post

the Lord has said, that He will come and dwell within us, and that we are His temple. this is the significance of the vision in Revelation 21 of the New Jerusalem -- it is assuredly not a literal city in which this temple from Ezekiel will be built -- that is ignorant. didn't John also say, "i saw no temple in the city there" ? but read Revelation 21 with comprehension: One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." (Revelation 21:9) the city is the children of God, the Bride of Christ: His Church. and He will dwell within Her. the angel told him "I will show you the wife of the Lamb" -- and showed him the vision of the New Jerusalem. folks, 2 + 2 = 4. but in Ezekiel, we read that the Lord says this temple will be His dwelling place. ((re: Ezekiel 43:7)). we also have what Christ said to the woman at the well -- that the time has come, and now is, when men will no longer go to worship on this mountain or that one or some other, but in spirit and in truth. how then, after the resurrection, when we shall be one with Him, will the Lord instead dwell in a temple built by human hands, and all men will go to worship Him at a specific mountain, contradicting what He Himself said?

in the book of Hebrews it is clearly taught that there has been a change in priesthood. that Christ, who sprang up through Judah, is our high priest forever - in a priesthood that will never be removed, and not by bloodline any longer, but directly by the decree of the Father. so Levi is no longer the priestly tribe. moreover, the scriptures say that all who are God's children through faith are being built into a kingdom of priests. in the temple described by Ezekiel however, great detail is given with regard to the priests - that they be Levites, and only descended from Zadok. i.e. the wrong priesthood, and by bloodline.

in the resurrection, according to Jesus, people will no longer marry nor be given in marriage (Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25) but if this temple is built and operated for 1,000 years after the resurrection, why are there laws given for the marriage of the priests that serve in it? ((Ezekiel 44:22-25)) ?

it's been put forth, without any significant justification, that the offerings and sacrifices described in detail here are to be "in memorial of" the sacrifice that Christ made. the one, final sacrifice for all sins. but the text of Ezekiel 40-43 never describes these sacrifices that way. that is purely extra-scriptural, speculative attempts at justification, made because it is presupposed that this will be a temple in a '1,000 year reign of Christ on earth' -- so for the person who believes this, they must somehow make the problem of blasphemous abomination go away. so they make this up and just state it as if it's true. the scripture itself here describes them as guilt offerings and sin offerings for atonement and sanctification. but the scriptures say that Christ's sacrifice sanctified once and for all time all that are being made holy. that there remains no more offering for sin. that there is nothing else that can remove guilt. so it seems to me that either the new testament is lying about the significance and efficacy of Christ's sacrifice, or Ezekiel is lying about the purpose of the sacrifices being described here, or as a third option, this isn't actually describing a literal temple to be built and fully operated during a thousand year literal reign of Christ on earth.

Son of man, describe the temple to the people of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their sins. (Ezekiel 43:10) this was written not long after Jeremiah, when the people were 'trusting deceptive words' believing that because the had the temple of the Lord, they would not be overthrown - even though they were blaspheming it, and following other gods, and not acting justly or loving mercy ((in re: Jeremiah 7:4, etc)). this is the purpose of this vision. that they may be ashamed of their sin. a vision of a temple far larger and grander than the one of which they had boasted, in vain. this is much different from what was told to David, where the stated purpose was that it be built, not that its design should make them ashamed.

yeah, sure it makes sense. but i wasn't accusing you of being racist. i was agreeing with Qnts2, and commenting on the cultural difference between predominantly 'white' churches in America, which are typically very reserved, and in which you might expect a person to blush if they so much as sneeze, with predominantly 'black' churches, in which response from the congregation is more commonly both expected and encouraged, and is not limited to an occasional "amen!" i thought about this, and about the few responses who went so far as to say the guy is brain damaged or on drugs, and i thought -- yeah, there is probably a bit of cultural clash going on here. i don't know what it is really like in your church, Kay. i don't know what the man's intention is and whether it is wrong or not. i don't think it would bother me, unless i thought he was saying things that were false. i think you should maybe talk to the one preaching, and see what he thinks, and to the man himself, and see where he's coming from. i doubt it's his 'intention' to disrupt the preaching. but what do i know? i only know your personal reaction. does that make sense? i think the much more interesting thing here is what Willa brought out -- how this issue brings up the larger issue of how different our services are from what we see described by Paul when he writes about keeping meetings orderly. and i think, wow, i wish that everyone would get themselves involved in smaller, less formal groups. because i think that is where the church really starts to function as the church, and we all begin to be used to build each other up and edify each other, and the body really starts operating as a body -- a living one, not a paralyzed one with a single running monologue. not that your issue is a 'non-issue' -- it's not; if it's distracting you, then it's probably affecting others too, and maybe many of you need to learn something about involvement and internalizing, and he needs to learn something about restraint. i think if i was the one speaking, i would consider it a blessing to have solid evidence that at least one person listening is actually paying attention and following along!

he probably grew up attending a zion methodist church that was predominantly african american, and has some first-hand experience in the cultural differences that Qnts2 mentioned, and doesn't consider pointing out some high statistical likelihoods based on sociological inference to be "making this a race issue" but further highlighting and emphasizing the point that Qnts2 made. he probably actually anticipated LadyKay's response, too -- if you read the last sentence of that post, where he said "if you think this is a racist comment . . " and made another sociologically determined statistical likelihood estimator that serves both as a preemptive statement guarding against wrongly interpreting his intent to be "making this a race issue" and a 'case-in-point' further illustrating the aspect of this discussion that the person he was responding to had brought to bear.

you know Qnts2, that's a really good point you're making here. thanks! i'm going to 'hazard a guess' that LadyKay and all the people who are aghast, especially those who are suggesting that this man is brain damaged or using drugs, are white, and that most of their friends are also white. i'm also going to go so far to say that if you think that's a racist comment, i'm going to guess you are white too.

with sin & guilt offerings. abominable, blasphemous sacrifices. right at the feet of the Lord sitting on the throne. for 1,000 years. who never bats an eye at them. riiiiight

all this is not to excuse the man the OP is talking about -- without being there and understanding what he's doing in context, how could any of us? but it's not to necessarily condemn his actions either -- it's to 2nd and to expound on what Willa reminds us of -- that what this man is doing sounds like what the 1st century church was: what the congregational meetings of the church were like, after the way that Paul describes how they should organized. that's the model; not Peter addressing the crowd at Pentecost, or the descriptions of one evangelist or another given in the scripture, or even Christ on the mount. all of these are shortened versions of the complete truth of what this was like; after Peter stood up and spoke that day, did they sing the doxology and walk out of the market square, that was it? or was there further discussion? and all we hear is that Paul spoke until very late one night; was there interaction and discussion or none at all? it isn't recorded. but judging from how Paul himself wrote that we should order our meetings, i think it's very reasonable to assume that there was a lot of interaction. now the man in the OP in particular - maybe he is speaking out of place, and maybe just the fact that he's speaking at all rattles people who have this sense of 'propriety' from the traditions of men. i don't know. it is certainly true that the Lord by His spirit has granted gifts of teaching to certain individuals. but i think it is fairly misjudged to believe that in every local church, only one person, or at most two if you are a particularly blessed group, are given to teach or given wisdom or prophecy that should be shared with the entire body. and the format by which almost every church in America is run does not make room for that. i'm not 'knocking' what we all do once a weekend. it has its purpose. but i am strongly encouraging every believer to involve themselves in smaller groups studying the scriptures together, where you can all be used of God with the gifts the Spirit gives -- because those gifts are for each other, not to bury in the sand and use only for yourself and the furtherance of your own understanding. if the Spirit has given you understanding, it is so that you can by the spirit give it to others; simply attending a spectator service once a week, it is very likely that you are not being used by God in the full capacity that He means to use you, and we are all potentially missing out on blessing and being blessed.

certainly "interruption" in the rude sense you connote is not encouraged by what we have written about how church meetings should operate. but the example of Paul speaking till midnight is not evidence that he did not answer questions or entertain objections or hear people giving explanations of their own understanding while he spoke. the scripture does not record the transcript. the teachings recorded that Jesus gave can all be read aloud in a matter of a few minutes - try reading Peter or Stevens speeches at pentecost or before he was stoned, and timing it. or even 'the sermon on the mount' but these are examples of certain things - they are not the 'model' given in the scripture for how congregational meetings should be arranged, and the scripture actually does give a model. have a look at what Willa referred us to again. it's just a portion of a larger section of Paul's epistle in which he explains how they ought to order their meetings ((how fortunate! there is an instruction book! )). here's some of it again: Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. (1 Corinthians 14:29-32) this does not describe a single individual speaking and no one else interacting, but the Spirit working among the people and all who the Spirit gives wisdom and teaching to, edifying the others -- because that is what every manifestation of the gift of the Spirit is for: all are for each other, to build each other up. notice what it says about prophesying here - and prophesying here doesn't just mean 'telling the future' - that's not the way this word is used in the NT - but when the Spirit moves one, the first should keep silent, and hear the second. and all those present should judge. that's not a 'spectator' event; that's participatory. of course it is not encouraging "interruption" -- not rudeness, and not disorder. but it is not giving the model by which just about all of us attend by these days. this is actually much closer to what goes on in 'small groups" or "bible studies" -- and so i greatly encourage everyone to take part on those.

i'm sure that's the case for 95% of us as well, but just because every "service" almost every American has ever attended has been composed of a single person giving a sermon where everyone else is expected not to have any input or anything to share, but to sit primly with their hands folded, doesn't mean this is the Biblical model or what the Spirit intends. that's just human tradition -- and it may be wrong. but what does scripture say? you're right to bring up "sunday school' -- this, 'bible study' and other 'small group' settings are where i believe the real fellowship and action of the 'church' takes place among us, not in what's sometimes called 'the sunday morning big show' in a certain manner of speaking, it's almost as if in some ways in the church today, we really only expect a handful of people to 'be Christians' while the great lot of us go once a week to observe them doing so, listen to a small concert, with a bit of sing-a-long

this was my thought too, but also that all things should be done orderly. the model we see in scripture is actually fairly far removed from sitting in a pew silently listening to the same person give a soliloquy every week, as though the body only has one member and the Spirit doesn't give anything to anyone else. it's actually much more like the 'small group' or 'home group' setting, where everyone who has input or questions, is involved, or at least has every opportunity to be, both participating in 'teaching' by sharing what wisdom and insight is revealed to them, and also judging what is said, and interpreting, and giving glory to God. logistically this is better achieved in smaller groups -- and it is both a real shame that so few church-goers participate in such a way with the body, and also probably telling of just how many people are simply 'church-goers' coming, as it were, to 'be served' each week instead of 'to serve' -- as though it's just entertainment, to be 'left to the professionals' my first thought is certainly not "how rude" or "this fellow must be brain damaged" aren't we all taking part on a discussion board right now? or should only a select handful of "elite" people here be allowed to post? ((o wait, LOL, there is actually a bit of that here . . ))

thanks! that is very interesting about not having been asked to prepare himself by washing - neither Joshua nor Moses. of course as Peter said of baptism, it's not the removal of filth from the body, but the answer of a good conscience toward God: a typology, a symbolic action. removing their shoes has the same sort of ritual significance as washing. and we are instructed to be washed but once, just as with one sacrifice, we are made holy forever; they were only told to remove their shoes once. a sister pointed out to me also, that here after the cross, Christ washed the disciples feet, telling them that they were already clean by the word He had spoken to them, so that if they washed their feet, their whole body is clean. just as under Moses, the onus was on the Jew to wash his own feet ((as instructed to the priest)), and to bring his own sacrifices -- now our sacrifice has been presented for us, and it is Christ who washes us. 'our part' is to believe - just as Abraham's part in the covenant God made with him was not any action of his own: for he was sleeping while JAH passed through the separated parts of the animals, which sealed the promise according to the custom of the day, though the custom was that both parties of the agreement should walk together.

i thought too, that with Joshua, meeting the One who identified Himself as "the Commander of the armies of the LORD" was his 'burning bush' experience. that this is the first personal encounter he has with the living God - even though he had seen the pillar of fire and smoke for 40 years, even stayed at the threshold of the tabernacle, it was Moses who went in and spoke with God. and yes, as you said - a very significant thing for both of them, that they were told to do this while not standing in a temple - for Moses, who had to have known customs associated with shrines etc, and for Joshua, who had intimate knowledge of the tabernacle and even a visual presence of the Lord constantly with them. here these men were, in the desert - in no place in particular. one bush among millions, one small hillock in an ocean of them. but what set these places apart and made them holy wasn't the location, it was the fact that there, God met with them, and spoke to them. "not on this mountain, or some other" -- but in spirit, truly see, there is much more to this than "shoes get dirty" other things, i wish to uncover

it's not that, it's that i guess i didn't make my question clear. why these two men, and not the Levites? why not anyone who brought a gift to the altar, or everyone who ever encountered the Angel of the Lord? why are they alone told this, in those specific moments at those specific places, but it is never given as a law? as much as it is a honorable symbolic action of respect, and a typology, it wasn't written in the Torah that it must be done. which is sort of odd to me, because the Law does in fact go into a lot of detail on other things.

do you think the Lord will judge anyone for not removing their sandals when entering a place made holy by His presence -- or ever has judged anyone for this? since it is not written in the law anywhere, and if they did not hear the audible voice of God instructing them to do so? how "reasonable" is it, i am asking? is it that reasonable? is it that expected for every person to know and obey? ((because i kinda get the idea that you would be judged for this by certain orthodoxies, as though it is in fact a law, even though it is not written in scripture as a law))

thanks, but as i said, i already know what talmudic teaching says -- the traditions of the scribes. Jesus didn't actually have nice things to say about rabbinic traditions and all the additions they made to the law given by God. that in and of itself doesn't mean that a thing is wrong simply because it is traditional, but it should give us a clue that just because a thing is traditional among the Jews doesn't mean it is given by God, either. the law itself tells priests to change their garments and goes into detail even about what kind of cloth all their robes should be made of, what color, where and what kind and color of tassels they should have, and how to cut their beard. odd, to me, that if it was so very important that they also should never wear shoes in certain places, it is not given in the law. don't you think? of course you are all free to go with the traditional additions of the scribes and the rabbis. the Jews are quite famous for careful reasoning. man's reasoning is itself also quite famous for sometimes reaching false conclusions. but we are not bound to rituals and ceremonies and careful reenactments of shadows, imitating substance -- we have the Spirit and do not live by the letter. my question isn't about what the Talmud says, or what the reasons normally given for common Arabic & Oriental practices of respect are; it's about why this should be told to Moses, who had spent 40 years in Egypt and 40 years among pagan people, no doubt learning something of their customs and cultural norms, and Joshua, who had spent 40 years at Moses' feet, learning all of Moses' idiosyncrasies and habits ((that's a clue, right?)) -- and then never written in the law for any Levite or for any proselyte Jew who came to the temple or the tabernacle. instead, we have traditions of the scribes. but we don't have law. so why is this given to these two, in particular? what is the Lord doing here? is He giving an absolute command for all subsequent encounters with the divine? ((why not then, a law, if it is law?)) or is He speaking personally to a couple men who would have had a specific cultural understanding of what this action meant?

some people here seem to have a prejudice about things i say ((maybe that's in my head, but maybe it's not - so i said "seem")) so maybe it's wise again to reiterate: i am not trying to encourage anyone to get a tattoo. so if you're accusing me in your heart, plz just stop, k? i'm just making some observations and musing.

in fact, i was reading Ezekiel 40 → today, about the figurative temple ((which some think is a sort of millineum temple to be built, except in it are sin & guilt offerings, so there's the one small issue of blasphemous, abominable sacrifice going on right in front of the Lord sitting on His throne for 1,000 years . . ? but that's another subject . . )) anyhow, in there, the temple is described as having engravings of palm trees on all the gates, and part of the temple grounds, a building for occupancy behind the main temple, decorated with rows of alternating cherubim and palm trees. the cherubim are described as having two faces, one a lion, and one a man - looking on either side to the palm trees interspersed between them. ((Ezekiel 41:15-20)) i thought, this would be an interesting tattoo, to have a ring of cherubim and palm trees as described in the scripture, around ones leg or arm. just as the body is the temple, reflecting how the scripture describes the adornment of the temple. i wouldn't consider that blasphemous, personally, but honoring God, actually -- though i know ((evidenced from this thread, easily)) there are those who would be utterly mollified and probably feel like cutting off all fellowship with a believer who did such a thing. ((not that i'm on my way to the tattoo parlor or anything. just read this and found it interesting)) another interesting thing is that in Ezekiel, though the motifs of palm trees and cherubim are repeated, i don't see the images of open flowers, as is described in the building and plans for the 1st temple ((in re: 1 Kings 6:29, etc)), nor the pomegranate, which was written to be woven into the ephod, and adorned the top of the pillars, etc. i wonder why is that? maybe in Ezekiel's vision, simply not all the details are given, since it is primarily concerned with the measurement and overall layout -- or maybe there is a significance to them being absent that hasn't been revealed to my thinking yet.

Solomon's temple was decorated within and without with pictures of cherubim, palm trees and open flowers. according to the design that the Lord Himself gave to David. i wouldn't call that "graffiti" -- sort of a wrong connotation there -- but don't go away with the idea that the temple was unadorned.

thanks for the reply. i know this is tradition, and taught by the rabbis that this is how the priests should have ministered ((though interestingly, today, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia and Chabbad.org, Jewish priests are to wear stockings, not go barefoot)) -- but i don't see this written as a law anywhere in scripture. so it's not clear to me that since the beginning, it is what they did -- or whether it's something scribes added to the law, which was not given, and not always practiced. certainly there are fine reasons for the tradition, and it's the way that respect is shown in Islam, and in Asia in Taoism & Buddhism & Shinto etc. -- but it's not given in the Torah. in the Law, priests were instructed to wash their feet, but they were not told they must be barefoot. Saul was not told to remove his sandals on the Damascus road, nor was Manoah, nor Jacob, nor Abraham -- though the Angel of the Lord spoke with all of them, and all of them were afraid, knowing they had seen God. i understand that there are fine reasons for the tradition, even outside of Judaism, but why isn't it given as a law, yet these two men, and these two men only, were instructed in this way only on these two occasions? is it simply taken for granted that everyone ought to know this because of these two examples? in Judaism, these two examples are the only justification from scripture ever given for a tradition.

a brother reminded me that this is actually mentioned again in scripture, so i would be wrong to say it's "never" repeated: When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand. And Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us, or for our adversaries?” And he said, “No; but I am the commander of the army of the Lord. Now I have come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped and said to him, “What does my lord say to his servant?” And the commander of the Lord's army said to Joshua, “Take off your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so. (Joshua 5:13-15) but we do not see this written in the law for people who entered the tabernacle or the temple -- right? so why is this given here, and why in particular to these men at these times? it doesn't seem to be a thing that is "always" commanded in the presence of God.

Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed. And Moses said, “I will turn aside to see this great sight, why the bush is not burned.” When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. (Exodus 3:1-6) as far as i know, this is the only place where we see this practice of removing ones shoes on "holy ground" in all of scripture. i realize that from this some groups have made it a practice for some places, but scripturally this practice doesn't have precedent in the Bible, and it is not continued after this point, not as recorded in scripture. so why did Moses remove his sandals? and why was he instructed to do so? two things i think to probably bear in mind: the thing that made the place holy was not the geographic location, but the presence of God Moses' feet were not any more or any less "holy" than his shoes

OK, um, my first thought is something like 'Holy Roman Empire 2.0' ??