The Temple in Ezekiel

[asterisktom]

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?

....

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

Do you really think that I am going to answer all of your many questions? If you would have asked maybe just one or two questions then I would probably oblige but, good grief man, I am not going to answer a flurry of rhetorical questions like this. And, whether you realize it or not, rhetoric is what it is. Its like your are speechifying, not sincerely discussing.

Be real and I will be real.
Keep your questions simple.

Otherwise, with your load of questions, we will go everywhere and end up nowhere.

But here is the answer to your first question. Yes, I do certainly believe that first-century events were much, much worse. That was when God put a final end to the Jewish Dispensation. It was the end of their whole system of worship, their priesthood, their Temple. Their very religion was put to an end. That never happened before. Neither can it happen again.

Nazi Germany had no tribulation compared to that.

 

[Darrell C]

Do you really think that I am going to answer all of your many questions?

No, not really. You may not remember but we have had discussions before.

The responses are not necessarily for you, brother, they are for whoever wants to respond to my own response to the article.

If you would have asked maybe just one or two questions then I would probably oblige but, good grief man, I am not going to answer a flurry of rhetorical questions like this.

Yes, you will:

But here is the answer to your first question.

And, whether you realize it or not, rhetoric is what it is.

It's not rhetoric: it's a direct response to the article. It shows flaws in the reasoning. It shows how the author is in conflict with the rest of Scripture.

You might consider it rhetoric if the topic means nothing to you, but that's the only way.

Its like your are speechifying, not sincerely discussing.

Hey, thanks!




Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Be real and I will be real.

That is not something I can do. How you judge me falls outside of my capacity as an antagonist. I cannot conform to what you might consider real. My doctrine simply won't allow me to overlook error in the doctrine of those who teach views that conflict with Scripture.

So here is one question that is relevant to your (and the suthor's) view: why exactly isn't the thousand years in Revelation 20 not a thousand years, and why are there not two distinct resurrections?

(no, that not really two questions ...)

Keep your questions simple.

Okay: why is sacrifice for Israel blasphemy when it is their heritage and commanded by God forever? Passover, for example?

Why is a memorial blasphemy, and if they commit blasphemy in the Millennial Kingdom by offering up that sacrifice, why aren't Christians guilty of blasphemy when we celebrate Communion?

And just answer the question, I certainly can understand why people would view an offering for sin to be in conflict with the fact that there is no more sacrifice for sin through the Offering of Christ. I will say, on that point though, that it overlooks a distinction between the temporal and the eternal: Christ's sacrifice is the eternal redemption not afforded in the temporal sphere. Animal sacrifice was for the temporal. The Millennial Kingdom (rhetorically speaking, lol) will be temporal.

Now think about this, Tom: do we, as Christians, need forgiveness of sin in the temporal? We do not have to offer up sacrifice because that is not the heritage of the Church. But we do need remission in a temporal context, right?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Otherwise, with your load of questions, we will go everywhere and end up nowhere.

Simply not true, Tom, you can answer any question at any time, and we can focus on that. That we can scroll over a portion of a post and respond only to that makes this very easy.

The only reason you don't answer the questions is because you choose to. No one said you have to answer all of them. I am okay with smaller posts. My response to the article, though, may be more involved. I have asked several questions in this post, just pick one and we'll go from there. And I'll try to keep things short.

But here is the answer to your first question.

Well, make up your mind.

Yes, I do certainly believe that first-century events were much, much worse.

And the facts would simply not bear that out. You are relying on what is opinion only. No one, being honest, would view first century events as being worse than those of the twentieth century.

That was when God put a final end to the Jewish Dispensation.

God has not put an end to the Jewish Dispensation:


Romans 11:25-27 King James Version

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.


We see that Israel has had blindness imposed, not utter destruction.

Note v.27: God will keep His promise and He will establish the New Covenant with Israel on a national basis.

For God to renege on this leaves prophecy and promise unfulfilled.

But look at it, Tom. Here Paul makes it clear that God has not cast Israel away, and that He will not renege on His promise. Because He promised to bring them under a New Covenant He will, and until then we still have prophecy unfulfilled.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

It was the end of their whole system of worship, their priesthood, their Temple.

In this we agree, but, I keep in mind that the Law was not meant to be the final Covenant between God and Israel. That is why God must bring Israel under the New Covenant: because He said He would. This promise was made to Israel, Tom. Gentile Inclusion is just that: Gentile Inclusion. Gentiles have been brought into the same "tree" of provision as the Nation of Israel. The promises of God have always been for all of mankind (not in a universal context, simply all-inclusive of all families of the earth) but that does not negate specific promises made to the Nation of Israel herself.

And we see in Paul, John, and Christ's teachings that Israel will be brought under the New Covenant.

Their very religion was put to an end.

Again, I agree to an extent, but their heritage has not been brought to an end.

To finish up the thought just above, just because Israel is saved like as we through Christ, does not mean Israel ceases to be Israel. They can, without blasphemy, still observe Passover as a memorial, and offer up sacrifice as prescribed.

It was never for the purpose of Eternal REdemption, and never will be.

Because your view rejects a physical fulfillment of Prophecy you reject the physical characteristics of Israel. I understand that, but I have to say we simply cannot find your view supported by Scripture.

Israel has not been cast away, and she has not been utterly destroyed so that she is a "thing of the past."

She is a restored Nation of the future.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

That never happened before. Neither can it happen again.

Doesn't make it "... tribulation such as the world has never seen, nor will it."

The Tribulation in view is physical. Physical death, physical destruction. In the Sheep and Goat Judgment unbelievers are put to death and carrion fowl feast upon their dead bodies. Israel, the physical nation, not a spiritual Israel, will be cleaning up the mess for quite some time after this judgment:


Ezekiel 39:11-14 King James Version

11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will give unto Gog a place there of graves in Israel, the valley of the passengers on the east of the sea: and it shall stop the noses of the passengers: and there shall they bury Gog and all his multitude: and they shall call it The valley of Hamongog.

12 And seven months shall the house of Israel be burying of them, that they may cleanse the land.

13 Yea, all the people of the land shall bury them; and it shall be to them a renown the day that I shall be glorified, saith the Lord God.

14 And they shall sever out men of continual employment, passing through the land to bury with the passengers those that remain upon the face of the earth, to cleanse it: after the end of seven months shall they search.


If the Tribulation was in the first century, then we should have had Israel fulfilling this in those days. They didn't. They were scattered to the four corners of the earth.

We see the same chronology in Ezekiel 39 that we see in Revelation, both events correspond, as Prophecy always does, exactly. Christ returns, unbelievers are destroyed, and the Supper of the Great God takes place. After this Israel, physical Israel, will be cleansing the land.

Prophecy is very consistent on these points, Tom.

Nazi Germany had no tribulation compared to that.

But Nazi Germany is not the only contributor to Tribulation in the 20th Century. How many wars? How many dead to Communism? When we look at all of the tribulation of the 20th century it far exceeds the tribulation the world suffered in the first.

That's just a fact, Tom.

So just address whatever question you like, and we'll discuss it.


God bless.

 

[kyredneck]

Do you really think that I am going to answer all of your many questions?

Lol, @Darrell C was first and for the longest time only member I ever put on ignore, for one reason, my finger would get tired scrolling past his ridiculous swamping of a thread. I think he's going back on ignore.

 

[George Antonios]

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 quite. After the church's rapture, Moses and Elijah get the temple rebuilt. The antichrist defiles it mid-week.
The temple is destroyed at the end of the week and the Messiah will build Ezekiel's millennial temple (Zech.6:12-13).

 

[George Antonios]

A Rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem? A Look at Ezekiel's Vision in Chapters 40-48 — The Riddleblog

Very good read. Short and to the point

"As for the possibility of the temple actually being rebuilt, I am one who says “never say never” about future world events. I have no idea what will happen over the long run in Jerusalem and Israel."

Sounds like someone learned a lesson from all the historical nay-saying Bible commentators from the 2nd - 19th century who could not believe the prophecies of the Jews' return to their land were literal only to be silenced by the events of the 20th century. The dispensational view prevailed there, so better hedge her bet now concerning the temple...Wise girl.

"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. 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."

As an Arabic Bible believer, I can tell you that this article is surprisingly (for its recency) out of touch.
The above is much less of an issue as the Sunni Scholars have finally been forced to tell the truth to their own people: that the site is NOT holy to Islam.
Forced through fear of Iran to work with Israel, the Sunni scholars have had to defend their political overlords from the accusation of ceding Jerusalem to the Jews. So they have now pivoted to saying the truth, that Jerusalem is not holy in Islam. And it's true, it isn't. That was a lie made up by later Caliphs to justify their power-center in the Levant as opposed to the rulers back in the Arabian peninsula. Jerusalem is never once mentioned by name in the Qur'an.

Why Jerusalem is Not Holy to Muslims

It's a Jewish article, but Muslim scholars are finally assenting:

If you're going to write about the conditions in the ME, you had better keep up with conditions in the ME.

Now, as to:
"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."

Skipping over? Kim is the one who skipped over the dispensationalists' reams of writing on this issue. Revelation 21 is a literal description of the HEAVENLY Jerusalem which has no temple whereas Ezekiel 40-47 is a literal description of the EARTHLY Jerusalem which will have a temple. Confounding the two is unacceptable.

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

You can charge God with that then, it's his book, and we don't get to neutralize its literality because we can't believe what it says or can't quite reconcile the theological difficulty it creates. The quasi-blasphemy here is rejecting the literal sense of God's words; not believing them.

 

[Darrell C]

Lol, @Darrell C was first and for the longest time only member I ever put on ignore, for one reason, my finger would get tired scrolling past his ridiculous swamping of a thread. I think he's going back on ignore.

Because you can't respond to the points?

It is a good idea to put me on ignore then. Just don't kid yourself as to the reason, lol.

Just pick one point, any point, and dismantle it.

Until you can, your ridicule is just going to be viewed as a copout.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Not quite. After the church's rapture, Moses and Elijah get the temple rebuilt. The antichrist defiles it mid-week.
The temple is destroyed at the end of the week and the Messiah will build Ezekiel's millennial temple (Zech.6:12-13).

I just wanted to make sure you understand that the statement is spoken of by the author of the article. I am addressing what I view to be error in her teaching.

I am curious, though, how you have concluded that "Moses and Elijah get the Temple rebuilt."

I am assuming you believe the Two Witnesses are Moses and Elijah? I do not take that view (I see the Two Witnesses as two men born into that time, and do not view Moses and Elijah as having been taken to Heaven, because I do not believe men went to Heaven prior to Calvary (but that's another can of coffee altogether, lol)), and see the Two Witnesses as representative (though literally literal men) of the offices of Priest and King (the two olive branches).

I also see the Temple as being defiled in the midst of the Week by Antichrist (Daniel 9:26-27) so would agree the Temple may very well exist into the very end of the Week.

I also agree that the temple of the Tribulation is not the Temple of Ezekiel, but think that the Tribulation temple is a work produced by Israel in her unsaved and unredeemed state, rather than Moses and Elijah building it. I think it is possible the Church may witness the rebuild before we are raptured. But with technology these days, a rebuild could occur very rapidly. Especially if it is a project viewed to be some kind of unification among men, as I view Antichrist's M.O. is going to be. This would answer questions concerning how it could be rebuilt despite Muslim opposition. Men will be uniting as one under Antichrist and the Empire he takes control of. At the midst of the Week he will stand in that temple and proclaim himself god over the earth.


God bless.

 

[George Antonios]

This would answer questions concerning how it could be rebuilt despite Muslim opposition.

See my post #29 about that, especially the video. That opposition is fast waning.

I am curious, though, how you have concluded that "Moses and Elijah get the Temple rebuilt."

See my video here:

God bless you also. I make no big deal about differences in specifics regarding eschatology since we all only see through a glass, darkly and I even disagree with own self sometimes

 

[Darrell C]

Not quite. After the church's rapture, Moses and Elijah get the temple rebuilt. The antichrist defiles it mid-week.
The temple is destroyed at the end of the week and the Messiah will build Ezekiel's millennial temple (Zech.6:12-13).

This was my response to the statement:

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.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

See my post #29 about that, especially the video. That opposition is fast waning.

I saw it. I thought it was an outstanding response, lol.

See my video here:

Did you make the video? I will watch it.

God bless you also. I make no big deal about differences in specifics regarding eschatology since we all only see through a glass, darkly and I even disagree with own self sometimes

I don't know, I think because people haven't made a "big deal" about differences in Eschatology we have seen an increase in people buying into the nonsense we see in the article of the OP. "A good read," and "interesting," it is called. I view it as in error and misleading.

And the importance of our Eschatological views in regard to our Soterioloical views is immense. Error in one can seriously throw off the other. And we see that, don't we?

Again, an excellent response. You should post more often.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Lol, @Darrell C was first and for the longest time only member I ever put on ignore, for one reason, my finger would get tired scrolling past his ridiculous swamping of a thread. I think he's going back on ignore.

I will only be here for a few more days, KY, and then I will not be swamping the threads for a while.

You know I only stop by to aggravate you, right?

It's not really about making points, detailed explanation for why I believe what I believe, and making the world safe for Sound Doctrine, right?




God bless.

 

[George Antonios]

I saw it. I thought it was an outstanding response, lol.

Did you make the video? I will watch it.

I don't know, I think because people haven't made a "big deal" about differences in Eschatology we have seen an increase in people buying into the nonsense we see in the article of the OP. "A good read," and "interesting," it is called. I view it as in error and misleading.

And the importance of our Eschatological views in regard to our Soterioloical views is immense. Error in one can seriously throw off the other. And we see that, don't we?

Again, an excellent response. You should post more often.

God bless.

Yes, I made it, by God's grace.
Agreed, that's why I said "specifics" but I should have been clearer.
When it comes to pre-millennialism for example, I think that is very important and should be vigorously defended because it is vital and clear in scriptures.
But when it comes to who actually rebuilds the pre-2nd-coming temple, though I think it will be Moses and Elijah, I realize I might be wrong and don't make an issue of it.
I am on the board to sharpen my sword and sometimes that's good, but often, because of the impersonal nature of posts, we can get in the flesh in those debates, and that's not good. It's hard to manage well.
But you and I are definitely in the minority here, which is partly why am here. It's not good to only be in an echo chamber.

 

[Marooncat79]

FYI

Kim is a man

 

[asterisktom]

Lol, @Darrell C was first and for the longest time only member I ever put on ignore, for one reason, my finger would get tired scrolling past his ridiculous swamping of a thread. I think he's going back on ignore.

Yea, good advice. I think I will just put him back on ignore. There are others here that, although I have disagreed sharply, I have good conversation with. But I can sense that with Darrell it would be a waste of time.

 

[Darrell C]

Yes, I made it, by God's grace.
Agreed, that's why I said "specifics" but I should have been clearer.
When it comes to pre-millennialism for example, I think that is very important and should be vigorously defended because it is vital and clear in scriptures.
But when it comes to who actually rebuilds the pre-2nd-coming temple, though I think it will be Moses and Elijah, I realize I might be wrong and don't make an issue of it.
I am on the board to sharpen my sword and sometimes that's good, but often, because of the impersonal nature of posts, we can get in the flesh in those debates, and that's not good. It's hard to manage well.
But you and I are definitely in the minority here, which is partly why am here. It's not good to only be in an echo chamber.

I agree. A number of the old-school preachers I listened to when I was saved (on a program called "Conference Pulpit, BBN) would mention that they never really got involved with Eschatology, and as I have studied through the years I have concluded that it is vital to our Soteriology. Perhaps that is just my opinion, but I see those who do have a better grasp on it seem to be able to reconcile conflicts that arise between differing views. That the resolution is admitted by those with opposing view is another matter altogether, lol.

I too see the consistency and harmony of Prophecy in every passage, and feel it is important to maintain a Biblical Chronology. And I agree it should be defended vigorously, just as we defend every Bible DOctrine in light of that which is in error.

I come here (and to other forums) from time to time because I feel I can help some people, and because I feel God means for me to be involved in His Word. It is heartbreaking to see how people have bought into doctrine that is blatantly false. Because of a lack of concern for pure doctrine we see millions of people claiming to be Christians who also advocate for things contrary to the will of God, such as murder and homosexuality.

Sound Doctrine can help those people, in my view.

It is true we can get in the flesh, but I try to just have a little fun while at the same time bringing presentations that show from Scripture why I take the positions I do. I have gotten better at refraining from emotional response, but my personality is such that I have a sense of humor and don't mind yanking someone's chain. Sometimes, lol, my humor is as lost on some people as the doctrine I present.

As far as being a minority, this is true. One thing I have found is that people (members) can be very friendly—until you disagree with them. Even a single point will make someone who was once friendly cease their friendly manner.

But if we are serious about trying to help people in regard to Sound Doctrine, we understand we aren't here to make friends, but disciples of Christ.

And I know how arrogant that might sound, but it isn't arrogance, it's confidence. Plus, my first goal is to test my own views, and if something is amiss I want to be the first one to know. And how better to find out than to put it through the fire of social media, lol.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Yes, I made it, by God's grace.

I've watched about twenty minutes of it so far, and am enjoying it tremendously. I pray God will continue to use you in a mighty way, my friend.

Going back to the Two Witnesses, again I don't really think it will be Moses and Elijah, or Enoch and Elijah, because I do not view men as going to Heaven prior to Christ. Hence all who have gone before us, with the exception of Christ, have died physically. Some think it is Enoch and Elijah "because they didn't die." I think they did. If God did in fact translate Enoch then it would have been to Sheol/Hades, not Heaven. When Elijah was taken up I don't think he died at that time. A letter that post-dates his death would seem to support that (2 Chronicles 21:11-13). This is simply what I have arrived at from my studies and the perspective that has come from them. I believe men awaited Eternal Redemption in Sheol/Hades until Christ actually redeemed them (Hebrews 9:12-15).

So for the most part I view these two men to be contemporary to that day. I don't deny that God could in fact resurrect Enoch, Moses, or Elijah, but I don't see that it has to be the case. The Prophecy of Malachi 4 in regard to Elijah was fulfilled in Christ's day partially in John the Baptist, so I see it as reasonable that it may not have to be Elijah as the final fulfillment. Again, I am not dogmatic that it won't be, and admit it is a very reasonable position. We do see them in Malachi 4, God's last Prophecy in the chronology of Old Testament Revelation. We do see them at the mount of Transfiguration. We do see similar miracles.

I will listen to the rest of the video when I get the chance and would be very glad to hear more of your reasoning on that point. It's been a blessing to actually see someone make not only reasonable arguments concerning Prophecy, but to give a definitive answer to arguments presented by presterists and amillennialists.

Again, may God bless your ministry, George, and use you in a mighty way.


God bless.