Ezekiel is a true prophet of God: Animal sacrifices will be in Christ's Millennium

[Michiah-Imla]

but from the Prophesies, we know that God does ask for them again in a new Temple

Yeah, this one:

“Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.” (John 2:20-21)

Stop looking for temporal things.

 

[Christian Gedge]

we Christians will worship in it.

Will you be singing ‘Power in the blood’ as the bulls and goats are being slaughtered?

 

[covenantee]

Ezekiel 45:29 says who.

Simplest!!! Of course. So these were expiatory sacrifices of atonement, which were taken away and replaced by the Second Sacrifice at Calvary (Hebrews 10:8-10) long ago.

Taken away "once for all", never to reappear.

 

[covenantee]

I appreciate the honest effort to correct me by Scripture.

I appreciate your willingness to respond.

A question here is why the Lord ever commanded animals sacrifices in the first place, if they are so sinful to Him.

Because without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22). What Scripture claims that the sacrifices were sinful?

The Scripture is not condemning animal sacrifices, but only showing that as with the death of the wicked, no killing of His creatures is pleasurable to Him, though necessary at times.

It declares that they were taken away (Hebrews 10:9).

The commandment of thou shalt not kill, is not only for man, and yet the Lord once commanded His own people to kill all the people and their cattle. As well as make animal sacrifices to Himself.

Did God not have the right to determine and impose His judgment?

Neither the law of Moses nor animal sacrifices are now necessary to be atoned for today in Christ Jesus.

True. Because Christ was Himself the atonement at Calvary. For all time.

You are mixing up Scripture, by mixing in your own tradition.

If inspired Scripture is tradition, then that is the kind of tradition of which I need much more.

Taking away the first, does not mean for all time, only for now.

There is no Scriptural provision for the reversal of that process. The Second Sacrifice can never be taken away and replaced with the first sacrifices.

It is only the offering of the body of Jesus, that is once for all.

It is an unqualified once for all. Once for all time, once for all people, once for all sacrifices.

No, only those who say his prophecy will not come to pass as written, because they declare it is become sin to make animal sacrifice once for all time.

The scholar Paul was intimately familiar with what Ezekiel had said, and Paul knew that the taking away of the first sacrifices included those of which Ezekiel spoke.

Taken away "once for all", never to reappear.

That is Scripture's last word regarding animal sacrifices.

There is no word following the last word.

 

[Truth7t7]

Why do you want me to repeat myself. Ezekiel 45:29 says who.

We all know the redemptive and atoning sacrifice of Jesus. No further sacrifice for our sins is required, but from the Prophesies, we know that God does ask for them again in a new Temple.
It just isn't good enough for people like you to ignore or reject the many Prophesies which prove there will be a new Temple and we Christians will worship in it. Zechariah 1:16-17

There is no future Temple seen in Ezekiel chapter 40-46, it's the 2nd Zerubabbel temple built in 536BC as post # 13 clearly describes, you have nobody fooled

 

[ewq1938]

-There shall not be Priests that die to leave their wives as widows because all priests in the Millennium are changed into immortal bodies.


Ezekiel 44:22 Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away: but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before.


- Priests in the Millennium will not be married nor marrying anyone to themselves.

Ezekiel 44:22 Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away: but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before.

Mat_22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

This verse forbids such a concept.



-The prince

Many have suspected that this prince might literally be Jesus Christ.



Ezekiel 45:22 And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin offering.

I find it impossible for this prince to be Christ since this prince also partakes in the sin offering for himself, his own sins, which we know Jesus does not have.

 

[Jay Ross]

Why do you want me to repeat myself. Ezekiel 45:29 says who.

Would you please correct this biblical reference that does not exist when I went looking for it.

 

[WPM]

Simple! Those offerings and sacrifices in the new Temple are for covering and for sanctification, But mainly they are for the glory of God, as Isaiah 56:7, Ezekiel 20:40-41, Jeremiah 33:18, tell us.

How does the slaughter of the innocent glorify God in the age to come when Jesus has made the final sacrifice for sin?

How does the slaughter of the innocent glorify God in the age to come where the lion and the lamb are supposed to enjoy eternal bliss and perfect peace?

 

[robert derrick]

Does anything in Ez. 40+ actually say it's a prophecy?

All foretelling of Scripture is prophecy of Scripture.

It is prophecy of what is coming to pass by the word of the Lord.

And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Is it a false prophecy if it's not talking about the millennium?

Good question. It is only false prophecy, by not coming to pass as prophesied.

Those who say it will not come to pass, or make it something that does not come to pass, because it is only symbol or high ideal, are making it false prophecy by personal theology.

However, when and how that prophecy comes to pass, can be interpretive arguments of believers. Making it not come to pass at all, is unbelief in that prophecy of scripture.

While Ezekiel is indeed a prophet not everything in his book is a prophecy

True.

In the fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year of king Jehoiachin's captivity. (Ezek 1:2)

This is not prophecy, but statement of historical fact.

Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God. (Ezek 1:1)

Everything the prophets see in visions of God is prophecy of God, unless it does not come to pass, then it is false prophecy not of God.

In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south. (Ezek 40:2)

If the visions seen by Ezekiel from 40:1- are not prophecy of God, then neither are they prophecy of God from 1:1-, and there is no prophecy of God in Ezekiel at all.

and that is the same w/ all of them. Perhaps it's not a false prophecy but a false understanding of perceived prophecy.

It's true that we can falsely interpret prophecy of Scripture, but it's not possible to honestly misinterpret what is prophecy in Scripture.

Prophecy is foretelling in visions of God. Interpretation of the prophecy is seeking to understand what is being foretold.

And the man said unto me, Son of man, behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears, and set thine heart upon all that I shall shew thee; for to the intent that I might shew them unto thee art thou brought hither: declare all that thou seest to the house of Israel.

And behold a wall on the outside of the house round about, and in the man's hand a measuring reed of six cubits long by the cubit and an hand breadth: so he measured the breadth of the building, one reed; and the height, one reed.

Then came he unto the gate which looketh toward the east, and went up the stairs thereof, and measured the threshold of the gate, which was one reed broad; and the other threshold of the gate, which was one reed broad.

This is specific foretelling prophecy, by what a prophet is made to see in the visions of God, and write down. If this kind of prophecy is rejected as not coming to pass and untrue, or is judged as symbol only, then there is no prophecy of Scripture in the Bible, that is to be believed as true or literal.

Conclusion: All prophecy of Scripture in the Bible can now be declared false, or only fables.

It's easier just to believe all Scripture as written, whether it be prophecy, history, or doctrine.

Does anything in Ez. 40+ actually say it's a prophecy?

No, but Ezekiel is called a prophet of God, and he writes down foreseen visions of God in detail.

If Scripture must say something is prophecy, for it to be prophecy, then the only OT prophecy in Scripture is from the prophets Ahijah, Obed, Agur, Lemuel, Daniel, and Esias.

There is no other prophecy in Scripture called prophecy by Scripture. And Esias is only included, because Jesus said his words were prophecy.

Conclusion: All prophecy of Scripture is self-explanatory, and Scripture does not need to call it prophecy, for it to be prophecy of Scripture.

Foreseeing prophecy in Scripture, cannot honestly be confused with history and doctrine of Scripture.

 

[robert derrick]

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

This is an interpretation of the prophecy, not a rejection of it as not coming to pass nor symbolic.

Whether the interpretation of the prophecy is true or not, being before the Millennium of Christ, does not make the Millennium untrue.

However, it does make the prophecy false, because it has not come to pass as prophesied:

1. Measurements were incorrect in the prophecy, if the 2nd temple is the fulfillment of the Prince's house.

2. The Prince did not enter into His house with His glory and sit among His holy things.

3. The priests drawing near to Him must be outwardly and inwardly circumcised, which can only be by the Spirit, in the circumcision of Christ.

4. No river of waters came from the house to heal the Dead Sea, because the Dead Sea is not healed.

If the 2nd temple is fulfillment of a prophecy of God, then it must be another prophecy, because it cannot be the Prince's house in Ezek 40-.

Unless Ezekiel's prophecy is false and not of God. If any part of prophecy is false, then all the prophecy is false.

 

[robert derrick]

Where does Ezekiel mention some supposed future millennium? Nowhere. You add it unto the sacred text.

Since the prophecy in Ezekiel has yet to come to pass as prophesied pertaining to the Prince and His house, then it must be fulfilled during His Millennium, since He must come to earth again to do so.

This is simple sense, if the prophecy in Ezekiel and the Lord's coming again, is believed.

Premils are so enthralled with the old covenant arrangement that they cannot seem to accept the removal of the shadow, type and figure. Amillennialism interprets the Old by the New. This is the correct and only way to comprehend the detail of the OT. Amillennialists believe Jesus Christ was the final sacrifice for sin.

It is as if Christ’s perfect life, atoning death and glorious resurrection are not enough for Premils; not perfect enough, not satisfactory enough, and not final enough.

The reality is: the shedding of His blood satisfied the Father and reconciled the sinner to God, securing eternal redemption (1 John 1:7). By attempting to reintroduce animal sacrifices, Premillennialism does great injury to the work of Christ on the Cross, undoes the once all-sufficient sacrifice that Christ made for sin, undermines the eternal nature of the atonement, and disregards numerous New Testament passages that conclusively prove that Christ’s blood sacrifice was final and eternal. The Old Testament system that employed animal sacrifices was nailed to the Cross and blotted out according to the New Testament.

Colossians 2:14 plainly and unambiguously declares, that Christ's atonement resulted in the “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”

The Greek word for “Blotting out” here is exaleiphō (eks-ä-lā'-fō) meaning: ‘to wipe off, wipe away, to obliterate, erase, wipe out, blot out’

These old covenant ordinances (rites and rituals) pertaining to the ceremonial law were obliterated at the cross.

For those that still anticipate the renaissance of the old abolished ordinances we need to ask: When did (or will) the “blotting out the handwriting of ordinances” occur? From this passage it is clear, Christ “took it out of the way” by “nailing it to his cross.” These ordinances embraced the old covenant civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical law. They were finished at the cross.

Colossians 2:16-17 tells us: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

The Greek word translated “holyday” here is heorte meaning feast or festival. Of 27 mentions of this word in the normally precise KJV, it is interpreted “feast” in all of them apart from here.

New American Standard interprets: “Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day -- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.”

The Living Bible says, “So don't let anyone criticize you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating Jewish holidays and feasts or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these were only temporary rules that ended when Christ came. They were only shadows of the real thing-of Christ himself.”

Paul is saying here that the old covenant feasts and festivals simply served as types and shadows of things that were to come. They looked forward to the new covenant arrangement and the reality and substance in Christ. The Jews of Ezekiel’s day and Zechariah’s day would never have understood this.

Colossians 2:20-22 finally sums up the sums up the biblical position today: “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men?”

This is not talking about the moral law, it is talking about the ceremonial law. It is a redundant system. Christ took the whole old system away. The old Mosaic ceremonial law is completely gone. It is useless.

Christianity took us away from the old Mosaic ceremonial law completely. Those who argue for a return to the old system fail to see that it has been rendered obsolete through the new covenant.

Hebrews 7:18-19 makes clear: “For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.”

This word “disannulling” is taken from the Greek word athetesis meaning cancellation.

The phrase “weakness and unprofitableness” used here to describe the old abolished system actually reads asthenes kai anopheles literally meaning: feeble and impotent useless and unprofitable.

It is hard to believe that Christian scholars would promote the return, on the new earth of all places, of such a hopeless discarded arrangement.

When Christ made that final sacrifice for sin He satisfied all God’s holy demands for sin and uncleanness and thus Christ became the final substitution for the sinner. Ephesians 2:13-15 also says, “now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us]; Having abolished (katargeo) in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.”

The Greek word katargeo is used here to describe the fate that befell the old Mosaic ritualistic system relating to “the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” This word means: ‘bring to nought’, ‘none effect’, and ‘abolish’. Jesus did away with any need or reliance upon the outward keeping of the old covenant religious system. The cross fulfilled forever God’s demand for a perfect once-for-all sacrifice.

Hebrews 7:16 tells us that Christ “is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.”

The whole context here is the removal and the replacement of the old covenant priesthood, the writer of the Hebrews presents Christ as heavens eternal replacement. What is more, we can see that this priesthood cannot pass from one to another, it is not transferrable. No other can appropriate this title or share in the function of the position, Christ alone holds that sacred high priestly office. Christ is the only real and perfect high priest today. He is the ultimate and final High Priest of the redeemed of God.
Hebrews 10:4-12 explains, “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 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; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”

When Jesus died on the cross He instituted the new covenant which allowed the believer to access God directly. No longer would the bulk of God’s people be excluded from the presence of the Lord by a veil. No longer did they need an earthly priest to represent them before God. They were now free to approach Him personally by simple faith. Christ removed the partition between God and His people when He laid down His life for our sins. He became man’s final high priest.

The curtain between the believer and God was eternally torn apart. The separation was removed. Matthew 27:51 says, “And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent.” This veil was representative of Christ’s physical body. It was torn apart in order to secure eternal redemption for God’s people. It is only through Jesus that we can approach God. The way to salvation can only be found in Jesus.

Nothing more boring than old tradition mantra, that has nothing to do with the argument at hand, especially when it's just to showcase professionalized scholar-speak.

For what purpose would we need a third temple?

Having a personal issue with God's prophecy and purposes, is just unbelief based upon personal issues.

 

[WPM]

Since the prophecy in Ezekiel has yet to come to pass as prophesied pertaining to the Prince and His house, then it must be fulfilled during His Millennium, since He must come to earth again to do so.

This is simple sense, if the prophecy in Ezekiel and the Lord's coming again, is believed.



Nothing more boring than old tradition mantra, that has nothing to do with the argument at hand, especially when it's just to showcase professionalized scholar-speak.


Having a personal issue with God's prophecy and purposes, is just unbelief based upon personal issues.

1. Is this blood sacrifice arrangement you promote under the old covenant, the new covenant or a new old covenant?
2. Please explain what these animal sacrifices accomplish in your future millennium?
3. Where in Revelation 20, anywhere in the NT or anywhere in the OT does it says that (1) God will re-institute the slaughtering of animals on the new earth, that (2) it will be for sin, that (3) it will start again in another dispensation (namely your alleged future millennium), and (4) that they "will look back"?

 

[robert derrick]

Your Premil beliefs correspond to the JWs.

No, they don't believe the Lord and His resurrected saints will be ruling bodily on earth.

Like you, they think there is some reigning the saints will do in heaven.

It corresponds with their belief in becoming gods with God in heaven.

Hebrews 10:18 says, “there is no more offering for sin.”

True. Not now.

But since I believe Ezekiel is a true prophet of God, then there will be more offerings for sin in the Prince's house on earth:

And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin offering, saith the Lord GOD.

They shall eat the meat offering, and the sin offering, and the trespass offering; and every dedicated thing in Israel shall be theirs.

Scripture says so two times in Ezek 44, in like manner of Scripture saying 6 times in Rev 20, that the Prince's reign on earth will be a thousand years.

You say the opposite. You say there will be countless more offerings for sin.

Ezekiel does.

I find your belief extraordinary.

I believe Ezekiel is a true prophet, you do not, but only see him as a maker of cunning fables. And having witnessed your unbelief in Scriptures as written elsewhere, then it is no longer extraordinary to me, but just par for the course.

Honestly! This belief should not be allowed on an evangelical site. It is a direct assault upon the cross. It undermines the finished work of Christ.

And now we have the end of all fanatical zealots, that seek to proselytize everyone else to their own camp, and hate any opposition to their plans. First they teach falsely, then they refuse to acknowledge objections of others, then they purposely misstate those objections, then they ridicule the opposition, and finally they demand all opposition be silenced.

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

The spirit of Nimrod is still here.

It abrogates the new covenant.

Impressive word.

It is both alarming and sad

Yes, no doubt you would be most sad, if you ever get to see all people disagreeing with you, done away with.

Tsk, tsk. So sad, because so unnecessary. All they have to do is just agree with you, and they could stay.

You probably wouldn't even care of they meant it, just so long as they give you the lip-service you so desire.

 

[robert derrick]

Not the resurrected martyrs.

I see no reason why not, since the Lord Himself will do so.

They will be the Priests and co-rulers for King Jesus. Revelation 20:6b

True.

WE Christians will build the new Temple. Zechariah 6:15, Zechariah 8:7-9

Not me. I would never attempt to help build the Prince's house and begin offerings for sin again, before He comes again on earth.

While it is not outlawed by Christ, neither is it at this time expedient, pertaining to the weaker babes in Christ. It's the same as wine, meat, and outward circumcision.

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

And so, while it is not impossible for Christians such as yourself doing so, the problem is the prophecy says the BRANCH Himself will build it:

And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:

Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

If you say this is only spiritual, that the Lord does not actually build the temple Himself with His own immortal hands, as the Scripture plainly says, but only 'spiritually guides' from heaven in the building, Then there's no reason to take any of it literal, including them coming from afar to work with the Lord, as well as the building itself.

Once again, I can't help just the easy way of taking all prophecy as written or none of it. I don't do part by part changes to fit my own desired prophecy.

By taking all the prophecy as written, then I say the Lord, His resurrected saints, and newly born saints of God, will all be building the King's house and temple together.

Even as Jesus walked, ate, and talked with His disciples 40 days on earth in His resurrected immortal body, so can He do so again on earth, with His immortal and mortal saints.

But, I don't see them with immortal bodies sweating in the work.

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

It's a simple matter of principle in good leadership: never asked the troops to do what we are not willing to do ourselves. The motto of the Rangers, is Lead the Way!

 

[robert derrick]

Simple! Those offerings and sacrifices in the new Temple are for covering and for sanctification, But mainly they are for the glory of God, as Isaiah 56:7, Ezekiel 20:40-41, Jeremiah 33:18, tell us.

Although we disagree when His temple and house of prayer is built, I love your thorough research of all prophecy about it.

(Other than when )

 

[robert derrick]

God hasn’t had pleasure in those sacrifices. Why would they be needed ever again?

“In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.” (Hebrews 10:6)

Your suggestion that the Lord never had any pleasure on burnt offerings, is due to false reading of context:

God said often, that He had no pleasure in offerings of the wicked and double hearted, and in context of Heb 10, He did not bring His Son into the world, to make such sacrifices of the law.

Why would the Lord command by law to do what gave Him no pleasure?

And yet, the Lord has had pleasure in burnt offerings of them that love Him:

And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

And the LORD smelled a sweet savour.

And He will do so again in His Millennial temple and house:

Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

I know your righteous doctrine of Christ, however, we just disagree on prophecy of Scripture, and neither am I at all propposing animanl sacrifices for Christians today.

In fact, those who do think Christians will build the Prince's house and offer up sacrifices to Him, before His coming again to earth, are more in line with the last great antichrist Christianity, then with me.

Just because something is lawful to do, that doesn't make it good to do. My only point is that no Scripture makes it unlawful to do, but plainly prophecies it will be done once again with the Lord's natural priesthood of saved hebrews and Jews.

In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.

And ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things: but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves.

Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

God allowed His first house on earth to be polluted by false priests, but He Personally will not allow such pollution into His last house on earth.

 

[WPM]

No, they don't believe the Lord and His resurrected saints will be ruling bodily on earth.

Like you, they think there is some reigning the saints will do in heaven.

It corresponds with their belief in becoming gods with God in heaven.

Quite the opposite. Amils reject the JW view of a future millennium. You stand hand-in-hand with the JWs in that error.

True. Not now.

But since I believe Ezekiel is a true prophet of God, then there will be more offerings for sin in the Prince's house on earth:

And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin offering, saith the Lord GOD.

They shall eat the meat offering, and the sin offering, and the trespass offering; and every dedicated thing in Israel shall be theirs.

Scripture says so two times in Ezek 44, in like manner of Scripture saying 6 times in Rev 20, that the Prince's reign on earth will be a thousand years.

Amils believe Ezekiel was a true prophet of God. But he mentioned absolutely nothing about some future millennium. Helooked forward to Christ and His final sacrifice for sin. The conditional promises he presnted, to disobedient Old Testament Israel, that they failed to realize, through their rebellion, serves as a suitable shadow, type and figure of the perfect new covenant temple and the living water of the Spirit that flowed from Him.

Israel in Ezekiel’s day had sunk into deep idolatry and awful iniquity. God exposed the extent of the evil that existed within the camp in Ezekiel 43:8, saying, “they have even defiled my holy name by their abominations that they have committed: wherefore I have consumed them in mine anger.” Notwithstanding, God, as is His custom, reached out in His grace, mercy and love to them, exhorting them to turn from their wicked ways. He promised that He would bless them if they obeyed His voice.

He commanded them (in v 9): “Now let them put away their whoredom, and the carcases of their kings, far from me, and I will dwell in the midst of them for ever.”

God gave definite and unambiguous instructions to Israel regarding how they could regain the blessing of God. With God there is always the promise accompanied by the conditions. Just because God offers a blessing does not mean the outcome is a foregone conclusion. The realisation would be determined by the response. If Israel obeyed what God asked, the blessing would be released, if they didn’t it would be withheld.

Ezekiel 43:10 goes on to outline the gist and purpose of the vision of the temple, saying, “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.”

Clearly God was making a genuine offer to Israel if they would only repent. Sadly, they didn't and they never entered into the reality of that offer. God essentially shows Israel a picture of what could be if they would only turn from their sin and rebellion. It was a promise of better things if only they would submit to God’s demands. It involved an improved arrangement to what existed at the time of the proposal. It was essentially a mirror that God set up in Ezekiel’s day to allow Israel to see how far (even in that day) they fell short of the old covenant requirements. It was to let Israel compare themselves and their practices against this vision of what God desired for them. God has always instructed Israel in the ideal yet they always fell short. Israel usually failed to adhere to God's conditions. In this situation God’s gracious provision did not materialise.

God simply wanted Israel to “be ashamed of their iniquities.” This was nothing new; in fact, that has always been God’s desire for His people. This was a promise that was built upon righteous conditions. If they would be repentant and humble themselves then they would experience the superior splendour of this new temple.

Ezekiel 43:11 continues, “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.”

This vision was God’s blueprint for Israel in Ezekiel’s day. It was a design that contained important religious demands and was qualified with definite spiritual provisos. Israel was simply required to obey God’s conditions. The “ordinances,” “forms” and “laws” mentioned were to be kept by Israel in Ezekiel’s day. The fact that he commanded the Israelites of his day to “do them” showed that this wasn’t some distant prophecy after the new covenant period that had no direct relevance to them in that day.

The promise/vision here was intended to stir the people to righteousness in that generation. If they submitted, if they gave themselves to obedience and righteousness, the Lord would have them build a temple for His glory in that day. Again, we can see this is a conditional promise, which Israel had to fulfil before it would come to pass. We can see that it was particular to the Jews in Ezekiel's day. It was applicable to the nation in Ezekiel’s day and depicted how God wanted Israel to live under the old covenant. This was a standard that Israel was supposed to abide by.

Adam Clarke says: “If, in a spirit of true repentance, they acknowledge their past transgressions, and purpose in his help never more to offend their God, then teach them everything that concerns my worship, and their profiting by it.”

Of course, Israel disobeyed. They were not able to meet God's requirements therefore this temple never materialised. Despite Ezekiel’s warnings, they chose to walk in “their iniquities,” because of this, the vision of the temple that Ezekiel showed them (in chapters 40-48) was never built. History proves that they didn't because they wouldn't. This rebellious people failed to take a hold of the conditions, they therefore failed to take a hold of the blessing. That is the way it works in Scripture.

There is nothing in Ezekiel 40-48 that would suggest that this is an active ongoing unconditional promise to Israel. Quite the opposite! A greater temple followed just a few hundred years after Ezekiel's conditional vision; a temple that would last forever – God’s spiritual temple. The Old Testament sacrifices and ordinances had an expiration date, it was called the cross. Since then Christ is our lone eternal sacrifice for sin. He has rendered the rest needless and obsolete. This was an old covenant promise with old covenant ordinances that is now redundant under the new covenant arrangement. What is more, he was not speaking to some supposed generation of mortal rebels in your semi-corrupt semi-glorious future millennial age. There is zero evidence of that. Premils have created this theory to sustain their view of Revelation 20.

 

[WPM]

Ezekiel does.

Your interpretation of Ezekiel is misplaced in time, and messed up. This prediction was restricted to the old covenant and superseded at Calvary through the one final sacrifice for sin. Hebrews 10:9-12 confirms: "Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away (present active indicative) the first, that he may establish (aorist, active subjunctive) the second. By the which will we are sanctified (present active indicative) through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God."

Where does it say that ‘He taketh away the second, that he may re-establish the first’? The thought is preposterous and erroneous to repeated New Testament Scripture. There is nowhere in the NT that it says Paul performed sin offerings. You impute a lot into one passage that most Premils wouldn't'. What is more throughout his teaching Paul renounced the efficacy and legitimacy of the old covenant arrangement today or in the future and repeatedly showed that Christ was the final sacrifice for sin. This is accepted by multiple Postmil, Premil and Amil commentators. You attribute a lot to Paul in order to defend the indefensible. Your passion to see the reintroduction of additional sin offerings in this age and on the new earth is misplaced, unscriptural and deeply disturbing. When did Christ, Paul or any NT writer promote such error? NEVER!

I believe Ezekiel is a true prophet, you do not, but only see him as a maker of cunning fables. And having witnessed your unbelief in Scriptures as written elsewhere, then it is no longer extraordinary to me, but just par for the course.

Ezekiel was a true prophet. Because of your obsession with the old covenant and rejection of Christ's final sacrifice of sin, you twist the meaning of that passage. When does Ezekiel mention your imaginary future millennium? Nowhere? When does any OT prophet mention your imaginary future millennium? Nowhere? It is all a figment of your imagination.

Scripture describes the old covenant sacrificial system as “that which is done away” (2 Corinthians 3:11) and “that which is abolished” (2 Corinthians 3:13). It makes clear: “the old testament … vail is done away in Christ" (2 Corinthians 3:14). Hebrews 10:9 confirms: “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” Hebrews 10:2 confirms they “ceased to be offered.”

• You want us to move from the realization back to the shadow.
• You want us to move from the perfect back to the imperfect.
• You want us to move from the all-sufficient back to the inadequate.
• You want us to move from the spiritual back to the physical.
• You want us to move from the internal back to the external.
• You want us to move from the supernatural back to the natural.
• You want us to move from the eternal back to the temporary.
• You want us to move from the heavenly back to the earthly.
• You want us to move from the international back to the national. You want us to move from the unconditional back to the conditional.

And now we have the end of all fanatical zealots, that seek to proselytize everyone else to their own camp, and hate any opposition to their plans. First they teach falsely, then they refuse to acknowledge objections of others, then they purposely misstate those objections, then they ridicule the opposition, and finally they demand all opposition be silenced.

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

The spirit of Nimrod is still here.

No answer to the truth - again. That is your form when cornered.

Impressive word.

Your love for the Old and rejection of the New exposes the folly of your position. Amils reject this error. They believe Jesus was the final sacrifice for sin. There will never again be a competing priesthood of rival sin offerings.

Yes, no doubt you would be most sad, if you ever get to see all people disagreeing with you, done away with.

Tsk, tsk. So sad, because so unnecessary. All they have to do is just agree with you, and they could stay.

You probably wouldn't even care of they meant it, just so long as they give you the lip-service you so desire.

The supposed supporting proof texts that are presented by Premillennialists to support this say the opposite to what Premillennialists promote. The reason is, they make no mention of a future of millennium. They have nothing to do with that. They're talking about old covenant promises. The old covenant is gone forever. Jesus Christ has introduced the new covenant. He is a final sacrifice for sin. He will definitely not be blessing the pointless worthless sacrifice of innocent animals to reconcile or sanctify anyone in the future. This whole portrayal is unbiblical. It does despite to Jesus Christ. Is undermines the cross-work.

 

[robert derrick]

So if your analysis is not agreed to Jeremiah is a false prophet?

I am disappointed someone such as you resorts to useless accusation, when you have no reasonable argument against what I've offered.

Interpretation of the prophecy being fulfilled, is not the problem, but making it not come to pass as written, is making it false prophecy of a false prophet.

These are the kinds of useless ideas and discussions that cause needless division.

Unfortunately, not many Christians like to have their favorite ideas about the Bible being challenged so simple and plainly.

I was once someone that blithely just dismissed Ezek 40- as unfilled promises of God, because of man's errors, as well as my personal law against anymore animal sacrifices ever.

That is Christian law by tradition, not the King's law by Scripture.

I no longer hold to your Christian tradition, because God plainly says, if what is prophesied does not come to pass as prophesied, it is false prophecy.

And so, I no longer teach against it in His Millennium. Nor do I have a personal problem with it, like Christians such as you, since all I care about is the truth of His word.

Apparently in matters of prophecy, you care more about your own desire, than that of God in Scripture.

You're unwillingness to even consider this simple truth, is your problem, not mine.

Once again, your doctrine of righteousness in Christ Jesus is good and true, and this has nothing to do with being a Christian or not, and ought have nothing to do with division, except perhaps for those willing to be sloppy with any Scripture, because of their own personal prophecy they desire most.

Whatever man.

And so yes, I agree we shouldn't have anymore to say to each other on this matter, at least until you show where the Lord has made it law, not to ever offer Him burnt offerings for sin again on earth.

If that is ever shown by anyone, then the prophecies of His Millennium on earth cannot apply, after His resurrection from the dead.

 

[robert derrick]

Quite the opposite. Amils reject the JW view of a future millennium. You stand hand-in-hand with the JWs in that error.

Your usual misstating the words of others has returned.

You do realize, that just because you say something, doesn't mean it's true, right?

You are not a prophet of God.

Amils believe Ezekiel was a true prophet of God. But he mentioned absolutely nothing about some future millennium. Helooked forward to Christ and His final sacrifice for sin. The conditional promises he presnted, to disobedient Old Testament Israel, that they failed to realize, through their rebellion, serves as a suitable shadow, type and figure of the perfect new covenant temple and the living water of the Spirit that flowed from Him.

Israel in Ezekiel’s day had sunk into deep idolatry and awful iniquity. God exposed the extent of the evil that existed within the camp in Ezekiel 43:8, saying, “they have even defiled my holy name by their abominations that they have committed: wherefore I have consumed them in mine anger.” Notwithstanding, God, as is His custom, reached out in His grace, mercy and love to them, exhorting them to turn from their wicked ways. He promised that He would bless them if they obeyed His voice.

He commanded them (in v 9): “Now let them put away their whoredom, and the carcases of their kings, far from me, and I will dwell in the midst of them for ever.”

God gave definite and unambiguous instructions to Israel regarding how they could regain the blessing of God. With God there is always the promise accompanied by the conditions. Just because God offers a blessing does not mean the outcome is a foregone conclusion. The realisation would be determined by the response. If Israel obeyed what God asked, the blessing would be released, if they didn’t it would be withheld.

Ezekiel 43:10 goes on to outline the gist and purpose of the vision of the temple, saying, “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.”

Clearly God was making a genuine offer to Israel if they would only repent. Sadly, they didn't and they never entered into the reality of that offer. God essentially shows Israel a picture of what could be if they would only turn from their sin and rebellion. It was a promise of better things if only they would submit to God’s demands. It involved an improved arrangement to what existed at the time of the proposal. It was essentially a mirror that God set up in Ezekiel’s day to allow Israel to see how far (even in that day) they fell short of the old covenant requirements. It was to let Israel compare themselves and their practices against this vision of what God desired for them. God has always instructed Israel in the ideal yet they always fell short. Israel usually failed to adhere to God's conditions. In this situation God’s gracious provision did not materialise.

God simply wanted Israel to “be ashamed of their iniquities.” This was nothing new; in fact, that has always been God’s desire for His people. This was a promise that was built upon righteous conditions. If they would be repentant and humble themselves then they would experience the superior splendour of this new temple.

Ezekiel 43:11 continues, “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.”

This vision was God’s blueprint for Israel in Ezekiel’s day. It was a design that contained important religious demands and was qualified with definite spiritual provisos. Israel was simply required to obey God’s conditions. The “ordinances,” “forms” and “laws” mentioned were to be kept by Israel in Ezekiel’s day. The fact that he commanded the Israelites of his day to “do them” showed that this wasn’t some distant prophecy after the new covenant period that had no direct relevance to them in that day.

The promise/vision here was intended to stir the people to righteousness in that generation. If they submitted, if they gave themselves to obedience and righteousness, the Lord would have them build a temple for His glory in that day. Again, we can see this is a conditional promise, which Israel had to fulfil before it would come to pass. We can see that it was particular to the Jews in Ezekiel's day. It was applicable to the nation in Ezekiel’s day and depicted how God wanted Israel to live under the old covenant. This was a standard that Israel was supposed to abide by.

Adam Clarke says: “If, in a spirit of true repentance, they acknowledge their past transgressions, and purpose in his help never more to offend their God, then teach them everything that concerns my worship, and their profiting by it.”

Of course, Israel disobeyed. They were not able to meet God's requirements therefore this temple never materialised. Despite Ezekiel’s warnings, they chose to walk in “their iniquities,” because of this, the vision of the temple that Ezekiel showed them (in chapters 40-48) was never built. History proves that they didn't because they wouldn't. This rebellious people failed to take a hold of the conditions, they therefore failed to take a hold of the blessing. That is the way it works in Scripture.

There is nothing in Ezekiel 40-48 that would suggest that this is an active ongoing unconditional promise to Israel. Quite the opposite! A greater temple followed just a few hundred years after Ezekiel's conditional vision; a temple that would last forever – God’s spiritual temple. The Old Testament sacrifices and ordinances had an expiration date, it was called the cross. Since then Christ is our lone eternal sacrifice for sin. He has rendered the rest needless and obsolete. This was an old covenant promise with old covenant ordinances that is now redundant under the new covenant arrangement. What is more, he was not speaking to some supposed generation of mortal rebels in your semi-corrupt semi-glorious future millennial age. There is zero evidence of that. Premils have created this theory to sustain their view of Revelation 20.

More boring scholar speak, that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

You can post and paste all you like for your own delight, but I can see it when it comes, and no longer bother rereading it again.