PIPBoy

In chapters 40-48 of the book of Ezekiel the author goes into great detail about the new temple of jeresulem and the practices surrounding it. INCLUDING a system of sacrifices in paymnet for the peoples sins. As I understand it no such temple was bulit and no one is suppose to be bulit till the end times. Now Jesus suspposedly paid the price for the sins in full, so why are scarfices still mandated by god for the payment of sins? The three main explainiations that I've heard are

1. These chapters can only be interpreted symbolicly
2. The sacrifices are for in remberance of jesus's crucifixition.
3. This temple was already bulit and destroyed prior to the existance of jesus

The first option does not seem to work because of this passage: Ezekiel43:10-11 which seems to explicitly state that the jews are to bulid this temple.

The second one doesn't seem to work since these scarficies are specifically for payment of sins not remeberance of them.

The third doesn't work since the propohecy makes it quite clear that once this temple is bulit that god will dwell in israel which hasn't happened yet.

So is this as fatal blow to the validity of chrisitanity as it seems?

Timetospend

I suppose that the simple answer is a fourth option where God is not yet done with the Jewish nation. As Paul demonstrates in Acts 21, there is nothing wrong with Jews offering traditional sacrifices...presumably assuming that they do not replace salvation through grace.

Thanks,

PIPBoy

It is not that the Jews are allowed to offer sacrifices that is the problem the problems is that they are a requirement for atonement of sins. Looking at it further at Ezekiel 45:13-15 says:
and Ezekiel 43:27

Toto

Why do you think that this book is a difficulty for Christians, as opposed to Jews?

Ezekiel on Early Jewish Writingsbible study

Timetospend

Understand, but not sure if you read Acts 21 as suggested in the earlier note, where Paul underdoes the Nazarite rite, which includes a sin offering. You might want to read Numbers 6 to get the background on it.

While it is not possible to ascertain exactly when or how the above might happen, the above poses a problem only if it replaces Jesus Christ or is needed in addition to his sacrifice; this is not explicitly stated. If this only means that they are obeying God, then by iteself would not have that impact of replacing Jesus Christ.

Anyway, you asked if this is a death bell for christianity, clearly it is not, unless if you choose to interpret it differently from the direction suggested by Acts 21 and Num. 6

Thanks,

Clivedurdle

I thought the stuff about "this temple" in John and the idea of Jesus being the sacrificial lamb in Hebrews and Revelation were the get out of jail cards on this.

Umberto Eco in Baudolino is very rude about Ezekiel - he has the rabbis asking was he drunk because the Temple measurements do not add up!

Jesus W. Vader

The bible is so self-contradictory it disproves itself in like a thousand places.
No need to pick on this passage.

PIPBoy

The way I read Acts 21 is that this participation in the rite was more to keep peace with the jewish christians in jeresulem then actually for honoring god. Though that may have been a part of it.

As to your other point, the reason why I brought it up is that the passages in Ezekiel seem to indicate that it is at the very least needed in addition to his sacrifice. If jesus's sacrifice was enough why not say something like "Listen to the words that my son speaks, he will prepare the sacrifices that will please"? Instead of drawing up an elaborate system of sacrifices when the sacrifices themselves are not really required.

PIPBoy

That’s interesting, how did Hananiah reconcile those contradictions? Yes, there are a lot of Christian interpretations out there, but how do you think it should be interpreted? Is my interpretation invalid? If so what is the correct interpretation?

PIPBoy

Why then have rooms to cook and prepare the sacrifice when jesus himself is the sacrifice?