#9 The End of Genealogy and the Priesthood: The Fulfillment of Ezekiel's Temple (Part 3)

    Our next subject to tackle the timing of the fulfillment of Ezekiel's temple is genealogy, specifically, the priesthood identified in Ezekiel as the "descendants of Zadok". Genealogy does not tie the timing of Ezekiel's temple to one generation like Ezekiel's role did in my previous post but it nonetheless marks a huge factor in limiting the time-frame for which to identify Ezekiel's temple to the days when the second temple was standing (516 BC-19 BC). See, if this priesthood cannot be identified today, then we are left with only one option, that the temple of Ezekiel was built in the past, at a time when the priesthood existed. I am not embarking on a quest to trace people groups in their migration through different lands, that is a study called population genetics and is the faulty path that most take to identify the priesthood of Ezekiel's temple. Population genetics can identify that a living individual may have ancestry to certain other people groups in specific locations living today or even for a few centuries in one location but it cannot identify that a living individual today is related to a single individual that is now dead. What we are looking for is the biblical study of genealogy, which requires written records in the patriarchal lineage (through the father). This means that all modern DNA records of genetics cannot produce with any accuracy a lineage for the biblical priestly lines of Aaron's descendants nor any Jewish descendancy today. This is important for our study on a supposed future temple because if the ancient prophets had written any prophecies that include genealogical identity (i.e. descendants of Aaron, Levi, David, or either of the two houses of Israel), it must be relegated to a past time period since we do not have any biblical records connecting people today to any single individual from the biblical times. Ezekiel foresees that a certain small group of priests will hold status and operate in the temple he sees, they are the Levitical priests of the sons of Zadok. This means that the event of the rebuilt temple, Ezekiel sees, can only be fulfilled if these descendants of Zadok are present and legitimate. This can only allow the possibility of Ezekiel's temple to be identified as the second temple which the exiles returning from Babylon built, beginning in 536 BC, completing it in 516 BC and left standing until Herod rebuilt it in 19 BC. To describe how this is true I will evaluate three subtopics that make the timing of the fulfillment of Ezekiel's temple vision more clear:

 (1) evaluate modern DNA testing,  (2) the biblical narrative and requirements for priests, (3) and then the timing boundaries that this puts on the fulfillment of Ezekiel's temple. 

The overwhelming evidence against a future priesthood and temple is too much to fully explain here but I will do my best to highlight some of the most prominent points and quote those that have specialized on the subject of Jewish genealogy and genetics.

Who is Zadok?

Although many people today are looking to identify the priestly line of Levitical priests, to whom many prophecies are addressed, and to whom was given the responsibility of the temple construct and temple services found within Ezekiel's temple, this does not account for Ezekiel's specific designations of subgroups of priests that refines this temple prophecy even more. Ezekiel narrows his vision beyond the scope of the tribe of Levites (Deut. 18:1), beyond that of family of Aaron (Num. 18:20), and even beyond that of Aaron's promised descendant Phineas (Num. 25:11-13). He speaks specifically of the priestly line of Zadok (Ezek. 40:46, 43:19, 44:15, 48:11). As Gordon and Rendsburg make this clear, stating, "Ezekiel mapped out the construction of the Second Temple and the regulations of its priesthood, which was limited to the descendants of Zadok." (The Bible and the Ancient Near East, pg. 290) 

Zadok was a faithful servant and priest alongside king David during the days when Adonijah, David's son, sought to usurp the kingship of his father. Two divisions had developed in the governmental offices of king and priest during those days; David and Zadok on one side (cp. 1 Kings 1:8), and Adonijah and Abiathar on the other (1 Kings 1:7). Of the two priests, Zadok and Abiathar, only one would remain and be elevated to high priestly status, yet, not until the days when the first temple would be built by Solomon (c. 931 BC). We read about this in 1 Kings 3:35 "and the king (Solomon) appointed Zadok the priest in the place of Abiathar." Ezekiel, as a priest, was familiar with the identification of these sons of Zadok who had maintained the office of high priest to his own days and sees them fulfilling that position within his temple vision. He also recalls the separation and unfaithfulness of Adonijah and Abiathar and distinguishes the priests of Zadok from other lines of Levite priests stating,

"But the Levites who went far from Me, when Israel went astray, who went astray from Me after their idols, shall bear the punishment of their iniquity. Yet they shall be ministers of My sanctuary...but they shall not come near to Me to serve as a priest to Me, nor come near to any of My holy things, to the things that are most holy...but the Levitical priests, the sons of Zadok, who kept charge of My sanctuary when the sons of Israel went astray from Me, shall come near to Me to minister to Me." (Ezek. 44:10-11a,13a,15a)

It is at this juncture that we must begin to analyze and scrutinize the information we are given in the text of Ezekiel. If there are two branches of priests mentioned in Ezekiel 44:10-16 (above), then when did they cease to be known? And, can these two priestly lineages be restored? If not, then we must conclude a past fulfillment of Ezekiel's temple in concert with the timing of these evidences. 

What is the Confusion? Oversimplification and Misinformation.

Currently, the specifics of biblical Zadokite genealogy have been oversimplified and overlooked by most and has been replaced by those seeking for a so-called national modern day truth which naively seeks Jewish and priestly identity by genetics and current Israeli law, neither of which has anything to do with biblical law. Notice how Don Stewart, who is not a geneticist, simply glosses over the specificity of the line of Zadok and argues that supposed priestly genetics is enough to close the argument about a future rebuilding of the temple, he writes,

"Molecular geneticists have recently discovered the "Cohen Modal Haplotype" (CMH) which is a DNA signature consisting of specific genetic markers on the Y chromosome of the priests. This indicates a direct patrilineal descent of present day priests from a single ancient ancestor, precisely as described in the Torah...The simplest, most straightforward explanation is that these men have the Y chromosome of Aaron. The study suggests that a 3,000-year-old tradition is correct, and has a biological counterpart...For more that 90 percent of the priests to share the same genetic markers after such a period of time is a testament to the devotion of the wives of the priests over the years...Thus, it seems that there is a direct link of certain modern Jews with the last name Cohen (Hebrew for priest) with the first high priest, Aaron. This is a further indication that the necessary requirements to build a new Temple are now in place." (The Jews, Jerusalem, and the Coming Temple, pp. 167-68)

The Bible does require a patrilineal descent, as Stewart has stated here but it must be written and must be connected to the line from Zadok, not simply Aaron (Zadok's predecessor many generations prior). Both Abiathar and Zadok were descendants of Aaron but only Zadok's lineage is chosen in Ezekiel and this due to past sins of Abiathar. Today, how would one differentiate between those descended from Abiathar and those descended from Zadok? Ezekiel requires this difference. Stewart's oversimplification and denial of biblical truth is echoed by some of the leading voices in Judaism. Rabbi HaParchi is noted, saying, "any individual who has a family tradition of priestly service may serve in the Temple even if he does not possess a document." (Messiah's Coming Temple, pg. 57) This simply does not agree with the biblical mandates of genealogy (which we will cover in a moment). The late Rabbi Kahane, leader of Birkat Kohanim Institute and founder of the Institute for Talmudic Commentaries, who has supposedly identified the needed priests for Ezekiel's temple, completely ignores the biblical directives and carelessly states,

"No one really knows who the original cohenim (priests) are...we don't know for certain who is a cohen, whoever has the tradition in his family that he is a cohen is a cohen. We don't check the credentials, we don't even have the ability to check his credentials." (Ready to Rebuild, pg. 110)

So then, without "credentials", how can a priesthood, according to the ordinances of Ezekiel, ever be restructured? Some have turned to DNA testing as a form of "new knowledge" on the subject that can correctly identify one's ancestry. Yet, this too has its severing problems. First, DNA testing cannot test for lineage back to the time of Zadok, nearly 3,000 years ago, and identify his genetic markers. DNA testing is useful, not to specific individuals, but only to current migration of groups of people if they are well documented and known. For example, DNA testing can tell if a person alive today had some possibility (but not with precision) of ancestry from another population in a particular area of the world but it cannot trace ancestry from one individual to another individual without samples of DNA from both people. For our study, since Zadok is long dead and we do not have his DNA, therefore we cannot use DNA testing to identify priests that would operate at the highest status, like the descendants of Zadok, within this temple that Ezekiel prophesies. Additionally, testing for the general populous of Jewishness is difficult because Jews comprise such a small population in the world today but what makes Ezekiel's vision even more unlikely to be fulfilled in the future is the fact that the descendants of Zadok comprise the smallest segment of one of the smallest people groups in the world taken at any point in history for the last 1,900 years, thereby making DNA testing for Zadokites mathematically impossible.

As Shlomo Sands, a teacher of modern history in Tel Aviv Israel, summarizes these ill-gotten conclusions, he writes, "Henceforth, impatient readers could skim the Old Testament, skipping the divine precepts and following the national truth alone." (The Invention of the Jewish People, pg. 106) Harry Ostrer, one of the leading geneticists on the subject of Jewish DNA testing, puts it very straight forward 

"There is no rigorous genetic test for Jewishness, nor would the geneticists who have conducted studies in recent generations propose that one should be created."

He adds, 

"the American Society of Human Genetics, the leading professional society of human geneticists in the United States, issued an advisory against using genetic tests as a basis for predicting personal ancestry. They have pointed out that commercial ancestry testing lacks precision and accuracy and that the psychosocial, ethical, legal, political, and health-related issues have not yet been worked out." (Ostrer, pg. 218-19)

Sand and Lotan point out the dangers of using genetics to explain biblical genealogy, stating, 

"the science of molecular genetics at the end of the twentieth and the beginning of twenty first century feeds fragmentary discoveries and half-truths to the identity-seeking media." (Sand & Lotan, The Invention of the Jewish People, pg. 279)

Lastly, Eran Elhaik, one of the leading Israeli geneticists, concludes in his article on Jewish and priestly genetics, "Y chromosomal mutations hailed as "Cohen" and "Levite" "modal haplotypes," associated with the Biblical priestly class - have failed to embody the yearned-for hallmarks of Jewishness."

While the Zadokite lineage was fully intact and observed at the time of the returning exiles, this does not necessarily produce the details required to embody any possible future scenario. Future temple proponent, Dr. Randall Price, holds the view that there will be a future priesthood re-established for a future temple yet he points out some contradictions to his own views with regard to the Zadokite priesthood. He first hints at the priesthood's faltering state in the time leading up to the destruction of the last standing temple (destroyed in 70 AD). He states, "Of the 28 high priests between 37 BC and 70 AD, all but two came from illegitimate non-Zadokite families." (The Coming Last Days Temple, pg. 144-45) This suggests the idea that Jews and Judaisms were not even interested in the legitimate biblical priesthood in the last century and a half before the temple's destruction. This also indicates a narrowing in the possibility of procuring a legitimate priesthood for the future once it is totally lost and indistinguishable. Like the narrowing hallway of Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, Price and colleague Thomas Ice put the squeeze on any further possibility of producing a pure modern-day Zadokite line. They point out that 

"a major study by the Council of Jewish Federations has revealed that 52 percent of Jewish men and women who have married since 1985 have taken Gentile spouses, and that three out of every four children of intermarriages are being raised outside of Jewish faith or with no religion at all. This is a significant increase over 1964 figures which show that only 9 percent of all marriages were interfaith marriages. This trend, combined with a below-replacement birthrate, a rising tide of divorce, and a virtual end to immigration is shrinking the Jewish community." (Ready to Rebuild, Price and Ice, pp. 19-20)

Take note of the above quote, that a decimated Jewish identity was occurring nearly 40 years ago, how much more affected is the Jewish community today? Now, if the Jewish community is shrinking at such a dramatic rate, then it must be implied that the Zadokite line is altogether in disrepair. For the Zadokite line was to remain free from intermarriage with non-virgins (Ezek. 44:22) which would thereby disqualify them from the priesthood. There is no way to trace it if this is even a possibility throughout the generations to the last historically known Zadokite (prior to 140 BC), almost 2,200 years ago. One would have to admit that any possibility of producing a legitimate Zadokite priest seems entirely unattainable at this point in time, but in the off-chance that one could be found, there are still other challenges that weaken any attempt to find one who is pure. The organization, Keter Kehuna Shevet Levi, which focuses on ways to restore the priests and Levites back to a legitimate Temple service notices the threat of this growing trend of "assimilation, which has distanced the Kohanim (priests) and Leviim (Levites) from their unique heritage..." (The Coming Last Days Temple, pg. 406) Furthermore, Dr. Price indicates a possible evacuation of the Zadokite priests from the priesthood altogether, commenting on the time of the community of the Dead Sea (c. 1st century BC), he queries, "They (the Dead Sea Sect) were opposed to this Temple (c. 1st Century BC) because they believed its priesthood and offerings were ritually defiled." (ibid. pg. 212) What is further known is that the Dead Sea writings themselves proclaim that the Temple of Ezekiel had already been built and fulfilled, declaring, 

"And although they had wallowed in the sin of humanity and in impure ways and said, 'Surely this is our business,' God in His mysterious ways atoned for their iniquity and forgave their transgression. So He built for them a faithful house in Israel, like none that had ever appeared before; and even at this day...as God promised them by Ezekiel the prophet, saying, 'The priests and the Levites and the sons of Zadok who have kept the courses of My sanctuary when the children of Israel strayed from Me, they shall bring Me fat and blood.' (cf. Ezek. 44:15)" (Dead Sea Scroll Damascus Document Geniza A, Col. 3, line 17-Col. 4, line 2)

As Mladen Popovic from the Qumran Institute at the University of Groningen explains this text, 

"CD 3:20-4:2 (Damascus Document) quotes Ezek. 44:15, introduced with the quotation formula 'as God swore to them through Ezekiel, the prophet, saying.' The sense of the text is modified in the interpretation that follows, transposing Ezekiel's words to the writer's present time." (Ezekiel (Book and Person) in Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism)

One cannot ignore the fact that any contemporary of the writer of the Damascus Document could visibly verify the truth of such a statement. The allegiance to the Qumran community rested on obvious factors such as this. To be misinformed on such a manner would bring tremendous doubt on the doctrine and validity of the truth of this community by outside onlookers. The only alternative to be believed about this statement  from the Damascus Document is that it is just plain true and the Second Temple was indeed the fulfillment of Ezekiel's vision.

Price pokes holes in his own future view of a temple by diminishing the Zadokite lineage to nothing. He is quoted saying,

" The Zadokite priesthood was the dominant priesthood up until the time of the Maccabean revolt [c. 140 B.C.], after which the office became corrupted and the Hasmonean dynasty appointed the high priests with political purposes in mind. Thus, the priests serving in the Temple in the time leading up to its destruction in A.D. 70 were not of the legitimate Zadokite line."

And finally, Price closes any doors in his reference to first century historian, Josephus, who wrote, "[The Romans] set fire to the repository of the archives" (Wars 6.6.3; 66-70 AD) in which the genealogical enrollments would have been recorded and protected. Price comments on this note from Josephus saying, 

"When the Romans stormed the Temple Mount in AD 70, burning the temple and slaughtering its priests, they destroyed in one moment not only the stored records of ancestral genealogy and of the secrets of reproducing certain priestly items, but also those who had the knowledge to pass these facts on to future generations... the worldwide dispersion and cultural assimilation that took place afterward, no one could actually be certain of having a priestly lineage." (The Coming Last Days Temple, pg. 380)

The complete loss of recorded genealogy is spoken of also in the Jewish writings known as the Talmud. In tractate Pesach we read these words, "Said R. Ammi bar R. Yuda said Rab, “From the day on which the Book of Genealogies was hidden, the power of sages has grown feeble, and the light of their eyes has dimmed.” (b. Pesach 62b) Further in the Talmud, we read the early on that there was no clear distinguishing between a valid priestly line and one that was defiled by mixed ancestry,

“On what account did they declare a mixture to be invalid for marriage into the priesthood? Because of the possibility of impaired priestly ancestry mixed in her genealogy. They are able to discern Israelites, netins, or mamzers who may be among her ancestors, but they are not able to discern the ancestors of impaired priestly stock among them” (b. Ketubot 14b)

If these statements are true, then there can be no proof of a Zadokite line stretching until our current day. So then, what other possible timing do we have for a physical building of Ezekiel's temple vision except the time-frame in which the Temple was built by the exiles returning from Babylon. They had a Zadokite priesthood and even managed to keep it purified in the generations that followed closely thereafter (Neh. 13:29-30, see Mal. 3:1-3). This is further recognized in the command to the Zadokite priesthood to "keep the charge" of the sanctuary (Ezek. 40:45-46, 44:8, 14-16, 48:11). Zechariah points this responsibility to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, a Zadokite, (see Zech. 6:11, 1 Chron. 6:8-15) stating, "if you will keep my charge, then you shall also judge My house, and shall also keep My courts, and I will give you places to walk among these that stand by." (Zech. 3:7) Later, Nehemiah notes that the correct "descendants of Aaron" (and therefore Zadok) were "keeping charge" of the sanctuary in the days of Zerubbabel and Nehemiah (Neh. 12:45-47) yet this prestigious line may have ended even as early as the generation following Nehemiah. In Nehemiah 12:22-23 we find a list of the descendant Zadokites. It lists: Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua but then records for us that those registered for the priesthood were only recorded up to the days of Johanan thereby excluding Jaddua from this registry. Therefore, it is at least possible that an even more limited frame of time in which to locate a legitimate Zadokite priesthood, as Ezekiel saw it, would be only for the generations surrounding and shortly following Zerubbabel and Nehemiah. Nevertheless, the Zadokites would only have presented themselves during the days of the post-exilic temple. It is paradoxical that Randall Price and Thomas Ice seek to further their purpose and substantiate support for a future Temple yet collectively rebut their own foundations by sighting references to a completely missing priesthood that would be necessary for a future realization of Ezekiel's vision today.

The Voice of the Talmud - Past Indicators

While the Talmud holds some form of law for Jews and not for Christians, we must understand that the statements made in it share a point of view from a time close to that of Jesus. The context of certain statements in the Talmud tells us that not only did unbelieving Jews believe that the priesthood of Zadok and genealogy to be ended (as quoted in b. Shabbat 62b above) but that Ezekiel's temple practices which were guarded by the Zadokites were past practices before the time of the Talmudic speakers. While many might disagree with Judaism, they are the ones who currently toute a future temple view even in denial of these writings that I am going to present here. Let's take a look.

1. Tractate Taanit 17a and Nazir 5a

"R. Yohanan said, 'Since the priestly watches change [each Friday].' And ordinary priest once in thirty days: how do we know it? It derives from the verbal analogy established by the appearance of the word for 'to allow locks to grow' in the context of the Nazirite and in the context of the priests. Of the priests it is written, 'Neither shall they shave their heads nor allow their locks to grow, they shall only poll their heads' (Ezek. 44:20), and of the Nazirite, ' He shall be holy, he shall let the locks of his hair of his head grow long' (Num. 6:5)--so just as in the latter case, what is at issue is the growth over thirty days, so here what is at issue is the growth over thirty days." (b. Taanit 17a; Nazir 5a)

It may not seem clear to most, due to the fact that Nazirite and priestly duties such as hair growth are not well known today. Still, what we find in this Talmudic statement is the fact that Ezekiel is the first to mention priests as having to let their hair grow long and, according to the Talmud, for thirty days before they could cut it. This is never mentioned by Moses in the Torah. 

Another opinion that slightly differs on the issue of cutting hair or letting it grow long is found in a statement by Rabbi Yosi which regards both the custom of "not shaving" and not "letting their locks grow long". This statement in the Talmud again proves that the practices of Ezek. 44:20, spoken of in the past tense, were being observed during the Second Temple times, it reads,

"R. Yosé says, “He cut it every Friday, for so it is the custom of princes, to cut their hair every Friday, as it is said with regard to priests, ‘They shall not shave their heads or let their locks grow long, they shall only trim the hair of their heads’ (Ez. 44:20)" (b. Nazir 5a)

Here, we see not only was it a custom for R. Yosi but also "the custom of princes" which are identified as priests here. These quotes that are used from Ezek. 44:20 tie the practice of 'allowing the locks to grow' and also "not shaving their heads" to a past practice that was being followed by priests, not according to the Law of Moses but according to Ezekiel's temple vision. This further illuminates the view that Ezekiel's Temple was the Second Temple.

2. Tractate Moed Qatan 7b

We will take a look at some of the other practices found in Ezekiel's temple that are unique to Ezekiel's writings and indicate a past fulfillment. 

"R. Judah says, '"And after he is cleaned they shall reckon for him seven days" (Ezek. 44:26)--that is while he is counting seven clean days, but not while he is confirmed as unclean with the skin ailment." (b. Moed Qatan 7b)

This comment from the Talmud points out that in addition to the 7 days of uncleanness for corpse defilement required by the Law of Moses (cf. Num. 19:11-13), Ezekiel 44:26 adds an additional 7 days of uncleanness. This new addition was to have been the practiced up until the point of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Again, a past practice that can only be found in Ezekiel's temple vision and indicates further a past fulfillment of his prophecy and temple. 

3. Tractate Moed Qatan 15b

Later in this same tractate we find another ordinance tied to these days of uncleanness, the Talmud states,

"Come and take note of that which has been taught on Tannaite authority (a past teaching): 'And after a defiled priest has been rendered clean'--after he has come away from his deceased relatives, 'they shall count those seven days for him'--he counts those seven days, 'and in the day that he goes into the sanctuary, into the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin offering' (Ezek. 44:27)." (b. Moed Qatan 15b, italics mine)

It should be noted that the custom of priests entering the sanctuary to present an offering is tied to the 14 days of uncleanness mentioned in Ezek. 44:26. In the context, Tannaite authority is what poses this to be consistent with times in which the Temple was still standing. Tannaim were teachers, scribes, sages, rabbis that began to codify the Law in the Talmud (Mishnah). They existed from about 10 AD- 220AD and dictate the laws of Temple ritual due to the fact that they were the closest in proximity to those priestly practices. It would then seem logical to conclude that when speaking of this sin offering in Ezek. 44:27 it is being tied to Herod's temple which was destroyed in 70 AD, not a future temple.

4. Tractate Taanit 17b revisited

Next, Ezekiel tells us that priests were to keep uncircumcised foreigners out of the sanctuary completely. In line with this teaching the Talmud identifies Ezekiel's words as a new law not found in the Torah. 

"R. Hisda said 'This matter we did not learn from the Torah of Moses, until Ezekiel came along and taught it to us: "No alien, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh shall enter My sanctuary to serve Me."'(Ezek. 44:9)" (b. Taanit 17b; see also b. Sanhedrin 22b)

What is clear is that this is a new teaching from Ezekiel that was being followed during the second temple times. During the days of the Herod's Temple we are told that a wall of separation (aka Soreg) was set up to discourage non-Jews (Gentiles) from entering the sanctuary at all. What is further pointed out is that this law was in steady progression even prior to Herod and the building of this dividing wall. As Tim Hegg points out,

"Since it is explicitly stated that the ger (foreigner) is to participate in the sacrificial ceremonies (Num. 15:14-16), observing the same ordinances given in the Torah, it is obvious that the ger would also need to observe the laws of purity as well as all the laws the sacrifices required...While this is the viewpoint of the Torah, we know that by the 1st Century CE, the Herodian expansions of the Temple and its courts had divided sections for the Priests, Levites/Israelites, women, and Gentiles, corresponding to the hierarchy expressed generally in the rabbinic literature as noted above. Actually, the exclusion of the Gentiles to the courts of the Temple was in place much earlier. Josephus quotes a proclamation by Antiochus III to the same effect...In Herod's Temple, a chest-high balustrade separated the court of the Gentiles from those of the Jews, with gates that contained warnings of capital punishment for those who transgressed its boundaries. Such a separation was not found in Solomon's Temple or in Zerubbabel's ." (Fellow Heirs, Hegg, pg. 55)

 

Translation: "No stranger is to enter

within the balustrade round

the temple and

enclosure. Whoever is caught

will be himself responsible

for his ensuing

death."

It should be correctly noted that Hegg points out that this separation by a wall was not found in either the first or second Temple yet this was a progression that started after the construction of the Second Temple. It would seem then that while laws of certain Gentile groups were to be excluded from the sanctuary in the Torah of Moses and therefore also in Solomon's 1st Temple (i.e. Moabites/Ammonites; Deut. 23:3, and descendants of Amelek; Deut. 25:17-19), this does not seem to be the case in Ezekiel's command nor in the days of the Second Temple. Ezekiel forbids not only Moabites, Ammonites, and Amelekites but rather all foreigners "uncircumcised in the heart and in the flesh" (Ezek. 44:7,9). This stands in congruence with what Antiochus III decreed regarding the Second Temple, writing,

"It shall be lawful for no foreigner to come within the limits of the temple round about; which thing is forbidden also to the Jews, unless to those who according to their own custom, have purified themselves (i.e. through circumcision)." (Josephus Antiquites 12.3.4) 

This decree by Antiochus does two things; (1) it illustrates the new law found in Ezekiel as being practiced, and (2) it gives us the date during the days of the Second Temple [Antiochus III lived during the late 3rd Century BC until the beginning of the 2nd Century BC].

In connection to the Talmudic reference (Taanit 17b above), we see that Ezekiel's new law (Gentile boundaries) was not known nor practiced until after the Second Temple was built and these 'new laws' were enforced. Therefore, Ezek. 44:7-9 is directly tied to a practice found in the Second Temple times, another element that points to a past fulfillment of Ezekiel's temple.

5. Tractate Yoma 71b

In a discussion on what the priests could wear close to their bodies while ministering in the temple (Ezek. 44:18), the Talmud asks the question of halakha (traditional observance) regarding the wearing of flax. They observe correctly that their most recent priests wore flax but that this did not come from the Torah (of Moses) but from Ezekiel, thereby indicating another unique feature of Ezekiel's temple practices that occurred in the past. This is explained in tractate Yoma,

"Said R. Yosé b. R Hanina, “Said Scripture, “ ‘Linen’—meaning, what comes from the ground singly.”. But might one say, it refers to wool? Wool splits off [not growing in single threads like stalks on the sheep]. So does flax. Flax splits into branches when it is beaten. Rabina said, “Evidence derive from the following: ‘They shall have linen tires on their heads and shall have linen breeches upon their loins’ (Ez. 44:18) [and in Scripture these tires are described as being of the material to which the word under discussion refers, and hence that must mean flax].” Said to him R. Ashi, “Sure, and before Ezekiel came along, how did they know the fact?” “According to your reasoning, when R. Hisda made his statement, ‘This matter we have not learned from the Torah of our lord, Moses, but from the teachings of Ezekiel b. Buzi we have learned it." (b. Yoma 71b)

6. Tractate Qiddushin 78b

Another unique priestly (more specifically, a Zadokite priestly) ordinance that can only be found in Ezekiel (and not in the Law of Moses) is the law of a priest's lawful marriage to a widow yet only a widow of a priest. Ezek. 44:22 states,

"and they (descendants of Zadok) shall not marry a widow or a divorced woman but shall take virgins from the offspring of the house of Israel, or a widow who is the widow of a priest." 

This is therefore a new commandment, for the priests were not allowed to marry a widow at all according to the Law of Moses. It states, 

"A widow, or a divorced woman, or one who is profaned by prostitution, these he shall not take; but rather he is to marry a virgin of his own people, 15 so that he will not profane his children among his people; for I am the Lord who sanctifies him.’” (Lev. 21:14-15)

A snippet of that discussion, in Qiddushin 78b, aids us in the understanding that this was permitted in the times of the 2nd Temple. It states that this had already been permitted in the days of the Tannaim (10 AD-220AD) and would therefore fit no other temple context than the 2nd Temple. It reads,

“And a widow that is the widow of a priest they shall take” (Eze. 44:22): only of a priest, not of an Israelite? This is the sense of the statement: “… Of a priest they shall take”—as to those of other priests may take such a woman. So, too, it has been taught on Tannaite authority: “… Of a priest they shall take”—as to those of other priests may take such a woman."

This is apparently a practice that those contemporary with the Talmudic times believed to be normal practice for priests in the temple they once knew. Now, as the evidence builds on determining the timing of when these practices had come into view, we should begin to see that there is no other conclusion for the fulfillment of the Zadokite role in Ezekiel's temple than that which was found in 2nd temple times.

7. Tractate Menahot 45a

The Rabbis of the Talmud took issue with many discrepancies in Ezekiel's temple practices that differed from those found in the Law of Moses. One such passage is found in Ezek. 45:18-46:7. In this particular passage it is pointed out by the Talmudists that what Ezekiel calls a "sin offering" (Ezek. 45:19) is called a "burnt offering" by Moses (Num. 28:11-13), and that Ezekiel only requires "one bull" (Ezek. 46:6) Moses required "two bulls" (Num. 28:11), and why does Ezekiel speak of "six lambs" (Ezek. 46:4,6) when Moses commands "seven" (Num. 28:11)? A few Rabbis offer the question up to Elijah when he returns but more keenly we find two rabbis (R. Ashi and R. Yosi) both stating,

"It speaks of the consecration offering that they presented in the time of Ezra in the manner in which it was presented in the time of Moses." (b. Menahot 45a)

To this, Rabbi Judah responds, "May your mind rest easy as you have made my mind rest easy." Thereby satisfied by the answer of Rabbis Ashi and Yosi. 

The point of this is that it connects a large passage of Ezekiel (45:18-46:7) to the time of Ezra during the days of the Second Temple priestly practices and more precisely to those who consecrated the Second Temple at its beginnings.

8. Tractate Tamid 30a

In Ezek. 44:1-2 we are told that the eastern gate of the outer gate of the sanctuary is shut because the Lord God of Israel had entered by it. The Jews had come to seal this gate at a certain point in time during the days of the Second Temple and clearly tie this to what Ezekiel mentions in these verses. The Talmudic conversation comes to us in an expounding on lotteries conducted in the Temple each day in order to determine which priests would perform which Temple rites. In the midst of the description of the order in which this was carried out we read that one of the priests would encircle the Temple, the Second Temple, and he would find the eastern gate shut. Here is what is stated:

"He came to the northern door. And the great gate had two [such] doors, one at the north, and one at the south. Into that at the south no man ever entered. And this is expressly stated concerning it by Ezekiel: And the Lord said to me, This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, neither shall any man enter in by it, for the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it: therefore it shall be shut (Ez. 44:2)."

Now, it doesn't become much more clear than this that Ezekiel's prophecy is directly identified as being the Second Temple. What more could be stated! 

Biblical Genealogy Command #1 - Patriarchal Line

The Bible requires genealogical lines to be traced through the father. Often the Talmud gives biblical support for just such a mandate. We read,

"But, rather, they silence him from any claim of rights to the priesthood. How come? Scripture says, “And it shall be unto him and to his seed after him” (Num. 23:13). We require that the seed be validly assigned to his fatherhood after him, and that condition is not met here." (b. Ketubot 13b)

Furthermore, the Talmud writes,

"The marriage settlements that the wives’ heirs receive by virtue of the male children clause is subject to a surplus of one denar at least, which must remain after all of the marriage settlements have been paid in full, to safeguard the application of the Pentateuchal law of succession in regard to at least part of the estate; if no such minimum surplus remains, the male children clause is null and what is owing cannot be collected, and the entire estate is divided in accordance with the Pentateuchal law of succession among all the sons." (b. Ketub. 90b)

One may ask, if most have walked away from the path of understanding and truth on this subject, what does the Bible actually use as criteria for lineage? In the book of Numbers we find the basis and foundation of all genealogical lines according to the Torah. In Numbers chapters one through four and Numbers 26 we are told that the nation of Israel was counted and enumerated for us to read and comprehend. Contained within these passages is the biblical directive and law on how to identify genealogies. In Numbers 1:2 we read, "Take a census of all the congregation of the sons of Israel, by their families, by their father's households, according to the number of names, every male, head by head". When compared to the modern day Jewish identity, which goes through the mother and grandmother's lineage, we are faced with the reality that Jewish identity has not followed the biblical mandate "by their father's households...every male, head by head." If we reckon all the times that biblical genealogies are listed, we will find none that center on the lineage of the mother. We also see that the promise of God's sign of His covenant was to be directly tied to males in the rite of circumcision. It cannot be further from the biblical mandate to utilize motherhood to specify Jewish or, for our subject matter, the priesthood. Finally, the missing link to fulfill Ezekiel's temple vision is that there does not exist a genealogical record anywhere that relays a son-to-father link back to a time when Zadok was the ultimate predecessor. This must mean that his vision fits a time when Zadokite lineage was still being traced through the father. There is only one period of time when a temple was built and this genealogy could be proven, at the time of the exiles' return from Babylon and their rebuild of the second Temple. 

Biblical Genealogy Command #2 - Must Be Written Down

    Furthermore, in Numbers 1:17 we are told that Moses and Aaron took these men who had been "designated" by name. The Hebrew word "designated" (Heb. neek-vo) translates more accurately as "engraved" like on a stone, or "inscribed" in a document. This prescribes for following generations the standard that a written genealogy must be used to either be installed in a particular national status in Israel (cp. Eldad and Medad; Num. 11:26, also cp. Ezra 8:1,3,20) or excluded from a particular national status in Israel (cp. sons of Barzillai; Ezra 2:61-62, cp. also Ezek. 13:9). This means that a genealogical line can only be traced biblically if it is shown that there are written records connecting one individual to his father in a successive line back to its original predecessor, in our study of the priesthood, back to Zadok. Without a written document linking an individual today back to Zadok, there can be no modern day or future fulfillment of Ezekiel's temple. Again, this can only be speaking of a past fulfillment during the days of the exiles' return from Babylon and their rebuild of the Second Temple.

    The prophets held the biblical mandate to be a written genealogy. Isaiah 4:3 states "And it will come about that he who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy..." Yet, he qualifies those who would be called "holy" as "all those written". Ezekiel 13:9 specifies those who practiced false prophecy would be removed from the genealogical enrollment when he says, "So My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will have no place in the council of My people, nor will they be written down in the register of the house of Israel..." Even the person translated as "bastard" in Deut. 23:2 (Heb. mamzer) was to be excluded from the status of Israelite because he was seen as not having a father written down for his designation. The Hebrew word "mamzer" comes from the same Hebrew root word "mazzorot" which refers to the 12 or 13 constellations that corresponded to the 12 or 13 tribes of Israel (cp. Job 38:32). The thrust of this word is therefore seen as a genealogical removal of this so-called "bastard". Even as genealogy was fading, after the destruction of the temple, we see some scraps of maintaining biblical genealogy in the Talmud, note this:

"They went into session and examined the genealogy of Rabbi [and found:] “Rabbi comes from Shephatiah [2 Sam. 3:4, son of David], son of Abital, and R. Hiyya is from the family of Shimei, brother of David.” [Slotki: As the latter was not a descendant of the anointed king’s family, it was not proper for his daughter to be united in marriage with one who was.]" (b. Ketub. 62b)

The Talmud speaks of many situations that give the impression that biblical genealogy was no longer being used. We read about a slave becoming a priest simply based on a testimony, and that a single testimony was becoming enough to promote or demote an individual regarding their priestly status. Complete nonsense when something as simply as checking genealogical records should have been easy to come by for the courts. Below are two passages from the Talmud that illustrate just how far removed biblical genealogy had become and how confusing its outcomes,

"Said R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq, “In my entire life I gave testimony on a matter of genealogy only one time, and through my testimony they ended up promoting a slave to the priesthood.” (b. Yebamot 99b)

"Well, here, with what case do we deal? With a case in which the father is assumed by us to be a priest, but a rumor circulated on the man that he was the son of a divorcée or of a woman who had undergone the rite of removing the shoe [and was therefore the child of a union improper for a priest]. So they demoted him from the priesthood. And then a single witness came and said, “I know as fact that he is a priest,” [26B] so they raised him back up into the priesthood. Then two more witnesses came along and said, “He is the son of a divorcée or of a woman who had undergone the rite of removing the shoe,” so they demoted him again, and then a single witness came and said, “I know as fact that he is a priest”—all parties concur that these are formed into a single testimony. What is at issue is only whether or not we take account of the possibility of bringing disrepute on the court itself [for switching positions so much]. The initial Tannaite authority takes the position that, since he has been demoted, we do not promote him again, since we take account of the disrepute of the court that this would bring, and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel takes the position, “We are the ones who demoted him, and we are the ones who will promote him, and we are not going to take account of the disrepute we have brought upon the court." (b. Ketubot 26a-b)

Paul, in the New Testament, seems to perceive genealogies as fruitless during the days of his ministry, as they were coming to a close. Instructing Timothy, he points out "endless genealogies" to be tied to "myths" and "strange doctrines" which only "give rise to mere speculation rather than the administration of God which is by faith." (1 Tim. 1:3-4) The fact that Paul finds genealogy to be "mere speculation" in his own day should tell us that he finds genealogy to be unreliable and maybe even forgotten at a time prior to the destruction of the temple and its priesthood in AD 70.

Paul believed this "administration of God's grace" to be directed toward Gentiles (Eph. 3:2). His words, then, concerning "the administration of God" in 1 Timothy 1:3-4 should be understood as pertaining to Gentile converts, especially since he is writing to Timothy in the Gentile city of Ephesus. It goes almost without saying that Gentiles, who have no credence in Old Testament genealogies or an earthly priesthood, may stumble over being seen as a sort of second-class citizen in light of the privileges they viewed by an earthly Jewish genealogy connecting Jews alone to the priesthood. Yet, Paul places even Gentiles as priests of a higher heavenly priesthood in light of the intercessory work of Jesus (Rom. 12:1, 1 Pet. 2:5, Rev. 1:6, 5:10). At very least, a confusion and much speculation would have evolved if two competing priesthood's would have been in view.

It was Jews and false-Jews who sought to approve themselves and their priesthood through their genealogy. Joseph Benson, in his commentary on 1 Timothy 1:4, posits "The apostle does not speak of those recorded in the Scriptures, but of the long intricate pedigrees whereby many of the Jews strove to prove their descent from certain persons." Adam Clarke notes that the use of these genealogies was "principally, such as referred [the Jews] to the great promise of the Messiah, and to the priesthood." He points out that Eusebius (early fourth century AD) recorded that Herod the Great "being an Idumean, was jealous of the noble origin of the Jews; and, that none might be able to reproach him with his descent, he ordered the genealogical tables, which were kept among the archives in the temple, to be burnt." (see Eusebius Ecclesiastical Histories 1:7:13) This is yet another early event and obstacle to believing a descendant of Zadok could be produced with any kind of surety. Clarke concludes that this is what Paul was referring in 1 Timothy and that "to make out any regular line from these must have been endless and uncertain." Poignant for our study, this part of history would have eliminated any possibility of priestly identification as early as the birth of Christ, even earlier than the destruction of the temple in AD 70, leaving little for one to imagine any time beyond this that would precipitate a Zadokite priesthood. Yet, Timothy was not the only person to receive a letter from Paul regarding genealogy. 

Titus also received clear warnings of what was to be engaged in and what was not. Paul writes to Titus, "But shun foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law; for they are unprofitable and worthless." (Titus 3:9) If producing the correct genealogy for the priestly descendants of Zadok was still to be a future event, Paul would not have insisted on this 'shunning of genealogies' and definitely would have heightened the attention to familial identity. Instead of pointing out the essence of genealogy as being "speculation", like Paul does with Timothy, here, he makes mention that genealogy is somewhere in the range of "foolish" and "worthless". He also strings genealogies together with apparently divisive argumentation of the day, using the words "controversies...strife...and disputes". John Gill connects Titus 3:9 to the disputes that broke out between the schools of two famous Rabbis, Hillel and Shammai. He states, 

"contentions and strivings about the law; the rites and ceremonies of it, and about the sense of it, and its various precepts, as litigated in the schools of Hillel and Shammai, the one giving it one way, and the other another". 

He additionally points out that the Syriac renders Titus 3:9 as "the contentions and strifes of the scribes" referring to Jewish scribes who are frequently mentioned throughout the New Testament. Whatever the case, it is clear that such a passage should be understood as being applied to Jewish argumentation and that they only produce worthless debate regarding genealogy, something that could not even be proven in Paul's day. These issues were a stumbling block, not the furtherance of the gospel. This was not the case though, some five centuries before the gospel of Christ was preached, when the exiles came out of Babylon and needed genealogies for land inheritance, the kingship, the priesthood, and in essence all of the government and rights for that society. 

Conclusion

Using the biblical mandate to identify the priesthood necessary for the fulfillment of Ezekiel's temple vision, specifically the lineage from Zadok, we are limited in the time period for which such a fulfillment could be realized. This time period is limited to the time when the second temple was standing. Even efforts to procure a future priesthood through DNA or Israeli national religious groups fail in their attempts to resurface the necessary priesthood of Zadok to the point of admitting that this cannot be produced satisfactorily. The truth is that those who lived at the time of the second temple believed and saw that temple to be the one which Ezekiel had foreseen in his vision. The apocryphal book of Sirach, while not biblical, gives us a glimpse of the view of how great the second temple was to the generations prior to the New Testament. It sees this, 

"How can we fittingly praise Zerubbabel, who was like a signet ring on God's right hand, and Jeshua, Jozadak's son (i.e. a descendant of Zadok)? In their time they built the house of God (the 2nd temple); they erected the holy temple, destined for everlasting glory." (Sirach 49:12)

There was no question that the generations leading up to Jesus believed that the second temple was the one prophesied by Ezekiel, why do we diverge? Please leave me any comments or questions. I would be happy to get back to you. For additional research on Ezekiel's temple, go to my YouTube channel Temple Truth. Thank you and God bless!

Coming Up Next

It is my opinion that most get hung up on the dimensions that are found in Ezekiel and simply dismiss any reality that the second temple could have fit Ezekiel's view. I am going to tackle this topic in my next post and demonstrate why the dimensions of Ezekiel do not point to a future temple but once again describe the measurements of the second temple.