My friend P.J. Tibayan has excerpted a section from D. A. Carson in a comment on the previous post. My intent in posting the previous bit about Ezekiel’s temple was to save myself time because I am short; I’m not sure that I succeeded. But I want to respond to Carson’s comments, and it is easier to do in a regular post than in a comment. Here it is in full, and then I’ll respond piece by piece:
The mid – twentieth – century form of dispensationalism argued for a similar literalism, but held that the construction of the temple and the return of blood sacrifices and Levitical and Zadokite priesthood will take place in the millennium. The sacrifices would look back to the sacrifice of Christ in the same way that the Old Testament sacrifices looked forward. But it is very difficult to square this view with the theology of Hebrews. Moreover, there are many hints that these chapters should not be taken literally. The division of land (chaps. 47 — 48) is all but impossible for anyone who has seen the terrain. The impossible source and course of the river (47:1 – 12) strains credulity — and in any case both the temple and the river of life are given quite different interpretations in Revelation, the last book of the Bible. With the best will in the world it is difficult to see how the prescribed tribal purity of Levitical and Zadokite lines could be restored. Intervening records have been lost, so that no one could prove his descent from Aaron. Presumably a dispensationalist could argue that God could reveal the necessary information. But the point is that the tribes have been so mixed up across the centuries that they cannot be unscrambled. The problem is not one of information, but of mixed lines. Thus this interpretation, precisely because it deals with something at the end of time when the tribal lines are no longer differentiable, is even less credible than the previous one. How, then, shall we interpret these chapters?
The mid – twentieth – century form of dispensationalism argued for a similar literalism
He starts off with a backhand swipe, trying to suggest that this type of interpretation is so esoteric that it was only held in the mid-twentieth century. In fact, it has been held much earlier than that and is still probably the primary view of evanglical Christians today. Regardless, there are many highly respected scholars who hold to it (including past presidents of ETS).
but held that the construction of the temple and the return of blood sacrifices and Levitical and Zadokite priesthood will take place in the millennium. The sacrifices would look back to the sacrifice of Christ in the same way that the Old Testament sacrifices looked forward. But it is very difficult to square this view with the theology of Hebrews.
Maybe difficult, but by no means impossible. Why is it not possible to have sacrifices that remember Christ’s death. That there could be such a need during the millennium is suggested by the fact that at this time there will be fewer deaths (because of a partial lifting of the curse; cf. Isa 65:20). Gleason Archer offers an appropriate warning in this regard:
We in this age are hardly more competent to judge concerning the new requirements and conditions of the future millennial kingdom than were Old Testament believers competent to judge concerning the new forms and conditions which were to be ushered in in the New Testament age after Christ’s advent (1994: 418).
Moreover, there are many hints that these chapters should not be taken literally.
Maybe there are “many,” but he gives only three, and none of them are related to the temple. One of these is not a “hint” suggesting that it should not be taken literally. It’s Carson’s suggestion that things have changed so much since Ezekiel that it’s no longer possible for Ezekiel’s prophecy to be fulfilled.
The division of land (chaps. 47 — 48) is all but impossible for anyone who has seen the terrain.
I’ve seen the terrain and it is not impossible. I know secular Israelis who have drawn up maps of Ezekiel’s redistribution of the land. They may not believe it will one day happen, but it’s not impossible. Certainly, one should realize that there may well be geographical changes before this time. For instance, Zechariah predicts that the Mount of Olives will split in two with a great valley running through it (14:4). So some things that don’t fit now could well fit then. (Aside: how do you interpret the Zech 14 prediction? Is that a future literal event? How do you know? Once you start to decide on your own what is possible and what is not, you can easily start changing major, important theological passages, including ones that describe Christ’s return.)
The impossible source and course of the river (47:1 – 12) strains credulity
It is impossible that the land could be so altered so that there’s a spring at the Temple Mount? If God can’t do that, then for sure he can’t part the Red Sea or raise the dead. Yes, descriptions that say that the Dead Sea will become fresh water are mind-blowing, but that’s the point. And Ezekiel’s little note about fisherman spreading their nets at En Gedi does everything to suggest that he means this literally. You can imagine the “spiritual meaning” of the Dead Sea becoming fresh (God gives new life to his people), but as soon as you got a line and a hook at a specific geographical locale, the “spiritual meaning” doesn’t hold. Now maybe Ezekiel is wrong, but I don’t know how you take him to mean something else.
Aside: here’s a prophecy that is more mind-blowing: Zech 12:10; cf Rom 11:26. If “mind-blowing” means it is therefore impossible and unliteral, then we’re fools to believe in the resurrection of the body. I mean, after a few years, our dust gets scattered to quite a few places.
— and in any case both the temple and the river of life are given quite different interpretations in Revelation, the last book of the Bible.
One problem with those who don’t take prophecy seriously is that they don’t study it carefully. Ezekiel and Revelation are describing different things at different times. (That is readily obvious from the Dead Sea in Ezekiel 47 and the “no sea” in Rev 21. Revelation of course distinguishes about the millennium and the eternal state as separate periods of time.)
With the best will in the world it is difficult to see how the prescribed tribal purity of Levitical and Zadokite lines could be restored. Intervening records have been lost, so that no one could prove his descent from Aaron. Presumably a dispensationalist could argue that God could reveal the necessary information.
Does Carson disagree with this? Could God? If so, then this is not an issue.
But the point is that the tribes have been so mixed up across the centuries that they cannot be unscrambled. The problem is not one of information, but of mixed lines. Thus this interpretation, precisely because it deals with something at the end of time when the tribal lines are no longer differentiable, is even less credible than the previous one.
I wonder how Carson knows this. Does he know that many Jews do know what tribe they belong to? Does he know that twice a year I stand at the Western Wall while Levites press by to get to the front to do the priestly blessing? Does he know my friend who is of the tribe of Benjamin? Now if the question is one of “proving” by means of legal docu
ments to stand up in a court of law, then the matter will fail because of things like the Holocaust (in which case Satan succeeded; he didn’t have to wipe out the Jews, just their records). Concerning whether the tribal lines are scrambled, how many dads does a person have? You have only one. Whatever tribe your father is in, you are too. You can marry sixteen times, you can adopt, you can do whatever, but every kid has one father and thus one tribal identity. Maybe everyone doesn’t know it, but if God knows every hair on the head, then I’m guessing he’s not at a loss for who belongs to which tribe. Of course, this issue is important in several places in Revelation.
There’s a lot of people who deny the literal fulfillment of many biblical prophecies. I hope they have better reasons than Carson.
Good Points Todd!
I am in wholehearted agreement with you. Just because prophecies seem impossible (or more precisely improbable) does not mean that we should revert to some other interpretation.
I would like to address the “theological” objection about the sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48. Some have wondered if such sacrifices would discredit or contradict the once and for all sacrifice of our Lord.
1. To take a memorial view of these sacrifices is not ridiculous. If you argue that memorial sacrifices are silly, then you will also have to be consistent and argue that communion as a memorial model of our Lord’s sacrifice is just as silly. Why can the church have communion as the memorial of the Lord’s death but the Jews could not have a form that acts similarly? To have memorial sacrifice is no more absurd than having memorial communion. The Lord’s Supper can be exegetically demonstrated to be memorial (cf. 1 Cor 11). Could one not legitimately apply an analogous reasoning to a time after the Lord returns (which may pick up on “do this until I return”?).
2. Nonetheless, even if you did not accept the memorial view, you still have to deal with the text. This I believe is even stronger than my first point. You still have to account for the terms “sin offering” “transgression offering” and “atonement” and how they are precisely used in Ezekiel 40-48.
One must first understand three pieces of information. First, the terms are precisely utilized in the last part of Ezekiel. They are consistently used throughout all of Scripture. Second, one must also realize that OT sacrifices were NOT ALL for sin and transgression. 3/5 of the major ones (outlined in Lev 1-7) were for worship and thanksgiving and dedication. One therefore cannot say that every time an offering is seen in Ezekiel 40-48 it is for sin. Third, in the Day of Atonement, sin offerings were not just used for cleansing people but for cleansing “stuff” (e.g., altar). This was for consecration and sacred use. Arguably even Aaron’s cleansing of himself and his household had these consecration overtones (Lev 16:6).
The only times sin/transgression/atonement type of language is used are in what I would argue are “consecration” contexts. For example, the first time sin offering and atonement is utilized is in Ezekiel 43:20 where it is in reference to cleansing an altar. This clearly cannot be for sin (do altars sin?)! This is consecration and does not contradict the efficacy of our Lord’s sacrifice once and for all. One may point out Hebrews 9 where it discusses our Lord’s consecration of the heavenly sanctuary. However, the author of Hebrew’s point was contextually different than what is being discussed in Ezekiel. Author of Hebrews argues that the Lord is a better mediator because He inaugurated the New Covenant through His work in the heavenly tabernacle similar to the Day of Atonement. What occurs in Ezekiel does not contradict this work at all but rather participates in it. It is setting up a building and dedicating to the work that Jesus Christ has already done; participating in the New Covt. It is no different than what we may do with a new building today when we dedicate it to the Lord. All this to say, Ezekiel’s usage of sin offering/transgression offering/atonement throughout 40-48 does not contradict our Lord’s sacrifice at all. Even if it was not a memorial, there are still no problems. The sin sacrifice does not appear to be for sin but for consecration.
The only exceptions to this assertion of “consecration” appear in chapter 45. In this context the prince (or more precisely princes…note the plural in Hebrew in vv. 13-15) provide for an offering of atonement for the people as do the people themselves. Even in this context, I would argue that consecration of people is still in view as opposed to sin. Though some disagree with me on this (and I myself still have much thinking to do about it)…I see a parallelism between three appearance of “atonement” – atonement of them (either royal class or people, v. 15), atonement of house of Israel (v. 17) and atonement of house (v. 20)…they seem to argue for all the same thing – a massive consecration of the entire nation to God from leadership to lay person and the place in which they worship. Seeing the collocation of atonement + house + Israel should remind one of a similar construction in Lev 16:6 which did talk about consecration prior to the work of Day of Atonement. It appears to me that there really are no exceptions, Ezekiel uses the atonement to discuss Israel’s consecration to God in every regard and hence this shows why God can dwell with His people (contrast with Exodus 32-33; cp Ezek 48:35). Contextually speaking, since the temple mediates God ‘s presence, which is a major theme of Ezekiel (cf. chps. 1, 10, 11), it makes sense to show that in the Millennial Kingdom, Israel will be fully consecrated to God and so He will fully commune with them (cf Ezek 48:35).
If the sin/transgression offerings depicted in Ezekiel are primarily discussing consecration in light of what I have just discussed, then there really is not contradiction between a literal rendering of his sacrifices and our Lord’s supreme and final sacrifice. Israel is setting dedicating itself to God through the means of killing animals in fulfillment of God’s promises to the priesthood of an eternal priesthood (cf. Num 25:13). Ezekiel is not discussing forgiveness of sins by any means! The rest of the sacrifices in view in Ezekiel are worship to God and thereby do not contradict Christ’s atoning sacrifice either.
I hope this adds some more food for thought in the discussion.
In His service,
Abner
Good response, Todd – particularly the last paragraph.
Todd, interesting stuff. I’m unfamiliar with the debates here, but it seems like you’re making a good point. The post caught my eye becase Carson is at Trinity and I’m considering going there.
Stratkey – thanks. Carson is a highly regarded scholar who has much to offer. I think we would agree on the large majority of things related to Scripture.
Carson is an excellent scholar. Although he might want to re-read his own little book, “Exegetical Fallacies.”