Getting to the bottom of Ez 40-48? Is it possible?

[divaD]

Other arbitrary verses should not trump what is literally known, should it?

But this is all the same context thoughout these 8 chapters, isn't it? That's what I'm assuming. So if part of the context seems to fit the 2nd temple era, but other parts don't, then what does one do with the parts that don't seem to fit the 2nd temple era?

Well first Jesus' feet did walk in that temple, but more than that, Jesus was the temple when he came on earth. It was his body that was destroyed, and then resurrected, that was the temple. The kingdom of God is where ever God is, be it on earth, or heaven.

Even so, He didn't dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever, since I take the children of Israel to be meaning ethnics, IOW a certain specific people, and not spiritual Israel or something. That same phrase is used throughout Scripture, including the NT. To me it seems to be meaning a specific people, and this is whom God said He would dwell in the midst of them forever at some point. At least in this particular context.

I do not try and make everything fit my understanding, because my understanding changes from time to time. Ezekiel 43:9 says, "Now let them put away their whoredom, and the carcases of their kings, far from me, and I will dwell in the midst of them for ever." Now this particular verse sounds conditional. The verse in Matthew may well relate to Ezekiel but it sure shouldn't trump what is in Ezekiel.

I wasn't trying to imply it trumped or didn't trump anything. I was only trying to show how I might understand things at this point.

You wouldn't try to stick everthing in Revelation in one time period and perhaps the same should be said of Ezekiel's vision.

You make a good point about Revelation, in which I agree. So what is it about the 8 chapters in Ezekiel that would lead one to conclude various time periods are in mind? To me it all seems like the same time period in mind. But of course that seems to cause contradictions, based on the fact animal sacrificing would resume again. So that question wasn't because I was disagreeing with you, but because you could be on to something here. But I'm just not certain, thus why I ask.

[John146]

No I'm not. Rev. 21:3 is clearly and inarguably in our future,

Of course.

and indisputably quoting Ezekiel 37:27.

Does that mean I can claim that Paul was indisputably quoting Ezekiel 37:27 in 2 Cor 6:16 as well? If not, then why not?

To argue against that point is a waste of my time.

I'm not arguing against that point. I acknowledged that it can be related to Rev 21:3. And I said that if it was related to Rev 21:3 and only referred to Rev 21:3 (and not 2 Cor 6:16) then that would mean it would be fulfilled when the new heavens and new earth were ushered in at which time "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain" (Rev 21:4). So, do you believe there will be no more death, sorrow, crying or pain when Ezekiel 37:27 is fulfilled?

[Fenris]

Right. It is. God dwells with His people now and will forever. I have no problem with what is written there being permanent.

Hmm and this verse means what?

25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob My servant, wherein your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, they, and their children, and their children's children, for ever;

It looks to me like you're ignoring the text.

[John146]

John 146 asks:

"Where does scripture teach that Christ would ever have more than one kingdom?"


Anyone who knows the scriptures understands the difference between a kingdom of mortals and one of immortals

And the same scriptures clearly teach both existing together until the beginning of eternity

If you cannot understand this truth you are either lacking of spiritually discerned scriptural knowledge, or you know it, but reject it because of your ambition to support a pre-conceived dogma that you have been taught, and or teach

There's no need to resort to childish insults just because you disagree with me. Again, scripture does not teach that Christ would ever have more than one kingdom. If you think it does then show me where it teaches that and leave the childish insults out of your response.

Are you a preterist?

No, I am not. I'm not a futurist, either. I'm an amillennialist who sees a few things as being already fulfilled that futurists typically believe are not yet fulfilled, but I also see some things as being not yet fulfilled that preterists tend to claim are already fulfilled.

[Buddy]

"There's no need to resort to childish insults just because you disagree with me. Again, scripture does not teach that Christ would ever have more than one kingdom. If you think it does then show me where it teaches that and leave the childish insults out of your response."


Sorry if I rattled your cage, but I believe you know very well that the scriptures teach parallel kingdoms with the same Lord .... you have stated that you are one who rejects the Lord's coming millennial kingdom of mortals on the earth over which the immortals of His church will rule with Him for 1000 years years before He restores the heavens and earth to their conditions of the original creation

Your view is not congruent with the scriptures [and I believe you know why]

I also note your opening response about an insulting "childish response"

Those who respond to others who have no intent to do what you say reveal an extreme defensive behavior which immediately tells me that you are not very confident in what you believe and teach; otherwise you would not resort to
and lash out with such language

Sharing insight and knowledge regarding the Lord's Word should be done with respect and understanding toward others
who may not agree, or might have a different perspective

[quiet dove]

Hey guys...lets all play nice

Regardless of disagreement we are all sincere and taking the word of God very seriously.

Need to respect each other regardless of disagreement ...

[John146]

"There's no need to resort to childish insults just because you disagree with me. Again, scripture does not teach that Christ would ever have more than one kingdom. If you think it does then show me where it teaches that and leave the childish insults out of your response."


Sorry if I rattled your cage,

Are you? I'm not really getting that sense from what you're saying.

but I believe you know very well that the scriptures teach parallel kingdoms with the same Lord

No, they do not teach that. If I believed that then why would I not just say so? I disagree with you. Are you all knowing? If not then I'm not obligated to agree with you.

you have stated that you are one who rejects the Lord's coming millennial kingdom of mortals on the earth over which the immortals of His church will rule with Him for 1000 years years before He restores the heavens and earth to their conditions of the original creation

Yes, I reject that doctrine and you reject mine. We each have that right to reject each other's opinions.

Your view is not congruent with the scriptures [and I believe you know why]

If that is the case then prove it. Your words in and of themselves are empty (as are mine) so prove them with scripture.

I also note your opening response about an insulting "childish response"

Those who respond to others who have no intent to do what you say reveal an extreme defensive behavior which immediately tells me that you are not very confident in what you believe and teach;

Even those who strongly disagree with me and know me would not agree with that statement. Some think I come across as too confident about what I believe and teach (and maybe I do sometimes). So, for you to say this about me is pretty funny.

otherwise you would not resort to
and lash out with such language

What language? Are you saying that appointing yourself as Judge and accusing another person who you don't know at all of either lacking spiritual discernment or of knowing the truth but rejecting it anyway is anything but a childish insult?

Sharing insight and knowledge regarding the Lord's Word should be done with respect and understanding toward others
who may not agree, or might have a different perspective

Then why are you not doing that? Tell me how you were being respectful and understanding towards me when you said this:

If you cannot understand this truth you are either lacking of spiritually discerned scriptural knowledge, or you know it, but reject it because of your ambition to support a pre-conceived dogma that you have been taught, and or teach

This doesn't look very respectful and understanding to me.

[Beckrl]

Even so, He didn't dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever, since I take the children of Israel to be meaning ethnics, IOW a certain specific people, and not spiritual Israel or something. That same phrase is used throughout Scripture, including the NT. To me it seems to be meaning a specific people, and this is whom God said He would dwell in the midst of them forever at some point. At least in this particular context.

So how was God to dwell in their midst? Well in the OT with it's tabernacle God was to dwell in the Holy of Holies...Right? What then is the promise is the New covenant to be? Is it not to dwell in the midst of his people? How is that so? Some question that relate to this topic that needs to be given some thought.

[the rookie]

The point is that Jonah was a prophet and he was prophesying in Jonah 3:4. I'm not sure how you can disagree with that.

I don't. I just have a broader definition of what a Prophet is and "prophecy" involves than you do.

If there was no condition then why wasn't Nineveh destroyed as Jonah said it would be?

There's no condition stated. Therefore, the prophetic decree wasn't "foretelling" but "forewarning" related to the decree of the Sovereign Judge of the Earth. The Judge had pronounced them "guilty" and had passed His sentence, in other words. Related to their response, He had mercy on them. Jonah did not call himself a prophet, nor did he tell them about the future - he was simply a "preacher of righteousness" warning them of wrath to come. That the wrath was forestalled (to be poured out on a future generation of Assyrians) was knit to the righteous response in faith of that generation and God's gracious response in mercy. But to say that there was a "condition" is eisegetical, or a deductive insertion into the text that is not explicit.

You are arguing that it is implicit, but a grammatical / historical hermeneutic takes into account how the Assyrians heard Jonah's decree, not how you understand it after the fact. No condition was given, and the Assyrians prepared to meet their Maker. God responded in mercy. Jonah was not considered a "false prophet" because he was functioning as a herald - a messenger and representative - of Yaweh, not as a soothsayer. In other words, an ambassador of a foreign king, announcing the coming of that king to conquer and destroy them.

I don't see it that way. I believe it was the exiles themselves who needed to be ashamed of what they had done. And I don't see any evidence that they were.

What you believe is irrelevant. It's about what the text says. It says that Ezekiel had to describe what he saw, and if they were ashamed, then write it down in their sight. Ezekiel wrote it down. There are no other conditions in the text and no indication that they weren't ashamed. You're making a conclusion that is not explicit from the text itself. And you're making it boldly, which is interesting to me.

You know that our disagreement on this is not just because we aren't always understanding each other. I understand that you believe the prophecy will be fulfilled in the future and you understand that I believe it was a conditional prophecy and the conditions weren't met by the people who needed to meet them. So, that is where our main disagreement lies.

No, my main disagreement in this case is knit to the unbiblical conclusion you are proclaiming with undue boldness. It has nothing to do with what I believe about end-time prophecy. What you are asserting cannot be supported by the text.

So, do you believe that happened or not? In other words, do you believe they were ashamed of what they had done and that Ezekiel showed the scroll to them or not?

What I believe is irrelevant. Ezekiel wrote down what he saw. In one sense, whether they were ashamed or not is irrelevant to what God showed Ezekiel about the future. He had witnessed the glory of the Lord depart from the temple at the beginning of his prophetic ministry. At the end, he sees it return to the temple in his future. Whether or not the house of Israel watched him write down the details related to their shame (again, the only "condition" in the prophecy) is irrelevant to the prophecy and its fulfillment.

But the prophecy revolves around them and their need to be ashamed of what they had done so why would that be the case if the temple wasn't meant to be built for them back then?

No, the prophecy does not "revolve around them and their need to be ashamed". Only the writing of it, or the prophecy's transmission to a scroll for their keeping. That's all the text says.

In your opinion, but I'm not seeing it that way.

It's not my opinion. It's what Ezekiel 43:11 says. Whether you see that or not, it doesn't add or take away what is written.

Then why wouldn't the temple have been built for them in that case? If they proved to be ashamed of what they had done while would there be any delay in the building of the temple at that point?

You mean, besides the fact that their captivity had just begun? Don't know - the text doesn't tell us. In fact, the text doesn't tell us that the temple would be built "for them" or that they would get to build it at all. What we do know is that this oracle comes as a climactic conclusion to a series of oracles about the future restoration of Israel after much trouble and desolation (Ezek. 36-39).

You can call it circular reasoning all you want, but it's how I see it. I think not having that written explicitly in the text is not nearly as big of a problem as trying to explain how and why animal sacrifices would be reinstated in the future.

That's fine, but this isn't "comparative theology". We have to deal with the text as it is given to us. That another portion of Ezekiel is more or less problematic is irrelevant.

That's fine with me. Your conclusions are based on eisegesis as well since you can't harmonize your belief in future animal sacrifices with scripture as a whole.

That statement demonstrates a faulty understanding of what "eisegesis" is. It really has nothing to do with my ability to "harmonize difficult passages with future passages". Animal sacrifices weren't difficult to "harmonize" for Jewish believers in Jerusalem for the 40 years they engaged in them after the cross prior to the fall of Jerusalem. They weren't being "eisegetical" related to their inability to "harmonize"

Of course. But discussing whether or not it's reasonable to conclude that animal sacrifices could be reinstated in the future is just as important to discuss as those things are. But you said it was "silly to skip ahead to debate animal sacrifices". No, it is not.

Of course it's important. But if you can't deal in a straightforward manner with what's written in Ezek. 43, what would be the point of taking on the more challenging passages?

[John146]

I don't. I just have a broader definition of what a Prophet is and "prophecy" involves than you do.

That's fine. We can just agree to disagree on that then. How we view those things isn't going to change any time soon so there's no point in debating what is a prophecy and what is not a prophecy.

There's no condition stated.

Yes, there is. It may not be stated in that verse but it's stated later. The condition was that he was going to destroy Nineveh IF they did not repent. I think it's safe to conclude that because they obviously were not destroyed because they repented.

Therefore, the prophetic decree wasn't "foretelling" but "forewarning" related to the decree of the Sovereign Judge of the Earth. The Judge had pronounced them "guilty" and had passed His sentence, in other words. Related to their response, He had mercy on them. Jonah did not call himself a prophet, nor did he tell them about the future - he was simply a "preacher of righteousness" warning them of wrath to come. That the wrath was forestalled (to be poured out on a future generation of Assyrians) was knit to the righteous response in faith of that generation and God's gracious response in mercy. But to say that there was a "condition" is eisegetical, or a deductive insertion into the text that is not explicit.

You're always making the point that something is implicit rather than explicit. But I never said otherwise. I guess I don't feel the need to have things spelled out to me explicitly as much as you do before coming to a conclusion. Some need things to be more explicit than others before coming to conclusions and that's okay. It's not as if there's some magic formula that says something has to be proven to a certain measured extent before we can draw a conclusion about something.

What you believe is irrelevant.

Okay. Then I guess what you believe is irrelevant as well. So, why are we sharing what we believe with each other?

It's about what the text says.

Of course. But we have to interpret what the text says and you and I don't always interpret it the same, obviously.

It says that Ezekiel had to describe what he saw, and if they were ashamed, then write it down in their sight. Ezekiel wrote it down. There are no other conditions in the text and no indication that they weren't ashamed. You're making a conclusion that is not explicit from the text itself. And you're making it boldly, which is interesting to me.

How am I being bold by simply pointing out that I didn't see any evidence of something? That just means that I haven't seen it up to this point, not that I'm saying there can't possibly be any out there.

No, my main disagreement in this case is knit to the unbiblical conclusion you are proclaiming with undue boldness.

You're getting carried away with this boldness thing. I'm simply sharing my opinions here, not trying to tell you that what I'm saying is 100% proven fact and that's it. No, I'm not doing that. I'm simply telling you what I think.

It has nothing to do with what I believe about end-time prophecy. What you are asserting cannot be supported by the text.

If that's how you see it then so be it. As I tried to explain to you before, my view is based on scripture as a whole, not just on Ezekiel 40-48 alone.

No, the prophecy does not "revolve around them and their need to be ashamed". Only the writing of it, or the prophecy's transmission to a scroll for their keeping. That's all the text says.

Again, you're pointing out what the text says. I know what it says and I acknowledge that I am drawing some of my conclusions from what I see written implicitly rather than explicitly, but I've never said otherwise so I wish you would stop acting as if I ever said otherwise. Just because I'm confident about my view is no reason for you to be offended by that. Ironically, another poster in this thread has just recently accused me of not being confident of my view. Go figure. You act quite confident about your views at times as well but that doesn't bother me. Why are you always offended when someone shows confidence in their view? I don't think that should be the case. I'm confident about my view, but I've never claimed to be able to prove it with 100% certainty. I'll tell you right now that I can't do that.

That's fine, but this isn't "comparative theology". We have to deal with the text as it is given to us. That another portion of Ezekiel is more or less problematic is irrelevant.

I completely disagree. You seem to be acting as if we need to isolate that text and try to interpret it on its own without taking other scripture into account. But that is not how I interpret scripture and I don't think that's a wise way to interpret scripture.

That statement demonstrates a faulty understanding of what "eisegesis" is.

If I'm guilty of not fully understanding what that word means, then so be it. That's not something I will lose any sleep over, that's for sure. You know the point I'm making so if you want to nitpick like that go ahead. As long as you know my point I don't really care if I use that word in the proper context or not.

Of course it's important. But if you can't deal in a straightforward manner with what's written in Ezek. 43, what would be the point of taking on the more challenging passages?

I guess I can say something similar to you then. If you can't deal in a straightforward manner with what's written within Ezekiel 40-48 about animal sacrifices and sin offerings and how that could possibly be something that will occur in the future in light of what is taught in other scripture then what is the point of taking on the other parts of the prophecy?

[the rookie]

Gentleman -

I'm removing the little back-n-forth that isn't fruitful. Let's get back to the topic at hand.

[Fenris]

Great, maybe someone can explain these cryptic verses to me.

21 And say unto them: Thus saith the Lord GOD: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, whither they are gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land; 22 and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all; 23 neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will save them out of all their dwelling-places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them; so shall they be My people, and I will be their God. 24 And My servant David shall be king over them, and they all shall have one shepherd; they shall also walk in Mine ordinances, and observe My statutes, and do them. 25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob My servant, wherein your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, they, and their children, and their children's children, for ever;

[divaD]

Great, maybe someone can explain these cryptic verses to me.

21 And say unto them: Thus saith the Lord GOD: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, whither they are gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land; 22 and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all; 23 neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will save them out of all their dwelling-places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them; so shall they be My people, and I will be their God. 24 And My servant David shall be king over them, and they all shall have one shepherd; they shall also walk in Mine ordinances, and observe My statutes, and do them. 25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob My servant, wherein your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, they, and their children, and their children's children, for ever;

Fenris, since I'm thinking you likely understand things to a greater degree than a lot of us, pertaining to the OT, could you then give some examples of the ordinances and statutes that they will be walking in and doing? I'm just curious as to whether the church also walks in these ordinances and statutes and are then doing them.

[Buddy]

"Great, maybe someone can explain these cryptic verses to me."

I can Fenris

The passage of scripture that you quote must be interpreted literally and is among several that forecast the Lord's intent with His national people Israel at the end of this present age

There will be a remnant part of the nation who will turn to Him and accept Him as Messiah and King during the coming time of Jacob's trouble; not all of the nation will do this, but those that do will enter and populate His millennial kingdom as mortals

Israel will be the center of this kingdom and the nations will be subjected to His rule; He is not finished with His people as some as some would have it; He is Himself a Jew and the Lion of the tribe of Judah

He will do this thing for His own glory just as the prophetic scriptures tell

[divaD]

but those that do will enter and populate His millennial kingdom as mortals

How exactly are you concluding that, that they would populate the millennial kingdom as mortals? what Scriptures is that based on?