How Do We Interpret The temple Described By Ezekial?

[Logos1]

Individual Soul Liberty is one of the reasons why I'm a Baptist. The exercise of that liberty with a literal understanding of the actual words in the Bible is one of the reasons why I'm dispensational. The well deserved repuatation that the internet has a lot of misinformation is one of the reasons why I have at this point in my life lost the need to win every on-line arguement, especally with people I don't know and probably will never meet, nice as they may be. Sorry if that offends.

Individual soul liberty is a good reason for being a Baptist. No offense taken. When most dispensationalists can't find biblical support for a position they lash out in some form to have someone just give it up is refreshing. Many dispensationalists could learn much from you.

 

[thomas15]

Individual soul liberty is a good reason for being a Baptist. No offense taken. When most dispensationalists can't find biblical support for a position they lash out in some form to have someone just give it up is refreshing. Many dispensationalists could learn much from you.

You really have it all figured out, don't you?

 

[Logos1]

You really have it all figured out, don't you?

No offense intended. Personally I love dispensationalism. I'm grateful I got to live during a period when it was in some degree of notoriety. I find it wonderfully entertaining. Love hearing its proponents on TV and radio regal me with those stories of raptures, and battles of Armageddon, and antichrists taking over the world. There's no biblical support for these things. They have to be twisted into existence, but they are a lot of fun. I think of dispensationalism as a biblical Grimm's fairy tale. It is the most fun of all the different views of eschatology--just not biblical. It may be wrong of me, but I can't help myself I love it.

 

[thomas15]

Individual soul liberty is a good reason for being a Baptist. No offense taken. When most dispensationalists can't find biblical support for a position they lash out in some form to have someone just give it up is refreshing. Many dispensationalists could learn much from you.

My friend,

You have the same individual soul liberty that I have and I respect that. As far as finding biblical support for dispensationalism, I personally don't suffer from that problem. As mentioned before, I don't feel the need to prove my position to anyone who happens to disagree with me. I believe that the chance of anyone reading a thread my me of anyone else, no matter how brilliant they may be will not change the mind of anyone on a major point of theology on this board. No, that change has to be instituted by the believer themselves.

I have enough books in my personal library from most of the major theological camps so that generally when someone quotes a source, I'm able to find that quote from the source. I appreciate the complement above but I must tell you that it is a two way street. Many covenant believers react to dispensationalists by trying to make it seem like it (dispensationalism) is the theology of the simple minded. Fact: There are both simple and complex minds in both covenant and dispensational camps. Or, then there is the personal testimonial, whch usually goes something like this "I grew up in a dispy church, I bought the left behind series hook, line and sinker. Then I read _____. Now I'm an adult and have out grown this rapture thingy." Question: who is going to make a major change in their theological beliefs (regardless of which camp you may be in) based on a testimonial from some guy on the internet? Answer: No one.

I could point out numerous mis-quotes of dispensationalists by covenant writers who disagree with the system. Over at the puritan board there is an entire section devoted to disccussion of dispensationalism. The reformed members there write from a smug all-knowing attitude which at times borders on un-christian. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself.

While in my personal study and as a laymen I tend to wonder around from topic to topic, right now I'm trying to work out the biblical basis for the covenants of redemption and grace. I understand that the Bible teaches both redemption and grace. I also understand that God made covenants. Where I'm having problems is finding those covenats (redeemption and or grace) that God made with another party. I want to know who the parties are and the exact terms of the covenants. These are questions that are easy to answer when referring to the Abrahamic covenant for example. If Jehovah could and would spell out his terms to Abraham, why wouldn't the recipients of the covenants of redemption and or grace (if they exist as covenants) get the same treatment from Jehovah? Maybe a year from now I will have the answer to that question but right now it's not looking all that promising.

Take care,
Tom

 

[thomas15]

I'm always amazed at this statement by Dispies. Yet when they are shown clear time statements(Rev 1:1,3) they suddenly aren't quite as "literal" as they claim.

You too have a blessed day. :wavey:

The same could be said about preterists with respect to Acts 1:8

 

[Grasshopper]

The same could be said about preterists with respect to Acts 1:8

Except it is not the preterists who would ever claim this, "literal understanding of the actual words in the Bible".

 

[thomas15]

Except it is not the preterists who would ever claim this, "literal understanding of the actual words in the Bible".

And your point is?

 

[Robert Snow]

There is no such evidence in the text, in fact just the opposite. They are for sin offerings. That alone should send you anywhere but dispensationalism.

You don't believe in a future temple. I think you are wrong, being a dispensationalist myself.

But tell me, what is Ezekiel referring to then?

 

[Grasshopper]

And your point is?

You said as a Dispie you take a literal understanding of actual words in the Bible. I pointed out that Dispies always claim this but when given verses that contain simple time-statements they suddenly throw the literal understanding out the window.

You then said preterist do the same with Acts 1:8. I was making the point preterists allow for Hebrew idioms and figurative language when dealing with prophetic passages and often are not intended to be taken in a literal fashion.

Acts 1:8 was "literally fulfilled".

 

[Grasshopper]

You don't believe in a future temple. I think you are wrong, being a dispensationalist myself.

But tell me, what is Ezekiel referring to then?

Here is a lengthy discussion on it: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=70188

asterickstom has a good opinion in response 65. I'm more convinced of what it can't be than what it was/is.

Here is the Temple of Ezekiel 37:

2 Cor. 6:16
Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said,
"I will dwell in them and walk among them ;
And I will be their God, and they shall be My people .

 

[thomas15]

OK, I have a few minutes to waste.

You said as a Dispie you take a literal understanding of actual words in the Bible.

This is true, I stand by my statement about taking the literal words of the Bible literal. I'm perhaps guilty of using common sense and a little academic knowledge. What evidence is there that Jesus returned in AD 70? There should be all kinds of historical and literary evidence and a long history of church tradition on the subject. This evevt is one of, if not the biggest event in history so where is the evidence?

Acts 1:8 was "literally fulfilled".

So in AD 70 the Gospel was already being proclaimed in far off places like North and South America?

Again, where is the historical evidence?

 

[Grasshopper]

OK, I have a few minutes to waste.

If you feel it is a waste, why bother? You realize this is a debate forum?

This is true, I stand by my statement about taking the literal words of the Bible literal.

Then what is the literal interpretation of Revelation 1:1,3.

I'm perhaps guilty of using common sense and a little academic knowledge

.

So when you run into a problem with your literalism and it undermines your position you just use common sense and education and change the meaning of those pesky little time-statements.

What evidence is there that Jesus returned in AD 70? There should be all kinds of historical and literary evidence and a long history of church tradition on the subject. This evevt is one of, if not the biggest event in history so where is the evidence?

Evidently you are not familiar with commentators pre-Darby.


John Lightfoot comments on the coming found in Matthew 24:

*That Christ's taking vengeance of that exceeding wicked nation is called Christ's "coming in glory," and his "coming in the clouds," Daniel 7. It is also called, "the day of the Lord."

John Gill comments

which must be understood not of his last coming to judgment, though that will be sudden, visible, and universal; he will at once come to, and be seen by all, in the clouds of heaven, and not in deserts and secret chambers: nor of his spiritual coming in the more sudden, and clear, and powerful preaching of the Gospel all over the Gentile world; for this was to be done before the destruction of Jerusalem: but of his coming in his wrath and vengeance to destroy that people, their nation, city, and temple: so that after this to look for the Messiah in a desert, or secret chamber, must argue great stupidity and blindness; when his coming was as sudden, visible, powerful, and general, to the destruction of that nation, as the lightning that comes from the east, and, in a moment, shines to the west.

So in AD 70 the Gospel was already being proclaimed in far off places like North and South America?

Again, where is the historical evidence

North and South America are your words, not the context of Jesus or Paul.

Romans 1:8*
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.

Romans 10:18
But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; *
"Their voice has gone out into all the earth , *
And their words to the ends of the * world."

Romans 16:26
but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith;

Col. 1:6
which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth;

Col.1:23
if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

Acts 2:5
Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven.

 

[Logos1]

Your Argument is with Christ not with Preterists

This is true, I stand by my statement about taking the literal words of the Bible literal. I'm perhaps guilty of using common sense and a little academic knowledge. What evidence is there that Jesus returned in AD 70? There should be all kinds of historical and literary evidence and a long history of church tradition on the subject. This evevt is one of, if not the biggest event in history so where is the evidence?

Christ answered your question

Luke 17:20-21

The Coming of the Kingdom
20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, 21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."

Plain, simple, and to the point!

 

[thomas15]

If you feel it is a waste, why bother? You realize this is a debate forum?

The use of literary devices does not mean that a literal rendering of the scriptures cannot be made. If course, if I had been dropped on my head at the age of 2 years, I probably would think and reason things with the flair I see exhibited here. Perhaps I should sue my parents for not doing this service for me?

 

[asterisktom]

I believe there will be a Temple and there will be sacrifices done there by the Jews that are done as a memorial of Christ's work and all he has done for them. Much like today we take the Lord's Supper they will present Levitical sacrifices. I believe Jesus Christ will be the high priest during his millenial reign.

That's the way I've understood it in dispensational theology.

One problem here (out of many) is the fact that the priesthood had permanently changed from the Levitical to that of Melchizedek (Christ). The Ezekiel passages assume a (what would be for us) return to that obsoleted Levitical priesthood.

Plus, if you read the sections in Ezekiel that describe these sacrifices, they are for actual sins, not as memorial.

 

[Grasshopper]

The use of literary devices does not mean that a literal rendering of the scriptures cannot be made. If course, if I had been dropped on my head at the age of 2 years, I probably would think and reason things with the flair I see exhibited here. Perhaps I should sue my parents for not doing this service for me?

That's all you can do? No answer to my question on Rev.1:1,3? Strange response from someone who brags of common sense and academic knowledge.

Not sure why you are so upset, these are honest questions.

 

[thomas15]

Not sure why you are so upset, ......

I don't think so. This coming from a person who seriously thinks that Jesus already returned is well, to be honest, silly.

 

[Grasshopper]

I don't think so. This coming from a person who seriously thinks that Jesus already returned is well, to be honest, silly.

Ahh, but at least I'm in good company.


John Owen

"So upon or in the destruction of Jerusalem, Luke 21:27, the Son of man is said to 'come in a cloud, with power and great glory' - and they that escape in that desolation are said to 'stand before the Son of man, ver. 36." (vol. 9, p. 139)

John Gill

and coming in, the clouds of heaven.
So Christ's coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, as it is often called the coming of the son of man, is described in this manner, ( Matthew 24:27 Matthew 24:30 ) . Though this may also be understood of Christ's second coming to judgment, at the last day; when as he went up to heaven in a cloud, he will return, and come also in the clouds of heaven; see ( Acts 1:9 Acts 1:11 ) ( Revelation 1:7 ) , when he will be seen by the eyes of all, good and bad; and when this sanhedrim, before whom he now was, will see him also, and confess that he is Lord and Christ, and the Son of God. Though the former clause seems to have regard to what would quickly come to pass, and what they should soon observe, and be convinced of; for (ap' arti) , rendered "hereafter", may be translated "henceforwards"; or as it is in the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, "from this time"; meaning, that in a very little while, they should begin to see the effects of his being set down at the right hand of God, and which would be full proofs of it, and should see him come in the clouds of heaven, at the last day: reference seems to be had to ( Daniel 7:13 ) , where one like unto the son of man is said to come in the clouds of heaven, and which is understood of the Messiah by many, both of the ancient and modern Jews F7: with whom one of his names is "Anani" {h}, which signifies "clouds".


RC Sproul

"If the Olivet Discourse refers primarily to events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and if the word generation refers to a forty-year period, then it is possible, if not probable, that Jesus' reference to his coming in Matthew 16:28 refers to the same events, not to the transfiguration or other close-at-hand events." (The Last Days According to Jesus, p. 55)


But at least you have Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye on your side.


I notice you cannot show me how a Dispie , who takes the words of the Bible literally, would literally interpret:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

 

[Logos1]

Were the Apostles Inspired by the Holy Spirit or Not

I don't think so. This coming from a person who seriously thinks that Jesus already returned is well, to be honest, silly.

Were the Apostles silly? They clearly taught Christ would return in their generation. They were the ones inspired by the Holy Spirit--with all due respect not you!

It was when I accepted that my view of eschatology was not aligned with the Apostles that I realized I needed to change my view and become a preterist and not try to twist the words of the apostles to mean something different than what they believed and taught.

They write enough times in many different ways that Christ was returning soon and there is no way around soon meaning in their generation. Therefore either they were right and he did return in their generation and it was just a different type of return than we have been taught to expect or else they were wrong and not inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore everything they write about Christ can be legitimately called into question and doubted.

If they were wrong then Christianity is built on uninspired writings of people who we can dismiss as untrustworthy. As many times as they tell us he was returning soon if they can't be trusted on Christ's return there is no basis to trust anything else they say.