Millennial Sacrifices???

[John146]

John, does the term "sanctify" and "reconciliation" always refer to salvation?

Not necessarily, I suppose, but in what way would Israel need to be reconciled or sanctified by sin offerings in the future? How would these sin offerings accomplish what Christ has already accomplished by His once for all sin offering on the cross? Don't you know that God takes no pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin (Heb 10:6) and that "we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb 10:10)?

[third hero]

OK Doug,
When someone makes a generalization that Premillennialism teaches that Ezekiel 40-48 is a future literal expectation; and the animal sacrifices describe within those chapters are literally expect; this isn't inaccurate or untruth.

Most believers of the Premillennialism view believe and expect this to occur.
(There are always minority exceptions to any view).

Besides, the topic of this OPs thread is 'millennial sacrifices' and only the Premill viewpoint expects this. Amill and Postmill don't; so wpm was within the subject of the OP to begin with.

Similarly, if you made a blanket generalization that Amillennialism believes that Satan was bound in the 1st century; that would be true of most Amillennialists views as well (although there are assuredly some who disagree).

So don't try to run wpm through the ringer for making a general statement that is in accordance with the majority understanding of that view.

It's fine for you to step up and say you don't believe that in within your Premill understanding; but to say he is making untrue generalities is simply not correct or warranted.

Amillennialism by the vast majority of its adherents, believes Satan was bound in the 1st century.

Premillennialism by the vast majority of its adherents, believe in a future literal fulfillment of Ezekiel 40-48, including its animal sacrifices.

There are always minority exceptions to every general viewpoint.

My apologies, David. Yes, you are correct. I was just reading the OP and I instantly thought that Paul had lumped the Historical Premils into the Dispensation crowd, which I have staunchly debated against.

And so, I would have to say that I agree with the OP that there will be no animal sacrifices during the Millennial Reign.

[yoSAMite]

I must make a disclaimer up front. I've not studied this matter deeply, though it is on the radar for part of my millennial study. And as usual the amil crowd brings up some excellent point that need to be studied to be approved.

That being said I do have a question concerning:

Premils believe animal sacrifices will be reintroduced after the Coming of Christ in a supposed future millennium. They believe they will be memorial - reminding people of Calvary.

I do believe there will be animal sacrifices during the millennium, as per Ezek 40-48. I've not ever tried to justify them as a memorial. In fact I don't think I've ever thought one needed a reason to believe what the Bible says other than it says so.

So I read with interest your reason why this part of Scripture is moot and the point of the sacrifices must point to the future. With this in mind I'm wondering if the Lords Supper will be an ongoing event when Jesus returns as I haven't found any indication that it will stop or continue other than Jesus saying in Luke 22:18 "For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come."

If celebrating the Lords Supper will continue "in remembrance" it seems that the believing the sacrifices mentioned in Ezek 40-48 continuing in the new temple may not such a reach.

Again, just beginning thoughts.

[markedward]

If celebrating the Lords Supper will continue "in remembrance" it seems that the believing the sacrifices mentioned in Ezek 40-48 continuing in the new temple may not such a reach.

Jesus specifically say "Do this in remembrance of Me," making the actions described purely a "Let us remember" act.

The sacrifices Ezekiel presents specifically say they are for atonement of sin, making the actions described entirely about atoning for sin, which means they aren't mere "Let us remember" acts. They have a specific purpose and Ezekiel says that is for "atonement." If Jesus is presiding over sacrifices that make "atonement" for a person's sins, then that means His sacrifice wasn't truly "once for all" as the NT teaches.

In my opinion, this necessitates a past fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecies, during the era before Christ's incarnation.

[threebigrocks]

Not necessarily, I suppose, but in what way would Israel need to be reconciled or sanctified by sin offerings in the future? How would these sin offerings accomplish what Christ has already accomplished by His once for all sin offering on the cross? Don't you know that God takes no pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin (Heb 10:6) and that "we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb 10:10)?

That is just it. We as believers will see it that way. "It's already accomplished, what's the point?" Thing is, it isn't going to be true believers that take part in them. It will be those who still see purpose in performing those sacrifices - of blood by an animal or of grain or whatnot - that will do them. They will be started by the Jewish people who practice the orthodox faith. It makes total sense to them, looking back at their history, to do so. It isn't against our faith, or against God's plan - it's a part of what is to come. We will see it as you stated, and know it's a sign.

Times are changing, and what lays ahead is going to be far different than what we have had in our lifetime and in the last 2000 years that Christianity has existed.

[John146]

I must make a disclaimer up front. I've not studied this matter deeply, though it is on the radar for part of my millennial study. And as usual the amil crowd brings up some excellent point that need to be studied to be approved.

That being said I do have a question concerning:

I do believe there will be animal sacrifices during the millennium, as per Ezek 40-48. I've not ever tried to justify them as a memorial. In fact I don't think I've ever thought one needed a reason to believe what the Bible says other than it says so.

You don't think it's important for the Bible to be consistent in what it teaches? How do you reconcile your view with what is taught in the book of Hebrews regarding animal sacrifices not being pleasing to the Lord and how it teaches that Christ made the once and for all sacrifice for sin on the cross? How can there possibly be additional sin offerings made in the future in light of Christ's once and for all sin offering He made long ago?

So I read with interest your reason why this part of Scripture is moot and the point of the sacrifices must point to the future. With this in mind I'm wondering if the Lords Supper will be an ongoing event when Jesus returns as I haven't found any indication that it will stop or continue other than Jesus saying in Luke 22:18 "For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come."

If celebrating the Lords Supper will continue "in remembrance" it seems that the believing the sacrifices mentioned in Ezek 40-48 continuing in the new temple may not such a reach.

Again, just beginning thoughts.

It is a reach because if that was to happen, it would make a mockery of the book of Hebrews. Have you ever studied the book of Hebrews in depth before?

[John146]

That is just it. We as believers will see it that way. "It's already accomplished, what's the point?" Thing is, it isn't going to be true believers that take part in them. It will be those who still see purpose in performing those sacrifices - of blood by an animal or of grain or whatnot - that will do them. They will be started by the Jewish people who practice the orthodox faith. It makes total sense to them, looking back at their history, to do so. It isn't against our faith, or against God's plan - it's a part of what is to come. We will see it as you stated, and know it's a sign.

Times are changing, and what lays ahead is going to be far different than what we have had in our lifetime and in the last 2000 years that Christianity has existed.

Do animal sacrifices please God or not? Why would God want people to do something that doesn't please Him?

Hebrews 10
1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Animal sacrifices were only a shadow of something better to come: Christ's sacrifice. Why go back to the shadow? Why go back to something that doesn't even please the Lord? Why would the old covenant be taken away in favor of the new covenant only to be reinstituted again in the future?

[threebigrocks]

Do animal sacrifices please God or not? Why would God want people to do something that doesn't please Him?

Hebrews 10
1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Animal sacrifices were only a shadow of something better to come: Christ's sacrifice. Why go back to the shadow? Why go back to something that doesn't even please the Lord? Why would the old covenant be taken away in favor of the new covenant only to be reinstituted again in the future?

I'm not disagreeing with you my friend. That is all truth. But does truth apply to those who don't accept the sacrafice of Christ? No. Even in the OT, Isaiah 1, God was tired and said He didn't desire the sacrifice, festivals and sabbaths any longer. He wanted the hearts of men through faith as we see in Abraham. That didn't stop the Jews from continuing them though. It didn't stop them then in THEIR faith, and it won't stop them to begin to do the same.

Sacrafice was something people did to make themselves righteous before the eyes of God, to atone for sin. The times that lay just ahead will manifest that notion of self righteousness. The antichrist will sit in the wing of the temple - that should say much. It isn't of God, we know that. It's God's way of allowing man to be given over to what they choose to place their faith in. Not all believe, and they will be more concerned with saving their own skin than focused on the truth as you shared.

Simply, it's in God's plan to allow man to continue in sin and self righteousness. It isn't new, it just hasn't been carried out since 70AD. Since then, man has found plenty of sin and self righteousness in other places.

[John146]

I'm not disagreeing with you my friend. That is all truth. But does truth apply to those who don't accept the sacrafice of Christ? No. Even in the OT, Isaiah 1, God was tired and said He didn't desire the sacrifice, festivals and sabbaths any longer. He wanted the hearts of men through faith as we see in Abraham. That didn't stop the Jews from continuing them though. It didn't stop them then in THEIR faith, and it won't stop them to begin to do the same.

Ezekiel 40-48 does not describe people doing sacrifices because they mistakenly think that's what they're supposed to do to win God's favor. It also does not say that they were to be performed by people who don't believe in the true Messiah. They were to be performed by true believers according to the instructions given by God Himself.

Sacrafice was something people did to make themselves righteous before the eyes of God, to atone for sin. The times that lay just ahead will manifest that notion of self righteousness. The antichrist will sit in the wing of the temple - that should say much. It isn't of God, we know that. It's God's way of allowing man to be given over to what they choose to place their faith in. Not all believe, and they will be more concerned with saving their own skin than focused on the truth as you shared.

I thought we were talking about Ezekiel 40-48 and about sacrifices being performed during the supposed future millennium? The title of this thread is "Millennial Sacrifices???", right? Where does Ezekiel 40-48 say anything about a supposed antichrist sitting in the wing of the temple?

Simply, it's in God's plan to allow man to continue in sin and self righteousness. It isn't new, it just hasn't been carried out since 70AD. Since then, man has found plenty of sin and self righteousness in other places.

Where is the evidence in scripture to suggest that it is God's plan "to allow man to continue in sin and self righteousness" even after Christ returns? I think you're speaking about something you believe will happen before Christ returns, but this thread is about whether or not sacrifices will be performed in Jerusalem AFTER Christ returns during a supposed future earthly millennial kingdom.

[markedward]

That is just it. We as believers will see it that way. "It's already accomplished, what's the point?" Thing is, it isn't going to be true believers that take part in them. It will be those who still see purpose in performing those sacrifices - of blood by an animal or of grain or whatnot - that will do them. They will be started by the Jewish people who practice the orthodox faith. It makes total sense to them, looking back at their history, to do so. It isn't against our faith, or against God's plan - it's a part of what is to come. We will see it as you stated, and know it's a sign.

Times are changing, and what lays ahead is going to be far different than what we have had in our lifetime and in the last 2000 years that Christianity has existed.

I may be mistaken, but are you saying that the sacrifices Ezekiel described are ones performed by Jews during the end-times, meaning it isn't the true followers of God who are performing them?

As John146 pointed out, "Ezekiel 40-48 does not describe people doing sacrifices because they mistakenly think that's what they're supposed to."

Ezekiel 45 outright says that "the Sovereign LORD" was telling Ezekiel what sort of sacrifices to make... He wasn't prophesying that misguided followers would make sacrifices that were worthless, Ezekiel says God Himself is attributing "atonement" to the sacrifices that are prophesied to be performed in Ezekiel's future.

This is the special gift you are to offer...

God is instructing Ezekiel what to do, He's not explaining the mistaken actions of misguided followers.

These will be used for the grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the people, declares the Sovereign LORD.

God Himself is saying that people's sins would be atoned for by the offerings made. He is not saying "People will mistakenly do this." He is telling people to do it, meaning He's telling people to make temple sacrifices.

You're simply reading too much into the text that simply isn't there. You say it's "simply ... in God's plan to allow man to continue in sin." Ezekiel doesn't describe God in "allowing" people to continue the sacrifices (sin, according to you). Ezekiel describes God in telling people to continue the sacrifices.



Now, this you didn't bring up, but I'll address it anyway. Ezekiel 46 describes a "prince" performing the temple sacrifices. Some people often mistake this prince for Jesus (you may not, I don't know, but I know some do). Is Jesus going to have His own literal sons?

If the prince makes a gift from his inheritance to one of his sons, it will also belong to his descendents.

The text speaks of the prince's sons descendents. If Christ is this prince as some suppose, is He going to have sons and descendents? His wife is the whole church, not a single woman whom He will physically have children with.

[third hero]

What I have learned in my studies of the Old Testament is this. While it is true that God's offers to Israel are conditional, they are not contingent. The fact that Israel has yet to feel the shame specified in verse 10, doesn't mean they won't. If we read the rest of Ezekiel, we find passages in which God tells Israel that he will bring them back to the land, and they will know that he is the Lord. These prophesies have yet to be fulfilled, "For his loving kindness is everlasting."

Moreover, God declares that the House of Zadok will be priests forever.

14 `Behold, days are coming,' declares the Lord, `when I will fulfill the good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 15 `In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth. 16 `In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell in safety; and this is [the name] by which she will be called: the Lord is our righteousness.' 17 "For thus says the Lord, `David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; 18 and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to prepare sacrifices continually.' " Jeremiah 33:13

Remember, when Jeremiah was prophesying, he dealt mainly with the fact that God was going to punish Israel with exile from the land. He even wrote a book of Lamentations because of what God was going to do. So, with that in mind, the scripture you are using actually was fulfilled when the Lord brought them back from Babylon.

Also, it can not be ignored that Ezekiel starts off by stating a different time where he receives this vision, the one of the temple. Here, take a look at this:

Ezekiel 32:1
And it came to pass in the twelfth year, in the twelfth month, in the first [day] of the month, [that] the word of the LORD came unto me, saying

And compare that to Ezekiel 40:1
In the five and twentieth year of our captivity, in the beginning of the year, in the tenth [day] of the month, in the fourteenth year after that the city was smitten, in the selfsame day the hand of the LORD was upon me, and brought me thither.

Notice that between the two series of prophecies 12 years pass? This shows that the anger of the Lord, which was the topic of God's word given to Ezekiel from chapters 32-39, which included the end times scenario in chapters 36-39, is not even connected remotely to the prophecies in chapters 40-45.

And so, to connect the two that are separated by at least twelve years and two very different topics is, in my opinion, erroneous.

[BroRog]

Remember, when Jeremiah was prophesying, he dealt mainly with the fact that God was going to punish Israel with exile from the land. He even wrote a book of Lamentations because of what God was going to do. So, with that in mind, the scripture you are using actually was fulfilled when the Lord brought them back from Babylon.

Also, it can not be ignored that Ezekiel starts off by stating a different time where he receives this vision, the one of the temple. Here, take a look at this:

Ezekiel 32:1
And it came to pass in the twelfth year, in the twelfth month, in the first [day] of the month, [that] the word of the LORD came unto me, saying

And compare that to Ezekiel 40:1
In the five and twentieth year of our captivity, in the beginning of the year, in the tenth [day] of the month, in the fourteenth year after that the city was smitten, in the selfsame day the hand of the LORD was upon me, and brought me thither.

Notice that between the two series of prophecies 12 years pass? This shows that the anger of the Lord, which was the topic of God's word given to Ezekiel from chapters 32-39, which included the end times scenario in chapters 36-39, is not even connected remotely to the prophecies in chapters 40-45.

And so, to connect the two that are separated by at least twelve years and two very different topics is, in my opinion, erroneous.

If God says that David will have his throne in perpetuity and Levi will have the priesthood in perpetuity, then it really doesn't matter whether one chapter is connected to another or that the people returned from Babylon 70 years after the captivity.

So I don't get the point you are making.

[third hero]

If God says that David will have his throne in perpetuity and Levi will have the priesthood in perpetuity, then it really doesn't matter whether one chapter is connected to another or that the people returned from Babylon 70 years after the captivity.

So I don't get the point you are making.

A couple of points, I am making. Understand, you will... (Soul calibur 4 has Yoda, and I am just hooked on it!)

1. The two topics in Ezekiel are separated by 12 years.

Why is that important? Simple. Chapters 40-44 deal with a temple and the people of Israel coming back to their homeland. This is by no means connected to the end times scenario that God shows Ezekiel in chap0ters 36-39.

2. Chapters 40-44 deal with Israel personally, and not the rest of the nations, as God is dealing with in chapters 32-39.

Lots of times, especially with this book in particular, people read chapters 32-44 and lump them into the same mould. Just because chapter 40 comes right after chapter 39 does not mean that the two chapters are linked. It is just like any other prophetic book in the Bible. Isaiah's prophecies jump all over time and eternity, as does Jeremiah, Daniel, Zechariah, and many of the others. There really is no cohesion there except that those prophecies were given to the same prophet. The only way to really provide cohesion is to piece together bits and pieces of the text in what would make the most sense. Because Jesus has already done the hard part, it should be much much easier for us to figure out which prophecy goes into what time period.

For instance. Jesus is the only sacrifice that can make atonement of sin. Before Christ died, He forgave a man his sins before he healed him, so that the people know that HE is the only one that can forgive sin. Since then, nothing else can make atonement. Even before Christ walked this earth, Isaiah mentions that God does not accept animal sacrifices for atonement of sin, and mind you, they had to still make the sacrifice, even if it was useless.

Now, look at Ezekiel 43. We find that the priests are commanded to make the sacrifice offerings for atonement of sin. Can this happen in the post-sacrifical era? No. Only Jesus can atone us of oour sins, whether others believe that or not. So, if that is the case, we have to dig a little deeper.

In Ezekiel 43, God tells Ezekiel to tell the people what He had shown him. Before He tells them that command, He explains what He did and why. (Ezekiel 43:6-8). Afterwards, He tells Ezekiel of His intentions for Israel, (verses 9-10). Then He gives the command.

If we look into history, we find that God consumed Israel in His wrath only twice. The first time, He used Babylon. The second He used Rome. I have not heard from any prophet that mentioned to Israel that God is bringing them back to their homeland after the second exile. However, it is written that God did speak to the prophets concerning the first return from exile. And this is exactly what Ezekiel 40-44 is. These prophecies were dealing with the first exile period.

All of the pieces fit together. Ezekiel was a well known prophet that God used primarily for the Israelites who were in exile. He was comissioned during that period and the majority of his prophecies dealt with that time period. When this prophecy was given to him, twenty-five years had passed since the day of their exile, and God was preparing them to come back to the land that He gave their forefathers.

This is why chapter 43 is so important. It explains which time period this set of prophecies were for, and also it shows the conditions in which these prophecies would be fulfilled. If Israel had have acted in the way that God wanted them to, then this prophecy would have been fulfilled. However, they did not, and I believe the evidence is found in Ezra 3:10-13. God wanted Israel to mourn after what they had lost, and many did not, and therefore, like Jonah's prophecy to Ninevah, the fulfillment was not to happen.

[yoSAMite]

markward said:

Jesus specifically say "Do this in remembrance of Me," making the actions described purely a "Let us remember" act.

I understand what you are saying, but what I'm wondering more specifically is why would this need to be done "in remembrance" when Jesus is present. In the same way could the Ezekiel sacrifices be done "in remembrance" since these would be post cross? I think we'd agree that sacrifices before the cross didn't take away sins and I think it's evident that any done after the cross would also not take away sins.

On further thought, I'm wondering why the Lords Supper would even be done in Eternity, which I'm assuming you believe would be the time we are in after 2nd coming.

In my opinion, this necessitates a past fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecies, during the era before Christ's incarnation.

If that is the case, where is the temple that is prophesied?

john146 asked

You don't think it's important for the Bible to be consistent in what it teaches?

Besides being a somewhat condescending question, the answer is yes I do think it's important for the Bible to consistent in what it teaches. Not only that, I believe it is, when serious study is done.

How do you reconcile your view with what is taught in the book of Hebrews regarding animal sacrifices not being pleasing to the Lord and how it teaches that Christ made the once and for all sacrifice for sin on the cross? How can there possibly be additional sin offerings made in the future in light of Christ's once and for all sin offering He made long ago?

I'm still looking into this and the more I'm reading the further I'm moving away from the notion that Ezek 40-48 is a conditional prophecy.

Have you ever studied the book of Hebrews in depth before?

I have, but not in the context of the Ezek prophecy in question here.

[BroRog]

A couple of points, I am making. Understand, you will... (Soul calibur 4 has Yoda, and I am just hooked on it!)

1. The two topics in Ezekiel are separated by 12 years.

Why is that important? Simple. Chapters 40-44 deal with a temple and the people of Israel coming back to their homeland. This is by no means connected to the end times scenario that God shows Ezekiel in chap0ters 36-39.

2. Chapters 40-44 deal with Israel personally, and not the rest of the nations, as God is dealing with in chapters 32-39.

Lots of times, especially with this book in particular, people read chapters 32-44 and lump them into the same mould. Just because chapter 40 comes right after chapter 39 does not mean that the two chapters are linked. It is just like any other prophetic book in the Bible. Isaiah's prophecies jump all over time and eternity, as does Jeremiah, Daniel, Zechariah, and many of the others. There really is no cohesion there except that those prophecies were given to the same prophet. The only way to really provide cohesion is to piece together bits and pieces of the text in what would make the most sense. Because Jesus has already done the hard part, it should be much much easier for us to figure out which prophecy goes into what time period.

For instance. Jesus is the only sacrifice that can make atonement of sin. Before Christ died, He forgave a man his sins before he healed him, so that the people know that HE is the only one that can forgive sin. Since then, nothing else can make atonement. Even before Christ walked this earth, Isaiah mentions that God does not accept animal sacrifices for atonement of sin, and mind you, they had to still make the sacrifice, even if it was useless.

Now, look at Ezekiel 43. We find that the priests are commanded to make the sacrifice offerings for atonement of sin. Can this happen in the post-sacrifical era? No. Only Jesus can atone us of oour sins, whether others believe that or not. So, if that is the case, we have to dig a little deeper.

In Ezekiel 43, God tells Ezekiel to tell the people what He had shown him. Before He tells them that command, He explains what He did and why. (Ezekiel 43:6-8). Afterwards, He tells Ezekiel of His intentions for Israel, (verses 9-10). Then He gives the command.

If we look into history, we find that God consumed Israel in His wrath only twice. The first time, He used Babylon. The second He used Rome. I have not heard from any prophet that mentioned to Israel that God is bringing them back to their homeland after the second exile. However, it is written that God did speak to the prophets concerning the first return from exile. And this is exactly what Ezekiel 40-44 is. These prophecies were dealing with the first exile period.

All of the pieces fit together. Ezekiel was a well known prophet that God used primarily for the Israelites who were in exile. He was comissioned during that period and the majority of his prophecies dealt with that time period. When this prophecy was given to him, twenty-five years had passed since the day of their exile, and God was preparing them to come back to the land that He gave their forefathers.

This is why chapter 43 is so important. It explains which time period this set of prophecies were for, and also it shows the conditions in which these prophecies would be fulfilled. If Israel had have acted in the way that God wanted them to, then this prophecy would have been fulfilled. However, they did not, and I believe the evidence is found in Ezra 3:10-13. God wanted Israel to mourn after what they had lost, and many did not, and therefore, like Jonah's prophecy to Ninevah, the fulfillment was not to happen.

I understand your explanation. But your point, i.e. that Ezekiel 40-44 applies to the first exile period is not much of a rebuttal of Jeremiah's word from the Lord that Levi will have the priesthood in perpetuity. God is not one to break his promises.