Ezekiel's Temple is actually a Tabernacle

This argument is important to my understanding of how Ezekiel's Prophecies and Revelation relate.  Something I laid out the gist of last year in my post about New Jerusalem passages being misapplied to The Millennium.

There are two different Hebrew words translated "Temple" in the King James Authorized Version of The Hebrew Bible.  Both are also used of the pre-Solomonic Tabernacles.  "Beth" is used more commonly but it's translated "House" on those occasions. 

Heykal is the Hebrew term that some want to treat as very technically applicable to Solomon's Temple but not any prior Tent based Tabernacles.  And yet 1 Samuel 1:9 and 3:3 do use that word of the Tabernacle at Shiloh.  In 2 Samuel 7 YHWH says through Nathan that He hadn't dwelt in any House like what David was wanting to build since He brought Israel out of Egypt.  So whatever Heykal technically etymologically means, it must have also been applicable to the Mosaic Tabernacle even if it is was used more rarely then.  It actually never became super common even while Solomon's Temple was standing with words like Beth and Mikadesh (Sanctuary in the KJV) being more common ways to refer to the main place of worship.  Again both of those were also applicable to The Tabernacle.  Psalm 78:60 also confirms that the Tabernacle at Shiloh was still a Tent(Ohel).

Heykal is also used in 2 Samuel 22:7 and Psalm 18:6 which are just different recordings of the same Davidic Psalm.  You could interpret that as referring to The Temple is Heaven but according to Paul in Hebrews it was the Tabernacle of Moses modeled after The Temple in Heaven, not Solomon's Temple.

In The Hebrew Bible no single word seems to be used for what Solomon's Temple was that the Tabernacles of Moses and David were not.  2 Samuel 7 helps define that for us but makes no single word an easy signifier for it.  However there is a word that is the opposite, that applies to The Tabernacles but not Solomon, Zerubbabel or Herod's Temples.

There are three Hebrew words that get translated Tabernacle.  Sukkot isn't a synonym for the Holy Place at all but refers to the Tabernacles of the Feast of Tabernacles.  Mishkan is most literally translated Habitation and is also applicable to Solomon's Temple even if The Hebrew does so rarely.  However Ohel is the literal word for Tent.  1 Kings 8:4 and 2 Chronicles 5:5 and what follows them basically describe the retiring of the Ohel as The Ark is removed from it and and then placed in Solomon's non Ohel Temple.  

Ezekiel 40:1 clearly defined the Heykal this very long Prophecy is about as an Ohel, a term consistently not applicable to Solomon's Temple.  If we take that detail as literally as most of us Futurists do everything else in these chapters, then we shouldn't be picturing Walls made of Stone or Wood but a Tent.  I don't think you can find anything in these chapters to contradict that.

Other Prophecies that use Ohel of the Place of Worship in the Eschatological Messianic Kingdom include Isaiah 16:6 and 33:20.  The former specifically says the Tabernacle of David which was set up in Zion the City of David which is in Ephratah not Jerusalem according to Psalm 132.  Amos 9:11 also refers to the Tabernacle of David but using Sukkot oddly, James in Acts 15 quotes that verse with Luke using the Greek equivalent of Ohel.  The Greek Equivalent for Ohel is also used when Revelation 21 calls New Jerusalem The Tabernacle of God.

More then one Greek word is translated Temple just like in the Hebrew, one is based on a word for Holy, one is also a word for House.  Naos, is the word that many may wish to treat as equivalent to Heykal, but I have some issues with that.  And I don't care how the Septuagint used Naos because I inherently distrust the Septuagint.

Stephen in Acts 7:48 and Paul in Acts 17:24 says God doesn't dwell in Naos made of human hands.  Literally that would exclude a Tent as much as a building made of Stone or Wood, and ultimately I believe it does, but Stephen's context in Acts 7:44-50 is tying that idea to his distinguishing Solomon's Naos from the Tabernacles of Moses and David.

What Naos meant in it's Pagan Greek context was also rather technical and precise in a way that I feel makes it not very applicable to how Heykal was used, at least not always.  The Naos referred specifically to a building that housed the Idol or representation of the god being worshiped and not the outdoor courtyards where sacrifices were made.  It's known usage in Egypt was the same, and as a Weeb I'd also say it equate it to the Honden of a Shinto Shrine.  Meaning if we translate that to how Herod's Temple worked it referred to the building that contained the Holy Place and Holy of Holies but not the outdoor area where The Brazen Altar was. 

Perhaps if any Hebrew term is equivalent to Naos it's Dbiyr a word used only of the Inner Sanctuary of Solomon's Temple (the KJV translates it Oracle but not every Oracle in the KJV is this word)  in 1 Kings 6:5-31, 7:49, 8:6-8 and 2 Chronicles 3:16, 4:20, 5:7-9 but was never part of The Torah's description of The Tabernacle.

So when Revelation 21:22 says New Jerusalem has no Naos for the Lamb is The Temple like He is The Light, it is chiefly a Temple like Solomon's or Herod I feel is meant.  A literal Tent based place of worship is perhaps equally as unnecessary, but not as definitely said to not be present.  And whether literal Tents are physically involved or not the text of Revelation 21 enthusiastically associates that Greek word with this future Worship.

The significance of the Naos being gone would then be the same as the significance of the Veil being torn.

Dan to Beersheba

Beersheba might seem like an odd Biblical location to question the traditional identification of.  But I really feel the modern Israeli city of Beerhseba is too far north to work for how often Beersheba is an idiom of Israel's southern border.  And maybe it's too far west too, this idiom should perhaps be the middle of the border otherwise it's more of a corner.

Part of the confusion comes from Gerar, I think Biblical Gerar includes the modern traditional location but extents further to cover a descent chunk of the southern Negev.  It's a region not a city.

There are three chapters of The Bible that define the Southern Border without reference to Beersheba or Gerar.  Numbers 34, Ezekiel 47 and Ezekiel 48, all three can be difficult to interpret because of how they use place names that appear only in these three chapters, plus other aspects that are translated inconsistently.  The Lamsa translation of the Peshita version of Ezekiel seems to make Tamar and Meribah-Kadesh different names of the same location, and I think of all the versions I've read that makes the most sense in the context of other aspects of Biblical geography.

Numbers 34's use of Zin further confirms that Barnea is the same Kadesh (the Wilderness of Paran I think refers to everything west of the Arabah while the Wilderness of Zin is a more specific sub section of Paran.)  I think the reason Numbers 21 at first looks like it's saying they just arrived at a new location is because they did move slightly, but in the grand scheme of things are still on the same dot on a map of Jordan small enough to fit on my Labtop's computer screen.

So all three of these chapters place Kadesh on or very near the eastern edge of the Southern Border.  While the Western part of the border is the Wadi al-Arish.  Kadesh as I've already argued is Petra in Jordan.  The name Beersheba is not introduced till Genesis 21 but it's still implied to be pretty much where Abraham and Sarah settled at the start of chapter 20.  So the information in those chapters of Genesis combined with other references to Kadesh and Paran further support Beersheba being close to the same latitude as Kadesh.  And also about halfway between Kadesh and the Egyptian border.

Frankly I currently think Avdat is about where Beersheba should be.  The ruins at Avdat standing today (you can see them in the 73 film version of Jesus Christ Superstar) are Nabataean ruins contemporary with the Greco-Roman period, as is the name Avdat itself.  Biblical Beersheba I do not expect to have been a bustling Metropolis, it was probably a pretty humble village with no major buildings, the construction of Nabatean Avdat could easily have eliminated whatever remains older Beersheba had.  Avdat did have a Well which was the water source of it's Roman Bathhouse.

Avdat was an important stop on the road connecting Gaza to Petra. That fits pretty well with the picture I've painted above of the relationship between Beersheba and Kadesh.

Then I learned about Shivta, another city on that trade same route who's name actually seems connected to Beersheba's original name in Genesis 26:33 and Joshua 19:2.  

I now think Beersheba was in the area of either Shivta/Sobota/Subeita, Ruheiba (which seems to have the most notable Well in the area according to Dan Gibson) or Elusa.  And that Avdat/Obodat to their south was the ancient settlement of Abida son of Midian.

A lot of passages are applied to The Millennium when they're actually about New Jerusalem

I know I did this post once already very early in this blog's history, but that post is strongly tied into things I've changed my mind on since.

Let's start with how Jesus promised The Twelve Disciples they would sit on Twelve Thrones ruling the Twelve Tribes of Israel at the Last Supper.  I've seen that applied to The Millennium multiple times, but The Twelve don't come up in Revelation 20.

Revelation 21:12-16 refers to Twelve Gates for the Tribes of Israel on which are named the Twelve Tribes and by them are Twelve "angels" and also Twelve Foundations in the Walls with the names of The Twelve Apostles.  I've already explained how "Angels" can refer to human believers but even without that detail I'd still conclude that this is where the promise of the Twelves' Thrones is fulfilled.  In the ancient Near East leaders of a city were often seated by the gate, this custom is alluded to in Ruth 4.

Outside Revelation allusions to The Millennium are much more rare.  But I definitely see it in 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 and probably also in Daniel 7:12.  When it comes to things like where Zechariah 14 ends or Isaiah 19 I'm far from decided.  But at least one other probable TNAK reference to the Millennium will come up later.

However the big passage I want to discus is Isaiah 65-66, chapter 65 verses 17 and 22 are what Revelation 21 verse 1 is practically directly quoting.  And verses 18-19 refer to New Jerusalem though without using the word "new" as explicitly, and Isaiah 66:1(as interpreted by Stephen in Acts 7:44-50) is possibly the reason New Jerusalem is said not to have a Temple.

But verse 20 is thrown around as proof this can't be The New Creation because people still die.  Isaiah is very poetic in style, and considering what I explained on my other blog about how to interpret Scripture Impressionistically rather then Lexically,  It feels to me like it should be blindingly obvious Isaiah 65:20 is actually saying the opposite, that this is his poetic way of saying people will not die and there will be no sin.

People abuse what Jesus said about people neither "Marrying or giving in marriage" in The Resurrection "Like the Angels in Heaven", to prove that there is no Biological Reproduction going on in the New Heaven and New Earth.  Jesus said that in the context of refuting the Sadducees trying to discredit The Resurrection by implying the Levirate marriages will create Polyandrous situations.  It's marriage as defined in Genesis 3 that will end, marriage as a hierarchy, not the Marriage of Genesis 2.  In New Jerusalem we will ALL be Married to Jesus and each other.  

But on the other hand the verse in Isaiah 65 taken to imply new people being born is the very same poetic passage taken to imply some people will die.  Still I believe The Resurrection is the restoration of The Pre-Fall conditions, and so I lean towards suspecting painless childbirth will be an option.

The Patristics often didn't distinguish between The Millennium and New Jerusalem at all.  And while today they are distinguished by all Pre-Millennialists, there is still a desire to make The Millennium far more Utopic then it actually is.  The New Heaven and New Earth will be a Communist Utopia, The Millennium is more complicated, in proper Marxist terminology it's perhaps more like the Dictatorship of the Proliteriate.

For one thing The Saints are NOT ruling the entire world, we have a Camp which is also called the Beloved City.  And based on Revelation 20 alone there is no proof that Camp is Jerusalem. 

You might express concern that this "downgrading" I appear to be doing of The Millennium could serve the interests of Post-Millenialists who argue it fits the current world just fine.  Well indeed I don't consider Post-Mills or Partial Preterists to be Heretics in the way I do Resurrection denying Full Preterists and Amillenials, but I do still disagree with them.

Number 1, my main reason for viewing The Millennium as still yet future is less anything about The Millennium itself but more what must happen before it starts and the absurdity of claiming those things have already happened.  Which is the Parousia and the literal physical Bodily Resurrection of at least all Church Age believers.

Number 2 is the post I made on Zion recently.

The Thousand years strictly speaking refers to the time Satan is bound not the Kingdom itself which will have no end.  The Kingdom begins on Mount Zion in Revelation 14 and then it conquers The beast after The beast destroys Babylon.  Since I do believe the Gog and Magog invasion of Revelation 20 is the same as Ezekiel 38, that gives me confirmation that Israel is the location of this Camp.

Since I don't view The Millennium as a pure perfect Utopia, but it is distinct from the world we know now, what will it be like?  Well if I had to pick an inevitably very flawed literary analogy I would say the Second Age of Middle Earth aka Arda.  At the end of the First Age Morgoth (the Satan analogue) is sealed away and it's not till a Thousand years into the Second Age that the Enemy begins taking direct action again via Sauron's founding of Barad-Dur.  But instead of an Atlantis analogue it's a land at the crossroads of the major continents being ruled by Resurrected Saints that the Enemy is planning war with.

[There is also a part of my Weeb Brain that sees traits of the Millennium in Crystal Tokyo from Sailor Moon lore, particularly in the Manga/Crystal continuity.]

I know I sometimes criticize views opposed to mine for treating The Bible like a fantasy novel, that's why I stressed it's not a perfect analogy.  First and foremost I reject the opinions of some that any future Messianic Kingdom will involve a rejecting of modern technology, in fact I believe we will be colonizing the Stars.

Now I have saved Ezekiel 40-48 for last because my thoughts on that are uniquely complicated.  In fact I'm saving it for after the jump break.

Who is The Bride of Christ?

I did a post defending The Church as the Bride of Christ once.  My views on a number of things have changed since then, mainly my becoming less Dispensational.  I now believe The Church is grafted into Israel.  Though I do still believe there are probably some unique promises for Church Age believers.

So while on the one hand I want to talk in this post about how I'm more open to rethinking how we think about the Bride of Christ then I was then.  I first want to talk about how the main people you'll find on a google search for "The Church is not the Bride of Christ", are absolute Dispensationists as much as Chuck Missler is, just changing which Covenant people they say is The Bride.  And in so doing say things that bug me even more now then they did back then.

Jerusalem is the Lamb's Wife quite clearly in Revelation 21.  And to them the word Jerusalem can't possibly apply to The Church.  One went all in on this "Revelation is about Israel not The Church" idea saying even the Seven Churches are about Israel not the Church.  I think it's absurd to say something so important to the New Testament would be totally absent from the closing book of The Bible.

I could point out to them how the message to Philadelphia and the description of New Jerusalem clearly tie themselves to how Paul taught his The Church is God's Temple doctrine, via the Twelve Disciples as Pillars.  Or that Jesus told the Twelve Disciples at the Last Supper they would rule the Twelve Tribes.  They simply wouldn't care.

But now to how I'm more open.

The thing I've noticed is that Psalm 45, generally agreed to be a Messianic Psalm, has The Messiah and His Wife and their Children, as distinct entities.  Isaiah 53 also says the Suffering Servant will have Seed.  These do not mean Jesus will reproduce biologically, they are about John 1 teaching how Jesus gave us the ability to become Sons of God.  And probably also about The Man-Child being The Church. 

In Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19 and Luke 5:34 Jesus refers to His Disciples as the Children of the Bridegroom or Bridechamber.  Some Translations try to make this say servants, but the Greek text of the Textus Receptus says children making the KJV right here.  What John The Baptist says in John 3:29 can be taken in context as saying the former disciples of John becoming Disciples of Jesus are The Bride, but I think that's an oversimplification, he doesn't directly say that.

I think it is believers as the Temple of God/Body of Christ that include The Bride and the Children together.  My post about The Vail of The Temple suggests good reason to see The Bride and Groom as the Holy of Holies/Holy Place, The Vail torn means they are no longer separate.  The Children may then equate to the Inner Court.  Originally only Aaronic Priests could enter it, but now all believers are Priests.  There are no separate courts for Gentiles or Women as Galatians 3 shows.  Ephesian 2:14 also says the Wall of partition has been torn down.

I believe Israel is the Woman of Revelation 12, I've argued that the Woman of Revelation 12 and 17 possibly are the same Woman, and returned to that in my recent Eden and Sinai post.[but that argument is now corrected by Eden may have been in Yemen].  The one thing that I was uncomfortable with about that is the implication of no happy ending for Israel.

Unless we conclude that this is also the same Woman who becomes the Bride in Chapter 19 and the Lamb's Wife in Chapter 21.  It makes sense given Paul's discussion in Romans of the divorce and Re-Marriage of Israel.  It's not explicitly stated they are the same because God promised He "will remember their Sins no more", Hebrews 8:12 and 10:17.  Remember in Revelation 18 God calls His People out of Babylon.

In fact that Greek word translated Bride in Revelation 19 is the exact same word used for Woman in chapter 12 and 17.  A word that more specifically means Bride isn't used till chapter 21. And likewise the word for Wife is usually the same word translated Woman.

It might be Isaiah 62 equates to verses 7-9 of Revelation 19, and then Isaiah 63 equates to verses 11-16.

Update: Types

Chuck Missler likes to back up his dispensationalist view of The Bride of Christ doctrine by talking about a theme of  "Gentile Brides" in the Old Testament.  I think he said there are at least 7 once.  But that whole thing is built on sand, having only really Ruth to go on.

Havvah/Eve was made from Adam's flesh, so you can't call that a marriage between separate Blood Lines.

With Rebecca in Genesis 24, the whole point was Abraham sent his servant to get a Wife for Isaac from the descendants of his brother.  Then Jacob's wives came from that same family.

Tamar was not a Canaanite, it was the unnamed wife of Judah who was clearly identified as one.

Rahab the Harlot is not depicted as marrying anyone in the Hebrew Bible, and I've shown that the Recab of Matthew's Genealogy cannot be referring to her.

Of the Wives of David, the only three who have any particular narratives about them are all clearly Israelites. Bathsheba even came from the same Tribe, Judah, as the granddaughter of Athitophel, though her first Husband was a Gentile.  Abigail was from Carmel but had been married to a Calebite.  And Michal was a princess of Benjamin, perhaps making her the most likely to be a type of the New Jerusalem.  Or perhaps Michal is Old Jerusalem and Bethsheba is New Jerusalem.

Esther also was a Benjamite, in that scenario it's the groom who was a gentile.

Solomon's marriages to foreigners are not depicted positively.  And my studies of the Song of Solomon have firmly lead me to conclude that Shulamith was a granddaughter of Solomon.

Nor does Psalm 45 in anyway make it's Bride a Gentile, despite how some seek to abuse the text to make it about the Queen of Sheba.  The "Queen in Gold of Ophir" verse is simply about her wearing expensive imported clothes, because Solomon got his Gold from Ophir.  What's interesting is that Gentile women attend the Wedding.  Her being told to forget her own people and her father's house use "Am" not "Goyi" for people, it could be used in the sense of being from a different Tribe of Israel.  Again reflecting how in Deuteronomy 33 the Beloved is of Benjamin.  But also the most significant verse to use "Am" is Genesis 48:19 of Manasseh.

So getting back to Ruth, the thing about her is she's not the only Wife depicted in the story.  Naomi (Who Chuck Missler says represents Israel) is also a Widow, and her husband's name makes him a possible type of the King, Elimelech.  The narrative point in this Book is about Ruth being a gentile who becomes an Israelite via Faith in Israel's God, not about a Gentile Bride being separate from Israel.

So don't let anything I said above make you think I'm against Mixed Marriages, I have a post on my other Blog defending them.

Update April 16th 2018: Methosius of Olympus.

 Methodius of Olympus a Pre-Nicene Church Father taught that The Woman of Revelation 12 is The Church and The Man-Child the Saints. That is a confusing explanation, but I think a product of being at least partly aware of the truths I just laid out above but being blinded by the Anti-Semitism the Early Church had already developed.

Of course that could be explained by language like in Ezekiel 16, where Judah, Samaria and Sodom are refereed to as well as their "daughters", referring to the people of the City as the City's children.

Methodius's writings we don't have in full.  This looks to me like evidence he was a Pre-Nicene father who wasn't Post-Trib since I don't see how making the Man-Child the Saints rather then Jesus can be made compatible with Post-Trib.  But I'm not gonna bet on that because playing games with the chronology of Revelation is what Post-Tribbers do.  (I'm also well aware he wouldn't have used terminology like Post-Trib).

So Methodius might have provided a way to make distinguishing the Bride from the Children of the Bride not even Semi-Dispensational.  But to me that way of looking at it would still have to be Mid-Trib, since it has the Church still existing on Earth after the Rapture.  However there are other pieces of the puzzle that wouldn't quite fit.

Update May 14th 2018: Paul's views on the matter.

All three passages that can be cited as sounding like they're describing The Church or Christians as The Bride rather then the Children are from Paul.

Now I'm someone who wants to refute the notion that Paul was in conflict with the rest of the New Testament, I have posts already dedicated to that issue.  But on this I must admit to being currently a little stumped.

Romans 7 is totally misunderstood however, that marriage related Law is what Paul singled out because he wanted to demonstrate that you are no longer under the Law at Death, and now we are Dead to the Law.  At best it actually makes Believers the Husband not the Wife.  Because we Die in Christ at Baptism.

However Ephesians 5:21-33 and 2 Corinthians 11 do seem to be making The Church the Bride of Christ.

Whether or not those passages can be reinterpreted differently.  Paul is one witness, I have multiple witnesses above on The Church being the Children of the Bridegroom.

Update August 2018: I've contemplated these Paul passages some more.

Ephesian 5 is not really doctrinally calling anyone a Bride or Bridegroom, just telling Husbands to love their wives like Jesus loves them.

2 Corinthians 11:2 I think may have some translation issues.  First of all the word translated "espoused" is not the same Greek word that refers to betrothal elsewhere like when talking about Mary and Joseph, but a form of the same Greek root that the word "harmony" comes from.  Looking at other usage of related words "joined" may be a better translation.

The word for "Husband" Andri, can also just mean an adult male, no word for wife or bride is used.

Some things about the word order are not what I expected either.  The Young's Literal Translation reads.

for I am zealous for you with zeal of God, for I did betroth you to one husband, a pure virgin, to present to Christ,

Which is interesting, but I'm not sure how accurate it is either given the Greek word order.  For one thing, it might be possible it's actually the Andri who's being called a pure virgin.

Basically, it could be this verse is really more about the Body of Christ Doctrine then the Bride of Christ.

I don't think there will be a Millennial Temple building.

I know my fellow Pre-Millennial Futurists are very afraid of any interpretation of Scripture that can be viewed as less then Literal.  I have more and more come to feel "Literal" is not the right word, what I say is that I take The Bible seriously.

What I want to discus here is that denying that the Old Testament Prophecies of a future Temple might very well be fulfilled by the New Testament Doctrine of The Church as The Temple of God, demeans the importance of that NT Doctrine in ways that I feel damage our Understanding of God's Word more then any allegorical interpretation of Scripture ever could.

And I don't view it as merely symbolic, as of Pentecost The Church is absolutely the literal definition of what a Temple is, in both Pagan and Judeo-Christian thought a Temple is what houses the Divine.  It is only what sounds like the description of a building and sacrifices that is interpreted as symbolic here.

And this Doctrine isn't limited to Paul, which I mention not just because of the Anti-Paul people out there, but because a Doctrine needs more then one witness.  It's in Revelation, both in the message to the church at Philadelphia and in the description of New Jerusalem (The 12 Apostles as Pillars is referencing Paul's own terminology in Ephesians 2 and Galatians).  And if you don't think Paul wrote Hebrews, Hebrews alludes to it.  Jesus teaches in John 4 that a time will come when God no longer dwells in a Temple building.  And it's implied that's what Stephen was stoned for teaching in Acts 6-7.  And it's in 1 Peter 2:4-5.

I've seen people say that Paul teaches the doctrine in the sense of an Individual Believer's Body being God's Temple only once so we can't build Doctrine on that (in 1 Corinthians in chapter 3 and 6).  However Peter refers to his Body as The Tabernacle in 1 Peter 1:13-14.  That is a second Witness more so then another reference from Paul would be.

Meanwhile in John's Gospel Chapter 2, we see Jesus refer to His Body as "This Temple".  That means that the doctrine of The Church as the Temple of God is inherently related to The Church as The Body of Christ.

And I've already talked about how The Body of Christ and Bride of Christ doctrine are related because of when Jesus says a Husband and Wife become one Flesh, and how Eve was made from Adam's flesh.  And the same passages of Revelation I alluded to above also reference the Bride of Christ doctrine.

And plenty of Prophecies about either The Millennium or New Jerusalem lack any reference to a Temple.  The Christian Doctrine of The Millennium is dependent on Revelation 20 and 1 Corinthians 15, neither mentions a Temple building.  Ezekiel 37 I view as about The Millennium and it mentions no Temple building, Paul quotes Ezekiel 37 when building his Church as the Temple doctrine in 2 Corinthians 6:16.  Even Zechariah 14 while talking about the Feast of Tabernacles being observed doesn't mention a Temple, Torah observant Christians observe that Feast without needing a Temple.

Isaiah 65 and 66 are viewed as about The Millennium by many but the New Heaven and New Earth by me.  Either way he makes clear there will be no Sacrifices.

Ezekiel 40-49 is the only presumed Prophecy of The Millennium that in detail describes a Temple Building and Sacrifices being carried out, there is no second Witness, other passages you can take as referring to a Temple in The Millennium lack details.  Yet the part on Yahuah-Shammah is clearly among what Revelation is drawing on in it's account of New Jerusalem, where all Christians agree the only Temple is The Church.

And when The Holy Days are discussed in Ezekiel 45, First Fruits, Pentecost, Yom Teruah and Yom Kippur are left out.  Those happen to be the Holy Days most dependent on the Temple rituals.

And so here I point back to my past discussions on Ezekiel's Temple.  [Update: I now have this improved discussion of the topic.  Which was in turn a follow up to this revisiting.]

So now you may ask, what about the "Third Temple" as in a Temple The Antichrist will desecrate?

Historicism is predicated on saying The Temple Paul refers to in II Thessalonians 2 is the same one he means in the Corinthian Epistles and Ephesians 2.  My issue there is mainly that Paul clearly means something unmistakable.  Even so the idea that the literal and symbolic meaning could both be true is possible, I have for many reasons become convinced The Antichrist will be within The Church.  But the issues with saying The Pope fulfilled this already are endless.

I firmly believe the Eschatological portions of the Thessalonian Epistles were Paul's commentary on the Olivite Discourses.  Jesus didn't use the word Temple there, but in both Matthew and Mark there is no denying he is using geographical terms.

Mark 13's Abomination of Desolation reference has often been interpreted to imply the location of The Temple but not necessary require the building itself to still be standing.  Which is why many have seen Hadrian's Temple built after the Bar Kokhba Revolt as fulfilling this.

However most of my fellow Futurists feel Matthew 24 saying "in" and "Holy Place" means inside a Temple building.  But in fact the Greek terminology there can refer to an outside as well as inside sacred location, the word for "in" is sometimes also translated "on".

The only reference to an Earthly Temple building in Revelation is at the start of Revelation 11.  In that case I recently read someone arguing that what the Greek Text actually says is that in 42 months Jerusalem will be trodden under foot of the Gentiles for an indeterminate amount of time.  I have shown that Luke 21 begins that time frame when The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

This person was a Futurist in their overall view of Revelation.  But argued this passage is about the time John received the Revelation being 42 months before September of 70 AD when Titus fully secured control of the City.  However this was an Anti-Paul website that teaches a lot of bad doctrine.

What's most important is that I have come to an understanding of the Image of The Beast that says the final Abomination of Desolation won't happen till after The Beast's mortal wound is healed.  Which in turn can't happen till after the Abyss has been unlocked is Revelation 9.  And that is why the Historicist view of II Thessalonians fails.

At the same time, I am now open to a Pre-Millenial Futurist view that does not require any future Temple Building.

But also, since I now think The Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple were originally Domes.  And the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque are both Domed buildings.  Is it possible one of them could be considered close enough?  (Perhaps likewise with the Christian Churches in Jerusalem that are Domed.)  The issue of where the Holy Place was in relation to those buildings I've discussed in the past and will again.

Long time readers of this Blog may recall that there not being enough time to rebuild The Temple was why I abandoned my 2018-2025 70th Week model (that came from the Suleiman the Magnificent theory).  Am I now willing to revive that?  Maybe, but I don't want to definitively predict anything.

I'm not saying for sure there will be no Third Temple.  But I'm saying i don't think it's quite as required as it used to be.

The shape of The Tabernacle, YHWH-Shammah and New Jerusalem

Project314.org is a website arguing that The Tabernacle was not shaped how we usually assume it was, but was rather a Dome.  I've also listened to the author of the site interviewed by Rob Skiba.  I've become pretty convinced of the theory, (but people like Skiba want to make it also an argument for their Flat Earth Model, which I do not agree with).

They haven't done much yet in terms of trying to see if this means The Temples of Solomon or Zerubabel were also a Dome rather then the shape we usually assume.  But I have an observation to make.

The Popularity of Domes in the design of Islamic Mosques actually comes from them later taking over and copying Byzantine/Eastern Roman Churches that were centered around Domes.  And this being a fixture of Byzantine architecture primarily goes back to the building projects of Emperor Jusitnian.

The Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos was one of Jusitnian's major projects.  It was built in Jerusalem.  Procopius’s account of Justinian's building projects deliberately makes the account of this Church echo the Biblical Account of the construction of Solomon's Temple.  And it was a Church dedicated to Mary, who Catholic and Orthodox theology often viewed The Ark, Tabernacle and Temple to be types of.  

So is it possible that that church had a Dome because of a deliberate attempt to model it after Solomon's Temple?  And that influenced other Byzantine architecture?  And is indirectly the reason we have Domes on The Temple Mount today?

I've made much on my Blog before about how Yahuah-Shammah of Ezekiel 48 and New Jerusalem of Revelation 21-22 have the same shape.  And back then went along with the usual assumption it was a Cube.   But the thing, is others talking about their shape being a Cube are also assuming that was the shape of The Holy of Holies.

Many people including Rob Skiba and Chuck Missler (last I checked) seem to think the description of these two cities (which I view as the same) can only be either a Cube or a Pyramid.  Basically something Squared at the bottom.  But I think that is a flawed assumption.  It's based on referring to there being three gates on each side.  

But a Circle with 12 evenly distributed gates could also be described that way.  Just use what a clock looks like as your frame of reference, the 3 is the central eastern gate, the 6 the central southern gate, the 9 the central western gate, and the 12 the central northern gate.

And if you believe in Gospel in The Stars/Mazzaroth theories, the 12 signs of the Zodiac form a circle.  Often also believed to correlate to the Israelites encampment around The Tabernacle in the Book of Numbers.

The last verse of the Book of Ezekiel says in the KJV "It was round about eighteen 6240 thousand measures: and the name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there".   Well the reason the word "round" is there is because the Hebrew word Cabyib (Strong Number 5439) is used.  That word is often translated things like Circuit and Compass.  It is inherently terminology of a round shape.

Revelation 21 uses the term "foursquared" which in the Greek is related to the terminology that refers to Four Corners.  You might think that rules out a Circular shape, but not really.  Remember these Flat Earthers think The Bible is describing a Flat Circle shaped Earth as having Four Corners.  The gist of the description is that it's the same size in all three directions.  And that can fit a Dome as well as it can a Cube or Pyramid.  In fact it can fit a Dome best, as it would be the same distance from the central grounded spot it's built around in every possible direction.

Here is a site arguing New Jerusalem is shaped like a Mountain. 

I've heard of an interesting book that deals with Geometry and New Jerusalem that may be useful to this topic.   The Dimensions of Paradise: Sacred Geometry, Ancient Science, and the Heavenly Order on Earth by John Mitchell.

Ezekiel's Temple and the Millennium Follow up

This is a follow up to Distinguishing between The Millennium and the New Heaven and New Earth.  And also my more recent Bethel, The House of God post.

My position on Isaiah 65 and 66 being the New Heaven and New Earth not The Millennium remains unshakable.  I've been doing some rethinking on Ezekiel, I certainly think many of the conditions in Ezekiel could also apply to The Millennium, and was also thinking maybe it's not the New Creation till YHWH-Shammah descends.  But the fact remains it's Revelation 21-22 that draws on this part of Ezekiel while 20 draws on 37-39.

Isaiah 66 which is still the same Prophecy as Isaiah 65 says in verse 3.

He that killeth an ox is as he that slayeth a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as he that breaketh a dog`s neck; he that offereth an oblation, [as he that offereth] swine`s blood; he that burneth frankincense, as he that blesseth an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations:

This further assured me that if indeed the Sacrifices being carried out in Ezekiel proves it's the Millennium in some people's minds then Isaiah can't be talking about the same time period.

But that also reminds me of why as a Christian the Sacrifices Ezekiel describes makes me uncomfortable either way.  The rationalizations I often hear from Christians for them are not satisfactory to me.

I read a few months ago an argument a Christian made that Ezekiel 40-48 is not going to be fulfilled in The Future, it was a hypothetical Constitution for the Return from Captivity that Israel rejected.  While that argument sounded quite reasonable, the problem I have with that is so much of Ezekiel's Temple besides the Sacrifices seem to anticipate what changed at The Cross.  No veil, no wall of separation, no separate courts for gentiles and women, ect.   

Add to that how Revelation 21-22 clearly draws on this part of Ezekiel.  And my recent insights regarding Bethel.  And I simply can't write off the Eschatological relevance of these chapters.

Then it hit me, what if both views are right in a sense?  It was originally a potential model for the return from captivity but was rejected.  However God still plans to make it happen anyway, but certain conditions will be different because of The Cross chief among them being no Sacrifices as Isaiah 66 clearly instructs.  Though some ceremonies may be performed using Jesus' already shed Blood.

You may think "what do we need the Brazen Altar for then?"  I'm thinking maybe it'll be converted into a monument with a Cross on top, a memorial of the permanent Sacrifice that made all others moot.

For the options I provided before for dealing with the size difference between Ezekiel's YHWH-Shammah and New Jerusalem.  I was favoring the John saw it from the inside option, and I still like that view, but....  I've watched this video from Rob Skiba.  I really don't like the Pyramid parts and I could do without the Flat Earth stuff.  But he still has interesting speculations.

That made me re-think the New Jerusalem borders include everything in Ezekiel's vision option.  The borders if you put YHWH-Shammah or Bethel (or the Altar east of Bethel) at the center of New Jerusalem would include everything in Ezekiel's vision, and it seems everything God promised to Abraham.  Plus Assyria and Egypt fitting Isaiah 19.  It'd also include some of Greece and about all of Asia minor, that's most destinations of Paul's travels, and all Seven Churches of Revelation, where Jesus also talks about New Jerusalem in the message to Philadelphia.

I keep looking into the Montanists, trying to decide if I think it's fair to label them heretics or not.  I can't find any clear statement on their soterology.  Much of what we know of them comes from their critics which had me skeptical of the most negative things said.  Still I do suspect they were an early example of how modern Charismatics sometimes go over board.

One of that movement's founding principles was the founders having a Prophetic revelation that New Jerusalem would be in Asia Minor, which had me thinking "well that's clearly a False Prophecy".  Now however I'm considering what if they misunderstood a Prophetic revelation that New Jerusalem would include Asia Minor? 

On the subject of Noah's Ark, I believe Bob Cornuke's theory that it's in Northern Iran, that site is within the cube also (as well as Jabal el-Lawz, the real Mt Sinai).

And the traditional location of the mythical Gates of Alexander is around about where the northern border would be between the black and Caspian seas.  A legend I mention in a Biblical context only because of how it's legacy became tied to Gog and Magog.

It may be both those options for the size issue are valid in a sense.  Because again the very laws of physics will change I believe.

If you're wondering "what about Jerusalem in the Millennium then?"  I don't know.  I notice Revelation 20 never clearly refers to the Holy City till after the Thousand Years are over and doesn't name it.  But I'm pretty sure that's Jerusalem since I see it as the same as Ezekiel 38-39.

I also found this study helpful.

Bethel, The House of God

The geography of Ezekiel 48 has Ezekiel's Temple not in the city of Jerusalem but miles to the North of it.

One problem existing among a few people who understand that correctly like Jack Kelly of GraceThruFaith.com is they have a desire to say Ezekiel's Temple will be the same one The Antichrist will desecrate.  (some say this while still thinking the Temple is in Jerusalem in which case all I need to do is point out Ezekiel's geography).

I've already addressed the error of connecting the Abomination of Desolation to Ezekiel 44 when refuting a heresy far more dangerous then anything Jack Kelly teaches.  The words for Abomination are completely different.

There are a lot of people trying to come up with uninformed interpretations of what the Outer Court being trodden under foot of the Gentiles in Revelation 11 means.  Luke 21:24 however clarifies it, the same terminology is used there, it is about Jerusalem being under foreign occupation.  I believe the same time frame is intended, ending with The Rapture and the Last Trumpet.

The city refereed to as Spiritually Sodom and Egypt where Jesus was Crucified is indisputably Jerusalem.  Some insist the "Holy City" of the first few verses of Chapter 11 can't be the same then.  This duality of Jerusalem is what The Bile is constantly about, it is God's Holy City because of his covenant with David, but it's also constantly in rebellion.  Just read Luke 19:41-44.

Jack Kelly talks about how The Jews refer to Ezekiel's Temple as the Third Temple (but admits those same Jews are expecting to build it in Jerusalem).  The Jews lack the New Testament therefore they are missing pieces of the puzzle.  They are ignorant of Jesus warning that the Abomination of Desolation will happen again.  Revelation has Jerusalem rocked by devastating Earthquakes at least twice, in 11 and 16 in the Seventh Bowl of Wrath.  I think it's unlikely the Antichrist's Temple will survive that.

The Jews seeking to rebuild The Temple may like to say they're going to fulfill Ezekiel 40-48, but their actual plans don't match that.  The Temple institute is expecting to have a Menorah and a Veil and a Wall of Separation and separate courts for Gentiles and Women, and a High Priest.  We Christians know that Ezekiel's lack of mentioning these things isn't taking them for granted, everything lacking in Ezekiel's Temple has New Testament significance.

But Size is the biggest issue, the size of Ezekiel's Temple is larger then the entire modern city of Jerusalem.  And the geography envisioned is dependent on changes to the land that happen in the Seventh Bowl of God's Wrath.  Every theorized location for Ezekiel's Temple has an inhabited city there currently with Jewish and Muslim populations, modern Israel isn't going to permit destroying any of those.

Now that I've addressed that error, let's discus the significance of Ezekiel's Temple being outside the City.

Some might wonder, how does that make sense when the city is called "YHWH is There" in the last verse of Ezekiel?  Well first Ezekiel says The Temple will be open only on Sabbaths, New Moons and the Holy Days.  Only citizens of New Jerusalem, His Bride, get to be with Him 24/7.

I find it interesting how The Ark was constantly separate from The Tabernacle during the time between it leaving Shiloh and the Dedication of Solomon's Temple.  For 60 years The Ark was at Kiriath-Jearim till David brought it to Zion.  The Tabernacle however was at Nob till Ahimelech was killed and then was at Gibeon till The Temple was dedicated.  So from the 8th year of David till the 11th year of Solomon the Ark was in Zion and the Tabernacle further North.

Gibeon can't work in my opinion as equivalent to where Ezekiel's Temple will be since it's not even close to directly north, it's way to the west.  It's merely an interesting type picture.

Where do I think Ezekiel's Temple will be?  My mind has shifted on that.

I first made this post when I favored Shechem or around there, but then I updated it as I leaned towards Shiloh for the longest time (same location Jack Kelly favors).  And I still feel Salem of Melchizedek isn't Jerusalem but rather Shiloh and/or in the Shechem area.

But as I was looking recently at some of the maps of Ezekiel's geography that I consider the most accurate.  The Holy Portion does not seem to go far enough North to include Shiloh.  In fact it occurred to me that Shiloh seems to be in the land allotted to Judah in Ezekiel's allotment.  That struck me as significant since the name of Shiloh is associated with Judah in Genesis 49:10.

I've actually grown skeptical recently of the assumption that Shiloh is a name for The Messiah in that verse.  It's the prior verse Revelation 5 identifies with Jesus.  I see Christians constantly citing Rabbinic opinions that Shiloh is the Messiah, which makes me laugh, they're people who don't think Jesus was The Messiah.  Either way I think it would make sense if in the Messianic Kingdom the capital of Judah is Shiloh.

Anyway as I was observing these maps it started to occur to me Bethel might fit.  I did a google search and others had indeed calculated Bethel about 11 or 12 miles North of Jerusalem would be the center of the Holy Portion.  But these scholars did not see the center as where The Temple is as I do, so they argued for it being the start of a stairway or something leading to The Temple or the City.  The Ladder Jacob saw connected Heaven to Earth, not two Earthly locations.

Genesis 28:16-22 KJV

And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not.  And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.

 And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.  And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was called Luz at the first.

 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God: And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.

No place in Genesis or the whole Torah is more blatantly defined as the House of God, yet we keep over looking it.  I also wonder if the "Gate of Heaven" comment is a clue to the geography of Revelation 19:11 and how it ties in with Zechariah 12-14 and Isaiah 63.  Something I'm still studying.

In Genesis 31:13 God called Himself "The God of Bethel".

In Genesis Jacob returns there to keep his promise, and God makes further promises to Jacob.  And Deborah, Rebecca's nurse, was buried beneath an oak tree.  Later in Judged 4:5 another more famous Deborah lives under a Tree at Bethel.

It was Jacob who named the place Bethel.  Moses however uses the name retroactively twice when discussing Abraham's travels.  Genesis 12:8.

And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the LORD, and called upon the name of the LORD.

And he returned there in 13:3, most of the events of that chapter take place there.

BTW, in Hebrew "Called upon the name of YHWH" is the same phrase as the end of Genesis 4.  I keep seeing people say the Hebrew really says at the end of Genesis 4 men "profaned the name of The LORD", but like the claims about what the Hebrews says of Nimrod being a mighty hunter "Before The LORD" that claim doesn't hold up in my attempts to verify it.

It's interesting that this is east of Bethel.  Again the size of Ezekiel's Temple complex is huge.  What if Bethel is the site of the Holy Place, and Abraham's altar equates to the Brazen Altar?  (the Hebrew words for Pillar and Altar refer to distinct things).

If you look at diagrams of Ezekiel's Temple, the Brazen Altar is at the center, with three gates leading to it and the Holy Place to the West.  The East Gate is sealed after The Temple is consecrated (Hai which is a different transliteration of Ai, means ruin or heap).

Judges 20:18-27 says the Ark was kept at Bethel at that time, the KJV obscures this by translating the name "the house of God".   Does this contradict other passages like Joshua 18, Judges 19 and 1 Samuel 1-13 that seem place the Ark and Tabernacle in Shiloh all this time?

Judges 21:19 refers to Shiloh as north of Bethel when saying a yearly Feast of YHWH was kept there.  Genesis 49:10 defines Shiloh as Gathering place of the People.  It could be Bethel was the usual keeping place of The Ark but Shiloh was where the Feasts were held.  Or maybe the two cites just weren't as far from each other as the modern archeological identifications would have us think?

1 Samuel 7:16 refers to Bethel as a place Samuel regularly visited.  In 1 Samuel 10:3, Samuel sends Saul to Bethel to the "Hill of God", where he has a profound Spiritual experience.

I've also been contemplating theories about the Geography of Eden.  I've watched this video from Rob Skiba.  I really don't like the Pyramid stuff and I could do without the Flat Earth stuff.  But he still has interesting speculations.

I'm thinking that Adam was created by the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, maybe around Joppa.  And then maybe The Garden was Bethel, and Abraham's Altar where God made animal skin garments for Adam and Havvah.  And maybe the Oak tree that Deborah was buried under was roughly where the Tree of Life was? (not the actual same tree of course).  Deborah means Word.

Now because of Jeroboam the land of Bethel was tainted by a Golden Calf, and it comes up in Amos and Hosea because of that.  But a Prophet of YHWH foretold Josiah would destroy that Idol and cleanse the area.  And indeed he did.  No such cleansing happened for the site of the equivalent Idol set up at Dan, why is that?  Maybe it has something with do the different destinies for Dan and Bethel.

Was Paul not referring to a Temple Building, But somehting Spiritual?

It seem odd to most of us good Futurists that such a debate exists, but it's out there.

QUOTE

http://www.sonstoglory.com/ThirdTempleEzekielsMillennialTemple.htm Before beginning this study it is necessary to address a common teaching regarding a temple being built in Israel. Many Christian's teach and believe that the next temple to be built in Jerusalem Israel will be one in which "the man of sin" or "the Antichrist" will enter into and defile by declaring himself to be God. These beliefs are supported mainly from one verse in Second Thessalonians 2:4, which states that the man of sin "sits as God in the temple of God showing himself that he is God." There are two different Greek words that are translated as "temple" in English. One word "hieron" is used by Paul when referring to an actual building made with wood and stones. The other word "naos" is used when referring to the spiritual temple of God which refers to His people. The word "naos" is the one used in this 2 Thessalonians 2:4 verse, and therefore is NOT talking about a physical temple. Doug Fortune, in his article "Antichrist Revealed" writes:     Beginning with the Book of Acts, after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, through the Book of Revelation, the word naos is used ONLY referring to people as the temple not made with hands. When referring to the physical temple building the word hieron is used. Of course, throughout the Book of Revelation, the word naos is used, as that Book is the REVEALING of Jesus Christ, and He is revealed in the MIDST of the Lampstand, the CHURCH (Revelation 1:20). Why then is there so much confusion when 2 Thessalonians 2:4 speaks of the man of sin seated in the NAOS of God, “...which temple (naos) YE ARE...”(1Corinthians 3:17). Why are we looking for a man seated in a building yet to be built in the Middle-East, when we should be looking in the mirror? As the man of sin, the Adam nature is revealed and "the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of His mouth and bring him to an end by His appearing at His coming.” or “the brightness of His coming” (2 Thessalonians 2:8) as some translations read.5 The New Covenant addresses first spiritual matters and secondarily natural matters (Likewise the Old Testament speaks first to natural things and second to spiritual things). Therefore, 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is NOT referring to an actual physical temple. Even if there is another "temple building" built in Jerusalem before Ezekiel's temple, it has nothing to do with the construction of Ezekiel's temple discussed in this study, because the Messiah Yahoshua (Jesus) will be responsible for building the Millennial Temple. Zechariah 6:12 and 13 is clear that the Messiah (and not unredeemed Jews) will build the Lord's temple: "Behold, the Man whose name is the Branch (a term for the Messiah)! From His place He shall branch out, And HE SHALL BUILD THE TEMPLE, Yes, He shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, and sit and rule on His throne; So he shall be a priest on His throne, And the counsel of peace shall be between them both (both natural and spiritual governments - or kings and priests)." The apostle Paul speaks of mankind as God's temple often. A few examples include 1 Cor. 3:16, 1 Cor. 6:19, and Eph. 2:21. Now that we have established that Second Thessalonians 2:4 is referring to the "temple of mankind," rather than an actual physical temple in Jerusalem, we can interpret the rest of this verse:

First off, I obviously agree Ezekiel's Temple is the not the one the Man of Sin will violate, as do all Futurits/Premillenals , this was a pointless detour for the author's main focus.

Also this person doesn't even understand the Allegorical/Spiritual Temple Paul refers to in the verses cited. It's not Mankind it's The Church. And many would argue Ezekiel's Temple is the one Paul has in mind when he defined The Church as The Temple of God, which is also New Jerusalem. I have a study on the common misconceptions of what's talking about the Millennium and what's the New Heaven and New Earth.

But to suggest these verses tell us how to Interpret this Verse where Paul is talking about Eschatology is absurd. Both Thessalonian Epistle's talks on Eschatology are effectively an a further elaboration of Matthew 24's Olivite Discourse.

"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:"

The Reference to Daniel tells us to look at the Last verse of Chapter 9 and also Chapter 12 where we're told the Evil Act Antiochus Epiphanies committed will be repeated.

This is also supposed to be something Unmistakeable, something that clearly hasn't already happen therefore they need not worry that they've somehow missed the Second Coming. When you take such a vague defining of the verse your essentially allowing anything to be what the passage refers to. What they believe this refers to is

"The antichrist comes out from among us (the temple of God) just like Judas came out from among the disciples of Jesus, yet he was not manifested (made known) until the end of Jesus' ministry. Likewise, "the man of sin" who has been among us for the past 2,000 years just like Judas, will be made known (manifested) now at the end of this age in a more obvious manner. This Judas spirit, which is the selfishness in all of us, is being dealt with by God."

Yes, what a wonderfully chronologically helpful thing for Paul to reassure his readers with.

Salem of Genesis 14 wasn't Jerusalem

A conclusion I've come to recently is that the common assumption of identifying Salem with Jerusalem is flawed.

The main basis for it is that the last part of the name Jerusalem is Salem, a detail not even obscured in transliteration. But it may simply be another example of a new city being named after an older one.  And Jerusalem was not named that till the time of David, any verses in Joshua or Judges using the name Jerusalem are simply editorial additions from later on.

The Wikipedia page uses as evidence against the Temple Mount being the Mt Moriah of Genesis 22 the assumption that the Salem reference proved Jerusalem was already a city then.  To me the evidence of that being Moriah is far stronger then Salem being Jerusalem.

Psalm 76:2 is usually considered verification of it being Jerusalem.  First of all Salem as a shortening of Jerusalem being used for that city during or after David's time doesn't necessarily prove where Salem of Abraham's time was.

However on top of that.  Psalm 76 seems to have an eschatological aspect to it, either the Millennium and/or New Heaven and New Earth.  In which case it should perhaps be read in light of Ezekiel 40-48, where The Temple is not within the city limits of Yahweh-Shammah ("The LORD is there") but many miles north of it.

"In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion."

It could be that Zion here like in Psalm 48 is New Jerusalem, and Salem is where Ezekiel's Temple is.

One theory some have proposed for the location of Ezekiel's Temple based on how far north it is of the City is in the vicinity of Shechem and Mt Gerizim.

In Genesis 12:6 that area is where Abraham built his first Altar to God, and then traveled south to Beth-El, and then further south till the Famine brought him to Egypt.

At the end of Genesis 33 Jacob comes to this same region after making peace with Esau.  There we are told in verse 18.

"And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padanaram; and pitched his tent before the city."

Shalem is rendered differently in the KJV, and the Strongs also tries to treat it as separate (Strong# 8003 rather then 8004). But in the Hebrew texts it is identical to the name of Salem in Genesis 24 and Psalm 76 (three Hebrew letters, S-L-M).  I believe it is the same city.

I feel like adding that any time we see the name Shechem used of this region or it's inhabitants (Shechemites) before or during Genesis 34 is an editorial decision from Moses much later.  I feel Shechem became the name for this city/region from the person named Shechem in Genesis 34.  I think the cities of Salem and Shechem could very well be the same.  But if not they are certainly near each other.

I think maybe Melchizedek became Priest of the Altar to God Abraham built in that region after he left it to travel south.

But there is also a city in the region known in New Testament and modern times as Salim near Nablus. John 3:23 says John was Baptizing in this region for part of his ministry at least.  (I'm convinced however he must have been in the Trans-Jordan (Perea) region when he was arrested, since Antipas only had authority on the other side of The Jordan river.)  This Salim was near Aenon which is affiliated with Mt Ebal.

Jerome stated that the Salem of Melchizedek was not Jerusalem, but a town eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis, and gives its then name as Salumias, and identifies it with the Salem where John baptized.

However there are also those who calculate Shiloh to be the site of Ezekiel's Temple.

Shiloh is close enough to the later city of Shechem that it could be defined as the same basic region.

Actually the name of Shiloh derives from the same root word meaning Peace that Salem does (Strong number 7951).

References to the city of Shiloh don't start till the time of Joshua, long after the references to Salem in historical contexts ended.

Shiloh is where the Ark was throughout the Judges period, close to 450 years.

I'm a Dispensationalist, but a different kind

I agree that not all saved are part of The Church, and The Church age is from Pentecost to The Rapture.  I agree the Church is a distinct Covenant from Israel, but not as completely separate a people often say.  Their destinies are linked.

I agree The Church is distinct from the Mosaic Covenant, and the Circumcision Covenant of Genesis 17.  Most Dipsensaitonlists agree that Abraham's Genesis 12 makes all of the Saved the spiritual Seed of Abraham (including those not part of either Israel or The Church).

However I do believe The Church is derived from the Genesis 15 Covenant just as much as the Mosaic one is.  And Jesus' promise to the 12 to rule the 12 Tribes of Israel makes The Church linked to the Davidic Covenant.

People get confused by what Paul says about The Church being a Mystery (Mysterion in Greek) in Ephesians 1:9 and 3:3-9, and other passages.  It does not mean The Church is completely absent from The Hebrew Bible, or not originally part of God's Plan.  Mysterion means that which was hidden.  Pieces of The Church doctrine are all over the Hebrew Bible, from the Pentecost Holy Day itself, to The Rapture allusions in Isaiah 26 and Joel 2:15-16, to the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31, And Joel 2:28-32 foretelling the out pouring of The Holy Ghost.  And of Course the Brides who are types of The Church like Rebecca and Ruth.

In II Samuel 7 David is told his Son not him will build The Temple.  This is viewed as a double fulfillment Prophecy, Solomon and his Temple as the first, and The Messiah Ben-David and the Messianic Temple described in Ezekiel 40-47 as the true final fulfillment.

1 Kings 5:3 tells us the reason David couldn't build The Temple was because he fought Wars.  Solomon's name is derived from Shalom, the Hebrew word for Peace.  The Temple has to be built by The Prince of Peace.  It occurs to me a potential problem exists with The Christian view of Messianic Prophecy that I'm surprised I haven't seen Jewish critics point out.  Jesus fulfills the roles of David and Solomon both.  How can that be possible?

I think the way Jesus gets around this is He builds His Temple first, then fights The Wars.  And I think that's part of the reason for the gap between the Two Advents.  The last thing he does at the First Advent is lay the foundation for The Temple.  The first thing he'll do at the Second Advent is remove his Temple to a safe place before His Wrath is poured out.

That The Church is The Temple of God is an important part of New Testament theology.  But because of the errors made by most Dispensationalists, they fail to see the Messianic Temple foretold in The Hebrew Bible as that same Temple.  But I have argued elsewhere that Ezekiel 40-48 corresponds to Revelation 21-22 not 20.

I can add to that the question of who resides in Jerusalem in Ezekiel?  It's not part of what's allotted to any of the 12 Tribes.  And even the portions of The Holy District given to the Priests, Levites and The Prince (probably David based on Ezekiel 33-36) are distinct from Jerusalem.  The simple answer might be that as The Capitol it has people of every Tribe.  Well that agrees with my belief that it is The Church, The Church has people from all of The Tribes as well as many Gentiles.

We are grafted into Israel as Romans 11 says, but not into one of the already existing Tribes, we're like a 14th Tribe.

None of that contradicts there being a literal structure with the design Ezekiel saw.  But that Tabernacle is the Heavenly One having descended to Earth (I believe it'll be on or near Mt Gezrim).  And has always existed, Moses saw it in The Wilderness, John saw it on Patmos.  And I suspect it had been on Earth once before, in The Garden of Eden before The Fall.  So it's construction isn't part of Prophecy.

As for how this effects the Rapture timing debate.  I agree with Chuck Missler that The Church is a unique entity.  I disagree that God can't or won't deal with Israel (and thus begin the 70th Week) while The Church is still here.  He dealt with Israel in 70 AD and and has again in 1948 and 1967.

He is correct based on Romans 11:25 that Israel's National Spiritual Blindness won't be lifted until The Fullness of The Gentiles has come in.  But that Blindness is only partial and does no contradict the 144,000 being Church Age believers.  When the Abomination of Desolation happens is when the blindness begins to be lifted, when they see that what Jesus foretold was correct and flee as he warned them to.

Chuck Missler is correct that up to verse 24 Luke 21 is about 70 AD.  Where Preterists stumble is in verse 24, after describing the captivity and diaspora.  "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." and then The Second Coming begins in the following verses, verse 27 makes clear he comes on a Cloud not a White Horse, so it's The Rapture.  Preterists want to make that "trodden under foot" period end with the Fall of Jerusalem even though Jesus clearly says that's where it begins.

The Rapture connection makes it very logical to see this "times of the gentiles" as corresponding to Paul's "fullness of the gentiles".  Luke is often defined as the most Paulian of The Gospels.

Revelation 11 describes the end of this period.  It makes clear that during the first half of the 70th Week while The Temple will be standing the Outer Court will still be Trodden under the foot of The Gentiles.  This is also clearly contemporary with the ministry of The Two Witnesses.  And after this 3.5 year period is the 7th Trumpet.

So that's pretty solid proof that the first half of the 70th Week is still The Church Age.

Arguing for the Divinity of The Messiah

The thought has occasionally entered my mind, of a Jewish person possibly hypothetically saying the following during a debate with a Christian.

"Maybe, hypothetically, a Christian could convince me (but it wouldn't be easy) of the idea of The Messiah, having two advents where he doesn't do any of the Kingly stuff until the second coming. Or him suffering and dying as an offering for Sin and then being Resurrected, and maybe even Born of a Virgin. And that maybe Jesus/Yeshua was that. But what I could never accept is the idea of The Messiah being the Son of God, or God manifesting as a Human. It's inherently not Monotheistic, it's Pagan like the demigods of Greek mythology or the Avatars of Vishnu in Hinduism."

Now I haven't encountered a Jewish person willing to say that, or heard of one. But I think it's an important aspect to look at. I think it's a good idea here to set aside all the other disagreements in how Christians (Jew and Gentile) and Non-Christian Jews interpret Messianic Prophecy and look chiefly at what was most offensive to the Scribes and Pharisees of Yeshua's own day. The idea of God being made Flesh.

So I've felt moved by The Holy Spirit to try and help prepare fellow believers for such a discussion. Below I'll be speaking as if talking to Jews directly, so feel free to Copy/Paste my arguments, I don't Copyright any of these dissertations.

I'll be basing all of this on only the Masoretic Hebrew Text, no Septuagint or Hellenistic apocryphal writings. And nothing from Christian translations Jews would object to. I'll be using this linked below Translation made by Jews. Rather then my usual KJV defaulting.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

The objection clearly isn't that it's something God can't do. Besides simply saying God can do anything, even Jewish interpretations of Scripture agree that "The Angel of The LORD" or "The Angel of God" is God taking a physical tangible Human looking form. The Word (Dabar in Hebrew) could be viewed that way also, like in Genesis 15 where the Dabar performs the Covenant ritual all on his own. The Angel who announces the conception of Samson is an example, and the Captain of The Host who appears to Joshua before The Battle of Jericho. Anytime an Angel accepts Worship and yet isn't evil or fallen that's clearly not an ordinary Angel but God Himself.

The very name of Israel comes from when Jacob wrestled with God. And in Genesis 18 everyone agrees the leader of the three Angels there is God himself talking with Abraham. And He actually eats food with Abraham and Sarah. That's a pretty physical tangible Human like form, I'd argue incarnating as a Human isn't that much greater a leap.

But again, it's not about what God can do but what he's willing to. Is actually becoming a Human simply to far beneath him? Remember God made Adam in his own Image, Genesis 1:26. So really why assume incarnating as a Human is something he'd never do when Adam was modeled after himself to begin with?

Then there is the Hebrew word Go'el. That word is variously translated Kinsman, Redeemer, and Avenger/Revenger. The word means all of those things. It maybe does not necessarily literally have to mean a biological relative every time it's used, but the Kinsman aspect is important to it's function in the Mosaic Law. And is vital to understanding the Book of Ruth, where Boaz is the Kinsman Redeemer, being a near male relative of Naomi and Ruth's late husband.

The word is used of God in Isaiah 41:14 and 43:14 "Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I help thee, saith the LORD, and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." Also in 44:6 and 24. And 47:4, 48:17, 49:7 and 26 and 54:5. And other Isaiah examples, also Jeremiah 50:34

Job said in 19:25 "But as for me, I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He will witness at the last upon the dust". Also Psalms 19:14 and 78:35.

What about the Preexistence of The Messiah?

Micah 5 "out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days." and Isaiah 9:5 "For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us". Both verses even in Jewish translations imply a Preexistence.

Rapheal Patai is a Jewish scholar who agrees to the Preexistence of The Messiah "The concept of the preexistence of The Messiah accords with the general Talmudic view which holds that "The Holy One, blessed be He, prepares the remedy before the wound"", (The Messiah Texts pp. 16-17). Preexistence alone doesn't prove Divinity, but it makes him very special. Because while some cults believe we all had a preexistence like the Mormons, that view is entirely UnBiblical, from Genesis 2 "Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." The Soul and Spirit are created at the same time The Body is.

The Messiah is David's Son/Descendant. Yet David calls him lord in Psalm 110 "The LORD saith unto my lord: 'Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.'" Psalm 2 is also interesting. The Messiah appears to be relating how "the LORD said unto me: 'Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of Me, and I will give the nations for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession."

Psalm 45 is considered a Messianic Psalm, it explicitly refers to the King as God in verse 8, and says in verse 11 to Worship him.

The clincher however I believe is to look at Ezekiel 40-48's description of the coming Messianic Kingdom. How come this in depth description mentions no Palace where The Messiah Ben-David rules from? A great deal of the point of the Messianic Age is to fulfill the Davidic promise from II Samuel 7, that a Son of David would sit on David's Throne forever. And this promise is inherently linked to Jerusalem.

And yet Ezekiel in his in-depth description of The Messianic future geography and architecture of Israel, Jerusalem and The Temple mentions no dwelling place for The Messiah. The only Throne mentioned is in Ezekiel 43:7 in the Holy of Holies, no longer separated from The Holy Place by the Veil. Where The LORD tells Ezekiel "this is the place of My throne, and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever; and the house of Israel shall no more defile My holy name".

 Here the LORD is saying he himself will rule. How can this be reconciled with the Davidic Promise? Clearly the Throne of David and the Throne of God have become the same Throne. And therefor God must incarnate as The Son of David, Son of Abraham, Son of Adam.

Ezekiel 40-48 does have references to a "Prince" (Nasi in the Hebrew). If the word for Prince here had been Sar or Nagyid then it could make sense to say he's The Messiah, but Nasi isn't a royal term, and could more accurately be translated President.  Ezekiel 34:23&24 and 37:24:25 explain that the Nasi is David himself Resurrected, not his Son who's The Messiah.

The LORD also enters through the Eastern Gate, just as The Messiah is supposed to do.

Add on top of that some interesting material from Zechariah 12-14. In 12:17 "In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that stumbleth among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as a godlike being, as the angel of the LORD before them."

 That verse is definitely translated differently in Christian translations, but even the way it's translated here is still pretty compelling. Also 14:9 "And the LORD shall be King over all the earth; in that day shall the LORD be One, and His name one." And in verse 16 "And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations that came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles."

Genesis 3:15's Seed of the Woman is viewed by Jews as being Humanity, and unlike many Christians I'm not going to object to that. It's relevance here is this crushing the head of the Serpent theme does come up again in the Hebrew Bible.  Psalms 74:12-14, 89:10, 91:13, Isaiah 27 and Isaiah 51:9.  And in those passages it is The LORD that crushes the heads of serpents.

In Genesis 3:20 Adam names the Woman Eve because she is " the mother of all living".  Deuteronomy 5:26 calls YHWH the "Living God".  Mean Eve through one of her many daughter has to become the Mother of God.

Now as far as the comparison to Polytheistic Pagan concepts go. The demigods of Greek mythology were half-man/half-god. Christians view Yeshua as All-Man and All-God. And he was born of a Virgin, no weird Zeus turning into an animal or a golden shower to seduce and/or rape a girl.

The Avatars of Vishnu comparison is, I'll admit, a more valid one. Though I'd like to point out it's unclear how long people in India even understood the concept as they do now, even the Mahabharata is much younger then many casual references say it is, being post Alexander. Modern Hinduism is mostly the result of British Colonialism.

Many Scholars are probably more qualified to explain all the distinctions then I am. The key one I feel however is the Uniqueness. God only did this once, Yeshua will have a Second Coming, but it'll be the same Body he had before, still carrying the Wounds he received on The Cross. I know some bizarre cults and theorists out there try to argue for a Rebirth by abusing Revelation 12, but all serious scholars of Revelation know that that is a symbolic recap of History. So there are no repeated incarnations every age like what Vishu does.

I hope the above discussion has been revealing and insightful.

Distinguishing between The Millennium and The New Heaven and New Earth.

Distinguishing between The Millennium, and The New Heaven and New Earth in the Hebrew Scriptures can be difficult. One can argue that without the help of the New Testament we wouldn't know for certain there are two distinct future Messiah reigning on Earth time periods to look forward to. But I do think it's possible to draw that conclusion from the Hebrew Bible alone. But we certainly don't get any doctrinally absolute reason to give either a time frame of exactly 1,000 years without the Book of Revelation.

Chuck Missler likes to say that most of what we know about the Millennium comes from the Old Testament, not Revelation 20. Thing is I don't think he's ever cited any OT passage as being about the New Heaven and New Earth, or New Jerusalem.

Futurists are good at understanding everything that happens during the Eschatological Week in Revelation based on it's OT references. But it seems to be we're not so great at doing the same for Chapters 20-22.

Chuck Missler also likes to define the Millennium as the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant. But the Davidic Promise in II Samuel 7 and elsewhere is never defined as a Thousand years, it's defined as Forever.

Let's take Isaiah 65 for example. Chuck Missler and others are convinced this can't be the Eternal state yet where there is absolutely no Curse because Death does seem to happen during this time in verse 20.

"There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed."

First off the assumption that there is absolutely no Death in the Eternal state simply because The Curse of Genesis 3 is gone I think is based on an assumption that no one new will be Born during this period, and thus no one new will need their Eternal fate to be decided. But the Eternal state is also a return to how things where supposed to be before Adam fell, and before Adam fell he was already told to be fruitful and multiply. Adam's Sin is the origin of Death, I'm not a Gap or Extended Day theorist. But in the future there could still be new people who need to make Adam's choice. I also feel like Saved Women should get the opportunity to experience painless childbirth if they choose to.

Yes I know how people think Jesus statement about there being no Marriage in the Resurrection equals no reproduction. But they're misusing that the same way that same passage is misused to support the Sethite view of Genesis 6.

But besides all that, this verse is expressed in a poetic style, and it's possible to interpret the real message of the verse as being that there is no Death. Certainly not the Death Curse we've been bound to, where it is appointed unto each Man once to die. And which I think to an extent could still exist in the Thousand years, nearly a Thousand Years was the normal lifespan between the Fall and the Flood.

The thing is verses 17-19 just before this says.

"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying."

Now if you read that without any preconceived notion put in your head by your favorite commentator about where this fits into Biblical Chronology. I'm pretty sure you'd have to conclude it resembles Revelation 21 far more then Revelation 20.

Ezekiel 40-48 is another important passage where Chuck Missler and Chris White and almost every major commentator simply states unambiguously that this is the Millennial Temple/Kingdom. But the thing is New Jerusalem in Revelation 21-22 is drawing on imagery of Ezekiel 40-48 constantly, not just the 12 gates named for the 12 tribes, and there are no Ezekiel 40-48 references in Revelation 20.

Ezekiel 43:7-9 tells us how long this condition God's revealing to Ezekiel will last.  It does not say 1000 years, it says FOR EVER.

The differences people use to refute seeing these as the same, are no more significant to me then the inconsistencies between Revelation 4, Ezekiel 1 and Isaiah's visions of the Heavenly Throne Room of God. They're clearly describing basically the same thing, but because they're mortal four dimensional humans seeing something that is in fact beyond their compression because they've left Space-Time, the details of what they see, or how they choose to describe what they see, have some pretty seemingly incompatible differences.

The first and most obvious difference that comes to mind is that Revelation 21:22 says "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it." And Ezekiel's vision revolves around The Temple. But a few things to consider. 

First, The Temple in Ezekiel is very different in both how it looks and how worship there functions, it could very well be that John seeing the same thing simply saw it as a Royal Palace or Throne Room rather then as a Temple.

Second, Technically John just says there was no Temple in the City, and Ezekiel's Temple is technically outside the City.

Third, Revelation 21:3 does say "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men". And sometimes the future Messianic Temple is described as the "Tabernacle of David" (Psalm 15:1, Isaiah 16:5, Amos 9:11).  The name of Ezekiel's Jerusalem is Yahweh Shammah, meaning "The LORD (YHWH) is there" Ezekiel 48:35, clearly parallels that verse from Revelation 21.

And Ezekiel's description of the "Temple" he saw never tells us the material the walls are made out of.  For all we know it could be a Tabernacle rather then a Stone Temple.

Chis White when he mentions this debate briefly acknowledges the similarities but says the differences are far greater. But it's only the Size he singles out, (and the size is the only difference I even remotely consider a problem).  Observing that the size of Revelation's New Jerusalem dwarfs the entirety of the Promised land laid out in Ezekiel, being about half the size of the Continental United States.

But again, in the Eternal state physical reality itself has changed, and even size could be a matter of Ezekiel and John's perception.

Some have argued you can calculate the circumference of the Earth by combing the measurements in Ezekiel 40-48 and Revelation 21-22.

http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/ezekiels-city-circumference-of-the-earth.htmModern science tells us that the circumference of the earth about the equator is 24,902.4 mi. (40,076.5 km), and that the circumference about the poles is 24,860.2 mi. (40,008.6 km). Using data from the biblical books of Ezekiel and Revelation, we can easily arrive at a number between these two figures.

There are reasons I'm not inclined to agree with the entity of that site's premise, but it's an interesting mathematical theorem.

The main point is that regardless of size Yahweh-Shammah and New Jerusalem have the exact same shape, a perfect Cube.

Perspective is important to consider, Ezekiel ultimately spends more time on the rest of the Holy Land, while John pretty much only describes New Jerusalem.

I think maybe Ezekiel is describing the size of the city as it appears from the Outside and John how it appears on the inside.  That may be difficult to wrap your head around, but remember in The New Creation the laws of physics itself could be different.  If you're a Comic Book Nerd, think of it maybe as being like the Bottled City of Kandor, except the bottle is still larger then the entire modern city of Jerusalem.

Another objection is Ezekiel also seems to allude to people possibly dying. Ezekiel's style isn't as Poetic as Isaiah, but I still feel the same arguments can apply.

That Sacrifices are performed is an issue for Christian theology whether it's the Millennium or the New Creation.  One answer I've considered is that the Sacrifices referenced are semi-allegorical and it's all Jesus Blood that was shed on The Cross.

Revelation 22 begins by describing the same river Ezekiel describes. Now I've seen people say Ezekiel's River is also in Joel and Zechariah, in contexts that have it coming into existence around the time of Armageddon. And not connecting it to Revelation 22 at all. But I've looked at the relevant references in Joel and Zechariah, and they don't seem like they're describing this single very special River at all, certainly not as identically as Revelation 22 does. Daniel 12 also seems to see the same River and places it after the White Throne Judgment.

But still the view I'm advocating here could have the River come into existence at the start of the Millennium in some form, before the Holy City's descends and perfects it. But it's also clear to me in Daniel 12 that some Old Testament discussions of Eschatology tend to skip right from the end of the First Resurrection to the Second Resurrection, effectively skipping the Millennium the same as Chuck Missler likes to point out how The Church Age is often skipped over.

The possibility that much of what Ezekiel describes begins in The Millennium is possible.  The connection to Revelation 21-22 are pretty much all in the Description of New Jerusalem itself, which directly comes into view in the last chapter.

Paul defines The Church as The Temple of God in I Corinthians 3:16 "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" And Ephesians 2:21 "In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:". In the Latter the Twelve Apostles are also defined as the Foundation, fitting Revelation 21's description where it's in parallel to the Twelve Tribes. Jesus promises the Disciples they'd rule the Twelve Tribes at The Last Supper.

And each individual believer's body is also defined as The Temple of God in I Corinthians 6:19 "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?". John 2:21 also defines the body of Jesus as The Temple. And The Church is The Body of Christ.

New Jerusalem is spoken of as being synonymous with The Bride of Christ. "Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife." So all this imagery overlaps. I do not believe any of this contradicts there being a literal Temple Building or City lay out like Ezekiel saw and measured.

I still see Israel and The Church as distinct Covenants, don't think I'm confused on that. But they are linked Covenants, our salvation is still derived from Genesis 12. The promise made to the Twelve Disciples shows those in the Church that are of physical Israel are in a sense inheritors of both covenants. The 144,000 are also interesting to look at, I don't allegorize them, they are specific people from each Tribe minus Dan. But in Revelation 14 they sound an awful lot like The Church.

Now you might be worried that I'm supporting some form of Amillennialism, by pushing up some of the epic unmistakable details of the Millennium.  No, I still take Revelation 20 literally.

Even if the time-span of a Thousand Years doesn't calculate to exactly how we'd measure a Thousand Years, it's still a period of time when Christ rules on Earth with Bodily Resurrected believers. And there is still no way you could convince me the events of Revelation 6-19, or Matthew 24, already happened in 70 A.D. or any other period already in the past.

The problem with Amillennialisim is making the Millennium synonymous with the Church Age. My own reading of Revelation 19-21 gives me the impression The Church won't even be on Earth during The Millennium. Christ's Co-Rulers there are chiefly the Post-Rapture Tribulation Saints who were Martyred for not taking the Mark and worshiping the Beast or his Image. But I do feel inclined to see Pre-Church Saints, who were Resurrected soon after Jesus in 30 A.D. as Matthew 27:52 records, as being here too.

If Ezekiel is not describing the Millennial Temple as we keep assuming. Maybe it's wrong to assume the Millennial Temple will be a separate building from the coming Third Temple. The Second Temple could be rededicated after it's violated by Antiochus Epiphanes. Jesus is at least as qualified to rededicate a violated Temple as the Maccabees where. And if we believe Daniel 8's Little Horn applies to the coming Man of Sin as much as to Antiochus, verse 14 says the Sanctuary will be cleansed, not destroyed and rebuilt.

Independent Nation States do still exist in the New Heaven and New Earth, not just The Millennium. Revelation 21:24 "And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it." That's probably another stumbling block that makes people assume the Millennium in various Psalms and Isaiah passages where perhaps they shouldn't.

Psalm 48 I believe is about the descent of New Jerusalem.  It's linked to the "Sides of The North" a term elsewhere in Scripture is used only once, linked to God's Heavenly Throne in Isaiah 14.

So since I see the New Heaven and New Earth in so many places where most see the Millennium, where do I see the Millennium in the Hebrew Scriptures? Well some passages that are very broad in nature might simply have both in view together, like one simply saying The Messiah will reign for ever.

Daniel 7 is one key passage for getting from the Hebrew Bible that there is a distinction. The Fourth Beast (Edom-Rome) is destroyed right at the beginning of the Reign of the Son of Man in verse 11. But the other Three beasts (Assyria, Persia, Greece) in verse 12 "they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time." So there is a distinction here.

I've come to support the Post-Millenial view of Ezekiel 38&39 but allowing the possibility of a lesser near fulfillment. Christ White while he does not agree with my New Jerusalem view makes a good argument on this subject. Based on that, I think it's probable that it's only really Persia which won't continue into the Eternal State, being destroyed for taking part in the Gog and Magog invasion.

It's possible to some degree changes will take place even during the Millennium. Ezekiel 29-32 seems to see a period of Egypt being desolate and it's people scattered for 40 years, and I also see the possibility of The Antichrist as contemporary with the beginning of this period. Joel also sees Egypt as Desolate at the time the Millennium starts like Edom had become. But it won't be forever like Edom because Isaiah 19 talks about Egypt and Assyria having a special relationship during some Future Messianic era. Whether that's latter in the Millennium or the Eternal State I don't know.

The Jubilee is often seen as a type of the Millennium.   That too should maybe be rethought.

If the the Thousand years are a "Sabbath Millennium" as often thought.  Then we should remember that The Jubilee isn't the Seventh of something, it's an 8th, what comes after the Seven are all complete.  Like the 8th day of Tabernacles is sometimes viewed as.

On the other hand, defining the Millennium as a Sabbath Millennium isn't directly Biblical, and arguably draws on accepting too much Rabbinic tradition.