Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Messiah and Jerusalem's Deliverance
#21
(08-19-2013, 10:43 AM)benyosef Wrote: If we must administer blame, we can blame the many Jews who fell prey to the many traps which lured them away from G-D's Torah, such as the Hellenists, Sadducees, early Christians, etc. The Pharisees certainly tried to keep Jews Jewish, but secularization proved quite a force.

The Pharisees were certainly not excluded from Avraham’s covenant for we are still here as dust of the earth: anyone who wishes seems to have free reign to step all over us (see the UN for a good example).

So, you're saying that the Pharisees were not excluded because they are as dust. How many Jews are there in the world exactly? And then you say that anyone who wishes can have free reign to step all over you. That doesn't sound like you are in the promises at all. That sounds more like Deut. 28:43-44 to me.

Quote:Good question. Leviticus 4:2 says sin sacrifices only work for unintentional sins, which could still be possible despite universal knowledge of G-D, for we are human.

Another answer: When someone or something was inaugurated into Divine service, a sin-offering was brought (the priests in Exodus 29 and the Tabernacle in Numbers 7 are two examples). Thus, the sin-offerings specifically mentioned in Ezekiel 43:18-27 are for the inauguration of the third Temple.

The reason why sin offerings were ever necessary is because the Torah makes us aware of our sins. Beforehand, those sins were not counted against us because we had no awareness of sin. Then the command came and caused sin to spring to life, bring curses and death upon us. That is what the Torah does. It judges and condemns sin. But it doesn't destroy sin. And that is why sacrifice is constantly needed.
Quote:The question is really on Christianity, who maintains the sacrificial system is forever done away with (Hb 10:12, 26). What do Christians do with the sacrifices in Ezekiel 43?

We count them in Jesus, who inaugurated a new temple (Ephesians 2), which is the Church, with His own body, calling us to be priests unto God (Revelation 1:6, 5:10, and 20:6) and a kingdom. We are the temple, Jesus is both the Prince and the High Priest. Our offerings are prayers, suffering, and deeds of steadfast love, justice, and righteousness.

The point of the temple is not the Levites. The point of the temple is God among men. If you believe Joel 2 and Zechariah 13, then you must admit that God Himself pours His Spirit, the one that Ezekiel saw leaving the temple, onto all believers. Thus, the believers become the temple.

Jeremiah 23 speaks of a Jerusalem and a Judah that, until the son of David reigns, were not dwelling safely. Is this “new Jerusalem” dwelling safely now? How will we be able to tell? What about Judah: is there a “new Judah” which is now saved from its enemies?

[/quote]

Revelation 21 shows that New Jerusalem is in heaven. Philippians 3:20-21 sheds more light on that.
#22
(08-21-2013, 09:27 AM)Bluefinger2009 Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 06:47 PM)Nachshon Wrote: Sorry, none of these verses equates Jerusalem with believers.

Really what part about Philippians 3:20-21 did you not get that from?

"But we are citizens of the state (commonwealth, homeland) which is in heaven, and from it also we earnestly and patiently await [the coming of] the Lord Jesus Christ (the Messiah) [as] Savior, Who will transform and fashion anew the body of our humiliation to conform to and be like the body of His glory and majesty, by exerting that power which enables Him even to subject everything to Himself." (Philippians 3:20, 21 AMP)

As I posted earlier, Ephesians 2 shows us that the believers themselves are the temple. Philippians 3 shows us that we are also citizens of the state which is in heaven. Revelation 21 shows that the state being referred to is called New Jerusalem. And Christian theology shows that we are found in Jesus, the ruler of New Jerusalem. And if we are found in Jesus, then we are co-heirs to the throne. Thus, as Revelation 1:5 shows, we are not only priests of the temple of God, which is the Church, but we are also a kingdom.

Put together, the believers are the kingdom of God. If you cannot see that, then you are refusing to. That kingdom is called New Jerusalem. Thus, the believers all over the world are Jerusalem.

"Another story by way of comparison He set forth before them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field. Of all the seeds it is the smallest, but when it has grown it is the largest of the garden herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and find shelter in its branches." (Matthew 13:31, 32 AMP)
You're reading into these verses what you want to, and what is not there.

Eph 2/2 Cor 6:16 should really refer to G-d dwelling/His name residing in His temple because we know from 1 Kings 8:27; Dan 2:11, that G-d does not dwell in the physical or flesh. Where His name is spoken, honored, in that sense He is there, not that He is physically there.

Phil 3:20-21 only talks about citizenship in heaven. This does not mean people equal Jerusalem.

Rev 21 shows a new Jerusalem descending and Hashem dwelling in the temple, not in people, as was previously done. There's no association with people being Jerusalem. This should be understood with my explanation for the Name dwelling above.

If you read Isaiah 66, you get a different picture of who will be in Jerusalem.
#23
(08-21-2013, 04:01 PM)Nachshon Wrote: You're reading into these verses what you want to, and what is not there.

Eph 2/2 Cor 6:16 should really refer to G-d dwelling/His name residing in His temple because we know from 1 Kings 8:27; Dan 2:11, that G-d does not dwell in the physical or flesh. Where His name is spoken, honored, in that sense He is there, not that He is physically there.

So why even worry about a temple in the first place?

I refer back to Joel 2 and Zechariah 13:1, where God pours out His Spirit on all flesh. Ezekiel watched the Spirit depart from Solomon's temple. It did not return to the second temple. The book of Acts states that, on Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles. Thus, the believers became the temple, as supported in Ephesians 2.

Quote:Phil 3:20-21 only talks about citizenship in heaven. This does not mean people equal Jerusalem.

The Apostles taught that Jesus is the Messiah. He ascended to the throne in Heaven and sits on David's throne, which was in Jerusalem. The reasoning, then, is that Jerusalem is in heaven.

Now, if the believers of Jesus are citizens of the heavenly state, they are still citizens of Jerusalem.

"and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." (Revelation 1:5, 6 ESV)

We are made a kingdom. And that kingdom is called New Jerusalem. In the same sense, Israel became a nation in the wilderness, before they ever took the Promised Land. In the same way, the believers are New Jerusalem before they ever see the city. That is what I have been trying to get at.
Quote:Rev 21 shows a new Jerusalem descending and Hashem dwelling in the temple, not in people, as was previously done. There's no association with people being Jerusalem. This should be understood with my explanation for the Name dwelling above.

If you read Isaiah 66, you get a different picture of who will be in Jerusalem.

Gotcha. However, Revelation 21:22 says that there is no temple in the city, for its temple is the LORD God Almighty and the Lamb. In John 17, Jesus desired that we may be in Him as He is in the Father. If we are found in the Lamb, then we are indeed the temple, and God's presence dwells among us.

I also wanted to point out that the gates had the names of the 12 tribes of Israel and the walls had foundations with the names of the 12 apostles, each foundation adorned with jewels matching those on the priestly garments of the Levites. The believers are priests and a kingdom.

I have good reason to believe that the New Jerusalem is the saints themselves, all the physical aspects relating to spiritual concepts, as is typical in the entire book of Revelation.
#24
(08-22-2013, 08:49 PM)Bluefinger2009 Wrote: Gotcha. However, Revelation 21:22 says that there is no temple in the city, for its temple is the LORD God Almighty and the Lamb. In John 17, Jesus desired that we may be in Him as He is in the Father. If we are found in the Lamb, then we are indeed the temple, and God's presence dwells among us.

I also wanted to point out that the gates had the names of the 12 tribes of Israel and the walls had foundations with the names of the 12 apostles, each foundation adorned with jewels matching those on the priestly garments of the Levites. The believers are priests and a kingdom.

I have good reason to believe that the New Jerusalem is the saints themselves, all the physical aspects relating to spiritual concepts, as is typical in the entire book of Revelation.
Okay, then this is where we depart because the Tanakh paints a different picture with the 3rd temple, sacrifices, and a continual keeping of the commandments. I can't talk to the discrepancies in the NT as it relates to the Tanakh.
#25
(08-24-2013, 10:46 PM)Nachshon Wrote: Okay, then this is where we depart because the Tanakh paints a different picture with the 3rd temple, sacrifices, and a continual keeping of the commandments. I can't talk to the discrepancies in the NT as it relates to the Tanakh.

I still want to ask the question why Ezekiel completely skipped over the 2nd temple? Why didn't he even mention it?
#26
Are you asking why he choose not to, or why the prophecies in Ezekial cannot refer to the 2nd temple?
#27
(08-27-2013, 08:14 AM)Nachshon Wrote: Are you asking why he choose not to, or why the prophecies in Ezekial cannot refer to the 2nd temple?

That is curious. If Ezekiel chose not to mention the second temple, is there anything in his book that specifies why?

So far, I haven't seem anything that indicates the author was aware of any other temple than either Solomon's temple that was destroyed by Babylon or the temple aforementioned in the latter chapters in his book.
#28
Bluefinger2009, Ezekiel was only able to speak about what G-D chose to show him, so if there's no talk about the 2nd Temple, it simply wasn't his job or responsibility.
#29
(08-29-2013, 12:43 AM)Bluefinger2009 Wrote:
(08-27-2013, 08:14 AM)Nachshon Wrote: Are you asking why he choose not to, or why the prophecies in Ezekial cannot refer to the 2nd temple?

That is curious. If Ezekiel chose not to mention the second temple, is there anything in his book that specifies why?

So far, I haven't seem anything that indicates the author was aware of any other temple than either Solomon's temple that was destroyed by Babylon or the temple aforementioned in the latter chapters in his book.
Not that I know of. Maybe he knew that the 2nd temple wouldn't last either and chose to focus on the 3rd and final temple.
#30
(08-29-2013, 05:53 PM)Nachshon Wrote:
(08-29-2013, 12:43 AM)Bluefinger2009 Wrote:
(08-27-2013, 08:14 AM)Nachshon Wrote: Are you asking why he choose not to, or why the prophecies in Ezekial cannot refer to the 2nd temple?

That is curious. If Ezekiel chose not to mention the second temple, is there anything in his book that specifies why?

So far, I haven't seem anything that indicates the author was aware of any other temple than either Solomon's temple that was destroyed by Babylon or the temple aforementioned in the latter chapters in his book.
Not that I know of. Maybe he knew that the 2nd temple wouldn't last either and chose to focus on the 3rd and final temple.

Do you think that maybe Ezekiel was written before the second temple was built and that the author used the prophecies and name of Ezekiel to forward his agenda on how the temple and priesthood should look like?

That wouldn't be the first time something like that happened in Scripture. Take a look at Daniel 11. After verse 36, things stop falling in line with actual historical events, leading scholars to believe that someone else wrote Daniel, using his prophecies as a back for his/their agenda on encouraging the Jews to suffer with dignity and await salvation from the Greeks by God's great power.

What do you think? I think it's possible that the temple vision in the latter chapters of Ezekiel were added to Ezekiel's prophecies by a pseudo-author.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)