Why a third Temple?

[other one]

they are planning on building a third temple before the Antichrist comes out of the closet....   Just putting modern history coming to pass into the end time picture.

[Esther4:14]

I found this thread interesting so I decided to reread Ezekiel 40-48 with consideration to what is being said throughout the thread.  When I did this, the part about the offering became a sore thumb for me in understanding what these passages meant, so I did some digging around the board and found a great thread on the subject from a while back http://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/3261-temple-of-ezekiel-40-48/?page=1

Among other things that started to click reading through this thread, the part about the offering being a memorial rather than a return to the Mosaic law turned on the light.  I have long considered the finish line of the work of the cross to be the mark of beast.  In other words, when scripture says that there will be no rest for those who take the mark of the beast, it is telling us that Jesus' work on the cross did not pay for the sin of those who would take the mark (Revelation 14:11).  

Therefore, I think what you have within the context of the offering within the Ezekiel temple is something more comparable to when Isaac was replaced with a ram (Genesis 22:13).  Right now, we are the offering (Romans 12:1-2) evidenced by the persecution of the church until the end of the time of tribulation, and we will be replaced by a ram (or the offering of the Ezekiel temple) as Isaac was replaced and not required as the offering any longer.  This whole process of offering ourselves is to bring in the kingdom of God, which I think could be considered similar to the process Ezekiel went through by laying on his side to bear the iniquity of Israel (Ezekiel 4:4).  He said, "The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed" (Luke 17:20).  In other words, it is not coming by visibly building a temple, but through the saints offering their lives.  

So, what the Ezekiel temple offering is telling us is that this will be the end of the persecution of the church, Amen!  And, the prophecy confirms that there will be persecution until the first resurrection, which is the Millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:1-6), and the Ezekiel temple is the kingdom of God that is spoken of throughout the New Testament.  Therefore, the vision of Ezekiel is comparable to the parable of the mustard seed (Luke 13:18-19) and chapters 40-48 show the increase from the millennial kingdom represented in the offering of the Ezekiel temple.  The offering of the temple will increase the kingdom of God because the offering will no longer be an offense to Him (Isaiah 1:11).  Throughout the thousand years, the offering will no longer be an offense and can be used in place of ourselves and we will be able to reign with Christ in peace without fear of persecutions.

Then, it would appear that this time of acceptable offering (which I would imagine will also be the food of the priests serving in the temple even though this is not specific in the vision) will increase the kingdom of God and bring in the New Jerusalem indicated when Ezekiel leaves the temple and travels down the river to see the city described in Revelation 21 (Ezekiel 47-48).   

Therefore, there will only be three temples, Solomon's; the temple built in exile; and the Millennial temple, which does not represent the law but the fulfillment of the law (Matthew 5:17).  The New Jerusalem does not represent a 4th temple, and a temple built prior to end of the time of tribulation could not be counted as a temple of God.  Trying to build a Ezekiel temple and re-institute an offering before the first resurrection would be like Saul presenting the offering because he did not want to wait for Samuel to arrive any longer (1 Samuel 13:8-15).  It would be an offense to Him.  

"There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this." (Isaiah 9:7).    

Edited October 19, 2015 by Esther4:14

[Guest shiloh357]

It is important to understand that even the Mosaic sacrifices were just memorials.   In Hebrew, the word for "memorial (zachar/zichron) means to look forward and back.   No one was saved through sacrifices in the Mosaic time.  They were a picture of the only true sin offering that was to come.   There appears to be an unspoken assumption that the sacrifices were how people got saved in the OT and that Jesus did away with that provided a new way of salvation.   That is an incorrect assumption.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 Revelation 21:22   And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

John saw no physical temple in the vision, but a spiritual one instead.

yes, but that is in reference to the New Heavens and New Earth where there will be no temple.    Ezekiel's Temple will be millennial.

 

Shiloh

When Jesus said;

John 2:19   ....... Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Was he speaking of a physical temple or a spiritual one?
 

 

He was speaking of his body.    But what does that have to do with this.  There is no way Ezekiel's Temple can be anything but a literal temple.  Given its measurements, we know that it has never existed before.  It has no menorah, no laver, no table of showbread, no veil, no altar of incense...   It is not a mosaic temple.   It is too big for the temple mount we have today and even bigger than most of the Old City of Jerusalem.   It is a literal structure that will exist in the millennial kingdom.

None of temple imagery that the NT uses to illustrate spiritual truths rules out the two future temples, the one the anti-Christ will defile and the one in Ezekiel 40-48.

[other one]

It is important to understand that even the Mosaic sacrifices were just memorials.   In Hebrew, the word for "memorial (zachar/zichron) means to look forward and back.   No one was saved through sacrifices in the Mosaic time.  They were a picture of the only true sin offering that was to come.   There appears to be an unspoken assumption that the sacrifices were how people got saved in the OT and that Jesus did away with that provided a new way of salvation.   That is an incorrect assumption.

I'm glad you posted that....   I was just starting to try and form a post saying the same thing.....

[Esther4:14]

Hmm, I don't know that I am familiar with a whole lot of confusion over the symbolic nature of the offering within the Mosaic law.  The offering represented obedience, which was accepted in exchange for a number of sins that is no longer required because of the the cross.  It wasn't what saved you, it was an act of humility, denying the flesh, purging pride, and circumcising the heart.  The question is how are we to understand the future prospect of re-instituting the practice of offerings after His work on the cross.  I think that recognizing the offering as a memorial is a way to help everyone understand the time and place that offerings will be acceptable before Him in the future temple after the first resurrection.  The offering becomes a reference beyond the law of Moses and the offering and the altar would appear to be a significant piece of the memorial.  The first offerings were actually made by Cain and Abel according to scripture; and Noah is said to have built the first altar (Genesis 4:3-4; Genesis 8:20).  With that being said, there might be an even deeper way to describe the offering within the Ezekiel temple than using the term memorial that I am unable to think of at the moment.  But, I think that it would make a good thread.  

 

Edited October 20, 2015 by Esther4:14

[Guest shiloh357]

Hmm, I don't know that I am familiar with a whole lot of confusion over the symbolic nature of the offering within the Mosaic law.  The offering represented obedience, which was accepted in exchange for a number of sins that is no longer required because of the the cross.  It wasn't what saved you, it was an act of humility, denying the flesh, purging pride, and circumcising the heart.  The question is how are we to understand the future prospect of re-instituting the practice of offerings after His work on the cross.  I think that recognizing the offering as a memorial is a way to help everyone understand the time and place that offerings will be acceptable before Him in the future temple after the first resurrection.  The offering becomes a reference beyond the law of Moses and the offering and the altar would appear to be a significant piece of the memorial.  The first offerings were actually made by Cain and Abel according to scripture; and Noah is said to have built the first altar (Genesis 4:3-4; Genesis 8:20).  With that being said, there might be an even deeper way to describe the offering within the Ezekiel temple than using the term memorial that I am unable to think of at the moment.  But, I think that it would make a good thread.  

 

There is no problem with memorial sacrifices and there is no confusion, except the confusion you are manufacturing.   The sacrifices didn't save you, so they are not crosswise with what Jesus did on the cross.   There is no offerings for man's sin in Ezekiel's temple.  The Yom Kippur sin offering is not part of that temple and these are not Mosaic offerings being reestablished.      The ONLY was to describe them is as "memorials."  There is no better way because that is how they are presented.   You seem to want to want to depart from how they are presented in the text because it bothers you, but the Bible says what it says and trying to come up with a different description other than what the Bible provides is only adding the Word of God.

[Esther4:14]

Hmm, I don't know that I am familiar with a whole lot of confusion over the symbolic nature of the offering within the Mosaic law.  The offering represented obedience, which was accepted in exchange for a number of sins that is no longer required because of the the cross.  It wasn't what saved you, it was an act of humility, denying the flesh, purging pride, and circumcising the heart.  The question is how are we to understand the future prospect of re-instituting the practice of offerings after His work on the cross.  I think that recognizing the offering as a memorial is a way to help everyone understand the time and place that offerings will be acceptable before Him in the future temple after the first resurrection.  The offering becomes a reference beyond the law of Moses and the offering and the altar would appear to be a significant piece of the memorial.  The first offerings were actually made by Cain and Abel according to scripture; and Noah is said to have built the first altar (Genesis 4:3-4; Genesis 8:20).  With that being said, there might be an even deeper way to describe the offering within the Ezekiel temple than using the term memorial that I am unable to think of at the moment.  But, I think that it would make a good thread.  

 

There is no problem with memorial sacrifices and there is no confusion, except the confusion you are manufacturing.   The sacrifices didn't save you, so they are not crosswise with what Jesus did on the cross.   There is no offerings for man's sin in Ezekiel's temple.  The Yom Kippur sin offering is not part of that temple and these are not Mosaic offerings being reestablished.      The ONLY was to describe them is as "memorials."  There is no better way because that is how they are presented.   You seem to want to want to depart from how they are presented in the text because it bothers you, but the Bible says what it says and trying to come up with a different description other than what the Bible provides is only adding the Word of God.

I am not manufacturing confusion.  Jesus was the sacrifice for sin.  This is associated with the offerings in the Mosaic law that makes it difficult to understand the offerings being re instituted in the Ezekiel temple.  Did my description of what I think a offering was upset you or do you just not like me.  

I liked reading the way George presented the subject.  He did a great job of explaining this to me that was very gentle and I very much enjoyed reading what he had to say about it, which is why I referenced it.  However, every time you speak you sound angry and hateful.  Even when we are in agreement.  It is just astounding.  Calm down.  No one is arguing with you and I don't have to word everything the way you do to be acceptable.  I can communicate in the way I want to that will help me understand something that you are not even in disagreement with me on, yet you still yell at me.  

I am manufacturing confusion.  Seriously... You need to take a etiquette class of some kind.  You are seriously one of the meanest Christians I have ever met in my life.  Someone has to at least tell you once.  I think you are more of a bully than an evangelist.  

Edited October 20, 2015 by Esther4:14

[Guest shiloh357]

Hmm, I don't know that I am familiar with a whole lot of confusion over the symbolic nature of the offering within the Mosaic law.  The offering represented obedience, which was accepted in exchange for a number of sins that is no longer required because of the the cross.  It wasn't what saved you, it was an act of humility, denying the flesh, purging pride, and circumcising the heart.  The question is how are we to understand the future prospect of re-instituting the practice of offerings after His work on the cross.  I think that recognizing the offering as a memorial is a way to help everyone understand the time and place that offerings will be acceptable before Him in the future temple after the first resurrection.  The offering becomes a reference beyond the law of Moses and the offering and the altar would appear to be a significant piece of the memorial.  The first offerings were actually made by Cain and Abel according to scripture; and Noah is said to have built the first altar (Genesis 4:3-4; Genesis 8:20).  With that being said, there might be an even deeper way to describe the offering within the Ezekiel temple than using the term memorial that I am unable to think of at the moment.  But, I think that it would make a good thread.  

 

There is no problem with memorial sacrifices and there is no confusion, except the confusion you are manufacturing.   The sacrifices didn't save you, so they are not crosswise with what Jesus did on the cross.   There is no offerings for man's sin in Ezekiel's temple.  The Yom Kippur sin offering is not part of that temple and these are not Mosaic offerings being reestablished.      The ONLY was to describe them is as "memorials."  There is no better way because that is how they are presented.   You seem to want to want to depart from how they are presented in the text because it bothers you, but the Bible says what it says and trying to come up with a different description other than what the Bible provides is only adding the Word of God.

I am not manufacturing confusion.  Jesus was the sacrifice for sin.  This is associated with the offerings in the Mosaic law that makes it difficult to understand the offerings being re instituted in the Ezekiel temple.  Did my description of what I think a offering was upset you or do you just not like me.  

I liked reading the way George presented the subject.  He did a great job of explaining this to me that was very gentle and I very much enjoyed reading what he had to say about it, which is why I referenced it.  However, every time you speak you sound angry and hateful.  Even when we are in agreement.  It is just astounding.  Calm down.  No one is arguing with you and I don't have to word everything the way you do to be acceptable.  I can communicate in the way I want to that will help me understand something that you are not even in disagreement with me on, yet you still yell at me.  

I am manufacturing confusion.  Seriously... You need to take a etiquette class of some kind.  You are seriously one of the meanest Christians I have ever met in my life.  Someone has to at least tell you once.  I think you are more of a bully than an evangelist.  

The Mosaic offerings aren't being reestablished.  That's the point.   Your premise is simply wrong, so everything you are building on that premise is wrong.   My point is that there is no confusion.  You simply don't understand.  . I simply addressed the confusion that you seem to think exists.

[Esther4:14]

Hmm, I don't know that I am familiar with a whole lot of confusion over the symbolic nature of the offering within the Mosaic law.  The offering represented obedience, which was accepted in exchange for a number of sins that is no longer required because of the the cross.  It wasn't what saved you, it was an act of humility, denying the flesh, purging pride, and circumcising the heart.  The question is how are we to understand the future prospect of re-instituting the practice of offerings after His work on the cross.  I think that recognizing the offering as a memorial is a way to help everyone understand the time and place that offerings will be acceptable before Him in the future temple after the first resurrection.  The offering becomes a reference beyond the law of Moses and the offering and the altar would appear to be a significant piece of the memorial.  The first offerings were actually made by Cain and Abel according to scripture; and Noah is said to have built the first altar (Genesis 4:3-4; Genesis 8:20).  With that being said, there might be an even deeper way to describe the offering within the Ezekiel temple than using the term memorial that I am unable to think of at the moment.  But, I think that it would make a good thread.  

 

There is no problem with memorial sacrifices and there is no confusion, except the confusion you are manufacturing.   The sacrifices didn't save you, so they are not crosswise with what Jesus did on the cross.   There is no offerings for man's sin in Ezekiel's temple.  The Yom Kippur sin offering is not part of that temple and these are not Mosaic offerings being reestablished.      The ONLY was to describe them is as "memorials."  There is no better way because that is how they are presented.   You seem to want to want to depart from how they are presented in the text because it bothers you, but the Bible says what it says and trying to come up with a different description other than what the Bible provides is only adding the Word of God.

I am not manufacturing confusion.  Jesus was the sacrifice for sin.  This is associated with the offerings in the Mosaic law that makes it difficult to understand the offerings being re instituted in the Ezekiel temple.  Did my description of what I think a offering was upset you or do you just not like me.  

I liked reading the way George presented the subject.  He did a great job of explaining this to me that was very gentle and I very much enjoyed reading what he had to say about it, which is why I referenced it.  However, every time you speak you sound angry and hateful.  Even when we are in agreement.  It is just astounding.  Calm down.  No one is arguing with you and I don't have to word everything the way you do to be acceptable.  I can communicate in the way I want to that will help me understand something that you are not even in disagreement with me on, yet you still yell at me.  

I am manufacturing confusion.  Seriously... You need to take a etiquette class of some kind.  You are seriously one of the meanest Christians I have ever met in my life.  Someone has to at least tell you once.  I think you are more of a bully than an evangelist.  

The Mosaic offerings aren't being reestablished.  That's the point.   Your premise is simply wrong, so everything you are building on that premise is wrong.   My point is that there is no confusion.  You simply don't understand.  . I simply addressed the confusion that you seem to think exists.

Yet you talk to me like I was the only one stupid enough to be confused by this even though this was part of the question relating to the opening post is how we are talk certain things about the temple and the offering from the perspective of the New Covenant and yet you never seem to address this in order to clarify anything.  You just seem to like to wave your finger in frustration that we are not all as theologically gifted as yourself.  

And I do understand, even though you seem to think that you are showing me some kindness by pointing out the confusion I had initially had with your iron fist.  I feel like I have been socked in the face.  That is how your words make me feel.  I realize you never seem to think you have done anything wrong.  This is always the responsibility of the other person from what I have seen, which is why I usually ignore you and will go to doing so.