When did the Old Covenant truly "disappear" and end?

[sovereigngrace]

Christ fulfilled it in a spiritual sense. Believer's bodies also being their temples fulfill it in a spiritual sense. However you conflate the physical temple and spiritual temple as being one and the same. I do not as a plain reading of the text/context indicates otherwise. Your perceive it as an "either-or" fallacy. I see it as both. The temple described in Ezekiel among other things, cannot be Jesus because animal sacrifices take place there performed by priests which is something you have not accounted for. I suspect that you will object and state that this is because Jesus spiritually fulfilled the temple. However, the temple described in Ezekiel cannot be Jesus' spiritual fulfillment as Ezekiel describes a time period which is ruled/led by a Prince (Eze 46:2,4,8,10,12). No where in Israel's past or present has such a man been referred to or described, thus it points to a time in the future where a Prince rules so this prophecy remains unfulfilled. Moreover, this Prince cannot be Jesus. Yet you might protest and exclaim that the Prince is indeed Jesus because his blood fulfilled the need for animal sacrifice. If so, you would be wrong in this case as the Prince is a man who prepares a calf as sacrifice for the sins of the people as well as his own sins (Eze 45:22).
Thus your claim that Ezekiel's prophecy of a temple has already come to pass in the resurrection of Jesus is false as there has been no Prince as described in the OT who has already performed those things. And the Prince certainly cannot be Jesus who had no sin and therefore cannot offer a calf as sacrifice for His own sin. Thus Ezekiel's prophecy has not yet been fulfilled contrary to your claim that it has been fulfilled in Jesus.


Where does the author state that animal sacrifices brought remission? Scripture itself states no such thing. Do you believe animal sacrifices brought remission of sin? Yes or No? If you do, Heb 10:4 states the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin but rather it serves as a reminder of sin (Heb 10:3). Apparently you are unaware of this critical distinction. That is why Jesus' blood is the ONLY THING that takes away sin. Your apparent misunderstanding of the reason for animal sacrifice undermines your whole argument.


"Heretical" per your misunderstanding of animal sacrifice.

I totally disagree!

(1) In Ezekiel 40-48, Ezekiel was taken in spirit to a high mountain towards the south where he saw a structure like a city. Ezekiel 40:2 confirms, “In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south.”

There is no specific mention of Jerusalem in this depiction.

(2) The message contained within Ezekiel 40-48 was specifically given “the house of Israel” back in Ezekiel’s day.

Ezekiel 40:4 records: “And the man said unto me, Son of man, behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears, and set thine heart upon all that I shall shew thee; for to the intent that I might shew them unto thee art thou brought hither: declare all that thou seest to the house of Israel.”

(3) Ezekiel 40-48 is a detailed conditional vision; it was not some distant prophecy, as some suggest. The prophet Ezekiel was basically taken up in the Spirit and given a revelation of better things than that which prevailed when he received it.

In the vision Ezekiel was shown an arrangement that was greater than existed around him. Ezekiel 43:2-5 records, “behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory. And it was according to the appearance of the vision which I saw, even according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city: and the visions were like the vision that I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell upon my face. And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east. So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house.”

Here we see the careful connection between the visions and Ezekiel being taken up in the Spirit. The prophet is supernaturally carried into situations that clearly did not exist at that time. They were revealed to him. In reality, the temple was in ruin and the glory of the Lord had departed from the house of God. Notwithstanding, in the visions, “the glory of the LORD came into the house.” Ezekiel was so overwhelmed by what he saw in the Spirit that as a result he “fell upon” his “face.”

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

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

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

Ezekiel 43:10 goes on to outline the gist and purpose of the vision of the temple, saying, “Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.”

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

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

Ezekiel 43:11 continues, “And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.”

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

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

 

[Al Touthentop]

Christ fulfilled it in a spiritual sense. Believer's bodies also being their temples fulfill it in a spiritual sense. However you conflate the physical temple and spiritual temple as being one and the same.

I didn't do that, Jesus did. I just happen to believe him and John, who said that the apostles saw that prophecy regarding the rebuilt temple was about him and not the physical temple.

I do not as a plain reading of the text/context indicates otherwise.

Only because you apparently reject the plain reading of the scripture elsewhere.

John 2:19-21
Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
20 Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this [d]to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.

Your perceive it as an "either-or" fallacy. I see it as both.

That is your choice. It isn't how Jesus wanted his apostles to read it though, nor anyone.

John 5:39
You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.

Luke 24:44-45
Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

The temple described in Ezekiel among other things, cannot be Jesus because animal sacrifices take place there performed by priests which is something you have not accounted for.

“Now when the prince makes a voluntary burnt offering or voluntary peace offering to the Lord, the gate that faces toward the east shall then be opened for him; and he shall prepare his burnt offering and his peace offerings as he did on the Sabbath day. Then he shall go out, and after he goes out the gate shall be shut."

Tell you what....how about you find the word animal in there for me. That would be great.

But John wrote that the temple in scripture - specifically the scriptures which prophesied the rebuilding of the temple - were about Jesus. If you don't read the prophecy of Ezekiel as being about Jesus then you simply don't believe what John wrote. That's fine. I can't make you understand.

By your logic, John the Baptist also didn't come in the spirit of Elijah because he didn't do any excavating.

Isaiah 40:3-4
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
“Prepare the way of the Lord;
Make straight in the desert
A highway for our God.
4 Every valley shall be exalted
And every mountain and hill brought low;
The crooked places shall be made straight
And the rough places smooth;

When did John ever make a highway? See! Proof that this prophecy isn't yet fulfilled!

I suspect that you will object and state that this is because Jesus spiritually fulfilled the temple. However, the temple described in Ezekiel cannot be Jesus' spiritual fulfillment as Ezekiel describes a time period which is ruled/led by a Prince (Eze 46:2,4,8,10,12).

Daniel called Jesus "Messiah the prince" in chapter 9 of his book. Technically Jesus was indeed a prince having been born of David's line.

No where in Israel's past or present has such a man been referred to or described, thus it points to a time in the future where a Prince rules so this prophecy remains unfulfilled.

John the baptist didn't build a highway. Thus Isaiah 40 is yet to be fulfilled.

Moreover, this Prince cannot be Jesus. Yet you might protest and exclaim that the Prince is indeed Jesus because his blood fulfilled the need for animal sacrifice. If so, you would be wrong in this case as the Prince is a man who prepares a calf as sacrifice for the sins of the people as well as his own sins (Eze 45:22).

It doesn't say calf. You've hoisted yourself by your own petard. You are reading things into the text that aren't there.

Thus your claim that Ezekiel's prophecy of a temple has already come to pass in the resurrection of Jesus is false as there has been no Prince as described in the OT who has already performed those things. And the Prince certainly cannot be Jesus who had no sin and therefore cannot offer a calf as sacrifice for His own sin. Thus Ezekiel's prophecy has not yet been fulfilled contrary to your claim that it has been fulfilled in Jesus.

There you go again putting words in scripture that aren't written there.

Where does the author state that animal sacrifices brought remission? Scripture itself states no such thing. Do you believe animal sacrifices brought remission of sin? Yes or No? If you do, Heb 10:4 states the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin but rather it serves as a reminder of sin (Heb 10:3). Apparently you are unaware of this critical distinction. That is why Jesus' blood is the ONLY THING that takes away sin. Your apparent misunderstanding of the reason for animal sacrifice undermines your whole argument.

At the time Paul wrote that, animals couldn't take a way sin because the perfect one sacrifice had already been offered.

But you show your utter ignorance of the scripture when you say that remission did not come through animal sacrifice.

Numbers 19
"Then a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and store them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for the water of purification; it is for purifying from sin."

Leviticus 4
20 And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull as a sin offering; thus he shall do with it. So the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

26 And he shall burn all its fat on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of the peace offering. So the priest shall make [e]atonement for him concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

31 He shall remove all its fat, as fat is removed from the sacrifice of the peace offering; and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a sweet aroma to the Lord. So the priest shall make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

35 He shall remove all its fat, as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of the peace offering. Then the priest shall burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire to the Lord. So the priest shall make atonement for his sin that he has committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

Paul points out in Hebrews that the new Covenant didn't come because the law was imperfect but because of the people's refusal to obey it.

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says:"

A covenant is an agreement between two people - in this case the people of Israel and himself and it was they who broke the covenant. There was nothing wrong with the law or the covenant. It provided remission as God plainly told Moses and Aaron when he gave the law. The problem was with the people. He didn't find fault with the law, he found fault with them.

"Heretical" per your misunderstanding of animal sacrifice.

I understand it fine and the only way you can promote your view is to add words like "calf" and "animal" where they weren't written and then claim, 'see! he was offering animal sacrifices!"

 

[Al Touthentop]

Now this covenant was a conditional covenant and this covenant does not replace the covenant made with Abraham and his seed to be a nation and for the land.

But Paul explains that that covenant was fulfilled. It's over because the promise was not to Israel at all but to Abraham and Jesus himself.

"Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ."

The Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled with Christ.

 

[mkgal1]

Can you answer this question? This is the 4th time I have asked this simple question (#99, #120, #126): Do you mean at the final future coming of Christ?

I noticed you had asked me that four times. Repeating the question wasn't going to prompt me to post any faster.

These are the list of questions I believe you're referring to:

When is sin eliminated?
When is the sinner eliminated?
When is death eliminated?
When is corruption eliminated?
When is Satan eliminated?
When is marriage eliminated?
When is righteousness introduced?

.....and all I can say is that I don't believe we're given much information about that in the Bible. ISTM that the Bible is mostly instruction for how we are to live with His peace in this broken world. We're assured that God is reconciling all things to Himself (in Col 1:20) and I believe that. I don't believe He will violate humanity's free will in doing so.....but I don't believe we can say when that will be.

I put in bold text the one question that stood out to me. That sounds as if you believe in annihilation. It's a good thing this thread was in "controversial" topics - because that's certainly one of them.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I noticed you had asked me that four times. Repeating the question wasn't going to prompt me to post any faster.

These are the list of questions I believe you're referring to:




.....and all I can say is that I don't believe we're given much information about that in the Bible. ISTM that the Bible is mostly instruction for how we are to live with His peace in this broken world. We're assured that God is reconciling all things to Himself (in Col 1:20) and I believe that. I don't believe He will violate humanity's free will in doing so.....but I don't believe we can say when that will be.

I put in bold text the one question that stood out to me. That sounds as if you believe in annihilation. It's a good thing this thread was in "controversial" topics - because that's certainly one of them.

You seem very uncomfortable with these simple questions. Preterists always seem cagey and evasive about what they believe. Why is that? I get so many different answers from them in regard to the exact same simple questions over the years.

When is the coming of the Lord?
Do you believe the above are destroyed at the coming of Christ in the future?
When is the physical resurrection?

No, I do not believe in annihilationism.

 

[mkgal1]

You seem very uncomfortable with these simple questions. Preterists always seem cagey and evasive about what they believe. Why is that?

I've only recently learned about the significance of the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD - so this paradigm is new for me. It's not a matter of "discomfort" but I'm not going to presume to know all the answers. That's a big reason why I discuss on this forum.....to hear (read) other perspectives and thoughts.

I will admit to not being comfortable being interrogated. This thread doesn't quite have the "discussion" vibe to it.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I've only recently learned about the significance of the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD - so this paradigm is new for me. It's not a matter of "discomfort" but I'm not going to presume to know all the answers. That's a big reason why I discuss on this forum.....to hear (read) other perspectives and thoughts.

I will admit to not being comfortable being interrogated. This thread doesn't quite have the "discussion" vibe to it.

I am sorry if it comes across that way, but that is not my heart. While I am Amil, the Partial Preterist position has never seemed to add up to me. I find many contradictions in it that no one seems to be able to explain. I am just trying to get answers to what appears a confusing and ad-hoc doctrine. I have persisted in asking you because I have enjoyed many of your postings on other matters on this board.

My biggest red flag is Partial Preterist's obsession with AD70. This fixation is alarming, unhealthy and plainly unscriptural. To them, it is the focal point of history. Little do they realize, in their preoccupation with this by-gone year, that they are overlooking and undermining the two focal events in Scripture and history – the First Advent and the Second Advent.

When you look in the Old and New Testament, the central emphasis of both is the earthly ministry of Christ and His glorious and majestic second coming. Christ’s sinless life, His atoning death and victorious resurrection were long-anticipated by Moses and the Old Testament prophets. It is also the focus of the New Testament. The glorious final majestic return of Jesus Christ is the final anticipated event in history that every believer has longer for since the fall of man. It is then that corruption will finally be banished and everlasting perfection will be introduced forever.

In the Old Testament, the saints of old yearned for the coming Messiah who would deliver His people and redeem them from their sin. His Messianic ministry ushered in “the last days” period.

Just like Premils are fixated with their supposed future 1000 years after the coming of Christ, and dump multiple unrelated Scriptures into Revelation 20, Preterists are similarly obsessed with AD70, and dump every and any text they find into the Roman destruction of the Jewish Temple and the city of Jerusalem in AD70, as if it was the pivotal moment in time and eternity. No Scripture is safe. It is as if the Holy Spirit in the New Testament has nothing else to speak about but this passing fleeting event that was perpetrated by the Roman soldiers.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

This topic comes up often - and there seems to be a lot of controversy (and even lack of teaching in the churches I've attended over the span of many decades) over the question.

In another thread - these specific questions were asked:

When did the old covenant end?
When did the new covenant begin?
When did "the last days" begin?
When will "the last days" finish?
When is the "end of the age"?
When is the day of redemption?
When did "this age" arrive?
When does "this age" end?
When do the new heavens and new earth arrive?
When did the kingdom of God begin?
When does "the age to come" arrive?
When is "the last day" of "the last days"?
What occurs on "the last day" of "the last days"?

Hebrews states:

Hebrews 8:13 ~ By speaking of a new covenant, He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
​

Has the Old Covenant disappeared? If so......when?

The thing is ... the ancient church wasn't ready for the new covenant, so then came the creeds and the curses attached to everyone who didn't believe.

People observing this call it "under the law" but this is a misnomer, it's actually attached to the anathemas that are attached to the creeds like a bad chain letter.

(So in a sense, it didn't end)

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

But Paul explains that that covenant was fulfilled. It's over because the promise was not to Israel at all but to Abraham and Jesus himself.

"Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ."

The Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled with Christ.

hi you have taken the wrong fork in the road; when you look back to the Abrahamic covenant there are two main clauses. One is Abraham will become a great nation and we know that became Israel. The other is in Abraham's seed all the nations would be blessed. Jesus is the seed that brought salvation to all the world. The covenant with the land and the nation still stands. Look at Eze 47 God give EZE a vision and he sees the millennial temple and notes that a river will flow into the dead sea and it will become healed and great fishing will be there. In ZEch 14 we see when the LORD comes and is king over all the earth it is on a day when Jerusalem is being overrun. The Mt of Olives splits in two and forms a new river where half of it goes east, the dead sea and life continues after the LORD is king over the earth. So look closely at this promise.
13 Thus says the Lord GOD: “These are the borders by which you shall divide the land as an inheritance among the twelve tribes of Israel. Joseph shall have two portions. 14 You shall inherit it equally with one another; for I raised My hand in an oath to give it to your fathers, and this land shall fall to you as your inheritance.
15 “This shall be the border of the land on the north: from the Great Sea, by the road to Hethlon, as one goes to Zedad.

This promise is in the day the dead sea is healed and after the LORD has come as king. This oath the LORD is keeping is the covenenant with ABraham for the land. Luke 1 says much the same thing about Jesus promised ministry.
67 Now his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:
68 “Blessed is the Lord God of Israel,
For He has visited and redeemed His people,
69 And has raised up a horn of salvation for us
In the house of His servant David,
70 As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets,
Who have been since the world began,
71 That we should be saved from our enemies
And from the hand of all who hate us,
72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers
And to remember His holy covenant,
73 The oath which He swore to our father Abraham:
74 To grant us that we,
Being delivered from the hand of our enemies,
Might serve Him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life

 

[Al Touthentop]

hi you have taken the wrong fork in the road; when you look back to the Abrahamic covenant there are two main clauses. One is Abraham will become a great nation and we know that became Israel. The other is in Abraham's seed all the nations would be blessed. Jesus is the seed that brought salvation to all the world. The covenant with the land and the nation still stands.

No. Paul is the one who took that fork, not me. Now the nation of Israel was utterly destroyed in AD 70. That was the end of that. The modern day nation of Israel has absolutely no connection with the old Israel.

Look at Eze 47 God give EZE a vision and he sees the millennial temple and notes that a river will flow into the dead sea and it will become healed and great fishing will be there.

That prophecy is about Jesus. It has been fulfilled.

In ZEch 14 we see when the LORD comes and is king over all the earth it is on a day when Jerusalem is being overrun.

And it was when Jesus arrived. It was overrun by the Romans.

The Mt of Olives splits in two and forms a new river where half of it goes east, the dead sea and life continues after the LORD is king over the earth.

And those who followed Christ, both Jews and Gentiles, the reconciled people, were like reconciled rivers.


You are reading the old testament through a veil, as Paul said.

 

[Al Touthentop]

The thing is ... the ancient church wasn't ready for the new covenant, so then came the creeds and the curses attached to everyone who didn't believe.

People observing this call it "under the law" but this is a misnomer, it's actually attached to the anathemas that are attached to the creeds like a bad chain letter.

(So in a sense, it didn't end)

Except it did, and Paul wrote that it did. And Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and he did. There was no requirement that anyone be "ready" for this. Ready or not, Jesus established the kingdom and made the old law obsolete. That some people later came along and preached heresy isn't of any consequence. The seed of the church is still the scriptures and you can grow a church or a disciple with the same word.

 

[Oldmantook]

I totally disagree!

(1) In Ezekiel 40-48, Ezekiel was taken in spirit to a high mountain towards the south where he saw a structure like a city. Ezekiel 40:2 confirms, “In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south.”

There is no specific mention of Jerusalem in this depiction.

(2) The message contained within Ezekiel 40-48 was specifically given “the house of Israel” back in Ezekiel’s day.

Ezekiel 40:4 records: “And the man said unto me, Son of man, behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears, and set thine heart upon all that I shall shew thee; for to the intent that I might shew them unto thee art thou brought hither: declare all that thou seest to the house of Israel.”

(3) Ezekiel 40-48 is a detailed conditional vision; it was not some distant prophecy, as some suggest. The prophet Ezekiel was basically taken up in the Spirit and given a revelation of better things than that which prevailed when he received it.

In the vision Ezekiel was shown an arrangement that was greater than existed around him. Ezekiel 43:2-5 records, “behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory. And it was according to the appearance of the vision which I saw, even according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city: and the visions were like the vision that I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell upon my face. And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east. So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house.”

Here we see the careful connection between the visions and Ezekiel being taken up in the Spirit. The prophet is supernaturally carried into situations that clearly did not exist at that time. They were revealed to him. In reality, the temple was in ruin and the glory of the Lord had departed from the house of God. Notwithstanding, in the visions, “the glory of the LORD came into the house.” Ezekiel was so overwhelmed by what he saw in the Spirit that as a result he “fell upon” his “face.”

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

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

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

Ezekiel 43:10 goes on to outline the gist and purpose of the vision of the temple, saying, “Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.”

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

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

Ezekiel 43:11 continues, “And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.”

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

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

There is not a shred of evidence that these chapters in Eze 40-48 is a "conditional vision." In your response you have not given me any scriptures whatsoever that Ezekiel's vision is conditional upon Israel's obedience. There is no stipulation of God stating in these chapters that if you (Israel) do this, then I will

I totally disagree!

(1) In Ezekiel 40-48, Ezekiel was taken in spirit to a high mountain towards the south where he saw a structure like a city. Ezekiel 40:2 confirms, “In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south.”

There is no specific mention of Jerusalem in this depiction.

(2) The message contained within Ezekiel 40-48 was specifically given “the house of Israel” back in Ezekiel’s day.

Ezekiel 40:4 records: “And the man said unto me, Son of man, behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears, and set thine heart upon all that I shall shew thee; for to the intent that I might shew them unto thee art thou brought hither: declare all that thou seest to the house of Israel.”

(3) Ezekiel 40-48 is a detailed conditional vision; it was not some distant prophecy, as some suggest. The prophet Ezekiel was basically taken up in the Spirit and given a revelation of better things than that which prevailed when he received it.

In the vision Ezekiel was shown an arrangement that was greater than existed around him. Ezekiel 43:2-5 records, “behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory. And it was according to the appearance of the vision which I saw, even according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city: and the visions were like the vision that I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell upon my face. And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east. So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house.”

Here we see the careful connection between the visions and Ezekiel being taken up in the Spirit. The prophet is supernaturally carried into situations that clearly did not exist at that time. They were revealed to him. In reality, the temple was in ruin and the glory of the Lord had departed from the house of God. Notwithstanding, in the visions, “the glory of the LORD came into the house.” Ezekiel was so overwhelmed by what he saw in the Spirit that as a result he “fell upon” his “face.”

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

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

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

Ezekiel 43:10 goes on to outline the gist and purpose of the vision of the temple, saying, “Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.”

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

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

Ezekiel 43:11 continues, “And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.”

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

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

There is not a shred of evidence in these chapters that Ezekiel's vision of the temple is a conditional promise based upon their obedience. You have cited Eze 43:8 as some kind of proof-text for your claim. Yet V.7 states unconditionally that "the house of Israel shall no longer defile...." It is a statement of fact. This is an unconditional statement NOT a conditional statement with a promise attached to it. God did not say if you are obedient, I will build you a temple. The fact is God is still awaiting their voluntary obedience but he is not depending upon them to obey willingly. In fact God takes it upon himself to act. Eze 36:26 states "And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh." Notice the "I will" (God) - not any "you will" (Israel). God's action is unilateral and not dependent upon Israel's conditional obedience as you claim. Israel will one day obey, but not until God first removes their heart of stone and writes his law upon their hearts.

 

[sovereigngrace]

There is not a shred of evidence that these chapters in Eze 40-48 is a "conditional vision." In your response you have not given me any scriptures whatsoever that Ezekiel's vision is conditional upon Israel's obedience. There is no stipulation of God stating in these chapters that if you (Israel) do this, then I will

There is not a shred of evidence in these chapters that Ezekiel's vision of the temple is a conditional promise based upon their obedience. You have cited Eze 43:8 as some kind of proof-text for your claim. Yet V.7 states unconditionally that "the house of Israel shall no longer defile...." It is a statement of fact. This is an unconditional statement NOT a conditional statement with a promise attached to it. God did not say if you are obedient, I will build you a temple. The fact is God is still awaiting their voluntary obedience but he is not depending upon them to obey willingly. In fact God takes it upon himself to act. Eze 36:26 states "And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh." Notice the "I will" (God) - not any "you will" (Israel). God's action is unilateral and not dependent upon Israel's conditional obedience as you claim. Israel will one day obey, but not until God first removes their heart of stone and writes his law upon their hearts.

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

Why would Jesus oversee such a futile sham? Why would He put His blessing upon such a bloody mess for a thousand yrs after His return? If these sacrifices are so apt and important for your supposed future millennial age, why not keep them going for all eternity? Why not bring them back now?

This improved arrangement was never realised. Scripture and history proves that Israel remained in grievous apostasy. Despite God’s offer of better things, they persisted in their stubborn rebellion. The plan was not therefore realised because of disobedience. Israel never met God’s lofty demands. Notwithstanding, the old covenant system could never satisfy God. It would only serve as an imperfect temporal arrangement until a greater plan would come. God would come to Israel's assistance with a divine plan – in the form of His only begotten Son. He would do what the old covenant could never do. He would become the final sin offering.

Is Calvary not enough for Premils?

Is the blood of Jesus not enough?

Was His sacrifice not a final satisfactory sacrifice for all sin from the Father’s perspective?

Is Calvary not an eternal (unending) sacrifice?

Is Calvary not an eternal (unending) covering?

Is Calvary not an eternal (unending) doorway into the presence of God?

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

you are

No. Paul is the one who took that fork, not me. Now the nation of Israel was utterly destroyed in AD 70. That was the end of that. The modern day nation of Israel has absolutely no connection with the old Israel.



That prophecy is about Jesus. It has been fulfilled.






And it was when Jesus arrived. It was overrun by the Romans.


And those who followed Christ, both Jews and Gentiles, the reconciled people, were like reconciled rivers.


You are reading the old testament through a veil, as Paul said.

delusional in thinking that Zech 14 is 70AD. The city was being overrun and women ravished and then the LORD comes to fight and you are saying the LORD came on the Roman side? The destruction of 70AD was declared by Jesus but also the salvation of the nation. Zech 14 is the day when the LORD is king over all the earth. The dead bodies are those who are over running the city that the LORD destroys when He comes. look closer is the mt of Olives split in two are the remaining nations coming to Jerulsalem to keep the feast of Tabernacles or result in drought? . Paul says Jerusalem will be trampled under foot until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. That time is when over when the LORD comes to save. Did you note Luke 1 prophecy of Zecharias that I posted. It matches a literal Zech 14 that is promised so many places. The covenant still stands. The new covenant replaced the day of atonement. NOt the covenant with the land they are two separate clauses. Have you studied what happened in Israel in 1948 war and 1967 war? the LORD fought for them and Israel now is there with a heart of stone gathered in unbelief but as Hosea says where it was said you are not my people you shall be called sons of the living God. That was in Jezreel which is the other name for the valley of Meggido. Read Ezekeil 37 Isaiah 61 get a clue

 

[sovereigngrace]

hi you have taken the wrong fork in the road; when you look back to the Abrahamic covenant there are two main clauses. One is Abraham will become a great nation and we know that became Israel. The other is in Abraham's seed all the nations would be blessed. Jesus is the seed that brought salvation to all the world. The covenant with the land and the nation still stands. Look at Eze 47 God give EZE a vision and he sees the millennial temple and notes that a river will flow into the dead sea and it will become healed and great fishing will be there. In ZEch 14 we see when the LORD comes and is king over all the earth it is on a day when Jerusalem is being overrun. The Mt of Olives splits in two and forms a new river where half of it goes east, the dead sea and life continues after the LORD is king over the earth. So look closely at this promise.
13 Thus says the Lord GOD: “These are the borders by which you shall divide the land as an inheritance among the twelve tribes of Israel. Joseph shall have two portions. 14 You shall inherit it equally with one another; for I raised My hand in an oath to give it to your fathers, and this land shall fall to you as your inheritance.
15 “This shall be the border of the land on the north: from the Great Sea, by the road to Hethlon, as one goes to Zedad.

This promise is in the day the dead sea is healed and after the LORD has come as king. This oath the LORD is keeping is the covenenant with ABraham for the land. Luke 1 says much the same thing about Jesus promised ministry.
67 Now his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:
68 “Blessed is the Lord God of Israel,
For He has visited and redeemed His people,
69 And has raised up a horn of salvation for us
In the house of His servant David,
70 As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets,
Who have been since the world began,
71 That we should be saved from our enemies
And from the hand of all who hate us,
72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers
And to remember His holy covenant,
73 The oath which He swore to our father Abraham:
74 To grant us that we,
Being delivered from the hand of our enemies,
Might serve Him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life

Where is a millennial temple, blood sacrifice or old covenant priesthood mentioned anywhere in Revelation 20?

Where in Ezekiel 40-48 does it say that the temple and the sacrifices mentioned pertain to a millennial kingdom after the second coming?

What purpose do you see for the following in your supposed future millennium?

· The meat offering – Ezekiel 42:13, 44:29, 45:15, 17, 24, 25, 46:5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 20.
· The sin offering – Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 19, 21, 22, 25, 44:27, 29, 45:17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 46:20.
· The trespass offering – Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 44:29, 46:20.
· The burnt offerings – Ezekiel 40:38, 39, 42, 43:18, 24, 27, 44:11, 45:15, 17, 23, 25, 46:2, 4, 12, 13, 15.
· The peace offerings – Ezekiel 43:27, 45:15, 17, 46:2, 12.
· The drink offerings – Ezekiel 45:17.

Whose sins does the Premil think the Zadok priesthood need to make “sacrifices for” and what sinner needs additional intercession in the millennium in light of the presence of Jesus Christ – man’s only high priest and ultimate and final sin-bearer and intercessor?

 

[sovereigngrace]

you are

delusional in thinking that Zech 14 is 70AD. The city was being overrun and women ravished and then the LORD comes to fight and you are saying the LORD came on the Roman side? The destruction of 70AD was declared by Jesus but also the salvation of the nation. Zech 14 is the day when the LORD is king over all the earth. The dead bodies are those who are over running the city that the LORD destroys when He comes. look closer is the mt of Olives split in two are the remaining nations coming to Jerulsalem to keep the feast of Tabernacles or result in drought? . Paul says Jerusalem will be trampled under foot until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. That time is when over when the LORD comes to save. Did you note Luke 1 prophecy of Zecharias that I posted. It matches a literal Zech 14 that is promised so many places. The covenant still stands. The new covenant replaced the day of atonement. NOt the covenant with the land they are two separate clauses. Have you studied what happened in Israel in 1948 war and 1967 war? the LORD fought for them and Israel now is there with a heart of stone gathered in unbelief but as Hosea says where it was said you are not my people you shall be called sons of the living God. That was in Jezreel which is the other name for the valley of Meggido. Read Ezekeil 37 Isaiah 61 get a clue

How can Premils reconcile their conflicting “proof-texts” that in one breath “every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles" (Zechariah 14:16-17) and “the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD” (Isaiah 56:6-7) yet in the next breath at the exact same time because Jerusalem is a "holy" place, a prohibition is placed on all Gentiles that "there shall no strangers pass through her any more" (Joel 3:17) and “No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel” (Ezekiel 44:9)?

 

[Al Touthentop]

you are

delusional in thinking that Zech 14 is 70AD.

I didn't say it was. So you have particularly terrible reading comprehension apparently. Why should I trust your reading regarding scripture?

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

Where is a millennial temple, blood sacrifice or old covenant priesthood mentioned anywhere in Revelation 20?

Where in Ezekiel 40-48 does it say that the temple and the sacrifices mentioned pertain to a millennial kingdom after the second coming?

What purpose do you see for the following in your supposed future millennium?

· The meat offering – Ezekiel 42:13, 44:29, 45:15, 17, 24, 25, 46:5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 20.
· The sin offering – Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 19, 21, 22, 25, 44:27, 29, 45:17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 46:20.
· The trespass offering – Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 44:29, 46:20.
· The burnt offerings – Ezekiel 40:38, 39, 42, 43:18, 24, 27, 44:11, 45:15, 17, 23, 25, 46:2, 4, 12, 13, 15.
· The peace offerings – Ezekiel 43:27, 45:15, 17, 46:2, 12.
· The drink offerings – Ezekiel 45:17.

Whose sins does the Premil think the Zadok priesthood need to make “sacrifices for” and what sinner needs additional intercession in the millennium in light of the presence of Jesus Christ – man’s only high priest and ultimate and final sin-bearer and intercessor?

what is missing in Rev 20 is not proof by omission as the other passages that speak of what will occur when the LORD is king over all the earth are still valid even if Rev 20 does not mention them. The LORD is king in ZEch 14. That river flows year round so life continues after the LORD is king. The LORD is not king until HE comes on a day when Jeruslalem is being overrun and the mt of Olives splits in tow. That new river flows year round and half the water goes east which links to Eze 47 which shows that the dead sea is healed and the LORD keeps his oath and at that time describes specific boundaries for all 12 tribes in that day. You see if I was wrong Israel would never build a 3rd temple or even come together as a nation. But after almost 2000 years there they are and the plans for the 3rd temple and a global peace pact are being worked on right now. At the same time moral conditions globally have equalled that of Sodom and the days of Noah. The one world government is planned for and will come to be out of the collapse of the current system. This preparation is like those looking at Noah's arl and not understanding the flood was coming. So so too now Israel and the temple movement are screaming that the 7 year tirb is literal and the beast is coming as is the two witnesses and the mark and image of the beast.

 

[Al Touthentop]

There is not a shred of evidence that these chapters in Eze 40-48 is a "conditional vision." In your response you have not given me any scriptures whatsoever that Ezekiel's vision is conditional upon Israel's obedience.

And there's not a shred of evidence in that prophecy that the prince offered animal sacrifices either is there?

 

[Al Touthentop]

There is not a shred of evidence that these chapters in Eze 40-48 is a "conditional vision." In your response you have not given me any scriptures whatsoever that Ezekiel's vision is conditional upon Israel's obedience. There is no stipulation of God stating in these chapters that if you (Israel) do this, then I will

Here's why any Christian should understand that Ezekiel 48 was entirely about Jesus.

30 “These are the exits of the city. On the north side, measuring four thousand five hundred cubits 31 (the gates of the city shall be named after the tribes of Israel), the three gates northward: one gate for Reuben, one gate for Judah, and one gate for Levi; 32 on the east side, four thousand five hundred cubits, three gates: one gate for Joseph, one gate for Benjamin, and one gate for Dan; 33 on the south side, measuring four thousand five hundred cubits, three gates: one gate for Simeon, one gate for Issachar, and one gate for Zebulun; 34 on the west side, four thousand five hundred cubits with their three gates: one gate for Gad, one gate for Asher, and one gate for Naphtali. 35 All the way around shall be eighteen thousand cubits; and the name of the city from that day shall be: THE LORD IS THERE.”

And what do you know. The Lord WAS there. Fancy that.

Why do you deny Jesus Christ? If God's prophecies are in error and do not come true, why would you even worship him? You most likely insist that when God determined 70 weeks for the Messiah to come and make a new covenant, what he told Daniel was only half completed in those 70 weeks right?

Why is it that you presume to know the fulfillment times of prophecy better than the apostles, Jesus and God?