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

[rejoice44]

And I'm giving you a shot to prove "the other" related to the details we have from the passage. A "rabbit trail" proving that the temple revealed in Ezekiel was, in fact, the Second Temple would be an innovative idea foreign to just about every Hebrew and Christian scholar I know, therefore, if you are saying you have evidence that they are one and the same you would be serving us with a breakthrough in modern scholarship on the subject.

I cannot prove it, but there is evidence to suggest that it was. Why does every Hebrew and Christian scholar believe that the second temple was not Ezekiel's temple, and when was that idea formulated?

As far as the Hebrew scholars are concerned, what is their reasoning? They could believe that the second temple was Ezekiel's, and accept Jesus as their new temple as Jesus claimed in John 2:19-21 that he was there temple, or they could say Ezekiel's temple was for the latter years, after Jesus died on the cross for them. We would have to accept that God decided having his Son sacrificed on the cross didn't work, therefore God was going to try it over again with animal sacrifice.

Christian scholars accepted the word of the Jews that the second temple was not Ezekiel's temple. If you repeat something often enough it becomes truth to some.

I tried researching to get at the truth of the matter and must admit it was not an exhaustive search, for there is much to examine yet.

I tried to find the dimensions of the second temple and have concluded that there is no accurate accounting of all those dimensions. What I did find was that the Talmud records some dimensions. One of those dimensions was the altar as found in the Talmud.

In Middoth Chapter 3. Rabbi Jose said, "Originally the complete area [Occupied by the Altar] was only twenty-eight cubits by twenty-eight, and it rose with the dimensions mentioned until the space left for the Altar pile was only twenty by twenty. When, however they returned from the captivity, they added four cubits on the North, and four on the west like a gamma, since it is said: and the hearth shall be twelve cubits long by twelve broad, square. Am I to suppose that it was only twelve cubits by twelve? When it says [Rabbi Jose is quoting from Ezekiel 43:16], in the four sides thereof, this shows that he [Rabbi Jose is referring to Ezekiel as he]was measuring from the middle, twelve cubit in every direction.

Rabbi Jose is making the claim that the altar was built to Ezekiel's dimensions. We also find the porch was changed by one cubit to match Ezekiel's dimensions. I have not yet done a study on other temple dimensions as presented by Rabbi Jose.

When you add the exacting dimensions for those parts of the temple that are recorded and you see that the sons of Zadok were to oversee that temple, and they did, Ezra being one of those sons, you begin to believe that the second temple was Ezekiel's temple, especially in light of the fact that no one is bringing forward any dimensions of the second temple.

[rejoice44]

500 reeds.

It does not say that the 500 reeds is the temple. What it does say is a line was stretched, and it was measured on the east wind, the north wind, the south wind, and the west wind. And a wall was built around it. There is neither height or breadth and yet the rest of the dimensions for other parts of the temple are given in length, breadth, and height.

You need to talk to the owners of the NIV, for the NIV says it is only 500 cubits and not five hundred reeds.

[rejoice44]

Based on the archeological digs. Or maybe those are imaginary too.

There is no consensus of opinion on the archeological digs.

http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinE01.html

Could be. Or worshippers.

They had cameras two thousand years ago?

[John146]

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.

Sigh. You obviously aren't seeing my point but it's not worth it. Let's get back on topic, shall we? Since you claimed that you "think the verses implicitly state that the sacrifices are not for sin" could you please take the time to explain why you think that?

[John146]

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.

Okay. But I never said otherwise, of course. So, I'm not sure why you felt the need to point this out to me when it really doesn't relate to the point I was making.

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?

Just because something seems clear to you doesn't mean someone else will necessarily see it the same way.

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.

Of course. We have to do both.

And if it makes sense literally, why try and make any other sense out of it?

But what might make sense to you literally may not make sense to someone else literally so you can't expect everyone else to see everything the same way as you do.

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?

That's the question that I'd like those who believe the prophecy will be fulfilled in the future to answer.

Isn't this the main problem with this temple being future?

Yes.

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?

I don't know, but the fact is that it does talk about animal sacrifices so that has to be taken into account in light of what the rest of scripture says about that.

[John146]

Nothing to get defensive about...

I'm not being defensive at all. I'm simply trying to explain what my point was and trying to give evidence to back up my view. How is explaining my view and giving evidence to back up my view a case of being defensive?

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

It doesn't have direct bearing on it and I never said that it did. You are completely missing the point of why I brought that up. If someone is claiming that there are no conditional prophecies and therefore Ezekiel 40-48 cannot be conditional (as someone did earlier), you don't think it's valid for me to respond to that claim by showing that there is such thing as a conditional prophecy?

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.

But we are talking about Ezekiel 40-48, so do you believe there are conditional promises there that God will make sure are accomplished? Such as in Ezekiel 43:10-11. Are you saying you believe that God would make sure that they would be ashamed of all that they had done? If so, wasn't it their choice of whether or not to repent and be ashamed of what they had done? Was it not possible for them to decide not to be ashamed of all that they had done?

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.

But you are talking about unconditional promises here. I'm talking about Ezekiel 40-48 being conditional, not unconditional. Are you claiming it is an unconditional prophecy?

[divaD]

Okay. But I never said otherwise, of course. So, I'm not sure why you felt the need to point this out to me when it really doesn't relate to the point I was making.

Actually, the reason why I pointed it out is because sometimes I get the sense from you and others that the literal reading of the text is really supposed to be understood spiritually. IOW, it doesn't literally mean what it says. It's to be interpreted spiritually instead. That's what I kind of see a lot of you doing with Ezekiel 37 as an example.


Ezekiel 37:26 Moreover 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.
27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

I take that you interpret this spiritually based on 2 Corinthians 6:16.

2 Corinthians 6:16 And 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.

But we also see the same thing in Rev 21 as therookie had pointed out.

Revelation 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.


So then, if 2 Corinthians 6:16 is meaning as in now, spiritually, and if Revelation 21:3 is meaning as in the future, then what is Ezekiel 37:26-27 meaning? Why should it automatically be assumed it's meaning 2 Corinthians 6:16, when it could just as well be meaning Revelation 21:3?

So how exactly do you interpret Revelation 21:3? I realize you still see it future. But do you still see it meaning the same thing as it does in 2 Corinthians 6:16? If God already does that now, which is what 2 Corinthians 6:16 seems to indicate, then wouldn't that infer when He does it in the future, He will be doing it literally, as in we literally see Him face to face, and that He is literally dwelling among us forever at that point?

I'll have to try and get back to your other points later. It's a major chore for me addressing only one point, let alone several points. I don't know how you all can do it so easily. I'm just not fond of doing a whole lot of typing at once.

[John146]

Actually, the reason why I pointed it out is because sometimes I get the sense from you and others that the literal reading of the text is really supposed to be understood spiritually. IOW, it doesn't literally mean what it says. It's to be interpreted spiritually instead.

In some cases, sure, but that isn't what I personally am claiming as far as Ezekiel 40-48 is concerned. I do think it's speaking of a literal temple and literal animal sacrifices and so on but I personally believe that for the temple to have been built for them they had to be ashamed of all that they had done (per Ezekiel 43:10-11). I understand that is not specifically stated within the prophecy but I believe it is implied. And, of course, my view of that prophecy is also based on my overall understanding of scripture as well.

That's what I kind of see a lot of you doing with Ezekiel 37 as an example.

You can say that is what you see me doing, but I am only doing that because that is what I see Paul doing in 2 Cor 6.

Ezekiel 37:26 Moreover 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.
27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

I take that you interpret this spiritually based on 2 Corinthians 6:16.

2 Corinthians 6:16 And 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.

But we also see the same thing in Rev 21 as therookie had pointed out.

Revelation 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.


So then, if 2 Corinthians 6:16 is meaning as in now, spiritually, and if Revelation 21:3 is meaning as in the future, then what is Ezekiel 37:26-27 meaning? Why should it automatically be assumed it's meaning 2 Corinthians 6:16, when it could just as well be meaning Revelation 21:3?

Maybe you missed it, but I acknowledged the possibility that it could be referring to what is described in Rev 21 rather than 2 Cor 6. I also pointed out that I would be fine with that and that it would support my overall view either way. What I can't see is how seeing it as being fulfilled when Rev 21:3 is fulfilled could possibly support the premil view since I believe it indicates that when Rev 21:3 is fulfilled then "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain" (Rev 21:4). So, that's why I asked the rookie if he believed that when Ezekiel 37:27 is fulfilled whether he believed that "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain" at that point.

So how exactly do you interpret Revelation 21:3? I realize you still see it future.

Yep.

But do you still see it meaning the same thing as it does in 2 Corinthians 6:16?

No. In 2 Cor 6 Paul was speaking of the current reality of us being the temple of God and God's Spirit dwelling in us.

of If God already does that now, which is what 2 Corinthians 6:16 seems to indicate, then wouldn't that infer when He does it in the future, He will be doing it literally, as in we literally see Him face to face, and that He is literally dwelling among us forever at that point?

That's what I believe, yes. So, there's an "already but not yet" aspect to the kingdom of God, as I pointed out before. God already dwells with us spiritually but we look forward to a time when we get to actually see Christ with our own eyes and interact with Him in a more visible and physical way. Man, that will be amazing and awe inspiring and it's hard to even fathom right now. I get the chills just thinking about it.

I'll have to try and get back to your other points later. It's a major chore for me addressing only one point, let alone several points. I don't know how you all can do it so easily. I'm just not fond of doing a whole lot of typing at once.

I just happen to be able to type fast and I enjoy typing, so that's the only reason for that. So, don't feel any rush to respond. You're doing a great job as it is. We may not agree on some things, but I appreciate the effort you make to try to look at things from many different angles.

[quiet dove]

I'm not being defensive at all. I'm simply trying to explain what my point was and trying to give evidence to back up my view. How is explaining my view and giving evidence to back up my view a case of being defensive?

It doesn't have direct bearing on it and I never said that it did. You are completely missing the point of why I brought that up. If someone is claiming that there are no conditional prophecies and therefore Ezekiel 40-48 cannot be conditional (as someone did earlier), you don't think it's valid for me to respond to that claim by showing that there is such thing as a conditional prophecy?

But we are talking about Ezekiel 40-48, so do you believe there are conditional promises there that God will make sure are accomplished? Such as in Ezekiel 43:10-11. Are you saying you believe that God would make sure that they would be ashamed of all that they had done? If so, wasn't it their choice of whether or not to repent and be ashamed of what they had done? Was it not possible for them to decide not to be ashamed of all that they had done?

But you are talking about unconditional promises here. I'm talking about Ezekiel 40-48 being conditional, not unconditional. Are you claiming it is an unconditional prophecy?

I don't think many here would think there is no such thing as conditional prophecy.

I am saying that the prophecy of restoration is a conditional promise built upon the unconditional promises to those like Abraham and David. Which I know sounds contradictory, however, the accomplishment rest in God's declaration of His intentions and purposes and thus His ability to see it to fulfillment.

Just as God works with all men, desiring them to come to Him in obedience...some do, some don't...it is not a new concept. God will do the same in regards to establishing the restoration of ethnic Israel...there will be those who respond in obedience to the promised Messiah, there will be those that don't. But those that do will constitute the "all of Israel will be saved"....and saved because they responded in obedience to God's Son.

in other words... while Ezekiel speaks of what is conditional in regards to those descendents who will enjoy God's blessings...God has given the unconditional promised to Abraham and David that the condition will be met.

[the rookie]

Sigh. You obviously aren't seeing my point but it's not worth it. Let's get back on topic, shall we? Since you claimed that you "think the verses implicitly state that the sacrifices are not for sin" could you please take the time to explain why you think that?

It was a joke, knit to the idea that once we allow for "implicit" ideas not mentioned within the passages themselves, we can assert anything comfortably without being disrupted by how it messes with our paradigms.

[billy-brown 2]

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?

Well, remember that no one can do all of the Law of Moses fully without a temple/tabernacle facility. And there was not a facility on the earth for Judah while they were in captivity.

Also, Ezekiel was in a VISION posture for the 9 chapters of Eze. 40-48; he was seeing things . . .

[divaD]

Here's some questions in general. Does anyone know why the 2nd temple was built to begin with, since it was soon destroyed thereafter? If the Jews had not rejected Jesus at that time, what does one think would have happened to the 2nd temple? Would it have still been destroyed? If not, then wouldn't there still be a physical temple and a temple made without hands at the same time? If the Jews had not rejected Jesus at the time, what then would cause the 2nd temple to get destroyed eventually, if some think the temple would have been destroyed anyway?

[divaD]

Well, remember that no one can do all of the Law of Moses fully without a temple/tabernacle facility. And there was not a facility on the earth for Judah while they were in captivity.

So, since there wouldn't be any available, and the fact they still had 45 years of captivity to fulfill, then that should tell us this vision was for sometime in the future. They had at least 45 more years to feel ashamed of all they had done. But I would think it still has to be within Ezekiel's lifetime that they would need to feel ashamed, since he was the one that was to show them the form of the house, etc. But that wouldn't mean the temple still couldn't get built in the future. Obviously since they were in captivity at the time, it would have basically been impossible for it to be built then, even if they had felt ashamed of all they had done.

[Buddy]

"Here's some questions in general. Does anyone know why the 2nd temple was built to begin with, since it was soon destroyed thereafter?"


It was built when the remnant of Israel returned from the Babylonian captivity under Persain rule [Daniel 9:24-27] ... later modified by Herod, and subsequently destroyed in the Roman invasions [this encroachment of Rome is not a part of the scope of the prophetic visions]

"If the Jews had not rejected Jesus at that time, what does one think would have happened to the 2nd temple? Would it have still been destroyed?"


The hypothetical answer would have to be not necessarilty, but most likely ... if Jesus was not rejected by Israel, His millennial kingdom would have been set up and subsequently termed out by now .... and you and I would be immortal and living in His eternal kingdom in a restored eternal universe

But since He was rejected, He has delayed His coming millennial kingdom on the earth .... He is still going to do this and He will restore the kingdom to Israel as the nation's Messiah and King .... a believing remnant of Israel will turn to Him during the coming tribulation of His wrath and judgment upon an unbelieving world

[John146]

I don't think many here would think there is no such thing as conditional prophecy.

That doesn't matter. The person I was talking to does believe that and I was only trying to show him that there is such thing, not anyone else.

I am saying that the prophecy of restoration is a conditional promise built upon the unconditional promises to those like Abraham and David. Which I know sounds contradictory, however, the accomplishment rest in God's declaration of His intentions and purposes and thus His ability to see it to fulfillment.

Just as God works with all men, desiring them to come to Him in obedience...some do, some don't...it is not a new concept. God will do the same in regards to establishing the restoration of ethnic Israel...there will be those who respond in obedience to the promised Messiah, there will be those that don't. But those that do will constitute the "all of Israel will be saved"....and saved because they responded in obedience to God's Son.

I'm sorry, but I don't see what this has to do with Ezekiel 40-48.

in other words... while Ezekiel speaks of what is conditional in regards to those descendents who will enjoy God's blessings...God has given the unconditional promised to Abraham and David that the condition will be met.

You lost me. Can you explain what you see exactly in the Ezekiel prophecy that relates to the promises God made to Abraham and David?