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

[John146]

Jeff

You speak of His immortal church who will rule with Him over His coming millennial kingdom on the earth which will be a kingdom of mortals

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

He has delayed His future restoration of the kingdom to Israel because the nation rejected Him in the first century

John 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 4I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

Jesus Himself gave no indication that there was anything He came to do that He did not finish doing. But it seems to me that you're saying He failed to restore the kingdom to Israel. If that was the case why wouldn't Jesus have mentioned that? Instead, He indicated He finished everything the Father gave Him to do.

A believing remnant of the nation will emerge at the time of the end and it is these who will enter and populate His future millennial kingdom which will be on the earth

This kingdom of His intent will be centered in Jerusalem and will last for 1000 years .... and then, after another human rebellion, He will judge the dead [all unbelievers] and proceed to restore the original creation of the heavens and the earth for all eternity

There is a distinct difference between the mystery kingdom of His church [which already exists] and His coming millennial kingdom of mortals upon the earth according to His intent and according to scripture

According to what scripture? I don't believe there is any scripture that teaches He will have more than one kingdom.

[Fenris]

They don't get ignored. Who are you to say whether or not someone is ignoring verses? Is it not possible that those are non-conditional prophecies but Ezekiel 40-48 is conditional? I don't see why not.

OK, so God's going to gather the Jewish exiles, unconditionally, as per Ezekiel 36. Since it comes right after, and also doesn't mention conditions, chapter 37 follows with "and will set My sanctuary in the midst of them for ever..." I guess it's just not going to be the specific sanctuary Ezekiel mentions later. Where he goes on and on in great detail for 8 chapters about a building that will never be built.


That about right?

[John146]

Here's the thing - if the preconditions of Ezekiel 43 were not met, why are these chapters in the Bible at all?

Why not? If it was a real prophecy, and I don't think any of us doubt that it was, then why shouldn't it be included even if it was conditional? There is plenty of scripture that contain details that might seem unnecessary and not all that useful, but they're still there (take the book of Numbers, for instance). Why? I don't know why in all cases but I'm sure God has good reasons for including those seemingly (to us) unnecessary details.

Why such detail?

I don't see why that matters. There was a lot of detail surrounding that particular prophecy, but I don't see that the amount of detail would have anything to do with whether or not it could be conditional.

When did these passages make it into the canon - were they published posthumously after that generation had died out? Did a priest or a scribe find the vision long after the captivity was over and think, "The people need to see this!"

I don't know. Are you expecting us to do the research to find this information out for you?

Also, if these preconditions were not met, who was in the company of faithful ones that uprooted their lives, gave up their security, their livelihoods, etc. to return to a barren, defenseless, harsh land to rebuild the temple and contend for the promises of God? Did the entirety of Ezekiel's generation refuse to mourn in shame, only to find that their kids had unexpected zeal for a temple the entirety of the previous generation despised? So there was actually no "remnant of faith", as Paul testified, within Israel in those days of captivity? (Until the end, when it was time to return, then faithfulness was renewed and all who were previously "not Israel" were suddenly "sort of Israel")

You lost me. Can you elaborate on what point exactly you were trying to make here?

Finally, where were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah during this phase of Ezekiel's prophetic ministry?

You ask a lot of questions that no one here can answer for some reason. How in the world would we know something like that?

Off on assignment somewhere? Unashamed with the rest? Daniel's response to Jeremiah's prophecy in Daniel 9 tells us that at least he was "ashamed" - he didn't count?

I don't think he counted for the entire nation, do you? It seems to me that God would have required more than just a few to be ashamed.

It seems as if the reason I'm reading circular arguments is because it looks as if the conclusions have already been drawn and subsequently superimposed onto one little phrase in Ezekiel 43:10-11.

You can see it how you want, but I obviously disagree. What would be great is if you could explain to me why God would reinstitute animal sacrifices in the future. And while doing so don't forget to keep in mind that it says they would be performed in order "to make reconciliation for the house of Israel" (Eze 45:17) and "to sanctify the people" (Eze 46:20).

[the rookie]

Why not? If it was a real prophecy, and I don't think any of us doubt that it was, then why shouldn't it be included even if it was conditional?

Because if Israel was not going to fulfill the conditions in that time (and there is no future opportunity to honor the preconditions), it's not, by definition, a "real prophecy". It would be another genre of divinely inspired communication that has no other precedent in the word of God. Every other example of "conditional prophecy" isn't really "conditional" in the sense that we understand it. In foreknowledge, there is an understanding of fulfillment knit to the timing of Israel's obedience and God's subsequent answer from heaven, in other words. Hence, a "prophecy" rather than say, an "exhortation".

There is plenty of scripture that contain details that might seem unnecessary and not all that useful, but they're still there (take the book of Numbers, for instance). Why? I don't know why in all cases but I'm sure God has good reasons for including those seemingly (to us) unnecessary details.

Says the Gentile. Those details are still quite relevant to the people for whom those passages were originally written. Secondly, Paul would later tell Timothy that all scripture is God-breathed and useful for us pagan-folk as well - hint: it's related to an Israel-centric storyline and an Israel-centric conclusion

I don't see why that matters. There was a lot of detail surrounding that particular prophecy, but I don't see that the amount of detail would have anything to do with whether or not it could be conditional.

They were details that were only meant to see the light of day upon the condition of Israel's sorrow, or "shame" related to their past sin. If there was no "shame", there should be no details.

I don't know. Are you expecting us to do the research to find this information out for you?

No, I'm expecting folks with confidence in their answers to have done their research. If one hasn't done the research, then one must answer in a manner commensurate with what they actually know.

You lost me. Can you elaborate on what point exactly you were trying to make here?

Someone was sorrowful and repentant, as evidenced by the response of the faithful remnant.

You ask a lot of questions that no one here can answer for some reason. How in the world would we know something like that?

The obvious answer is that they were alive and apart of the community of faith during that time, and we have biblical evidence of at least Daniel's sorrow / shame regarding his fathers in Daniel 9. It's not hard to put together a timeline of Ezekiel and Daniel (and his friends) as contemporaries in the captivity.

I don't think he counted for the entire nation, do you? It seems to me that God would have required more than just a few to be ashamed.

It would seem that way to you because you are drawing a firm conclusion based on scant biblical evidence. We know from the passage in question that Ezekiel had to describe the Temple to the "house of Israel", and if they are ashamed by what they hear, to "make known" and "write down in their sight" the details. The passage says nothing about whether or not the fulfillment of the prophecy was contingent upon sorrow - just the communication of it to the people. "Conditional fulfillment" is an innovative addition to maintain Ezekiel's integrity as a true prophet of God.

You can see it how you want, but I obviously disagree. What would be great is if you could explain to me why God would reinstitute animal sacrifices in the future. And while doing so don't forget to keep in mind that it says they would be performed in order "to make reconciliation for the house of Israel" (Eze 45:17) and "to sanctify the people" (Eze 46:20).

No, I can't see it however I want...that's the point. While the details may vex and confuse me, I don't get to negotiate them away because of conditions that are non-existent.

[John146]

OK, so God's going to gather the Jewish exiles, unconditionally, as per Ezekiel 36. Since it comes right after, and also doesn't mention conditions, chapter 37 follows with "and will set My sanctuary in the midst of them for ever..." I guess it's just not going to be the specific sanctuary Ezekiel mentions later. Where he goes on and on in great detail for 8 chapters about a building that will never be built.


That about right?

Yes, that's about right except that I don't see it as a future event but rather believe He already did gather a remnant of them to be His people. I believe this:

Eze 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. 25And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. 26Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. 27My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.


has to do with this:

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

2 Cor 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Jesus is the king Ezekiel was prophesying about. He wasn't prophesying about David himself, but one who would come from David's lineage. The everlasting covenant Ezekiel prophesied about is the new covenant that Jesus put into effect by His shed blood on the cross. Those who follow Christ are the temple of God because He dwells in us and we are God's people. That is what Ezekiel was prophesying about in Ezekiel 37:27-28. Some think that Ezekiel 40-48 is also speaking figuratively of the spiritual temple of God but so far I'm not really seeing that as being the case and instead see it as a conditional prophecy. The thing that I think you need to acknowledge is that the prophecy was specifically in relation to those exiles and if there was going to be a physical temple built, it would be built for them, not someone else in the future. Well, I see no evidence that it was ever built for them so that has to be taken into consideration when trying to determine the correct interpretation of the text.

[the rookie]

If that's the case (already fulfilled prophecy), why did John the Apostle reference Ezekiel 37:27 in Revelation 21:3 as a future event?

[John146]

Because if Israel was not going to fulfill the conditions in that time (and there is no future opportunity to honor the preconditions), it's not, by definition, a "real prophecy". It would be another genre of divinely inspired communication that has no other precedent in the word of God.

I disagree. Was Jonah not giving a prophecy when he declared in Jonah 3:4 that "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown"? Was that just an empty threat or was that a prophecy?

Every other example of "conditional prophecy" isn't really "conditional" in the sense that we understand it.

In the sense that you understand it, maybe.

In foreknowledge, there is an understanding of fulfillment knit to the timing of Israel's obedience and God's subsequent answer from heaven, in other words. Hence, a "prophecy" rather than say, an "exhortation".

Sorry, but I'm not following you.

Says the Gentile. Those details are still quite relevant to the people for whom those passages were originally written.

Secondly, Paul would later tell Timothy that all scripture is God-breathed and useful for us pagan-folk as well - hint: it's related to an Israel-centric storyline and an Israel-centric conclusion

You can safely conclude the same regarding Ezekiel 40-48 then, even if it is a conditional prophecy.

They were details that were only meant to see the light of day upon the condition of Israel's sorrow, or "shame" related to their past sin. If there was no "shame", there should be no details.

Says you. I'm not finding your argument here to be convincing at all so far, but I'll read on.

No, I'm expecting folks with confidence in their answers to have done their research. If one hasn't done the research, then one must answer in a manner commensurate with what they actually know.

Ah, so you have done research on every verse in scripture to find out when and how it was included in the canon and unless one has done so, they don't know enough to comment on the scripture?

Someone was sorrowful and repentant, as evidenced by the response of the faithful remnant.

It seems to me that God required more than just a few to be ashamed of what they had done, at least as far as this prophecy was concerned. Notice that the following is in reference to the entire house of Israel:

Eze 43:10 Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern. 11And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.

Can you see any reference to a remnant here? I don't get the sense here that God was expecting only a few among the house of Israel to be ashamed of what they had done, do you?

The obvious answer is that they were alive and apart of the community of faith during that time, and we have biblical evidence of at least Daniel's sorrow / shame regarding his fathers in Daniel 9. It's not hard to put together a timeline of Ezekiel and Daniel (and his friends) as contemporaries in the captivity.

Okay. And this proves what? Nothing as it relates to this discussion.

It would seem that way to you because you are drawing a firm conclusion based on scant biblical evidence.

In your opinion. What evidence do you have that God was calling only a small remnant to be ashamed of what they had done?

We know from the passage in question that Ezekiel had to describe the Temple to the "house of Israel", and if they are ashamed by what they hear, to "make known" and "write down in their sight" the details. The passage says nothing about whether or not the fulfillment of the prophecy was contingent upon sorrow - just the communication of it to the people.

And why do you think that was the case? If the temple was going to be built whether they were ashamed of what they had done or not then why did it matter whether or not they were ashamed in order for Ezekiel to show them the details regarding it? Also, where do you get the idea that the temple would be built for their descendants at some point in the future rather than for the exiles themselves?

"Conditional fulfillment" is an innovative addition to maintain Ezekiel's integrity as a true prophet of God.

What did you mean by this? Please be specific.

No, I can't see it however I want...that's the point. While the details may vex and confuse me, I don't get to negotiate them away because of conditions that are non-existent.

I'm not negotiating anything away, either. I'm interpreting things differently than you are. It has nothing to do with negotiating anything away. Should I assume from your response that you have no answer to my question regarding why God would reinstate animal sacrifices in the future?

[Fenris]

Yes, that's about right except that I don't see it as a future event but rather believe He already did gather a remnant of them to be His people. I believe this:

Eze 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. 25And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. 26Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. 27My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.

What about all the "forevers" in the verses? Again, no conditions attached.

[John146]

If that's the case (already fulfilled prophecy), why did John the Apostle reference Ezekiel 37:27 in Revelation 21:3 as a future event?

Do you think Paul was not referring to Ezekiel 37:27 at all in 2 Cor 6:16? If not then what OT prophecy do you think he was referring to in that verse?

I'm sure you've heard this before, but the kingdom of God is already but not yet. It is already because God dwells within us and therefore He is with us spiritually. In Rev 21:3 John is referring to the time when God will be with us on the new earth at a time when "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain" (Rev 21:4). The kingdom will have come in its fullness at that point and that is the "not yet" part. Even if Ezekiel 37:27 should be applied to Rev 21:3 and not to 2 Cor 6:16 I don't see how you can reconcile the verse with the premil view.

What is your understanding of the timing of the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37:27?

[divaD]

If that's the case (already fulfilled prophecy), why did John the Apostle reference Ezekiel 37:27 in Revelation 21:3 as a future event?

You know what, that is an excellent point. How can it be both present and future at the same time? Unless one is preterist or something, I don't think many are going to conclude the new heavens and a new earth are anything but still future to us.

[John146]

What about all the "forevers" in the verses? Again, no conditions attached.

I like them?

What about the "forevers", exactly?

[John146]

You know what, that is an excellent point. How can it be both present and future at the same time?

Can the kingdom of God not be both present and future at the same time? Scripture indicates that we are in the kingdom of God now and will inherit it in the future. How do you explain that?

Unless one is preterist or something, I don't think many are going to conclude the new heavens and a new earth are anything but still future to us.

How do you know that it's not referring to what Paul wrote about here:

2 Cor 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Are we presently the temple of God? Yes. Does God presently dwell in us? Yes. Is He presently our God? Yes. So, tell me why Paul couldn't have been referring to Ezekiel 37:27 there.

[the rookie]

I disagree. Was Jonah not giving a prophecy when he declared in Jonah 3:4 that "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown"? Was that just an empty threat or was that a prophecy?

1. Does that statement alone make Jonah a prophet? Was Jonah 3:4 a prophecy, or a proclamation of a judgment of Yaweh? Finally, how is Jonah 3:4 "conditional"?

Sorry, but I'm not following you.

Help me then. Are there any other "conditional prophesies" in the Bible that can never come to pass - and were never meant to?

You can safely conclude the same regarding Ezekiel 40-48 then, even if it is a conditional prophecy.

Different genre unto a different purpose, which would make me feel "unsafe" about such a conclusion.

Ah, so you have done research on ever verse in scripture to find out when and how it was included in the canon and unless one has done so, they don't know enough to comment on the scripture?

That's not what I said. You may want to dial down a notch and hear what I'm saying versus trying to rebut me at every turn.

It seems to me that God required more than just a few to be ashamed of what they had done, at least as far as this prophecy was concerned. Notice that the following is in reference to the entire house of Israel:

How much more than a few? What was the magic number for the Ezekiel to get permission to communicate the prophecy (which were, again, the terms of the preconditions)?

Eze 43:10 Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern. 11And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.

Can you see any reference to a remnant here? I don't get the sense here that God was expecting only a few among the house of Israel to be ashamed of what they had done, do you?

Since the prophecy was written down and transmitted to the entire house of Israel (which were, again, the only things knit to the "conditions"), something happened somewhere.

Okay. And this proves what? Nothing as it relates to this discussion.

Why would that be?

In your opinion. What evidence do you have that God was calling only a small remnant to be ashamed of what they had done?

You seem to be missing my point and inserting your own.

And why do you think that was the case? If the temple was going to be built whether they were ashamed of what they had done or not then why did it matter whether or not they were ashamed in order for Ezekiel to show them the details regarding it? Also, where do you get the idea that the temple would be built for their descendants at some point in the future rather than for the exiles themselves?

That's not what the text says. The "shame" was knit to communication of the details, not the building of the structure itself.

What did you mean by this? Please be specific.

The idea that the prophecy is "conditional" and "Israel failed" honors the detail (rather than spiritualizing them) which I appreciate. The problem is that the "conditions" are knit to Ezekiel's permission to communicate the prophecy, not whether or not the temple in question would be built.

I'm not negotiating anything away, either. I'm interpreting things differently than you are. It has nothing to do with negotiating anything away. Should I assume from your response that you have no answer to my question regarding why God would reinstate animal sacrifices in the future?

As I said before, if I don't understand something, I have no problem saying so. Whether God will or won't is not relevant at all to the details of the conditions found within Ezekiel 43:10-11. It's silly to skip ahead to debate animal sacrifices when we can't even agree on what Ezekiel 43 actually says.

[divaD]

The thing that I think you need to acknowledge is that the prophecy was specifically in relation to those exiles and if there was going to be a physical temple built, it would be built for them, not someone else in the future.

Ezekiel 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's

Notice that it says...wherein your fathers have dwelt. This couldn't be applicable to a non ethnic Jew, because it is meaning their fathers, not the fathers of Gentiles, non ethnic Jews, etc. To put non Jews into that verse is taking it entirely out of context IMO. God has made specific promises to his ethnic people that He plans on keeping, that would be the point I would think. Why shouldn't someone such as Fenris read a passage like this, and then conclude that those promises were made to him, and others like him, meaning ethnic Jews, since it couldn't possibly be meaning in the land where the fathers of non ethnic Jews dwelled?

[Fenris]

I like them?

What about the "forevers", exactly?

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; and David My servant shall be their prince for ever. 26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them--it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will establish them, and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in the midst of them for ever. 27 My dwelling-place also shall be over them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 28 And the nations shall know that I am the LORD that sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for ever.



Sounds kinda...permanent. How could this have happened if it wasn't...permanent?