A Temple Tale! Misconceptions of Prophet Ezekiel's Temple Vision
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 сен 2021
- Capac Bible Church in St Clair County Michigan capacbible.org presents a biblical study on the Prophet Ezekiel's temple vision, presented by guest lecturer Pastor Jory Steven Brooks. In the last nine chapters of his book, the prophet gives an elaborate vision of a restored land and temple. This vision is often referred to as “Ezekiel’s Millennial Temple in Jerusalem.” Yet there are at least four major errors in that short popular phrase. Firstly, the Temple was not located in “the city,” Secondly, the location of the city was not Jerusalem, thirdly, it was not millennial! Fourthly, there is no physical temple in the New Jerusalem of the millennial state. This will all be demonstrated with reference to Scripture and Biblical scholarship.
It is an interesting fact that in all nine chapters of Ezekiel’s vision there is never any mention of the word, “Jerusalem.” This is all the more surprising because it seems that everyone calls it “the Jerusalem Temple.” Instead, it is referred to again and again a dozen times vaguely as “the city,” and ten times in chapter 48 alone. It is not until the very last verse in the Book of Ezekiel, chapter 48 verse 35, that he finally gives us the name of “the city,” and it is NOT Jerusalem! He says, “…the name of the city…shall be, The LORD is there,” in Hebrew, “Jehovah Shammah,” and the plain fact is that it is not Jerusalem, nor is it located at the site of the old Jerusalem! Join with us in this interesting study as we set the record straight on one of the Bible's most misunderstood prophecies.
Thanks for watching! Please like our videos and subscribe to our channel. Your heartfelt comments are an encouragement to us. We also appreciate your financial support for this ministry. May God bless you is our prayer.
I'm 72 years old and I'm reading through the Bible for the 20th time. This is the BEST explanation I've heard!
I'm impressed with this teaching.
This makes more sense than anything else being taught on this subject. No other teaching has been able to adequately explain the animal sacrifices of Ezekiel's temple. I keep hearing that they are a reminder of the past atonement of Jesus, claiming it's similar to participating in communion. That makes no sense to me at all because in communion we are not performing animal sacrifices.
In temple sacrifices, the offerings are rigorously stipulated. The exact animal, its age and condition, how it's to be slaughtered, how the carcass is to be dispensed and offered, divided up etc. In communion, the elements representing flesh and blood are not specified in any detail not even in a rudimentary manner.
Thank you for this. So many Christians think animal sacrifice is okay again even with Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Blasphemy as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, it is definitely blasphemous.
To say this with certainty, you need to be able to explain all the detail of the temple and sacrifices. Otherwise, you may shut the door on a true understanding.
@@bobberry655 I say it with complete certainty. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross finished all of that. His blood is all we need.
@@judyjahnz2363 Thank you for your response. I, too, am certain that Christ's sacrifice and blood is all we need for our salvation. However, not all scripture is about our needs, or our salvation; and we need to dig deep to understand Ezekiel and to comment on it, if we are not to maintain polarised positions.
Thank you Pastor Brooks for your lesson on Ezekiel's Temple. This is one of the best explanations of this new temple that I have found. There are still some questions, but this is the best overall explanation. Thank you again for your diligent study and for sharing this.
Yeah, it's a good explanation. I'm a little confused how Messiah would have returned to that Ezekiel temple as the ruling king though, if he still had to die for our sins.
Why do you not start in ch 40?
The Temple is in Israel.
Wow. Post mill.
You take a concept and beat it to death. Like the preterists.
Ez39:7 -9
Dwell in the cities if Israel.
37:25 in the Land
Of Jacob.
38:8 on the mts. Of Israel
V11 unwalled villages?
V18 comes against the Land of Israel?
39:9 those who dwell in the cities of Israel.
43:7 this is the place of My throne forever.?
Again. 40:1,2 a very high Mt. IN the Land of Israel.
John was taken to a High Mt. also. Rev. 21:10 the great city ,the holy Jerusalem descending out of heaven from GOD.
High wall ,12 gates.
V23 the city
Literal. Literal numbers. 12,144,.
Literal foundations.
Wow. I thought I had heard it all til U!!
No thanks. More deception by intelligent men.
U will answer to God.
Humble yourselves.
Most of the book of Ezekiel is focussed on the physical nature of the "Ezekiel Temple". I believe it will be during the Millennium because there is no room for it on/in New Earth, New Jerusalem (we are told specifically that there will be no temple there). The Millennium would therefore be an example of the way it should have been in the first place. It's the only place the Ezekiel Temple would fit. Therefore, some of the scripture supposed to be for the Millennium might be actually for the New Earth.
Theory: I'm wondering if there is no church, no Holy Spirit in the Millennium per se. Both will be there, but acting more like the Old Testament days. Then everything makes perfect sense. When it doesn't then try applying it to the New Earth, see if it fits there.
Nice,
Yes, this man is a great Bible scholar. Thanks for watching.
Just as Moses had to receive the 10 commandments twice, so Israel will receive the law twice. This is supported in many scriptures throughout the prophets. You can't put God in a box. His word is truth.
Amen Amen Amen Amen
Is there any way I can get in contact with this man? This is very good bible discernment.
Pastor J. S. Brooks - BibleBlessings.Net
@@CapacBibleChurch thank you very much and God bless
@@CapacBibleChurch I think you may have given me the wrong link. It's a link for purchasing books.
Scripture is in agreement that Jesus will rule from Jerusalem during the Millennium. Jeremiah 3:17 is also specifically stating that. To teach otherwise would contradict such scriptures
I have another question if you don't mind. At one point during the sermon the speaker identified "the prince" as the messiah. If Israel had repented and Ezekiels temple vision had been actualized, would that prince have been Jesus, or would it be someone other than Jesus? The reason I ask is because Ezekiel 45:22 seems to indicate that the prince is someone who is sinful. It says "On that day the prince is to provide a bull as a sin offering *_FOR HIMSELF_* and for all the people of the land. Surely whether or not Jesus is sinless wouldn't depend upon whether the Israelites repented in the days of Ezekiel. Therefore, if we want to maintain that Jesus is sinless, it seems like we should conclude that the prince (i.e. messiah) would have been someone other than Jesus if Israel had repented and Ezekiels vision had been fulfilled. What do you think?
This scenario in Ezekiel 40-48 is most easily fulfilled in the time that the Israelites returned from Babylonian captivity. The word "prince" does not equate to the title of Messiah. The title of prince simply means leader, in any capacity. We read about Sheshbazzar being the "prince of Judah" when the exiles returned (Ezra 1:8). This title is plural in Ezek. 45:8 (i.e. "princes") and could therefore be explained as multiple leaders living at one time or as a successive line of prince-leaders passed on from one generation to the next.
@@josepheidsvik7623 As I'm sure you know, the laws of Ezekiel's vision are different from those found in the Torah. Can you cite any historical evidence that Ezekiels revised set of laws were adopted in place of the levitical laws upon the Israelites return from captivity?
@@chad969 What laws of Ezekiel's vision are different than those found in the Torah?
@@josepheidsvik7623 The law of Ezekiel requires a bull of purification on the 14th day of Nissan (Ezekiel 45:21-22) whereas there is no such bull required according to the Torah (Numbers 28:16). For the Matzot, Ezekiel requires 7 bulls, 7 rams, and no lambs, whereas the Torah requires 2 bulls, 1 ram, and 7 lambs (Ezekiel 45:23-24, Numbers 28:17-22) The Matzot meal offerings are different as well, with Ezekiel requiring an ephah and a hin of oil for each animal, and the torah requiring three-tenths of flour for a bull and two-tenths for a ram. On Sukkot, Ezekiel requires 7 rams and 7 bulls, but the torah requires 2 rams a decreasing number of bulls starting at 13 on the first day and decreasing down to 7 on the last day. (Ezekiel 45:25, Num 29:12-34) The meal offerings are also different. On Shabbat, Ezekiel requires 6 lambs and 1 ram and Numbers requires 2 lambs and no rams. (Ezekiel 46:4-5, Numbers 28:9-10) For Rosh Chodesh, Ezekiel requires 1 bull and 6 lambs, but Numbers requires 2 bulls and 7 lambs. Ezekiel's meal offering requires any amount of flour and a hin of oil for each ephah, whereas the torahs meal offering requires one tenth for each. (Ezekiel 46:6-7, Numbers 28:11-15).
@@chad969 First of all, I am truly impressed with your searching these things out and compared Scripture to Scripture. I really am. Most people in these forums don't want to spend time in the Scripture and would rather argue fanatical viewpoints. Thank you for an honest search.
Still, in this conversation regarding the descrepancies between the Torah and Ezekiel, I would ask whether the differences in Ezekiel in total number of sacrifices is really a difference in obedience to Torah? I mean, Israel has at many times differed from the required number of sacrifices and it was not considered a breaking of Torah (see 1 Kings 8:2-5, 1 Sam. 1:24-->Lev. 12:6-8). Let me know what you think.
Is there a chapter and verse where ithr temple is dependent on repentance?
The promises by Jehovah to Israel will be fulfilled, come what may.
Much of Israel will be brought to repentance in the time of Jacob's trouble (Jer. 30:7). So, to answer your question, the provision of the temple is not contingent on repentance, but depends only on the integrity and faihfulness of God. But enjoyment of that temple and the future associated blesings is contingent on the individual, and his/her repentance.
Good to try to make comparisons with the size of the lots and so on to help with the understanding of what is actually written.
However I think that you are unfortunately confused in some of what you are saying.
For example when talking about revelations chapter 21 you say that it describes the millennial kingdom but it doesn't.
The description of the millennial kingdom starts and ends in chapter 20.
Chapter 21 describes what happens after the 1000 years.
Exactly! Idk why but he's putting new Jerusalem in the millennium while the devil is in the pit when new Jerusalem doesn't come from heaven until after everyone has been judged and devil is put in the lake of fire.
@@YarredC Yeah, a bit disappointing.
Seems a bit sloppy.
I have tried to look a bit deeper into what he says in the video.
I feel very skeptical about his calculations of the size of the land also.
I think that the size of Israel in the book of Ezekiel is roughly the same as modern day Israel or bigger.
If history had gone differently such that the condition of Ezekiel’s temple vision (Israel’s repentance) had been met, would the Israelites still need the blood of Jesus in order to be saved?
No one needs Jesus to be forgiven.
@chad969…this is my take..all have sinned…the wages of sin is death…the shed blood of Yeshua conquered death something the sacrifice of an animal could not do…thus there will be a first and second resurrection…just as in the Passover in Egypt it was the blood of the lamb that saved the first born from death. Got Torah Got Truth
@harryabrahams2770 where did G-d ever declare that sin equates to death?
Genesis 4, we see G-d speak to it. He tells Cain to overcome sin. Not to put his faith in an eventual messiahs vicarious death. Not that he is doomed. No, G-d’s response to sin, His response and advice, is do good. We see this again in Ezekiel 18! There, Hashem says no one can pay for another's sin. He doesn't require sacrifices. He says He requires a repentant heart and if people choose to turn from doing bad and choose to do good, He will forgive them and remember their sin no more. Since G-d said all this, did He lie or how did He really mean none of what He said matters and what really matters and only way to be forgiven and avoid punishment is to believe in a vicarious sacrifice?
When did G-d ever say an animal sacrifice cleansed willful sin? He never did!
Seems your right, got Torah, you will have the truth. Read the Tanakh and avoid the Christian writings that most Christians can't even harmonize
If the designated time that Ezekiel prophesied was supposed to be at the return of the exiles, and yet they did not build it, wouldn't that indicate that Ezekiel was a false prophet in light of the fact that the exiles did in fact build a temple? What temple were the exiles building?
Thanks for your question, which may be on other people's minds as well....
Firstly, Ezekiel’s plan of restoration required all twelve tribes to return from exile and take their prescribed twelve districts in the reestablished nation. It could not be achieved without their wholesale repentance and return. Yet the Bible and biblical historians verify that the House of Israel (ten tribe Ephraim) rebuffed Ezekiel’s pleas and did not return. See my video studies at bibleblessings.net. Ezra and Nehemiah over and over refer to those who did come back as “Judah and Benjamin,” with no mention of any additional tribe. These prophets were present on the scene so they would know! See my article, “EZRA AND THE LOST TRIBES: AN EYE-WITNESS TO HISTORY” posted on the main page at israelite.info.
Secondly, a majority of the House of Judah (the tribes of Judah and Benjamin) also did not return, having become content with their lives in Babylon. The Assyrians in 701 B.C. (before the later conquest by the Babylonians) conquered 46 fenced cities of Judah, everything but the city of Jerusalem itself. History records that over 200,000 of Judah went into exile, but only a small remnant of 42,360 returned (Ezra 2:64). Compare that with the 600,000 Israelite men (not even counting the women and children) reported in Exodus 12:37. So most of the tribes and most of the people did not return. There simply was not enough people or tribes on hand to put Ezekiel’s vision into reality.
Thirdly, there was a lack of faith and repentance even in many of those who did return. To say that Ezekiel was at fault for the exiles rebuffing his directive to repent and return is to misunderstand the situation that so many of the prophets faced (and Christ as well: Matt. 23:37; he came with a mission to bring salvation to the people, John 3:17, and they crucified Him!). Another example is the prophet Jeremiah, who has been called “the weeping prophet” because the people refused to listen to him and repent. The Jerusalem leaders threw him into a muddy hell-hole in response to his own pleas for repentance. His call for the people of that day to accept a “New Covenant” (Jer. 31:31-34) was summarily rejected.
The temple that the exiles built was a poor replica of Solomon’s Temple with the old order of priesthood. Ezekiel’s entire prescribed new order of worship was rejected by the faithless people.
@@CapacBibleChurch I would suggest that all the tribes did return, more people returned than went into exile, and that the people did repent. Ezekiel's temple is much less glorious (in terms of monetary value) than Solomon's. Additionally, we are told in the context of Ezekiel's prophecy that Ezekiel himself would begin the initial priestly service. I can explain this if you have the time.
@@CapacBibleChurch What about Jer. 50:1-4? Both houses of Israel after the Babylonian captivity. Who is hearing the message that Zechariah spoke in Zech. 8:13? Who does it say returned from Babylon to establish Jerusalem in 1 Chron. 9:1-3? Is this not all of faithful Israel?
So in your opinion, more came back than went into exile? All the tribes returned? Both the Bible and modern scholarship refute that, as I have amply shown in my articles referenced above, and yet I have only given a small portion of the supporting evidence available. For example, Dr. Wm. Schneidewind, in his book, “In Search of the Exile,” says, “In the last days of the Judean monarchy, we have a relatively densely populated, economically prosperous urban state. This picture radically changes in the Babylonian period.” (p.6) In other words, there was an immense drop in population due to the exile. Dr. Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, in “A Biblical Theology of Exile,” says, “In the 7th century, at the end of the monarchy, there are at least 116 sites in Judah, cities, towns, and villages. In the 6th century the number drops to 41 sites.” (p. 47) This is based upon actual on-the-ground archaeology, not opinion, yours or mine. We know based on archaeological evidence that 6th century Yahud (post-exile Judea) was but “a remnant of a remnant” as one scholar put it. This entirely coincides with Scripture.
Dr. Smith-Christopher, a recognized authority in the matter, says based on the evidence, “80% of the cities, towns, and villages were abandoned or destroyed in the 6th century.” (ibid. p.47). So most of both houses of Israel went into exile leaving the land devastated. This destruction still largely existed after the exile and many of the towns and villages remained uninhabited even after the return of the remnant.
In the book, “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” Dr. Lawrence T. Geraty of Andrews University is quoted: “Because there is no evidence for a bona fide Persian period occupation of any size [i.e. by Jewish exiles returning] the initial phase of Hellenistic occupation may be due to Idumean settlement.” (p.546) Whatever size the reoccupation of Judea, it was largely not by Israelites because a large percentage of post-exile influx into Judea were Edomites, not Hebrews! The Edomite settlement does not constitute a biblical return of Israel, and the Edomites through conquest by John Hyrcanus became a large portion of the Jewish people after the exile. (ref: F. Josephus and Rev. 2:9; 3:9)
Like you (apparently?), I once was taken in by Dispensationalist theology, but by honest research it became clear how unbiblical and unhistorical their teachings are. I have spent many weeks over fifteen summers in London, England, researching in the British Library, as well as many hours in the Harlan Hatcher Graduate Studies Library at the University of Michigan. As a result I have 25 college ruled notebooks (2,500 pages of notes!) full of research and a Bible filled with valuable notes. It would be entirely reasonable to ask that you at least read what I have written on the subject (see my previous links) before telling me in an apparently knee-jerk response that I (i.e. Scripture and scholars quoted!) are wrong. Please review the evidence compiled in the many articles and videos posted on the sites bibleblessings.net, israelite.info, and migrations.info and it is certain that your knowledge of this subject will benefit immensely. Further discussion would not be very fruitful without you understanding the scholarship on this subject.@@josepheidsvik7623
1Chron. 9:3 "And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim, and Manasseh."
Almost all the older established authorities (see following) believe this passage relates to pre-exilic Israel, not Judah after the return. So it does not support your argument that all of the House of Israel (ten tribe Ephraim) returned from exile. It does appear that you wish to seize on a verse that scholars call obscure and use it to contradict numerous other clear passages of Scripture that refute what you believe. That is not being honest with yourself or the evidence!
According to the reputable Pulpit Commentary: 1 Chron. 9:2,
“Now the first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions, in their cities. Authorities are very divided as to whether this expression describes inhabitants of the land before the Captivity or subsequent to it. Almost all the older authorities, and Keil amongst those of more modern date, take the former position; Movers, Bertheau, and others take the latter, as also Canon Rawlinson. It must be admitted that there is some obscurity, and which accounts for the contrariety of opinion.”
Pulpit Commentary: 1 Chron. 9:3,
And of the children of Ephraim, and Manasseh. These words are not found in Nehemiah 11:4 [and thus may indeed not refer to the situation after the exile.]
Keil & Delitzsch Bible Commentary 1 Chron. 9:2, “The former inhabitants in their possessions in their cities, were Israel, the priests,” etc., according to which the following words, 1 Chron. 9:3, “And in Jerusalem there dwelt of the sons of Judah,” etc., can only be understood of the pre-exilic inhabitants.”
Once again, I ask you to please read the well documented articles on the links above. Take some time and study this out as I have. Benefit from all of my research. Don’t just throw obscure passages of Scripture at me and ignore all of the other solid historical and Scriptural evidence presented. Now it is time for you to follow the links I gave you and do some reading.
@Joseph Eidsvik
God took me to the Land of Israel
oh thats abit stupid to think it was not built because of some people problem WHEN GOD SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT NONE OF THEIR SINS OR PROBLEMS WILL EFFECT IT.
I agree. There is no proof that God told Ezekiel that this would be a conditional prophecy for Israel. There is not if condition stated. This vision he had was not only prophetic but a way for the Israelites of Ezekiel's time to feel bad for their iniquities. Not once did it say in the scriptures, "If you fix your disobedience you'll get this temple." If it did then he would have a point.
It will be 1/7th larger than Solomon's temple. We know the temple sat with the front doors looking at the East Gate. Al Aqsa Mosque is sitting right where the old temple sat. They even placed graves in front of the East Gate to stop the Messiah from coming back through it. When Yeshua came through the East Gate on the donkey, the Sanhedrin were watching standing at the front doors of the Temple. It must have upset them seeing them waving and laying palm branches as he came through the gate, saying Hosannah, Messiah.
God to me to a high Mt. City south of it.
Prophet Zechariah 14/20-21.????
ezekiel 43:7 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
SOOO NO NOTHING ANYONE CAN DO WILL EFFECT THIS SORRY YOU ARE WRONG BY GODS OWN WORDS
New Torah?
After the city was captured? Jerusalem was captured.
Ezekiel was in no way commanded to "build" , " for the intent that i might shew them unto thee art thou brought hither" . A very high mountain= new mt Zion=the new Jerusalem= the kingdom. "I go to prepare a place". The river the gates all align with ezekiel's vision. Thats all it was a "VISION" of the kingdom where both jew and gentile believers dwell. Eph 2:21 "fitly framed together" . Bride=new Jerusalem.
if they try and build ezeikels temple after and say its where God is it means that they built the second temple not even thinking God was in there. they had ezeikels temple dimensions already. God didnt tell them any dimensions of the second temple they built. why would they even build the second temple if they had a backupplan that if it ever got destroyed they could build ezeikels temple. either the temple should be built how God says or dont build it.
That is if you think the millennial kingdom is a literal 1000 year reign on the earth. But it is not. The millennial is now and David, that is Jesus Christ, is now seated at the right hand of the Father.
And David my servant [shall be] king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. (Eze 37:24 KJV)
It is not talking about a possible kingdom which the Jews rejected, because God is working all things after the counsel of his own will. His word will NEVER fail. To teach that the word of God failed is a preposterous idea.
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it. (Isa 55:11 KJV)
Not shaken me up.
then go fit the 144 000 into that space
this man listens to Men......Dr.'s and such,
Matthew 24:4
King James Version
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
This man speaks of blaspheme
I hope you listen to your pastor. 🤷♂️
You sound like the preterists who deceived me for 2 years. Very arrogant.
Only
Off-putting when someone in the back ground has to say'amen' to every sentence
doesn't put me off