city that are seen being rebuilt in the books of Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah,and Nehemiah. Ezekiel is just using hyperbolic language in his prophecy. That was clearly the nature of prophecy.The prince is none other than the High Priest, as Ezekiel is also speaking to the reinstatement of the levitical priesthood(see Zechariah 3 as its fulfillment). The fact that Ezekiel speaks about sacrifices, death, and the levitical priesthood show that this does not pertain to the new testament reign of Christ.

[Aaron Hover]

Reading Ezek. 45 is much like reading the OT law rather than a specific prophecy.
In fact it appears the prince is acting as the high priest, offering for himself and the people. V 20 even includes a portion about offering for the sins the people committed in ignorance, much like Hebrews 9:6-8 states. I think Castedcrown79 did a thorough job discussing this.
A little bit of logic clears this up. If the prince is Christ, He can't be offering a separate sacrifice because the sacrifice would need to be Himself. If the prince is sacrificing, as the verse says, for the people AND himself, that would mean Christ is offering Himself for Himself, which He couldn't do because that would mean He had committed sin that needed atoning, and if that was the case, He couldn't be the sacrifice to begin with. Further, this prince is being contrasted with other princes v8 who weren't 'doing their job' basically. Well, who would the other Christs be? Certainly scripture discusses folks, like Joseph, who represented aspects of Christ to be clarified and exemplified during His ministry, but none of them 'oppressed' God's people. The evidence here simply doesn't point to Christ as being the prince in question. He is certainly THE High Priest, but that's now that He has fulfilled through the cross all the requirements of the law.

Again, this bit of scripture appears much less like a prophecy about Christ and more like an admonition from God, detailing the terms of Israel's repentance (a recurring theme in the OT), illustrating again the sacrificial system and how it pointed to God and the redemption through Christ, and finally how God leaves NOTHING to chance. He's taking care of everything.