Ezekiel’s temple

• Leviticus 12:8: “If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering.”
• Leviticus 14:22: “If the person is too poor to bring a lamb, they are to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering.”
• Numbers 6:14-15: “The offering of the Nazirite on the day of his cleansing shall be two turtledoves or two young pigeons, as he is able to afford, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering.”

Why do the sacrifices return in Ezekiel’s temple?

Bible Question:

Why do the sacrifices return in Ezekiel’s temple (Ezekiel 46-47)?

Bible Answer:

The passage you are asking about occurs near the end of Ezekiel 40-48 which describes the future Messianic kingdom that Jesus promised to His disciples before He returned to heaven (Acts 1:6-7). This kingdom is commonly called the 1,000 year kingdom or Millennium. Both Jews and most Christians agree that this passage is about the coming Messiah, but there are some who do not. In answering your question, we will first examine Ezekiel 40-48 and then answer your specific question.

What Is Ezekiel 40-48 About?

In order to understand Ezekiel 40-48, we need to know what the book of Ezekiel is all about. From the first chapter Ezekiel described a series of prophecies against the nation of Israel and other foreign countries. From history we know that all of the prophecies in Ezekiel 1-35 have been literally fulfilled. But the prophecies in Ezekiel 36-48 are future. Ezekiel 36-48 describes the return of Israel to the land that had they occupied, God’s judgment on the nations, and then the future 1,000 year kingdom or Millennium.

There are some Christians who believe this passage is symbolic of the Christian church, and others would say it predicts the rebuilding of Solomon’s temple after the Jewish captivity in Babylon ended. Both views are wrong. The first view should be rejected because Ezekiel never tells us that these descriptions of the temple are symbols, and it is not obvious that these are symbolic of the church. Why would the prophet be so indirect when Ezekiel 1-35 has been so literal? This view is not consistent with the preceding part of the book.

The last view should also be rejected because the prophet says this kingdom will last forever.

And He said to me, “Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever. And the house of Israel will not again defile My holy name . . .” Ezekiel 43:7 (NASB)

Israel was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans. That nation did not last forever. Only recently did they return to the land that God had given Israel in 1948, and still there is no temple. Ezekiel described a future temple – a literal temple that is still to come. We must remember that all of the prophecies in Ezekiel have been literally fulfilled today except for Ezekiel 36-48.

The Millennial Temple

Ezekiel 40-48 describes a temple that will exist in the Millennium. Earlier in Ezekiel God promised that He would establish His sanctuary, or temple forever. Since there is no temple today, we know that this prophecy has not occurred yet.

And I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever. Ezekiel 37:26 (NASB)

This is a future prophecy. Ezekiel 40-48 describes this temple in detail (Ezek. 43:7). The chart below provides a quick outline of Ezekiel’s description of this temple.

These chapters describe the temple, its priests, and the offerings of worship which Ezekiel saw in his vision. The vision is about a future temple.

The Prince

The prophet also describes a person called “the prince” in Ezekiel 40-48. The prince is not Jesus Christ for several reasons. First, the prince offers sacrifices for himself (Ezekiel 45:2, 4, 12; 45:22). Why would Jesus offer sacrifices for Himself since He is holy? Second, the prince will produce children (Ezek. 46:16-19). The prince cannot be Jesus since He no longer has human flesh but a transformed divine body. Jesus’ ministry and existence in a human body has ended. Third, “the prince” is not a priest. He will be allowed to provide animals for sacrifice, but he will be not be able to perform the ministries of a priest (Ezekiel 45:11-19). Since Jesus is our high priest, He would be able to perform the ministries of a priest. This means the prince is not Jesus. So who is the prince? The prince is apparently a leader during the millennial kingdom. He appears to be an administrator in the kingdom. Since Moses never gave any instruction about a prince, we cannot be certain. This is a key fact that helps us understand that this temple is very different from anything in the past.

The Feasts

When we look carefully at the words in Ezekiel 40-48, we find that there are some significant differences between Ezekiel’s worship and the worship described by Moses. The Jews agree that there are differences from the instructions given by Moses – differences they cannot explain. Here are the key differences.

There are differences in the feasts but not in the sacrifices. Notice that there will be no Day of Atonement, because Jesus has already died for our sins. There is no Pentecost, since the Holy Spirit has already come in power.

The Sacrifices

Why are there offerings or sacrifices in the kingdom? The millennial sacrifices and the sacrifices required by Moses are the same. There are no differences in the sacrifices. Why? The answer is that the sacrifices will be a memorial which will remind us of Jesus’ death. Today Christians take the Lord’s Supper or communion as a reminder of Jesus’ death and return to life. Jesus has already died, but we “do this in remembrance of Me.” (1 Corinthians 11:24). The millennial sacrifices do the same thing.

Conclusion:

The idea of a temple and sacrifices is common in the Bible. In the Old Testament there were sacrifices. In the New Testament the Mosaic Law disappeared (Hebrews 8-9), but Christians became the temple of God (2 Corinthians 6:16; Eph. 2:21). In the Tribulation period there will be a temple in Israel (2 Thessalonians 2:4). In Revelation we discover a surprising fact. There is a temple in heaven today (Revelation 7:15; 11:19; 14:17; 15:5-8; 16:1, 17).

And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple . . .” Revelation 11:19 (NASB)

This agrees with Hebrews 9:23 which implies that there is a temple in heaven, and God plans to have a temple along with memorial sacrifices in the kingdom. The sacrifices do not forgive sins. They never have. They only looked forward to Jesus’ death. In the kingdom they will look back to Jesus just as the Lord’s Supper does today.

About hermas

For ease of reference the lines are provided
here:
Pastorem vero
nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe
75 Roma Hermas conscripsit, sedente cathe-
dra urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopo fratre
eius
But Hermas wrote the Shepherd
very recently in our own times in the city of
75 Rome, while his brother, Bishop Pius, was sitting on the seat of the church of the city of Rome.
On what Sundberg refers to as a “plain” or literal reading, these lines internally date the text just after 141–155 ce (the episcopate of Pius).153 In this timeframe, Papias is considered too early to be the author, Hippolytus and Gaius of Rome, too late. Sundberg argues, however, that the phrase, nuperrime temporibus nos-
tris (“very recently in our own times”) in l. 74 was not intended to be read lit-
erally.154 Rather, these words imply a division between two incommensurate time
periods: (1) the apostolic phase of the church from Jesus’s resurrection to roughly

153 That is, subsequent to Pius’s episcopacy (ca. 141–155 ce), but proximate enough to refer to it as “very recent.” 154 Already James Donaldson, A Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine (London: Macmillan, 1866), 212.

the year 100 ce; and, (2) all time after that early prophetic phase.155 Since, ac-
cording to Sundberg, “our times” can refer to anything after 100 ce, it offers
no help in dating the Fragment’s composition. He thus allows other traditions
represented in the text to determine its date, finally concluding that it was written
sometime in the fourth century.156 In addition, Sundberg argues that nuperrime
temporibus nostris was only ever intended to explain the Shepherd’s rejection
(i. e., the Shepherd is one of us [i. e., too late], not an early apostolic successor
[assuming that apostolicity was a criterion of canon acceptance]).157 Sundberg
finds a precedent for this “before” and “after” periodization of history in Irenae-
us, Haer. 5.30.3: “For that [the revelation of John] was seen not a very long time
ago, but almost in our own generation [σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς],” that
is, post-apostolic times (cf. 1Clem 5.1).158

155 Sundberg does not specify when in the fourth century the text was written (“Canon
Muratori: A Fourth-Century List,” 35, 38). Sundberg’s selection of the year 100 ce as a watershed
is somewhat arbitrary. 100 ce did not have special significance in what would later be called the ‘second’ century. The origin of the category ‘sub-apostolic’ is as problematical as the expres-
sion ‘apostolic.’ See Peter van Deun, “The Notion ἀποστολικός: A Terminological Survey,” in The Apostolic Age in Patristic Thought, ed. A. Hilhorst (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 41–50. Some of the premises in Sundberg’s analysis are faulty. In places, Hahneman’s interpretation, building on Sundberg as it does, has something of a house of cards effect. Nevertheless, Hahneman demon-
strates that the case for a fourth-century date has merit on other grounds. 156 I.e., if Hermas flourished ca. 150 ce, the Fragmentist, 350 ce, both would still fit Sund-
berg’s “our time.” 157 “Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List,” 11. 158 Sundberg, “Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List,” 9–10; cf. Hahneman, Muratorian Fragment, 35. To this evidence, Robert Grant adds that Basil of Caesarea – in his comment that Irenaeus “lived near the time of the apostles” – may have known this tradition (Grant, review
of The Muratorian Fragment, by Geoffrey M. Hahneman, CH 64 [1995]: 639).

Eckhard J. Schnabel (born May 9, 1955 in Bad Cannstatt) is a German evangelical theologian and professor of the New Testament. He is the author of numerous scholarly books, Bible commentaries, specialist articles and lexical contributions.

93/1-2 | 2019 Théologie et souffrance Varia The Muratorian Fragment as a Late Antique Fake? An Answer to C. K. Rothschild* Christophe Guignard p. 73-90 It might be conceivable that temporibus nostris alone refers to post-apostolic times, but with nuperrime it is hard to admit that the Fragmentist is referring to a remote past. 17Therefore, we can safely conclude that the traditional view remains the most likely and economical one. Indeed, a Christian Latin text that has a Greek original and at the same time is distinctively Western-minded was likely written in an European Western church at a time when Greek was still the main language of many of the Western churches outside North Africa, namely in the 2nd century or, at the latest, in the first half of the 3rd. Accordingly, we should continue to date the MF in the second half of the 2nd century or at the very beginning of the 3rd, when the episcopate of Pius in Rome was recent enough for the Fragmentist to say that a book written under this bishop was a contemporary production.

READ Shepherd of Hermas : A socio-rhetorical and statistical-linguistic study of authorship and community concerns Baker, David Ian.   Cardiff University (United Kingdom) ProQuest Dissertations Publishing,  2006. U584830.

Bard. Yes, I am aware of some authorities who give the dates of Pope Pius I’s reign as 127 to 140. These include:

• The Liber Pontificalis, an early medieval collection of biographies of the popes.
• The Catalogus Liberianus, a list of the popes compiled in the 4th century.
• The Chronicon Paschale, a chronicle of the world from the Creation to the 6th century.

However, these sources are not considered to be very reliable. The Liber Pontificalis was written centuries after Pius I’s death, and the Catalogus Liberianus and the Chronicon Paschale are both based on the Liber Pontificalis.

More recent scholarship has established that the most likely dates for Pius I’s reign are 140 to 154. This is based on a number of factors, including the dates of other popes who are known to have succeeded him, as well as the historical context of his papacy.

So, while some authorities do give the dates of Pius I’s reign as 127 to 140, these dates are not supported by the most recent scholarship. The most likely dates for his reign are 140 to 154.

Hermas catholic encyclopedia

San Hegesipo de Jerusalén (m. Jerusalén, ca. 180) fue un escritor del siglo ii, perteneciente al período antiherético del cristianismo primitivo.

The Messiah Would Come According to a Timetable

The angel Gabriel told Daniel about a period of 490 years. by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018

Reference: Daniel 9:24–27
Fulfillment: Matthew 24:15–16; Mark 13:14–15; Galatians 4:4

Daniel had been taken captive to Babylon as a young man, where he quickly proved himself both competent and godly. By the time we get to chapter nine, Daniel has spent the better part of his life in exile and is now a much older man. He was also a Bible student and had been studying the book of Jeremiah, where he had read that the Babylonian exile was to last 70 years. As that time was drawing near, Daniel began to pray and fast both for himself and for his nation, that God would forgive them and bring them back to Israel (see Daniel 9:1–3). The bulk of chapter nine then gives us Daniel’s heartfelt prayer.

As he prayed, the angel Gabriel appeared to him to bring an announcement: Gabriel tells Daniel not about the 70 years of captivity (which Daniel knew were coming to an end) but about “seventy sevens,” or a period of 490 years, climaxing not merely in the return from Babylon but in the messianic age. What an encouragement that must have been to Daniel!

Here is the part of Gabriel’s message concerning the 490 years:

“Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.” (Daniel 9:24–27)

There has been a huge amount of discussion and debate over the chronological details of this passage. In the end, though, no matter what the details come down to, there are only a few main points to be noticed. As pastor Francis Schaeffer noted in another connection, when all is said and done, “There are not many men left in the room.” In other words, the main options are few.

First of all, the “seventy weeks” (literally, “seventy sevens,” understood by almost everyone to mean seventy seven-year periods or 490 years) begin with “the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem.” Commentators have drilled down to the details and dated “the word” at various times in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. In any event, the walls of Jerusalem began to be rebuilt about 457 B.C.

Second, after sixty-nine weeks, Jerusalem and its Temple are destroyed: “The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” After the seventieth week too, we are still talking about desolation and destruction of the Temple: “On the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

Therefore, the 490 years begin with the rebuilding of Jerusalem in the fifth century B.C. and take us to the era of the Temple’s destruction which occurred in A.D. 70.

Third, “an anointed one” is mentioned twice. Translations vary: if the punctuation is translated one way, we have two anointed ones, one coming after seven weeks (49 years) and another one—who is killed—after an additional 62 weeks (434 years). If the punctuation is translated a different way, we have only one anointed person, who comes after seven and sixty-two weeks (483 years). A great deal of ink has been spilled over figuring out the best way to translate this, but in the end, the key point is: given the total of 490 years, an anointed one will be killed not long before the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.

The meaning of ‘Messiah’ is exactly ‘anointed one.’

As to the term, “anointed one,”  though the term “the Messiah” was not really in use during the Old Testament period, the meaning of “Messiah” is exactly “anointed one.” Kings and priests were anointed with oil for their service; the ultimate anointed one was known as “the Anointed,” or “the Messiah.”

And fourth, this is no ordinary anointed person. This one accomplishes six things that Daniel enumerates. Since the anointed one had to come before the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, if we understand Jesus to be this Messiah who was killed—and there is no other candidate in that time period—then the six things turn out as follows (in the ESV translation):

• Finish the transgression—meaning, to bring it to a climax, rather than to eliminate sin from the earth. Scripture sometimes speaks of God’s waiting for sin to reach a certain point before He takes action. In Genesis 15:16, God tells Abraham that after enduring slavery in Egypt, his descendants will return to the promised land, “for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” As to the sin of Jesus’ generation, he himself said that “on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation” (Matthew 23:35–36). Rabbinic teaching also was that the destruction of the Temple came about because of the sins of the previous generation. God takes action at such a point. But not only was the Temple destroyed, God also graciously provided a means of atonement without the Temple—the atoning death of Jesus.
• Put an end to sin—in the context of Jesus being the Messiah, this would suggest his death that atones for sin. As Paul writes to the Romans: “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.… For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life” (Romans 5:8, 10).
• Atone for iniquity—At the final Passover meal, the Last Supper, “[Jesus] took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’” (Matthew 26:27–28)
• Bring in everlasting righteousness—As Paul says in Romans 5:17, “For if, because of one man’s trespass [Paul is talking about Adam, the first man], death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Messiah Jesus.”
• Seal both vision and prophet—the meaning can mean either to authenticate something, or to hide it away. Jesus certainly authenticated the words of the prophets in his life, death and resurrection; while he also spoke of the meaning of Scripture being hidden away for those who rejected him. Either meaning fits.
• Anoint a most holy place—literally, “a most holy” which could also refer to “a most holy person.” Interestingly, the medieval sage Nachmanides said that “the Holy of holies is naught else than the Messiah, the sanctified one of the sons of David.”1

Another medieval sage, Rashi—the commentator par excellence in Jewish history – also interpreted this passage at least in part about the Messiah, and also saw its fulfillment before the destruction of the Temple. However, Rashi thought that the anointed one who was killed was King Agrippa, but then applied the very end of the passage to the future Messiah.2 Agrippa, however, did not fulfill the six items that Daniel mentions. If we are going to pick someone in the first century A.D. to be the anointed one, Jesus certainly fits the bill the best!

The New Testament does not refer much to this prophecy. However, we can note these passages:

“So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

Matthew 24:15–16

“But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let the one who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything out…”

Mark 13:14–15

The “abomination of desolation” is mentioned not only in Daniel 9:27, but in other passages in Daniel where it refers to the desolations of the pagan king Antiochus Epiphanies in 167 BC. But Daniel 9, and Jesus in Matthew and Mark, look beyond that to a greater desolation. Jesus here is likely referring to the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 and may also be looking to the future horizons of history when the ultimate desolation will occur.

The other New Testament reference simply speaks in general terms of the time of the Messiah’s coming:

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law.

Galatians 4:4

The “fullness of time” reminds us of the verses we looked at, in which God takes action only when the sins of people have reached a climax. Here, it is not the sins of the people but simply the readiness of the time—Jesus came at the appropriate time as designated by God. Daniel 9:24-27 points us to that very designated time, in the first century AD, when Jesus came among humanity as our atoning sacrifice.

Note: For those who want to go into more depth about the details of Daniel 9:24–27, see these resources:

Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections (Grand Rapids; Baker Books, 2003), sections 4.18–4.21.

Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1977).
Hoehner interprets a bit differently, and sees a gap between week 69 and a still-future week 70. While he sees Jesus as the fulfillment of this prophecy, he believes a substantial portion will yet be fulfilled by Jesus in the future. This view, an alternative to the perspective outlined in this article, is shared by many commentators.

End Notes

1. Cited by Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections (Grand Rapids; Baker Books, 2003), see section 4.19, note 192.

2. Ibid., section 4.18

The Peshitta Old Testament (or Peshitta Tanakh) was translated from the Hebrew to Aramaic somewhere around the time of Christ. Some scholars say it may have been as late as 100AD, so the LXX (Septuagint) OT is older, having the books of Moses translated around 250 BC and the rest of the books finished in the following 100 years.
The LXX was only the OT (as it was translated before the time of Christ). The Aramaic has both OT and NT.
The Peshitta New Testament: The Syrian Church of the East states that the Aramaic New Testament manuscripts were hand delivered to them by the Apostles or their direct associates (with the exception of 2nd Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, Jude, & Revelation). Those 5 books were later back-translated from the Greek into the Aramaic, though I believe there is evidence that Revelation was written originally in Aramaic.
At least one scholar says that the Peshitta manuscripts we have today are written in a text type (Estrangelo) that didn’t exist in the first century (possibly came in 2nd century), though the Aramaic historians say that Estrangelo was created for the express purpose of writing biblical manuscripts so people would know they were reading scripture. If it’s true that Estrangelo is 2nd-century, those are the only manuscripts we have, so we have no 1st-century manuscripts in Aramaic (though we have no 1st-century Greek manuscripts either). Early church fathers state that various Apostles wrote their manuscripts in the “Hebrew dialect” or in “Hebrew Letters”. Evidence leans toward the “Hebrew dialect” being Aramaic, but there is some disagreement among scholars.
Jeff Benner is an Ancient Hebrew researcher, and he believes the NT was originally written in Hebrew. He has many posts on here.
Going back to the OT: The Dead Sea Scrolls show that there were manuscripts in the 1st-century that supported the LXX readings, and other manuscripts that they call Proto-Masoretic, reading more like the Masoretic text of 1000AD.
In most cases, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Aramaic Peshitta, and the LXX agree, but there are many text segments that support Masoretic text, so it’s not a clear picture.
Then there are the scholars that say the Byzantine Greek manuscripts have such close agreement to the Aramaic Peshitta, that they wonder if the Peshitta was one of their base texts, while the Alexandrian Greek family seems to have it’s own historical path, separate from the Peshitta, from the Greeks in Alexandria.
Jerome, the man who translated the Latin Vulgate in 405 AD, when criticized for using Hebrew manuscripts as the base for the Vulgate, gave a dozen or so quotes from the Hebrew that had parts missing in the LXX. Unfortunately, they are also missing from the Masoretic text, so Jerome had source manuscripts in Hebrew that seem to be now lost.
I haven’t researched the DSS much, but it’s possible Jerome’s text quotes may be found there.
Some scholars point out that the OT quotes in the Greek-based NT seem to line up with the Greek LXX, so the Apostles must have spoke and written in Greek, but the Aramaic scholars counter by showing how the OT quotes in the Peshitta line up with the Peshitta Tanakh, so they must have spoken and written in Aramaic.
There does seem to be more evidence supporting them speaking in Aramaic, and Josephus states that learning Greek was greatly discouraged, so it’s likely the NT was originally Aramaic.