#11 Ezekiel's Temple (Part 5): The So-Called "Eternal" Presence of God (Ezek. 43:1-7)
"The Messiah will supernaturally enter the rebuilt Temple through the now-sealed Eastern Gate: 'And the glory of the Lord [the Messiah] came into the house [Temple] by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east [the previously sealed Eastern Gate]' (Ezek. 43:4)." (The New Temple and the Second Coming, pg. 98)
"and behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the way of the east. And His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth (or land) shone with His glory...And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the Lord filled the house."
"The most compelling objection (against a past fulfillment of Ezekiel's temple) is that the Shekinah glory (i.e. indwelling glory) failed to return to the Second Temple--and it is this Shekinah glory that is the focal point of Ezekiel's Restoration Temple." (The Coming Last Days Temple, pg. 513)
He further states,
"These verses (Ezek. 43:1-7) on the return and restoration of God's glory to the new Temple are one of the strongest evidences for the eschatological (i.e. future, end-time) interpretation of chapters 40-48, it is important to give closer attention to this event." (ibid. pg. 525)
The Term "Forever"
Adding to the future-temple view is the wording in 43:7 where the term "forever" is used to describe the length of time that God would dwell in the temple Ezekiel saw. It states, "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.'" Many from the future-temple camp have cited this as clear proof that because a temple in Jerusalem does not exist today that Ezekiel could not possibly be speaking of any temple built in the past because they have all been destroyed. Admittedly, this does seem to close the case on this whole debate and suggest a good reason to anticipate going back to animal sacrifices as part of our worship as Bible believers and those in Christ. We will examine this term later in this post.
Concluding the Future-Temple View
So all that is being said here is that the anticipation of a future temple with animal sacrifice and a full return to the Laws of Moses finds a footing for its foundation in this one passage in Ezek. 43:1-7. It poses that both a return of God's Presence (Shekinah) to the second temple and the use of the term "forever" to describe the eternal nature of Ezekiel's temple are enough proof to discredit any past fulfillment of Ezekiel's vision. Therefore, we should be looking for the construction of a new temple as part of our end-time scenario and working toward a bringing about this kingdom and temple for the return of Jesus. Also, we, Christians, should begin attending Torah-observant congregations or Jewish synagogues to gain a better understanding of how we can keep the Laws of Moses more accurately. Still, Proverbs 18:17 tells us to examine this seemingly strange concept, "The first to plead his case seems just, until another comes and examines him." It is true that the future-temple view has a compelling argument here until we examine it more closely.
The Presence of God in the Second Temple According to the Bible
Before I get to addressing the term "forever" and the supposed eternal state of Ezekiel's temple, I need to first establish that the Presence/Glory of God had returned to the second temple. I will address the notion of a 'forever-temple' following this section. Aside from the fact that the Scripture never describes the absence of the Presence of God from the second temple, it begs the question where the future-temple camp gets their stance. It must be noted that the future-temple view does not utilize Scripture as its basis for the claim that the Presence of God never returned to the second temple, it uses Jewish writings and commentaries. As Dr. Price supports his future-temple beliefs with these Jewish writings,
"These are the five things that were in the First Temple and not in the Second Temple: the Ark with the covering and angelic figures, the heavenly fire, the divine presence (Shekinah), Divine Inspiration, and the Urim and Thummim." (Babylonian Talmud Tractate Yoma) A variation in the Jerusalem Talmud (Makkot 2:6) reads, 'Rabbi Shmuel stated in the name of Rabbi Aha, "Five things were missing in the Second Temple that were in the First Temple: The fire, The Ark, the Urim and Thummim, the Anointing Oil, and Divine Inspiration." Other sources add to this list...(Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 52b; Midrash Numbers Rabbah 15:10)" (The Coming Last Days Temple, pg. 213)
Opposing this view, the Bible gives a number of accounts of the Glory/Presence/Shekinah clearly occupying the city of Jerusalem and its temple during the time of the second temple. Additionally, the Jewish commentaries do not entirely agree with themselves on the issue. We will begin examining this detail by turning to the prophets who spoke to the exiles that built the second temple, Zechariah and Haggai. In Zech.1:12 we read of the pleading of an angel to God "O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou have no compassion for Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which Thou hast been indignant these seventy years?" The period of seventy years is a reference to a previous prophecy by Jeremiah (25:11-12, 27:22, 29:10) that the temple, Jerusalem, and Judah would be destroyed for seventy years. By the time of Zechariah's prophecy, those seventy years were complete and the fulfillment of Jeremiah's words were about to come true. Contrasting the angel's words of God "having no compassion" on Jerusalem for those seventy years, God speaks to the angel and Zechariah records His promised return to the temple after those seventy years, In Zech. 1:16-17 we read,
"Thus says the Lord, I will return to Jerusalem with compassion; My house will be built in it,' declares the Lord of hosts...'Again, proclaim, saying, "Thus says the Lord of hosts, 'My cities will again overflow with prosperity and the Lord will again comfort Zion and again choose Jerusalem.'"
The question should be asked, why is God "choosing Jerusalem"? For what purpose? Did He ever decide not to choose Jerusalem? The answer is in the text, so that He may return to Jerusalem and have a house built in it that He calls "My house". This should not be difficult to decipher but I will elaborate to make this even more clear. In Zech. 2:5-12 we read a clear contextual reference to God literally 'dwelling' (Heb. Shekanti; the same root as Shekinah) and again choosing Jerusalem for that dwelling at the time of the second temple. It also points out that the words were being directed at those that were still slaves in Babylon, yet it would be those slaves that built the second temple. It states,
"But I,’ declares the Lord, ‘will be a wall of fire to her on all sides, and I will be the glory in her midst... You, Zion! Escape, you who are living with the daughter of Babylon.” For the Lord of armies says this: “After glory He has sent me against the nations that plunder you, for the one who touches you, touches the apple of His eye. For behold, I am going to wave My hand over them so that they will be plunder for their slaves. Then you will know that the Lord of armies has sent Me. Shout for joy and rejoice, daughter of Zion; for behold I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” declares the Lord. “And many nations will join themselves to the Lord on that day and will become My people. Then I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that the Lord of armies has sent Me to you. And the Lord will possess Judah as His portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem."
Again, God speaks of choosing Jerusalem (as in 1:16-17), but more importantly is the fact that He tells the exiles in Babylon that He will "possess" (literally, 'set boundary lines') around Judah and "again choose Jerusalem" like it was in times before the exile, in the temple. Remember, this is God's dwelling presence and "glory in her midst" that is in Jerusalem, the place where the temple would reside. This is the same verbiage as what we find in Ezek. 43 regarding the glory of the Lord returning to Ezekiel's temple.
We may also want to note that in Zech. 4:6-9 it is God's Spirit that is compelling Zerubbabel to finish building the house (i.e. the temple). If God was not going to dwell in that temple then why would he have His Holy Spirit move Zerubbabel to complete the work? How would this have been understood by those exiles if God's Presence does not dwell in that temple?
The prophet Haggai, who prophesied along side of Zechariah and encouraged the completion of the second temple adds to Zechariah's message that God did, in fact, dwell in the second temple. He records the Lord telling him to rebuild the temple, calling it "the house of the Lord" (Hag. 1:2) and "My house" (1:9) which even some from the future-temple camp see this wording indicative of "a place where God dwells" (Thomas Ice and Randall Price, Ready to Rebuild, pp. 40-41) Additionally, in Hag. 2:5-7 we read God's words to the exiles who were in the process of building the second temple,
"As for the promise which i made you when you came out of Egypt, 'My Spirit is abiding in your midst; do not fear!' For thus says the Lord of hosts, 'Once more in a little while I am going to shake the heavens and the earth, the sea also and the dry land. And I will shake all the nations... and I will fill this house with glory.'"
Again, if it is God's Spirit that is compelling the exiles to build 'His house', would the exiles have expected the glory of the Lord to fill that house (i.e. the temple) with His glory? Of course. This is why God promises to fill that second temple with earthly "glory" from the nations, to beautify 'His house'. Grant Jeffrey, who held the future-temple view, is conflicted on the passage but admits that this is speaking of the second temple directly (The New Temple and the Second Coming, pg. 88) even though he believed it could be implied about a future temple based on his bias.
Still, the most compelling evidence that God's Glory had occupied the second temple and even carried on into the construction of Herod's remodel are the words of Jesus. In Matt. 23:21 Jesus argues, "he who swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells in it." Clearly Jesus cannot make this statement to the scribes and Pharisees unless it is agreed upon at that time that the Presence/Glory/In-Dwelling of God is indeed in the temple. Jesus is making this statement because He knows what is demonstrated at the temple that makes it believed that the glory of God resides there. To believe that the Glory of God did not exist in the temple would have been tantamount to removing Jewish identity completely in the eyes of the surrounding nations and the known world at that time. Jesus clearly did not believe this to be true, otherwise His argument in Matt. 23:21 has no basis. Even Dr. Randall Price, who I have mentioned above, is cited as quoting Matt. 23:21 and commenting,
"Jesus presents here an elevated perspective of the Temple as having a unique sanctity that is able to impute sanctity on whatever lesser things are associated with it (its monetary reserves, the sacred vessels, and the sacrificial offering) by virtue of its association with the divine presence." (The Coming Last Days Temple, pg. 263)
This statement is precisely contrary to Dr. Price's original comment I have quoted above in suggesting that the Glory of God did not return to the second temple. His colleague, Thomas Ice, also agreed that the second temple must have housed the Glory of God. He states,
"The establishment of the synagogue enabled Judaism to absorb the blow of the second Temple's destruction without collapsing...The synagogue is only a gathering place for the community for liturgical purposes, but the Temple was "God's house," in which His Presence dwelt, and His priests attended on behalf of His people." (Ready to Rebuild, pp. 49-50)
Even more poignantly, Jesus calls the temple "My Father's house" (Luke 2:49, John 2:16) even though He knew it would soon come to ruins (Matt. 23:38). It is clear that Jesus believed this temple to be inhabited by His own Father, how much more specific would words need to be to fully declare the presence of God's glory in the temple, the same way we find it in Ezek. 43?
Lastly, the gospel account of the curtain of the temple being torn (Matt. 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45) cannot be overlooked. The fact that this sign of judgment occurred at the temple, within the temple, that makes it clear that the Glory of God was operating from the temple and making it known to that generation of Jews that He was angry with their rejection of His Only Son. The Glory of God from Ezekiel 43 also would not be associated with sin (see Ezek. 43:7-9). Although many Christians have viewed this as a good sign that we have free access to come boldly before the throne of mercy, to Jews of that day it would have been seen as a desecration of the temple and a clear sign of judgment that God was leaving His earthly abode. This same sign that was witnessed by Jeremiah and Ezekiel when God's presence left the temple just prior to its destruction by the Babylonians (Ezek. 10:18,11:23; Jer. 12:7). Jeremiah specifically addresses the desecration of the curtains of the temple as a sign of judgment, he prophesies, "Disaster on disaster is proclaimed, for the whole land is devastated; Suddenly my tents are devastated, My curtains in an instant." (4:20) In a more negative sense, God's Presence would have been viewed as leaving the temple at the sign of a torn curtain. It would further demonstrate that God had just previously had His dealings with His nation through the signs given at the temple. This leads into our next subject, the signs that occurred in the temple up until the curtain was torn.
The Presence of God in the Second Temple: Three External Evidences
1. The Lives of the Prophets
The Lives of the Prophets is a document in the OT Pseudepigrapha dated to roughly the first quarter of the first century AD. In chapter twelve of this document we find a prophecy falsely written under the name of Habbakuk, which is presented as addressing a post-Babylonian exile situation. The text reads:
"He gave a portent to those in Judea, that they would see a light in the Temple and so perceive the glory of the Temple. And concerning the end of the Temple he predicted, “By a western nation it will happen.” “At that time,” he said, “the curtain of the Dabeir [that is, the temple curtain separating the Holy from the Holy of Holies] will be torn into pieces, and the capitals of the two pillars will be taken away, and no one will know where they are; and they will be carried away by angels into the wilderness, where the tent of witness was set up in the beginning. And by means of them the Lord will be recognized at the end, for they will illuminate those who are being pursued by the serpent in darkness as from the beginning.”
If this passage is correctly dated to roughly the first quarter of the first century, a number of the details are noteworthy. Most significantly, we find an explicit mention of the curtain in the temple being torn. This tearing is presented as either a portent of the temple’s impending destruction and a symbolic act representing God’s departure. Whatever is the case, it is very suggestive that this text is implying that God's presence (or "glory") had been in the temple until that point. We know this is the event that occurred at the time of Christ's death and therefore must have housed the presence of God up until that time.
2. An Anthology of Simeon the Just
As I have already stated that the future-temple view sees no Presence of God in the second temple based on Jewish commentary and I have demonstrated that this notion did not come from the Bible. Actually, even Jewish commentary on the workings of God from the temple do not even support the future-temple view. We read about the signs given during the days of the second temple which seem to change just after the curtain of the temple was torn. In an anthology during the days of a righteous high priest, Simeon, we read of strange occurrences,
"Throughout the forty years that Simeon the Righteous served as high priest, the lot would always come up in the right hand. From that time onward, sometimes it would come up in the right hand, sometimes it would come up in the left hand. In the year in which Simeon the Righteous died, he said to them that in that year he would die. “Every Day of Atonement, appears to me an old man dressed in white and cloaked in white, who enters with me and goes forth with me to and from the Holy of Holies, while this year an old man appeared to me dressed in black and cloaked in black, who went in with me but did not come out with me.” Forty years before the destruction of the sanctuary, the lot did not come up in the right hand, and the thread of crimson never turned white, and the westernmost light never shone, and the doors of the courtyard would open by themselves." (b. Yoma 4:1)
The supernatural signs of the lot coming up only in the same hand every year for forty years is a probability of 1 in 1,099,511,627,776 odds. For this to happen a second time the odds grow exponentially to 1 in 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 or in mathematical terms, mathematically impossible, unless directed by an outside influence. That outside influence could be none other than God Himself and He sought to display this Divine intervention at the site of the temple. Additionally, on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) only the high priest was allowed into the Holy of Holies but who then is this other man that Simeon saw, some have said that this was a pre-incarnate Jesus, others say it is an angel. Whatever the case may be, these signs point to God's Glory and Presence residing in the second temple and His signaling of the spiritual wellness of the nation, either as a sign of good when the people were righteous or a sign of judgment when wickedness prevailed.
3. Josephus
Josephus also records strange dealings in the temple just prior to its destruction in 70 AD. He speaks
"Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city...that continued a whole year...[at] the feast of unleavened bread, and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house that it appeared to be bright day-time; which light lasted for half an hour...At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple." (Wars 6.5.3)
These signs spoke to even the most ignorant of persons that God was there. As Job says similarly, "An idiot will become intelligent when the foal of a wild donkey is born a man." (11:12) We should note that all these things took place at the temple and signified to the surrounding onlookers that God Himself was operating from His earthly temple in Jerusalem and His Presence was being felt in a negative sense here. Still, more explicitly Josephus records the words and warnings of the high priest, Eleazar, immediately after the temple's destruction in 70 AD,
"Where is this city that was believed to have God Himself inhabiting therein? It is now demolished to the very foundation." (Wars 7.8.7)
Remember, this is the high priest that is making this statement on behalf of the whole nation, a man most intimately connected to the temple. Also, we must understand that the city of Jerusalem was primarily composed of the temple and its buildings. So then, if God was inhabiting the city, He was inhabiting the temple also. If anyone would know whether the Presence and Glory of God existed in and around the temple, it would be this man. This should make it apparent that this was believed by the masses of people at that time. It should also indicate to us that God's Glory had returned to the second temple and even to a less holy remodeling by Herod.
The So-called "Forever" Temple of Ezekiel
The future-temple view is clear that the belief of an operational future temple with the Glory of God resting in it will continue on "forever" based on the verse in Ezekiel 43:7 which states "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." I have engaged many on the Hebraic meaning of the word "forever" and found that the consensus is to understand "forever" as to the effect that Buzz Lightyear phrases it, "To infinity and beyond". If this were the meaning of the word, then the future-temple view would stand correct in stating that there have been no 'forever-temples built in the past, this is evidenced by the fact that there is no temple standing today in Jerusalem.
Defining "Forever"
For those who are diligent in studying the usage of this word "forever", it becomes clear that this word does not mean 'for eternity' but simply a long period of time, or even more specifically, beyond the generation of people alive at a certain time (1 Sam. 1:22,28). It is clear that this word expresses a finite period of time when it is used to describe times of "long ago" (Gen. 6:4, 1 Sam. 27:8, Isa. 63:16, Jer. 2:20, 5:15, Ps. 25:6) which clearly had a beginning point. In a commentary on our passage under examination (Ezekiel 43:7), Dr. Thomas Coke understands "forever" in its more full context stating,
"the temple here described was the place of God's throne, where he would dwell forever in the midst of the children of Israel, and his holy name should neither they nor their kings defile any more by their idolatries. This must relate to their return from a captivity, into which they had been sent for idolatry. And in order to preserve the truth of the prophesy, the words forever and no more must be explained, as they must in several other places for the same purpose. But supposing them to be understood of a long time only, they will preclude any plea, that the things here foretold were to have been fulfilled if the Jews had been pious; but were not, they being otherwise."
Additionally, when comparing the previous temple of Solomon, it is clear that that temple was also to house God's Glory and remain "forever", just like Ezekiel's temple, yet it was completely destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC (according to most dating). We read about that first temple in 2 Chronicles 30:8 "yield to the LORD and enter His sanctuary which He has consecrated forever". 1 Kings 9:3 echoes this same sentiment,
"And the LORD said to him, 'I have heard your prayer and your plea which you have offered before Me; I have consecrated this house which you have built, by putting My name there forever, and My eyes and My heart will be there all the days.'"
And in 2 Kings 21:7 it says,
"the LORD had said to David and to his son Solomon, “In this house and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen from all the tribes of Israel, I will put My name forever."
And again in 2 Chron. 33:4,7b,
He built altars in the house of the LORD of which the LORD had said, “My name shall be in Jerusalem forever..God had said to David and his son Solomon, “In this house and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen from all the tribes of Israel, I will put My name forever."
The reason for being so emphatic on the back-story of the first temple is to demonstrate that the word "forever", when used to describe the temple, does not mean that it must remain standing for all of eternity. Otherwise we would still see Solomon's first temple standing today. What this also allows is for the second temple to be labeled as "forever" in the same sense as the first. In fact, this is exactly how the second temple was viewed. Take a look.
The Second Temple was a 'Forever-Temple'
Dr. Randall Price and Thomas Ice agree that Christ's declaration that Herod's temple would be destroyed even took some ridicule, stating, "[it] was objectionable to those Jews who believed that the Temple would never again be destroyed." (Ready to Rebuild, pg. 68) But their understanding of the term "forever" is not the same as our modern English. According to history outside of the Bible, it was believed that the second temple was to last "forever". We will take a look at just three snippets pulled from the time and peer through the eyes of those who actually were closer to that time which demonstrate a more clear understanding of what a 'forever-temple' actually would have meant.
1. First, we will take a look at the apocryphal book of Sirach, written around 200 to 175 BC according to some dating. This would be at a time before Herod had even begun to remodel the second temple. Within Sirach we are shown the exact words that are translated "forever" in the New Testament but in reference to the second temple and its original builders Zerubbabel and Joshua (cp. Zech. 4:9, 6:11-12). It reads,
"How shall we magnify Zerubbabel? He was like a signet ring on the right hand. So was Joshua the son of Josedek, who in their days built the house, and exalted a holy temple prepared for everlasting glory." (Sirach 49:11-12)
2. Secondly, the Sibylline Oracles is a composite of psuedo-prophecies which now act as hindsight and hold some historical value from more than 1,000 years ago rather than prophetic future telling. They give us another reference to the second temple as being "forever" in the minds of its people yet clearly indicates that it was also destroyed. This is important for developing an understanding of the ancient mind regarding this word "forever" because the question must be asked, how can a temple be both eternal and destroyed? This gives the definition of "forever" as being limited in time by an end point. Sibylline Oracle book 5 reads this way,
"Extinguished, when I saw the second house cast headlong and overwhelmed with fire by an unholy hand, house forever flourishing, God's watchful temple, brought forth of his saints and being forever indestructible." (Sibylline Oracles, Book 5, Lines 535-539)
3. The last snippet comes from Josephus' book of Antiquities. It was written after the destruction of the last temple which was destroyed in 70 AD and he finished compiling (and probably editing) around 93 AD. The reason these dates are important is because he speaks of the walls which Nehemiah built around the second temple being "forever". In Josephus' day it was clear that those walls were not eternal and had been expanded about 200 years before his day and yet was also permanently destroyed before he had even begun to pen the term "forever" with regard to the second temple and its walls. So then, what he writes in hindsight, calling the temple walls "forever" was already very clear in his mind that this word did not indicate "to infinity and beyond". Again, it was limited to a finite amount of time although still very long lasting from its construction. Josephus recollects the work that Nehemiah committed himself to establish in Jerusalem's second temple.
He first cites that Nehemiah's work was to sustain the priesthood "that the priests and Levites having whereof they might live forever", something which has obviously ceased today, but Josephus goes even further to use our term under examination when he states "and [Nehemiah] hath left the walls of Jerusalem as monument forever for himself." (Jos. Antiquities 11.5.8)
These statements are recorded by Josephus at a time where he knew that they did not exist any longer. This is another proof that the understanding of the wording in Ezek. 43:7 that anticipated a temple "forever" did not define "forever" without a finite limit on its duration. Thus, the second temple does still fit the parameters of being a 'forever-temple' and is not to be negated as a fulfillment of Ezekiel's temple vision based on the term "forever".
Conclusion
The future-temple view touts that the most important piece of evidence that speaks of a future temple is found in Ezekiel 43:1-7. It pictures a temple existing forever and with the Presence of God's Glory. These two claims are said to eliminate any fulfillment by the second temple because the second temple did not house the Glory of God and it did not last "forever". These claims overlook the clear testimony of both Scripture and history as demonstrated in this post. The second temple did both house the Glory and Presence of God and was clearly understood to exist "forever" according to the correct biblical usage of the word, it cannot be shown otherwise.
The Main Point
The posts of this blog have been broken up into segments to address the multiple stumbling blocks in regard to interpreting the Bible as prophesying of a future temple. Ezekiel's temple vision is the most expansive and elaborate description of a supposed future temple but the question that needs to be addressed is whether it actually is a future temple at all. I believe that it can clearly be proven that Ezekiel did speak of a future temple but one that was only a generation or less from his own day of prophecy.
To believe that a future temple is prophesied in Scripture is to say that a full return to the Law of Moses is also in view for all believers. This means a return to animal sacrifices, an earthly priesthood, an earthly king, and any other commandments connected to the temple system which mankind has not followed for nearly two millennia now. Most specifically, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross is diminished by believing that animal sacrifices could somehow be necessary in a future setting even as a memorial. That would be like saying 'believers need to be reminded of Christ's atonement, the central aspect of our salvation, and this is done by seeing animals sacrificed'. This is absurd! The truth is that there is no future temple and Ezekiel did in fact prophesy of the second temple, even housing the Glory of God "forever"! Please feel free to leave a comment or question here. For further information on Ezekiel's temple, please visit my YouTube channel Temple Truth. Thanks and Shalom out!
What's Up Next..."The Prince"
In an attempt to cover all subject matters and passages that some have applied to a future-temple scenario, I will continue address as many of these topics as I have encountered. It was recently posed as an argument to one of my posts that the "prince" mentioned in Ezekiel's temple is not accounted for in my posts thus far. It was supposed that this could only speak of Christ but I believe there is another more practical and logical explanation for this prince's identity. Please stay tuned for the explanation in part six of this examination of the true fulfillment of Ezekiel's temple prophecy. Thank you and shalom out!
Comments
Post a Comment