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

[John146]

Briefly ....

Those gentile nations that will "come against Jerusalem" as defined in a number of passages of scripture will not enter the millennial kingdom

One example of the evidence is recorded in Matthew 25:31-46 .... the goats of the nations that survive the tribulation period will not enter .... those against His "brethren" [His Israelite kin] will find themselves on the left hand

Shouldn't you go by Christ's definition of who His brethren are?

Matt 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

You and I are two of His brethren. He said that doing the will of the Father determines whether someone is one of His brethren or not. So, both Jews and Gentiles who do the will of the Father are His brethren.

The gentile believer must realize that it is Israel first and foremost in the scope and center of the Lord's salvation and we gentiles are most fortunate to be grafted into His salvation

Scripture says there is no difference between being a Jew or Gentile in Christ.

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

You say there is a difference between the Jew and the Gentile but scripture says there is no difference.

Many of the gentiles of professing christianity have hijacked Israel's national position for themselves today and this is contrary to the Lord's intents .... not a good position to be in as they will find out [most those who stand against His intents for Israel will never make it past His coming wrath and judgment against the unbelieving nations of the gentiles] [Jeremiah 30:7-11; Micah 5:8-15; Zechariah 12:1-9]

So, let me get this straight. If someone doesn't agree with your Israel-centric view then God's wrath will come down upon them? Which would mean I should expect God's wrath to come down upon me if I'm still alive when His wrath comes? So, our faith in Christ will amount to nothing and we will have to face God's wrath just because we don't agree with your end-times doctrine? Is that what you believe?

[divaD]

1 Cor 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

It all depends on how you look at it. For example, let me illustrate using an actual lteral interpretation.

Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

This event literally happened. Yet the natural man would deny that, or at least would deny the one riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass, was the Son of God. Some may even go as far as claiming it never happened to begin with, such as atheists. But how would the spiritual man understand that? Would he not understand it literally, and then conclude it is meaning Jesus, further concluding it's meaning God? The point then is, why can't literal things be understood literally, and still be understood spiritually, and still be what the natural man would see as foolishness?

[divaD]

I'm bowing out becasue I haven't the time to continue discussing this topic if no one is interested in the spiritual fulfiment of Ezekiel's temple. I'm busy trying to find a solution for a friends laptop (Tech forum) That's all.

Well that's different then. Sorry I misunderstood you. Maybe you'll be back when time permits, that's assuming this thread would still be topic of interest to some.

[John146]

It does not matter if Jonah's prophesies were conditional as far as Ezekiels prophesies go. If because Jonah's prophesies were conditional makes Ezekiels prophesies conditional then we would have to apply that rule to all prophecy.

That isn't what I was saying at all. If you go back and read everything I said you'll see that I never said anything even remotely like that. My only point in bringing that particular prophecy up was to show that a prophecy can be conditional, not to act as if that prophecy being conditional means that all prophecies are conditional.

I would agree that Israel living in the land and enjoying the blessings were/are conditional, however, what prophecy/promise were the curses built upon? And that the blessings were then built upon that same promise. The promises were made to Abraham, and David...the promise unconditional....the enjoying of the promise for the nation conditional. But the promises themselves were made unconditional to Abraham and David and thus something that God will indeed see accomplished, including the obedience of the nation.

Where did I say anything about the promises made to Abraham or David? Why bring that up? All I was doing was showing that it's at least possible that Ezekiel's prophecy within Ezekiel 40-48 is conditional since there is indeed such thing as a conditional prophecy. You read way more into what I was saying than what was intended.

[the rookie]

You read way more into what I was saying than what was intended.

Yes, that seems to be a trend when it comes to interpreting someone else's words

[the rookie]

What does that even mean? What the scriptures actually say is not always in literal, straightforward language. So, how do you apply what you said here to Apocalyptic, poetic, figurative or spiritual language found in scripture? Is spiritual discernment not required in determining what the scriptures are saying? Can we just read them like we read the newspaper to determine what they are saying?

It's definitely not as hard as you are making it out to be.

No, that is absolutely not the key to interpreting scripture. Clearly, not all scripture is written in straightforward literal language that can be taken at face value. You know that. The biggest key to interpreting scripture is spiritual discernment. Scripture itself never says what you're saying here.

See, now what you do with scripture is what you do in general: I never said it is "the" key to interpreting scripture. It is, however, a key to understanding it.

I believe it is implied. You don't believe that. So be it. There's no point in debating whether or not it is conditional any further. You can't prove with absolute certainty that it's not and I can't prove with absolute certainty that it is. So, it's a matter of opinion.

No, it's not. I'll prove it in a moment.

I disagree. To say that it "means what it says" is a bit silly, IMO. For some reason you're assuming that everyone should agree on what it means to the point where you can just say "it means what it says" as if you were talking about one plus one being equal to two. Neither of us are the ultimate authority to decide what it means, right? It's open for interpretation and our interpretation must reconcile with the rest of scripture.

It's way more straightforward than you are making it, for sure.

That's fine, but it seems to me that if we kept discussing whether or not the prophecy is conditional the discussion would never end. But I think we've come to an impasse on that particular issue. You have the perspective that if it's not explicitly stated as such then it can't be so. I don't share that perspective. I believe it is implied and I don't have the requirement that it has to be stated explicitly in order for me to come to that conclusion. So, we just need to agree to disagree on that. So, when exactly can we discuss the viability of believing in future animal sacrifices and sin offerings?

We can start right now. I think that the verses implicitly state that the sacrifices are not for sin.

[divaD]

Ezekiel 43:11 And 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.

BB2 has brought this up a cpl of times I think. At the end of this verse it states....that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.

So how exactly are they to accomplish that without the physical house? For instance.

Ezekiel 43:18 And he said unto me, Son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon.
19 And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord GOD, a young bullock for a sin offering.
20 And thou shalt take of the blood thereof, and put it on the four horns of it, and on the four corners of the settle, and upon the border round about: thus shalt thou cleanse and purge it.

How were they suppose to perform the ordinances of the altar without there being an actual literal altar to perform this in?

[John146]

It all depends on how you look at it. For example, let me illustrate using an actual lteral interpretation.

Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

This event literally happened. Yet the natural man would deny that, or at least would deny the one riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass, was the Son of God. Some may even go as far as claiming it never happened to begin with, such as atheists. But how would the spiritual man understand that? Would he not understand it literally, and then conclude it is meaning Jesus, further concluding it's meaning God? The point then is, why can't literal things be understood literally, and still be understood spiritually, and still be what the natural man would see as foolishness?

I guess you didn't get my point. I'm not saying that there isn't anything in scripture that can be interpreted in a literal, straightforward way. That verse is one example of just that. But what I'm saying is that in order to determine whether a verse is written in literal straightforward language or in figurative or spiritual language requires spiritual discernment. Wouldn't you agree? So, that's why I take some issue with someone saying we just need to read it as it is written because it's not that simple. We also have to determine in what type of language it is written in. To say that we just need to read it as it is written suggests to me that we should just assume that it's written in literal, straightforward language, but obviously not all scripture is written that way.

[the rookie]

Is this particular passage scripture written that way?

What textual cues or genre considerations must we be aware of that grant us license to assert more than is said?

[John146]

It's definitely not as hard as you are making it out to be.

That's just your opinion and nothing more.

See, now what you do with scripture is what you do in general: I never said it is "the" key to interpreting scripture. It is, however, a key to understanding it.

It would've helped if you had said it was "a" key to understanding scripture. See, you are not always very clear when you communicate on here and that's why I misunderstand you at times. But I don't appreciate you equating that with me misunderstanding scripture in the same way. Scripture is much more clear to me than you are.

No, it's not. I'll prove it in a moment.

Feel free.

It's way more straightforward than you are making it, for sure.

Only in your opinion. Just stating that means nothing, really. I think it is not nearly as straightforward as you are making it but saying that doesn't prove anything so it is kind of a useless thing to say.

We can start right now. I think that the verses implicitly state that the sacrifices are not for sin.

Wait. Let me read that again. You are going to make an argument based on what you see stated implicitly? I didn't think you believed in that and that something had to be explicitly stated or it couldn't be so. At least that's how you come across when you point out that something I claim is not explicitly stated even though I never said it was.

Anyway, can you tell me how you come to the conclusion that "the verses implicitly state that the sacrifices are not for sin"?

[the rookie]

That's just your opinion and nothing more.

I suppose so. In a sense, you've converted me. I'm finding that being able to claim "implicit understanding" of scripture is a means of avoiding accountability related to what it actually says.

Wait. Let me read that again. You are going to make an argument based on what you see stated implicitly? I didn't think you believed in that and that something had to be explicitly stated or it couldn't be so. At least that's how you come across when you point out that something I claim is not explicitly stated even though I never said it was.

Anyway, can you tell me how you come to the conclusion that "the verses implicitly state that the sacrifices are not for sin"?

Simple. It's my belief that they implicitly state that they are not.

[John146]

I suppose so. In a sense, you've converted me. I'm finding that being able to claim "implicit understanding" of scripture is a means of avoiding accountability related to what it actually says.

And, of course, I've never stated any such thing. Not even implicitly. Nice subtle insult there, though. You're good at that.

Simple. It's my belief that they implicitly state that they are not.

And it's my belief that it is implicitly stated that the prophecy is conditional (and that goes for the prophecy in Jonah 3 as well). But what I'd like to know is how exactly you come to that conclusion?

[the rookie]

And, of course, I've never stated any such thing. Not even implicitly. Nice subtle insult there, though. You're good at that.

An insult, by definition, is "scornful abuse" knit to "disrespect". I'm not insulting you at all - I am calling you on something that you don't particularly like being called on. I think it's serious, and I'm not trying to be subtle. Of course you didn't say it. You are generally a stickler in these conversations with others related to what scripture actually says, and tend to be consistent in holding others accountable to those boundaries. It's actually because I respect you that I'm holding the line on what I feel is an error in thinking on your part, which again, is the opposite of insulting you.

[divaD]

I guess you didn't get my point. I'm not saying that there isn't anything in scripture that can be interpreted in a literal, straightforward way. That verse is one example of just that. But what I'm saying is that in order to determine whether a verse is written in literal straightforward language or in figurative or spiritual language requires spiritual discernment. Wouldn't you agree? So, that's why I take some issue with someone saying we just need to read it as it is written because it's not that simple. We also have to determine in what type of language it is written in. To say that we just need to read it as it is written suggests to me that we should just assume that it's written in literal, straightforward language, but obviously not all scripture is written that way.

No, I got your point. It wasn't my intention to try and trump your point tho. I was just trying to show that even a literal interpretation of something could still be foolishness to the natural man, and still be considered spiritual.

OTOH tho, that of course wouldn't be the same as understanding the temple made without hands as meaning in the spiritual sense. If anyone understood that literally, then I would have to wonder how or why. But when the text seems so clear when it's read literally, then I have to wonder why someone would choose to understand it anything but literal? I realize we have to take other Scriptures into consideration, but we also have to take the text that we might be currently reading, into consideration as well. And if it makes sense literally, why try and make any other sense out of it? For example, sacrificing animals to God, that makes sense because that fact has already been proven in Scriptures. But what doesn't make sense, why would this be needed in the future, post Christ's death and resurrection? Isn't this the main problem with this temple being future? If no animal sacrifices were mentioned, would there be as many opposed to a temple sometime in the future? How would those same ones view these 8 chapters then?

[quiet dove]

That isn't what I was saying at all. If you go back and read everything I said you'll see that I never said anything even remotely like that. My only point in bringing that particular prophecy up was to show that a prophecy can be conditional, not to act as if that prophecy being conditional means that all prophecies are conditional.

Where did I say anything about the promises made to Abraham or David? Why bring that up? All I was doing was showing that it's at least possible that Ezekiel's prophecy within Ezekiel 40-48 is conditional since there is indeed such thing as a conditional prophecy. You read way more into what I was saying than what was intended.

Nothing to get defensive about...

You keep bringing in Jonah when Jonah has no bearing on Ezekiel. Be Jonah conditional or not.

And I stated that I agreed that there were conditional aspects of the promises...and that is how Abraham and David got brought in by me. It was not an accusation against anything you said, it was clarification on my take on Ezekiel in which I agreed with aspects of the promises being conditional....it will only be those brought to obedience(the condition) that will enjoy those unconditional promises to Abraham and David.

In other words, God made promises to Abraham and by oat also to David. God declared what He was going to accomplish regarding Israel. However, for those descendents to enjoy the promises to Abraham and David, would require those descendents be in obedience(faith), but at the same time, God would make sure His promises are accomplished.

It is no different than those same unconditional promises to Abraham and David regarding the "Seed" and "Heir". Those were unconditional promises and have been kept in Christ, but there is still yet more to those unconditional promises regarding the Seed and Heir that are yet to come to pass, and of course it will all come to pass as assuredly as those have that are already fulfilled(such as were fulfilled with the first advent).

I know you do not doubt God's keeping of promises, and that our differences are not in whether God will keep them, but how the fulfillment will come to pass.