SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The millennial Kingdom

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

TMK no I didn't. non literal hmm. yeah I noticed the beginning of the section on the Ezekiel Temple seemed like it was a different landscape:

In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was taken, on that same day the hand of the LORD was upon me and He brought me there. In the visions of God He brought me into the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain, and on it to the south there was a structure like a city.
(Ezekiel 40:1-2 NASB)

very high mountain doesn't seem like present day Jerusalem.

 2014/8/25 16:20
docs
Member



Joined: 2006/9/16
Posts: 2011


 Re: Changes in the landscape at Christ's coming

"very high mountain doesn't seem like present day Jerusalem."

Perhaps the changes in the landscape that are to occur at Christ's second advent could help explain things.

Zechariah 14:4 - And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.

Also,

Zechariah 14:8 - 10

8 - And it will come about in that day that living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter

9 - And the Lord will be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one.

10 - All the land will be changed into a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem; but Jerusalem will rise and remain on its site from Benjamin's Gate as far as the place of the First Gate to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king's wine presses.

The Mount of Olives will split at Christ;s return, the life giving waters will appear and a large portion of the land will become a plain while at the same time Jerusalem will rise ("but Jerusalem will rise") although maintaining its present location. The land becoming a plain and Jerusalem rising will give Jerusalem a place of prominence as even a physical mountain compared to the rest that has become a low plain. These are not spiritual allegories symbolizing deeper truth but are a description of the days when the mountain of the house of the Lord which is Jerusalem (see Isaiah 2:1, Daniel 9:16) will be established as the chief of the mountains and will be raised ("and Jerusalem will rise") above the hills; and all the nations will stream to it and many people will come and say let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob" (Isaiah 2:2-3)

Could the house of the God of Jacob be a new temple that Ezekiel saw instead of automatically presuming it refers to the church or some deeper spiritual truth or the like? And this temple would be located on a elevated Jerusalem that stands higher than the rest of the hills and plains. So it won't be present day Jerusalem. Rather it will be a physically changed Jerusalem that was changed at Christ's second advent as He returned to the nation from whence He left. If Ezekiel saw the house of the God of Jacob located on a high mountain which is a physically changed and elevated Jerusalem according to Zechariah then God's word once again astonishingly fits and correlates itself together in perfect harmony with itself. Isaiah, Ezekiel and Zechariah's portrayals are woven together perfectly. Amen!





_________________
David Winter

 2014/8/26 0:25Profile
havok20x
Member



Joined: 2008/9/14
Posts: 786


 Re:

Brothers,

I would encourage you to read chapters 40 to the end of Ezekiel.

*******************

There are 2 different gates.

The eastern gate attached to the outer wall, gaining access to the outer court is the one by which the Lord entered and will always be shut.

The eastern gate leading to the inner court (contained within the outer court) can be opened by the prince and the people can only enter there on the Sabbath, with the prince.

Also, the prince will father children, therefore he cannot be Christ. The prince will not perform any priestly duties, which we know Christ has already done for us. Lastly, the prince only owns a small portion of Israel, although it is large than what anyone else owns. This seems to say to me that the prince is only a man--an exalted man, but a man nonetheless.

*********************************

TMK,

I understand your human-temple statement, but that really isn't a commentary on Ezekiel. I am asking you to take Ezekiel and point-for-point define what it is saying.

 2014/8/26 7:30Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5377
NC, USA

 Re:

Hi havok--

Man I wish I could do that but far better men than me admit it is exceedingly difficult to do so. Recall this was a vision granted to Ezekiel. The vision with all it's grandeur may be pointing to something spiritual. Matthew Henry calls it a mystical vision.

I don't believe that the New Jerusalem is a literal cube shaped city either, but is rather a representation of the perfect Bride of Christ.


_________________
Todd

 2014/8/26 9:13Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5377
NC, USA

 Re:

Here is a not-so-long article that discusses the problems with a literal interpretation ands sets forth an interesting alternative explanation that seems plausible:

http://www.equip.org/articles/making-sense-ezekiels-temple-vision/#christian-books-1


_________________
Todd

 2014/8/26 13:24Profile
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 2037
Whittier CA USA

 Re:

Great article TMK.

From the article:

"Choosing a Hermeneutical Strategy. In choosing among these options, we are compelled to decide between differing hermeneutical priorities. One of the chief hermeneutical principles recommended by dispensationalist scholars is that of maintaining a consistently literal interpretation. This would mean that “spiritualizing” the text must be seen as a departure from the most faithful handling of Scripture. Therefore, dispensationalists argue for a literal, physical building to be established in fulfillment of Ezekiel’s vision. Since the temple erected after Ezekiel’s time did not fit Ezekiel’s description, they believe that there must be another temple in the future that will do so more admirably.

It would be easier to accept this theory if we did not have the New Testament to guide our thinking. The most obvious problem presented here is that the book of Hebrews (e.g., 10:1–18) speaks of the death of Christ on the cross as a termination of the efficacy of bloody animal sacrifices, such as those Israel offered in the temple. If Ezekiel’s vision applies to a future time, why do we again find the offering of animal sacrifices?

The dispensationalist answer is that the millennial sacrifices will not be intended to atone for sins. The blood of Christ precludes any need for that. Just as the Old Testament sacrifices anticipated the death of Christ as a future event, it is suggested the future millennial sacrifices will commemorate the death of Christ as a past event.

The text of Ezekiel, however, seems to preclude this, since the various offerings in the temple are said to “make atonement for the house of Israel” (45:17).1 Thus, the sacrifices are presented as an atonement for sin, not as a memorial. Christ Himself recommended the use of wine and bread to commemorate His death (1 Cor. 11:24–26). Why would God replace this with animal sacrifices in which God never found any particular pleasure (Ps. 40:6; 51:16; Heb. 10:6)?

Further, Ezekiel says that “the prince” will offer a sin offering “for himself and for all the people” (45:22). If the prince is required to offer sacrifices for his own sins, this would militate against any theory that identifies him with Christ, who never sinned."


_________________
Oracio

 2014/8/26 14:07Profile
havok20x
Member



Joined: 2008/9/14
Posts: 786


 Re:

I am not a dispensationalist at all.

But I disagree with this article.

And I definitely have a hard time agreeing that this prophecy was fulfilled in Christ.

Quote:
How then are we to understand the temple vision? First, one might reasonably refer to the vision as that which “might have been,” had the Jewish exiles in Babylon exhibited a more thorough repentance than they did. There is an indication that the realization of this vision in Israel’s future was contingent on the people being sufficiently ashamed, or repentant, of their past sins: “Son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the pattern. And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple” (Ezek. 43:10–11).



Having just studied the entire book of Ezekiel, this phrase (or ones similar to it) - "that they may be ashamed of their iniquities" - occurs several times. (chapters 16 and 32) and you most certainly cannot apply that thinking to those chapters.

So the foundational precept for this article is not even applicable.

 2014/8/26 15:19Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5377
NC, USA

 Re:

You could be right havok.

Personally I must resist any interpretation that affirms that there will be literal animal sacrifices sanctioned by God in some future temple. That seems to go smack against what Jesus taught and what the apostles taught.

But that's just me, of course. I don't really have a dog in the fight because even if the literal interpretation is true and they started construction of this ginormous temple (larger than the area of the current city of Jerusalem) today, I would not be alive to see the first sacrifice.


_________________
Todd

 2014/8/26 15:48Profile
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 2037
Whittier CA USA

 Re:

havoc, I did not realize the article was longer than what I had read. I too disagree with that interpretation. The article gives brief descriptions of different interpretations. I lean toward this one:

"Is It the Church? Some Christian commentators have understood the content of these chapters as an apocalyptic vision, which is best interpreted spiritually. They point out that the church, in the New Testament, is often referred to as God’s “temple” or habitation. Each Christian is a “living stone” (1 Pet. 2:5), built, along with others, “upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20) into a “temple of God” (1 Cor. 3:16). On this view, the features of temple worship—priests, altars, sacrifices, blood rituals—would be seen as pertaining to spiritual, rather than literal, realities, and applied to our worship of God in the present time. In particular, the description of the river, in chapter 47, would seem to support a nonliteral interpretation. If this is the correct view, we would be required either to see many of the tedious details as being either superfluous or as corresponding to spiritual ideas that would be very difficult to identify with confidence."

As in the book of Revelation, the book of Ezekiel has much in it that is symbolic and has spiritual application. My thoughts.


_________________
Oracio

 2014/8/26 15:55Profile
havok20x
Member



Joined: 2008/9/14
Posts: 786


 Re:

Also I must confess that I am up for a spiritual application; however I would like to know what it means if that were true...lol

 2014/8/26 20:10Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy