Understanding Ezekiel's Future Temple Sacrifices in the Kingdom

[@Parkeri1313]

9:15 As you know authorial intent is very important. You're correct in saying that nether Ezekiel nor the people of his time knew of such a future new-heavens temple. However, YHWH did know of such a temple and He did know that His Son would inaugurate a new kingdom and a new people of God who'd be, not Jew only, but, both Jew and Gentile and who'd dwell in His presence for all eternity. The Author of Ezekiel is YHWH and knew all about His future plans for His people, His church, but chose to use language in Ezekiel's day to communicate to His people Israel.

[@wesleyadams6108]

It’s the fulfillment of Scripture. You get the Temple when you do not spiritualize the Text to support the Historical view of interpretation

[@thebiblesojourner]

spiritualizing the text is the recipe for disaster.

[@bettynewman66]

I really enjoyed this teaching. When our Women's Bible study group studied Hebrews verse-by-verse, I didn't have an answer for this. Now I do! Thank you. On a "not so scholarly approach" I always wondered about the sacrifices providing food for the priests as they did with Temple sacrifices. As I said, "non-scholarly" 🙂

[@thebiblesojourner]

So glad this could be helpful for you! Well, your "non-scholarly" thought is a good one! It certainly does factor into the levitical system of the OT, and one would expect it is a source of food in the millennium as well. I guess we will see 🙂

[@Lisa_WI_Wolf]

@@thebiblesojourner I think we see exactly this provision for the priests in Ezekiel 44:28-30 just as God promised to the priests in the “everlasting” covenant of salt in Numbers 18:19 which appears to outlast the Mosaic covenant. Real priests making real sacrifices and eating real food in a real millennial temple makes sense in light of the separate covenant God made with Phinehas and his descendants in Numbers 25:11-13. Have you ever done an episode on this priestly covenant? I would love to hear it.

[@TheEpigone]

I am about 3/4 finished here. I am a staunch futuristic Premil guy, and would say of the Irenaeus variety (so historic, just not Laddian). I have struggled with the Ezekiel 40-48 and whether or not it is actually referring to a future Millennial temple or not. My struggle isn’t whether or not it could be there because if God said it’s going to happen then it is going to happen. My struggle has been with whether I am understanding correctly or not. My default has been one of willingness to accept it and just shrug my shoulders when someone challenges the idea and say, “Well, if God said it then it really isn’t a matter of whether it agrees my system or not, even if my mind doesn’t fully grasp it.” That said, I do find that the ceremonial cleansing view is actually helpful, especially when we understand that the sacrificial system wasn’t exclusively dealing with cleansing from sin. The reason I find this helpful is because so often I hear from my fellow Reformed friends (mostly 1689 guys, as I am a Reformed Baptist) is, “How is it possible that the resurrected and glorified Lord Jesus could dwell in the midst of fallen men?” I know of some Premil guys that will say there won’t be any non-glorified people on the earth. However, that just doesn’t make sense of the Prophets; it just brushes over them. However, this answers it. Ezk. 40-48 actually answers how it is possible, but people have to be willing to have all of the Bible on equal footing and not put the New Testament texts on a superior level. Btw, I love Waymeyer’s Amillennialism and the Age to Come.

[@thebiblesojourner]

Well said my friend. Appreciate your willingness to go wherever the text of Scripture goes. We can’t hold opinions of men (or systems) above the Word. So glad to hear you are familiar with Waymeyer’s work already.

[@danielwarton5343]

I found Donald Grey Barnhouse helpful with this in the invisible war. There is a purpose for the eternal state being played out in all of the preceding events. How could man fall whilst with Christ? a in the same way Adam did in the garden and there is a long game plan that will not only defeat Satan and sin but will ensure the safe keeping of all believers for eternity after the scope of history is culminated.

[@julielabrecque6416]

It is about the Catholic Church which offers the Sacrifce of the Mass, and this is offered Daily, and it is this that the Anti-Christ will stop.

[@5crownsoutreach]

The Millennial Temple is such a wonderful meditation on the fulfillment of every jot and tittle of the promises of God on this earth.

[@thebiblesojourner]

Good point! It is not as though there is a lack of clarity on the issue.

[@5crownsoutreach]

@@thebiblesojourner My dissertation had to tackle this issue directly, as a dispy paradigm for Jewish evangelism! What a valuable section of Scripture it is!

[@carolberubee]

Just a few weeks ago, I pointed out to someone that the offerings and sacrifices in Leviticus were almost all for ceremonial or worship purposes, not for expiation of personal sin. I said that the guilt or trespass offering was to make reparations for sin that caused harm to others; the burnt offering had to do with total devotion to God; the peace offering included thanksgiving, freewill, and wave offerings to signify fellowship and mutual blessings; and the sin offering was to purify someone due to ritual uncleanness, not to atone for sin. All I got was pushback, though, because this person clearly has not studied the OT sacrificial system. I think this is a huge problem in the Church at large. At best, most Evangelicals only get the connection between Christ taking away sin / the Day of Atonement, but don't understand anything beyond that. Because of this dearth of knowledge, many Christians reject a literal Millennium with a literal Temple and a literal worship system. For some people, the fact that Premillennialists take Ezekiel 40-48 literally and wholly, causes them to reject Premill altogether.

[@thebiblesojourner]

You’re absolutely right. There is a huge problem in the church with not knowing the foundational realities found in the OT.

[@wesleyadams6108]

Thanks for this episode I really enjoyed

[@thebiblesojourner]

Thanks for the encouragement! Glad it was enjoyable.

[@Nivalian]

This is an excellent channel. Thank you!

[@thebiblesojourner]

Appreciate that my friend!

[@AegisFury00]

As someone who is just starting out on this issue, I find this very helpful.

[@thebiblesojourner]

So glad to hear it was helpful for you. Blessings!

[@Brian-tk5vt]

Very good overview of such a heated section. Matt Waymayer is such a great writer and also very fair. His amil book is a great resource for anyone interested in eschatology. Our opponents so often attack the idea of millenial sacrifices but completely ignore the rest of this section (40-48), detail after detail after detail. It sounds so familiar to the instructions to build the literal tabernacle and the literal temple of Solomon. If one placed Ezekiel 40-48 side by side with no chapter verses or titles with the instructions for the tabernacle and solomonic temple, one would never assume Ezekiel's temple was symbolic.

[@thebiblesojourner]

Well said my friend. Very important to address issues like this in a fair way without being emotional. And Waymeyer is great with everything he does. Completely agree with your assessment on the amill book!

[@kayjs10]

This video was very helpful in explaining some things about the sacrifices in Millenial kingdom and also about atonement in the OT.

[@thebiblesojourner]

I am so glad to hear it was helpful! Praise God!

[@mikeyonce2323]

Peter, this was a fantastic video. And Matt is awesome in his research and exegesis. This video was so providential, as I am teaching eschatology in Sunday School. It just so happens that I touched on the millennial temple in Eze 40-48, last Sunday, and will go over some more this Sunday. I like that part concerning Acts 21. I have several passages I will share Sunday that show how some Jews (James, Paul, etc) continued with some of the OT law, and that there wasn't the sharp cutoff many think occured after being saved. Appreciate your teaching so very much! May God bless you richly!

[@thebiblesojourner]

Praise God! Very glad to hear this was helpful for you. Thanks for your faithfulness in teaching the saints! That’s a vital service.

[@freedomologist]

Wow! I just watched a Bible Sojourner episode that dealt with comments made by Jeff Durbin and the Apologia gang concerning the nature of those who are “true Israel”, and I left a request for a video that covered the sacrificial system of the coming Temple in light of the perfect sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. I wake up the next day, and this video was in my feed. I didn’t know that this content had already been created when I asked for it. How providential! Thanking God for your ministry!

[@thebiblesojourner]

So glad to hear you found it! I tried leaving you a comment directing you to it. I had gotten lots of requests for this. I hope it is helpful! And yes, thank God for His provision!

[@rossbriannestein5054]

This video really helped my understanding of the sacrificial system. For a long time I had always wondered why there would be a temple during the millennial Kingdom, this video helped bring answers and clarity..

[@thebiblesojourner]

So glad to hear that it helped! Praise God! Thanks for sharing that.

[@artemisgrammatas6117]

Very interesting as I just went through the book of Ezekiel and your comments made so much sense. Thank you

[@thebiblesojourner]

So glad to hear you found it helpful! Praise the Lord!

[@DirkBill1]

The book To Seek, To Do, and To Teach, appeared IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND. I love Matt Wehmeyer and wanted a copy for such an important chapter in what seems to be a great book.

[@thebiblesojourner]

So you weren’t able to find it? Did you follow the link? If you go to my blog article on a future temple I include Waymeyer’s chapter as a link there.

[@empese1127]

Thanks for this and for the link to the article! I always found that Acts 21 event like one of those accounts that made me scratch my head and say: "now what do I do with this because this purification most definitely required a sacrifice?". I definitely have to go back and study Leviticus more with more dedication. Not all sacrifices were for the atonement of sin, we are are even called to present ourselves to God as living sacrifices. I'll mark this down as one of the 100's topics promised delivered XD. May the Lord keep using you.

[@thebiblesojourner]

Haha, 1/100s is a start at least 😀 Blessings my friend!

[@chrislabrec]

Thank you I enjoyed this a lot!

[@thebiblesojourner]

Glad to hear that. Praise God!

[@genejoy637]

Peter, thank you for this video. I had read through the entire Bible years ago, and Ezekiel 40-48 was one of the few places that seemed inconsistent with the overall message of the Old and New Testaments. Your explanation of the different views, especially the ceremonial/cleansing view of the sacrifices, helps to untie what was a very tight knot in my understanding of Scripture and my belief in its essential unity.

[@thebiblesojourner]

Praise God! So glad to hear it was helpful and useful for you. And congrats on reading through the whole Bible! I love to hear that!

[@seanwilson1837]

Ezekiel 40 starts off the most obvious interpretation. He was in exile along with everyone else. The temple was rebuilt after exile. Case closed right?

[@genejoy637]

@@seanwilson1837 I might have thought the same thing, and Ezekiel 43:10-12 makes that view seem plausible. However, Ezekiel 40-43 is a very detailed description of the measurements of the temple, and Ezekiel 42:15-20 describes the outer dimensions of the temple to be 500 rods by 500 rods, with the measuring rod being 10.5 feet long, making each of the 4 outer walls of the temple to be nearly a mile long. That is a massive structure even by modern standards, and I have a hard time believing that the temple built by the returning exiles was quite that large.

[@theoriginaldudette5535]

This is very helpful. When our Ladies did a Bible study on Revelation we touched on sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom but didn't have much material to explain adequately. Thanks!

[@thebiblesojourner]

So glad to hear this episode was helpful! Praise God!

[@ButItSays]

Very good. Thank you for that. Yes, Heb 9:13 says sacrifices purify the flesh. Agreed about Acts 21 with a bit of a twist. Verses 24 & 26 show Paul is still keeping the law. This makes perfect sense if we hold to an overlap of time when national Israel was being offered her Messianic kingdom, so the Jews still had to be obedient to the law to be found faithful for entrance, *while also* Paul is spreading his gospel of individual salvation by grace through faith available to all while there is a *diminishing* of Israel (Rom 11:12), as opposed to a sharp cut-off. The end of the kingdom offer could be AD 70. (This would mean all of Paul’s letters were written during this overlap period.) Acts 18:21 Paul is still keeping the Jewish feasts. Acts 25:8-10 He never spoke against the law to the Jews or told them to stop obeying it. Acts 26:20-22 Early in his ministry, he was telling the Jews to continue with their works (law obedience for entrance into Messianic kingdom) and still doing so before Festus. Saul/Paul’s message (Jesus is our Messiah, His kingdom is coming, so obey the law vs. salvation available to all *apart* from Israel and her laws) largely depended on his audience (Jew vs. non-Jew). There were times when he was explaining to the Jews that God had a new dispensation, such as in Acts 13:38-39 and the book of Romans.

[@thebiblesojourner]

Good insights--especially on Paul endeavoring to keep the feasts. I had not put two and two together on that. Thank you! I was challenged on Acts 20:16 since it seems he is trying to be there for Pentecost.

[@ButItSays]

@@thebiblesojourner Yes, that’s another one! If interested, I did 5 episodes on Saul/Paul to explain this in greater detail. They’re short lessons. ;)

[@biffgordon8468]

Another passage that only makes sense in the context of the restored temple service in the messianic kingdom: Mal 3:2 But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap. Mal 3:3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to the LORD. Mal 3:4 Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old and as in former years. Have you pondered how in the millennial kingdom the Trinity is on display. The Son on the throne, the Spirit in dwelling every believer, and the Father displaying His glory in the temple.

[@thebiblesojourner]

Appreciate you bringing that passage into this as well, Biff. Excellent choice. Definitely a lot of passages which seem to be pointing to a future temple.

[@thebiblesojourner]

Love that observation on the Trinity btw.

[@dannyswirsky9002]

Great video. The cleansing aspect of the Millennial kingdom sacrifices is not something I've considered, but it makes a lot of sense. Our Bible study is going through Hebrews right now and we are in chapter 10! I think Hebrews is specifically saying the sacrifices of the Mosaic Covenant are completely done away with (or at least are about to be done away this, Heb 8:13). The sacrifices of the Millennial kingdom are not a return to the Mosiac Covenant at all, but are done under the New Temple Law. Many similarities for sure (your explanation was quite helpful), but a separate and new covenant. One aspect that I also think supports the sacrifices in the Millennial kingdom is the everlasting nature of the Levitical covenant (Num 18:19, Jer 33:20-21) and the covenant with Phineas (Num 25:12-13). Although the Mosaic covenant is made obsolete, the promises to the descendants of the priests endure. Which means there is some priestly function they must fulfill. Ezekiel explains this perfectly because the sons of Zadok (Ez 40:46) who serve at the altar in the new temple are descendants of Phineas. Thanks for this video! I'll share it with our Bible Study. Keep up the good work.

[@thebiblesojourner]

Appreciate the encouragement, Danny. That is a great connection to the Leviticus covenant and something I probably should have mentioned! Thanks for pointing that out. Jeremiah’s emphasis of the levitical service is a helpful consideration in this discussion. Thanks for bringing that forward.

[@jburghau]

​@@thebiblesojourner Thank you for this excellent video. As usual, you are very respectful in discussing other viewpoints. I always learn something new and something I need to consider......This last comment was also very helpful as I have encountered especially from New Covenant Theology proponents, that since 'forever' concerning the priesthood does not really mean forever ( since the priesthood was abolished in AD 70 ), that God's 'forever' promises to the nation of Israel are abrogated. Your viewer's comments and your response really helped me understand that God really keeps His promises. God bless you.

[@thebiblesojourner]

@@jburghau Always encouraging to hear that God is at work. Blessings, my friend.

[@graysonbr]

First Fruits of Zion has some great input on this subject.They go into what the different sacrifices and explain as to why some will exist.

[@thebiblesojourner]

Thanks for the heads up on that. I’ll have to check it out!

[@seanvogel8067]

This is a timely teaching for me. I seem to remember in Leviticus they had to redeem their first born with an offering.

[@thebiblesojourner]

Yes indeed, lots of examples of sacrifices like this.

[@ThinkingGodsThoughts]

I've been reading some of Dr Jerry Hullinger's work on this issue, and he comes to the same sort of conclusion. Thanks for making this video though, as i don't think there is allot out there on this much more nuanced viewpoint.

[@thebiblesojourner]

It definitely needs to be considered! Thanks for watching and interacting.

[@kolaoj5174]

Firstly, I know I’m a bit late to the party but thanks so much for this podcast! I was recommended it by my elder and I’m already hooked. Thankful to the Lord for such rich and thorough content from a clearly gifted brother! Coming into this I would say that I was more of the second viewpoint (thinking of the sacrifices as memorial), however I’d say you’ve convinced me that the third viewpoint (ceremonial cleansing) is more tenable. At least in comparison to the first and second one. However, could I humbly make a suggestion four a fourth viewpoint? It’s really a refinement of the 3rd. Firstly I’d like to point out why I believe the 3rd view is not sufficient (you alluded to it in the tension you raise towards the end of the video). I think it is because it doesn’t consider the underlying reason behind God considering people “unclean”. I think it can be reasonably deduced that all uncleanness and moreover any issue requiring a sacrifice, is related to sin. Death is the fruit of sin, substitutionary death takes the place of the one who sins. Whilst not every sacrifice prescribed in Leviticus is for a particular violation of the law, surely the requirement of a substitutionary death strongly implies that whatever/whoever the animal died on behalf of, was connected to sin. Even the utilities for sacrifice are products of sinners who cannot produce anything truly worthy of God, they too had to be rid of the stain of sin (Hebrews 9:22). I would go as far as to say that any prevention of access to Holy things, is because of sin; whether particular or general. The reason why there is no temple in the NJ (new Jerusalem) is because there is no presence of sin *at all*. Therefore access to God is completely unhindered. To add some extra weight to my argument about all of the sacrifices of the Old Testament being related to sin, look at how Jesus’ sacrificial work is spoken of in the NT: - Cleansing (1 John 1:7,9, Titus 2:14, John 13:10) - Peace (Romans 5:1, John 14:27, Romans 15:13, Ephesians 2:17) - Atonement (Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2) - Sin (linked to atonement but I’m adding this as you spoke of non-sin-related atonement, it’s a bit redundant to add cross referenced for the Lord’s work on sin, so I won’t) When you look at the different categories of Levitical sacrificial offerings (peace, cleansing, atonement, sin), they all seem to have a NT counterpart that is linked to Christ. We know that ultimately Christ’s offering is for the forgiveness of sins, by the way of atonement, to give us cleansing before God, making peace between us and Him. Christ’s work, which solves the sin problem, covers all the categories of Levitical sacrifice. So whilst, there was nothing sinful in and of itself about menstruation, bodily discharged or leprosy, I believe God used these “unclean” conditions to point to our general spiritual uncleanness which definitely does need the sacrifice of Christ for cleansing. Therefore, I don’t think the reasoning that certain sacrifices didn’t have anything to do with sin is tenable. I hope that makes sense, but to conclude, i think every OT sacrifice, one way or another is related to paying for sin. We are then naturally brought back to the original question. If all the sacrifices of the OT were made because of sin and the NT makes clear that Christ’s work was sufficient for sin, what function could future sacrifice play? I think they will play the role that they have always played which is the purifying (temporary atonement) of the flesh/body: For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, - Hebrews 9:13 I think Amillinelialists and Postmilllenialists make the mistake of assuming the OT sacrifices were a genuine attempt to make someone’s eternal soul right with God, but we the Premillenialists make the mistake on the other end of the spectrum by often suggesting that they had no effect at all. Hebrews 9:13 seems to indicate that they did have some efficacy but it was only for the flesh. The way I think this passage ought to be interpreted in relation to Christ’s work for us is: Christ’s work immediately saves our souls, so that our spirits are justified/purified/perfected, but our bodies are still in a state of death and sin (Romans 8:10-11). Our bodies are not to be redeemed by Christ until the end, therefore our bodies are still just as sold under sin as they always have been (Romans 7). The OT sacrifices served as a temporary mechanism to cleanse, purify and atone for sins that stain our bodies. The soul however, could never be atoned for by animals to give us true access to God because the wrath upon our souls was infinite, and we would need perfection to truly approach God (Hebrews 10:1). Hebrews talks about how all the OT imagery to do with the tabernacle/temple were copies of the heavenly realities but were not those realities themselves (Hebrews 8:5, 9:23-24). Therefore when it comes to interacting with the earthly copies of the heavenly realities, because the earthly copies are lesser than the true realities, an animal sacrifice was sufficient to atone for the stain of sin upon the body. Thus allowing a sinner to interact with Holy things which were copies of that which is in heaven. The earthly copies were still holy, because your sinful flesh could die if it wasn’t temporarily atoned for, however the earthly copies weren’t as holy as the heavenly realities which you cannot access apart from being made perfect (Hebrews 10:1). To interact with the true heavenly realities, e.g. to enter heaven, or to see God unveiled face to face on earth, you would need to be saved by Christ AND either be glorified or depart from your earthly body (die/raptured). That’s why nobody, even as a true believer saved by grace can see God unveiled and live. That’s why even true believers in the OT have trembled at the idea of seeing God unveiled, their souls were saved, they believed in a coming resurrection body that would allow them to see God (Job 19:26), but they were aware that in their sin-stained bodies they cannot see God face to face. So in the Ezekiel temple, unglorified believers will still need animal sacrifice to interact with the holy copies of the heavenly things just as they did in the OT. This is because the believers will still be encased in their unredeemed, unsaved sinful flesh. Despite ultimately being saved (their souls) their human flesh cannot casually stroll into the most holy place without the temporary function of the animal sacrifices. They atone for the stain of sin on the body (I keep using this phrase so as to not confuse Christ’s true atoning work with what I’m talking about), that earthly atonement is needed to interact with holy things until Christ redeems their bodies. The viewpoint I’m proposing then is a revision of our understanding of the nature of the efficacy of OT sacrifices. If we understand them rightly and with the help of the book of Hebrews, I think the matter because comes quite clear. Nothing changes about the nature of animals sacrifice, atonement/purification via animal sacrifice is needed as long as there are bodies, stained by sin who are near to the earthly (veiled) presence of God or are interacting with holy things.. Finally, I think the ark of the covenant is not mentioned because Christ’s earthly presence would supersede the ark. As far as the day of atonement I’m not quite sure. Would love to get your thoughts on this, I am just a layman at the moment so if I’m totally wrong please correct me (gently 😂).

[@thebiblesojourner]

I am so glad you found the podcast and took the time to drop a helpful and thought provoking comment! I don’t see anything that immediately turns me off from your suggestion. I intend to think more on these things. Thankful you shared it with us!

[@NoName-cv9pi]

I just spent 10 months assimilating into a S.Baptist church that left the movement but went deeply into Calvinism. I knew their eschatology was unbiblical and naively thought that a bad hermeneutic didn't ultimately bring problems elsewhere. I can sincerely say that Christians should avoid this "New Calvinist" group. There is no good fruit from these men's lives and I have witnessed the leaders moving further from Christianity.

[@ScottC-x2o]

Are you saying “new Calvinist” vs “old Calvinist”? Because although Calvinist are not an actual religious domination, but are Christians who also interpret the Bible in the same way Calvin did, have been around as long as the Protestant movement itself dating to the 1500s. Otherwise, I would agree that I don’t see how post-mill and Amill believers come to their conclusions, although I am trying to see it from their point of view so I’m not completely ignorant.

[@ScottUpton-n6e]

I think the question that needs to be asked is, what law will be in effect during the Millennium, the Old Covenant/Mosaic Law or the New Covenant. By the time of the Millennium, the Old Mosaic Law will have passed away and the New Covenant law will have replaced it. Any discussion on how Levitical Mosaic Law sacrifices is implemented during the Millennium are irrelevant. The Levitical priesthood and sacrifices will be replaced by the New Covenant in the Millennium. The Melchizedekian priesthood of Messiah will be the law in Israel, and we just don't have as many details of New Covenant law as we do for the Old Covenant law. Ezekiel seems to point to some ceremonial cleansing involved in the New Covenant, but beyond that we just don't know details.

[@123tjr]

Another great video Dr. Goeman. I have found the Ezekiel temple is sometimes used as a Jewish polemic against the Christian faith. I lean toward a similar understanding to what you have explained here. As you might be aware within Judaism there is a teaching that God stopped accepting sacrifices for Yom Kippur 40 years before the temple was destroyed. That would of course correspond with the time frame of the death of Jesus. What is particularly interesting to me regarding your position is there is not a mention of other sacrifices being rejected by God during those years, for example sacrifices that were not for atonement, maybe giving indication God was still accepting those. This reference regarding the Temple and Yom Kippur can be found in the B. Talmud Yoma 39b I believe.

[@thebiblesojourner]

Appreciate the info on the Jewish sources on God accepting Yom Kippur sacrifices. I certainly intend to look into that more. If I have heard that before I don’t remember, so look forward to looking into that. Thanks for the valuable tip!

[@theocratickingdom30]

Boiled down, 4 things settled me on a future temple: 1. The Torah and in particular, the book of Numbers. 2. The Tanakh as a whole. 3. The biblical covenants named from Genesis to Revelation. 4. The NT, especially Jesus’ teaching on the temple. Not being able to understand or put all the pieces together regarding the temple and the sacrifices is NOT an excuse to spiritualize the whole thing.

[@thebiblesojourner]

That’s a good point. The idea of a future temple is not isolated. There is quite a bit on it. I’m curious on how Numbers in particular was impactful for you. Could you explain that more for me?

[@jrhemmerich]

As usual it was a well argued piece. Your distinction between the third temple and the millennial temple is important to prevent confusion, as you noted. As a progressive covenatalist amil of the partial preterist variety let me dig into a few of your points. I am not persuaded by either the future millennial view of a literal temple or a spiritualize description of the church view. My view is that Ezekiel 40-48, given as a vision about 15 years after the destruction of the first temple, is the ideal second temple, which also contains elements that point to the progressive coming of the age of messianic age of the Spirit. In the middle of the vision, at 43:3, Yahweh is pictured as returning to this temple in the same manner as he left the first. But significantly we are told in 43:9, "Now let them put away their whoring and the dead bodies of their kings far from me, and I will dwell in their midst forever." Here God's dwelling with them is conditioned upon them putting away their disobedience. Then verse 10 says, "as for you, son of man, describe to the house of Israel the temple, THAT THEY MAY BE ASHAMED OF THEIR INIQUITIES; and they shall measure the plan." God goes on to say, "And if they are ashamed of all they have done, make known to them the design of the Temple...so that they may carry them out...Behold this is the law of the temple." What is striking about this is that it gives us some insight that this was intended to be the plan for the building of the second temple. While the persons to whom Ezekiel gave this appear to have been "ashamed" such that they were given the plan, it seems that this shame did not last. By the time of Nehemiah and the building of the second temple, he is consistently rebuking even the remnant who came back about their lack of obedience and care. Nehemiah ends on a very dismal note. In Zachariah 4:10, we are told that the day of small beginnings for the temple should not be despised, and that the latter end of the temple would be greater than its beginning. This very much came to pass with the improvements to it by Herod the Great, and it was considered to a wonder of the ancient world by that time (see for example the praise given it by the disciples in Mat 24:2, or the descriptions of Josephus in the Judean war). And part of this later day glory was that the Lord himself would visit this temple (Mal. 3:1). So in summary, I would say that the details were all very meaningful, but that they preceded the New Covenant and spoke from the perspective of a renewed old covenant, should Israel be obedient. But they were not, so the glories of this temple never came to pass. The distinctions between the Levite's holiness and the people's lack (44:19), the mandatory keeping of the Sabbath as holy (44:24), none of this fits with the New Covenant teaching in Jer. 31 and Hebrews 8-10 that the New Covenant people, as a whole shall be holy. While you seem persuaded that atonement in Ezek. is not sin atonement, but memorial, this is in strong tension with the text, see 45:19-20. And 46:20 speaks directly of guilt and sin offerings and "transmitting holiness to the people." It's very difficult for me to see how a future Ezek. 40-48 temple could be squared with the New Covenant standards, where the old shadows were fading away. The difficulty, rather than forcing a special era in the millennium, seems to press in the direction of a conditional form of the second temple. What do you think about this interpretation? I think it makes sense of the details in the text and fits very well the second temple era. Do you see a major fault with it, besides that it would not bolster a pre-millennial view? :)

[@thebiblesojourner]

More great thoughts, and well articulated. Regarding Zechariah 4:10, given the co-prophecy with Haggai (~520 BC), I assume that Haggai 2:7-9 is what Zechariah 4:10 is referring to. There it specifically links the treasures of the nations streaming into Jerusalem (cf. Isa 2). That doesn't seem possible to be fulfilled at the time of Herod's Temple to me. In fact, if there is a connection to Isa 2, it couldn't be because Israel was in subjugation to Rome and not ruling the nations. I would say that memorial would *not* be my chosen description for understanding the text in Ezekiel. I perhaps could have been more clear, but I would describe it as having ceremonial atonement fuctions (similar to how many of the levitical sacrifices were ceremonial in their function rather than dealing with the taking away of sin). I think you make a compelling case, but if the NC is in operation at the deat/resurrection of Christ, then we need to acknowledge there was no problem with an overlap of sacrifices/vows/offerings and the NC existence of the early church. There is then no theoretical problem with it happening again. The main question then relies on exegesis on what the text says and what the author meant. Really appreciate your thoughtful interaction my friend.

[@andynguyen5222]

Hi Peter, great episode. Just a few items I want to clarify that if you could answer, it would be wonderful. - Will the temple sacrifice performed only by the "unglorified" Jews during the Millennium? - Can the "glorified" Jews perform the temple sacrifices? - Can the "glorified" Church (I assume) participate in the Temple sacrifices and ceremonial worship, and vice versa, can the "unglorified" Jews participate in the Communion during the Millenium? Miscellaneous questions regarding the Millennium. - Is 1000 the exact/precise dating unit of the Millenium, like 365,000 days down to the very hour/minute/second, or just relatively close to that, like on the 3rd day Jesus rose again, not literally after 3 full days? - As a third of the earth is pretty much destroyed during the Great Tribulation, will the earth and the galaxy system (moon turned to blood, falling stars, etc...) be "fully" restored or renovated temporarily for the Millenium Kingdom or the glorified church and the unglorified people will live in a half-baked half-broken earth during the Millenium? - The "unglorified" people during the earthly Millennium, if they died, as indicated in Isaiah 65:20, for the believers, do they immediately in the twinkling of an eye receive the glorified body and join the "glorified" Church to reign on earth with Jesus, and reigning over nations, or will their souls go to heaven or Abraham's Bosom and wait until the Millenium end and receive their glorified body then? Likewise, for the unglorified unbelievers, assuming the generations born during the Millenium and rebel toward the end, as Revelation 20:7-8 indicated, if they died before the Millenium ends, do their souls go to Hades and wait for Rev 20:13 to fulfill as they will receive the new body for the White Throne Judgment for future Lake of Fire, or the unglorified unbelievers will stay alive until Rev 20:7-10 completely fulfill? - As Christ reigns with justice and righteousness in the Millennial Kingdom, as the Psalm and Prophetic passages indicated, will there be Capital Punishment? In other words, will the OT and NT Laws be applied and enforced, and in what way if they were? That's all I have for now. Please excuse my curiosity as I know my questions are very specific. P.S. By the way, I am one of your former students, as I had you for the "CREATION & COVENANT" class at TMU Online MABS Program. Just want to express my gratitude to you as I learn so much and and greatly benefited from your channel. So keep up the great work, brother! Blessings, Andy

[@thebiblesojourner]

Andy, I do remember you from the TMU class! Thanks for watching and being an encouragement. You ask a lot of great questions and I don’t have time to answer them all as thoroughly as I’d like to. Let me say it this way... I am not sure how glorified and “unglorified” participants will relate within the ceremonial worship. I think there is likely to be significant interaction, however my assumption is that primary users of the temple (both officiants and worshippers) would be the unglorified. But I look forward to seeing how that all works! Those are great questions and I love to think about them. As far as mortals who die, I do think they become glorified immediately upon death. And as far as the capital punishment being utilized, there is certainly punishment doled out by Christ (cf. Zech 14). Because it is a New Covenant, not all the same laws are utilized from the Old Covenant. Great questions! Wish I had time to answer with more depth! Appreciate your encouragement on the episode! Blessings my friend.

[@Parkeri1313]

22:00 Christ commands us in Luke 22:19 to, "do this in remembrance of Me." We memorialize His death on the cross by the eating of the bread. Where in Scripture do we see a memorialization of the sacrifices mentioned?

[@thebiblesojourner]

Sacrifices are not done as a memorial. They are effectual in their purpose of consecration, not forgiveness. That would be my take at least.

[@johnbulger8044]

I have created a new term for this understanding of Ezekiel 40-48 -- the "cere-memorial" view 🙂

[@thebiblesojourner]

😂 I like it!

[@joshnelson3344]

The early church taught there would be a 7-year tribulation time period? Do you have some quotes or something to support that claim?

[@ZacharyKlein]

Several early church fathers made the connection between the 70th week of Daniel (a 7-year period) and the Tribulation, both f which were considered future events. Ireneaus and Hippolytus are two prominent examples of this futurist approach to the 70th week. This viewpoint (and the associated Premillennialism aka Chilliasm) was largely abandoned in the 4th century onwards, before being rediscovered following the Reformation.

[@AaronThinks]

Do you think there is a connection between the mountain of the house of the Lord and the stone that comes from heaven and grows into a mountain?

[@thebiblesojourner]

That's a great question, and I'm not sure. I'd have to think about it more. I would lean toward there not being a connection, but would be open to a connection. Throughout OT the mountain of the house of the Lord seems directly connected to Mount Zion and the Temple. But the stone that comes to heaven and grows into a mountain seems parallel with kingdoms.

[@solidsnake497]

I believe you are spot on with the connection between the two. The garden of Eden is described as a Mountain in Ezekiel 28 and Gods plan is to return to his original plan and that is Eden on earth. So big picture thinking you are on the right track. This idea is also connected to the new Jerusalem aka the new heavens and the new earth.

[@solidsnake497]

Also the earth is Gods temple, in Genesis 1:9-13 dry land comes up out of the water on the third day, now what does this remind you of. 🤔 Also the new Jerusalem is the throne of the LORD ( Jeremiah 3:17) it’s the city itself no literal temple in view, the people living in the city are the temple.

[@theoriginaldudette5535]

Thanks!

[@thebiblesojourner]

🙏 Thanks so much! It will be invested in future videos.

[@ProtosWealthConcepts]

Great work! So glad you went where you did with this. I would love if you reviewed my book on this very topic. It’s called The Deuteros Man. Here’s what I’d like to add to the convo. The new covenant was inaugurated at Yeshua’s resurrection, but is not consummated until the eternal state. Sin / purification offerings (chattat) are valid as long as sin and death exists because they purify not the offerer but the sancta, from the defilement of sin. Thus sin offerings are maintained in the Millennium. Shalom!

[@thebiblesojourner]

Thanks for watching and the encouragement. Sadly, my schedule is so packed right now I'm having to turn down a lot of book review requests. But your book does sound fascinating! Perhaps after this 8-10 month busy stretch ahead of me that would be something we could reconnect on.

[@ProtosWealthConcepts]

@@thebiblesojourner I understand and thank you brother! Keep up the great work.

[@AaronThinks]

I think all those ceremonial washings of objects and people to make them clean was just further visual object lessons about the contamination of sin and the need to be cleansed of sin. So while those rituals may not have been for forgiveness directly, they indirectly point to the need of a greater sacrifice for forgiveness. With this in mind, I see no place for further ritual cleansing when the One they pointed to has done His work.

[@JohnDHernandez]

Your article where you linked to Waymeyer’s article is what prompted me to get the festschrift. He makes a compelling case. I would say there needs to be more study before I land on any particular view. I would say Paul isn’t the author of Hebrews because he received revelation from Jesus firsthand whereas the author of Hebrews appears to indicate it was received second hand. I’m open to correction but in my view, the only thing we do know is that Paul is not the author of Hebrews because the author seems to include himself in the “us” receiving the second hand information. Hebrews 2:3 how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, I just finished Waymeyer’s book last week. His exegesis of 1 Cor 15 20-28 was the pinnacle within his magnum opus. I bought two more to give away because more people need to read it. To echo what you said in your interview with him, everyone (not just Waymeyer) should memorize that whole book because it is that good. He also referenced Randall Price’s book The Temple and Bible Prophecy a number of times in his article on the temple. It’s a beefy book but I’m wondering if you have read Price’s treatment on the subject. Excellent overview of the subject matter and the article. God bless you, brother.

[@thebiblesojourner]

A wise man--committing to further study! I don't die on the hill that Paul was the author of Hebrews, it is just where I would lean if forced to say. Yet I acknowledge it could be Luke or someone else associated with Paul. I guess we can ask Paul when we get to heaven 🙂 Appreciate the encouragement, brother. So glad this was beneficial for you. Blessings to you!

[@jburghau]

​@@thebiblesojourner James White thinks Paul may have dictated it in the Hebrew language to Luke, who translated it into Greek. And as you said, the early church considered Paul the author and maybe he did not sign his name to the epistle because he was considered the apostle to the gentiles.

[@danielwarton5343]

Do you think that the view of sacrifices being solely for sin comes due largely to covenant theology holding sway over a large part of evangelicalism? being primarily salvation focussed

[@thebiblesojourner]

I actually think it probably goes back beyond that because covenant theology came as a response to Catholic theology. So probably more because of RCC influence and then covenant theology.

[@pastorpitman]

Well said! I think perhaps the millennial sacrifices may have an evangelistic purpose for those born in the millennium.

[@thebiblesojourner]

That is a dynamic I had not thought about, but I think you are on to something. That may indeed be part of the purpose.

[@pastorpitman]

@@thebiblesojourner I’m working on a paper…

[@dougbell9543]

Those seeking a Third Temple are also looking for an earthly Kingdom centred in Jerusalem that will rule over all nations. ✔️

[@brendacobb1380]

Question? The sacrifice mentioned in the millennium

[@dashriprock5720]

So many interpretations..so here is another..his vision of the temple was a template that could be fit or superimposed ontop of a map where the Jews were in captivity so they could continue worshipping and sacrificing. 70 years and two generations is a long time to forget. Notice no gold temple utensils.. sacrifices on wood altars or table tops, no one has animals to sacrifice so tu prince had to supple the sacrifices..could the prince be Daniel who was of Nobility from Israel and found favor with the king and could have access to large amounts of animals to sacrifice. I even have a theory about the stream.

[@endoftheagereality]

Hi again Peter. I'm sorry this question is unrelated to the topic here, but am interested in your go to translation of the "Scriptures. If this info is something you chose to keep personal I'll understand. thx so much.

[@thebiblesojourner]

No worries my friend. I like the ESV, LSB, and the CSB. Those are my favorite English translations. I grew up on the NKJV though and enjoy that one as well. Blessings my friend.

[@jrhemmerich]

I enjoyed your discussion about post-Cross temple participation by the Apostles (@50:00). It does make our typical theological systems that focus exclusively upon the cross as the dividing point between old and new covenants "squirm" as you say. I would be one of those that would explain this by the temple's fall in AD 70. You object that we don't have any bible texts after AD 70 to tell of this change. But I would observe that Hebrews and Matthew 5:18 and 24:34-35 already tell us what we need to know. Jesus tells us in Matthew 5:18-20 that the law will not pass away until all is fulfilled (i.e. the purpose of the temple law, and the fulfillment of Daniel 9:27 regarding its destruction). Those that taught the least law was abrogated were to be called least in the kingdom of heaven. This was to change after the "heaven and earth" shifting events of the destruction of the temple. Hebrew 8:13 says that the old covenant practices were ready to vanish away. And Hebrews 9:8-10 speaks of the outer part of the temple as symbolizing the Jewish age. The removal of which was to proclaim more clearly that the cross had opened the way into the holy place (v. 8). The sacrifices and priestly regulations of the body has been imposed "until a time of reformation" (v. 10). The view that the Christian Jews were supposed to continue following the law until the destruction of the temple seems pretty clear once one connects the dots between passages and notices, as you have pointed out, that Paul and James did follow the law as Christian Jews (though this became harder as they were shunned by those that denied Christ). But the Gentiles were not subject to these regulations. And as the ritual/temple law become more obsolete after AD 70, the Jewish and Gentile practice of the New Covenant would actually become more similar (Rom 14, etc.). In effect, Rabbinic Judaism is simply a spiritualizing of the temple law. It is as if the fall of temple forced Israel to to a choice: become Christian Jews or "Christians" without Christ. The Old Covenant way was no longer an option. Your observations are always keen and interesting. Thanks much for your work!

[@thebiblesojourner]

Always look forward to any comments you have, John. Good stuff here. I really think your point about Hebrews 9:8-10 is strong and am going to contemplate that more! If you have any particularly good resources which go into what you helpfully explained, I'd love to dive deeper into it.

[@christopherdotson7189]

Ezekiel 40:17 do animal sacrifices make atonement after the new covenant?

[@thebiblesojourner]

Sorry I’m having a hard time understanding how Ezekiel 40:17 fits in with your question. But I definitely talk about how atonement could work in the new covenant.

[@lawrencestanley8989]

Yeah, I love my reformed brother Jeff Durbin, but he and James White are in error in their eschatological position. “…under the Messiah and New Covenant conditions (in the Millennium), the people will express their worship of God. The expression of worship is not necessary for salvation since the nation is already saved at this point (see: Zechariah 12:10, Romans 11:26-27). Yet this will be a way for Israel to express worship of the Lord in view of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. Just as sacrifices under the Mosaic Covenant were typological, pointing forward to Christ’s ultimate sacrifice, the sacrifices described with Ezekiel’s temple could be retrospective, drawing attention to Christ’s completed sacrifice. The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin (Hebrews 10:4); instead, they point to Christ’s perfect sacrifice. Since Revelation 21 says there will be no temple in the eternal state, this kingdom temple must be fulfilled in the coming millennium (see Ezekiel 43, Revelation 20:1-6). So not only will Jerusalem be restored and function as the capital of Messiah’s kingdom, there will also be a temple in the city that functions as the headquarters of the Messiah.”  “He Will Reign Forever,” by Michael J. Vlach, pages 205-206

[@thebiblesojourner]

Important to be able to appreciate those you disagree with on issues. A lost art for many.

[@Nivalian]

Hello, just one question. Does the temple have the Ark? In Revelation, I thought there was the Ark.

[@thebiblesojourner]

Good question. I don’t believe it does.

[@Nivalian]

@@thebiblesojourner Ok, thanks! I wasn't sure either

[@julielabrecque6416]

What you don't know, and make assumptions, is HOW His sacrifice gets applied to us. HE left a way, the Eucharist, which you reject.

[@tomasgalindopazan]

The Fulfillment of Sacrifice: Jesus' Atonement in Biblical Revelation The sacrificial system within the Tanakh has been a subject of profound reverence and solemnity, serving as the foreshadowing of reconciliation between God and His people. Central to this system were blood sacrifices, which held a multifaceted role in atoning for sins, renewing covenants, and symbolizing life. Despite the variety of atonement methods, the blood sacrifice stood as a poignant expression of devotion and reconciliation with God. In the context of Tanakh, in the sacred spaces of the Tabernacle and the Temple, blood sacrifices were not mere rituals; they were the heartbeat of worship, the essence of a people seeking to dwell with their God. The shedding of blood in offerings like the sin and guilt sacrifices was more than symbolic; it was a tangible act of purification, a solemn commitment to the laws of the covenant, and an acknowledgment of God as the giver of life. Jesus' Sacrifice is the Ultimate Atonement. The mission of Jesus, culminating in His cry of "Tetelestai," was not a dismissal of the Old Testament sacrifices but their culmination. The tearing of the temple veil signified the end of the old covenant's separation between God and man, ushering in a new era in which the need for an imperfect priestly intermediary was abolished. The sacrifice of Christ, as argued in Hebrews 9:23, was the superior offering, cleansing not just earthly representations but the heavenly reality itself. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, therefore, stands as the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial system in its whole spectrum. It achieved what animal sacrifices, and any other act of repentance, could only symbolize: true reconciliation with God in His Holy of Holies. The whole Bible reveals that this act of atonement was not an annulment of the past but a masterful completion, a single, perfect sacrifice that transcended time and place, bringing eternal redemption and direct access to The Creator and Only True God: The Triune God. Through this lens, the variety of atonement methods in the Old Testament or "Tanakh" is harmonized with the New Testament revelation, presenting a coherent narrative of salvation history.

[@845karolewithak]

Thank you. It's confusing. The broader definition of atonement was helpful. Maybe the broader definition of "sin" would be helpful, too, in the sense that sin is falling short of the glory of God. Won't all creation remain under aspects of sin until the eternal state when everything is in the glorious presence of God which means there will continue to be a need for cleansing? I'm not expressing my thought well, and hope you can interpret what I'm trying to say. Maranatha.

[@thebiblesojourner]

That is a good point. Sin and death will remain as part of the millennium according to Isaiah and Zechariah 14. Everything will be rejuvenated to Edenic-like conditions during that time, yet sin will remain for a time and it will have impact to defile the sacred space, etc.

[@matthewbirchfield9410]

I am digging the West Institute shirt!

[@thebiblesojourner]

Gotta represent! It was a gift from Clayton!

[@matthewbirchfield9410]

@@thebiblesojourner I'll have to get another one! They didn't have grey when I was there!

[@thebiblesojourner]

@@matthewbirchfield9410 Maybe it was a special gift 😆

[@matthewbirchfield9410]

@@thebiblesojourner well that's no good 🤣

[@BrendaBigler-q5j]

During the millennial if an nonbeliever becomes a believer in Christ, would they still then be required to sacrifice animals?

[@thebiblesojourner]

I believe that is probable.

[@Parkeri1313]

9:40 I'd point to both Hebrews and Revelation as the Temple you're referring to but it is not physical but heavenly. Hebrews 8:4-5 state, "Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things by the pattern which was shown to you on the mountain.” Here is the earth-heaven contrast and I hope is helpful for this discussion. Hebrews 9:24-25 state, "For Christ did not enter a holy place made by hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year by year with blood that is not his own." The earthly Temple was a 'copy' of the true, heavenly Temple. I respectfully disagree with you perspective but hope to not misrepresent either you or your stance.

[@thebiblesojourner]

Love your attitude and your clear articulation. Don’t have time to interact currently but hopefully in the future. 👍

[@julielabrecque6416]

It's the Catholic Church and the offering of the Daily Sacrifice of the Mass that is being prophesied of. THIS is the Sacrifice that Anti-Christ will STOP.

[@AfricanRockFish]

Do you think the sacrifices could be an opportunity for those who have already accepted the mark of the beast to have a means of being cleansed from it? I think a big confusion that a lot of people have with regard to this as well, is the belief that Jesus' death is THE THING that saves people. The bible never says that, but the bible does say that we are saved by His life. His death was necessary but not sufficient for the salvation of anyone. His death is one component for salvation, and the forgiveness of sins is not what saves us, but one out of the list of spiritual blessings that comes from being IN CHRIST per Eph 1:3-7. So what saves us is not the death, but being in Christ, which the Holy Spirit seals us in when we believe. As far as the end times, my understanding is that the Church age has ended, and salvation is by faith, and rejecting the mark of the beast. I am pretty slow though and I haven't spent too much time studying pre-millennialism because my church is reformed and is post/preterist.

[@thebiblesojourner]

As far as the first part, I'm not sure. It is possible I suppose, but I don't see anything in the text which would cause me to conclude that. As far as the second part, about Jesus's death not being the thing that saves us... that is difficult to reconcile with Scripture. Eph 1:7, "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace" Heb 9:12, "He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption." 1 Cor 15:3, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures" etc. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but the death is what saves us and gives us redemption. Obviously, the resurrection is important as it secures us new life, but the death is the redemption/salvation. Help me know if I misunderstood you.

[@ronnywhite5602]

I thought this was going to help me help understand. I'm as confused as ever.

[@thebiblesojourner]

Any specific questions I can help with? Sometimes clarifying your questions can be helpful in knowing what you’re looking for.

[@aprildawn152]

The Lamb is the Temple, and if He and His Bride are echad, she is the Temple.

[@thebiblesojourner]

That statement can be true, and there can still be a prophecy of a future temple as well.

[@AaronThinks]

God lives in me now without the need for all these cleansing rituals. Why would that change in the future? I find it offensive to think a future animal sacrifice can accomplish a particular type of cleansing that Jesus' blood can not.

[@thebiblesojourner]

That's a question we can try to answer. But first, we just need to exegete the passages at hand and humbly acknowledge what the text clearly says. So, to put it another way, we need to make sure we are making exegetical arguments and not emotional arguments. Just because you find something offensive doesn't mean God would be offended. If He prophesies something will happen, it will happen. Also, with regard to your question, I don't think you would need any cleansing ritual in the future. You will have a glorified body in the millennium. Seems unlikely you will have need of temple services, but Scripture is somewhat silent on that.

[@matthewsouthwell3500]

@@thebiblesojourner I'm a little unclear of how dispensationalism as a system understands the millennium. From your comment here I assume you are viewing the "first resurrection" spoken of in Revelation 20 as the resurrection of the body, and which will include all the saints, before and after Christ Jesus came in the flesh (this is part assumption, part question; please correct me if I'm wrong in assuming this). Is this the traditional dispensational view? If so, I think that view would necessarily conflict with and be irreconcilable with a "pre-tribulational rapture," which as I understand it seems to be a staple of dispensationalism. I am (slightly) prepared to explain the reasoning concerning this, and really don't think one can "square the circle" in this matter (so to speak).

[@thebiblesojourner]

@@matthewsouthwell3500 Thanks for the question. I'll try to clarify. If the pretribulational viewpoint is correct (which I would hold to), then the resurrection of those who die who are a part of the church would happen during the rapture. The OT saints and tribulation martyrs would be resurrected in Rev 20:4. I think this view is fairly standard among many dispensationalists, but some might put the OT saints with the pretrib rapture resurrection. There are some dispensationalists who hold to posttrib rapture, which in that case would say that the rapture spoken of in 1 Thess 4 is presumably the same as the resurrection in Rev 20:4. But there might be variation among adherents there too. Hope that helps clarify things at least.

[@matthewsouthwell3500]

I didn't know that there were dispensationalists who accepted a post-tribulational view, though if you take "the first resurrection" to be the bodily resurrection (and I don't see a reason not to at this time) this would seem natural, because as you know "we who are alive and remain shall be caught up" (what is referred to as the rapture), is said to occur after "the dead in Christ will rise first." One further clarification: So do you view the millennial kingdom as including or excluding the church? ● You may be busy so I don't expect a response or for you to make this a priority to respond to if you choose to, but I do have a couple additional comments/questions: 1. You are not a mid-acts dispensationalist, and hold to there being only one gospel, correct? (Which is the case, that there is only one gospel. Also I've been assuming this since encountering your videos and how you present things seems different from their system). This I ask because I'm under the impression that the tribulation in dispensationalism is usually presented as being void of the church (other than the view of the group you just mentioned). If this is so, I see another fundamental problem. 2. In your video "Is Jesus King on David's Throne Today? What Scripture Reveals," at about the 12:40 timestamp, you say that part of 2 Samuel 7 (part of verse 14) cannot apply to Jesus, specifically: "If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men." I view this as part and parcel of what is referred to as Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Christ bore our iniquities, and I see this part of the Davidic Covenant's fulfillment in Christ summed up in our being regarded as His body. This goes hand-in-hand with "But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed." If the emphasis is on the action being said to be done by Him ("commits"), I think it is easily explained by what I've already stated. Additionally: Deuteronomy 21:22-23 “If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God." Galatians 3:13-14 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. - The context of the passage being salvation by faith, not works. - Though the law prescribed death to one who committed a sin deserving of death, the One who committed no sin, Jesus, "for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." This being done on our behalf, the ones who rightfully deserved death, as "the wages of sin is death."

[@ralfgang3497]

We see what the temple in the nt is the church and every believer. In the end of the 70th week the people of Jerusalem will be born again , and so the city will be as whole filled with believers in christ and so will be the temple. Which will be destroyed by the AC.

[@danielwarton5343]

After listening to the latest episode on Bible study errors, isn’t this an example of a false dichotomy? Durban says we shouldn’t want the temple to be built as Christians, but it means the close return of the Lord, which we do want. Unbelieving jews won’t be worshipping Christ in a false way, just as they don’t worship Him now. So the building of the temple isn’t blasphemous from a Christian point of view as we don’t believe that sacrifices ever paid for our sin or ever will

[@thebiblesojourner]

Good point. I applaud the independent thinking my friend! Well done sir.

[@נוריתאליזבתאבורמד]

Its beyond my understaning that christians still belive that we the jews have any ties to jesus or the gentils we are a sperat nation with a faith different completly ,more than 2000 years the church fathers chose to obey the roman empire and its rollers and reject the jewish faith and the jews as a nation. Now there is an amazing jewish state israel , so out of the blue christians want to come home ,but you made your bed you decided you are the new israel so go to your path ,we the jews know who is our god who delievered us and gave us a jewish state .

[@thebiblesojourner]

Thanks for visiting the channel my friend. I'd be happy to try to answer any specific questions you have about why Christians see a connection with the Tanak. One of the primary connections is that Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness (Gen 15:6). The only way to God is to believe in His promise of sending a Messiah who will save us from our sins (Isa 53; Dan 9:25-27). The Jews gave great testimony of the coming Messiah, and we have believed in Him and can't wait for other Jews to join us in believing on Him who was pierced on the cross (Zech 12:10).

[@solidsnake497]

Was there such thing as a Jew or gentile in Eden? Exile has ended for the Jew and gentile.

[@thebiblesojourner]

@@solidsnake497 Exile is in the process of ending, but we are technically still in exile 1 Peter says.

[@sansleister3878]

It is not a matter of the rebuilt temple being an affront to Jesus. It is a matter of the rebuilt temple being a prophetic reality that must take place during the 70th week so that the AC can be revealed for who he is in the middle of the week and Israel have the true Messiah revealed to them!

[@thebiblesojourner]

Good point. The real question is what do the Scriptures foretell.

[@DISP-CEPTED]

What temple in Dan 9 is destroyed? The word in Eze 45:17,20 is “atonement. Very weak arguments.

[@thebiblesojourner]

Did you listen to the explanation about what atonement means? That is a very basic reality in Leviticus, so I recommend studying that book and recognizing that atonement applies to objects and not just people.

[@DISP-CEPTED]

@@thebiblesojourner apart from that it says flesh shall not enter the kingdom. Even a bigger problem.

[@mikeyonce2323]

​@@DISP-CEPTEDAfter Jesus' resurrection He had flesh and bone, so He won't be there?

[@DISP-CEPTED]

@@mikeyonce2323 not in a future earthly kingdom no.

[@mikeyonce2323]

Someone needs to let Him know.

[@danielwarton5343]

Hey Peter Would you ever consider debating Jeff Durbin? We suffer from a lack of solid guys like you, Mike Riccardi or Nathan Busenitz doing some debates that defend what we believe. Every time I search KZbin for a good pre trib rapture debate or Israel not being the church it always ends up with poor results. Just not solid guys defending what the modern church media movement decries. The whole post mill camp are dominating the airtime and we need people,like yourself or sJohn MacArthur taking on people like James White to show that what we believe is a good theological position and not just riffing off of Darby and waiting for the rapture as we’re all cowards who don’t want to stand for the Lord.

[@thebiblesojourner]

I would not be opposed to such an opportunity. I definitely think there has been a significant lack of good quality discussions on these issues.

[@danielwarton5343]

I appreciate that it takes a lot to prepare, organise and do the debates, but it would really encourage a lot of people. Food for thought 😊

[@ericjohnson624]

God fulfilling promises is an afront to JC? hmmm

[@thebiblesojourner]

It does seem a stretch.

[@LarryLarpwell]

full preterism is obviously true

[@thebiblesojourner]

Haha 🤣 good one 👍

[@LarryLarpwell]

@@thebiblesojourner once you get a good grasp of basic english and time stamps its all easy, u can do it

[@thebiblesojourner]

@@LarryLarpwell What does basic english have to do with preterism? 🤔

[@LarryLarpwell]

@@thebiblesojourner you ask with the false spirit because you already know the answer

[@thebiblesojourner]

@@LarryLarpwell Actually I was hoping to understand what you thought about Greek and Hebrew being the inspired Word of God versus English. Are you KJV only?

[@jonathanguernsey7051]

You do realize, the Untited states has a religious law that stands up in the face of all that love animals, you can sacrifice under religious laws and it’s this abomination that sees righteous people more Antichrist than the Antichrist!!😳

[@martincronje5242]

John MacArthur believes animal sacrifices will return.

[@thebiblesojourner]

He does.

[@brendacobb1380]

We're the temple

[@thebiblesojourner]

And the Temple is also the temple 😀

[@noanapoleon474]

Wrong! All of the references in the New testament to the "last days" "end of the age" etc., are speaking not of the end of the Church age but the end of the Mosaic age. The end of an eon, is different than the end of the cosmos. All of the events in the New Testament from Christs birth, to his death, resurrection, ascension, and final judgement upon Jerusalem in 70AD, are seamless events from our vantage point. When we speak of Christ's first Advent we are including everything that was prophesied by the OT prophets that he would accomplish. The Messianic prophecies show the Kingdom being established at Christs first Advent. Christ "confirms the covenant" with the elect during his earthly ministry as part of the vision Daniel see's, where in addition to confirming the covenant with the elect he reconciles all things and gathers (resurrects), the outcast remnant who were appointed to eternal life. 70AD is the capstone of all of the Messianic prophecies because it attests to Christ's final uncontestable Sovereignty over the nations. To suggest that we are awaiting Christs KIngdom per some gap theory in Daniel is to attack the finished work of Christ.

[@thebiblesojourner]

Do you believe there will be a second coming of Christ?

[@David-lq4tq]

Cosmos (universe) is not a Hebrew concept. The fall of Jerusalem was not the end of the age, it was not fulfillment of Revelation.

[@tomasgalindopazan]

Question: Who would perform the purported cleansing sacrificial rituals in a supposedly rebuilt temple, which contradicts the belief that we, Christians, are God's temple? Would it be unbelieving Jewish priests or Christians? Where does it explicitly state that it would be people who believe in Jesus performing this? Surely, if those sacrifices are God's will, they would be carried out by Christians. Quite frankly, the entire concept seems so improbable. Anti-Christian. Diabolical.

[@thebiblesojourner]

Your question is like 4 questions which apparently are not questions 🤷‍♂️

[@mitchellpowers5622]

The church is the temple

[@mitchellpowers5622]

And we are living sacrifices

[@thebiblesojourner]

True statements. 👍

[@michaeladner5485]

The Temple are the church

[@michaeladner5485]

.* is

[@thebiblesojourner]

True! The Bible says it I believe it! 😀

[@michaeladner5485]

@@thebiblesojourner so what means that for you ?

[@thebiblesojourner]

@@michaeladner5485 The Bible refers to the physical temple and also metaphorically to Christ as the temple and the church as the temple. No contradictions present.

[@michaeladner5485]

@@thebiblesojourner your Dispentialism has blinded your eys