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

[the rookie]

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?

I love Ladd! I've read his books extensively. I appreciate the "already but not yet" explanation in its succinct ability to explain how the kingdom of God is expressed partially now and in fullness upon the return of Jesus. Very helpful.

That said, how do you know that Paul is quoting Ezekiel 37:27 related to his overall argument in 2 Cor. 6:11-18? Why not Leviticus 26:12 or Jeremiah 32:38, which are more exact references? Or, if Paul is quoting Ezekiel 37:27, how do you know that he isn't speaking of a future reality of the presence of God in their midst, corporately? The context of 2 Cor. 6:11-18 is holiness amongst one another, not the indwelling Holy Spirit related to the individual.

However, Revelation 21:3 is clearly future, after the Second Coming - and really, in fullness, after the times of the restoration of all things, when the Father comes to dwell with men in fullness. Either way you shake it out, it's future - not past.

[the rookie]

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.

Because Paul's not talking about those passages the way that you are.

[divaD]

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?

I somewhat understand the concept. So I won't argue that this is unrealistic. It's a good point in general.

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.

I fully agree with you about these parts...Are we presently the temple of God? Yes. Does God presently dwell in us? Yes. Is He presently our God? But this last part...So, tell me why Paul couldn't have been referring to Ezekiel 37:27 there...I would say because the context is about the ethnic Jews in particular.

Ezekiel 37:22 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:

Notice that it says...and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all. How do you make that work with the church? Neither of these nations in the context of Ez 37 are meaning a Gentile nation, is it? The two nations mentioned seem to be in Ezekiel 37:19.

Ezekiel 37:19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

Were either of these a Gentile nation? The reason I ask, isn't the general consensus among some that this was fulfilled when the Jews and Gentiles became united in one through Christ?

[John146]

1. Does that statement alone make Jonah a prophet?

Sure. He was declaring something that was going to occur that had not yet occurred. Isn't that one of the things a prophet does?

Was Jonah 3:4 a prophecy, or a proclamation of a judgment of Yaweh?

A prophecy about something that was going to occur.

Finally, how is Jonah 3:4 "conditional"?

Nineveh wasn't destroyed, was it? Yet Jonah said it would be. Was he just bluffing or was God really going to destroy Nineveh? The condition for the prophecy was that if the people of Nineveh repented before the 40 days was up then God would not destroy them.

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

I'm not saying that the temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 was never meant to be built so, no, I don't believe there are any conditional prophecies in the Bible, including Ezekiel 40-48, that can never come to pass and were never meant to come to pass. I'm saying I believe that particular prophecy didn't come to pass because it turned out that the exiles were not ashamed of all that they had done.

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

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.

I can't help it that I disagree with you "at every turn". I'm trying to hear what you're saying but I don't think you're being very clear at times.

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

I have no idea since the text obviously doesn't give such a number, but I think what we can safely assume is that he ended up not doing so since there is no evidence that he ever did show it to them. If he did show it to them then that would mean they were ashamed of what they had done so in that case why wouldn't the temple have been built for them?

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.

Was it transmitted to the entire house of Israel that existed at that time? You know, the ones who did the things of which they were supposed to be ashamed? If so, what evidence do you have of that?

Why would that be?

Because I really don't think one person represents the entire house of Israel. I really don't think Daniel could be ashamed for the entire house of Israel. I feel certain that God wanted more than one person to actually be ashamed. I think that's a very reasonable assumption to make.

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

It's entirely possible that I missed your point and it certainly wasn't on purpose. I find you to be hard to follow at times.

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

I understand. But I believe that it related to the building of the structure itself because it seems to me that if God did not want them to even see the details regarding it unless they were ahsamed of what they had done I have a hard time believing He would build it for them unless they were ashamed of what they had done, either. And it seems pretty clear that He ended up not ever building it for them which would tell me that they didn't prove to be ashamed of what they had done. It's not talking about future people being ashamed, it's speaking of the exiles themselves being ashamed of what they had done. That tells me that if the temple was going to be built, it would be built for them. Since they are all dead now it's too late for that at this point.

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.

Again, I understand that point and realize that I'm drawing conclusions by implication rather than anything that was specifically said, but I'm okay with that. My interpretation of the prophecy is the only one I have seen that does not contradict my understanding of the rest of scripture, so that is the main reason I am comfortable with my current interpretation of the prophecy. It's certainly a difficult prophecy to interpret and understand so I hardly think it would be wise to use it as a foundation for any doctrine. Instead, I think one should establish doctrine on more clear scripture and then make sure their interpretation of more difficult scripture does not contradict their interpretation of the rest of scripture.

As I said before, if I don't understand something, I have no problem saying so.

That's fine, but I believe it's very important to be able to reconcile your interpretation of this prophecy with the rest of scripture and I don't think that you can just brush aside the fact that the prophecy clearly speaks of animal sacrifices and sin offerings being performed. I'm not saying you're brushing that aside, but it's definitely something I believe you need to continue considering as far as how you can reconcile that with the rest of scripture.

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.

I thought we were discussing Ezekiel 40-48 as a whole and not just Ezekiel 43. If you want to just agree to disagree on the whole thing because "we can't even agree on what Ezekiel 43 actually says" then just say so.

[John146]

Because Paul's not talking about those passages the way that you are.

What do you mean exactly? Can you tell me your interpretation of 2 Cor 6:16?

[divaD]

And it seems pretty clear that He ended up not ever building it for them which would tell me that they didn't prove to be ashamed of what they had done. It's not talking about future people being ashamed, it's speaking of the exiles themselves being ashamed of what they had done. That tells me that if the temple was going to be built, it would be built for them. Since they are all dead now it's too late for that at this point.

As you may already know, I am somewhat undecided about these 8 chapters. But I will say this, this is a very strong point you bring up.

[John146]

I love Ladd! I've read his books extensively. I appreciate the "already but not yet" explanation in its succinct ability to explain how the kingdom of God is expressed partially now and in fullness upon the return of Jesus. Very helpful.

I haven't read a word of his books so my understanding of that concept does not come from him. I didn't realize he coined that phrase. He certainly didn't invent that concept, though.

That said, how do you know that Paul is quoting Ezekiel 37:27 related to his overall argument in 2 Cor. 6:11-18?

How do you know John was quoting Ezekiel 37:27 in Rev 21:3? I guess this is a matter of opinion, isn't it? I didn't claim to "know that Paul is quoting Ezekiel 37:27 related to his overall argument in 2 Cor. 6:11-18". I just happen to believe he was. That is my opinion since I don't really see Ezekiel 37 as ever referring to the new heavens and new earth. But if Paul wasn't referring to that prophecy and John was quoting it in Rev 21:3, I have no problem with that. I'm not sure how it being referenced in either case would fit with your premil view, though.

Why not Leviticus 26:12 or Jeremiah 32:38, which are more exact references?

More exact references? How do you figure? And why couldn't he have been referring to all of those?

Or, if Paul is quoting Ezekiel 37:27, how do you know that he isn't speaking of a future reality of the presence of God in their midst, corporately? The context of 2 Cor. 6:11-18 is holiness amongst one another, not the indwelling Holy Spirit related to the individual.

Because Paul said "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. He was clearly speaking of a currently reality. We know that God currently dwells in us and is our God and we are His people. I think it should be very clear that Paul was speaking of a current reality in that passage or else he would have said "ye will be the temple of the living God...." rather than "ye are the temple of the living God...".

However, Revelation 21:3 is clearly future, after the Second Coming - and really, in fullness, after the times of the restoration of all things, when the Father comes to dwell with men in fullness. Either way you shake it out, it's future - not past.

You are being way too simplistic here. You know that it is already the case that God dwells in us and that we are even now His people so I completely disagree with your statement that "Either way you shake it out, it's future - not past". No, sorry. It's not nearly as simple as that. But if Ezekiel 37:27 is meant to be directly related to Rev 21:3 rather than 2 Cor 6:16 then that would mean it would not be fulfilled until the new heavens and new earth are ushered in and the time has come when "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain" (Rev 21:4). Is that how you interpret Ezekiel 37:27? Do you believe there will be any more death, sorrow, crying or pain once Ezekiel 37:27 is fulfilled?

[the rookie]

Sure. He was declaring something that was going to occur that had not yet occurred. Isn't that one of the things a prophet does?

One of the things. The primary thing a prophet does, however, is declare the very oracles of God, establishing His divine intentions; the spirit of prophecy being the testimony of Christ Jesus.

Nineveh wasn't destroyed, was it? Yet Jonah said it would be. Was he just bluffing or was God really going to destroy Nineveh? The condition for the prophecy was that if the people of Nineveh repented before the 40 days was up then God would not destroy them.

What condition? I don't read any in the text.

I'm not saying that the temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 was never meant to be built so, no, I don't believe there are any conditional prophecies in the Bible, including Ezekiel 40-48, that can never come to pass and were never meant to come to pass. I'm saying I believe that particular prophecy didn't come to pass because it turned out that the exiles were not ashamed of all that they had done.

There's still time for it to come to pass

If the "conditions" related to "corporate shame" were only related to communication of the prophecy and not it's fulfillment, then there is a possibility that it is yet future.

I can't help it that I disagree with you "at every turn". I'm trying to hear what you're saying but I don't think you're being very clear at times.

Lack of understanding is different than lack of agreement.

I have no idea since the text obviously doesn't give such a number, but I think what we can safely assume is that he ended up not doing so since there is no evidence that he ever did show it to them. If he did show it to them then that would mean they were ashamed of what they had done so in that case why wouldn't the temple have been built for them?

Ezekiel was simply told to "declare to the house of Israel everything he saw" (40:4). Once we come to the section of the manifest presence of God, or the "glory of the Lord" re-entering the temple, God makes a declaration of His intent in 43:7 - the righteous response being a turning from their former harlotry (43:9). Peter preaches in the same manner in 2 Pet. 3 - in light of the intensity of God's holiness and glory, turn from disobedience and love blameless. The "conditional" dynamics of the prophecy follow in verses 10-11 - that if they are willing to turn (they are ashamed of their former behavior) then they can receive the scroll upon which the prophecy was written and keep it in their possession to perform all of the ordinances in the day that it was to be built. There is no passage within the prophecy that says that it was to be "built for them" in the "present tense" sense. Since the prophecy also speaks of the river of life (Ezek. 47:1-12) and the fullness of the presence of the Lord (48:35), there is reason to understand that repentance did not equal "immediate fulfillment".

Was it transmitted to the entire house of Israel that existed at that time? You know, the ones who did the things of which they were supposed to be ashamed? If so, what evidence do you have of that?

The scroll with the prophecy on it passed from Ezekiel (the writer of the scroll) to Israel (the keepers of the scroll) and returned with the captives. It is self-evident that the conditions were fulfilled.

I understand. But I believe that it related to the building of the structure itself because it seems to me that if God did not want them to even see the details regarding it unless they were ahsamed of what they had done I have a hard time believing He would build it for them unless they were ashamed of what they had done, either.

That is circular reasoning. Because you begin with your conclusion, it is subsequently easy to read your conclusion into the text - though the text itself does not say or support it.

And it seems pretty clear that He ended up not ever building it for them which would tell me that they didn't prove to be ashamed of what they had done. It's not talking about future people being ashamed, it's speaking of the exiles themselves being ashamed of what they had done. That tells me that if the temple was going to be built, it would be built for them. Since they are all dead now it's too late for that at this point.

Again, this is all circular reasoning. The only thing the people of that day were promised was that their shame would enable them to possess the scroll, not see the prophecy fulfilled.

Again, I understand that point and realize that I'm drawing conclusions by implication rather than anything that was specifically said, but I'm okay with that.

And I understand why you are doing it - to harmonize the passage with your understanding of end-time prophecy. But that doesn't change the fact that this is, by definition, eisegesis.

It's certainly a difficult prophecy to interpret and understand so I hardly think it would be wise to use it as a foundation for any doctrine. Instead, I think one should establish doctrine on more clear scripture and then make sure their interpretation of more difficult scripture does not contradict their interpretation of the rest of scripture.

I fully agree. But when another passage challenges our understanding of other clearer scriptures, we have to wrestle with them without changing the fundamental meaning or wording of the passage itself.

That's fine, but I believe it's very important to be able to reconcile your interpretation of this prophecy with the rest of scripture and I don't think that you can just brush aside the fact that the prophecy clearly speaks of animal sacrifices and sin offerings being performed. I'm not saying you're brushing that aside, but it's definitely something I believe you need to continue considering as far as how you can reconcile that with the rest of scripture.

Absolutely.

I thought we were discussing Ezekiel 40-48 as a whole and not just Ezekiel 43.

We are. But first we have to establish (1) whether this is a prophecy of a literal temple or a "spiritual one" (check); then (2) whether this is a conditional prophecy that can not come to pass or not (in process - if "yes, it is conditional, then end discussion"; if "no, it is not conditional, then continue on with the details"); then (3) whether this has been fulfilled in the past or is yet to be fulfilled, etc. All of these views of the passage influence our ability to talk through the other details of the passage.

[the rookie]

You are being way too simplistic here.

No I'm not. Rev. 21:3 is clearly and inarguably in our future, and indisputably quoting Ezekiel 37:27. To argue against that point is a waste of my time.

[Buddy]

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

Are you a preterist?

[billy-brown 2]

I was kind of skimming thru the book of Zechariah again, with the following thoughts coming to mind. As far as Zechariah and the 2nd temple allegedly in the context, how does one then make the building of the 2nd temple fit with the following passages?

Zechariah 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

Zechariah 6:15 And they that are far off shall come and build in the temple of the LORD, and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you. And this shall come to pass, if ye will diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God.

Zechariah 8:9 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Let your hands be strong, ye that hear in these days these words by the mouth of the prophets, which were in the day that the foundation of the house of the LORD of hosts was laid, that the temple might be built.

First of all I would think this is meaning this same temple in all 3 passages. In Zechariah 6:12 we see that it is the man whose name is The BRANCH, that he shall build the temple of the LORD. Who is the man named the BRANCH? The bigger majority of us would conclude that it's meaning the Messiah, meaning Jesus. If so, Jesus never built the 2nd temple nor had anything to do with the building of it. It was already erected when He was born, not to mention, it was later destroyed. That should tell us then that the temple in this context can't be meaning the 2nd temple, which then causes other problems if Ezekiel's temple and the 2nd temple are one and tthe same, since like I showed, the BRANCH wouldn't be building the 2nd temple unto the LORD.

The verses presented above all refer to a future temple that the Lord will build .... His millennial temple

There are those who have a problem with this intent primarily because their particular interpretation of prophecy is taught with no future literal restoration of an earthly kingdom of the Israelite nation .... they believe the Lord is finished with His national people
and that their specific church organization is now "Israel" [there are some innate dangers that are carried with this idea which I will not go into on this thread]

As a result they must find a way to either eliminate, or relegate, the literal to past fulfillment

The other problem is the idea of the continuance of sacrificial worship during a future millennial kingdom as described within the context of Ezekiel 40-48

Why would the Lord institute the same during His millennial reign upon the earth from Jerusalem?

The answer is one first knowing that He is going to do it .... and that it will be done according to His own Word

The human populations of this kingdom will be mortals and will need salvation just as we do today .... but they will have free will to choose

These people will be far away from the knowledge of the things that He has done for human salvation, and so they will need to be taught and reminded of how serious the matter of the need for salvation is and why they need to embrace it just as the believer does today

.... all of this will be displayed in the open for them to understand so that there is no question about what they must do to gain eternal life

So the sacrificial worship conducted in the millennial temple will be symbolic display and not a requirement to carry out rely upon the practice for their salvation .... they will have to accept and follow the Lord just as all mortal humans must do in order to gain eternal life

Not all of them will do this and when the 1000 years comes to a closing, Satan will be released to cause another final human rebellion against Him .... all who join the rebellion will end up here [Revelation 20:11-15]

Hi Buddy,

The scriptures in divaD"s post from Zechariah 6 are critical scriptures with respect to this thread. Why?

Because they mention the BRANCH.

And the BRANCH is Jesus Christ the King and High Priest of our lives.

And the temple that the BRANCH is building is mentioned by Paul below; just look at it:

I Cor. 6
16Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said,
“I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM;
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.

Yep.

'We are" the temple of the living God as saints of the Lord, yes?

And Paul included himself as part of this temple, yes? Additionally, Paul references Ezekiel 37:27 in I Cor. 6:16:

Ezekiel 37
24“My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd; and they will walk in My ordinances and keep My statutes and observe them.
25“They will live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers lived; and they will live on it, they, and their sons and their sons’ sons, forever; and David My servant will be their prince forever.
26“I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever.
27“My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.
28“And the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever.”’”

Interesting . . .

And remember that Paul is from the tribe of Benjamin--one of the tribes of Israel:

Phil. 3
2Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision;
3for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,
4although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more:
5circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
6as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

In other words, if "we are the temple" and so on, then we are not the "millennium temple" at all . . .

Does this make sense?

[billy-brown 2]

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

Are you a preterist?

Buddy,

There is only one Kingdom of God--since there is only one King of the Kingdom of God; His name is KING/HIGH PRIEST Jesus. He is the BRANCH of Zech. 6 also.

And the OP is dealing with Ezekiel 40-48 and so on.

And so, are you aware that Ezekiel 40-48 is a VISION?

Eze. 40
1In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was taken, on that same day the hand of the LORD was upon me and He brought me there.
2In the visions of God He brought me into the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain, and on it to the south there was a structure like a city.

[rejoice44]

As yet, no one has presented evidence that Ezekiel's temple was not the temple built after the return from captivity.

[the rookie]

As yet, no one has presented evidence that Ezekiel's temple was not the temple built after the return from captivity.

According to Haggai, the returned captives were ashamed of that temple as it could not compare with Solomon's. It would not be until the investment and labors of Herod the Great that the temple would be restored to its former (and some said, greater than its former) glory in size and material, etc. The temple in Ezek. 40-48 far exceeds the temples of Solomon or Herod in size, scope, and glory (i.e. no Ezek. 47 river of life flowing out of it restoring life to the desert).

[rejoice44]

According to Haggai, the returned captives were ashamed of that temple as it could not compare with Solomon's. It would not be until the investment and labors of Herod the Great that the temple would be restored to its former (and some said, greater than its former) glory in size and material, etc. The temple in Ezek. 40-48 far exceeds the temples of Solomon or Herod in size, scope, and glory (i.e. no Ezek. 47 river of life flowing out of it restoring life to the desert).

What exactly are the dimensions that were not equaled in the second temple? I am still waiting to hear these dimensions.