Featured The Temple in Ezekiel

There is a possibilty he is not seeing the real fulfillment.

 

The very possibility of rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple raises a number of serious theological questions which ought to be addressed, especially in light of the dispensational expectation of a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem at the dawn of the supposed seven-year tribulation period, which then functions as a center of worship during the millennial age.


Not all who think there will be a Temple in the Millennial Kingdom believe it has to be the Temple Antichrist will defile. I actually doubt that Temple will even be standing when Christ returns.


That said, I do not think such a thing is even remotely likely, given the current tensions in Jerusalem over control and access to the Temple Mount, much less the long-term political circumstances of doing so.

That is one problem I think people have: they expect the events that lead up to and are found within the Tribulation to be like the conditions we have today. There is going to be a drastic change in World Politics by the time we get to Antichrist stepping up and declaring himself God.

One thing to keep in mind is that Antichrist cannot be revealed as long as the Restrainer is still restraining. When that restraint is removed all Hell breaks loose. Also, keep in mind that there will be an empire in place when Antichrist takes it over. The seventh world empire will have a king in place and Antichrist will be the eighth:


Revelation 17:10-11 King James Version

10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.


FIve are fallen: Egypt, Babylon, Syria, Medo-Persia, and Greece.

One is: Rome (at the time of the writing of Revelation).

And one is to come: the final world empire.

The Beast (Antichrist) is the eighth and of the seven. The eighth king of the seven world empires of history.

So before we see Israel allowed to rebuild, and the "Prince that is to come" of Daniel 9:24-27 strengthening the Covenant (of Law: God and Christ did not promise to strengthen any Covenant for one seven-year period, nor will He), we will see probably the Global World Order that Joe Biden is so fervently working to achieve. It will have a ruler, and rulers in place that will be deposed by Antichrist.

The point is, that trying to base what you think is going to happen by today's conditions falls short of what the conditions will be in those days.


Should Israel develop the religious and political will to occupy the Temple Mount (something unforeseeable at this point in time) and eventually take the steps necessary to demolish the Al-Aqsa Mosque (which is the third holiest site in Islam), the Jewish state would face the wrath of the entire Islamic world as well as that of much of the secular West.

Not going to happen.

The world will be given strong delusion and they will venerate Antichrist over their false gods. They will have already bought into globalism.

Muslims and Christ-rejecting Jews alike will be like-minded.

Secondly, it will be Antichrist that makes it possible for the Temple to be rebuilt. It will be Antichrist and his army/military that Muslims will have to deal with, not Israel. THis shows how the scenario is sought to be compared to today's conditions, and it leaves the pondered a little bit short-sighted.


Dispensationalists expect the Jerusalem Temple to be rebuilt and fervently hope for it.


You know, I have known quite a few dispensationalists and I have never run across one that "fervently hopes for the rebuilding of the Temple. While I do not view myself a dispensationalism, most think I am because I happen to agree with a number of doctrinal views they teach. My own views are the product of my own studies, and what relates to Dispensational Theology isn't because I actively read their teachings, simply a matter of my own conclusions agreeing with theirs.

And if one wants to call me dispensational, that's okay with me. That's kind of like someone saying "You American!" Not an insult. I am also trinitarian but I am not a Catholic. I believe God still works miracles but I am not a charismatic.

Just don't call me a dispy!




As far the possibility of a rebuilt temple is concerned, the most important question is not geo-political, but theological. “What does a rebuilt temple mean to the larger drama of redemptive history?” “Why is it such a serious theological mistake to believe such a thing?”

That's easy: it's never a Theological Mistake to properly interpret Scripture.

The Tribulation Temple will serve the purpose of fulfilling Prophecy. When Antichrist confirms the Covenant (and remember, only the Covenant of Law was relevant to the people the Prophecy is given to and to whom it relates: Daniel's People (Daniel 9:24)). he will break that covenant in the midst/middle of the Week (Daniel 9:27) Antichrist will cause sacrifice and oblation to cease, which points to the fact sacrifice and oblation will be going on. That makes perfect sense if Antichrist strengthens the Covenant of Law for Daniel's People.

Another point I would make is that I don't see the Temple having to be completely finished in it's rebuild in order for Levitical Service to begin again.


They base this interpretation upon their literal hermeneutic, which they say demands that a prophecy such as this one be interpreted literally, unless there is good reason to believe the prophecy should be interpreted figuratively. They reach this conclusion only by skipping over the profound echoes from Ezekiel’s prophecy found in Revelation 21.

Actually, they base it on what Scripture teaches, and because they don't make the mistake of hyper-literal or hyper-spiritual hermeneutics, they can figure out what the truth of figurative language is trying to teach us.



What exactly in Revelation would negate the Prophecy of Daniel, Christ, and Revelation as a whole? I haven't worked through this entire treatise by riddleblog, so maybe he clues us in on what he means by this later. We'll see. I am only going to address the first part this evening, but I will address it as a whole by the time I am finished with it. And hopefully that will help someone to be finished with dismissing the Prophecy of Ezekiel.

I am assuming he is referring to the fact that there will be no Temple in the New Jerusalem. Not sure why this would dismiss the idea that there will be a Temple in the Millennial Kingdom on the physical earth.


According to dispensationalists, what the New Testament seems to say about this temple cannot be applied in this case because such would mean that the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy would not be “literal.”

I see Christ telling the disciples that when they see the Abomination which makes desolate stand where he ought not (which means in the Temple) they should flee. Seeing that the Antichrist did not appear as described in Revelation and that Christ did not return in the First Century dismisses the idea of the Preterist.

I will say we might see a partial fulfillment of Prophecy in the first century, just as Antiochus Epiphanes was a partial fulfillment, but it wasn't the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Revelation.

The primary problem of the Preterist is that Christ did not return, and that is an event that validates final fulfillment of the Prophecy.


Continued...

 

Furthermore, this expectation for the temple also seems to require a return to memorial animal sacrifices, an act occuring after Jesus’ completion of the work of redemption which approaches blasphemy.


I don't have a problem with that: animal sacrifice has always been a temporal solution with temporary remission of sins offered.

Israel offering up sacrifice for Passover, for example, is not an attempt to gain remission of sins in an eternal context and never was. THey knew it was temporal and temporary just by the fact they had to do it again every year.

Secondly, many forget that Passover was a memorial. So to hem and haw about Israel maintaining their heritage makes about as much sense as charging Christians with seeking Atonement by celebrating Communion.

It's a memorial, folks.

And there is nowhere in the New Testament that tells Israel she must abandon their heritage. Paul offered up sacrifice as a Christian, why shouldn't Israel?


Acts 21:17-27 King James Version

17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.


18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.


19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.


20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:


21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.


22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.


23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;


24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.


25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.


26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.


27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,


I will admit that the philosophies rendered in an attempt to deny a consistent and harmonic fulfillment of Prophecy are interesting, and on the surface convincing. But when we look at all of Prophecy we see their philosophical attempts fall into ruin. Prophecy must be fulfilled, all of it, and that is the teaching of Christ and the Scriptures that are relevant.

I hope to address more of this tomorrow morning, Lord willing.


God bless.

 

The point is, that trying to base what you think is going to happen by tomorrow's conditions falls short of what the conditions were be in the first century.

Every thing predicted to happen to Israel has already happened. So there will be no future temple, no future millennium, no future worldwide visible coming of a King who is already here.

A disagree with Riddlebarger on a number of points but I like this quote from the article linked:

"Finally, the most egregious theological error of those who see a rebuilt temple as an essential feature of biblical eschatology, is that it ignores our Lord’s own teaching about the temple, namely that he is indeed the true temple, and that the temple in Jerusalem pointed to the heavenly temple spoken of by Ezekiel and John"

 

Is this your argument or what you are arguing against?

 

I am arguing against the futurist tenets of Darrell's response to the OP..

I am arguing that Scripture is against:
A future millennium
A future every-eye-will-see-him coming of Christ. He has already come. He is reigning now, whether we recognize it or not.
A future temple that has any validity (with actual or memorial sacrifices).

Anyone who argues for these being merely memorial sacrifices needs to read those Ezekiel chapters more carefully - and then touch base again with Ephesians and Hebrews.

 

Well, I am too a futurist. But post trib pre wrath.

 

Yes, I remember that about you. And I don't mean to lump all futurists together. I was just speaking generally.

For several years I hosted Pre-wrath group on Onelist, later owned by Yahoo. The first pre-wrath group.

 

That might be your point, Tom, but my point stands as it was presented.

Are you really going to say that the Lord did not mean what He said when he said...


Matthew 24:21
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


Do you really feel that the first-century events were greater than the tribulation that took place in the 20th century?

Do you really feel that the Lord got His wires crossed when He taught that He would return after The Tribulation He spoke about?

Do you really feel that the Prophecy of Scripture can be set aside unfulfilled?

On the contrary, there is much that has not happened.

Israel was not restored according to Prophecy in the First Century.

You cannot spiritualize the long life span God promises to them (Isaiah 65:20). Will a hundred years have relevance to the Eternal State?

You cannot spiritualize the end of the enmity between animals and between men and animals (Isaiah 65:25).

According to Scripture, there will be.

Just saying it ain't so doesn't make it so.

Would you mind addressing the points and Scripture I provided in my rejection of the article of the OP?

I would agree we see the earthly as figurative and representative for the true, but that doesn't negate what Scripture prophesies will happen.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to tell me, for example, what you do with the thousand-year period described in Revelation 20.

Perhaps you would explain why Scripture does not teach two resurrections in Revelation 20.

Perhaps you can explain how "...the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were over" doesn't mean that the rest of the dead don't live again until the thousand years are over.

I did not say they were for memorial only, that was given to illustrate how sacrifice can be offered by the Levitical Priesthood without it having to be for the purpose of Eternal Redemption.

I thought I was clear in stating that the heritage of Israel has never been commanded as something to be abandoned.

Scripture does not teach that Jews don't exist anymore, it teaches that Jew and Gentile (see the distinction?) are now one in Christ. Not People who used to be Israel and Gentile.

Any time you want to step into Hebrews, please let me know, it happens to be my favorite Book. And I can already say that nothing in it negates the Prophecy of God, nor hints that Prophecy will not be fulfilled as it always has:

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


All prophecy will be fulfilled. We cannot pick and choose what parts of Prophecy will or will not be fulfilled.

And if you want to teach a prophecy as being fulfilled, then you will need to show the prophecy and how and when it was fulfilled.

You say Christ's Return has already taken place, yet we do not see the mount of Olives cloven in two. We did not see the events of Revelation fulfilled in the first century. Did half the world's population die? Did Christ Return and judge the Sheep and Goats and then destroy all the goats (unbelievers)?

No.

If so, please educate me as to when and where that took place.

If you want to address my response to the article, please do so, that makes it interesting and gives me the opportunity to point out the weaknesses of thinking all prophecy has been fulfilled.

I am out of time today, but this is one of my favorite discussions, and always glad to look at them with those who take another position.

So, address the points already made, instead of just denying them.


God bless.

 

Please provide your scripture in support for this assertion.

 

It's not a quote from me, it's a quote from the article of the OP.

I did provide Scripture to address the point:

I don't have a problem with that: animal sacrifice has always been a temporal solution with temporary remission of sins offered.

Israel offering up sacrifice for Passover, for example, is not an attempt to gain remission of sins in an eternal context and never was. THey knew it was temporal and temporary just by the fact they had to do it again every year.

Secondly, many forget that Passover was a memorial. So to hem and haw about Israel maintaining their heritage makes about as much sense as charging Christians with seeking Atonement by celebrating Communion.

It's a memorial, folks.

And there is nowhere in the New Testament that tells Israel she must abandon their heritage. Paul offered up sacrifice as a Christian, why shouldn't Israel?


Acts 21:17-27 King James Version

17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.


18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.


19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.


20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:


21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.


22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.


23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;


24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.


25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.


26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.


27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,


I will admit that the philosophies rendered in an attempt to deny a consistent and harmonic fulfillment of Prophecy are interesting, and on the surface convincing. But when we look at all of Prophecy we see their philosophical attempts fall into ruin. Prophecy must be fulfilled, all of it, and that is the teaching of Christ and the Scriptures that are relevant.

I hope to address more of this tomorrow morning, Lord willing.

 

Gotcha

 

Carrying on:


Unlike dispensationalists, advocates of the other main interpretations all agree that the context demands a non-literal interpretation. I agree, if by non-literal interpretation you mean a real, but future eschatological fulfillment. Some see this an ideal temple never intended to be built upon the earth, a view which, in my estimation, is the weakest interpretation. Others see this as a vision of the ideal temple yet future, which still falls short of what Ezekiel describes. I am of the opinion that this is a picture of a real heavenly temple in the latter days which will be established on the earth in a non-structural way.[2] In other words, Ezekiel is giving us a picture of the new earth in prophetic images with which his readers were familiar.[3] This is a picture of the new earth as the dwelling of God. Ezekiel foresees it in earthly terms (complete with all the temple utensils), while John describes its fulfilled version (in eschatological terms).


Are we surprised "...advocates of the other 'main interpretations' all agree that the context demands a non-literal interpretation?" lol

Folks, really?

Is that supposed to convince people that 1) they are "main interpretations" and 2) that this has an impact on interpretation at all?

What prophecy does not incorporate figurative language that also holds literal truth? Interpreting literally is not a Dispensational hermeneutic it is a universal hermeneutic: all prophecy is given to convey truth about what will take place.

At least the author admits his view is simply opinion.

As far as point one he gives, we must consider Prophecy as a whole, so his opinion falls far short of what someone interpreting Prophecy as a whole would conclude. First, God promised Israel a physical restoration of their nation. That included long life:a death at 100 years of age would be considered the death of a child/babe, meaning they didn't live very long according to the conditions that will exist in that restoration.

That hasn't happened yet, and it will not be fulfilled in the Eternal State.

So who is ignoring what?

Point Two is just a reiteration of point one: he views the Temple of Ezekiel to be found in the Eternal State.

Can I suggest to the author that there will only be one Temple in that day?

Revelation 21:22
And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.


So to include a Temple in the Eternal State is not only adding to the Word of God it ignores what the Word of God states in Prophecy.

We know what Temple will exist in the Eternal State and it is not the Temple described in Ezekiel. And since Prophecy is always fulfilled, and God's promises are always fulfilled, to negate that prophecy and promise is to negate the Word of God. That is called taking away, by the way.

Point Three:

Ezekiel foresees it in earthly terms (complete with all the temple utensils), while John describes its fulfilled version (in eschatological terms).

So there will be offerings and sacrifice and utencils in the Eternal State?

I will point out that the author has to admit that the Temple in Ezekiel is foreseen in earthly terms.

That is not a coincidence. Because it is an earthly temple. If you can read it and somehow see it as what will take place in the Eternal State—yowza!

And again I point out that this leaves God's promises to Israel unfulfilled. As well as His promises. God does not lie, He will fulfill every promise to the jot and tittle.


Continued...

 

Based upon a number of factors (described below), Ezekiel’s prophecy points to a non-structural end-times temple.

I may have to edit this if the link doesn't carry over.

Well, before we look at the whole-cloth product, let's see some of the structural aspects of Ezekiel's temple:


Ezekiel 41:18-19 King James Version

18 And it was made with cherubims and palm trees, so that a palm tree was between a cherub and a cherub; and every cherub had two faces;

19 So that the face of a man was toward the palm tree on the one side, and the face of a young lion toward the palm tree on the other side: it was made through all the house round about.


Do we find images of Cherubim in the true Temple in Heaven (for which all earthly temples are but a shadow/figure/parable?

Or do we actually find Cherubim:


Revelation 14:17
And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

Revelation 15:6
And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.


Cherubim are accepted as angelic beings. The Temple in Heaven (again, presented on earth as figure/shadow/parable) does not have images of Angels, but Angels.

Here is an earthly Temple that is not yet on the earth:


Revelation 11 King James Version

11 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.


There is no question this takes place during the Tribulation (at the midst, the middle of the seven-year Tribulation). We can't have Gentiles trodding underfoot the Temple of the Millennial Kingdom or the Temple of the Eternal State (God).

So where do we see these prophecies fulfilled in the first century?

Glad you asked: we don't.

While we might see partial fulfillment we do not see fulfillment as Jesus Christ Himself taught they would unfold.

And the primary event we did not see in the First Century was the Return of Christ.

Every eye will see Him.

Those who make His Return a spiritual event that has no physical aspect ignore most of the Lord's and the Prophet's teachings. They ignore the Word of God.

That's just a fact.


Continued...

 

First, the prophecy cannot be interpreted literally and still make any sense. When God places the prophet on a very high mountain (40:1-2) he sees something like a city (obviously Jerusalem). Yet, there is no such high mountain near Jerusalem from which the prophet could have had such a vantage point.

Actually, it can be interpreted literally and make perfect sense.

More sense than teaching people Christ has already come.

More sense than teaching God will not fulfill His Own Prophecy and Promises.

More sense than teaching there will be an earthly temple in the Eternal State beside God.

Let's see the way Scripture is dismissed by the author:


But this literal high mountain is required by the dispensational view and its “literal” hermeneutic. Where is it?


It's interesting the author dismisses the notion but then turns around and answers his own question:

Some have responded that given the massive topological changes to Palestine and Jerusalem supposedly associated with the beginning of the millennial kingdom (i.e., Isaiah 26:15; 33:17; Jeremiah 31:38-40; Ezekiel 48:30-35; Joel 3:18; Obadiah 17-21; Zechariah 4:7; 14:1-10; Micah 4:1-2; 7:14), the vision of Jerusalem from a high mountain might indeed be literal.

Hmm, seems like the author thinks there are numerous prophecies that should not be viewed as an answer to his own question.

Will the average "believer" actually look these up to see if perhaps the mountain the author feels Ezekiel's prophecy describes isn't found in other prophecy?

No. Because many just want someone to do their work for them. They will not sufficiently test the spirits and get into the Word of God that God might enlighten them. That they might, by reason of use—be able to discern between good and evil.

Perhaps the author has taken care to present Scripture that, when looked at, will not fulfill the prophecy, thereby further allaying the reader's fears that their view might just be in error. So let's leave these quoted passages there for a bit and look elsewhere in Prophecy for a mountain:


Isaiah 2 King James Version

1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.

2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.


Shall the Law go out of Zon in the Eternal State?

Do we see a mountain that might just fit the bill?

Is this not concerning Judah and Jerusalem?

Let's look at what can't be interpreted literally by the author:


Ezekiel 40 King James Version

40 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.

2 In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south.


While we see "mountains" represent idolatry and false god worship, we also see a reconstruction of the land when the Lord returns. Here, Ezekiel states the high mountain was as the frame of a city. In other words, the mountain was structured like a city. I would agree we could see a "spiritual" reference in the use of mountain and mountains, and see it as confirming that God will be worshipped over all in this day. That isn't happening yet, either.

One of the author's cross references:


Zechariah 14 King James Version

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.


Prophecy speaks of Christ's Return here. Seems pretty physical to me.

"A great valley" requires more than one mountain, no?

This prophecy agrees with this:


Acts 1:11-12 King James Version

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.


We see the Lord will return from where He left: the mount of Olives.

See if the following can be attributed to the Eternal State:



Ezekiel 48:29-35 King James Version

29 This is the land which ye shall divide by lot unto the tribes of Israel for inheritance, and these are their portions, saith the Lord God.

30 And these are the goings out of the city on the north side, four thousand and five hundred measures.

31 And the gates of the city shall be after the names of the tribes of Israel: three gates northward; one gate of Reuben, one gate of Judah, one gate of Levi.

32 And at the east side four thousand and five hundred: and three gates; and one gate of Joseph, one gate of Benjamin, one gate of Dan.

33 And at the south side four thousand and five hundred measures: and three gates; one gate of Simeon, one gate of Issachar, one gate of Zebulun.

34 At the west side four thousand and five hundred, with their three gates; one gate of Gad, one gate of Asher, one gate of Naphtali.

35 It was round about eighteen thousand measures: and the name of the city from that day shall be, The Lord is there.


We have gates, we have names for the gates, just as in Revelation:


Revelation 21:10-14 King James Version

10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:

13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.

14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.


There's just one problem: this isn't a Temple.

Another problem: there won't be any Temple other than God in that day.


Revelation 21:22 King James Version

22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.


So either the Temple described by Ezekiel in physical description (as admitted by the author) has been taken off the calendar (which is not something that happens in Prophecy) or God is not going to fulfill His Prophecy and promise.

Revelation 21 does point to the ultimate fulfillment of Prophecy, but that final fulfillment is not equal to the prophecy of Ezekiel.

So trying to spiritualize the Prophecy (as they must do in more than one place (i.e., Revelation 11, Revelation 20) simply isn't going to work because we do not see what is promised in Ezekiel fulfilled in the Eternal State.


Continued...

 

Given the nature of Ezekiel's prophecy, this language should alert us to the fact that what follows is given the symbolic geography of the prophet. Some have responded that given the massive topological changes to Palestine and Jerusalem supposedly associated with the beginning of the millennial kingdom (i.e., Isaiah 26:15; 33:17; Jeremiah 31:38-40; Ezekiel 48:30-35; Joel 3:18; Obadiah 17-21; Zechariah 4:7; 14:1-10; Micah 4:1-2; 7:14), the vision of Jerusalem from a high mountain might indeed be literal. But all of these passages speak of the promised renewal associated with the messianic age in material terms, but which point beyond mere earthly prosperity to the spiritual prosperity of being found “in Christ” in whom our inheritance is ultimately realized.


I agree, ultimately they do speak of more than earthly prosperity, but that doesn't mean the promise of earthly prosperity, long life, and an end to enmity between animals and men and animals isn't going to be fulfilled.

For example:


Isaiah 65:20
King James Version

20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.


Only in the promised Kingdom will the length of the days of men be an issue. Not in the Eternal State.


Zechariah 14:16-21 King James Version

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 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.


In the Eternal State, will rain be withheld from those Nations which came against Jerusalem who refuse to keep the Feast of Tabernacles?

Think about that, folks.

We see this as taking place after the Tribulation, and it seems those who came against Jerusalem are going to be held accountable on an annual basis.

Do sacrifices amount to near unto blasphemy as the author suggests? No more than partaking of communion does. It is a temporal celebration with temporal results, completely separate from Eternal Redemption and the remission of sins through the Atonement.

As all earthly sacrifices were.

What does withholding rain effect? An inability to grow food to keep one alive physically.

Will the saints in the Eternal State be dependent on physical food to maintain a glorified body?

See how silly this becomes?

Folks, if your Eschatology requires that you are forced to teach people why Scripture doesn't mean what it clearly says, you might want to rethink your Eschatology.


God bless.

 

Yea I don't understand her claim of no mountain near there. Just not true

 

I didn't even realize it was a woman, lol.

No wonder it's so ridiculous.


God bless.

 

Just kidding, lol.




God bless.