Will there be third temple sacrifices?

[only4hisglory]

hmmmmm.....

 

[jefwins]

Nope - once and for all - then he sat down - finito!

 

[Psalms34]

Will there be third temple sacrifices?

Well, that is a good question. Yes, in the third temple there will be sacrifices under the law, they are already preparing for this now, though those will be of no effect. But in the fourth temple, no, no sacrifices under the law. There may be some form of memorial feasts, but there is no real reason to need sacrifices in the millennial dispensation to come.

So, it’s pretty much left in question, my Church does not teach a dogmatic view as if there will be nor that there wont be something, and that fits what I have concluded as well, just don’t know, but in any case I see no use for sacrifices under the law as it was in the second temple. Will be an interesting mystery to uncover, but does not effect my views of today since tomorrow has enough worries of its own, and that is simply another dispensation that will not really effect me in regards to the completed work done in me before that time comes.

 

[Biblewriter]

Deacondean's position that Ezekiel's temple was a conditional promise is the only literalist view of the last part of Ezekiel that can get rid of the conclusion that there will be animal sacrifices in the millennium. But he has missed one point that is also clearly prophesied.

Ezekiel 24:7 says of "the captives of Judah" in that time that "I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart."

It is clear that this has never happened. It was partially fulfilled at the time of the return. But we only need to read Ezra and Nehemiah (both short books) to see this return was not a return to the Lord "with their whole heart"

When the coming Messiah is met by the few Jews that are left, "one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends." (Zechariah 13:6 T his will be followed by a deep and general repentance described in the last five verses of Zechariah 12.

"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. 1And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart."

It is only after this that "I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither. They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." Jeremiah 31:8-9

But when the come to the border, He meets them and "Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith the Lord GOD. 3And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant: And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am the LORD." Ezekiel 2036-38

The result is that"In that day shalt thou not be ashamed for all thy doings, wherein thou hast transgressed against me: for then I will take away out of the midst of thee them that rejoice in thy pride, and thou shalt no more be haughty because of my holy mountain. I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the LORD." Zephaniah 3:11-12

This is how "it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem." Isaiah 4:3

And so we come fill circle. The promise of Ezekiel will most certainly be fulfilled, not because the people are faithful, but because the Lord is faithful.

The promises made under the law of Moses were conditional, but the promises made to Abraham were not. These remain to be fulfilled, and will most certainly be. This is clearly stated in the New Testament.

"For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:" Hebrews 6:14-17

"And so all Israel shall be saved." Romans 11:26

 

[gwynedd1]

Deacondean's position that Ezekiel's temple was a conditional promise is the only literalist view of the last part of Ezekiel that can get rid of the conclusion that there will be animal sacrifices in the millennium. But he has missed one point that is also clearly prophesied.

Ezekiel 24:7 says of "the captives of Judah" in that time that "I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart."

Hello Biblewriter,
All the early Chritians were Jews . No Jew faithful to God has perished because they have eternal life.

Daniel 12

2: And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

"For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:" Hebrews 6:14-17

"And so all Israel shall be saved." Romans 11:26

All Israel is in the context of a remnant.

Romans 11

4: But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Ba'al."
5: So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.

While I expect there to be Jews who come to Christ I do not expect there to be a return to the law and the daily sacrifice. Jews will be saved by Christ. The temple was conditional but the path to salvation is not, it is an unconditional path to salvation

 

[Biblewriter]

All Israel is in the context of a remnant.

I will add one more scripture to what I have already cited.

"But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your fruit to my people of Israel; for they are at hand to come. For, behold, I am for you, and I will turn unto you, and ye shall be tilled and sown: And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be builded: And I will multiply upon you man and beast; and they shall increase and bring fruit: and I will settle you after your old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and ye shall know that I am the LORD. Yea, I will cause men to walk upon you, even my people Israel; and they shall possess thee, and thou shalt be their inheritance, and thou shalt no more henceforth bereave them of men. " Ezekiel 36:8-12

This prophecy is addressed to a piece of real estate. "the mountains of Israel." The Lord promised them that they would again be inhabited by "all the house of Israel, even all of it." The repeating of the word all stresses that this is the absolute all, not the generic all, as in "all over the place."

Tis same piece of real estate is also promised that "thou shalt no more henceforth bereave them (my people Israel) of men." This time has clearly not come, for after all the small revivals in the past, the land was again emptied. But after that time, this will never happen again.

This is indeed the real beginning of the prophecy (the last third of Ezekiel) that clearly states that the temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices will again be offered in it. This prophecy includes a detailed definition of the borders of the land in that day, and how it will be divided among the twelve tribes.

 

[Jipsah]

Nah, skip it.

 

[Jipsah]

Never mind

 

[gwynedd1]

I will add one more scripture to what I have already cited.

"But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your fruit to my people of Israel; for they are at hand to come. For, behold, I am for you, and I will turn unto you, and ye shall be tilled and sown: And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be builded: And I will multiply upon you man and beast; and they shall increase and bring fruit: and I will settle you after your old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and ye shall know that I am the LORD. Yea, I will cause men to walk upon you, even my people Israel; and they shall possess thee, and thou shalt be their inheritance, and thou shalt no more henceforth bereave them of men. " Ezekiel 36:8-12

This prophecy is addressed to a piece of real estate. "the mountains of Israel." The Lord promised them that they would again be inhabited by "all the house of Israel, even all of it." The repeating of the word all stresses that this is the absolute all, not the generic all, as in "all over the place."

Tis same piece of real estate is also promised that "thou shalt no more henceforth bereave them (my people Israel) of men." This time has clearly not come, for after all the small revivals in the past, the land was again emptied. But after that time, this will never happen again.

This is indeed the real beginning of the prophecy (the last third of Ezekiel) that clearly states that the temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices will again be offered in it. This prophecy includes a detailed definition of the borders of the land in that day, and how it will be divided among the twelve tribes.

Hello Biblewriter,

There is no unconditional promise to build a temple that I am aware. Since Ezekiel is during the captivity ther assumption is also of a 2nd temple, as we have discussed. There is in chapter 43 , as mentioned, a condition. The reason that the condition is not spelled out in Ezekiel is because it was spelled out in the Law.

Deuteronomy 28 is an explaination of consequences

1: "And if you obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.

Ezekiel must be read after knowing the Law.


This is chapter 30

1: "And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the LORD your God has driven you,
2: and return to the LORD your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you this day, with all your heart and with all your soul;
3: then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes, and have compassion upon you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you.
4: If your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of heaven, from there the LORD your God will gather you, and from there he will fetch you;
5: and the LORD your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, that you may possess it; and he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers.
6: And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

One of the many non-biblical myths of Dispensationalism is that God gathers an apostate Israel. Rejection of Christ is apostate. God will not gather Israel according to the Law unless they repent, which they have not. Ezekiel out of context is not instructive.


Acts 28

25: So, as they disagreed among themselves, they departed, after Paul had made one statement: "The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet:
26: `Go to this people, and say, You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive.
27: For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.'
28: Let it be known to you then that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen."
30: And he lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him,
31: preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered.

God is not at work in Israel and thus any 3rd temple is just another act of rebellion.

 

[Biblewriter]

Hello Biblewriter,

There is in chapter 43 , as mentioned, a condition. The reason that the condition is not spelled out in Ezekiel is because it was spelled out in the Law.

One of the many non-biblical myths of Dispensationalism is that God gathers an apostate Israel. Rejection of Christ is apostate. God will not gather Israel according to the Law unless they repent, which they have not.

God is not at work in Israel and thus any 3rd temple is just another act of rebellion.

The condition in Ezekiel 43:11 is not a condition for the fulfillment of the prophecy, but a condition for its understanding.

"If they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple." (verse 11 NKJV)

But you missed the seventh verse.
"And he said unto me, Son of man, 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 for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places."
This is an unconditional promise. It is true that there is a condition inverse 9, but verse 7 expressly states that that condition will be fulfilled.

It appears that you did not bother to read my first post, you just answered what you thought it said. I never suggested that the Lord would gather them in their apostate state. Instead, I cited scriptures that expressly state exactly how He will bring them out of that apostate state as He gathers them.

The third temple which will be built either during or shortly the tribulation will most certainly be a part of their ongoing rebellion. We are not told that it will be built, we are only told what will happen in it, so we know it will have to be built. The man of sin cannot sit "in the temple og God, showing himself that he is god"unless there is a temple. And the invader cannot put an end to "sacrifice and offering" unless "sacrifice and offering" are taking place.

The temple described in Ezekiel is not a third temple, but a fourth. It is sheer folly to deny that the entire last third of Ezekiel will ever take place. This borders on sheer disbelief. I know you do not mean it that way. But that is what it amounts to. You are allowing your interpretations of the results of certain unquestionably correct New Testament doctrines to get in the way of your believing plainly stated prophecies of the Old Testament. The doctrines you are applying are unquestionably correct. But the results you derive from them are not.

A great many Old Testament scriptures plainly state that Israel will again be brought back to their land. Ezekiel plainly shows that the land in question is the physical land they once inhabited. The last part of Ezekiel describes the temple in great detail, followed by the offerings they will offer in it. These offerings are distinctly different from those specified in the law of Moses. The book ends with a surveyor's description of the borders of the land, and instructions as to which tribe should have each part of it. To deny this is to deny plainly stated scripture.

 

[gwynedd1]

The condition in Ezekiel 43:11 is not a condition for the fulfillment of the prophecy, but a condition for its understanding.

"If they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple." (verse 11 NKJV)

But you missed the seventh verse.
"And he said unto me, Son of man, 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 for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places."

Hello Biblewriter,
God will dwell with his people forever from his heavenly thrown. God does not dwell in an earthly place.


Paul compares the earthly Jerusalem as that of the bond woman.The heavenly Jerusalem is God's dwelling.

Galations 4

24: Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
25: Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
26: But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
27: For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married."
28: Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
29: But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now.
30: But what does the scripture say? "Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman."
31: So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

Hebrews 9

1: Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary.
2: For a tent was prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence; it is called the Holy Place.
...
11: But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)

...

This is an unconditional promise. It is true that there is a condition inverse 9, but verse 7 expressly states that that condition will be fulfilled.

It appears that you did not bother to read my first post, you just answered what you thought it said. I never suggested that the Lord would gather them in their apostate state. Instead, I cited scriptures that expressly state exactly how He will bring them out of that apostate state as He gathers them.

The mystery is resolved in the NT scriptures. God is spirit and no flesh can enter the kingdom of heaven. The vison of Ezekiel is based on the heavenly temple.

The third temple which will be built either during or shortly the tribulation will most certainly be a part of their ongoing rebellion. We are not told that it will be built, we are only told what will happen in it, so we know it will have to be built. The man of sin cannot sit "in the temple og God, showing himself that he is god"unless there is a temple. And the invader cannot put an end to "sacrifice and offering" unless "sacrifice and offering" are taking place.

The problem with that view is that no earthly temple could have a holy place after the 2nd. This is due to an over reliance on assuming Christ's judgement is the second advent.


2 Thessalonians

8: And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming.
...
Rev 2
15: So you also have some who hold the teaching of the Nicola'itans.
16: Repent then. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.

The Revelation scripture is certainly not the second advent but is the exact same language used to destroy the AC.

It would make no sense otherwise. How would Ca'iaphas see Christ in the clouds if not to return in judgement?

Matthew 26

63: But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
64: Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
65: Then the high priest tore his robes, and said, "He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy.

Historical evidence confirms this.

I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.
- Joesphus Wars of the Jews

There are no third temple references other than Christ himself. He called himself the temple and the corner stone.

Matthew 26

59: Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death,
60: but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward
61: and said, "This fellow said, `I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.'"

The temple described in Ezekiel is not a third temple, but a fourth. It is sheer folly to deny that the entire last third of Ezekiel will ever take place. This borders on sheer disbelief. I know you do not mean it that way. But that is what it amounts to. You are allowing your interpretations of the results of certain unquestionably correct New Testament doctrines to get in the way of your believing plainly stated prophecies of the Old Testament. The doctrines you are applying are unquestionably correct. But the results you derive from them are not.

A great many Old Testament scriptures plainly state that Israel will again be brought back to their land. Ezekiel plainly shows that the land in question is the physical land they once inhabited. The last part of Ezekiel describes the temple in great detail, followed by the offerings they will offer in it. These offerings are distinctly different from those specified in the law of Moses. The book ends with a surveyor's description of the borders of the land, and instructions as to which tribe should have each part of it. To deny this is to deny plainly stated scripture.

I am sorry I must rely on the correct context of scripture that is given with New Testament revelations.

 

[Biblewriter]

Hello qwynedd1,

I have already pointed out that my view is based on expressly stated scriptures, and your view is based on interpretations of the meanings of other scriptures. I leave others to judge which approach is right. I feel that a continuation of this discussion would only be argumentative.

But I am having trouble distinguishing between what you are saying and full Preterism. How does your view differ from full Preterism?

 

[NumberOneSon]

But I am having trouble distinguishing between what you are saying and full Preterism. How does your view differ from full Preterism?

Both full preterism and Orthodox preterism intersect in most respects; what mainly distinguishes full from Orthodox is the nature and timing of the Second Coming.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[gwynedd1]

Hello qwynedd1,

I have already pointed out that my view is based on expressly stated scriptures, and your view is based on interpretations of the meanings of other scriptures. I leave others to judge which approach is right. I feel that a continuation of this discussion would only be argumentative.

But I am having trouble distinguishing between what you are saying and full Preterism. How does your view differ from full Preterism?

Hello Biblewriter,

My statement

"The problem with that view is that no earthly temple could have a holy place after the 2nd. This is due to an over reliance on assuming Christ's judgement is the second advent."

This means that Christ's appearence "in the clouds" is not the return of Christ for his people. That is not a full preterist position.

The view I hold was very common through Christian history. Both full Pretersim and futurism tend to be less common.

 

[Biblewriter]

The view I hold was very common through Christian history. Both full Pretersim and futurism tend to be less common.

It is widely known that futurism was not commonly held between the fourth and the nineteenth centuries. What is not so widely known is that it was held by "many" of the earliest eschatological writers.

Only a few of these earliest writings have survived, due probably to the fact that these views were rejected by almost everyone in later centuries. But in the fourth century the church historian Eusebius, who was a Preterist, complained about how "many" of the earliest writers had been led astray by the fururistic views of Papias and Irenaeus.

But in spiritual matters, the history of an idea, or how many people believe it, is not significant. The only that counts is what the Bible says.

 

[gwynedd1]

It is widely known that futurism was not commonly held between the fourth and the nineteenth centuries. What is not so widely known is that it was held by "many" of the earliest eschatological writers.

Only a few of these earliest writings have survived, due probably to the fact that these views were rejected by almost everyone in later centuries. But in the fourth century the church historian Eusebius, who was a Preterist, complained about how "many" of the earliest writers had been led astray by the fururistic views of Papias and Irenaeus.

But in spiritual matters, the history of an idea, or how many people believe it, is not significant. The only that counts is what the Bible says.

Hello Biblewriter,
Yes you are correct there were early premillennialist views through Irenaeus but those views are vastly different than Dispensationalism. There was no concept of a Jewish reformation or unfulfilment of the 70 weeks that I am aware. Such things as a third temple , suspened 70th week, are quite new. The difference is what will happen after Christ. I am not fully aware of Irenaeus' works but premil only tends to agree on the point of an earthly reign. I think I will familiarize myself more with his point of view.

 

[Biblewriter]

Hello gwynedd1,

I wish to clarify that while I disagree completely with your views, and consider them destructive of all understanding of the prophetic scriptures, I do not feel that you are evil for holding them. So many on this forum and elsewhere seem unable to disagree and still have a brotherly attitude toward each other.

Biblewriter

 

[gwynedd1]

Hello gwynedd1,

I wish to clarify that while I disagree completely with your views, and consider them destructive of all understanding of the prophetic scriptures, I do not feel that you are evil for holding them. So many on this forum and elsewhere seem unable to disagree and still have a brotherly attitude toward each other.

Biblewriter

Hello Biblewriter,

I agree, I wonder how we can be trusted to understand the Bible when we cannot understand brotherly love? My only warnng to futurism is that of false prophesy , of which I have not seen from you, or attempting to carry out prophesy such as Christian donations for the 3rd temple or siding with Israel without consideration of just causes. The Babylonians were a tool of God as well but "with evil intent".

I would say love God with all your heart and you nieghbor as yourself does not need a millennialist view. My father left this world with your view and it was certainly not from malice. I also shared your view at one time.

God Bless Biblewriter.