Throne of David-or where ever it leads...(Cont:Satan Cast out of Heaveen)

[billy-brown 2]

thanks BB2, I believe that God was sitting on his throne looking down upon the earth, He stood up off his throne, and left heaven, He became born of a virgin, a lowly man, the Son of DAVID, with a right to the throne of Israel, throughout the Lords ministry the cry rang out "behold the kingdom of heaven is at hand" yet although He proved He was the messiah, He was rejected as King of Israel, He returned to heaven after his resurrection, and sat back down upon his throne He sat down upon his throne at the right hand of God, the right hand is an interesting expressing well worth a study upon, anyway I agree with your statements

I agree we are in the kingdom of his beloved Son, and one day Israel will call out for their king and the kingdom will then encompass Israel right here on earth, the kingdom has come already come, has gone, and will come back...

Well, this (the text in bold above) means that the Son Jesus has been exalted above the heavens to the greatest position of Authority and Power--this is what the phrase "the right hand of God" is expressing. Thus, the following events in the verse below has happened; let's look at it:

Rev. 12
10Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying,
“Now

1) the salvation, and
2) the power, and
3) the kingdom of our God and
4) the authority of His Christ

have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night.

Yes?

[John146]

But I thought the general idea was that the NT is supposed to shed light on the OT? Here it seems that you are using the OT to shed light on the NT. It just proves my point all along, that it's not always that the NT has to shed light on the OT, but that both can shed light on the other.

I have never actually said otherwise. You are inserting your own ideas into your own mind regarding what I've said. Like you said it is the "general idea...that the NT is supposed to shed light on the OT" but that doesn't mean we can't ever learn anything from the OT unless we have NT text explaining it. I've never said that. If the NT quotes the OT and then explains what it means then we should accept that explanation rather than trying to interpret it ourselves without the help of the NT text. An example of that would be Peter's explanation of the fulfillment of Christ sitting on David's throne in Acts 2:29-36. We can either go and look at the OT passages he quoted and try to interpret them ourselves without Peter's help or we can look at Peter's explanation and just accept it without trying to reinterpret it. That's the point I intend to make regarding interpreting the OT in light of the NT. Anyway, let's not derail the thread by being overly technical like this.

But anyway, let's look at that passage closer.

Yes, let's do that instead of spending any more time with semantics.

Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance. Then in verse 9 it states...Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. So who would be the 'them' in verse 9, if not the heathen for thine inheritance in verse 8?

Right. Does the word "heathen" refer to the righteous or the wicked. The wicked, right?

Why would the Son want to destroy those that were given Him as an inheritance? It would seem He would rather sherpherd them, feed them instead.

It's figurative language. It's clearly not saying He will inherit them as His own people. They are called "heathen". Since when would the heathen be described as being Christ's people? No, the heathen would clearly be the wicked. His enemies. Aren't passages like 2 Thess 1:7-8, 1 Thess 5:1-6 and Rev 19:11-21 clear enough about what He will do to His enemies at His return? He will inherit the wicked only in the sense of being able to do with them as He pleases at that point and we know that scripture says He will be taking vengeance on them and destroying them at His return. Why in the world would He want to shepherd people who repeatedly reject Him? No, He shepherds people who follow Him. There is no way that His sheep/followers would ever be called "heathen" and there is no way that scripture would ever describe Him as breaking His people with a rod of iron and dashing them into pieces like a potter's vessel.

[billy-brown 2]

yes, and that was my point, and Melchizedek was on the earth and both king and priest

However, Melchizedek has not abolished death--only Jesus did that; this is one of the critical initiatives of His first advent, yes?

II Tim. 1
8Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God,
9who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,
10but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,
11for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher.

And Jesus' King/Priest posture at the right hand of the Father in heaven is required to abolish death for the "second fruits" (is that a word?) at His second advent. And Melchizedek could not do that, yes?

I Cor. 15
20But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
21For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
23But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming,
24then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
26The last enemy that will be abolished is death.

27For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.

28When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

(go to the next post . . .)

[quiet dove]

However, Melchizedek has not abolished death--only Jesus did that; this is one of the critical initiatives of His first advent, yes?

II Tim. 1
8Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God,
9who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,
10but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,
11for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher.

And Jesus' King/Priest posture at the right hand of the Father in heaven is required to abolish death for the "second fruits" (is that a word?) at His second advent. And Melchizedek could not do that, yes?

I Cor. 15
20But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
21For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
23But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming,
24then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
26The last enemy that will be abolished is death.

27For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.

28When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

(go to the next post . . .)

Ok, but I never said anything about Melchizedek except with regards to Hebrews and what Hebrews states, in that Jesus would be after the order of Melchizedek....

But I never said anything about Melchizedek being anything other than a man, no hint that Christ abolishing death has anything to do with Melchizedek

And all things are subjected to Christ, that does not have anything to contradict a future time on the earth, with Jesus upon it, ruling the nations...

[divaD]

It's figurative language. It's clearly not saying He will inherit them as His own people. They are called "heathen". Since when would the heathen be described as being Christ's people? No, the heathen would clearly be the wicked. His enemies. Aren't passages like 2 Thess 1:7-8, 1 Thess 5:1-6 and Rev 19:11-21 clear enough about what He will do to His enemies at His return? He will inherit the wicked only in the sense of being able to do with them as He pleases at that point and we know that scripture says He will be taking vengeance on them and destroying them at His return. Why in the world would He want to shepherd people who repeatedly reject Him? No, He shepherds people who follow Him. There is no way that His sheep/followers would ever be called "heathen" and there is no way that scripture would ever describe Him as breaking His people with a rod of iron and dashing them into pieces like a potter's vessel.

If you look at the Hebrew word that is used for 'heathen' in Psalms 2:9, you should notice it has also been translated different ways, such as 'nation', 'nations', 'Gentiles', etc, throughout the OT. So the idea then is to make the sense match that of the NT, in which it's rendered nations, which doesn't necessarily mean wicked heathens every time.

But let's try and determine a thing or two in Psalms 2 first, which I'm positive that you will agree with me about,.


Psalms 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

Who would be the 'me' and 'I' in that verse? The Father, correct? Who would then be the 'thee', 'thine', and 'thy' in that verse? The Son, correct? So what does that add up to? The Father gives the nations to the Son for inheritance, indicating that the Son would have the authority to do with that inheritance as He pleases. That leads us to Revelation 2:27, which is exactly what the Son will do, since the Father gave Him the nations for His inheritance.

Revelation 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.


Notice closely here. Jesus is the speaker. And He says to the one that overcometh...to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers.

But notice what it states at the end of verse 27....even as I received of my Father.

We just saw that in Psalms 2:8. That's exactly what occurred. But Jesus is now telling the overcomer that He will give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers.

Since the idea is to make Scriptures agree and not contradict, now you have to find Scriptures that agree with your understanding, that to rule with a rod of iron means to destroy them, and why Jesus would then bestow a reward like that to an overcomer, when we're told elsewhere in Scripture that vengeance belongs to the Lord, not overcomers.

[divaD]

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

This says there is no end to His authority "upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom" so the prophecy regarding Him sitting upon the throne of David clearly had nothing to do with Him being a king exactly like David with limited authority like David had. It has to do with Him taking the throne and the authority that comes with it and expanding it throughout the heavens and the earth, which He did.

Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

This has to be meaning after His return. Why? A cpl of clues as to why..such as...and peace there shall be no end...and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever.

Let's take the former first. Where is the evidence of this peace there shall be no end to? Why is there still conflicts and wars in this world, etc? Doesn't sound like a peace here, where there shall be no end to. But I can certainly see that being a reality once Jesus returns, which then leads us to the latter. and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. Show me where this is true on a global scale as of now. This only makes sense once Christ returns. This age is temporary. The next age isn't. The above passage states at the end...from henceforth even for ever. That to me is speaking of the 2nd coming.

Oftentimes verses contain time gaps. Look at the preceding verse for example.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

It starts out...For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given...then it says...and the government shall be upon his shoulder. Obviously the latter doesn't happen as soon as He is born, but it does happen because He was born. So already we're seeing a gap in time in just the first couple of sentences of this verse. So why then when we get to verse 10 does it still have to be focusing on His first coming? If we look at the clues I tried to show above, they don't fit in with anything in this age, but fit perfectly with the next one.

[billy-brown 2]

(this is the continuation of the last post . . .)

Ok....and I have not contradicted any of that....

All I have said is that He will rule the earth, from on the earth(visibly) as King of kings exercising His Davidic dynasty authority. That does not mean He is not immortal, resurrected, without authority, not our High Priest, not our King, and doesn't have a kingdom.

God telling us or not telling us exactly who will build this temple does not mean a temple will not be built nor does it mean that because we are told that God is not a God of order. What God reveals, or does not reveal, is not what determines whether or not He is a God of order. And Christ ruling the earth is according to the perfect order, plan, and purpose of God.

Christ came in humility and walked the earth as a man...He will return in all Glory and walk the earth as the resurrected man...God the Son, and this time He will not be beaten and humiliated, He will be King of kings and all will acknowledge Him as such. I makes perfect sense and order.

QD,

Both of these post excerpts of yours go together in mentioning that an "earthly brick-and-mortar temple" must be built on the earth to house the throne of David (according to your synthesis). However, our God is a God of order and process. And God lived in both temples that are described below in Zech. 4 and II Chron. 22, but they were built actually as follows (in bold):

Zech. 4
6 Then he said to me, “This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel saying, ‘Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,’ says the LORD of hosts.
7 ‘What are you, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you will become a plain; and he will bring forth the top stone with shouts of “Grace, grace to it!”’”
8 Also the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
9 “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house, and his hands will finish it. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you.
10 “For who has despised the day of small things? But these seven will be glad when they see the plumb line in the hand of Zerubbabel—these are the eyes of the LORD which range to and fro throughout the earth.”

And watch the prophetic power of God at work concerning Solomon's Temple also:

I Chronicles 22
6 Then he called for his son Solomon, and charged him to build a house for the LORD God of Israel.
7 David said to Solomon, “My son, I had intended to build a house to the name of the LORD my God.
8 “But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to My name, because you have shed so much blood on the earth before Me.
9 ‘Behold, a son will be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days.
10 ‘He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.’

Now, the richness of the prophetic power of the Lord is evident indeed in Zech. 4 and I Chronicles 22 with respect to God providing a prophetic power WORD to His people to construct the temples of Solomon and Zerubbabel--and, therefore, those temples were built by the people of God. This is an evident pattern of God that we find in the scriptures. In other words, God is a God of order and process--He gives a "prophetic word of the Lord" to His people to "rise up and build" and so on, and then an earthly physical temple is built.

But none of this kind of profile can be seen in the passage in Ezekiel 40-48 (for example), and without it, no "made with hands" physical brick-and-mortar temple can be built. Why? Because there is no prophetic command from God to His people for the construction of the temple of the vision in Ezekiel 40-48. In other words, a "blueprint of a temple" is not enough for man's hands alone to construct a facility that would be the home of Almighty God.

Indeed, God provides always a "spiritual Holy Ghost prophetic POWER Word" in the earth which would command a construction of His "home" by His people to take place . . .

Do you see what I am saying?

[quiet dove]

This is a continuation of the thread "Satan's being cast out of heaven"

And yes, the topic changed somewhere along the way from Satan being cast out of heaven....

At any rate, the other thread has way over 1000 post, and we needed to begin another thread

Anyone wanting to return to the OP of the first thread is welcome to start another thread.

I tried to move the new post over to this thread, if I missed one that you made and you want it here, let me know and I will try to get it merged in this new thread........



P.S. I started from post 1120 in the other thread...just so you will know..

P.S. Hopefully I did not mess it up beyond repair...

[quiet dove]

(this is the continuation of the last post . . .)

QD,

Both of these post excerpts of yours go together in mentioning that an "earthly brick-and-mortar temple" must be built on the earth to house the throne of David (according to your synthesis). However, our God is a God of order and process. And God lived in both temples that are described below in Zech. 4 and II Chron. 22, but they were built actually as follows (in bold):

Zech. 4
6 Then he said to me, “This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel saying, ‘Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,’ says the LORD of hosts.
7 ‘What are you, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you will become a plain; and he will bring forth the top stone with shouts of “Grace, grace to it!”’”
8 Also the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
9 “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house, and his hands will finish it. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you.
10 “For who has despised the day of small things? But these seven will be glad when they see the plumb line in the hand of Zerubbabel—these are the eyes of the LORD which range to and fro throughout the earth.”

And watch the prophetic power of God at work concerning Solomon's Temple also:

I Chronicles 22
6 Then he called for his son Solomon, and charged him to build a house for the LORD God of Israel.
7 David said to Solomon, “My son, I had intended to build a house to the name of the LORD my God.
8 “But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to My name, because you have shed so much blood on the earth before Me.
9 ‘Behold, a son will be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days.
10 ‘He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.’

Now, the richness of the prophetic power of the Lord is evident indeed in Zech. 4 and I Chronicles 22 with respect to God providing a prophetic power WORD to His people to construct the temples of Solomon and Zerubbabel--and, therefore, those temples were built by the people of God. This is an evident pattern of God that we find in the scriptures. In other words, God is a God of order and process--He gives a "prophetic word of the Lord" to His people to "rise up and build" and so on, and then an earthly physical temple is built.

But none of this kind of profile can be seen in the passage in Ezekiel 40-48 (for example), and without it, no "made with hands" physical brick-and-mortar temple can be built. Why? Because there is no prophetic command from God to His people for the construction of the temple of the vision in Ezekiel 40-48. In other words, a "blueprint of a temple" is not enough for man's hands alone to construct a facility that would be the home of Almighty God.

Indeed, God provides always a "spiritual Holy Ghost prophetic POWER Word" in the earth which would command a construction of His "home" by His people to take place . . .

Do you see what I am saying?

A building to hold a chair is really secondary, and not required as far as Jesus having the authority over the throne of David.

I see what you are saying but disagree, you are simply working your way around to applying Ezekiel 40-48 to the building of the Church.

The temple described in Ezekiel will be built the same way the others were, under the order and process designed by God...one way or another...

In Ezekiel, Ezekiel is given prophetic visions....not as Moses and Zerubbabel were given instructions and the people commanded...Ezekiel is simply seeing what will be...not being given instructions or command to do so.

And regardless of the temple, and the Church. Both are built by God. In the time of Moses and Zerubbabel, God gave ability to the people to build the temple and all it's vessels. Just like if God commands you or I toward a task, God also enables us to do the task...We are to preach the Gospel...our mouths speak, our hands build building in which believers may gather....but it is still all God. It is still all something that we cannot take credit for doing...

Ezekiel saw exact measurements, rooms and so on...So unless you can tell me how many cubits high the Church is, or how many rooms the Church has, and where the gates, vestibules, steps, outer court, the tables of stone for sacrifice, tables for slaughter, walls and window, with their exact measurements... are ....then we are not talking about the entity of the Church here in Ezekiel.

So again, Ezekiel was given prophetic vision regarding this temple, not command to accomplish the building of this temple. The time for this temple is not yet, so until the time comes, God will not command it to be built.

With that last statement, I think many get the temple here in Ezekiel, and the temple of the "end times" mingled together, and they are not. The temple that is under preparation at present is not the temple of Ezekiel, and has not been sanctioned by God. Just because myself and many other Christians believe this temple(the one under preparation at present) will be built, does not mean we also believe it to be sanctioned/commanded by God. It just means we believe that this temple is told "about" via the things that are said to happen that will require a temple for them to happen. Like in Revelation, can't measure a temple that does not exist.(or is not going to exist)

[John146]

If you look at the Hebrew word that is used for 'heathen' in Psalms 2:9, you should notice it has also been translated different ways, such as 'nation', 'nations', 'Gentiles', etc, throughout the OT.

Of course. That's why context is so important so that we can tell which definition of a word fits the best. And translated it as "heathen" fits the context of Psalm 2:7-9.

So the idea then is to make the sense match that of the NT, in which it's rendered nations, which doesn't necessarily mean wicked heathens every time.

The context shows that it is the wicked. Tell me exactly how it could be possible for Jesus to break believers with a rod of iron and dash them into pieces like a potter's vessel. And, looking at Rev 19:15, how could it be talking about Jesus smiting believers or treading them in the winepress of God's wrath? It's very clear that the KJV translators of Psalm 2:8 translated it as "the heathen" for good reason.

But let's try and determine a thing or two in Psalms 2 first, which I'm positive that you will agree with me about,.


Psalms 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

Who would be the 'me' and 'I' in that verse? The Father, correct? Who would then be the 'thee', 'thine', and 'thy' in that verse? The Son, correct?

Yes and yes.

So what does that add up to? The Father gives the nations to the Son for inheritance, indicating that the Son would have the authority to do with that inheritance as He pleases.

Exactly. And verse 9 tells us what He will be pleased to do with them:

Psalm 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

As well as this:

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Let's see. What He will do to them is figuratively described as breaking them with a rod of iron, dashing them into pieces, smiting them and squashing them like grapes in a winepress. Please explain to me how that is a description of anything but Him destroying them? Please explain to me how Psalm 2:9 and Rev 19:15 can be referring to anyone but the wicked when it talks about who will be ruled/broken with a rod of iron.

That leads us to Revelation 2:27, which is exactly what the Son will do, since the Father gave Him the nations for His inheritance.

Revelation 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.


Notice closely here. Jesus is the speaker. And He says to the one that overcometh...to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers.

But notice what it states at the end of verse 27....even as I received of my Father.

We just saw that in Psalms 2:8. That's exactly what occurred.

Are you trying to say you think that Christ has already been given the heathen as an inheritance? If not then I don't know what you're trying to say here.

But Jesus is now telling the overcomer that He will give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers.

Since the idea is to make Scriptures agree and not contradict, now you have to find Scriptures that agree with your understanding, that to rule with a rod of iron means to destroy them

I already have. Just read Psalm 2:7-9 and Rev 19:15. Those clearly portray destruction in relation to ruling/breaking with a rod of iron.

and why Jesus would then bestow a reward like that to an overcomer, when we're told elsewhere in Scripture that vengeance belongs to the Lord, not overcomers.

It isn't that we ourselves will actually be directly ruling/breaking anyone with a rod of iron into pieces. Christ will be the one taking vengeance on them at His return (2 Thess 1:7-8). But we belong to Him and are associated with Him so by belonging to Him and in being in complete agreement with everything He does we have authority over the wicked and will indirectly take part in destroying them at His return because we will be in agreement that His actions will be justified (that the just punishment for them having rejected Him will be for them to be killed). By approving of His actions it will be as though we are doing it with Him even though He is the one actually doing it. By thinking that it has something to do with us directly ruling over anyone or directly punishing anyone just completely misses the point altogether, IMO. We don't rule by directly ordering people around or punishing them, we rule by serving the King. Scripture says we are priests in His kingdom even now (1 Peter 2:5,9, Rev 1:5-6). Do you directly rule over any of His enemies now? I don't. That's not what having authority in Christ means. Vengeance is His, like you said. So for us to take vengeance would contradict scripture. That is not what Rev 2:26-27 is about.

What exactly do you think Rev 2:26-27 means and what exactly do you think it means for Christ to rule with a rod of iron? Please be as specific as possible.

[John146]

Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

This has to be meaning after His return.

No, it absolutely does not have to mean that. He is the King now and that is undeniable, so how can you say that something referring to Jesus as King "has to be meaning after His return"?

Why? A cpl of clues as to why..such as...and peace there shall be no end...and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever.

There is perfect peace in His kingdom right now. We are in His kingdom and we have peace because of Him. There may not be peace in the world but we have peace in Him because we can trust in Him and we have the promise of eternal life to look forward to. The trouble going on in the world can't take our peace away from us and doesn't change the fact that there is peace in His kingdom.

Acts 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all 37That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 4And patience, experience; and experience, hope:

Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

These passages describe the peace that will have no end.

Let's take the former first. Where is the evidence of this peace there shall be no end to?

In our hearts.

Why is there still conflicts and wars in this world, etc?

His peace has nothing to do with there being no conflicts and wars. Look at the passages I posted above. Those speak of the kind of peace Christ has brought.

Doesn't sound like a peace here, where there shall be no end to. But I can certainly see that being a reality once Jesus returns, which then leads us to the latter. and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. Show me where this is true on a global scale as of now. This only makes sense once Christ returns. This age is temporary. The next age isn't. The above passage states at the end...from henceforth even for ever. That to me is speaking of the 2nd coming.

Hold on now. You believe that Rev 20:7-9 occurs after His second coming. Does Rev 20:7-9 sound like a description of peace to you? Not to me. So, your logic doesn't work. You are saying that Isaiah 9:7 has to do with Him bringing peace to the world and that peace would never end. No, in your premil view it would end when the thousand years ended if that's the kind of peace it's talking about. But it's not.

Oftentimes verses contain time gaps. Look at the preceding verse for example.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

It starts out...For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given...then it says...and the government shall be upon his shoulder. Obviously the latter doesn't happen as soon as He is born, but it does happen because He was born. So already we're seeing a gap in time in just the first couple of sentences of this verse. So why then when we get to verse 10 does it still have to be focusing on His first coming? If we look at the clues I tried to show above, they don't fit in with anything in this age, but fit perfectly with the next one.

What you're saying doesn't fit with a millennial age of supposed peace followed by a little season of anything but peace since the peace in that case would come to an end, thereby contradicting Isaiah 9:7.

[John146]

With that last statement, I think many get the temple here in Ezekiel, and the temple of the "end times" mingled together, and they are not. The temple that is under preparation at present is not the temple of Ezekiel, and has not been sanctioned by God. Just because myself and many other Christians believe this temple(the one under preparation at present) will be built, does not mean we also believe it to be sanctioned/commanded by God. It just means we believe that this temple is told "about" via the things that are said to happen that will require a temple for them to happen. Like in Revelation, can't measure a temple that does not exist.(or is not going to exist)

The temple mentioned in Rev 11 is "the temple of God". How could a temple not sanctioned/commanded by God be called the temple of God?

[billy-brown 2]

A building to hold a chair is really secondary, and not required as far as Jesus having the authority over the throne of David.

I see what you are saying but disagree, you are simply working your way around to applying Ezekiel 40-48 to the building of the Church.

Ezekiel saw exact measurements, rooms and so on...So unless you can tell me how many cubits high the Church is, or how many rooms the Church has, and where the gates, vestibules, steps, outer court, the tables of stone for sacrifice, tables for slaughter, walls and window, with their exact measurements... are ....then we are not talking about the entity of the Church here in Ezekiel.

LOL

No, I do not feel that I am "going there" with the "building of the Church" and so on. No, no, no--we don't really need to "go there" at this point--

Why?

Well, because all Ezekiel saw was a VISION of a temple. And we need not read anything else into it than that. Why?

Because the temple VISION was given to Ezekiel as a set of instructions for the exiles in Babylon to obey the statues of the law of Moses. That's all. And this VISION was given during year 25 of the captivity, yes?

And so, when you mention this:

The temple described in Ezekiel will be built the same way the others were, under the order and process designed by God...one way or another...

this raises a red flag in my mind--especially the "one way or another . . ." part. Why? Well, because all of the other physical temple/tabernacles that have been on the earth were built "by my spirit says the Lord" and so on.

Yep.

Specifically, only God initiates the construction of earthly "brick-and-mortar" temples/tabernacles--not the Jews (or anybody else). And how does He do that? Well, He does it through providing a "thus saith the Lord" Prophetic POWER Word to His people to "rise up and Build God's Temple" and so on.

Thus, there is no case of earthly, physical temple/tabernacle construction where there has not been spiritual, and prophetic, POWER supplied from God for the construction. And an additional example of what is required (according to YHWH's order and process pattern) for the construction of an appropriate "earthly physical brick and mortar temple/tabernacle of God" can be seen below (in bold):

Ezra 6
13 Then Tattenai, the governor of the province beyond the River, Shethar-bozenai and their colleagues carried out the decree with all diligence, just as King Darius had sent.
14 And the elders of the Jews were successful in building through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they finished building according to the command of the God of Israel and the decree of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.
15 This temple was completed on the third day of the month Adar; it was the sixth year of the reign of King Darius.
16 And the sons of Israel, the priests, the Levites and the rest of the exiles, celebrated the dedication of this house of God with joy.
17 They offered for the dedication of this temple of God 100 bulls, 200 rams, 400 lambs, and as a sin offering for all Israel 12 male goats, corresponding to the number of the tribes of Israel.
18 Then they appointed the priests to their divisions and the Levites in their orders for the service of God in Jerusalem, as it is written in the book of Moses.

This brings us to the following:

In Ezekiel, Ezekiel is given prophetic visions....not as Moses and Zerubbabel were given instructions and the people commanded...Ezekiel is simply seeing what will be...not being given instructions or command to do so.

And regardless of the temple, and the Church. Both are built by God. In the time of Moses and Zerubbabel, God gave ability to the people to build the temple and all it's vessels. Just like if God commands you or I toward a task, God also enables us to do the task...We are to preach the Gospel...our mouths speak, our hands build building in which believers may gather....but it is still all God. It is still all something that we cannot take credit for doing...

So again, Ezekiel was given prophetic vision regarding this temple, not command to accomplish the building of this temple. The time for this temple is not yet, so until the time comes, God will not command it to be built.

With that last statement, I think many get the temple here in Ezekiel, and the temple of the "end times" mingled together, and they are not. The temple that is under preparation at present is not the temple of Ezekiel, and has not been sanctioned by God. Just because myself and many other Christians believe this temple(the one under preparation at present) will be built, does not mean we also believe it to be sanctioned/commanded by God. It just means we believe that this temple is told "about" via the things that are said to happen that will require a temple for them to happen. Like in Revelation, can't measure a temple that does not exist.(or is not going to exist)

Now, the text in bold is critical, because you are at least admitting that God has to provide a "command" to build another "earthly physical brick-and-mortar temple"--or there will be no way to have a "throne of David" in the earth. Remember, the "throne of David" goes in the new "temple" and so on, yes?

But if the temple that is "under preparation" has not been sanctioned by God, how can an Immortal being--our King/Priest Jesus Christ--live there? Remember, He has an heavenly eternal tabernacle already; why would He go to another one in the earth--and specifically one which has not been sanctioned by His Father for His use? And we should also remember that the High Priest Jesus "has taken" His seat already from His Father--at the right hand of the Power:

Mark 14
60The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?”
61But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”
62And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.”
63Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, “What further need do we have of witnesses?
64“You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

[quiet dove]

The temple mentioned in Rev 11 is "the temple of God". How could a temple not sanctioned/commanded by God be called the temple of God?

Well, at present it isn't though. I mean, I think in it we can see that the Jews desire to bring their Messiah, which requires what in their mind, is obedience to God. And at present obedience to God would be to come to Christ.

But what the future, on down the road may be involved regarding this temple...idk...will it continue on into the Millennium, obviously requiring cleansing as it will be defiled by the AC...Idk

All I would say with more certainty is that from what is said here and there, a temple is needed. And that Ezekiel's temple is yet future and a real temple. Niether the one in Revelation or the one in Ezekiel are speaking of anything other than an actual temple. But no, I can't not fill in or answer every question about them, or it....

[quiet dove]

LOL

No, I do not feel that I am "going there" with the "building of the Church" and so on. No, no, no--we don't really need to "go there" at this point--

Ok, sorry. I should not have guessed at your views....my bad

Many do apply it as to being the Church.....

Why?

Well, because all Ezekiel saw was a VISION of a temple. And we need not read anything else into it than that. Why?

Because the temple VISION was given to Ezekiel as a set of instructions for the exiles in Babylon to obey the statues of the law of Moses. That's all. And this VISION was given during year 25 of the captivity, yes?

And so, when you mention this:


this raises a red flag in my mind--especially the "one way or another . . ." part. Why? Well, because all of the other physical temple/tabernacles that have been on the earth were built "by my spirit says the Lord" and so on.

I agree, but that is all I was trying to say...by God's ability it will be built as were the first two, and God used men to build the first two.

And I agree, Ezekiel was to tell the captives the vision of the temple...but I do believe this temple will be built because just as Israel will be brought back to her God, by God, so will this temple be built. In other words, God will accomplish His purpose, and this vision is no less to be fulfilled than the many other visions that have or will be fulfilled. Not because of who we, or they are...but because of who God is and what He has declared via prophecy is to be accomplished.

Like I told john146...I make no claim to be able to answer all the questions regarding the temple issues...but...based on the set standard of God's fulfilling prophecy to the minute details, I believe this to be prophecy and thus to be fulfilled in the same manner as those that have already been fulfilled...not because I understand all things about them, but because of who God is...and His track record regarding the fulfillment of prophecy

Specifically, only God initiates the construction of earthly "brick-and-mortar" temples/tabernacles--not the Jews (or anybody else). And how does He do that? Well, He does it through providing a "thus saith the Lord" Prophetic POWER Word to His people to "rise up and Build God's Temple" and so on.

Thus, there is no case of earthly, physical temple/tabernacle construction where there has not been spiritual, and prophetic, POWER supplied from God for the construction. And an additional example of what is required (according to YHWH's order and process pattern) for the construction of an appropriate "earthly physical brick and mortar temple/tabernacle of God" can be seen below (in bold):

Ezra 6
13 Then Tattenai, the governor of the province beyond the River, Shethar-bozenai and their colleagues carried out the decree with all diligence, just as King Darius had sent.
14 And the elders of the Jews were successful in building through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they finished building according to the command of the God of Israel and the decree of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.
15 This temple was completed on the third day of the month Adar; it was the sixth year of the reign of King Darius.
16 And the sons of Israel, the priests, the Levites and the rest of the exiles, celebrated the dedication of this house of God with joy.
17 They offered for the dedication of this temple of God 100 bulls, 200 rams, 400 lambs, and as a sin offering for all Israel 12 male goats, corresponding to the number of the tribes of Israel.
18 Then they appointed the priests to their divisions and the Levites in their orders for the service of God in Jerusalem, as it is written in the book of Moses.

Well, this makes sense to me from something else I said to john146, and that was that the temple of the "end times" would not be a temple sanctioned by God...I think I was only partially right in saying that. What I mean is, a temple will be built that was not a "thus sayeth the Lord" command...as you just pointed out regarding Ezekiel...however...if a temple is built, and it will be, that temple is defiled, and it will be...and if that temple then remains into the Millennial and it to be used and brought to this temple described in Ezekiel..of course it would have to be cleansed from it's defilement...but then we have a temple built, that was built with out a "thus sayeth the Lord"...but the vision of this prophecy fulfilled. And with Christ here, this temple of Revelation(and elsewhere) would be cleansed and useable...?

This brings us to the following:

Now, the text in bold is critical, because you are at least admitting that God has to provide a "command" to build another "earthly physical brick-and-mortar temple"--or there will be no way to have a "throne of David" in the earth. Remember, the "throne of David" goes in the new "temple" and so on, yes?

But if the temple that is "under preparation" has not been sanctioned by God, how can an Immortal being--our King/Priest Jesus Christ--live there? Remember, He has an heavenly eternal tabernacle already; why would He go to another one in the earth--and specifically one which has not been sanctioned by His Father for His use? And we should also remember that the High Priest Jesus "has taken" His seat already from His Father--at the right hand of the Power:

Mark 14
60The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?”
61But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”
62And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.”
63Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, “What further need do we have of witnesses?
64“You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

The temple would have to be cleansed and sanctioned, which Christ would certainly be able to accomplished...after all, it is not the temple that makes the people holy, it is the people who make the temple holy...So those who enter the Millennial, those Jews, will have accepted Christ, and thus be back in obedience to God...like the 144K of Revelation, and the many more that survive...

Plus also, as you bring up about no place for an actual physical throne...if there is already a temple, that temple is cleansed, there will be a place.

I think what we need is one of the diagrams out there...I don't know where...of the temple that Israel wants to build...and then someone, maybe you..(not me I know)smart enough to figure out if it fits the Ezekiel description. I think the Ezekiel one is to big for the area...but I am not sure...but I guess whatever temple is built could be added to for the other areas described in Ezekiel...Idk.

Like I said, regardless of my not having all the answers...I fully do believe the Ezekiel temple will be built. And I believe, based on end times prophecies regarding the AC, that a temple must be built and exist during the Tribulation...but I am not claiming to have all the answers...