Monday, December 28, 2009



The Desert Rat has responded to a brother from the other side of the dispensational fence...

UPDATED


Said brother challenged the Rat's idea of the Church being a replacement for some prophecies in the OT concerning the Temple reconstruction and the Zadok priestly line...

Doing what rats do.

Well, I scurried out to watch the sunrise in the glory of all lands this morning, and lo! I had cactus mail, delivered from the mysterious ether.

"What of Ezekiel chapters 40-48 and the temple? Different in several ways to any other temple, no mercy seat, no ark, no high priest, etc. In your replacement theology, how do you 'figure' these truths away? What of the eternal promise to the sons of Zadok? And what part of the church is in the house of Israel and what part is in the house of Judah?"

Well, I've got to be honest. I had no idea anyone ever read these sermons to the rocks and cacti, mountains and sky. And a fellow believer, no less, just as put off and offended by my holistic view of the Bible (including eschatology and ecclesiology) as I am of his/hers. Sarcasm is a really bizarre phenomenon...but while it is the lowest form of wit, it is the funniest (while being the lowest form of wit, it is the highest form of intelligence!). I'll try to keep it to just the barest of answers (though there is no frivolity in that!). Oh, and I'm a lousy debater, so I'll answer the question, cast it carelessly to the ether, and end it here. That way you, dearest fellow disciple, can claim a victory in defeating any challenge to the reigning eschatology in pop-Church America.

I love Ezekiel, and have for a long, long time. One of these days I'll lead a group through a study of it, which in my mind will be akin to group bungy-cording with collected shoelaces. It'll be great! At that time I'll do a verse-by-verse exposition of Ezekiel 40-48, and maybe I'll put some of it online. I've always thought it very interesting that Ezekiel dates the vision as "fourteen years after the city was taken" (40:1), and then describes the visionary Temple as "a structure like a city" (40:2). He's also told to "see with [his] eyes, hear with [his] ears" (40:4), while giving a prophecy to a people who probably won't believe him - the prophecy itself is to be a sign to them of their own disobedience (2:1-3:11). What makes us think 40-48 must be built? Perhaps it's a monument to the way things could've been if obedience had been present, but instead 40-48 is a sign of their disobedience.

The futurists' (this includes you Dispensationalists) last stand is Temple Mount. Every aspect of your eschatology must have a fourth Temple (after the Temples of Solomon, Cyrus, and Herod). Without it, you're on indefinite hold. Sigh. I wish this would shut up the speculators, the endless parade of experts saying the end is just around the corner. What edition are we in with the "Late Great Planet Earth"? Oh well. To throw Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 17 & 21 into the future rather than the A.D. first century you have to have a Temple, so anti-Christ can desecrate it. We'll ignore the fact that it happened almost 1,940 years ago. No worries. I have no doubt there are a lot of Dispensationalists financially supporting those fringe loony Jews in Israel (a very small minority with no political power in that secular State) who are breeding red heifers and drawing up schematics based exactly on Ezekiel 40-48.

I call the second Temple Cyrus' since he claims it by decree, mandates its construction, and provides the finances (2 Chronicles 36:23; Ezra 1:2-4).

The plans to the Temple are conditional (I'm trying to speak your language!). In 43:11, Yahweh tells the great prophet, "If they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the house, its structure, its exists, its entrances, all its designs, all its statutes, and all its laws. And write it in their sight, so that they may observe its whole design and all its statutes to do them." Remember in Cinderella when the evil step-mother says, "if"? That's how I typed it. They had two chances to build this very Temple, didn't they (Cyrus' and Herod's)? Ezekiel writes out these plans in their presence, three or four decades before they'll have a chance to build them. They don't. There is no ark mentioned in Ezekiel's plans because the ark disappeared with the destruction of Solomon's Temple, never to be seen again (unless you can break into that warehouse in Area 51). Don't ever forget that the heart of Cyrus' Temple and Herod's Temple was empty.

I would suggest to you, fellow disciple, that the plans in Ezekiel 40-48 are conditioned on the people's shame. Apparently there was not enough shame! OR Ezra-Nehemiah, in building Cyrus' Temple, did try to build Ezekiel's Temple, but the people's concern with resettling the land proved more important (they are constantly tearing clothing in leading the people to repent, and a few decades later in Malachi we see things have degraded already). Zechariah-Haggai did, after all, have to twist their arms to get them to even finish the thing.

The presence of God leaves Solomon's Temple in Ezekiel 10. The last verse of Ezekiel promises that the Temple of 40-48 will have God's presence. When does it return? Not for Cyrus' Temple, or Herod's. When does God's presence return in a way similar to the event at the dedication of Solomon's Temple? Pentecost, when God returns to His Temple, so much more than a building. His glorious and beloved Church. Stephen, in the most incredible God-perspective giving of Jewish history, quotes the O.T. as they're picking up stones, reminding them (with their own Scriptures) that God can't be contained in a building (Acts 7:46-50). Are we really going to argue, given the trajectory of the N.T., that God's plan is for another building? Do we wink knowingly at each other over Jesus' naivety in insisting that the Father wasn't looking for worshipers in Jerusalem, but worshipers in Spirit and in truth (John 4:21-24)?

I don't see the "eternal promise to the sons of Zadok" in the Bible. The post-exilic priesthood was certainly to be led by the Zadokites, but "eternal" doesn't enter into the discussion. Zadok was high priest under David. Zechariah and Haggai's emphasis on Zerubbabel (the governor) and Josiah (the high priest, a descendant of Zadok) certainly point to a restoration of a Davidic ruler and Zadokite priesthood. So at least that part fits pretty good with Ezekiel's instructions to the Exiles. There were high priests from the Zadokite line at least until the Maccabean period. By the way, great resource book: "From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests After the Exile," by James C. VanderKam (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2004). It's scholarly, and not written from the viewpoint of either of our eschatological camps, so it's actually worth reading (yes, there are topics aside from eschatology that are important).

There was no "mercy seat" or "ark" in either Cyrus' Temple or Herod's Temple, since the ark of the covenant disappeared with the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. So I don't think we can say Ezekiel's visionary Temple is "different in several ways from any other temple." With this criteria, Solomon's Temple was the oddball.

Just because Ezekiel doesn't mention a high priest doesn't mean one wasn't intended for this Temple. Besides, what was the role of the high priest? Isn't the primary role entry into the Holy of holies on the Day of Atonement to pour blood on the mercy seat? With no mercy seat/ark, this became a largely political/symbolic role in the post-Exilic period.

This is not "replacement" theology. Jesus, the perfect Israel, contains the people of God in Him (read Galatians some time). He became the remnant. In Him all the promises and blessings of Abraham are fulfilled. I'd mention Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:11-22; Colossians 3:11, but I know the counter-arguments of Dispensationalists very well. Sophistry.

And I know the last question of yours wasn't serious. But in case it accidentally was serious, the goal of God is a restoration of His people in Ezekiel 37.
I used to be a Dispensationalist. I had the Clarence Larkin book with all the charts, the Walvoord compendium, the Left Behind series. I loved it. Dispensationalism cuts up the Bible in a scrapbooking theology that re-arranges events separated by centuries, throws 90% of them into the future (the Church is just a place-holder in the middle of the really cool story, Yahweh and Israel), and creates a fantasy world with all the drama and narrative of Narnia (without - sigh - the talking animals). Then the rat heard his pastor one night after Bible Study mention Acts 2:16, where Peter applies Joel to the events of Pentecost, not with double-meaning, not with a gap of millennia, but to his day. I quietly starting re-reading the Bible after that, throwing away (in some cases burning) my Dispensationalist stuff, leaving the safety of the charts and the psychotic excitement of imminent eschatology. I left behind (haha) the double-covenant and the insistence on imposing hyper-literalness on Hebrew poetry and thought. Most of all, I stopped believing this current day and time are the most important in all of the history of the world, things can't get much worse, and the anti-Christ (what a sham) is about to take over the United Nations with his charisma...of course, anti-Christ is not mentioned in Revelation or any "prophetic" material, so he is only a ridiculous straw-man for the end-times experts.

You can insist on two returns of Jesus (the rapture and then the end, separated by the seven-year Tribulation), but if I suggest a coming in A.D. 70 to judge God's enemies (so-called "Second Temple" Judaism of the A.D. first century) and an unknown coming the future, I'm unorthodox. I remember an issue of "The National Liberty Journal" (which I used to read) about five years ago that declared a person heretical if they didn't believe the modern State of Israel played a role in God's eschatological/soteriological plan ("The New Last Days Scoffers," by Dr. Edward Hindson, May 2005). I embraced heresy proudly at that point (at least heresy as defined by Dispensationalists). We can both point to different Church Fathers who seem to support our views. We aren't going to convince each other. So I suggest we both just walk away at this point...not stopping in 10 paces for a duel, but just keep walking.
Well, back to the quiet (and cold) desert. I'm harmless out here, so don't worry about it, okay? Do say a prayer for those small congregations who must endure the rat's teaching...

"Dear, damned, distracting town, farewell!
Thy fools no more I'll tease:
This year in peace, ye critics, dwell,
Ye harlots, sleep at ease!"

"A Farewell to London," 1715
Alexander Pope

Labels:

10 Comments:

Blogger Brian Gwatney said...

Charlie,

I read this and it is entertaining but Mike is wrong about the U.N.

Obviously he doesn't have the information about behind the door stuff that is going on. Plus all of the stuff being anounced in the media. They are openly annoucing world government, and the UN will be in control with the IMF, and World bank.

I worrie that because some do do comes up with a flawed end time view that he used to believe in doesn't mean the one he has chosen is correct. He is opening himself up to being badly decieved.

World government is already here and day by day they are conditioning us to comply into the Beast's (Anti-Chris whom both Paul and John mentioned in 2 Thes., I John, Rev. 13.) system.

Let's face it, we are on the Prison Planet with the doors to freedom of God's people and the rest being carved away almost on a daily basis.

The things I know of today that are planned for us scares me. But what scares me is the stuff I don't know.

Christ is my svior and I rest assured that the one who is right is Him. Being scared only goes so far because Christ is my savior. I just hope and pray that peoples eyes will be opened to the truth of things happening this day.

wheather the rapture is pre, med, or post the great tribulation I don't know. I know this Christ didn't return in 70 AD. Because if he did that would be the biggest cover up in human history. So that idea is completly false.

As far as the Olivet discourse in Mathew and Luke. Luke and Mathew are similar but are very differnt. I have been told that each book is written to differnt audiences. So with that taken into account. I would like to know which one is written to whom and why the sequence is the way it is.

In Christ,

Brian

4:18 PM  
Blogger desert rat of Morgan said...

Empires have risen and fallen that have covered the entire civilized world. Because the U.S. falls and another Empire takes over the world for a time doesn't mean we are living in the "end times" (the N.T. writers state that was their day, even hour, not ours), or that Revelation is a spiritual script for our contemporary history. If the U.N. takes over everything, that will not change my "end-times" schema or my interpretation of the Bible one bit! The "anti-Christ" is a spirit that arises within the Church (also Paul's "man of lawlessness"), and the Beast was Nero Caesar (the mother-whore Babylon was pre-A.D. 70 Jerusalem). I can keep going, but I'm pretty sure you're already convinced of my absolute insanity, dearest brother!

4:28 PM  
Blogger XtnYoda said...

I wrote about this a couple of weeks ago...

http://xtnyoda.blogspot.com/2009/12/spirit-of-antichrist-is-moving.html#links

The "spirit" has been around and works constantly, and has worked, in every generation.... as Michael said.

Ours is not to know the day of it's full revealing... ours is to preach the gospel... and work/pray for a great awakening of "the church".

As I've stated numerous times... I believe we are seeing/in the next great awakening... and with that I am greatly encouraged... even excited about our day.

As was shared once by a believer under the heavy hand of persecution in the old communist Russia... "There were still two old widows lighting candles and prayers in the night."

Maranatha.

4:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Rat:
I did intend sarcasm in my comment about "figure" away truths of Ezekiel but I was serious about all my other questions. The desert air, it's kinda thin at times I suppose? I apologize if you took offense at my comments as I mean you no harm. Your position seemed to be replacement theology and I am sorry if that label offends you.
To clear up my statement about eternal promise for the sons of Zadok I was trying to be brief concerning the line of Levite priest , Zadok listed here in Ezekiel in particular. I think God made a promise on this priesthood that He will keep. The question about houses of Israel and Judah, of course comes from Jeremiah and the new covenant made to these two seperate and distinct people. Here again I think God will keep these promises in the future. By the way I am not at all talking about lost tribes type stuff here, which I reject.
You show similarities in your response about the temples such as no arc in Herod's temple either, but I was concerned about the "differences" between Ezekiel's future(not built yet if you prefer)temple and the other temples. Such as temple dimension diff. and sacrificial differences that are not in accordance to the law, no high priest,etc. As you know animal sacrifices in a future 4th temple(I think you could call Ezekiel temple the 4th) is somewhat of a problem for dispensational proponents to explain clearly. You have a rather lengthy reply and I will have to print it out to read later and see if I need to respond to any other areas. When I stand before my savior one day I want to have everything I have learned from God's Word correct to the best of my ability for Him to judge as I know you do also.
I will try to get a proper google ID as I have not been able to so far.

5:11 PM  
Blogger desert rat of Morgan said...

I'm sorry to even say this, but I don't think we properly understand "eternal," "perpetual," or "everlasting" language when it occurs in the O.T. I don't think this is necessarily an idea the Hebrew mind felt need to express. "Eternity" is a Greek idea. I think we read our idea of eternity back into the O.T. with our Western Civilization-besotted minds. We're a lot better and more naturally equipped to read the N.T., since the language is Greek and even the Jewish writers are living in a land that had been Hellenized to some extent, and, in the very least, had extensive contact with the Greek world (and their ideas). It's a different world in the O.T.

For example, I give you the judgment of Edom in Isaiah 34, where the N.T. borrows the language to describe hell. Do we really believe formerly Edomite land is still desolate and eternally burning? No, we don't believe that. So, we can either say Isaiah was foreseeing an eternal state of that land in the New Earth, millennia after the Edomites were thoroughly assimilated, or we can admit that we don't think exactly the way Isaiah did as he - perfectly inspired - spoke in a meaningful way to his culture and day.

We have to overcome - with great patience - language, culture, and temporal barriers to even begin to understand the O.T. many times.

By the way, check out the Greek for "communicated" in Revelation 1:1, where Jesus gives the Revelation to the angel to "communicate" to John. It's the verb form of the noun "sign," or "symbol." The entire Revelation is a symbol...

When iron sharpens iron, we are bound to be nicked by the edges...but I look forward to standing before Him with you.

7:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Revelation 1:1 can also be translated "He made it clear or He indicated it clearly" .
Very early we see forever, Genesis 3:22.
I do not agree with your vision of much of the OT or the NT, which is probably fine with you as me. I do agree that nicks and deeper cuts occur during sharpening, so I move away when it looks like too much metal would need to be removed.
Until That Day.

9:15 PM  
Blogger desert rat of Morgan said...

Having walked a mile in your shoes, I know how wide the fundamental gap is...

Can I recommend some reads that are very harmless? They don't go far enough in an interpretive revolution, but they set a good groundwork.

"The Apocalypse Code" by Hank Hanegraff (Thomas Nelson, 2007)
"Heaven Misplaced" by Douglas Wilson (Canon Press, 2008)
"The Last Days According to Jesus" by R.C. Sproul (Baker, 2000)

I wish I could've read these at the beginning of my search, but they're a fair, tame, respectable, and reasonable (all the things I'm not) expressions of this end-times view I've vomited forth. No matter how polemical or oxygen-deprived the rat is, you owe it to yourselves to hear other voices besides LaHaye and Hagee, especially when it comes to the end-times and Scripture. From where the streets have no name, God's blessings.

7:32 AM  
Blogger Brian Gwatney said...

I have herd Hank, Sproul and others offer their view. I have herd the opposing views also. My contintion is that none are 100% correct. Nero being the beast we agree to disagree but my position is that the Beast cannot accoplish those things that are fortold without technology cause he is not god.

Jesus said as it was in the days of Noah, and Lot as it will be with the coming of the Son of Man... The past is key to the future. My position is that strange things were taking place that we are, and will be encoutering today, and the future.

You know me desert rat and we both know I don't know much but that is what I get from Christ and His word.

Brother I love you and hope the Yahshua blesses you and your ministiry grows through the Gospel.

In Christ,

Brian

7:56 AM  
Blogger Brian Gwatney said...

Desert rat morgan,

Check out some documentries "Fall of the Republic," "The Obama Deception," and "End Game." I know it won't change your view of the endtimes but they are informative and you will be able to see the gradual climb into a scientific dictatorship.

8:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This thread may be dead at this point but I would like to direct a comment to XtnYoda concerning the apostasy in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-7. That verse 3 lines up with verses 6-7 is most likely. Verse 3, the apostasy meaning a "departure" of the HS so the man of lawlessness is revealed. This is somewhat expanded on or re-stated in verse 6-7. The HS restrains him now, so that in his time or he will be revealed when the HS is taken out of the way or departs. Apostasy defined as simply a departure from a position formally held as in this case of the HS, and not the falling away of the church as frequently is portrayed. I hope you see the implications of a pretrib rapture here but if you disagree I mean no offense. Ah yes, the glorious church and Holy Spirit have moved over a little for the next big DAY to come. Maranatha indeed.

7:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page