Hebrews, Ezekiel and Jesus' death

[Christian2]

Ezekiel says there will be a third Temple and sacrifices will be done.

Question: Jesus' sacrifice was one time, so why would there be animal sacrifices in the new Temple for sin?

Or are the sacrifices not for sin?

If they are wouldn't this signify that Jesus' sacrifice was not sufficient.

Thank you.

[PaulSacramento]

Some views:
Christian views[edit]
See also: Christian views on the old covenant
While there are a number of differing views amongst Christianity with regard to the significance or the requirement of a third temple being built in Jerusalem, according to the writers of the New Testament, the New Covenant (spoken of in Jeremiah 31:31–34) is marked by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer (Ezekiel 36:26–27) and that therefore every believer's body and every gathering of believers comprise the temple, or that the temple has been superseded. Paul illustrates this concept in his letter to the believers at Corinth:

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?(1 Corinthians 6:19 NASB)

This idea is related to the belief that Christ himself, having claimed to be and do what the temple was and did, is the new temple (John 2:19), and that his people, as a part of the "body of Christ" (meaning the church), are part of this temple as well (2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:19–22; 1 Peter 2:4–5). The result, according to N. T. Wright, is that the earthly temple (along with the city of Jerusalem and the Land of Israel) is no longer of any spiritual significance:

[Paul] refers to the church, and indeed to individual Christians, as the ‘temple of the living God’ (1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19). To Western Christians, thinking anachronistically of the temple as simply the Jewish equivalent of a cathedral, the image is simply one metaphor among many and without much apparent significance. For a first-century Jew, however, the Temple had an enormous significance; as a result, when Paul uses such an image within twenty-five years of the Crucifixion (with the actual temple still standing), it is a striking index of the immense change that has taken place in his [Paul’s] thought. The Temple had been superseded by the Church. If this is so for the Temple, and in Romans 4 for the Land, then it must a fortiori be the case for Jerusalem, which formed the concentric circle in between those two in the normal Jewish worldview.[27]
In the teaching of both Jesus and Paul, then, according to Wright,

God’s house in Jerusalem was meant to be a ‘place of prayer for all the nations’ (Isaiah 56:7; Mark 11:17); but God would now achieve this through the new temple, which was Jesus himself and his people.[27]

Ben F. Meyer, also, argued that Jesus applied prophecy regarding Zion and temple to himself and his followers:

[Jesus] affirmed the prophecies of salvation with their end-time imagery Zion and the temple—belonging to the eschatological themes that the "pilgrimage of the peoples" evoked. But contrary to the common expectation of his contemporaries, Jesus expected the destruction of the temple in the coming eschatological ordeal (Mark 13:2=Matt 24:2=Luke 21:6). The combination seems contradictory. How could he simultaneously predict the ruin of the temple in the ordeal and affirm the end-time fulfilment of promise and prophecy on Zion and temple? The paradox is irresolvable until one takes note of another trait of Jesus' words on the imagery of Zion and temple, namely, the consistent application to his own disciples of Zion- and temple-imagery: the city on the mountain (Matt 5:14; cf. Thomas, 32), the cosmic rock (Matt 16:18; cf. John 1:42), the new sanctuary (Mark 14:58; Matt 26:61). The mass of promise and prophecy will come to fulfilment in this eschatological and messianic circle of believers.[28]
Some would therefore see the need for a third temple as being diminished, redundant, or entirely foreclosed and superseded, while others take a position that the building of the third temple is an integral part of Christian eschatology. The various perspectives on the significance of the building of a third temple within Christianity are therefore generally linked to a number of factors including: the level of literal or spiritual interpretation applied to what is taken to be "end-time" prophecy; the perceived relationships between various scriptures such as Daniel, the Olivet discourse, 2 Thessalonians and Ezekiel (amongst others); whether or not a dual-covenant is considered to be in place; and whether Old Testament promises of the restoration of Israel remain unfulfilled or have all come true in the Messiah (2 Corinthians 1:20). Such factors determine, for example, whether Daniel 9:27 or 2 Thessalonians 2:4 are read as referring to a still-future physically restored third temple.

A number of these perspectives are illustrated below.

Christian mainstream[edit]
The dominant view within Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Christianity is that animal sacrifices within the Temple were a foreshadowing of the sacrifice Jesus made for the sins of the world through his crucifixion and shedding of his blood on the first day of Passover.[29] The Epistle to the Hebrews is often cited in support of this view: the temple sacrifices are described as being imperfect, since they require repeating (ch. 10:1–4), and as belonging to a covenant that was "becoming obsolete and growing old" and was "ready to vanish away" (ch. 8:13, ESV). See also Abrogation of Old Covenant laws. Christ's crucifixion, being a sacrifice which dealt with sin once and for all, negated any need for further animal sacrifice. Christ himself is compared to the High Priest who was always standing and performing rituals and sacrifices. Christ, however, having performed his sacrifice, "sat down" — perfection having been finally attained (ch. 10:11–14,18). Further, the veil or curtain to the Holy of Holies is seen as having been torn asunder at the crucifixion – figuratively in connection with this theology (Ch 10:19–21), and literally according to the Gospel of Matthew (ch 27:50–51). For these reasons, a third temple, whose partial purpose would be the re-institution of animal sacrifices, is seen as unnecessary and thus superseded. Iraeneus[30] and Hippolytus[31] were among early church writers who foresaw a rebuilding of the Temple, as necessary for the preparation for the reign of AntiChrist.

Additionally Jesus himself stated when asked where to worship, "neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem... But in spirit and in truth". He stated of the Herodian temple, "Not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down" – John 4:21, Luke 21:6.

[Christian2]

Some views:
Christian views[edit]
See also: Christian views on the old covenant
While there are a number of differing views amongst Christianity with regard to the significance or the requirement of a third temple being built in Jerusalem, according to the writers of the New Testament, the New Covenant (spoken of in Jeremiah 31:31–34) is marked by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer (Ezekiel 36:26–27) and that therefore every believer's body and every gathering of believers comprise the temple, or that the temple has been superseded. Paul illustrates this concept in his letter to the believers at Corinth:

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?(1 Corinthians 6:19 NASB)

This idea is related to the belief that Christ himself, having claimed to be and do what the temple was and did, is the new temple (John 2:19), and that his people, as a part of the "body of Christ" (meaning the church), are part of this temple as well (2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:19–22; 1 Peter 2:4–5). The result, according to N. T. Wright, is that the earthly temple (along with the city of Jerusalem and the Land of Israel) is no longer of any spiritual significance:

[Paul] refers to the church, and indeed to individual Christians, as the ‘temple of the living God’ (1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19). To Western Christians, thinking anachronistically of the temple as simply the Jewish equivalent of a cathedral, the image is simply one metaphor among many and without much apparent significance. For a first-century Jew, however, the Temple had an enormous significance; as a result, when Paul uses such an image within twenty-five years of the Crucifixion (with the actual temple still standing), it is a striking index of the immense change that has taken place in his [Paul’s] thought. The Temple had been superseded by the Church. If this is so for the Temple, and in Romans 4 for the Land, then it must a fortiori be the case for Jerusalem, which formed the concentric circle in between those two in the normal Jewish worldview.[27]
In the teaching of both Jesus and Paul, then, according to Wright,

God’s house in Jerusalem was meant to be a ‘place of prayer for all the nations’ (Isaiah 56:7; Mark 11:17); but God would now achieve this through the new temple, which was Jesus himself and his people.[27]

Ben F. Meyer, also, argued that Jesus applied prophecy regarding Zion and temple to himself and his followers:

[Jesus] affirmed the prophecies of salvation with their end-time imagery Zion and the temple—belonging to the eschatological themes that the "pilgrimage of the peoples" evoked. But contrary to the common expectation of his contemporaries, Jesus expected the destruction of the temple in the coming eschatological ordeal (Mark 13:2=Matt 24:2=Luke 21:6). The combination seems contradictory. How could he simultaneously predict the ruin of the temple in the ordeal and affirm the end-time fulfilment of promise and prophecy on Zion and temple? The paradox is irresolvable until one takes note of another trait of Jesus' words on the imagery of Zion and temple, namely, the consistent application to his own disciples of Zion- and temple-imagery: the city on the mountain (Matt 5:14; cf. Thomas, 32), the cosmic rock (Matt 16:18; cf. John 1:42), the new sanctuary (Mark 14:58; Matt 26:61). The mass of promise and prophecy will come to fulfilment in this eschatological and messianic circle of believers.[28]
Some would therefore see the need for a third temple as being diminished, redundant, or entirely foreclosed and superseded, while others take a position that the building of the third temple is an integral part of Christian eschatology. The various perspectives on the significance of the building of a third temple within Christianity are therefore generally linked to a number of factors including: the level of literal or spiritual interpretation applied to what is taken to be "end-time" prophecy; the perceived relationships between various scriptures such as Daniel, the Olivet discourse, 2 Thessalonians and Ezekiel (amongst others); whether or not a dual-covenant is considered to be in place; and whether Old Testament promises of the restoration of Israel remain unfulfilled or have all come true in the Messiah (2 Corinthians 1:20). Such factors determine, for example, whether Daniel 9:27 or 2 Thessalonians 2:4 are read as referring to a still-future physically restored third temple.

A number of these perspectives are illustrated below.

Christian mainstream[edit]
The dominant view within Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Christianity is that animal sacrifices within the Temple were a foreshadowing of the sacrifice Jesus made for the sins of the world through his crucifixion and shedding of his blood on the first day of Passover.[29] The Epistle to the Hebrews is often cited in support of this view: the temple sacrifices are described as being imperfect, since they require repeating (ch. 10:1–4), and as belonging to a covenant that was "becoming obsolete and growing old" and was "ready to vanish away" (ch. 8:13, ESV). See also Abrogation of Old Covenant laws. Christ's crucifixion, being a sacrifice which dealt with sin once and for all, negated any need for further animal sacrifice. Christ himself is compared to the High Priest who was always standing and performing rituals and sacrifices. Christ, however, having performed his sacrifice, "sat down" — perfection having been finally attained (ch. 10:11–14,18). Further, the veil or curtain to the Holy of Holies is seen as having been torn asunder at the crucifixion – figuratively in connection with this theology (Ch 10:19–21), and literally according to the Gospel of Matthew (ch 27:50–51). For these reasons, a third temple, whose partial purpose would be the re-institution of animal sacrifices, is seen as unnecessary and thus superseded. Iraeneus[30] and Hippolytus[31] were among early church writers who foresaw a rebuilding of the Temple, as necessary for the preparation for the reign of AntiChrist.

Additionally Jesus himself stated when asked where to worship, "neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem... But in spirit and in truth". He stated of the Herodian temple, "Not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down" – John 4:21, Luke 21:6.

Thanks Paul.

I tried to solve this puzzle myself by reading Ezekiel and a commentary by Messianic Jew, Michael Brown.

He believes a literal temple will be built, but the sacrifices will not be for the same purpose as Jesus'.

http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/catego ... ls-temple/

I had forgotten what Jesus said "Jesus himself stated when asked where to worship, "neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem... But in spirit and in truth""

[PaulSacramento]

You need to realize that these are opinions and only that.
It falls on YOU to research and ask the HS for guidance on finding what YOU believe to be the correct understanding.

[1harpazo]

Ezekiel says there will be a third Temple and sacrifices will be done.

Question: Jesus' sacrifice was one time, so why would there be animal sacrifices in the new Temple for sin?

Or are the sacrifices not for sin?

If they are wouldn't this signify that Jesus' sacrifice was not sufficient.

Thank you.

The third temple is not for Christians. It is for Israel. They rejected the perfect sacrifice in Jesus Christ (Matt 23:37-38). When the temple is rebuilt, unbelieving Jews will be able to observe the Law again. In that Law there are many sacrifices-not just sin sacrifices. Christians are looking for the temple to be rebuilt as evidence that we are entering the final week of Daniel's seventy-week prophecy (Dan 9:24-27). We have no other need of the temple. In that prophecy, sixty-nine weeks have been completed and only the seventieth week is yet to be fulfilled. The final seven years-the seventieth week-is "to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place." NASU Also during the seventieth week the Church age will come to an end (Matt 24:3,31).

[Christian2]

Ezekiel says there will be a third Temple and sacrifices will be done.

Question: Jesus' sacrifice was one time, so why would there be animal sacrifices in the new Temple for sin?

Or are the sacrifices not for sin?

If they are wouldn't this signify that Jesus' sacrifice was not sufficient.

Thank you.

The third temple is not for Christians. It is for Israel. They rejected the perfect sacrifice in Jesus Christ (Matt 23:37-38). When the temple is rebuilt, unbelieving Jews will be able to observe the Law again. In that Law there are many sacrifices-not just sin sacrifices. Christians are looking for the temple to be rebuilt as evidence that we are entering the final week of Daniel's seventy-week prophecy (Dan 9:24-27). We have no other need of the temple. In that prophecy, sixty-nine weeks have been completed and only the seventieth week is yet to be fulfilled. The final seven years-the seventieth week-is "to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place." NASU Also during the seventieth week the Church age will come to an end (Matt 24:3,31).

Thank you.