This is a good one...trust me!

[~JM~]

I've been struggling to understand Ezekiel' s temple vision (Ezekiel 40- 48 ) and the sacrifices that seem to be predicted in the Millennium (Ezekiel 43:13, 27; 45:15, 17, 20).

A few to look over.

Prophecies of a Millennial Temple: Joel 3:18; Isaiah 2:3; Isaiah 60:13; Daniel 9:24; Haggai 2:7,9

Prophecies of animal sacrifices in the future Temple: Isaiah 56:6,7; Isaiah 60:7; Jeremiah 33:18; Zechariah 14:16-21

The issue of animal Sacrifices can be a difficult topic to tackle, but details are given in Eze. 40:39 – 42 and 43:18 – 46:24 and we cannot simply ignore them. It’s important to note, these animal Sacrifices are clearly different then those found in the Mosaic system with a few elements of the Mosaic system remaining. One theologian writes, “Doubtless these offerings will be memorial, looking back to the cross, as the offering under the old covenant were anticipatory, looking forward to the cross.” We know that “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins,” Heb. 10:3

I'm not suggesting these sacrifices will anything for sin, but that's the problem, why are they even mentioned?

In Zech. 14 we seem to find a Feast of Tabernacles AFTER armageddon. How do you view these texts? What is the classic Historic Premil understanding of these texts?

Thanks.

jm

[Whammer]

There is more than enought to read in the eschaton, I will just say that it should be obvious to you that the only scripture you could bring up is ALL OT. The NT does not talk anywhere about the building of another OT temple, only the destruction of the last temple in ad 70. The whole book of Hebrews makes it clear that there will never be ANY need whatsoever to return to any type of sacrafice..........ever, that is an insult to Christ. I know that Schofiled/Ryrie (and others) have tried to memorialize the OT sacrafices.....but they have to even rip the OT texts they use completely out of there contexts and leave off the parts that describe SIN offerings to fit into their false system of interpretation.
Why does some who profess Christ continue to want to go back to OT types and shadows when the reality is complete in Christ.........God only knows as He is in control........otherwise it makes absolutely no sense to me at all..............Col. 2:16-17, all of Hebrews

[~JM~]

Whammer,
I can’t agree with your over simplification, it really does depend on how you understand the Bible. Preterists, futurists, idealists, etc. all have different ways of how to interpret the scriptures. In Revelation 7, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 21 we find evidence of a Temple. We may disagree on how to understand this Temple, but it’s there. In 2 Thess. 2:4 we also find a Temple being mentioned with someone sitting in it opposing God.



Now, in Acts 21:22-26 it seems Paul “purified” himself to enter the Temple, why? If the arguments against sacrifices are valid for claiming OT practices are done and fulfilled with Christ’s death, why did Paul “purify” himself? Isn’t that blaspheming?



I did a little research on the word “atonement.” It means “covering” and never means the putting away of sins. The Old Testament sacrifices produced an outward ceremonial cleanness, a ritual purification on the people, which allowed them to draw near as worshippers of God. We find sacrifices even made for inanimate things Ex. 29:37 of which no remission of sins can be had. Atonement in this day and age of theology has a deeper meaning then it did in the Old Testament sense of the word, for instance, describing the work of Christ on the cross as a reconciliation (Rom. 5:11). The passages in Hebrews do not rule out any sacrificial ceremony in the future, but they insist that no future offerings can deal with sins any more then they did in the past.


It’s a difficult topic for me.

[Whammer]

As far as the temple mentioned in Rev. that is still standing, I have to say that thought I am not a "postmil" I do agree with much of the things Ken Gentry historically brought forth in his book "Before Jerusalem Fell".............ever read it? I dont buy the late date of Rev. at all, so the temple John sees is still standing, that is why he is told to measure it (Rev. 11).
As far as Paul or any other apostle, I have addressed the issues of WHAT the aposltes did throughout the book of Acts as they GREW.....and attesting to the truthfulness of scripture.......telling it like it is........sinful mess-ups and all......what they did indicatively is not necessarily to be established as a precedent for all the elect to follow.......for ex. we know from the book of Acts that Paul circumcized Timothy for resons of offence......however look at his advice to the Galatians in 5:2
Paul did not continue in this error of circumcizing greek brethren.......Gal. 2:3..........the scritpure is infallible and how it presents the apostles (Gal. 2:11) is not as though they themselves are.
So I think the over-simplification is on your part, assuming that something indicative is now possibly imperative.............ALL sacrafice is done away.......forever in the sacrafice of Christ......His 1 sacrafice is totally complete in EVERY WAY......nothing can be added or pictured better than that........to attempt to go back to old covenant thinking is to do what Paul warned the galatians not to do....so if you wish to go back to further slavery......go ahead, I will not be joining you friend!

[jmgipson]

As far as the temple mentioned in Rev. that is still standing, I have to say that thought I am not a "postmil" I do agree with much of the things Ken Gentry historically brought forth in his book "Before Jerusalem Fell".............ever read it? I dont buy the late date of Rev. at all, so the temple John sees is still standing, that is why he is told to measure it (Rev. 11).
As far as Paul or any other apostle, I have addressed the issues of WHAT the aposltes did throughout the book of Acts as they GREW.....and attesting to the truthfulness of scripture.......telling it like it is........sinful mess-ups and all......what they did indicatively is not necessarily to be established as a precedent for all the elect to follow.......for ex. we know from the book of Acts that Paul circumcized Timothy for resons of offence......however look at his advice to the Galatians in 5:2
Paul did not continue in this error of circumcizing greek brethren.......Gal. 2:3..........the scritpure is infallible and how it presents the apostles (Gal. 2:11) is not as though they themselves are.
So I think the over-simplification is on your part, assuming that something indicative is now possibly imperative.............ALL sacrafice is done away.......forever in the sacrafice of Christ......His 1 sacrafice is totally complete in EVERY WAY......nothing can be added or pictured better than that........to attempt to go back to old covenant thinking is to do what Paul warned the galatians not to do....so if you wish to go back to further slavery......go ahead, I will not be joining you friend!

Bryan,
I have been moving towards partial pret. myself lately. I am reading Gentrys book on the dating of Revelation and also Last Day madness by Gary Demar. I find alot of what they write hard to dismiss. Good stuff.

John

[~JM~]

As far as the temple mentioned in Rev. that is still standing, I have to say that thought I am not a "postmil" I do agree with much of the things Ken Gentry historically brought forth in his book "Before Jerusalem Fell".............ever read it? I dont buy the late date of Rev. at all, so the temple John sees is still standing, that is why he is told to measure it (Rev. 11).

I've never read Gentry, but have seen different thought within that camp. The date of the book of Revelation is an issue, one that I'm not qualified to answer. But I agree with the internal evidence/traditional argument.

As far as Paul or any other apostle, I have addressed the issues of WHAT the aposltes did throughout the book of Acts as they GREW.....and attesting to the truthfulness of scripture.......telling it like it is........sinful mess-ups and all......what they did indicatively is not necessarily to be established as a precedent for all the elect to follow.......for ex. we know from the book of Acts that Paul circumcized Timothy for resons of offence......however look at his advice to the Galatians in 5:2
Paul did not continue in this error of circumcizing greek brethren.......Gal. 2:3..........the scritpure is infallible and how it presents the apostles (Gal. 2:11) is not as though they themselves are.

Nothing to add about Acts 21?

So I think the over-simplification is on your part, assuming that something indicative is now possibly imperative.............ALL sacrafice is done away.......forever in the sacrafice of Christ......His 1 sacrafice is totally complete in EVERY WAY......nothing can be added or pictured better than that........to attempt to go back to old covenant thinking is to do what Paul warned the galatians not to do....so if you wish to go back to further slavery......go ahead, I will not be joining you friend!

It's all too simple to sweep these passages under the rug. Are all sacrifices the same? Are they for the same purpose? Hebrews is dealing with the Atonement not, for example, the Feast of Tabernacles which seems to be celebrated during the millennium. Zech. 14, Eze. 45 I'm interested in your understanding of Zech. 14 that seems to be saying AFTER armageddon the Feast of Tabernacles will be celebrated. This isn't a return to the past, but a revelation of the future, which will be regulated under the New Covenant that exists now. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is very clear about the future, "not like the covenant which I made with their fathers." You have to assume that we have purely spiritual NC, and deny a future theocratic kingdom, but this is a fact of the NC Jer. 31:27-28; 32:37-41; Eze. 37:25-26.

We see in Mat 19:28 that Christ did in fact, see a physical, future Kingdom: “And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” When pressed for the timing of the physical Kingdom Christ answered, “Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” This was after the resurrection, Christ didn’t deny a return to a physical Kingdom, on the contrary, He seems to say, “God will get to that in due time.”

Luk 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. We also know that Israel will be grafted back in Romans 11, for the promise of God to Israel are irrevocable Jeremiah 31:35-37 Gal. 4 is speaking directly to two different covenants, one is above and free, the other is still tied to the earth in the land promises as explained above. Abraham's descendents would literally inherit the land was ritually symbolized in Gen. 15:7-21. "To your descendents I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates" (Gen. 15:18).

Where Christ is, there is His Kingdom. Jesus repeated this to the Pharisees over and over again but they couldn’t “see” or recognize it. Luke 19:44 What it does not mean is that His disciples would not see Him coming, for Jesus clarifies that they would, or rather COULD be witness to His coming, but it would be a magnificent coming. This is not a concealed, indiscernible coming to be proclaimed by people saying "He is here or there." Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world in terms of origin and nature, not location.

Sorry, gotta run. UFC is on tonight and I have a bunch of things to do, I hope to get back late tonight or tomorrow.

peace.

jm

[~JM~]

Bryan,
I have been moving towards partial pret. myself lately. I am reading Gentrys book on the dating of Revelation and also Last Day madness by Gary Demar. I find alot of what they write hard to dismiss. Good stuff.

John

Hey John, here's where I'm at: : I believe in a literal hermeneutic, premillennialism, seven year tribulation with the Antichrist dominating the second half, mark of the beast, persecution of national Israel, with the rapture of the Church before the wrath of God is poured out during the Day of the Lord and there is only one coming of Christ. Who is "they?"

[Robert R. Higby]

I'm not suggesting these sacrifices will anything for sin, but that's the problem, why are they even mentioned?

Well, if you read closely you will recall quite memorably that these sacrifices in the temple of Ezek. 40-48 are offered TO MAKE ATONEMENT. So to suggest that they do not effect anything for sin is not proper interpretation.

They are mentioned because Ezek. 40-48 was written in the era of the law-covenant and it describes (in its crass-literal sense) what would take place if that covenant was obeyed! The prophecy will still be fulfilled exclusively in its transcendant and resurrected meaning--since Israel has been rejected by God as a covenant nation forever and ever and ever.

[~JM~]

I'm not suggesting these sacrifices will anything for sin, but that's the problem, why are they even mentioned?

Well, if you read closely you will recall quite memorably that these sacrifices in the temple of Ezek. 40-48 are offered TO MAKE ATONEMENT. So to suggest that they do not effect anything for sin is not proper interpretation.

They are mentioned because Ezek. 40-48 was written in the era of the law-covenant and it describes (in its crass-literal sense) what would take place if that covenant was obeyed! The prophecy will still be fulfilled exclusively in its transcendant and resurrected meaning--since Israel has been rejected by God as a covenant nation forever and ever and ever.

Mr. Higby, thanks for your response. I enjoy reading your posts.

You argument makes sense for the atonement offers spoken of in Eze. but it doesn't deal with the read of the passages in the OT.

Zech 14:1-11&16-21
1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. 9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.
11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited. ...
16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations [GENTILES] that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD's house shall be like the bowls before the altar.
21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

Christ's offering was made in the Heavenly Temple, not the earthly Temple.Heb 9:22-28
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Luke 22:15-20
15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Christ will observe Passover in the Kingdom.Luke 22:15-16
15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

Thanks again, I'll need to do some thinking on this subject, but if I disagree it doesn't matter...I was ordain for this wickedness!

[~JM~]

PS: Do you believe the OT sacrifices removed sin or created a real atonement?

[Whammer]

PS: Do you believe the OT sacrifices removed sin or created a real atonement?

Heb. 10:1-4 will answer this
On your thoughts on Acts 21, since paul was already a circumcized jew from years before his regeneration, I can only offer 1 Cor. 9:20 as it surely fits the scenario.
As far as Zech. 14, go back and look at Lev. 23:33-44 and it more detailed account in Num. 29:12-40......how does going back to this old covenant sacraficial necessity....show honor to Christ in the new covenant of His blood???
Also look carefully at these passages..........Eph. 2:11-21, Col. 2:13-17, Heb 7:12 and thru the end, Heb. 8 interprets your quotes in Jer. and Eze. on their promises of the new covenant, Heb. 9:11-26, Heb. 10:9
What does the word "abolish" mean and why is it used.
If paul tells the romans they have a new spouse, the old spouse being the old cov. law is now "dead", how does this tie in?

When I 1st started reading the bible, I attended a premil, dispensational, pre-wrath assembly, and bought that system of eschatology for over 10 years, so I also understand where you coming from, so I think you should consider that maybe.........just maybe you have been told to read into those OT passages......more than is there about the future of out own time.
I would still say, take time to read the eschaton part of the forum, if should give you much more to "re-consider", I know that like me, you surely would not say that you have arrived at all truth yet, so take time to re-consider some of this, do like the apostles did and use the NT to interpret the old........not the other way around, ie. Acts 15:13-17 and look at its OT referent in Amos 9 and see how that squares.
The apolstles had a hard time grasping this concept of the gentiles and all that their inclusion meant.......but as paul says, the dividing wall has been torn down.........do you see anywhere in the NT where it says that dividing wall will be brought back up for 7 years.
As you read thru the book of Acts, look at how the OT is interpreted by the Holy Spirit.......surely you will see ways in which a jew of the OT would never have seen such revelation or truth at that time.
So if the NT states something as fulfulled in a way that we would never have arrived at in OT times........lets give way to God to interpret his prophecies His own way, and not force the text into "jew only" type thinking which plagued the 1st disciples for a long time.

John.........hey brother, you and I are chewing some of the same things it sounds like........I have also read alot of the full prets.....but never could go with them, they go way way too far, but I would acccept the part. pret lable with my ammil position

[Whammer]

JM, I forgot to ask also, in those verses of Eph. 2:19-22, 2 Cor. 6:16-18, 1 Cor. 6:19-20, Heb. 11:8-16, Heb. 12:18-24, 1 Pet. 2:4-10..............what does the temple or building of God look like in these verses.
Also, you may want to grab your concordance and look up the word "forever" and see how it is used in the OT, in all its contexts.......the heaven and earth of the OT were supposed to be "forever" in existence too, why do we need a NEW heavens and earth if forever meant "for all eternity".......where lies the contradiction?

[~JM~]

Will do, thanks.

[wildboar]

The dispensationalist often claims that they are taking Scripture literally while others allegorize. The fact of the matter is that nobody takes all of Scripture completely literally and the dispensationalists picks and chooses which Scriptures to take literalistically and is incapable of producing a consistent hermeneutic for accomplishing that.

Ezekiel's temple is a good example. The dimensions of the temple are such that it would not fit on Mount Moriah. Here's a good article on the temple: http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_arti...The-Temple.htm

[~JM~]

For the record, one more time, I'm not a dispey! lol I wouldn't consider ante-Nicene chiliasm as dispensatioinalism either. Irenaeus who was a student of Polycarp who was instructed by the apostle John believed in a future Temple.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...#P9242_2690367

Justin Martyr
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...m#P4043_787325

Hippolytus - Appendix to the Works of Hippolytus
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/...#P4085_1270570

Hippolytus - Treatise on Christ and Antichrist
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/...#P3417_1067439

If it wasn’t an abomination as they pointed forward to Christ, I don’t see how they can be an abomination if they are offered looking back to Christ. The blood of bulls and goats never took away sin in the past as Hebrews teaches, and won’t in the future. I did a little reading on the 5 offerings in Eze. 40-48. All seem to be made for ceremonial cleanness. The sin offering is in reference, I've read [I don't know Hebrew], to preparing ritual items that have been tainted. Eze. doesn't give a function for this offering so I'm going with Lev. 4-5 on this one and assume Eze. is in line with Lev. on this issue.

What I don’t understand is how can the Temple be considered desecrated if it was rejected by God? If the Temple of Rev. 11 was false [doesn't matter if you're a futurist or preterist on this issue] why did God object to the abomination? And why do the two witnesses of Revelation mourn the Temple, shouldn’t they have been happy with the “shadows and types?"

At this point we are all entrenched in our views, I'll bow out, thank you for your understanding and kind, helpful posts.

jm

[Robert R. Higby]

What I don’t understand is how can the Temple be considered desecrated if it was rejected by God? If the Temple of Rev. 11 was false [doesn't matter if you're a futurist or preterist on this issue] why did God object to the abomination? And why do the two witnesses of Revelation mourn the Temple, shouldn’t they have been happy with the “shadows and types?"

This all depends on one's hermeneutic on interpreting Revelation and what the temple of Rev. 11 is. Many of those who accept a spiritual interpretation, based on the final fulfillment of the law and types in Christ, believe this temple to be the new people of God in this world redeemed by Christ's blood. That interpretation fits the disposition of the witnesses perfectly.