What does Daniel 9:26 really refer to?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by firedome, Feb 11, 2004.

  1. firedome

    firedome
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2001
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have been considering Daniel 9:26 and have tried to look at it from different perspectives when dealing with the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. When approaching this verse I came to the word sanctuary and pondered if indeed this actually speaks of the third temple to be built by the Hebrews as the followers of pre-tribulation attach to this verse. The one thing I realized is that this word denotes a sacred place or thing rarely abstract. Now I am no Bible scholar but, the word abstract is defined as something that is separate or distinct from something else. If by definition then the word sanctuary means a holy place, how can the third temple that supposedly is to be built by the Hebrews to be considered a holy place? I mean if the church has been raptured up to heaven and the Holy Spirit is removed from the Earth, how does one consider this building that is built by men to be a holy place? It is my understanding that the third temple has already been built. It was built on the day of Pentecost in Acts. Correct me if I am wrong, but God is the one who declares one to be holy, no one else has that right. Additionally, it is my understanding that if the temple is to be destroyed then it goes to reason that the entire city will be destroyed as well for the verse says that the city will be destroyed as well. I believe, but am not certain, that the majority of pre-tribulation subscribers promote the theory that God will not allow the city of Jerusalem to be destroyed prior to His second coming.
     
  2. Tim

    Tim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2001
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    firedome,

    No corrections necessary. Your perceptions fit the text, history, and common sense.

    The second temple and city were destroyed by the people of the prince that "shall" (from Daniel's perspective) come. We (believers) are the third temple, the temple of the Holy Spirit. Any new physical temple built would be a sham--and certainly not a true holy place or sanctuary.

    In other words, if they build it--He will not come. It wouldn't be His house.

    In Christ,

    Tim
     
  3. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I started to respond earlier and then stopped. I should have gone ahead. There are several problems.

    The city and the sanctuary obviously refer to Jerusalem and the temple. It is hard pressed to apply “city” to anything other than Jerusalem without destroying any meaning in the text. Quite obviously, “sanctuary” has the meaning of temple. It may not necessarily be the Solomonic temple rebuilt, but it is most certainly a holy place in the city recognized for its religious import. The word does not only mean “holy” in the sense of righteous. It can mean merely set apart, much as we might call a mosque or a synagogue a “holy place” in colloquial speech.

    The church is a temple, but it should not be confused with the temple in Jerusalem. To try to read the book of Acts back into Dan 9 is grasping at straws.

    To say, as Tim did, that a new temple would be a sham is to call Ezekiel a sham. There is no warrant for such a statement. We should rather assume that God meant what he said.

    There are a number of problems in your view, most of which are solved by simply reading the text at face value rather than trying to shoe horn things in that aren’t supposed to be there. Have you ever considered the possibility that Daniel is talking about something different than Acts? That should be the first thought that comes into your mind. In reality, is the only thought that can withstand critical exegesis of the passage.

    Again, as all these discussions do, it always comes down to the value we place on the text itself.
     
  4. Dave Taylor

    Dave Taylor
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry wrote:
    If you are referring to the temple described in Exekiel 40-48 as being a future, expected, literal stone temple that will someday be built in Jerusalem....then I would like to share with you, and many people who unknowingly also believe this notion; that it cannot be true.

    (If you aren't saying that, then you can skip this post if you want; or read on if you have time.)


    To summarize my position:
    I believe Christ will one-day, in the future, reign in glory upon the Earth with His glorified redeemed.

    I do not, however, believe Ezekiel 40-48 is even remotely trying to describe that grand and glorious reign. I believe it is Biblically impossible, with our access and knowledge to the writings of the New Testament, to ever expect Ezekiel 40-48 to be a future literal fulfillment based on the details it literally describes.


    Many folks flippantly teach that Ezekiel 40-48 is a literal picture of an expected earthly temple that Christ will reign from on the Earth sometime in the future; but rarely examine the literal details of what Exekiel 40-48 actually teaches to verify and validate if they conform to the premise.

    Is it really what they claim it to be though?

    Should we examine the details more carefully, and in the needed literal light of interpretation?

    Do these verses below teach us that Ezekeil 40-48 is describing a future period of time?

    Read the verses and ask yourself the question after each one of them. In light of what the NT teaches in regards to Calvary, I can see no possible way that Ezekiel chapters 40-48 are describing a literal temple with these literal practices in humanities future.

    I believe Ezekiel 40-48 must be describing something else; otherwise, Calvary and much of the NT writings are left in shambles.

    </font>

    • Ezekiel 40:7 "The guardroom was one rod long and one rod wide; and there were five cubits between the guardrooms."
      </font>
    If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, why are there literal guardrooms..to guard Christ from whom?


    </font>

    • Ezekiel 40:38 "A chamber with its doorway was by the side pillars at the gates; there they rinse the burnt offering. A chamber with its doorway was by the side pillars at the gates; there they rinse the burnt offering."
      </font>
    If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, why are there literal burnt offerings in Christ's temple?


    </font>

    • Ezekiel 40:39 "In the porch of the gate were two tables on each side, on which to slaughter the burnt offering, the sin offering and the guilt offering. In the porch of the gate were two tables on each side, on which to slaughter the burnt offering, the sin offering and the guilt offering."
      </font>
    If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, why are there literal animals being slaughtered, and burnt, guilt, and literal animal sin offerings from those sacrificed animals being offered in Christ's temple?


    </font>

    • Ezekiel 40:46 "the chamber which faces toward the north is for the priests who keep charge of the altar. These are the sons of Zadok, who from the sons of Levi come near to the LORD to minister to Him." but the chamber which faces toward the north is for the priests who keep charge of the altar. These are the sons of Zadok, who from the sons of Levi come near to the LORD to minister to Him."
      </font>
    Zadok was a priest in Solomon's temple in 2 Samuel. Levi was one of the sons of Jacob who was charged with temple ordinances. If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, do we expect the literal descendents of these men to be the sole ones to minister to the Lord in this temple?


    </font>

    • Ezekiel 41:4 He measured its length, twenty cubits, and the width, twenty cubits, before the nave; and he said to me, "This is the most holy place." He measured its length, twenty cubits, and the width, twenty cubits, before the nave; and he said to me, "This is the most holy place."
      </font>
    If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, will God truly have a 'holy place' in this temple? If Christ is literally on the earth, in a Kingdom of righteousness, are we really literally expecting the 'holy place' to be limited to this one room inside this temple building?


    </font>

    • Ezekiel 42:13 "Then he said to me, "The north chambers and the south chambers, which are opposite the separate area, they are the holy chambers where the priests who are near to the LORD shall eat the most holy things. There they shall lay the most holy things, the grain offering, the sin offering and the guilt offering; for the place is holy. Then he said to me, "The north chambers and the south chambers, which are opposite the separate area, they are the holy chambers where the priests who are near to the LORD shall eat the most holy things. There they shall lay the most holy things, the grain offering, the sin offering and the guilt offering; for the place is holy. "When the priests enter, then they shall not go out into the outer court from the sanctuary without laying there their garments in which they minister, for they are holy. They shall put on other garments; then they shall approach that which is for the people." "When the priests enter, then they shall not go out into the outer court from the sanctuary without laying there their garments in which they minister, for they are holy. They shall put on other garments; then they shall approach that which is for the people."
      </font>
    If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, why are their priests that are considered clean and holy; and why are the separated from the other people who are in the outer court? Why are some people's garments holy and others not; if this is suppose to be after Christ has glorified all His people and He will allow all His people to come into His presence?


    </font>

    • Ezekiel 42:20 "He measured it on the four sides; it had a wall all around, the length five hundred and the width five hundred, to divide between the holy and the profane. He measured it on the four sides; it had a wall all around, the length five hundred and the width five hundred, to divide between the holy and the profane."
      </font>
    If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, why are there profane people being found in Christ's temple that must be divided in different areas within the temple from those people that are considered more or less holy? Won't all Christ's believers with Him in His temple be holy then?


    </font>

    • Ezekiel 43:10 "As for you, son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the plan. "As for you, son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the plan. "If they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the house, its structure, its exits, its entrances, all its designs, all its statutes, and all its laws. And write it in their sight, so that they may observe its whole design and all its statutes and do them. "If they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the house, its structure, its exits, its entrances, all its designs, all its statutes, and all its laws. And write it in their sight, so that they may observe its whole design and all its statutes and do them."
      </font>
    If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, why will there be people in Christ's temple who are ashamed of Christ and all that He has done?


    </font>

    • Ezekiel 43:18 And He said to me, " Son of man, thus says the Lord GOD, 'These are the statutes for the altar on the day it is built, to offer burnt offerings on it and to sprinkle blood on it. And He said to me, " Son of man, thus says the Lord GOD, 'These are the statutes for the altar on the day it is built, to offer burnt offerings on it and to sprinkle blood on it. 'You shall give to the Levitical priests who are from the offspring of Zadok, who draw near to Me to minister to Me,' declares the Lord GOD, 'a young bull for a sin offering."
      </font>
    If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, why are there be literal sprinklings of animal blood and literal sin offerings of young bulls in Christ's temple? Doesn't that mock Calvary?


    </font>

    • Ezekiel 43:20 'You shall take some of its blood and put it on its four horns and on the four corners of the ledge and on the border round about; thus you shall cleanse it and make atonement for it."
      </font>
    If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, why is the blood of bulls providing for cleansing and atonement in Christ's temple?


    </font>

    • Ezekiel 43:25 'For seven days you shall prepare daily a goat for a sin offering; also a young bull and a ram from the flock, without blemish, shall be prepared. 'For seven days you shall prepare daily a goat for a sin offering; also a young bull and a ram from the flock, without blemish, shall be prepared. 'For seven days they shall make atonement for the altar and purify it; so shall they consecrate it. 'For seven days they shall make atonement for the altar and purify it; so shall they consecrate it."
      </font>
    If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, why is the goat, bull, and unblemished rams providing for the literal atonement, purification, and consecration in Christ's temple?


    </font>

    • Ezekiel 43:27 'When they have completed the days, it shall be that on the eighth day and onward, the priests shall offer your burnt offerings on the altar, and your peace offerings; and I will accept you,' declares the Lord GOD."
      </font>
    If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, why is the Lord only accepting people after they follow the rituals of these animal sacrifices in Christ's temple?


    </font>

    • Ezekiel 44:5 "The LORD said to me, "Son of man, mark well, see with your eyes and hear with your ears all that I say to you concerning all the statutes of the house of the LORD and concerning all its laws; and mark well the entrance of the house, with all exits of the sanctuary."
      </font>
    If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, why is the Lord requiring a literal return to the laws and statues of the sacrificial system he abolished at Cavarly?


    </font>

    • Ezekiel 44:6 "You shall say to the rebellious ones, to the house of Israel, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, " Enough of all your abominations, O house of Israel, "You shall say to the rebellious ones, to the house of Israel, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, " Enough of all your abominations, O house of Israel, when you brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary to profane it, even My house, when you offered My food, the fat and the blood; for they made My covenant void--this in addition to all your abominations. when you brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary to profane it, even My house, when you offered My food, the fat and the blood; for they made My covenant void--this in addition to all your abominations. "And you have not kept charge of My holy things yourselves, but you have set foreigners to keep charge of My sanctuary." "And you have not kept charge of My holy things yourselves, but you have set foreigners to keep charge of My sanctuary."
      </font>
    If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, why are rebellious and physically uncircumcised foreigners being allowed by the Lord into Christ's temple?


    </font>

    • Ezekiel 44:9 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the sons of Israel, shall enter My sanctuary. 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the sons of Israel, shall enter My sanctuary."
      </font>
    If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, why is the Lord now forbidding anyone that is literally not physically circumcised to enter Christ's temple? Especially after Paul taught us in the NT that physical circumcision had been done away with?


    </font>

    • Ezekiel 44:10 "But the Levites who went far from Me when Israel went astray, who went astray from Me after their idols, shall bear the punishment for their iniquity. "But the Levites who went far from Me when Israel went astray, who went astray from Me after their idols, shall bear the punishment for their iniquity. "
      </font>
    If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, why do the Levites have idols in Christ's Temple, especially since Isaiah chapter 2 and Revelation tells us all idols are destroyed when the Day of the Lord Comes?


    </font>

    • Ezekiel 44:11 "they shall slaughter the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people"
      </font>
    If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, why are priests again required to slaughter and offer burnt sacrifices for the people in Christ's temple? Was Christ's sacrifice on Calvary not good enough for these supposed future people?


    </font>

    • Ezekiel 44:19 "When they go out into the outer court, into the outer court to the people, they shall put off their garments in which they have been ministering and lay them in the holy chambers; then they shall put on other garments so that they will not transmit holiness to the people with their garments."
      </font>
    If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, why won't the people in Christ' temple who are outside the holy chambers but still within the temple not be allowed to have holiness transmitted to them? And why do garments transmit holiness in Christ's temple?


    </font>

    • Ezekiel 44:22 "And they shall not marry a widow or a divorced woman but shall take virgins from the offspring of the house of Israel, or a widow who is the widow of a priest. "And they shall not marry a widow or a divorced woman but shall take virgins from the offspring of the house of Israel, or a widow who is the widow of a priest.

      For those who believe Ezekiel 44 takes place after the Resurrection, if this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, why is there marrying after the resurrection? Didn't Jesus say there would be no marrying after the resurrection?


      • </font>

      • Ezekiel 44:24 "In a dispute they shall take their stand to judge; they shall judge it according to My ordinances. They shall also keep My laws and My statutes in all My appointed feasts and sanctify My sabbaths."
        </font>
      This vision of Ezekiel 40-48s Temple, if it is to be a literal future Temple, shows us a complete abandonment of the NT Covenant, and a complete return to the OT system. Do we really literally expect this change to occur in Christ's temple in the future?


      </font>

      • Ezekiel 44:28 "And it shall be with regard to an inheritance for them, that I am their inheritance; and you shall give them no possession in Israel--I am their possession. "And it shall be with regard to an inheritance for them, that I am their inheritance; and you shall give them no possession in Israel--I am their possession."
        </font>
      According to this passage, Israel even after Christ returns to reign, will not receive the land inheritance that many claim it will receive. Why should we then belive Ezekiel's temple is describing a future period?


      </font>

      • Ezekiel 44:31 "The priests shall not eat any bird or beast that has died a natural death or has been torn to pieces. "The priests shall not eat any bird or beast that has died a natural death or has been torn to pieces. "
        </font>
      The Lord told Peter in Acts that all food is now clean because of what Christ accomplished at Calvary. Why does the Lord repeal that change, and return to calling certain foods unclean?


      </font>

      • Ezekiel 45:8 "This shall be his land for a possession in Israel; so My princes shall no longer oppress My people, but they shall give the rest of the land to the house of Israel according to their tribes." "This shall be his land for a possession in Israel; so My princes shall no longer oppress My people, but they shall give the rest of the land to the house of Israel according to their tribes." 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Enough, you princes of Israel; put away violence and destruction, and practice justice and righteousness. Stop your expropriations from My people," declares the Lord GOD. 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Enough, you princes of Israel; put away violence and destruction, and practice justice and righteousness. Stop your expropriations from My people," declares the Lord GOD."
        </font>
      If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, w hy will there be people committing violences and destructions and oppressions during Christ's reign in His Temple?


      </font>

      • Ezekiel 45:19 "The priest shall take some of the blood from the sin offering and put it on the door posts of the house, on the four corners of the ledge of the altar and on the posts of the gate of the inner court. "The priest shall take some of the blood from the sin offering and put it on the door posts of the house, on the four corners of the ledge of the altar and on the posts of the gate of the inner court. "Thus you shall do on the seventh day of the month for everyone who goes astray or is naive; so you shall make atonement for the house. "Thus you shall do on the seventh day of the month for everyone who goes astray or is naive; so you shall make atonement for the house. "
        </font>
      If this is a literal description of a rebuilt future earthly temple where Christ will reign, why, in Christ's temple will they return to putting animal blood on the doorposts of houses to make atonement for the houses and everyone that goes astray in them instead of calling on the atonement Christ gave at Calvary?


      Do, now after reading the scriptures from Ezekiel 40-48 more carefully and indepth, still believe all of these verses will literally be fulfilled the way they are literally described and detailed somewhere in the mankind's future?


      p.s. If any of you are wanting other possibilities that are more viable to explain Ezekiel 40-48's temple; other that the obvious inability that it cannot be a future literal stone builing; you might want to look into two chapters to see how they may apply to this.


      </font>
      [ February 11, 2004, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Dave Taylor ]
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dave, my friend ...

    Surely you are not under the impression that you have come up with something new are you? These questions have all long been answered. And as I have pointed out frequently, the difference in our approach to the text.

    A very good case can and should be made that your position depends on denying what God actually said, in favor of what your eschatological position needs him to say. We labor under no such necessity. We can let the text of Scripture stand as it does, understanding that God said what he meant. I think you labor under a misundestanding of the Millennial reign of Christ. Many people do and since they do not believe it, they feel free to be able to not put much effort into really understanding it.

    I think further study reveals all of your questions to be fully answerable, with cogent textual explanations that maintain the integrity of the text, and that is what is at stake, I believe. The integrity of God's revelation. If he said something he didn't mean (which is what your position maintains), then what are the implications of that? If he said there would be a temple and there really won't be, then doesn't that make him a liar? I am sure you have an answer, but I would assert that God doesn't need you to parse his words to maintain his integrity. Is it not easier just to say that God meant what he said?

    If God can so easily abandon his promise to the nation of Israel, then what keeps him from abandoning his promise to his elect? Does not God become inherently inconsistent?

    There has not been enough serious reflection on these points in eschatology. We have tended to often to interpret Scripture in light of current events and the incredulity of believing Christ can reign over this world. The current situation has led many (since the 300s when premillennialism was first abandoned on a wide scale basis) has led people to redefine what God said since they cannot conceive that he actually meant what the words mean. I simply cannot stomach that proposition. I prefer to side with the integrity of the text and rearrange my theology around that.
     
  6. firedome

    firedome
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2001
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Larry,

    So you're saying there is another place in the Bible that gives reference to this? Would you please show me? As I stated before, I am no Bible scholar, I only state what I am see. What I see is a clear reference in Exodus 40 where the articles to be placed in the tabernacle, more precisely the Holy of Holies, are to be anointed with oil. Then in verse 35 The Lord filled the tabernacle. Now it is my understanding that oil always refers to the Holy Spirit. This leads me to believe that The Lord will not occupy any space that has not been worked upon by His Spirit. If this is the case, then I present to you the question, what happened in Acts 2? Are not the types or pictures given us and the old covenant saints supposed to be more clearly or at times crystal clear to us in the New Testament?

    As for taking the text in Daniel 9:26 at face value, Is not the verse speaking of The Lord sending an army to destroy Jerusalem and the/a Temple/Holy Place? If not, then to whom is this referring to?

    Maranatha,
    Rodney
     
  7. Dave Taylor

    Dave Taylor
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry wrote:
    Ezekiel 40-48 does not ever mention this vision given to Ezekiel as being 'a promise' to the nation of Israel. You assume into this vision a promise that is not given.

    There is a future temple described in scripture following Ezekiel's Temple; and one that is different than Zerubbabel/Herods which can be described in the NT...but it isn't Ezekiel's Temple.

    Ezekiel's Temple following Calvary would be an abomination unto Christ.


    Larry wrote:
    My position doesn't maintaint that God didn't mean what He said Larry. It only means that God didn't intend 'what your position' thinks He meant by Ezekiel 40-48.

    By the same logic that you say God would be a liar if he said there would be a temple and there wasn't one; you could also say that God would be a liar in fulfilling a future Ezekiel temple in with the literal animal sacrifices for the atonement for sins, when God said that Christ alone was is the eternal sole atonement for sin.

    Don't you see that you can't force your view upon Ezekiel 40-48 and say any other view makes God a liar; when the literal details of your interpretation would make God a liar on other counts?

    I don't think God is a liar.
    Nor do I think you believe God is a liar.

    You are only trying to force Ezekiels Temple to be something that it cannot be and are unwilling to let go of that premise.

    Perhaps, God gave Ezekiel's vision as a conditional prophecy? Perhaps there might have been a time following Ezekiel's day, when it might have literally been fulfilled; but God chose to revoke that vision; because of Israel's unbelief? Many times throughout scripure God gives promises and visions and pictures of future events that He also can remove and choose to revoke.

    Deuteronomy 28-29 give us plentiful examples of this. Israel's continued treks into and out of captivity shows us this precidence.

    No God isn't a liar.
    Nor is Ezekiel's Temple ever going to literally be built and its literal activities ever be literally executed.

    To do so would be to scrap the NT writings, and return solely to Judaism. Perhaps Dispensationalism would like to undertake that trip; all in order to hold onto its dichotomy tenants....

    If their is any truth whatsoever, to the writings of the New Testament (and I would stake my life that they are 100% accurate), then your expectation of Ezekiel's Temple cannot, and will not ever become a reality in a physical and literal way.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    But again, notice the lack of any argumentation. This is your assertion. It is certainly not the assertion of the text.


    Then why use those words? Why not use word that communicated what he actually meant, if he didn't mean what the words he used meant? You see, ultimately, you have a real dilemma. Who gets to pick and choose what words mean? You have taken the words and defined what they mean. I take them and define them to mean something else? Who gets to decide who is right? The ultimate arbiter must be the original author intent. And that intent can only be measured by words?

    But this is answered very simply by studying the full import of sacrifices in teh OT. They were not simply for sin. I agree that if sacrifices were for the actual atoning of sin, it would compromise Christ's atonement. But they are not. Sacrifices in the OT and in the millennium were also theocractic/civil and worship. I can see very easily why there would be memorial sacrifices in the millennium as a testimony to what God has done in Christ and as a means of submission to him. That doesn't compromise Christ at all.

    But that is just it ... I haven't forced a view on the text at all. I have merely read it for what it says. There is no reason not to take it literally, unless you subscribe to a system with a particular end in mind.

    I wasn't trying to accuse you of that.

    But agian, I am not trying to force anything and there is no reason, apart from your system, that my interpretation cannot be right. Being unencumbered by your system allows me to read the text for what it says.

    But those very chapters give unconditional promises about restoration after repentance. YOu cannot omit that, as I pointed out.

    But there is absolutely no legitimate biblical substantiation for this. You can say it and say it forcefully, but ultimately you still have to deal with the text fairly and I do not believe you have done that. You have allowed your system to dictate what the text can say. I cannot see that as a legitimate hermeneutic.

    I can explain every text that I know of with respect to the literal fulfillment of Ezekiel. Perhaps there are some texts I am not familiar with. Who knows ... But to make blanket assertions about what can or cannot be while ignoring the validity of the meaning of the words is a position I am unwilling to take. The text must be given a high place.
     
  9. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Larry, you are amazing.

    Ezekiel 45:19 "The priest shall take some of the blood from the sin offering .....

    On one hand you take OT prophecies at face-value and literal, then on the other hand when given other OT prophecies you engage in double speak. So does the above verse mean those sacrifices were for sin or not?
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you :D

    Where is the double speak?? The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. ONly Christ could. The blood of bulls and goats in the millennium will be a reminder of Christ's death, a commemoration for it. What is wrong with that?? I don't see why that is so difficult.
     
  11. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's always important to think of context...

    Daniel prayed for Israel, keeping in his heart the words of Jeremiah about the exile. In Daniel 9:21 Gabriel comes to communicate with him.

    The following verses concern Daniel's prayer for Israel. The language is very figurative - typical of Jewish apocalyptic. We likely miss the point by trying to assign a literal precise year value for the weeks. It is the fact the Messiah will come and be cut off - and the sin of Israel will be dealt with.

    P.S. I agree with Dave Taylor on Ezekiel. Literal expectation here misses the boat I think.

    Larry said, "The ultimate arbiter must be the original author intent." But then said, "There is no reason not to take it literally, unless you subscribe to a system with a particular end in mind."

    These statements don't really line up! By insisting on a literal interpretation (not the likely authorial intent by what we know of Jewish apocalyptic) we are subscribing to a system with a particular end in mind - and thus the error of dispensationalism! [​IMG]
     
  12. Tim

    Tim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2001
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apparently God has a problem with offering sacrifices after the final sacrifice. Hebrews 10 makes a pretty good case for that. But of course that's a NT clarification--a faithful dispensationalist must stick with literal interpretation of the OT.
     
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    God has
    a problem with sin,
    but it still takes place on earth.

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    The simple things are the deep ones!

    Right on Ed! [​IMG]
     
  15. Tim

    Tim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2001
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed,

    Good line, but a little off point. God wouldn't refer to something as "holy" if He disapproves of it.

    Tim
     
  16. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Let me quote you Larry.
    Can you sustantiate from scripture where it says sacrifices of bulls and goats for a sin offering will be for a commemoration? Or is that an interpretation filtered through the grid of futurism? Scriptures please.
     
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Grasshopper: "Can you sustantiate from scripture where
    it says sacrifices of bulls and goats
    for a sin offering
    will be for a commemoration? "

    This is an unnecessary complication.
    All that was claimed was:

    "The blood of bulls and goats in the millennium
    will be a reminder of Christ's death,
    a commemoration for it."

    Not a drop of blood of cattle and goats
    will forgive any sin in the millennium.
    The pure blood that flows from Christ's body
    unto all the world a healing stream will
    forgive sin in the millennium.
    Still, there will be physical live sacrifices at
    a physical Temple in a physical Yesrusalem
    as a physical Jesus rules on a physical David's
    throne. Because all this physical stuff has not
    happened yet, it will be a future thing to happen yet.

    And as i have time, guess what i'm going
    to have to say about Daniel 9:26,
    futuristically speaking .

    [​IMG]
     
  18. firedome

    firedome
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2001
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    0
    First off, what has this got to do with my original post? Secondly, why would we have to sacrifice goats and bulls for a reminder of Christ's sacrifice? Does He not still bear the marks of the cross?

    Maranatha,
    Rodney
     
  19. DeafPosttrib

    DeafPosttrib
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dave,

    I am so glad that you just recent join this discussion forum. Keep it up!

    Larry,

    Remember, Ezekiel chapter 40-48 is only vision. Nothing anywhere in the context of Ezekiel 40-48 mentioned, 'a thouand years' there.

    Ezekiel 40-48 speak about Jesus Christ and the sacrifice.

    I suggest you to read and study whole book of Hebrews in the New Testament, that book discusses about the sacrifice, and it already fulfilled the old covenant, and Old Testament peophecies speak about Calvary.

    We do not need another future sacrifice again anymore. Because Christ said, "it is finished" - John 19:30.

    On Daniel 9:26 speak about the destruction of Jerusalem that was fulfilled in year 70 A.D.

    'people'of the prince shall come and destroy destroy city and the sacrifices too. It does not saying 'Prince" shall come to destroy Jerusalem. It says, 'PEOPLE' of the prince.

    Who is the Prince? Messiah - Dan. 9:25 "Messiah the Prince". Obivously, it speaks of Messiah - Jesus Christ, not Antichrist.

    Does Christ allow people come and destroy the city and stop the sacrifices?

    Yes.

    In John 2:19, Jesus told them, that He would destroy that building of the temple, and He will raise it up in three days. The Jews were not understand what Christ was talking about. They told Him, that building of temple builted took for 46 years, but 3 days? Impossible.

    John 2:21 - Jesus speaks of his body as the temple.

    Yes, Christ did destroyed that building of the temple. It was not destroyed till year 70 A.D.

    When Jesus was on the cross, he said, "It is finished" - John 19:30, he means that the sacrifices are no more again, now Christ is the Lamb, and we are Christ's temple, because He is our temple.

    We do not need another future sacrifice again in the future, because Christ is our Lamb, we can ask Christ to forgive us our sins 24 hours daily.

    The context of Dan. 9:24-27 does not mentioned about the Antichrist shall come and make covenant with Israel for peace treaty. It mentioned about the covenant of Calvary already fulfilled 2000 years ago. We do not have to wait for Daniel 70th week to start in the future. It already fulfilled at Calvary.

    In Christ
    Rev. 22:20 - Amen!
     
  20. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    DeafPosttrib: //On Daniel 9:26 speak about the destruction
    of Jerusalem that was fulfilled in year 70 A.D.

    //'people'of the prince shall come and destroy destroy city
    and the sacrifices too. It does not saying 'Prince" shall
    come to destroy Jerusalem. It says, 'PEOPLE' of the prince.

    //Who is the Prince? Messiah - Dan. 9:25 "Messiah the Prince".
    Obivously, it speaks of Messiah - Jesus Christ, not Antichrist."//

    Ah, i got it! Romans destroyed the Temple in 70AD and Jerusalem
    in 130AD. So Jesus is a Roman! I don't think so. Jesus
    was a Jew.

    Not much time to post, must go do the day shift.
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...