Ezekiel 40- is prophecy, and is of God's 3rd temple only

[covenantee]

Where in the New Testament is this new temple spoken of in the millennium?

Please quote it.

The words of lying cowards warrant only scornful spurn.

 

[covenantee]

And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

This is the 3rd temple building of God in Scripture, and it is opened in heaven, at the time of His coming again to earth.

Many think it is the temple of God in Rev 11:2, that He will reign from, but I don't believe that. I believe that is His church on earth now.

Hebrews 10:9

 

[Randy Kluth]

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

This also says, that no prophecy of Scripture can be altered and/or entirely replaced, by a man's own 'insight' about it.

All you've done here is give some insightful ideas of you own, about why you willfully say the prophecy shall not come to pass as written, without having to say you just don't believe it.

This is not being harsh, but being honest, without all the rationalizations of why God's word doesn't mean exactly what He says, if it's the will of men to object to it.

Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

God's gift of prophecy does not include insightful shadows of our own, because we either do not care to understand why God shall bring certain things pass, or we do not like them as written.


It certainly is for children, as all Scripture is written for children in plain speech. And Jesus tells us we must always come to Him and His word as little children.

The problem is when we grow up so much with our own insights of His word, that we think we have the right to change it at our own will.

One thing is for sure, I would never tell a child seeking to learn God's word with faith, believing all things He says is true, that some things He plainly says shall come to pass, shall not come to pass, and then try to enlighten that child with some greater insight of my own.

Neither would I allow anyone to do so with any child I have responsibility for.

When you say you're not being harsh, you need to stop and ask yourself, "Am I being harsh?" ;) Some things are a matter of doctrine, and other things require study. Being imperfect people we're bound to have differences of opinion. I don't agree that everything is "black and white." Sorry!

 

[robert derrick]

When you say you're not being harsh, you need to stop and ask yourself, "Am I being harsh?" ;)

No. Harsh is seeking to destroy. Firm is sticking with a point made, that is being ignored. It's why some people get upset and turn to personal insult, rather than addressing the point they avoid. ;)

I am one that refuses to allow my points to be cast aside, and then just follow people down their own trails .

Some things are a matter of doctrine, and other things require study. Being imperfect people we're bound to have differences of opinion.

Perfection is not necessary. Just honesty.

I don't agree that everything is "black and white." Sorry!

So be it. God's word is not black and white, and His prophets are just other men with insight.

That's why you have no problem with saying what God says shall come to pass, shall not come to pass.

No doubt you also have an equally imperfect gray doctrine of salvation and justification of Christ.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No. Harsh is seeking to destroy. Firm is sticking with a point made, that is being ignored. It's why some people get upset and turn to personal insult, rather than addressing the point they avoid. ;)

I am one that refuses to allow my points to be cast aside, and then just follow people down their own trails .


Perfection is not necessary. Just honesty.



So be it. God's word is not black and white, and His prophets are just other men with insight.

That's why you have no problem with saying what God says shall come to pass, shall not come to pass.

No doubt you also have an equally imperfect gray doctrine of salvation and justification of Christ.

You have "no doubt" that I'm a liberal? I don't think I can rely on your beliefs at all!

 

[Keraz]

What the main confusion about Ezekiel's Prophecies in Ezekiel 40 to 48, is when they will all come to pass.
When we rear scriptures like Ezekiel 46:16-18, where a ruler has property, has 'slaves' and children, then it simply cannot be for the Millennium period, or Eternity.

It is all for the time before Jesus Returns, For the period when all of Gods faithful Christian peoples will gather to and live in all of the holy Land. There is plenty of Bible Prophetic proof that this will happen, God WILL finally have a people in His Land, who are His Witnesses and the Light to the nations.
They will elect their own leaders. Jeremiah 30:21, Hosea 1:11

 

[robert derrick]

You have "no doubt" that I'm a liberal?

That would be your description.

Look, it's so so simple. Just read the first two posts again point by point, if you've read them at all. If there is any point you object to, as being unreasonable from the Scripture I provide, then show me why, and we'll see where it goes. I'm completely open to suggestion and correction.

But so far, all you've done is brush them aside, and just go on to give your explanation of why, what shall come to pass, shall not come to pass.

1 + 1 = 2, or it doesn't.

I don't think I can rely on your beliefs at all!

It has nothing to do with trusting in each others beliefs, but what is revealed truth of Scripture.

Each other's beliefs are just opinion and imagination to explore. They have nothing to do with truth of Scripture. I suppose the reason I am called harsh, is because frankly I really don't care about anyone's opinions and imaginations anymore. But at least I'm fair about it, because I don't care about my own opinions, which I only see as a nuisance when I begin to have them, and so I dismiss them out of hand.

But that is also why I don't get personal with people, because it's only about the argument, not about the person, other than Christ Himself and His written word. I suppose that's also why people begin to make it personal, because it's their personal opinion, belief, and imagination that matters most to them, rather than what is written to come to pass.

I suppose also in that sense, liberalism could be applied to people who try to live on their opinions and imaginations, rather than 'hard' truth.

You see, I really don't care what, how, or why the Lord's house and temple in His Millennium is like, but only teach from prophecy of Scripture, that it will come to pass. Why? Because prophecy of Scripture says so. It's really just that simple.

For them that believe Scripture is in fact God's perfect revelation of truth, then when we read what He says, it's no longer a matter of 'if', but what, how, and perhaps why. That's was the difference between Zechariah and Mary's responses to the angel's prophecies. Zechariah was still asking 'if' because he couldn't see how, while Mary was simply asking how, since 'if' was no longer part of it.

If you want to explore how and why that prophesied house will come to pass, then we can, because I don't 'yet' have all the answer from Scripture for that. But if anyone is still saying 'if', or even it won't, then it's a nonstarter with me. I believe all that is written int he Scriptures of truth, especially when God says it shall come to pass.

And no one has shown any reason why not, other than they're one personal opinion about it.

I've taken this time to explain myself to you, because you're a sincere person, and not unintelligent, but frankly you need to learn the first step in rightly dividing the word of truth: First accurately divide between what is written, and what is not. That means our personal opinions do not matter. We can have them, but what is written is all that matters to God and the truth He reveals to man.

 

[Truth7t7]

I find more and more, that the obvious must be explained and actually taught, in order to counter false teaching. It's strange to need to do so, but it is also a good exercise in proving the basics by Scripture:

1. What does God define as prophecy:

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

First, a prophet is someone speaking in the name of the Lord.

Second, he is speaking of something, that shall come to pass.

2. Who brings to pass God's prophecies?

I the LORD have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent; according to thy ways, and according to thy doings, shall they judge thee, saith the Lord GOD.

This is God declaring that He Himself brings all His prophecies to pass, and the will of man has nothing to do with it: All prophecy of God is the oath of God, that He will do it.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

3. Is there prophecy that shall come to pass, in Ezekiel 40-?

And it shall come to pass, that when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within.

This is prophecy of God in Ezek 44, that is of His temple, and of what will come to pass when the Levite priests of Zadok enter in, and what God will do with them in His priesthood.

And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.

Once again, Ezek 47 has prophecy of God that shall come to pass, when dividing the land by lot to the tribes of Israel, and any strangers among them.

God speaks sure prophecy of what is to come to pass, 5 times from Ezek 12-39, and again 5 times in Ezek 44-47.

To say any of the prophecies won't come to pass, is calling it false prophecy of a false prophet.

Many Claim Ezekiel Chapters 40-46, Represents A Future Temple In A Millennium On Earth, Is This True?​

As clearly shown, Ezekiel Chapter 43 showed the temple "Pattern" to the House of Israel in the Babylonian Captivity let "Them" measure, Ezekiel was instructed to write the ordinances and law in "Their" sight, that "They" keep them, not some future generation as many "Falsely" claim

The temple seen in Ezekiel Chapters 40-46 is nothing more than the 2nd Zerubbabel Temple built 536BC after the Babylonian Captivity, where animal sacrifice for "Sin" was was instructed by "God", prior to the shed blood of Jesus Christ on Calvary, don't be deceived

Ezekiel 43:10-11 & 19-21KJV
10 Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.
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.

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.
21 Thou shalt take the bullock also of the sin offering, and he shall burn it in the appointed place of the house, without the sanctuary.

 

[Truth7t7]

What the main confusion about Ezekiel's Prophecies in Ezekiel 40 to 48, is when they will all come to pass.
When we rear scriptures like Ezekiel 46:16-18, where a ruler has property, has 'slaves' and children, then it simply cannot be for the Millennium period, or Eternity.

It is all for the time before Jesus Returns, For the period when all of Gods faithful Christian peoples will gather to and live in all of the holy Land. There is plenty of Bible Prophetic proof that this will happen, God WILL finally have a people in His Land, who are His Witnesses and the Light to the nations.
They will elect their own leaders. Jeremiah 30:21, Hosea 1:11

Ezekiel Chapters 47-48 Is The Eternal Kingdom, Dont Be Deceived​

Ezekiel Below Is (The Eternal Kingdom) Same River And Tree Of life, Same Fruit On The Tree, Same Leaves Of The Tree For Healing/Medicine, Same Gates Of New Jerusalem With The Names Of The 12 Tribes Of Israel

(The Eternal Kingdom)

Ezekiel 47:12KJV
12 And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.

(The Eternal Kingdom)

Revelation 22:1-2KJV
1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

(The Eternal Kingdom)

(Eternal New Jerusalem)

Ezekiel 48:31KJV
31 And the gates of the city shall be after the names of the tribes of Israel: three gates northward; one gate of Reuben, one gate of Judah, one gate of Levi.

Revelation 21:12KJV
12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:

 

[Randy Kluth]

Look, it's so so simple. Just read the first two posts again point by point, if you've read them at all. If there is any point you object to, as being unreasonable from the Scripture I provide, then show me why, and we'll see where it goes. I'm completely open to suggestion and correction.

But so far, all you've done is brush them aside, and just go on to give your explanation of why, what shall come to pass, shall not come to pass.

I certainly did not "brush aside" your view. I simply gave you my own. Disagreeing with you, or having another opinion, is not necessarily "brushing aside your view."

If you don't want another opinion, don't ask for it. And if you want to call all other opinions "opinion" other than your own, don't ask for them. In reality, there are lots of debatable issues because language is like that, and we've all had different influences. I try not to be too dogmatic on issues that have been historically controversial for conservative Christians, ie for Christians who typically believe in all of the cardinal doctrines of the Bible.

Each other's beliefs are just opinion and imagination to explore. They have nothing to do with truth of Scripture.

Sure they do. We begin with our own thoughts with the limited resources we've been given, faulty reasoning, insufficient education and historical input, etc. Opinions can be a doorway to exploration that yields more information by which we can determine truth. Opinions can be a hypothesis that begins a quest to deeper searching. But if every time I have a particular opinion I am shut down as a "liberal," then what's the use?

I suppose also in that sense, liberalism could be applied to people who try to live on their opinions and imaginations, rather than 'hard' truth.

Yes, but some areas of Bible Prophecy are historically difficult, and we are left with many honest people giving their opinions. This doesn't make them "liberals."

You see, I really don't care what, how, or why the Lord's house and temple in His Millennium is like, but only teach from prophecy of Scripture, that it will come to pass. Why? Because prophecy of Scripture says so. It's really just that simple.

I don't think it's that simple, and many others recognize the difficulty of Eze 40-48. Paul taught against a restoration of legalism, and the temple of Ezekiel is clearly the Law of Moses. It opens the door for the typical Dispensationalist view that Israel will restore a semblance of worship under the Law. I don't call Dispensationalists "legalists" for doing this, because they do not see this as an actual restoration of the Law in opposition to the worship of Christ.

If you want to explore how and why that prophesied house will come to pass, then we can, because I don't 'yet' have all the answer from Scripture for that. But if anyone is still saying 'if', or even it won't, then it's a nonstarter with me. I believe all that is written int he Scriptures of truth, especially when God says it shall come to pass.

I've studied Ezekiel's temple for many years, and for many years I never had much of an "opinion." But I do now, though again--it is only an "opinion." I don't believe the Law will in any way be restored for Israel--not even as a "holiday tradition."

And so I'm left with trying to explain the fact some of the details of Eze 40-48 appear to be future prophecy and included in the book of Revelation. How do I explain that?

Well, as I said, the prophecy of Ezekiel's temple was specifically given for his own time, to emphasize the continuing importance of temple worship, as long as the Law was still in effect. And it was to amplify the importance of a future fulfillment of temple worship in the final salvation of national Israel.

There is a focus upon the inheritance of 12 different tribes--something that absolutely no longer exists today, except in a new, modern form--the Jewish People. They are the product of the 12 tribes--they are no longer 12 separate tribes.

We can only say they are the people evolved from each of those 12 tribes, fulfilling the hope of the 12 original tribes. All 12 tribes are included in the Jewish People, which is important in order to substantiate God's word and promises.

It is also important to emphasize the entire land of Israel, which all 12 tribes represented. The entire land of Israel will be restored to Israel, I believe, and not just the land of a single tribe.

And so, the hope of the Jewish People is established in Ezekiel's time, although it was still couched in terms of the Mosaic Law, which was still in effect. And yet, it was said to be a vision of something abnormal, showing the city high up on a mountain, depicting something that had ceased for Israel--the temple had been destroyed. It was like a dream that shows us a reality, though given in unreal pictures.

I'm not a liberal. I believe in all of the cardinal doctrines of the Bible. This is a very controversial passage, and it is indicated to be a vision. It would, if taken too literally, contradict NT truth about the passing of the Law in favor of Christian redemption. Believing in Christ as the sole source of our redemption, as I do, I take the opinion I have. I have no interest in "brushing aside" your own views. You're welcome to share them with me.

 

[robert derrick]

What the main confusion about Ezekiel's Prophecies in Ezekiel 40 to 48, is when they will all come to pass.
When we rear scriptures like Ezekiel 46:16-18, where a ruler has property, has 'slaves' and children, then it simply cannot be for the Millennium period, or Eternity.

It is all for the time before Jesus Returns, For the period when all of Gods faithful Christian peoples will gather to and live in all of the holy Land. There is plenty of Bible Prophetic proof that this will happen, God WILL finally have a people in His Land, who are His Witnesses and the Light to the nations.
They will elect their own leaders. Jeremiah 30:21, Hosea 1:11

Just for the principle of the thread, you are the only one to make an honest argument, that should be addressed just as honestly.

You acknowledge what shall come to pass, shall come to pass. You are not an unbeliever in such matters. You only argue when it shall come to pass.

I find it refreshing to see some keep the integrity of Scripture, by taking God at His word, even if the details are not immediately understood.

And especially if those details threaten Christian tradition.

Christian tradition is no more valid than Jewish tradition, if Scripture does not prove it, and especially if Scripture contradicts it.

No believer can say, that holding to one's traditions, in the face of Scriptural rebuke, is not a very strong challenge to believing Scripture as written.

After all, it's why many Jews rejected Jesus as the Christ, and the teaching of Scripture He gave.

When Scripture says otherwise, tradition is only opinion of men, that has become cemented into the mind of believers, as though it were truth of God. And is not.

This is why we see so many words and ideas brought forth, that have absolutely nothing to do with the Scripture at hand, and everything to do with a favorite traditional idea, and all the great amount of insightful thinking it takes, to justify it.

 

[robert derrick]

What the main confusion about Ezekiel's Prophecies in Ezekiel 40 to 48, is when they will all come to pass.

Correct. There is no argument about 'if', which is only from unbelief, but about when, how, or even possibly why.

When we rear scriptures like Ezekiel 46:16-18, where a ruler has property, has 'slaves' and children, then it simply cannot be for the Millennium period, or Eternity.

Without Scriptural proof, that is only personal opinion.

I see no reason why there are not slaves and masters in His Millennium on earth, no more than in His OT and NT, where masters and slavery is never outlawed, but only tempered with the Spirit of Christ.

It is all for the time before Jesus Returns, For the period when all of Gods faithful Christian peoples will gather to and live in all of the holy Land.

Where is the change of law coming, with the Lord's coming again?

I personally as a Christian, would not have slaves, nor make animal sacrifices, nor would I join any Christian group doing so.

But they will both be in the Millennium of Christ, even as Scripture prophecies, And they will only be for His natural people, not for resurrected saints ruling with Him.

They will elect their own leaders. Jeremiah 30:21, Hosea 1:11

Another good new point from you. Thanks. Yes, Scripture is speaking of the people promoting their own governors.

However, Jeremiah also proves it is during the Lord's Millennium on earth, and they will be the princes of the people, entering His house.

And their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them; and I will cause him to draw near, and he shall approach unto me: for who is this that engaged his heart to approach unto me? saith the LORD.

The question the Lord demands, shows they will come near to the Lord in Person, even as the Zadok priests are allowed, and they must therefore fear the Lord and yet have desire to come near to Him.

It's like them daring to come into the presence of the King of Persia in Ezra.

The promoted governors of the people answer directly to the Lord, not just to the people.

Demo-Theocracy.

Jerem 30 also shows any temple built by man before He comes again, is not His temple, but will be destroyed, and not be 'taken over' as His own.

Same for the city Jerusalem itself, when He comes to cleanse all the land and rebuild from scratch:

Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will bring again the captivity of Jacob's tents, and have mercy on his dwelling places; and the city shall be builded upon her own heap, and the palace shall remain after the manner thereof.

The temple of the Lord's Millennium, is His personal house, and the King's palace.

Theocracy, Priesthood, and Kingship, all from one place on earth.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Many Claim Ezekiel Chapters 40-46, Represents A Future Temple In A Millennium On Earth, Is This True?​

As clearly shown, Ezekiel Chapter 43 showed the temple "Pattern" to the House of Israel in the Babylonian Captivity let "Them" measure, Ezekiel was instructed to write the ordinances and law in "Their" sight, that "They" keep them, not some future generation as many "Falsely" claim

The temple seen in Ezekiel Chapters 40-46 is nothing more than the 2nd Zerubbabel Temple built 536BC after the Babylonian Captivity, where animal sacrifice for "Sin" was was instructed by "God", prior to the shed blood of Jesus Christ on Calvary, don't be deceived

Ezekiel 43:10-11 & 19-21KJV
10 Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.
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.

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.
21 Thou shalt take the bullock also of the sin offering, and he shall burn it in the appointed place of the house, without the sanctuary.

I'm a Premillennialist, but you have good arguments here. The "form" of this temple indicates it is a temporary reality, valid only in the OT period.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Just for the principle of the thread, you are the only one to make an honest argument, that should be addressed just as honestly.

That is so incredibly shallow--the kind we regularly here on forums like this. If you don't agree with my interpretation, you're a "liberal" or "dishonest." Why can't we have some honest disagreement for once?

 

[WPM]

Just for the principle of the thread, you are the only one to make an honest argument, that should be addressed just as honestly.

The litmus test of sincerity in your eyes is agreeing with you. You are so full of pride and delusions. Pride cometh before a fall. No wonder posters do not take you seriously.

I have not seen any poster who avoids rebuttals like you. I have not seen any poster who ducks around the NT narrative more than you. Do you have an issue with it? Do you believe it? That is the only way your old covenant fixation works. If Christ's atoning sacrifice is not enough for you, why not start your old covenant blood sacrifices now? If you are so convinced with this bloody arrangement, why not start corralling the innocent lambs and goats into your back garden and slitting their throats now as a memorial for Jesus?

 

[covenantee]

The litmus test of sincerity in your eyes is agreeing with you. You are so full of pride and delusions. Pride cometh before a fall. No wonder posters do not take you seriously.

I have not seen any poster who avoids rebuttals like you. I have not seen any poster who ducks around the NT narrative more than you. Do you have an issue with it? Do you believe it? That is the only way your old covenant fixation works. If Christ's atoning sacrifice is not enough for you, why not start your old covenant blood sacrifices now? If you are so convinced with this bloody arrangement, why not start corralling the innocent lambs and goats into your back garden and slitting their throats now as a memorial for Jesus?

Perfidy, duplicity, hypocrisy.

 

[WPM]

Where in the New Testament is this new temple spoken of in the millennium?

Please quote it.

Jesus doesn’t matter. The NT doesn't matter. The new covenant doesn't matter. He is obsessed with Judaizing. He is obsessed with pointless worthless blood sacrifices. He is obsessed with the old arrangement. There is no biblical reasoning with him.

 

[robert derrick]

I certainly did not "brush aside" your view. I simply gave you my own. Disagreeing with you, or having another opinion, is not necessarily "brushing aside your view."

If you don't want another opinion, don't ask for it. And if you want to call all other opinions "opinion" other than your own, don't ask for them. In reality, there are lots of debatable issues because language is like that, and we've all had different influences. I try not to be too dogmatic on issues that have been historically controversial for conservative Christians, ie for Christians who typically believe in all of the cardinal doctrines of the Bible.

Sure they do. We begin with our own thoughts with the limited resources we've been given, faulty reasoning, insufficient education and historical input, etc. Opinions can be a doorway to exploration that yields more information by which we can determine truth. Opinions can be a hypothesis that begins a quest to deeper searching. But if every time I have a particular opinion I am shut down as a "liberal," then what's the use?

Yes, but some areas of Bible Prophecy are historically difficult, and we are left with many honest people giving their opinions. This doesn't make them "liberals."

I don't think it's that simple, and many others recognize the difficulty of Eze 40-48. Paul taught against a restoration of legalism, and the temple of Ezekiel is clearly the Law of Moses. It opens the door for the typical Dispensationalist view that Israel will restore a semblance of worship under the Law. I don't call Dispensationalists "legalists" for doing this, because they do not see this as an actual restoration of the Law in opposition to the worship of Christ.

I've studied Ezekiel's temple for many years, and for many years I never had much of an "opinion." But I do now, though again--it is only an "opinion." I don't believe the Law will in any way be restored for Israel--not even as a "holiday tradition."

And so I'm left with trying to explain the fact some of the details of Eze 40-48 appear to be future prophecy and included in the book of Revelation. How do I explain that?

Well, as I said, the prophecy of Ezekiel's temple was specifically given for his own time, to emphasize the continuing importance of temple worship, as long as the Law was still in effect. And it was to amplify the importance of a future fulfillment of temple worship in the final salvation of national Israel.

There is a focus upon the inheritance of 12 different tribes--something that absolutely no longer exists today, except in a new, modern form--the Jewish People. They are the product of the 12 tribes--they are no longer 12 separate tribes.

We can only say they are the people evolved from each of those 12 tribes, fulfilling the hope of the 12 original tribes. All 12 tribes are included in the Jewish People, which is important in order to substantiate God's word and promises.

It is also important to emphasize the entire land of Israel, which all 12 tribes represented. The entire land of Israel will be restored to Israel, I believe, and not just the land of a single tribe.

And so, the hope of the Jewish People is established in Ezekiel's time, although it was still couched in terms of the Mosaic Law, which was still in effect. And yet, it was said to be a vision of something abnormal, showing the city high up on a mountain, depicting something that had ceased for Israel--the temple had been destroyed. It was like a dream that shows us a reality, though given in unreal pictures.

I'm not a liberal. I believe in all of the cardinal doctrines of the Bible. This is a very controversial passage, and it is indicated to be a vision. It would, if taken too literally, contradict NT truth about the passing of the Law in favor of Christian redemption. Believing in Christ as the sole source of our redemption, as I do, I take the opinion I have.

I have no interest in "brushing aside" your own views. You're welcome to share them with me.

Then as I said before. Go back to my first two posts, one at a time, and treat them seriously enough to at least understand them, if not agree with the reasoning. Only then can you address them accurately and give any objection to any point made.

If you can correct any point in it, then I'll be glad for it and say so, and love you for not only correcting me, but at least acurately addressing what I write.

Until then, you continue to brush them aside.

I will help you do so now with the first post, which is the basis for the second post, and every one I have made since.

I have already responded to all you have said above, point by point, but will not post them to you until then.

1. What does God define as prophecy:

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

First, a prophet is someone speaking in the name of the Lord.

Second, he is speaking of something, that shall come to pass.

Agree or disagree?

2. Who brings to pass God's prophecies?

I the LORD have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent; according to thy ways, and according to thy doings, shall they judge thee, saith the Lord GOD.

This is God declaring that He Himself brings all His prophecies to pass, and the will of man has nothing to do with it: All prophecy of God is the oath of God, that He will do it.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Agree or disagree?

3. Is there prophecy of God, that shall come to pass, in Ezekiel 40:1-?

And it shall come to pass at the same time when Gog shall come against the land of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, that my fury shall come up in my face.

Yes, pertaining to Gog, and what the Lord will do with God at that time.

Agree or disagree?

4. Is there prophecy of God, that shall come to pass, in Ezekiel 40-?

And it shall come to pass, that when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within.

Yes, and what God will do with them in His priesthood.

God speaks sure prophecy of what shall come to pass, 5 times from Ezek 12-39, and again 5 times in Ezek 44-47.

Either they are all prophecies of God, or they are not. To say any of the prophecies won't come to pass, is calling it false prophecy, and so all the prophecies can be said to be false.

Agree or disagree?

 

[Keraz]

Without Scriptural proof, that is only personal opinion.

I see no reason why there are not slaves and masters in His Millennium on earth, no more than in His OT and NT, where masters and slavery is never outlawed, but only tempered with the Spirit of Christ.

The proof that Ezekiel 40-48 must be before Jesus, is that Jesus is not their leader.
As Jeremiah 30:21 tells us, that leader will be able to talk with Jesus, something quite possible if He allows it, As He did with Paul on the Damascus road and as He does to some people now, who fervently call to Him.
I know a person who had an amazing conversion from a life of crime, who was confronted by Jesus in person.
Remember: I will be with you always..... Matthew 28:20

 

[robert derrick]

Perfidy, duplicity, hypocrisy.

The prophecies of Ezekiel 40- are just as true as the prophecies of Ezekiel 1-.

God is not a liar, and Ezekiel is not a false prophet.