The Millennial Temple

[Jerrysch]

I dont' subscribe to your 'literal first' approach to interpret all scripture, especially when it refers to the prophets and in a vision. I do subscribe to a historical-grammatical-literary interpretation method. In that SOME scripture can be helped to understand as it is read as literature such as the psalms and proverbs especially. I do believe that the prophets had literal actual real dreams and visions, just as I believe that the red sea really literally parted for the Israelites.


Well actually you do, you just don't realize it. The fact that you are able to understand what I am posting indicates that you do recognize that it is literal first and then figurative. It is just like water under a bridge. And you have understood that I employed a figure of speach and switched to that without even noticing that you had. It is always literal first. Always and when there is an exception then the figurative comes into play.

 

[Jerrysch]

This whole interpretation scheme is predicated and supported by the need or the desire for the 'restoration of Israel' into a literal millenial kingdom. And of this I am also opposed. I ask the question. If as Peter says, a day is as a thousand years, could we not apply the "thousand year' millenia to a single day?..Rev 22:5 There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever.
http://www.newfoundationspubl.org/ezekiel.htm

Actually uit is predicated upon letting the word of God speak for itself. God had something He was trying to present when He inspired EZ. to write, don't you think it is important to understand what He said? Let's let the text speak for itself and then submit to the word of God, how about that?

 

[Jerrysch]

If you cannot first pray those prayers of submission to Gods will or asking Jesus for wisdom, and feel that there is no possible way to interpret EZekiel symbolically, here is a website I found with some hints and helps.

http://www.newfoundationspubl.org/ezekiel.htm

How about letting the word of God speak for itself? How about letting the literal parts stay literal? How about letting the figures of speach refer to a real literal object of that figure? How about Letting the text speak for itself.

 

[Notrash]

How about letting the word of God speak for itself? How about letting the literal parts stay literal? How about letting the figures of speach refer to a real literal object of that figure? How about Letting the text speak for itself.

If you literalize the temple in this VISION, then why do you not say that the wheel within a wheel is also a real and LITERAL wheel that someday we will ride on in the millenial kingdome, as on a merry go round? That would be cool. The four headed beasts are meant to be animals on the merry go round?

It was very literally and very truly a VISION that EZ had. VISION is the operative noun and this is the literal part that can stay literal. But it was in a VISION and one of several visions in the book of EZ. Visions are almost always symbolic. In fact I dont' know of any right now that weren't. The Israelites recognized that God spoke in the minute details of symbolism and repetition. Think of how many times a dove is represented, or blood, or a lamb, or the vine, wine, etc. This is what I mean by the eastern mind. Danials 70 weeks wasn't a 'vision' but was spoken by the Angel and thus things such as the desolation of Jerusalem actually literally happened.

But the law and the PROPHETS spoke towards Christ.
When Christ was crucified, he said, it is finished.
The temple that he raised in 3 days was HIS Body, which we of faith are partakers of. We are Living stones of His eternal temple. I Peter 2.

I think I was a little harsh in some of my comments. I'm sorry for this. I have never given EZ's vision much thought, but as with most of the prophets, I apply them towards being fullfilled in Christ and towards a typeology of HIM and of His Church.

Thus I myself dont' know where to begin to interpret the symbolizm. Other than that perhaps the measuring of it would begin in the Grecian Empire, because the man with the measureing stick had an appearance of Bronze which correlates to the Grecian Empire under Alexander the Great. But even this I would not Assert, but just throw out as a thought.


I do have a godly hatred towards the yeast of Pharisees and saducees which are the twisting of the scriptures to make a set of laws, doctrines and rules or beliefs that some People such as modern pharisees and saducces can rule over. Such is what I think of dispensational doctrine and the theme of a restoration of a ethnic israel as a 'chosen' people.

But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

But I am thankful that there are some who still study the Hebrew ways (such as Alfred Endershiem) for their insights are helpful.

I think that link I gave you could be a beginning to show some of the symbolism of EZ's temple, but I wouldnt assert that it would stop there. And If I would be wrong, and this will become a temple that would be built in some future time, as a honor to the Lord after satan is cast down, then So be it, But I dont' believe it would include animal sacrifices for any reason. Thus a further reason I believe it to be symbolic. Jesus would be there with his pierced hands and feet and cut side to remind us of the wages of sin. And it will not be there in the new Jerusalem, because Rev says that there will be no temple.....

TG

 

[Notrash]

repeated

 

[Jerrysch]

If you literalize the temple in this VISION, then why do you not say that the wheel within a wheel is also a real and LITERAL wheel that someday we will ride on in the millenial kingdome, as on a merry go round? That would be cool. The four headed beasts are meant to be animals on the merry go round?

It was very literally and very truly a VISION that EZ had. VISION is the operative noun and this is the literal part that can stay literal. But it was in a VISION and one of several visions in the book of EZ. Visions are almost always symbolic. In fact I dont' know of any right now that weren't. The Israelites recognized that God spoke in the minute details of symbolism and repetition. Think of how many times a dove is represented, or blood, or a lamb, or the vine, wine, etc. This is what I mean by the eastern mind. Danials 70 weeks wasn't a 'vision' but was spoken by the Angel and thus things such as the desolation of Jerusalem actually literally happened.

But the law and the PROPHETS spoke towards Christ.
When Christ was crucified, he said, it is finished.
The temple that he raised in 3 days was HIS Body, which we of faith are partakers of. We are Living stones of His eternal temple. I Peter 2.

I think I was a little harsh in some of my comments. I'm sorry for this. I have never given EZ's vision much thought, but as with most of the prophets, I apply them towards being fullfilled in Christ and towards a typeology of HIM and of His Church.

Thus I myself dont' know where to begin to interpret the symbolizm. Other than that perhaps the measuring of it would begin in the Grecian Empire, because the man with the measureing stick had an appearance of Bronze which correlates to the Grecian Empire under Alexander the Great. But even this I would not Assert, but just throw out as a thought.


I do have a godly hatred towards the yeast of Pharisees and saducees which are the twisting of the scriptures to make a set of laws, doctrines and rules or beliefs that some People such as modern pharisees and saducces can rule over. Such is what I think of dispensational doctrine and the theme of a restoration of a ethnic israel as a 'chosen' people. But I am thankful that there are some who still study the Hebrew ways (such as Alfred Endershiem) for their insights are helpful.

I think that link I gave you could be a beginning to show some of the symbolism of EZ's temple, but I wouldnt assert that it would stop there. And If I would be wrong, and this will become a temple that would be built in some future time, as a honor to the Lord after satan is cast down, then So be it, But I dont' believe it would include animal sacrifices for any reason. Thus a further reason I believe it to be symbolic. Jesus would be there with his pierced hands and feet and cut side to remind us of the wages of sin. And it will not be there in the new Jerusalem, because Rev says that there will be no temple.....

TG

The meaning of each and every passage in the Bible cannot be generalized. That is it ins't all purely literal nor is it all figurative, it is a mixture of both, that is the way language is employed. The fact that youcan understand what I am now posting is evidence that you do understand that it must be understood literally first. When it is clear that the literal is not being employed, then the passage must be examined for figures of speach. Even within a vision there literal elements;

Let's look at a good source of figures of speach;

Rev 1:1The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants[a] the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant[b] John, 2who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.

It starts off with a liteal statement :The revelation of Jesus Christ. That is literal!! What comes next? : which God gave him to show to his servants, more literal statments still later; the things that must soon take place. Again a literal statement.

Later; 10I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet 11saying, "Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea."

Ah our first figure of speach!! How many verses and we finally have one.

My point is this we must deal with each and every passage of the Bible individually, not all the same, yet we must approach the text first in a literal manner, just like you are doing right now with what I am writting.

 

[Jerrysch]

If you literalize the temple in this VISION, then why do you not say that the wheel within a wheel is also a real and LITERAL wheel that someday we will ride on in the millenial kingdome, as on a merry go round? That would be cool. The four headed beasts are meant to be animals on the merry go round?


TG

I thought I explained that? And good for you you did recognize that the wheels are to be understood figurative, yet not all of His book is figurative.

How about:
1:1In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the exiles by the Chebar canal, the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.

Do you think it was anything other than the 13 year? How about the month was it the 4th? Wasn't he with exiles? Weren't they at the Chebar canal?

How come this all can be recognized as literal and yet you refuse to see the literal elsewhere and see what is figurative? Are you just tring to be difficult? Am I wasting my time? If you can undeerstand what I have written how come you can't understand the Bible?

 

[Notrash]

How about:
1:1In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the exiles by the Chebar canal, the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.

Do you think it was anything other than the 13 year? How about the month was it the 4th? Wasn't he with exiles? Weren't they at the Chebar canal?

How come this all can be recognized as literal and yet you refuse to see the literal elsewhere and see what is figurative? Are you just tring to be difficult? Am I wasting my time? If you can undeerstand what I have written how come you can't understand the Bible?

Hi Jerry

1:1In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the exiles by the Chebar canal, the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.

It was literaly,realistically, and actually the 30 yr, the 4th month and EZ was among the exiles by a actual, real literal place called the Chebar Canal.

Once he begins describing the VISION, is when things are to be interpreted or applied figurative or symbolically. VISIONS and DREAMS are interpreted figuratively/symbolically. Joseph interpreted Pharohs troubling dream as something other than what he saw. Or do you think that 7 lean cows actually appeared and ate 7 fat cows?

Noah was not told to build the Ark in a dream or vision, but through direct conversation and command of God. The same could be said of how Moses was given specific directions, commands and instructions concerning building he tabernacle. It was not in a dream or vision, but directly from God as he wrote them down. (Gen 25:ff)

But now here we have a VISION from God to Ezekiel. (yes, it is literal in the sense that the vision was a real, actual DREAM or VISION and was literally, actualy, physically written down by EZ)

Of the 3 visions that I have scanned over we have a wheel within a wheel containing various animal headed figures, a temple vision that is corrupt and innoble, and a temple vision that appears meticulously crafted of much size and grandeur. I think either all 3 of these have symbolic meanings or all 3 should be expected to come into a physical, actual reality. Ezekiel is never given a command to build it, thus perhaps it is both symbolically interpreted and already in existence in his day.

If we compare the figurative application of the 2 temples, I suppose that a person could come up with an application that one is the old covenant and the other will be the figurative temple of the people of the millenial kingdom..with the church between them??. if we use a dispensational interpretation, that is. Perhaps this is what your saying.??

However, if you read the article, 'Who is a Jew" you will find that there are also 2 types of Jews, 2 types of fig trees and two types of figs. Thus in comparison, the two temple visions in EZ could also be refering to the bad tree as the one temple and the good tree as the other temple. All saved flesh generate from or get grafted into the Good tree. Just throwing this out as an idea.

I dont' see EZ's temple as being commanded to be literally (physically, actually) built in a 'millenial kingdom'. But that seems to be what you were asking in your original post. And I dont' know that I could see it as figuratively representative of a people in a millenial kingdom? Is that what your implying?

DO YOU?


I John 4:1-3.

1Jo 4:1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 1Jo 4:2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 1Jo 4:3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

literally

One entry found for literally;
Function: adverb

1 : in a literal sense or manner : [SIZE=-1]ACTUALLY[/SIZE] <took the remark literally> <was literally insane>
2 : in effect : [SIZE=-1]VIRTUALLY[/SIZE] <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice

 

[Jerrysch]

Hi Jerry




It was literaly,realistically, and actually the 30 yr, the 4th month and EZ was among the exiles by a actual, real literal place called the Chebar Canal.

Once he begins describing the VISION, is when things are to be interpreted or applied figurative or symbolically. VISIONS and DREAMS are interpreted figuratively/symbolically. Joseph interpreted Pharohs troubling dream as something other than what he saw. Or do you think that 7 lean cows actually appeared and ate 7 fat cows?

Noah was not told to build the Ark in a dream or vision, but through direct conversation and command of God. The same could be said of how Moses was given specific directions, commands and instructions concerning building he tabernacle. It was not in a dream or vision, but directly from God as he wrote them down. (Gen 25:ff)

But now here we have a VISION from God to Ezekiel. (yes, it is literal in the sense that the vision was a real, actual DREAM or VISION and was literally, actualy, physically written down by EZ)

Of the 3 visions that I have scanned over we have a wheel within a wheel containing various animal headed figures, a temple vision that is corrupt and innoble, and a temple vision that appears meticulously crafted of much size and grandeur. I think either all 3 of these have symbolic meanings or all 3 should be expected to come into a physical, actual reality. Ezekiel is never given a command to build it, thus perhaps it is both symbolically interpreted and already in existence in his day.

You are forgetting what I oresented to you in post #55

The wheels seem clearly to be figurative, yet not all of Ez. is figurative. Yet when we apporach the Scripture, we must first do so in a literal sence. When a person deviates from the plain literal sence of any passage of Scripture, the burden of proof is upon that man as to why it is to be accepted as the true singular meaning that YHWH intended for any text to have. When we view these chapters of EZ which speak of the temple as not referring to a temple, we remove any meaning to the countless details that the text presents. Do you see what i am saying? Look at all the measurements, if they do not refer to actual measurements to what do they refer, and where is the "key" to thier meaning if we are to abandon the literal meaning in favor of another meaning? Do yousee what I am saying? If we abandon the literal meaning of a text without dur process, to what are we to refer to as the "authority' to give the passage meaning? Let me preent you with an example that I know we can both agree upon the meaning right from the start.

John 15: 1"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.

Now it is very clear that Jesus is not refering to Himself as some sort of Vegetable, isn't it? Yet in the rule I presented the burden of proof is upon me to deviate from the literal, yet it is merly a matter of rational thought that indicates that Jesus is not a Vegetable. Yet we start with the literal and do not abandon it unless there is clear evidence that the literal is not in view but a figure of speach. In EZ regarding the temple, there is not clear evidence that it should be considered figurative. The vast detail in the passage indictes that it is a literal structure that is being described.


It isn't all figurative any more than it is all literal, it must be discovered by way of studying the text which parts are literal and which parts are figurative. I would suspect that there is some reason why you don't want the text in EZ to refer to a literal structure. To what outside authority are you going to turen to redefine what the meanings of this literal words are? The text indicates that Ez saw a literal temple structure. What do you present to indicate that the text shouldn't be considered literal?

 

[Jerrysch]

Hi Jerry



However, if you read the article, 'Who is a Jew" you will find that there are also 2 types of Jews, 2 types of fig trees and two types of figs. Thus in comparison, the two temple visions in EZ could also be refering to the bad tree as the one temple and the good tree as the other temple. All saved flesh generate from or get grafted into the Good tree. Just throwing this out as an idea.

How is thhis connected with what Ez was saying How does two types of Jews relate to the description of the temple?

 

[Jerrysch]

Hi Jerry



However, if you read the article, 'Who is a Jew" you will find that there are also 2 types of Jews, 2 types of fig trees and two types of figs. Thus in comparison, the two temple visions in EZ could also be refering to the bad tree as the one temple and the good tree as the other temple. All saved flesh generate from or get grafted into the Good tree. Just throwing this out as an idea.

What you are involved in at this juncture is allegorizing the Biblical text, it is an activity where a person brings consepts into the text which were not intended by the author. I'll play along for an instant.

To follow your analysis with these two type of Jews they also cooult then represent subatiomic particles neutrons and protrons, and then the gentiles can represent neutrons, because of thier atomic mass being less than the other two thusly God might be talking about the sustaniability of nuclear fusion in these statements regarding the two Jews.

When you dip into allegory you can make a text say anything that your imagination can come up with. Better to stick with the meaning intended by the original author instrad of importing meaning from some third party who just might not be as smart as you are in regards to what the meaning of any Biblical text means

 

[Notrash]

It isn't all figurative any more than it is all literal, it must be discovered by way of studying the text which parts are literal and which parts are figurative. I would suspect that there is some reason why you don't want the text in EZ to refer to a literal structure. To what outside authority are you going to turen to redefine what the meanings of this literal words are? The text indicates that Ez saw a literal temple structure. What do you present to indicate that the text shouldn't be considered literal?

The text indicates that EZ saw a VISION or DREAM of a temple. Just as Pharoh saw a Vision or Dream of 7 fat cows followed by 7 thin cows. The idea that in his VISION, it was meticulously measured does not indicate or demand that it was a actual physical temple somewhere in heaven,[but it could be] or another part of the earth OR that it was intended to be built. It was a VISION.

I cant' find the verse now, but somewhere there is either a actual verse or a synopsis of a couple verses saying...."visions and dreams are of the Lord and also the interpretation thereof." Danial said things close to this in the first part of Daniel, and so did Solomon in Ecclesiasties, but I can't find the actual verse I have in mind. Visions and Dreams are most often symbolic and are to be interpreted symbolically.

Other keys to EZ's visions taken directly from the texts as you correctly mention.

EZ 12:21 And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 22
"Son of man, what is this proverb that you people have about the land of Israel, which says, 'The days are prolonged, and every vision fails'? 23
Tell them therefore, 'Thus says the Lord God: "I will lay this proverb to rest, and they shall no more use it as a proverb in Israel." But say to them, "The days are at hand, and the fulfillment of every vision. 24
For no more shall there be any false vision or flattering divination within the house of Israel. 25
For I am the Lord. I speak, and the word which I speak will come to pass; it will no more be postponed; for in your days, O rebellious house, I will say the word and perform it," says the Lord God.'"
26
Again the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 27
"Son of man, look, the house of Israel is saying, 'The vision that he sees is for many days from now, and he prophesies of times far off.' 28
Therefore say to them, 'Thus says the Lord God: "None of My words will be postponed any more, but the word which I speak will be done," says the Lord God.'

"

Not only are these dreams and vision, but they are to be applied and have their fullfillment in their day and not far off.

The closest thing that I could find to a commandment to build this temple still isn't a command to build the temple, but a conditional command to "keep the ordinances."and I think this supports the idea that EZ's temple and its patterns. is a symbolic picture of the believer and salvation, Life in Christ.

EZ 43:6 Then I heard Him speaking to me from the temple, while a man (Moses?)stood beside me. 7 And He said to me, "Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever. No more shall the house of Israel defile My holy name, they nor their kings, by their harlotry or with the carcasses of their kings on their high places. 8 When they set their threshold by My threshold, and their doorpost by My doorpost, with a wall between them and Me, they defiled My holy name by the abominations which they committed; therefore I have consumed them in My anger. 9 Now let them put their harlotry and the carcasses of their kings far away from Me, and I will dwell in their midst forever.
10"Son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the pattern. 11 And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple and its arrangement, its exits and its entrances, its entire design and all its ordinances, all its forms and all its laws. Write it down in their sight, so that they may keep its whole design and all its ordinances, and perform them. 12 This is the law of the temple: The whole area surrounding the mountaintop is most holy. Behold, this is the law of the temple.

Now about there being two types of Jews or 2 types of figs as spoken of in Jeremiah 24. There are jews (Judeans) of circucision of the flesh only, and Jews that have recieved a circumcion of the heart. The Heart circumcision are of repentence,faith and bearing good fruit. They are the true Israelites. There are fig trees that bear Good Fruit and Fig Trees that bear bad fruit. Etc.
In the comparison of the two temples vision, EZ I think is perhaps being reminded or told that there are two types of 'religious' people. There are those who are outwardly religious and those who are inwardly religious who will recieve and be able to live the new temple with the new Life in Christ.

Now Romans 8:

Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. 4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, "See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

A New Covenant
(Jer. 31:31-34)
7 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: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.

Notice that this also is taken from the Prophets section but yet refers to people of the 'new' covenant in what people refer to as a 'church age'. The old covenant was the type and figure of God's presence and guidance leading them out of Egypt. The new covenant is the reality and total fullfillment of Christ.

You may or may not get the connection. This is part of the evidence showing that EZ's temple is the life and [body] of the present day (and even those of His day) Believer. It is only available to those are shown the temple (43:10 [exposed to Christ, 'faith comes by hearing and hearing by he WORD of God'] who repent and are ashamed of all they have done (vs 13)..[Matt 4:17, I John 1:9] and who's circumcision of the heart or indwelling and sealing of the Spirit recieves Gods Law of Love in their heart enabling them to perfom (vs 11) GOOD works according to His Will and HIS design and after HIS pattern.

There has alway been a religious group that hangs around the true circumcision of the heart or the true belief and baptism of the Spirit.
When Moses came down from the Mountain, God said that he would never forgive the israelites who made the golden idols or who carried along the religion of the Egyptians through the wilderness. But there were 70 men with Moses on the mountain who were the remnant at that time. 700 during the time of Elijah. Throughout the record of the history of man from Adam, it is the same. There is a true faith in the Living God and His Salvation [through Christ, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world] and a group of religious hanger arounds who cannot make Him their first and Only Love. Those who by His grace and through His Salvation and restoration Can love Him are partakers of EZ's second temple where there is no veil. The Whole mountaintop that is Holy, is a reference to Moses's real events and also a figure that the entire testimony area of the sons of God are "holy". I think there is alot of study available in understanding types and figures in that Temple likened unto a believers doing good works just like the analogy of putting on the full armor of God. Looking into these things could be very helpfull to a devout believers life and testimony.

That's how I'm seeing it, and am in agreement with the others here who have commented similarly.

I think any further discussion on this topic on my part would be again 'wrangling about words... or speculation.

Although I havnt' really seen you write out what you think is the "millenial temple" I assume that you think that the temple that EZ describes will either come down from the sky during some future 1000 yrs.. or will be built during the church age and then inhabited and used during a 'millenium'. ? I am curious, which have you felt is EZ's second temple?

Thanks for the topic, it made me do some research.
NT

 

[Hedgehog]

When you dip into allegory you can make a text say anything that your imagination can come up with. Better to stick with the meaning intended by the original author instrad of importing meaning from some third party who just might not be as smart as you are in regards to what the meaning of any Biblical text means

But also you must consider that when you look with your eyes(mind/mans own understanding) instead of your heart, you may see things that profit you or seem more interesting/dramatic/ self fulfilling etc... know what I mean?
maybe your eyes tell you that the exact text as it is written MUST be true because ...I dont know... maybe it seems more logical or like as an earthly human being an earthy temple that comes down out of the sky and whatever exciting stuff going on seems so interesting and ya know, I wouldnt mind seeing that and being a part of a situation like that either... (though I dont believe that's going to happen)

I just think that many times God wrote things out in a way that has double meanings because it's an easy way to tell the saved from the unsaved. Its an easy way to tell whats in mans heart.

For example, Kind David and his "son" ruling on the throne... this son being spoken of was obviously Jesus... yet Solomon took the idea and ran with it.

 

[Jerrysch]

The text indicates that EZ saw a VISION or DREAM of a temple. Just as Pharoh saw a Vision or Dream of 7 fat cows followed by 7 thin cows. The idea that in his VISION, it was meticulously measured does not indicate or demand that it was a actual physical temple somewhere in heaven,[but it could be] or another part of the earth OR that it was intended to be built. It was a VISION.

NT

Not everything in a vision is a symbol nor is it a figure of speach, I presented a few examples of this fact, if you haven't considered them you need to for they do explain what i am speaking of.

Joseph did have a dream regarding 7 cows it is there in Gen 41, yet we are told what this vision means;

"The dreams of Pharaoh are one; God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do. 26The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years; the dreams are one. 27The seven lean and ugly cows that came up after them are seven years, and the seven empty ears blighted by the east wind are also seven years of famine. 28It is as I told Pharaoh; God has shown to Pharaoh what he is about to do. 29There will come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt, 30but after them there will arise seven years of famine, and all the plenty will be forgotten in the land of Egypt.

So these two visions are given a literal meaning they mean something.

Let's look at Ez's vision;

And behold, there was a wall all around the outside of the temple area, and the length of the measuring reed in the man's hand was six long cubits, each being a cubit and a handbreadth

So if you were to suggest that this is not referring to a literal wall, to what then does it refer?

If it was not arround the temple area where was it and what does this refer to?

If it wasn't a measurieng reed what was it?

If it wasn't a man's hand what was it?
If the reed was not 6 cubits long how long was it?

So he measured the thickness of the wall, one reed; and the height, one reed.

So if he didn't measure it what did he do?

If it wasn't a wall what was it?

If it did not have a thickness to what was EZ referring?

If it did not have a height to what was EZ refering?

Clearly Ez had something in his mind he was seeking to express, yet you are unwilling to accept the substance of what he presented. Don't forget the first temple, the one Solomon built had been destroyed, sure Ez saw a vision, it was a vision of the temple yet to come. The very description indicates that he expected his readers to understand that. He gives the details to the very smallest detail to indicate the reality of the comming temple.
Sadly I think you want to believe there will be no temple. I think you have convinced youtrself that these chapeters do not refer to that temple. We could go through all the verses in chapters 40-48 to see that a literal temple is in view. He even goes so far as to establish the inheritance of the sons of Israel in this restored order.

There is just too much detail to wish away here, Israel has a future and this group of chapters establish that future, you can argue with that fact yet it is still true. YHWH made some eternal promices to Abraham which still need to be fulfilled, He will do so in the context of Ez 40-48.

 

[Jerrysch]

I cant' find the verse now, but somewhere there is either a actual verse or a synopsis of a couple verses saying...."visions and dreams are of the Lord and also the interpretation thereof." Danial said things close to this in the first part of Daniel, and so did Solomon in Ecclesiasties, but I can't find the actual verse I have in mind. Visions and Dreams are most often symbolic and are to be interpreted symbolically.

NT

Not always. This is one of the ones which has a literal meaning. Symbols in Scripture are quite easy to pick out, there is no evidence that EZ was speaking in a symbolic way in these chapters. It is also quite telling that no where with all this detail which he presented in these chapters does he ever indicate thier meaning if they were not intended to be understood literlly. He never interprets his vision, this indicates that he expected it to be understood literally.

 

[Jerrysch]

Other keys to EZ's visions taken directly from the texts as you correctly mention.
"

Not only are these dreams and vision, but they are to be applied and have their fullfillment in their day and not far off.

The closest thing that I could find to a commandment to build this temple still isn't a command to build the temple, but a conditional command to "keep the ordinances."and I think this supports the idea that EZ's temple and its patterns. is a symbolic picture of the believer and salvation, Life in Christ.
.
NT

I think you are getting a head of yourself. There is nothing in this text that indicates anything other than a literal temple. If you were to take these chapters and give them to a person who had never read the Bible what do you think he would tell you them meant?

Better yet if you took them and gave them to a person who did not understand the Bible in the manner that you do, what do you think they would say they meant?

You ar reading meaning into this text. You are trying to make application before you have discovered what the Biblical text means. And for that reason your application will be flawed, for you are not letting the Bible speak for itself. You are comming to this text with the thought in your mind that there will be no temple and then when this text speaks of that temple, you have to invent a different meaning for the references to that temple.

It is speaking of a temple, you just can't get away from that fact.

 

[Jerrysch]

Now about there being two types of Jews or 2 types of figs as spoken of in Jeremiah 24. There are jews (Judeans) of circucision of the flesh only, and Jews that have recieved a circumcion of the heart. The Heart circumcision are of repentence,faith and bearing good fruit. They are the true Israelites. There are fig trees that bear Good Fruit and Fig Trees that bear bad fruit. Etc. .
NT

And where does EZ speak of this? how does this relate to what these chapters of Ez mean?

 

[Jerrysch]

Although I havnt' really seen you write out what you think is the "millenial temple" I assume that you think that the temple that EZ describes will either come down from the sky during some future 1000 yrs.. or will be built during the church age and then inhabited and used during a 'millenium'. ? I am curious, which have you felt is EZ's second temple?

Thanks for the topic, it made me do some research.
NT

So let's get into it so then if this is not speaking of a literal temple what doe it mean; Here is the first passage;

EZ40:
4And the man said to me, "Son of man, look with your eyes, and hear with your ears, and set your heart upon all that I shall show you, for you were brought here in order that I might show it to you. Declare all that you see to the house of Israel."

5And behold, there was a wall all around the outside of the temple area, and the length of the measuring reed in the man's hand was six long cubits, each being a cubit and a handbreadth[b] in length. So he measured the thickness of the wall, one reed; and the height, one reed. 6Then he went into the gateway facing east, going up its steps, and measured the threshold of the gate, one reed deep.[c] 7And the side rooms, one reed long and one reed broad; and the space between the side rooms, five cubits; and the threshold of the gate by the vestibule of the gate at the inner end, one reed. 8Then he measured the vestibule of the gateway, on the inside, one reed. 9Then he measured the vestibule of the gateway, eight cubits; and its jambs, two cubits; and the vestibule of the gate was at the inner end. 10And there were three side rooms on either side of the east gate. The three were of the same size, and the jambs on either side were of the same size. 11Then he measured the width of the opening of the gateway, ten cubits; and the length of the gateway, thirteen cubits. 12There was a barrier before the side rooms, one cubit on either side. And the side rooms were six cubits on either side. 13Then he measured the gate from the ceiling of the one side room to the ceiling of the other, a breadth of twenty-five cubits; the openings faced each other. 14He measured also the vestibule, twenty cubits. And around the vestibule of the gateway was the court.[d] 15From the front of the gate at the entrance to the front of the inner vestibule of the gate was fifty cubits. 16And the gateway had windows all around, narrowing inwards toward the side rooms and toward their jambs, and likewise the vestibule had windows all around inside, and on the jambs were palm trees.



Let's go though this you give me the reasons why this text should be understood as other than the plain meaning of the words would indicate.

 

[Jerrysch]

But also you must consider that when you look with your eyes(mind/mans own understanding) instead of your heart, you may see things that profit you or seem more interesting/dramatic/ self fulfilling etc... know what I mean?
maybe your eyes tell you that the exact text as it is written MUST be true because ...I dont know... maybe it seems more logical or like as an earthly human being an earthy temple that comes down out of the sky and whatever exciting stuff going on seems so interesting and ya know, I wouldnt mind seeing that and being a part of a situation like that either... (though I dont believe that's going to happen)

I just think that many times God wrote things out in a way that has double meanings because it's an easy way to tell the saved from the unsaved. Its an easy way to tell whats in mans heart.

For example, Kind David and his "son" ruling on the throne... this son being spoken of was obviously Jesus... yet Solomon took the idea and ran with it.

I disagree. YHWH had one meaning in mind in each and every thing He said in Scripture. He did not mean yes and no, He had a singular meaning in mind. When He said to the Jews thou shalt not... He did not have a different meaning in mind He did not mean you can do it sometimes, He meant thou shalt not...

Do you see what I am saying?

 

[Jerrysch]

But also you must consider that when you look with your eyes(mind/mans own understanding) instead of your heart, you may see things that profit you or seem more interesting/dramatic/ self fulfilling etc... know what I mean?
maybe your eyes tell you that the exact text as it is written MUST be true because ...I dont know... maybe it seems more logical or like as an earthly human being an earthy temple that comes down out of the sky and whatever exciting stuff going on seems so interesting and ya know, I wouldnt mind seeing that and being a part of a situation like that either... (though I dont believe that's going to happen)

I just think that many times God wrote things out in a way that has double meanings because it's an easy way to tell the saved from the unsaved. Its an easy way to tell whats in mans heart.

For example, Kind David and his "son" ruling on the throne... this son being spoken of was obviously Jesus... yet Solomon took the idea and ran with it.

It wasn't aways Jesus often it is Solomon who is being refered to.