THE TEMPLE AND THE MOSAIC COVENANT

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 had 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 the money-changers and animal-salesmen out 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, not through a literal building but through a Person.

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 ultimately 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 by spiritualizing the Temple? 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, the actual presence of God, 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 and its Temple. 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; 11:6-9)

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)

We find that, in the Biblical prophecies, there are many indications that spiritual sacrifices will replace animal sacrifices. Hosea foresees that the sacrifice of words will be required instead of animal sacrifices:

·       Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity. Take with you words and return to the LORD; say to him, “Take away all iniquity; accept what is good, and we will pay with bulls the vows of our lips. (Hosea 14:1-2)

Bull offerings would be replaced by words. Malachi claims that, in the future, “in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering” (Malachi 1:11). No mention here of animal sacrifice! Also, Isaiah claims that the Gentile nations “shall bring all your [Israelite] brothers from all the nations as an offering to the LORD” (Isaiah 66:20; 49:22). Again, no mention of a physical temple or animal sacrifices!

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 with its Temple and its priests. The New would be predicated on the fact that God Himself would provide the payment or atonement for our sins:

·       I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall know that I am the LORD, that you may remember and be confounded, and never open your mouth again because of your shame, when I atone for you for all that you have done, declares the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 16:62-63; 36:25-26; Micah 7:19; Zechariah 3:4; Hosea 13:14; Deuteronomy 32:43; Psalm 130:8; 103:12)

How do the rabbis answer this evidence of a new covenant, temple, Messianic offering, and priesthood? 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. (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! It will “not [be] 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!” Once again, the rabbis have studiously side-stepped their promised Messiah (Isaiah 8:13-14; 28:16; 53:1-3; Psalm 118:22), as prophesied.

In contrast, the NT follows in the path laid out by the OT but 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, albeit cryptic, revelation by a single divine Author.

There are many other cryptic indications that the Mosaic Covenant would have to be replaced in order for the OT prophesies to be fulfilled. Under the Mosaic, no one except the high priest could come into the presence of God. However, this would have to change, because it had been prophesied that God would marry His people:

·       “And I will make for them a covenant on that day with the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the creeping things of the ground. And I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land, and I will make you lie down in safety. And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know the LORD. (Hosea 2:18-20)

In order for God to marry His people, the New Covenant would have to replace the Old along with its Temple. In conclusion, there is a wealth of evidence that the NT writers didn’t coerce the OT to agree with NT theology regarding the Temple. Instead, this theology was already embedded within the OT.