The rabbis often denounce the New Testament claiming that it
misconstrues the Old to support its own doctrines. In The Jew and the Christian Missionary: A Jewish Response to Missionary
Christianity, Gerald Sigal had written:
·
Misreading the essential meaning of the Torah,
Christian theology developed along lines that are at variance with the message
of Hebrew Scriptures. (Introduction, xv)
For instance, in the NT Jesus likened His own body to the
Jerusalem Temple, in effect, proclaiming that His body has become the actual
place to meet God and find His mercy, instead of the Temple. In a revealing
account, the Jewish leadership demanded that Jesus justify His authority to drive
out the money-changers and animal-salesmen from the Temple:
·
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and
in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six
years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was
speaking about the temple of his body. (John 2:19-21; John 1:14)
Jesus equated His body with the Temple. He had been hinting
about this to a Samaritan woman who thought religion was just a matter of the
geographical place of worship, pointing out that the Jews worshipped in the
Jerusalem Temple and the Samaritans on Mount Gerizim. However, Jesus corrected
her:
·
“But the hour is coming, and is now here, when
the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father
is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him
must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:23-24)
According to Jesus, worship, ultimately, was not a matter of place but of truth. It is through belief in the truth that we meet God and not through a literal building.
When the Pharisees criticized Jesus’ disciples for eating
standing grain on the Sabbath, Jesus retorted that priests who serve in the
Temple also violate the Sabbath. If they could do it, so too could His
disciples, because He was greater than both the Sabbath and the Temple:
·
He said to them, “Have you not read what David
did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house
of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to
eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not
read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the
Sabbath and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is
here…For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” (Matthew 12:3-6, 8)
How could Jesus imply about Himself that “something greater
than the temple is here?” He understood that the Temple was merely a symbol or
a shadow of the reality – that He was the One to whom Israel must come to find
mercy (Colossians 2:16-17).
The Book of Revelation
claims that the New Jerusalem would not contain a physical temple:
·
And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple
is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. (Revelation 21:22; 13:6; 21:3)
Has the NT perverted
the teachings of the Mosaic revelation? Moses had been given the plan for
the Tabernacle (the moveable Temple) while on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 25:40; 27:8;
Numbers 8:4; Acts 7:44). However, the NT interpreted this plan as symbolic (a
shadow) of a deeper reality:
·
They [the Temple and its services] serve a copy
and shadow of the heavenly things [of Christ]. For when Moses was about to
erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything
according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” (Hebrews 8:5)
Did God simply have a preference for certain physical forms
and structures, or did He command these Temple forms, because they symbolically
conveyed heavenly truths? The NT writers understood that the Temple and the
prescribed forms of worship were symbolic of a deeper reality. Interestingly,
the OT also suggests this. Even
before there was a Tabernacle, God had been Israel’s refuge and sanctuary:
·
Lord, you have been our dwelling place in
all generations. (Psalm 90:1; 71:3; Isaiah 57:15)
This suggests that the Temple was a shadow of a deeper
reality, which God wanted to convey symbolically. The NT claims that God Himself would be our sanctuary
(Temple). This is also true of the OT
revelation:
·
“Therefore say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: Though I
removed them far off among the nations, and though I scattered them among the
countries, yet I have been a sanctuary [“mikdash”] to them for a while
in the countries where they have gone.’” (Ezekiel 11:16; Isaiah 8:13:14)
God would be a temple to Israel even in their exile. The
physical Temple was therefore symbolic, suggesting that, instead, it represented a reality beyond itself.
Besides, God promised that He Himself would “build” the ultimate Temple in
conjunction with the New Covenant:
·
“I will make a covenant of peace with them. It
shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land
and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary [“mikdash”] in their midst
forevermore. My dwelling place [“mishkan”] shall be with them, and I will be
their God, and they shall be my people. Then the nations will know that I am
the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary [“mikdash”] is in their midst
forevermore.” (Ezekiel 37:26-28)
Would this be a physical sanctuary? The fact that God would build
it suggests otherwise. Besides, it seems that
this “everlasting covenant” with Israel will replace the Mosaic Covenant.
In fact, nowhere in the Scriptures is the Mosaic ever described as everlasting.
Of what will “my sanctuary,” which God will create, consist?
First of all, it is not only associated with a new and eternal covenant, it is
also a Messianic covenant, the work of the mysterious BRANCH:
·
“And say to him, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts,
“Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his
place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. It is he who shall build the
temple of the LORD and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his
throne. And there shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall
be between them both.”’ (Zechariah 6:12-13)
It is noteworthy that the physical Temple had already been
rebuilt by the Israelite exiles returning from Babylon. Evidently, this temple
constructed by God would be a very different kind of temple and even a
different priesthood. This Priest, the Messianic BRANCH, was also regarded by
the rabbis as the promised Davidic offspring, the Messiah who would create an
everlasting kingdom (Isaiah 9:6-7; Jeremiah 23:5-6), would also be a King
(Psalm 110). A single person fulfilling these two roles had been absolutely
forbidden under the Mosaic Covenant (Numbers 18:7). The fact that the Messiah
would fulfill both roles suggests a
change in the Covenant, the Temple, its rituals and even the end of animal
sacrifices:
·
“Before they call [for forgiveness as they
sacrifice an animal] I will answer; while they are yet speaking I will hear.
The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the
ox, and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all
my holy mountain,” says the LORD. Thus says the LORD: “Heaven is my throne, and
the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and
what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all
these things came to be, declares the LORD. But this is the one to whom I will
look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word. He who
slaughters an ox is like one who kills a man; he who sacrifices a lamb, like
one who breaks a dog’s neck; he who presents a grain offering, like one who
offers pig’s blood; he who makes a memorial offering of frankincense, like one
who blesses an idol. These have chosen their own ways, and their soul delights
in their abominations.” (Isaiah 65:24 - 66:1-3)
Since there will be no more “destruction” in the Kingdom of
the Messiah, the death of animals could no longer be required. Instead, the
promised Messianic sacrifice will put an end to all sacrifices:
·
Surely he [the promised Messiah] has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and
afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our
iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his
wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every
one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah
53:4-6)
The Psalms also promise that one offering will put to end
all subsequent offerings and the Temple system, which required them:
·
Consequently, when Christ came into the world,
he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you
prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no
pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is
written of me in the scroll of the book.’” [Psalm 40; LXX] When he said above,
“You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and
burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law),
then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the
first [covenant] in order to establish the second. (Hebrews 10:5-10)
Evidently, the Temple animal sacrifices had been a shadow of
the coming reality – the offering of the Messiah Himself for the sins of the
world. How else can we explain the fact that God wasn’t truly pleased with the animal
sacrifices, although He had ordained and required them? They weren’t pleasing
to God because they and the Temple were only
symbols. Besides, the Scriptures inform us that the true offerings of Israel
were to be those of the mouth and the heart:
·
For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I
would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of
God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not
despise. (Psalm 51:16-17; Hosea 6:6; 14:2; Malachi 1:10-11)
God also desires the figurative “sacrifice” of the entire person
(Romans 12:2):
·
“For on my holy mountain, the mountain height of
Israel, declares the Lord GOD, there all the house of Israel, all of them,
shall serve me in the land. There I will accept them, and there I will require
your contributions and the choicest of your gifts, with all your sacred
offerings. As a pleasing aroma I will
accept you, when I bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the
countries where you have been scattered.” (Ezekiel 20:40-41; Isaiah 66:20-21)
The Temple and its prescribed worship were only meant to
apply until the Messiah (Hebrew 13:8):
·
“And when you have multiplied and been fruitful
in the land, in those days,” declares the LORD, “they shall no more say, ‘The
ark of the covenant of the LORD.’ It shall not come to mind or be remembered or
missed; it shall not be made again. At that time Jerusalem shall be called the
throne of the LORD, and all nations shall gather to it, to the presence of the
LORD in Jerusalem, and they shall no more stubbornly follow their own evil
heart. (Jeremiah 3:16-17)
The Ark, which carried the centerpiece of the Mosaic
Covenant, the Ten Commandments, would not be remembered or made again because
this Covenant would be superseded by the New:
·
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD,
when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of
Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I
took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that
they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. For this is the
covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares
the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts.
And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31-33)
The New would replace the Old. How do the rabbis answer this
claim? They respond that the New is a mere remodeling of the Mosaic Covenant. Rabbi
Sigal had written:
·
By any objective reading of the text, one fails
to see any reference to a substitution of a new covenant which will supersede
the old. (The Jew and the Christian
Missionary, 70)
However, God explicitly declares that the New is “not like
the [Mosaic] covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took
them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.” Nevertheless, Sigal
claimed that:
·
…what Jeremiah meant by it was the renewing of
the old covenant, which will thereby regain its full original vigor. Jeremiah
is thus able to speak of a “new covenant,” and still remain a true prophet
among his people because there was absolutely no difference between the new and
old. (72-73)
“Absolutely no difference?” Not according to Jeremiah! Once
again, the rabbis have studiously side-stepped their promised Messiah as prophesied
(Isaiah 8:13-14; 28:16; Psalm 118:22).
In contrast, the NT follows in the path laid out by the OT with
a lantern in hand to illuminate what had previously been obscured by the
shadows. We find that the NT fits the OT like a glove fits the hand,
demonstrating the internal consistency of the entire Bible, pointing to the
fact that the Bible expresses a single, although cryptic revelation by a single
divine Author.
***
We cannot ignore the eternal Temple described in Ezekiel
40-48. According to the NT revelation, this temple symbolizes the presence of
God Himself. However, these nine chapters contain so many details that some
argue that this temple must be an actual temple and not merely a symbolic
non-physical one. However, even the rabbis were perplexed by Ezekiel’s lengthy
description:
·
The difficulty of interpreting Ezekiel’s temple
vision isn’t limited to only Christian scholars. It has also been a problem
with Jewish ones as well. Michael Brown notes that Talmudic rabbis believed the
images of the visions were difficult enough that the prophet Elijah would have
to come and explain them.
Since the description of Ezekiel’s temple does not coincide
with that of the Mosaic Temple, it has led many commentators to believe that
Ezekiel’s temple must be a spiritual one:
·
Dr. Michael Brown argues for the spiritual view
based upon a handful of reasons including the fact Ezekiel’s temple contradicts
a lot of the descriptions in the Torah (Exodus/Leviticus/Numbers particularly)
and the text suggests the prophecy will be fulfilled in Ezekiel’s lifetime
(Ezekiel 40:4, 43:10,11), but wasn’t. https://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/interpreting-ezekiels-temple-vision/
Besides, many of the features of the temple are supernatural.
Water is flowing from the temple, and its volume increases as it flows. It
nourishes trees that bear fruit every month:
·
And on the banks, on both sides of the river, there
will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither, nor their
fruit fail, but they will bear fresh fruit every month, because the water for
them flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves
for healing.” (Ezekiel 47:12)
There are numerous reasons to believe that the temple is not
a physical temple but a “temple” whose features convey theological truths. God
instructed Ezekiel to describe the temple to the Israelites so that they would
be ashamed. How could a mere architectural plan bring shame unless this plan conveyed
theological truths and revealed the sinful intentions of the heart:
·
“As for you, son of man, describe to the house
of Israel the temple, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and they
shall measure the plan. And if they are ashamed of all that they have done,
make known to them the design of the temple, its arrangement, its exits and its
entrances, that is, its whole design; and make known to them as well all its
statutes and its whole design and all its laws, and write it down in their
sight, so that they may observe all its laws and all its statutes and carry
them out. This is the law of the temple: the whole territory on the top of the
mountain all around shall be most holy. Behold, this is the law of the temple. (Ezekiel
43:10-12)
This temple plan conveyed God’s law, and it wasn’t the same
as the Mosaic Law. The whole territory would now be holy, not just the holy
place itself. God’s presence would sanctify the surroundings. Consequently, this
symbolic “temple” need not contradict the many prophecies listed above.
No comments:
Post a Comment