Temple in the Millenium, does it contradict the Gospel?
- Thread starter Hevosmies
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
When Paul had Timothy circumcised was it a reflection of the heart of Timothy? I know Paul made it clear one purpose of the circumcision of Timothy was so he would not come under condemnation from the circumcision faction who were at that early time try to take by force what wasn't theirs.
It makes more sense to, "Go" and do the instructions of the Father than to not. Especially when we have been brought close to the promise and covenants to take hold of them. Don't be confused by the way that they go to keep the feast as instructed to in the word because it is written. It's a shame people who claim to know and teach truth don't know why they are told to keep the feast even in the thousand year reign. It's because we have always been taught to keep the feasts and obey the Father's instructions.
It makes more sense to, "Go" and do the instructions of the Father than to not. Especially when we have been brought close to the promise and covenants to take hold of them. Don't be confused by the way that they go to keep the feast as instructed to in the word because it is written. It's a shame people who claim to know and teach truth don't know why they are told to keep the feast even in the thousand year reign. It's because we have always been taught to keep the feasts and obey the Father's instructions.
Yeah no, I've read through the chapters many times now, this definately cannot possibly happen literally because of the fact that Jesus has already died on the Cross, the previous covenant done away with.
hebrews tells us Jesus is a PRIEST forever. Yet in the Ezekiel vision we got the sons of Zadok as priests, again, sanctified in a similar way as in the law, in Leviticus 8, the wall of separation that Jesus broke being built back again and all that. All of this is directly in opposition to the new testament, I just cant flow with it in my Spirit no matter how I try. I love the Lord and im not gonna sit here and nullify Jesus' sacrifice on the cross by saying we go back to what we were saved from!
I go to a dispie church, this is what I get i guess lol.
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. -Philippians 3:3
1 Peter 2:5 says in the NT we are the temple. Its just all over the New Testament that the sacrifices are done, the previous priesthood is done, Jesus is the high priest now, FOREVER.
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;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Heb 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Heb 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Heb 7:23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
Heb 7:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
In light of the book of Hebrews, it just dont flow
hebrews tells us Jesus is a PRIEST forever. Yet in the Ezekiel vision we got the sons of Zadok as priests, again, sanctified in a similar way as in the law, in Leviticus 8, the wall of separation that Jesus broke being built back again and all that. All of this is directly in opposition to the new testament, I just cant flow with it in my Spirit no matter how I try. I love the Lord and im not gonna sit here and nullify Jesus' sacrifice on the cross by saying we go back to what we were saved from!
I go to a dispie church, this is what I get i guess lol.
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. -Philippians 3:3
1 Peter 2:5 says in the NT we are the temple. Its just all over the New Testament that the sacrifices are done, the previous priesthood is done, Jesus is the high priest now, FOREVER.
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;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Heb 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Heb 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Heb 7:23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
Heb 7:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
In light of the book of Hebrews, it just dont flow
-
1
- Show all
Questions that will come to mind...
In Acts 15 did the apostles and disciples believe in appox.ad 48-50(20 or so years after Christ death) that the temple was still valid and the law for the Jews to follow?
In Acts 21 did James, Paul and the others see the temple then still standing as valid and make sacrifices in it to God?
How can a man of sin stand in a Holy place and set up an abomination if it is not regarded by God as Holy? If in the future a temple is built and it is not anything but confused men's carnal thinking that caused it to be built it is not a "Holy place" and an image set up in it would not be an abomination?
In Acts the apostles verbs(actions=Acts) are recorded at what chapter in Acts did the apostles stop regarding the law of Moses and the temple and no longer go to Jerusalem and offer sacrifices according to the law?
In Acts 15 did the apostles and disciples believe in appox.ad 48-50(20 or so years after Christ death) that the temple was still valid and the law for the Jews to follow?
In Acts 21 did James, Paul and the others see the temple then still standing as valid and make sacrifices in it to God?
How can a man of sin stand in a Holy place and set up an abomination if it is not regarded by God as Holy? If in the future a temple is built and it is not anything but confused men's carnal thinking that caused it to be built it is not a "Holy place" and an image set up in it would not be an abomination?
In Acts the apostles verbs(actions=Acts) are recorded at what chapter in Acts did the apostles stop regarding the law of Moses and the temple and no longer go to Jerusalem and offer sacrifices according to the law?
I have read Ezekiel 40-48 and surely this hasnt literally ever happened. Which leads everyone(almost) to agree this is yet future, and most say it happens in the millennium.
Aside from the reinstitution of animal sacrifices, when we read these chapters we come across some things that seem to be very anti- New Covenant language:
Ezekiel 44:9 This is what the Sovereign Lord says: No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh is to enter my sanctuary, not even the foreigners who live among the Israelites.
Isnt this completely opposite of Paul's message of "circumcision is nothing"? How are we to assume we would be going back to a worse system in the future? I realize that all the Christians would be in resurrection bodies, but to me it sounds like a DOWNGRADE to go from being in heaven, to getting a resurrection body and watching a bunch of animals get slaughtered and maybe even your family members live in the flesh and possibly dying/rebelling in the end. Sounds like i'd rather stay in heaven lol.
Another contradiction is: Jesus said His body is the temple now, in the new covenant, NOT a physical stone building somewhere:
John 2:19
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
What sayeth ye? Im especially looking forward to EG, Ahwatukee, VCO, dcon, TheDivineWatermark contributing! BUT ALL COMERS WELCOME THOUGH
lets keep it friendly this time
Aside from the reinstitution of animal sacrifices, when we read these chapters we come across some things that seem to be very anti- New Covenant language:
Ezekiel 44:9 This is what the Sovereign Lord says: No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh is to enter my sanctuary, not even the foreigners who live among the Israelites.
Isnt this completely opposite of Paul's message of "circumcision is nothing"? How are we to assume we would be going back to a worse system in the future? I realize that all the Christians would be in resurrection bodies, but to me it sounds like a DOWNGRADE to go from being in heaven, to getting a resurrection body and watching a bunch of animals get slaughtered and maybe even your family members live in the flesh and possibly dying/rebelling in the end. Sounds like i'd rather stay in heaven lol.
Another contradiction is: Jesus said His body is the temple now, in the new covenant, NOT a physical stone building somewhere:
John 2:19
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
What sayeth ye? Im especially looking forward to EG, Ahwatukee, VCO, dcon, TheDivineWatermark contributing! BUT ALL COMERS WELCOME THOUGH
lets keep it friendly this time
While it does appear to me as well as being a downgrade it must be because we don't fully understand it. As we both know, Jesus as the Lamb of God was the sacrifice for our sins and that the blood sacrifice of animals does not provide for the remission of sin. Jesus did say that destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. It is apparent to me that Jesus was not referring to an actual physical temple even though there will be a new one constructed in the future in the exact space that the current Muslim Dome of the Rock is now situated.
Hello iamsoandso,
Just fyi, the temple where the abomination is going to be set up, is not the same temple that will be established during the millennial period. The abomination is set up in the temple that Israel will build at the beginning of that last seven years. The temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 is the temple that will be in operation during the millennial period, which much, much bigger than any previous temple.
Just fyi, the temple where the abomination is going to be set up, is not the same temple that will be established during the millennial period. The abomination is set up in the temple that Israel will build at the beginning of that last seven years. The temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 is the temple that will be in operation during the millennial period, which much, much bigger than any previous temple.
The temple in Ezekiel 40-48 will be a physical temple, which will be in operation during the millennial kingdom. In support of this, it's measurements and dimensions are given in precise detail, just like the New Jerusalem. It describes the alcoves with the Cherubim and the palm trees embossed in them, as well as many other details. Furthermore, there is nothing in the those eight chapters that would lead the reader to interpret that temple as being spiritual. It is done by assumption and conjecture.
I think there are two explanations to this and both would be correct.
The first is a promise based on obedience to Gods covenant. If Israel repented on hearing Ezekiels warnings then the Temple
described would have been established but Israel didn't repent. In fact very few even returned after the exile being happy
to stay in Babylon.
The second is that God described the Spiritual Temple and Sacrifices in a way that Ezekiel's hearers could understand
It was only after Christs first coming that God though the Holy Spirit fully explained Christs sacrifice and ministry.
Up until then the Jews were still looking for a Physical kingdom and expected the Temple and Sacrificial system to go on
forever. Unfortunately some are still making the same mistake by shunting it forward to the second coming despite
scripture telling us that the true Temple and Kingdom are in Christ and we are part of that temple and Kingdom now
The first is a promise based on obedience to Gods covenant. If Israel repented on hearing Ezekiels warnings then the Temple
described would have been established but Israel didn't repent. In fact very few even returned after the exile being happy
to stay in Babylon.
The second is that God described the Spiritual Temple and Sacrifices in a way that Ezekiel's hearers could understand
It was only after Christs first coming that God though the Holy Spirit fully explained Christs sacrifice and ministry.
Up until then the Jews were still looking for a Physical kingdom and expected the Temple and Sacrificial system to go on
forever. Unfortunately some are still making the same mistake by shunting it forward to the second coming despite
scripture telling us that the true Temple and Kingdom are in Christ and we are part of that temple and Kingdom now
The point is my friend that if the Jews build another temple in Jerusalem it would have to seen by God as "Holy" (a Holy place) or else it cannot be polluted by anyone(i.e. MoS) because it would not have any sacred value in Gods eyes so it could not be polluted.
And so then if the one you say the Jews build in the last 7 years is the one where the AoD occurs for the MoS to fulfill the things written in the Scriptures it must be built with the approval of God and he would have to see it as Holy/sacred for it to be polluted by the MoS....
if not Herod's temple was the one Jesus spoke of and that was regarded as Holy and then all Scriptures about it being polluted would need to be fulfilled before it's destruction in ad70.(Acts records how the apostles/disciples saw it's validity)...
So there's the second Temple(destroyed in ad 70),,, the one you say the Jews build for the last 7 years ,,,and now the Mill. Temple one of them is regarded as Holy by God and it can be polluted by an image being set up in it and is regarded by the Almighty God as sacred and Holy and it can be polluted which one is considered Holy by God?
Interesting topic..My thoughts..OP you didnt ask for my input, but if its ok just want to share what I'm understanding about it because yes, for those of us who have fully accepted Jesus blood as payment for sin, why then this temple...?
Is the temple in ezekiel for israel, for 1000 years when it mentions the Prince, is this Jesus? It also mentions dividing up the land for inheritance, presumably its the twelve tribes, the 144,000 mentioned in revelation.
Maybe after all the sacrifices performed by the priests, it will have been suficient to heal the land, for a fixed length of time (1000 years?) to the time when the devil is cast into the lake of fire, and the new city which has been prepared, has now access to the tree of life and living waters.
I only understand it if its given to the redeeemed of israel, the saved church wont need to do any of the sacrifices, there is clearly two groups in revelation the 144,000 from the tribes and then the rest of the saints which is without number.
As for why the sacrifices, well after they are offered burnt offerings the priests get to eat them dont they, maybe they still need to do them then see chapter 39 verse 18-19 until they are full. Also in that chapter they are burying a lot of people to cleanse the land, this fire will burn for seven years.
Is the temple in ezekiel for israel, for 1000 years when it mentions the Prince, is this Jesus? It also mentions dividing up the land for inheritance, presumably its the twelve tribes, the 144,000 mentioned in revelation.
Maybe after all the sacrifices performed by the priests, it will have been suficient to heal the land, for a fixed length of time (1000 years?) to the time when the devil is cast into the lake of fire, and the new city which has been prepared, has now access to the tree of life and living waters.
I only understand it if its given to the redeeemed of israel, the saved church wont need to do any of the sacrifices, there is clearly two groups in revelation the 144,000 from the tribes and then the rest of the saints which is without number.
As for why the sacrifices, well after they are offered burnt offerings the priests get to eat them dont they, maybe they still need to do them then see chapter 39 verse 18-19 until they are full. Also in that chapter they are burying a lot of people to cleanse the land, this fire will burn for seven years.
Here are a few thoughts with regard to what it is I *think* you are conveying... My thoughts:
--nowhere in the NT is the definite article ('the') used with the word "temple" WHEN it is referring to "the Church which is His body" [US, you and me, we all ] (just "temple" in the Grk)
--in both 2Th2:4 and Rev11:1, the definite article IS used in the phrase " the temple of God" (and in Rev11:1 the wording definitely DISTINGUISHES "the temple of God" from [the phrase] "... and THEY that worship THEREIN")
--I believe "the Church which is His body" ("temple" ... "in this present age [singular]") will not be present on the earth (starting just BEFORE the INITIAL "birth PANG [singular; 1Th5:2-3/Mt24:4/Mk13:5]" / aka SEAL #1 is opened [i.e. JUDGMENTS unfolding on the earth, over the course of the 7-yrs]), therefore there will be no particular "place" on the earth (at that INITIAL moment, or beginning span of time, there) that is considered "holy" (meaning, at the START of the 7-yrs)... but does this idea prohibit that there will be none at any point thereafter? or does Scripture indicate that (once our Rapture takes place) Israel will eventually have such a place, at least at some point (being "earthly"... and in fulfillment of their promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age and its designations and so forth), aka "the kingdom of the heavens [on the earth; like Dan7:27]," aka "the wedding FEAST/SUPPER [on the earth]," aka "the age [singular] to come" [where "age [SINGULAR]" is always connected with the earth]; etc...). If so, then this is not wholly unreasonable, as I see it.
____________
Here's an article I posted before, that goes along with this somewhat:
"Forty Reasons for Not Reinterpreting the OT by the NT: The Last Twenty" by Paul Martin Henebury
https://sharperiron.org/article/forty-reasons-for-not-reinterpreting-ot-nt-last-twenty
[quoting from article]
"33. It ignores the life-setting of the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 in the context of their already having had forty days teaching about the very thing they asked about (“the kingdom” – see Acts 1:3). This reflects badly on the clarity of the Risen Lord’s teaching about the kingdom. But the tenacity with which these disciples still clung to literal fulfillments would also prove the validity of #’s 23, 26, 27, 28 & 32 above.
"34. This resistance to the clear expectation of the disciples also ignores the question of the disciples, which was about the timing of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, not its nature."
[end quoting; bold and underline mine]
--nowhere in the NT is the definite article ('the') used with the word "temple" WHEN it is referring to "the Church which is His body" [US, you and me, we all
] (just "temple" in the Grk)--in both 2Th2:4 and Rev11:1, the definite article IS used in the phrase " the temple of God" (and in Rev11:1 the wording definitely DISTINGUISHES "the temple of God" from [the phrase] "... and THEY that worship THEREIN")
--I believe "the Church which is His body" ("temple" ... "in this present age [singular]") will not be present on the earth (starting just BEFORE the INITIAL "birth PANG [singular; 1Th5:2-3/Mt24:4/Mk13:5]" / aka SEAL #1 is opened [i.e. JUDGMENTS unfolding on the earth, over the course of the 7-yrs]), therefore there will be no particular "place" on the earth (at that INITIAL moment, or beginning span of time, there) that is considered "holy" (meaning, at the START of the 7-yrs)... but does this idea prohibit that there will be none at any point thereafter? or does Scripture indicate that (once our Rapture takes place) Israel will eventually have such a place, at least at some point (being "earthly"... and in fulfillment of their promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age and its designations and so forth), aka "the kingdom of the heavens [on the earth; like Dan7:27]," aka "the wedding FEAST/SUPPER [on the earth]," aka "the age [singular] to come" [where "age [SINGULAR]" is always connected with the earth]; etc...). If so, then this is not wholly unreasonable, as I see it.
____________
Here's an article I posted before, that goes along with this somewhat:
"Forty Reasons for Not Reinterpreting the OT by the NT: The Last Twenty" by Paul Martin Henebury
https://sharperiron.org/article/forty-reasons-for-not-reinterpreting-ot-nt-last-twenty
[quoting from article]
"33. It ignores the life-setting of the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 in the context of their already having had forty days teaching about the very thing they asked about (“the kingdom” – see Acts 1:3). This reflects badly on the clarity of the Risen Lord’s teaching about the kingdom. But the tenacity with which these disciples still clung to literal fulfillments would also prove the validity of #’s 23, 26, 27, 28 & 32 above.
"34. This resistance to the clear expectation of the disciples also ignores the question of the disciples, which was about the timing of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, not its nature."
[end quoting; bold and underline mine]
-
1
- Show all
In my view (which is "pre-trib, as you know), I believe Israel (not 100% mind you) come to faith EARLY in the trib years (it may start out small but spreads early and fairly quickly!... and that these are "the WISE [of Israel]" of that time period--that is, FOLLOWING our Rapture, and our Rapture being a primary IMPETUS that helps bring them to faith, i.e. one of its main PURPOSES, as I see it)
-
1
- Show all
Here are a few thoughts with regard to what it is I *think* you are conveying... My thoughts:
--nowhere in the NT is the definite article ('the') used with the word "temple" WHEN it is referring to "the Church which is His body" [US, you and me, we all ] (just "temple" in the Grk)
--in both 2Th2:4 and Rev11:1, the definite article IS used in the phrase " the temple of God" (and in Rev11:1 the wording definitely DISTINGUISHES "the temple of God" from [the phrase] "... and THEY that worship THEREIN")
--I believe "the Church which is His body" ("temple" ... "in this present age [singular]") will not be present on the earth (starting just BEFORE the INITIAL "birth PANG [singular; 1Th5:2-3/Mt24:4/Mk13:5]" / aka SEAL #1 is opened [i.e. JUDGMENTS unfolding on the earth, over the course of the 7-yrs]), therefore there will be no particular "place" on the earth (at that INITIAL moment, or beginning span of time, there) that is considered "holy" (meaning, at the START of the 7-yrs)... but does this idea prohibit that there will be none at any point thereafter? or does Scripture indicate that (once our Rapture takes place) Israel will eventually have such a place, at least at some point (being "earthly"... and in fulfillment of their promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age and its designations and so forth), aka "the kingdom of the heavens [on the earth; like Dan7:27]," aka "the wedding FEAST/SUPPER [on the earth]," aka "the age [singular] to come" [where "age [SINGULAR]" is always connected with the earth]; etc...). If so, then this is not wholly unreasonable, as I see it.
____________
Here's an article I posted before, that goes along with this somewhat:
"Forty Reasons for Not Reinterpreting the OT by the NT: The Last Twenty" by Paul Martin Henebury
https://sharperiron.org/article/forty-reasons-for-not-reinterpreting-ot-nt-last-twenty
[quoting from article]
"33. It ignores the life-setting of the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 in the context of their already having had forty days teaching about the very thing they asked about (“the kingdom” – see Acts 1:3). This reflects badly on the clarity of the Risen Lord’s teaching about the kingdom. But the tenacity with which these disciples still clung to literal fulfillments would also prove the validity of #’s 23, 26, 27, 28 & 32 above.
"34. This resistance to the clear expectation of the disciples also ignores the question of the disciples, which was about the timing of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, not its nature."
[end quoting; bold and underline mine]
--nowhere in the NT is the definite article ('the') used with the word "temple" WHEN it is referring to "the Church which is His body" [US, you and me, we all
] (just "temple" in the Grk)--in both 2Th2:4 and Rev11:1, the definite article IS used in the phrase " the temple of God" (and in Rev11:1 the wording definitely DISTINGUISHES "the temple of God" from [the phrase] "... and THEY that worship THEREIN")
--I believe "the Church which is His body" ("temple" ... "in this present age [singular]") will not be present on the earth (starting just BEFORE the INITIAL "birth PANG [singular; 1Th5:2-3/Mt24:4/Mk13:5]" / aka SEAL #1 is opened [i.e. JUDGMENTS unfolding on the earth, over the course of the 7-yrs]), therefore there will be no particular "place" on the earth (at that INITIAL moment, or beginning span of time, there) that is considered "holy" (meaning, at the START of the 7-yrs)... but does this idea prohibit that there will be none at any point thereafter? or does Scripture indicate that (once our Rapture takes place) Israel will eventually have such a place, at least at some point (being "earthly"... and in fulfillment of their promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age and its designations and so forth), aka "the kingdom of the heavens [on the earth; like Dan7:27]," aka "the wedding FEAST/SUPPER [on the earth]," aka "the age [singular] to come" [where "age [SINGULAR]" is always connected with the earth]; etc...). If so, then this is not wholly unreasonable, as I see it.
____________
Here's an article I posted before, that goes along with this somewhat:
"Forty Reasons for Not Reinterpreting the OT by the NT: The Last Twenty" by Paul Martin Henebury
https://sharperiron.org/article/forty-reasons-for-not-reinterpreting-ot-nt-last-twenty
[quoting from article]
"33. It ignores the life-setting of the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 in the context of their already having had forty days teaching about the very thing they asked about (“the kingdom” – see Acts 1:3). This reflects badly on the clarity of the Risen Lord’s teaching about the kingdom. But the tenacity with which these disciples still clung to literal fulfillments would also prove the validity of #’s 23, 26, 27, 28 & 32 above.
"34. This resistance to the clear expectation of the disciples also ignores the question of the disciples, which was about the timing of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, not its nature."
[end quoting; bold and underline mine]
"29. A God who would “expand” His promises in such an unanticipated way could never be trusted not to “transform” His promises to us in the Gospel. Thus, there might be a difference between the Gospel message as we preach it (relying on the face value language of say Jn. 3:16; 5:24; Rom. 3:23-26), and God’s real intentions when He eventually “fulfills” the promises in the Gospel. Since it is thought that He did so in the past, it is conceivable that He might do so again in the future. Perhaps the promises to the Church will be “fulfilled” in totally unexpected ways with a people other than the Church, the Church being just a shadow of a future reality? "
This is something i am GUILTY of. I want to apologize for that publicly here.
HOW WOULD I FEEL, if the glorification promise of the Church was just a shadow, only to be fulfilled in actuality by a DIFFERENT group of people known as "the Chugachugs" and church was just a shadow of it?
O what a fool I can be at times. Woe is me as they say!
Can you or someone else point to me a Scripture in the NT that tells us that the animal sacrifices will resume OR that the Church will "end" at some point and God brings back the distinction between Jew and Gentile or something of that sort? Any clues to that somewhere?
No my friend. Herod's temple was destroyed in 70 AD. When the antichrist is revealed, he will establish a seven year covenant with Israel allowing them to build a future temple after the church has been gathered from the earth, which is the temple where the abomination will be set up.
After the end of the seven year tribulation when Christ returns to end the age, Another temple, much larger than any of the previous temples, will be built at the beginning of the millennial period. This millennial temple is described in detail in Ezekiel 40-48.
The temple built at the beginning of the seven year period, will be built in order to fulfill that last seven years of the seventy seven year periods decreed upon Israel and Jerusalem. After the church is gone, God is going to pick up right where He left off with Israel regarding that decree, complete with temple and sacrifices. And that in fulfillment of the following:
"to stop their transgression, to put an end to sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place." - Dan.9:24
After the end of the seven year tribulation when Christ returns to end the age, Another temple, much larger than any of the previous temples, will be built at the beginning of the millennial period. This millennial temple is described in detail in Ezekiel 40-48.
The temple built at the beginning of the seven year period, will be built in order to fulfill that last seven years of the seventy seven year periods decreed upon Israel and Jerusalem. After the church is gone, God is going to pick up right where He left off with Israel regarding that decree, complete with temple and sacrifices. And that in fulfillment of the following:
"to stop their transgression, to put an end to sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place." - Dan.9:24
-
1
- Show all
It's not an opinion, but a teaching. You claim that the temple is spiritual, yet not only does the scripture give us a detailed description of its physical dimensions, but it also lists the land allotment for each tribe of Israel, with each one starting from the east side of Mediterranean over to the area of the Euphrates and which is completely different from their original land allotments. Spiritual temples (if there were any) don't require dimensions and measurements, priests' rooms, rooms for cutting tools, etc.
I don't supply opinions, but the accuracy of God's word. You would do good to listen, because you are very wrong on a lot of issues.
I don't supply opinions, but the accuracy of God's word. You would do good to listen, because you are very wrong on a lot of issues.
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15 Having 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;
When will that stop? ^
In order for Ezekiel 40-48 to be literally fulfilled in the future, thats gotta go. As do the hebrews verses I posted
How can it be one man in Christ Jesus, if gentiles and levites are treated as different again? Gentiles are "unclean" again and circumcision in the flesh means something again in Ez 40-48, which means Philippians 3:3 is out too!
Is anyone else seeing this?
There is no way to reconcile this unless someone pulls out a verse saying the one man in Christ, Eph2, Phil 3:3, etc. no longer apply after the rapture happens or something, and ive never seen a verse like that.
I've seen "until the times of gentiles" but thats IT!
Im surprised this hasnt caused any more controversy in the churches, have people not read Ezekiel 40-48 and they take the pastor's word for it, or do they just not see the way it contradicts all of the NT and im just a crazy guy that done lost his mind?
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15 Having 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;
When will that stop? ^
In order for Ezekiel 40-48 to be literally fulfilled in the future, thats gotta go. As do the hebrews verses I posted
How can it be one man in Christ Jesus, if gentiles and levites are treated as different again? Gentiles are "unclean" again and circumcision in the flesh means something again in Ez 40-48, which means Philippians 3:3 is out too!
Is anyone else seeing this?
There is no way to reconcile this unless someone pulls out a verse saying the one man in Christ, Eph2, Phil 3:3, etc. no longer apply after the rapture happens or something, and ive never seen a verse like that.
I've seen "until the times of gentiles" but thats IT!
Im surprised this hasnt caused any more controversy in the churches, have people not read Ezekiel 40-48 and they take the pastor's word for it, or do they just not see the way it contradicts all of the NT and im just a crazy guy that done lost his mind?
Ok, lets look at this a moment,,,
As you say the antichrist will make a 7 year deal with them and permit them to build a temple and then he breaks the deal.
Is God the Almighty present in the that temple and does he see it as Holy? If not and it is not seen as Holy by God how can the antichrist pollute something that is not regarded as Holy by God?
lol, which is my point in that if it is not considered Holy then it cannot be polluted by an image being set up in it, it could just as well be a portable building if God was not in it. That's why I am saying it has to be a temple of the will of God,with him in it before it could be polluted by the MoS's image.
-
1
- Show all