Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Ezekiel 40-44 measurements? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232094 | ||
Loavesnfishes, One further thought. Let me tell you what convinces me. I am not convinced of this interpretation because I can go and show how every little measurement represents some spiritual truth. I know a lot of end time preachers tend to see old testament prophecy this way and glory in their ability to make something of every little detail. What pursuades me is that I am thoroughly convinced that when Christ showed up claiming to be a greater temple with a unquenchable flow of living giving water coming from Himself, He did not do so in ignorance of what Ezekiel wrote concerning an eschatological temple. I simply can not help but to believe that Christ was in fact interpreting Ezekiel vision. Are we really to suggest that Christ was unfamiliar with Ezekiel's writings? And if He was familiar with it, are we really going to suggest that Christ was reaching back, grabbing hold of Ezekiel imagery on purpose, then applying those things directly to himself and yet suggest He was not claiming himself as the greater temple? Are we really to think that the apostles weren't following this train of thought? That they did not see the redifining of the meeting place between God in his people when they claimed the church was now the temple of God? Did John not intend to weigh in on the concept of where we are heading in terms of an eschatological temple when he affirmed that in eternity to come there was no physical building as a temple but rather the temple theme was specifically fulfilled by the unmediated presence of God? Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. In the end. I was not pursuaded simply by reading Ezekiel. I was pursuaded by what Christ and his apostles did with what Ezekiel said. I believe they got the right of it. Why would we read the new testament continually affirming these things yet continue to look for a mound of bricks to call a temple? I personally have more trouble getting past that issue than I do some unexplained details in Ezekial. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
2 | Help me understand how do the parts fit? | Bible general Archive 4 | loavesnfish | 232096 | ||
Beja, I am not criticizing your view. I agree that Christ is the Temple as Revelation says. I am just trying to understand how all the parts fit together. It seems to me that a correct understanding should include all the elements, no matter what view one takes. Certainly, according to the view you have expressed, the sacrifices on the tables in Ezekiel 40:43 would signify Christ's sacrifice for us. So the whole thing could represent what was for Ezekiel a work to be accomplished and what is for us a work finished already on the cross. Is that what you mean? Then the problem among the various interpreters would have more to do with a perspective in time than whether or not there is a stone building? |
||||||
3 | Help me understand how do the parts fit? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232097 | ||
Loavesnfishes, I wouldn't reduce the vision to a picture of the attonement if that's what you mean. I think it is pointing to a future temple. I just believe that temple is fulfilled in Christ and His Church. Keep in mind, the key to understanding what I'm saying is to remember that the temple always has been centrally about the presence of God with His people. Therefore God in our midst as Christ, then as the Spirit in the Church, and ultimately the fulness of God in our midst unmediated is a very logical and greater fulfillment of what the temple was always about. As far as helping you understand the minor details of Ezekiel's temple, I can't do that. I don't believe they are all meant to be individual nuggets of truth. As I was saying, I don't believe in prophecies that every detail is meant to be analized. For example in Zechariah's scroll when we are told it measured 20 cubits (if I recall correctly) to ask what the 20 cubits meant would be to totally focus on the wrong point, missing what he is trying to say. What I centrally what to know is how did Jesus and his apostles handle the old testament text in question. In the New Testament, we have a divinely inspired and authoritative interpretation of the Old Testament. That's how I approach the issue. P.S. Its best to use "note" when replying. I will still be alerted via e-mail that you have responded. In Chrst, Beja |
||||||