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

[divaD]

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]

I realize why it was built. But I was just wondering what the point would be from God's perspective, since this temple would be standing when Christ arrives on the scene? Why did God desire this temple to be built, only for it to be destroyed soon after Christ's ascension into heaven? Was the destroying of the temple God's plan all along? Or did the temple get destroyed mainly because the Jews rejected the Messiah during that time? Of course not all Jews rejected Him, but plenty of them did tho, especially the leaders it seems. So just wondering if anyone might have insight into any of this, even tho I realize it's all hypothetical so to speak?

[John146]

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.

If that's how you see it, that's fine with me. I don't want to waste any more time discussing the implicit vs. explicit thing. What I would like to discuss is whether the belief in future animal sacrifices being performed "to make reconciliation for the house of Israel" and "to sanctify the people" lines up with the rest of scripture. Didn't Christ's sacrifice "make reconciliation for the house of Israel" and "sanctify the people"? I'd like to know why sin offerings would occur in the future for those purposes when Christ's sacrifice already accomplishes that?

Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Can you explain how to reconcile the belief that Ezekiel 40-48 will be fulfilled in the future with a passage like this?

[divaD]

If that's how you see it, that's fine with me. I don't want to waste any more time discussing the implicit vs. explicit thing. What I would like to discuss is whether the belief in future animal sacrifices being performed "to make reconciliation for the house of Israel" and "to sanctify the people" lines up with the rest of scripture. Didn't Christ's sacrifice "make reconciliation for the house of Israel" and "sanctify the people"? I'd like to know why sin offerings would occur in the future for those purposes when Christ's sacrifice already accomplishes that?

Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Can you explain how to reconcile the belief that Ezekiel 40-48 will be fulfilled in the future with a passage like this?

The first question to ask, being that the ethnic house of Israel is the main focus of the text in Ez 40-48, would there be any reason to conclude that not a single one of those could be included as the ones being sanctified in Heb 10:8-14? Is Heb 10:8-14 only applicable to anyone but the ethnic house of Israel? Surely not, correct? But if someone disagrees, what Scriptures is that based on then?

[John146]

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

Do you believe that part of what Jesus came to do at His first coming was to establish an earthly kingdom in Israel? I ask that because you said "He has delayed His coming millennial kingdom on the earth". By saying He has delayed that tells me you're saying that He intended to do that back then but didn't because He was rejected. And since He didn't establish an earthly kingdom in Israel back then wouldn't that mean, according to your view, that some of the work He came to do was left unfinished? If so, how do you explain Him saying that He finished everything the Father gave Him to do (John 17:4)?

[John146]

The first question to ask, being that the ethnic house of Israel is the main focus of the text in Ez 40-48, would there be any reason to conclude that not a single one of those could be included as the ones being sanctified in Heb 10:8-14?

I would say no, if I'm understanding your question correctly.

Is Heb 10:8-14 only applicable to anyone but the ethnic house of Israel?

No, it's applicable to "all" (Heb 10:10).

Surely not, correct?

Correct.

[divaD]

I would say no, if I'm understanding your question correctly.

Yes, it seems you are understanding my question correctly. Even tho those particular people would not be around when Christ is resurrected. meaning those in the the Ez 40-48 chapters, I was then mainly speaking in general about the ethnic house of Israel, in the individual sense.

[Buddy]

divaD states:

"I realize why it was built. But I was just wondering what the point would be from God's perspective, since this temple would be standing when Christ arrives on the scene? Why did God desire this temple to be built, only for it to be destroyed soon after Christ's ascension into heaven? Was the destroying of the temple God's plan all along? Or did the temple get destroyed mainly because the Jews rejected the Messiah during that time? Of course not all Jews rejected Him, but plenty of them did tho, especially the leaders it seems. So just wondering if anyone might have insight into any of this, even tho I realize it's all hypothetical so to speak?"


All that happens to Israel past and future is in God's hands .... He controls it all

He gives the Israel reprieve along the nation's journey, but Israel still continues to kick against the goad even today

He has punished by bringing the gentiles against Israel so that they would repent and turn to Him .... Assyria, Babylon, Syrio/Babylonia, and Rome as examples [He has turned on these pagan nations as well to destroy them because of their intransigence against Him .... and He is not yet finished with this objective

The ultimate outcome of His intent and control of human destiny will be to bring down all gentile political agenda and rule, and only a remnant part of Israel as a nation will be left .... the center of His coming millennial kingdom

He has designed a specific time frame recorded in scripture for His dealing with Israel .... the 70 weeks of years decreed with 69 weeks already fulfuilled at the Lord's cutting off and rejection by His national people [about 33 AD] .... the 70th is still pending and has never yet taken place

The period between the end of the 69th week fulfulled and the beginning of the 70th is not a part of the scope of the prophetic visions .... all of the visions are silent about events upon the earth during this breach .... many significant events have taken place over the last 2 millenia, but you will not find them included in the visions

Included in the time lapse of the 70 weeks of years was the allowance to return from the Babylonian captivity [under Persian rule] .... to return to the land for the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem and the 2nd temple, includuing the Lord's first coming and subsequent cutting off .... these things have all been fulfilled

When He speaks to His Israelite followers in the first century, He speaks of the time of the end regarding Israel ..... the coming 70th week decreed .... not Israel's up rooting by the Romans in the first century [these events were not part of the "time of the end"] .... so His answers were related to a view of a time far off when a remnant part of the nation would return to the land and to be there to experience the 70th week decreed .... the time of Jacob's trouble [Jeremiah 30]

This setting is being staged at this time in the Middle East, and when He is ready He will bring the 70th week decreed

This period will last for 2520 days + another 30 days [Armageddon will transpire in this 30 day time frame] .... then He will appear on the earth just after to bring His millennial kingdom on the earth ... a kingdom restored to a believing remnant of Israel

So He is going to do what He did not do at His first coming and Israel's rejection .... and He will built His millennial temple as desdcribed in Ezekiel 40

[divaD]

divaD states:

"I realize why it was built. But I was just wondering what the point would be from God's perspective, since this temple would be standing when Christ arrives on the scene? Why did God desire this temple to be built, only for it to be destroyed soon after Christ's ascension into heaven? Was the destroying of the temple God's plan all along? Or did the temple get destroyed mainly because the Jews rejected the Messiah during that time? Of course not all Jews rejected Him, but plenty of them did tho, especially the leaders it seems. So just wondering if anyone might have insight into any of this, even tho I realize it's all hypothetical so to speak?"


All that happens to Israel past and future is in God's hands .... He controls it all

He gives the Israel reprieve along the nation's journey, but Israel still continues to kick against the goad even today

He has punished by bringing the gentiles against Israel so that they would repent and turn to Him .... Assyria, Babylon, Syrio/Babylonia, and Rome as examples [He has turned on these pagan nations as well to destroy them because of their intransigence against Him .... and He is not yet finished with this objective

The ultimate outcome of His intent and control of human destiny will be to bring down all gentile political agenda and rule, and only a remnant part of Israel as a nation will be left .... the center of His coming millennial kingdom

He has designed a specific time frame recorded in scripture for His dealing with Israel .... the 70 weeks of years decreed with 69 weeks already fulfuilled at the Lord's cutting off and rejection by His national people [about 33 AD] .... the 70th is still pending and has never yet taken place

The period between the end of the 69th week fulfulled and the beginning of the 70th is not a part of the scope of the prophetic visions .... all of the visions are silent about events upon the earth during this breach .... many significant events have taken place over the last 2 millenia, but you will not find them included in the visions

Included in the time lapse of the 70 weeks of years was the allowance to return from the Babylonian captivity [under Persian rule] .... to return to the land for the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem and the 2nd temple, includuing the Lord's first coming and subsequent cutting off .... these things have all been fulfilled

When He speaks to His Israelite followers in the first century, He speaks of the time of the end regarding Israel ..... the coming 70th week decreed .... not Israel's up rooting by the Romans in the first century [these events were not part of the "time of the end"] .... so His answers were related to a view of a time far off when a remnant part of the nation would return to the land and to be there to experience the 70th week decreed .... the time of Jacob's trouble [Jeremiah 30]

This setting is being staged at this time in the Middle East, and when He is ready He will bring the 70th week decreed

This period will last for 2520 days + another 30 days [Armageddon will transpire in this 30 day time frame] .... then He will appear on the earth just after to bring His millennial kingdom on the earth ... a kingdom restored to a believing remnant of Israel

So He is going to do what He did not do at His first coming and Israel's rejection .... and He will built His millennial temple as desdcribed in Ezekiel 40

As far as this 70 weeks, and the 70th week in particular, here's what Daniel 9 says.

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

It's only logical that the entire 70 weeks have to be fulfilled first, then....to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy...this occurs. One can't make that fit with anything in relation to Jesus' first coming, the 70th week that is. Notice this part...and to bring in everlasting righteousness. Why would that be different from the following?

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Surely when this occurs, that would be the same thing as bringing in everlasting righteousness, I would think. Why wouldn't it be? If the 70th week has already been fulfilled and that there is now everlasting righteousness, then why are we still waiting for the same thing in the new heavens and a new earth?

You of course would be coming from a premil perspective. But I would also like to hear from some non premils, in regards to posts # 327 and # 331, since they're mainly the ones who don't find two temples existing at the same time as being logical. The two temples being a brick and mortar temple, and the temple made without hands.

[John146]

As far as this 70 weeks, and the 70th week in particular, here's what Daniel 9 says.

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

It's only logical that the entire 70 weeks have to be fulfilled first, then....to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy...this occurs. One can't make that fit with anything in relation to Jesus' first coming, the 70th week that is.

I beg to differ.

Let's start with finishing the transgression, making an end of sins and making reconciliation for iniquity. Does the following scripture not teach that Christ has already done those things?

Mark 15:25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. 26And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 27And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. 28And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

2 Cor 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

The only One who could fulfill the things listed in Daniel 9:24 is Jesus Christ. The people of Israel themselves couldn't ever do those things. Only Christ can and He did.

Notice this part...and to bring in everlasting righteousness. Why would that be different from the following?

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Surely when this occurs, that would be the same thing as bringing in everlasting righteousness, I would think. Why wouldn't it be? If the 70th week has already been fulfilled and that there is now everlasting righteousness, then why are we still waiting for the same thing in the new heavens and a new earth?

I think you are being too literal here. Why can't bringing in everlasting righteousness have something to do with the Father sending His eternally righteous Son Jesus Christ to the earth to bring everlasting righteousness to the earth? Because of His everlasting righteousness and His death and resurrection it is possible for people to have everlasting life.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

We don't have to wait for 2 Peter 3:13 to be fulfilled in order to experience the everlasting righteousness of Christ in our lives.

Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 24Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

[divaD]

But you would be taking Daniel 9 out of context it seems. The 70 weeks were determined against Daniel's people, not you nor I. If you and I are Gentiles, then Gentiles had nothing to do with the 70 weeks being determined against them.


Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

If this is to be meant as consecutive weeks, then it would have to be at the end of the 70 weeks to finish the transgression, etc. Isn't the general consensus among some that Jesus did that in the midst of the 70th week? The midst of the 70th week and the conclusion of the 70th week are hardly the same. It makes no sense to say that an entire 70 weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and then to say Jesus fulfilled that in the midst of the 70th week, which wouldn't be the same as doing it at the conclusion of the 70th week. All those passages you provided, can you show how they all coincided with the completion of the 70 weeks? IOW, 70 weeks were first fulfilled, then all those passages came to pass. All those passages you provided, wouldn't they all come to pass before the completion of the 70 weeks, assuming the 70 weeks are 490 consecutive years?


Edit to say: Sorry Eric , but I forgot to quote your post. This is in regards to post #339.

[John146]

But you would be taking Daniel 9 out of context it seems. The 70 weeks were determined against Daniel's people, not you nor I. If you and I are Gentiles, then Gentiles had nothing to do with the 70 weeks being determined against them.

I didn't say that it did. Though Jesus did die for the sins of not only the Jews but also the Gentiles, He said this:

Matt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Of course, it was revealed later that He also was sent to die for the sins of the Gentiles, but He also came to fulfill the prophecy regarding Israel in Daniel 9.

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

If this is to be meant as consecutive weeks, then it would have to be at the end of the 70 weeks to finish the transgression, etc. Isn't the general consensus among some that Jesus did that in the midst of the 70th week?

I would say the coming of the Holy Spirit and the subsequent preaching of the gospel first in Jerusalem and then the rest of Israel is part of the fulfillment of the prophecy as well so that would be included in the sealing up of the vision and the prophecy.

The midst of the 70th week and the conclusion of the 70th week are hardly the same. It makes no sense to say that an entire 70 weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and then to say Jesus fulfilled that in the midst of the 70th week, which wouldn't be the same as doing it at the conclusion of the 70th week. All those passages you provided, can you show how they all coincided with the completion of the 70 weeks? IOW, 70 weeks were first fulfilled, then all those passages came to pass. All those passages you provided, wouldn't they all come to pass before the completion of the 70 weeks, assuming the 70 weeks are 490 consecutive years?

No.

[the rookie]

If that's how you see it, that's fine with me. I don't want to waste any more time discussing the implicit vs. explicit thing. What I would like to discuss is whether the belief in future animal sacrifices being performed "to make reconciliation for the house of Israel" and "to sanctify the people" lines up with the rest of scripture. Didn't Christ's sacrifice "make reconciliation for the house of Israel" and "sanctify the people"? I'd like to know why sin offerings would occur in the future for those purposes when Christ's sacrifice already accomplishes that?

Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Can you explain how to reconcile the belief that Ezekiel 40-48 will be fulfilled in the future with a passage like this?

I genuinely have no clue.

There's things that I know, things the scripture says that are plain, and dynamics related to the future that don't fully make sense. But out of all the "systems" of thought related to the age to come, Jesus ruling the nations of the earth from Jerusalem makes sense of a much, much larger percentage of prophetic scripture (say, 90%). In a- or post- millennial systems that ignore, change, or remove God's plan for Israel, a much larger percentage of passages are thrown back into the mix as "difficult to reconcile".

I can't have dogmatic certainty about what I hold to because there are details that are beyond my comprehension to harmonize. But when I look at the other systems, I am certain that I don't want to trade the simplicity of the 100+ other prophetic passages over a difficulty with this one particular point.

[Buddy]

Those who argue against the animal sacrifices in the millennial temple because of the completed sacrifice of Christ are guilty of faulty reasoning

They reason that, prior to the death of Christ, the animal sacrifices were the means that God had appointed for the taking away sin .... consequently, the death of Christ removed the need for animal sacrifices

Animal sacrifices never took away sin:

"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." A few verses later, in verse 11 we read: "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins." [Hebrews 10:4]

The animal sacrifices in the millennial temple will have a different purpose than the once-and-for all death of Jesus .... the significance of His death is not minimized by the animal sacrifices in the millennial temple because such sacrifices are not intended to take away sin

The animal sacrifices were, and will be, tests of obedience as well as a way of maintaining fellowship with God for the Jew, and Gentile proselytes, living in the millennial kingdom

The death of Christ does not do away with all ritual ....for example the death of Christ has not done away with the Lord’s Supper

In the millennial Kingdom, the Lord will rule with a rod of iron and this theocracy promised by God will retain its distinctive Jewish features

The millennial Kingdom is all about Israel .... not the church

.... the ritual ceremonies will exhibit a spirit of submission to the government of the millennial King

[billy-brown 2]

Those who argue against the animal sacrifices in the millennial temple because of the completed sacrifice of Christ are guilty of faulty reasoning

They reason that, prior to the death of Christ, the animal sacrifices were the means that God had appointed for the taking away sin .... consequently, the death of Christ removed the need for animal sacrifices

Animal sacrifices never took away sin:

"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." A few verses later, in verse 11 we read: "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins." [Hebrews 10:4]

The animal sacrifices in the millennial temple will have a different purpose than the once-and-for all death of Jesus .... the significance of His death is not minimized by the animal sacrifices in the millennial temple because such sacrifices are not intended to take away sin

The animal sacrifices were, and will be, tests of obedience as well as a way of maintaining fellowship with God for the Jew, and Gentile proselytes, living in the millennial kingdom

The death of Christ does not do away with all ritual ....for example the death of Christ has not done away with the Lord’s Supper

In the millennial Kingdom, the Lord will rule with a rod of iron and this theocracy promised by God will retain its distinctive Jewish features

The millennial Kingdom is all about Israel .... not the church

.... the ritual ceremonies will exhibit a spirit of submission to the government of the millennial King

Buddy,

Are these verses not true?

Heb. 10

4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,
“SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED,
BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;

6IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.

7“THEN I SAID, ‘BEHOLD, I HAVE COME
(IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME)
TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.’”

8After saying above, “SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them” (which are offered according to the Law),

9then He said, “BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

10By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;

12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,

13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

15And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,

16“THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART,
AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,”
He then says,

17“AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS
I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE.”

18Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

. . . just wondering . . .

[John146]

I genuinely have no clue.

There's things that I know, things the scripture says that are plain, and dynamics related to the future that don't fully make sense.

Fair enough. I appreciate the honesty in your response to the question.

But out of all the "systems" of thought related to the age to come, Jesus ruling the nations of the earth from Jerusalem makes sense of a much, much larger percentage of prophetic scripture (say, 90%). In a- or post- millennial systems that ignore, change, or remove God's plan for Israel, a much larger percentage of passages are thrown back into the mix as "difficult to reconcile".

I completely disagree with this, as you already know.

I can't have dogmatic certainty about what I hold to because there are details that are beyond my comprehension to harmonize. But when I look at the other systems, I am certain that I don't want to trade the simplicity of the 100+ other prophetic passages over a difficulty with this one particular point.

I see it similarly except I see 100+ other prophetic passages as supporting my view rather than yours. At least it seems that you may agree with me that the foundation for our doctrines should be established on more clear passages than difficult ones like we find in Ezekiel 40-48.