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.

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.

What was Eden like?

Genesis 2:5 says "and there was no Adam to till the ground", which is the verse abused by certain people to refute Communist interpretations of Scripture, Man was always meant to work, it wasn't just punishment for the fall.

The problem is Genesis 2 and 3 was a narrative written for people much later, this line in that verse is just about saying the in current condition of the world wasn't the case yet.  That phraseology isn't repeated till after the Fall in Genesis 3:23, it's not till then Adam starts tilling the ground.

The Hebrew word translated "till" is used in a verse between those two in Genesis 2:15 where it is translated "dress" about Adam dressing and keeping the Garden.  But in this sense it's clearly not about Labor, this is also the same word used in Exodus 34:21 of the work you're not supposed to do on The Sabbath, which is often interpreted as referring to more then Labor for the purpose of producing Capital.

Labor man has to perform in order to survive is clearly a product of The Fall, and therefore is something that on this side of The Cross we should be working to undo.  There are no references to Labor in Revelation 21 or 22.

A common poetic interpretation of Eden in Genesis 2 and 3 is that it's the Innocence of Childhood, this has become common among my allies on teaching Universal Salvation like Peter Hiett.  I am uncomfortable with that view.

I don't oppose it because I'm a Six-Day Young Earth Creationist who believes these events literally happened, in my view literal historical views can be in addition to typological and allegorical interpretations.  Nor do I view it as inherently incompatible with the above Communist Utopia interpretation I just argued for, you can argue childhood was innocent because we weren't thrown into Capitalism yet if you wanted.   No I simply view it as wrong based on my understanding of the text.

First of all like many other wrong views on Genesis 2 and 3 including the Two-Seedline theory I've refuted elsewhere, it's based on pretending Adam and Eve didn't have sex till Genesis 3 or 4, but Genesis 2:24-25 is clearly describing them mating, and Genesis 1 is clear they were told to be fruitful and multiply from the start.

And yes even Ancient cultures generally felt you shouldn't have sex till you're no longer a child.  Their age of maturity may have often been lower then we'd consider appropriate, but the Torah has verses making clear you shouldn't lay with any girl who hasn't menstruated yet.  And even the Pederasty that some ancient Greeks engaged in was with boys who were at least adolescent.  So Genesis 2 having Adam and Eve have sex clearly contradicts it being a symbolic representation of childhood.

But also from a Christian stand point is how Revelation 21 and 22 clearly depicts us as returning to Eden.  The message here is not meant to be about returning to childhood, it's clearly about restoring the world to what it was always meant to be.

For context here are some other posts I've made about Eden.

The Trees of The Garden of Eden.

Ye Hath God Said.  Which I also put on YouTube.

And additionally here is a post talking more about my understanding of the New Heaven and New Earth.  [Update 8/13/2019: I just added a section to that post arguing that "Pain" in Revelation 21:4 should perhaps be translated "Poverty".]

Different spellings of Jerusalem.

I no longer believe The Beloved Disciple who wrote the Fourth Gospel is John Son of Zebedee.  But I've also considered that it was also a different John who wrote Revelation.  And so I've ironically opened myself to the possibility that all five traditional John books do have the same author, just not who we've traditionally thought.  However this post isn't even mainly about that but something I noticed while looking into all that.

One of the arguments against Revelation and the Fourth Gospel having the same author is their using different spellings for Jerusalem.  Indeed Jerusalem has two different entries in the Greek Strongs Concordance that aren't even right next to each other.  The Fourth Gospel uses 2414 while Revelation uses 2419.   Thing is, it's only the books attributed to John that strongly go either/or on how to spell Jerusalem in Greek, the Synoptics, Acts, and Galatians use both of them.  So if anything the way the John books are selective about using these spellings could be evidence of their continuity.

The core difference between the two spellings I feel is the Revelation spelling much better fits the presumed connection to Salem, while the Fourth Gospel spelling looks more like it wants us to think the city was named after Solomon.  Hence forth I shall refer to the Revelation spelling as Ierousalem and the Fourth Gospel spelling as Ierosolum.

Revelation only uses the name Ierousalem when referring to New Jerusalem, Old or Terrestrial Jerusalem is never refereed to by name, even if it's a positive reference like the Beloved City in Revelation 20.  The Fourth Gospel however is solely about Terrestrial Jerusalem where Jesus preached and was Crucified.  Now other Biblical Authors definitively do use Ierousalem of the terrestrial city, so this distinction could ultimately be one only this Author wanted to make and even then only if they had the same author.

Mark uses Ierousalem only in 11:1.  Mark and Matthew don't mention Jerusalem by name in their Olivte Discourse but Luke does and uses Ierousalem.  Matthew uses Ierousalem only in Matthew 23:37, a poetically eschatological passage that comes soon before the Olvite Discourse, Luke 19:11 also uses Ierousalem.  Hebrews 12:22 uses Ierousalem as does Galatians 4:25-26.

Luke 23:28 is the only time any Gospel uses Ierousalem during a Passion narrative.  In that verse Luke refers to "Daughters of Ierousalem" so it is being poetic.  The only time Ierosolum is used in the Passion narrative is Luke 23:7 saying that Herod Antipas was there for the Passover.

If Matthew was mainly copying Mark in their parallel passages as mainstream scholars claim, and both were originally in Greek, then it's odd that Matthew 21:1 uses a different spelling then Mark 11:1 even though Matthew uses that spelling elsewhere and so clearly wasn't opposed to it.

What if the two spelling are in some way distinct in what they geographically refer to?  Two different places both probably within the city limits of modern Jerusalem, or one being a broader district within which the other is a more specific area?  Could it be one refers to the "Old City" and the other Nehemiah/Herod's Jerusalem?  In such cases both would still equally be where the above Matthew/Mark parallel implies, west of Bethany, Bethphage and the Mt of Olives.

Ierosolum definitely includes wherever The Temple was since it's always used of the Cleansing of The Temple, and Jesus presentation at the Temple in Luke 2:22.  Though three verses later Simeon is identified as a man in or of Ierousalem.  Later Anna spoke of Jesus Birth to "all them that looked for redemption in Ierousalem".

In the other Nativity narrative, Matthew 2:1-3 uses Ierosolum of the city the Magi arrived in when Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Actually Luke may be the only writer seemingly using them interchangeably, which could be a product of him being the only one who's native language wasn't Semitic, or that he was compiling this from many different older records and eye witness accounts.

Paul uses Ierosolum in Galatians 1 and 2 about his time in contemporary Jerusalem even though Luke uses Ierousalem in Acts 15:2-4, yet Paul uses Ierousalem in Galatians 4 when speaking more poetically/eschatologically.  Paul uses Ierousalem of contemporary Jerusalem only when he seems to be identifying the Church there, not when it's simply a location where events happened.

So with all those nuances in mind.  This spellings of Jerusalem issues maybe doesn't tell us one way or the other if Revelation and The Fourth Gospel could have the same author.

Does the Septuagint also use these two different spellings? I don't trust the Septuagint but I'm still curious.

The Hebrew Bible also has two different spellings.  The Aramaic form Yerusalem which Ierousalem is clearly a Hellenic transliteration of, they are the basis for the modern English standard Jerusalem.  However Hebrew Daniel and the pre-Captivity Prophets and the original History of David and Solomon and the references that exist in Joshua and Judges all use Yerushalaim.

Given my theory that the return from Captivity re-built the City on the modern "Temple Mount" and Western Hill even though they were never part of Solomonic Jerusalem, this difference in spelling I think could actually mean more then just the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic. Especially since Salem does exist in Hebrew on it's own.

Ierosolum doesn't work as well as a direct transliteration of Yerushalaim.  But since Ierosolum looks like it could cryptically have the meaning of being the original Solomonic city, it as equivalent to Yerushalaim works.

Update April 2022: Since I originally wrote this I've changed my mind on that Temple Mount skepticism I alluded to, I do believe Solomon's Temple was on the Temple Mount just probably not the Dome of the Rock specifically.

I've also learned as far as Archeological Inscriptions go which Hebrew variant is actually older is the opposite of what simply looking at the Masoretic Text implies, Yerushalaim seems to be a Hasmonean era development that simply how these books were copied over time.  It could be Aramaic Danile and Post-Captivity texts maintained the older form more often because there were the ones written in Aramaic Script originally rather then Paleo Hebrew.

"Behold, I Make All Things Fresh."

"Neo" is a cool sounding synonym for "New" that like many such cool sounding words is Greek in origin.  I had for awhile uncharacteristically just assumed without checking that "Neo" was the Greek word for "New" that was used when referring to New Jerusalem in Revelation.  And with that assumption in mind had considered that if I ever did start my own Worship Community I'd call it Neo-Yerushalaim, going Greek for the "New" part and proper Hebrew for Jerusalem, and in the process creating a name that sounded vaguely Anime inspired.

But recently I was looking over the Greek of Revelation 21 for other reasons (I was deciding if I wanted to revise anything about the "Great City" post) and noticed that no form of "Neo" is there.  Rather the word for "New" used of New Jerusalem is Kainos Strong Number 2537.  It's the same when New Jerusalem is first mentioned in Revelation 3:12 as part of the message to Philadelphia.

Neo/Neon is used in the New Testament. Strongs defines the difference between the two words by saying.

"new (especially in freshness; while neoV - neos 3501 is properly so with respect to age:"

Suggesting "Fresh" could be a good translation of Kainos.  Now words with "fresh" in them appear in the KJV in verses that don't use this word, but that's complicated.  Hebrews 6:6's "afresh" is a prefix that means again.  Likewise "refresh" is either there more for the RE part of that, or something to "cool off" or "rest".

Neo/Neon/Neos and words derived from it are equally as inclined to be translated "young", "younger" or "youth".  Neo implies something that actually is brand new, while Kainos implies something old being made Fresh again.

For example, you could have used Neo for New York or New Orleans, New cities founded with those names but that exist on a completely different continent.  The Mormon view of New Jerusalem treats it as a Neo, as they believe New Jerusalem will be in the Continental United States, that New Jerusalem is related to Old Jerusalem the same way New York and New Orleans are to their European predecessors.

But you could have a Neo-City on the same location, if the first city was completely destroyed and everyone killed or displaced leaving no real continuity of architecture, culture or genealogy between the Old and the New, like the Neo-Tokyo in Akira.  Chris White's rationalization for how making Mystery Babylon Jerusalem doesn't contradict New Jerusalem is also a Neo-Jerusalem doctrine.  But so is full dispensationalism, New Jerusalem is clearly identified with The Church, so if The Church and Israel and totally separate, then they need to see this as a different Jerusalem no matter where it's located.

A word related to Kainos is translated "Newness" in Romans 6:4 and 7:6 when Paul speaks of us being made new at Baptism.  Kainos is also the word for "New" when referring to the New Heaven and New Earth in Revelation 21:1 and 2 Peter 3:13.  I've argued that the Lake of Fire is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, the world will be Baptized in Fire just as it had been Baptized with Water.  Forms of Kainos also get translated Renew, Renewed and Renewing.

New Jerusalem will have continuity with Old Jerusalem.  It is gonna be much larger in size, but it will include where Old Jerusalem was.  But more importantly it's population will include residents of old Jerusalem, from every era of it's history.

Kainos is also the word for "New" used when in Revelation 21:4 God says "Behold, I Make All Things New", which Peter Hiett has said played an important role in his coming to the doctrine of Universal Salvation, I think this nuance makes that conclusion about the verse even more solid.

I think this little detail I've discovered is good for opposing quasi Gnostic ideas, this World is not going to be destroyed, it's going to be purified and restored to how it was when it was New.

Likewise however the fact that Hebrews 12:24 uses a form of Neo not Kainos for the New Covenant works against the Hebrew Roots argument that the New Covenant is really just the Old Covenant restored.

A Slice of the Tree of Life

So I've talked a lot about my view that what Christians should be looking forward to is The Resurrection, not an "After Life".  That the perfect Utopia we are promised is not contemporary Heaven but This World restored to something like how it was before the fall.

That to me is the true point of the difference between The Gospel and Paganism is that Pagan myths like those of Gilgamesh, Orpheus or Izanami and Izanagi are about accepting death as a natural part of Life, while The Gospel promises that no Death will be defeated and one day no longer exist.  The Second Death is the Death or Death.

Many people who aren't Christians however view neither what I just described or the more casual Christian understanding of the "After Life" as desirable.  They feel it is grossly naïve to think such a condition would be a good thing.  In Season 4 of Angel, (the spin off of Buffy The Vampire Slayer), what Jasmine is trying to accomplish was essentially how Joss Whedon views Revelation 21 and 22.

I get the sense that at least some Western viewers of Anime probably have the same view about Human Instrumentality in Neon Genesis Evangelion and End of Evangelion (and the many evil schemes in Anime since that are kind of similar, like most recently *Spoiler Alert* what the Taisha wanted to do in Yuki Yuna Is A Hero season 2).  Though there is certainly no Biblical Basis for the rejection of Individuality inherent in that plan.  It's far more likely that it's The Beast and the False Prophet trying to achieve something like that with their Mark system.

Back on topic, the argument for why this should be viewed as bad is typically that there is no freedom or growth in a such world, that conflict and difficulty is necessary for that.  (So it's funny then that sometimes the exact same people make the "why does God allow Evil to exist" argument).

It's pretty difficult for us to even imagine what such a world would be like.  But I definitely view that criticism as an over simplification.  For one thing there is this Quote from Revelation 22:2

"the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."

Emphasis on the word Healing.  This shows that things are not exactly done.  And I personally believe new children will be born during this era as well.  A certain thing Jesus said about the Resurrection in Matthew 22 is commonly misunderstood ignoring Jesus actual point.  Adam and Eve were supposed to be fruitful and multiply, so if we're restored to that state, it includes that command.

I feel like these criticisms of the world presented in Revelation 21&22 (The Millennium in chapter 20 I don't even view as a true Utopia, but more as a Benevolent Dystopia.  Has that term been used before or did I just invent it?), however morally they word it, essentially comes down to them saying they think it would be BORING.  Like the common rather tong in cheek presentation of traditional heaven as us just sitting around all day on clouds playing harps while hell is a party.

I don't want to be bored either.  I used to spend a lot of time radically declaring Superman Re[dacted] the worst movie ever made because to me it is the most boring.  I am confident however that the New Heaven and New Earth will not be boring, but I've struggled with finding a good way to explain how.  till today.

Pause and Select is an Anime Analysis YouTube Channel.  I just a little while ago, on the night of January 10/11th 2018, watched their four part series on Japanese Apocalypticism in Anime titled Understanding Disaster.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3itZ8UCAizGphd5_cOFylS38JFTV3-Ne

The fourth and final part is what's primarily relevant to what I have to say here.  But the first three parts should be watched first for context, it is all interesting stuff.  (When talking about Akira, the observation about Akira being the object of worship but Tetsuo being the one really running things happened to remind me of my own re-evaluation of the relation between The Beast and the False Prophet).

In the fourth and final part they make a connection between the development of Apocalypticism in Anime and a certain genre of Anime.  They don't use this term in the video, but the genre in question is often most commonly called "Slice of Life".  Fortunately much of the narration is subtitled in the video, especially when quoting someone else.  So here is a pretty and informative screen-cap.

Compare that to Revelation 21:4.

"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

Another key word used in this portion of the video is "healing", other videos about this genre also associate it with healing and soothing.  But to me and many other fans they are absolutely not boring.  In fact I've often come to find conflict driven narratives to be boring.

One mistake Pause and Select makes is that K-On! in particular is not lacking narrative.  Digibro's praise of the show is all about it's subtle narrative arch and character development.  Meaning there is growth.  But it's not a conflict driven narrative, that is the point.  I'm surprised this video didn't mention Aria.(Aria could be interesting in light of my theory that The Bible foretells colonization of Outer Space.) It doesn't mention Girl's Last Tour because it was published over a year ago.

This genre of Anime has been my favorite for awhile now, for many reasons, and I think Lucky Star is it's Citizen Kane.  But watching this video just today caused it to click to me how maybe these Anime can also help me explain how the New Heaven and New Earth won't be boring.  In theory these Anime exist in the present world and so we don't immediately think of them as being Utopic.  But really they are narrative Utopias.

The video goes on to talk about other Apocalyptic Anime that looks more cynically on the Slice of Life genre.  But because of my Faith in The Bible, I know such a stable future will one day come.

Since I think this post may attract some Anime fans not familiar with what I usually talk about.  I want to add a reminder here that I have become a Universalist, and so this coming Utopic Shin-Sekai will be enjoyed by everyone, not just believers.  Even Nihilistic Atheists like Digibro.

Update August 2019:  I just re-watched much of Star Trek Generations, and it occurred to me how the Nexus in that film is also something that can possibly be read as a cynical view of "Heaven".

I've always liked the scene after Kirk makes that jump with the Horse, saying how it terrified him every-time but just now, because he knew it wasn't real.  And that's why it's important to me to stress that the real "Heaven" is this world as it was meant to be not some alternate realm where there is only spirit and no physicality.

I think in the New Heaven and New Earth it would be possible to fail to make that jump, and that doing so would hurt, a lot, and maybe it'd be months before you've recovered enough to try again.  It's just that there will no death.

Now you may think "that's not taking literally the "No Pain" in Revelation 21:4", the Greek word used there is "Ponos" which the Strongs (Number 4192) says more accurately means "Anguish" or "Toil", it's root is "Penes" (number 3993) which is often translated "Poor".  So I think a specific type of "Pain" is what's meant there.

The only other times "Ponos" is used is in Revelation 16:10-11, where the context is the "Pain" the Kingdom of the beast experiences when it is covered in Darkness after the Fifth Bowl is poured out.  I'm honestly starting to think maybe this word should be translated "Poverty".  Also the word translated "Sores" in Revelation 16 is elsewhere in Scripture used only in Luke 16:20-21 talking about the Beggar Lazaurs.

But more importantly then that, the "anguish" meaning can be taken as meaning it's emotional pain, psychological suffering.

My view on Modern Israel in Bible Prophecy

I don't believe in traditional Dispensationalism, or Two House Theology, or Catholic and Mainline Protestant understandings of "Replacement Theology".  So what do I think about Modern Israel?

I agree that most of the Bible Prophecies that Dispensationalists and Christian Zionists want to cite as being about 1948 like Isaiah 11:11 are clearly about something far more Supernatural and Messianic, where they return in belief.  However I disagree with Rob Skiba that they are about the Millennium.  I think they are about the New Heaven and New Earth and the descent of New Jerusalem.

Well, Ezekiel 37 is an exception, that is the one directly linked to the Resurrection, so that is possibly about the Millennium, though I think it may be possible it'll take the entire Millennium for all of it to be fully fulfilled.  And then Ezekiel 38 is about what happens between the end of the Millennium and the White Throne Judgment.  And then Ezekiel 40-48 are about the New Heaven and New Earth.

Psalm 48 is about New Jerusalem.  I've already argued that Isaiah 65-66 define themselves as being about the New Heaven and New Earth.  Leviticus 26&Deuteronomy 29 is where Bible Prophecy about the regathering of Israel begins, they I have come to view as not fully finally fulfilled until the descent of New Jerusalem.

I have talked before about how The Millennium is not as Utopic as people are assuming it will be.  For Believers it'll certainly be better then the world is now.  But most of the World will be obeying Jesus out of Fear not Love during this time.  This is where I think Zechariah 14 ends.

The Rothschild involvement in the 1948 birth of modern Israel is grossly overstated by Conspiracy Theorists.  Some of them financially supported it, but they were not the masterminds of it.  And to this day some Rothschilds are still Anti-Zionists.

Anti-Zionist Christians like to say it can only be God doing it if it's blatantly Supernatural.  And when we remind them about Cyrus they dismiss that by saying that God would tell his people through his Prophets if he was going to do it that way.  Well I'm a Continuationist, and the fact is throughout the 19th and early 20th Century many Christians seemed to know the time of Israel's return was approaching, and history vindicated them.

God tells us it was Him who scattered them, even though to terrestrial eyes it was Gentile Nations.  So who says their return can't be done the same way?

The Roman Captivity was very much a repeat of the Babylonian Captivity, right down to events playing out on the same days.  Chad Schafer has been talking a lot about Egypt's overlooked significance to the Roman Captivity, well Egypt was very vital to the Babylonian Captivity as well.  Jeremiah tells us that many Jews went to Egypt after Jerusalem fell, and that is part of why Egypt was carried away into Captivity by Babylon.

So it makes sense that the Return from the Roman Captivity would be very similar to the return from the Babylonian Captivity.  Truman however was not the Cyrus of 1948 like he sought to claim to be, he had nothing to do with making it happen.  Great Britain was in the role of Cyrus, and it's King at this time interestingly had Arthur in his full name.  Great Britain cemented their status as a modern successor to Rome when they defeated Napoleon and erected the Wellington Arch.  Just as Cyrus had taken the throne of Nebuchadnezzar.

However another layer of Typology is that I see the Seven Years King David ruled from Hebron as a type of the Seven Year period over which much of Revelation will play out.  And the time David Ruled from Zion and Jerusalem a type of the Millennium, and the early Reign of Solomon, when he was doing well, as a type of the full Messianic Kingdom.  In which context it's interesting to remember that before that was the reign of King Saul.

Could Modern Israel's destiny be to become the House of Saul to the Returning Jesus's David?  It's interesting that the current Prime Minister is named Benjamin, after Saul's Tribe.  I also alluded to reasons based on Jeremiah 6 for associating modern Israel with Benjamin in a Revelation 12 theory I came to last year.  In which case it's interesting that Ishbosheth ruled in the Trans-Jordan, near Mount Hermon.

The secular Capital of Modern Israel is Tel-Aviv.  The Ancient City that Tel-Aviv is adjacent to is Joppa/Jaffa.  Acts 9:32-28 refers to Lydda as being nigh to Joppa.  Lydda is in the Hebrew Bible Lod which is identified as a town of Benjamin (1 Chronicles 8:12; Ezra 2:33; Nehemiah 7:37; 11:35).

It's interesting that most Ahskenazim (and to a lesser extend many Shephardi) families that claim descent from David, do so via Rashi who did so via Hillel The Elder.  Hillel claimed through his mother descent from David's son Shaphatiah by Avital.  But Tribal Identity was traditionally determined paternally, and Hillel's father was a Benjamite, since he was born in Babylonia he may have come from the same Benjamite clan that Esther and Mordecai did, which came from a relative of Saul.  Gamaliel was Hillel's grandson, Paul claimed to have studied at his feet, and we know Paul was a Benjamite and originally a namesake of Saul, could Paul have been a relative of the House of Hillel?

The Khazar myth about where the Ashkenazim come from can be easily debunked, like in this video by Chris White.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDWUZ6EqWHc

[Update: or this one from Casual Historian.]

There is a small truth to it in that yes some Khazars intermarried into Jewish families, so many Ashekanazim may have some Khazars in their ancestry, but that does not contradict also descending from Jews who were in Israel at the Time of Christ.

Some like Britam and Veilikovsky (in Beyond the Mountains of Darkness) have sought to claim Lost Tribes descent for the Khazars.  But I find it more interesting that Benjamin had a son named Rosh (Genesis 46:21), and that the name of Rosh can also be linked to the same region as Meshech and Tubal, which is the land where the Khazars emerged, between the Black and Caspian Seas (something Chris White has also talked about).

I obviously disagree with the aspects of Velikovsky's argument that involve reinterpreting where Assyria first took them, I've built much of this Blog on that they were taken to parts of eastern Iraq and northern Iran.  But it's also possible that just as some remnants of the northern Tribes existed in Judah, that some Benjamites might have been among those deported when Samaria fell.  When the division first happened the border was mostly Benjamite territory on Judah's side.  But later there were times were Israel was winning in it's wars with Judah and so the border moved further south.

There is at least one website out there seeking to argue the Spanish came from Benjamin.  What they wound up making is a strong argument for the Shaphardi Jews coming chiefly from Benjamin, but Shaphardi Jews are genetically distinct from the gentile populations of Spain in-spite of how much they may look the same.  Another connection between Benjamin and Spain is Paul himself who in Romans expressed a desire to go to Spain which later traditions say he did.

The term Mizrahi Jews refers to Jewish communities of Iraq/Persia, and the Mountain Jews also associated with the same region as the Khazzars and Rosh.  Also the Oral Traditions of the Mountain Jews claim they came specifically from Jerusalem.

As far as the Jewish communities of Iraq/Persia go, we know the family of Esther and Mordechai dwelt there coming from a relative of Saul.  And that the Descendants of Hillel were based there during the time the Babylonian Talmud was composed.  The Exilarchs (traditionally descendants of David via Zerubabel) were also in Iraq for a long time.  But the Rabbinic Jewish traditions about them skip right form when the TNAK ends to the time of Hadrian, maybe their claimed David descent was not unlike Hillel's.  At any-rate most families today claiming descent from the Exilarchs do so via a lot of intermingling with the descent from Rashi.

Temani/Yemenite Jews I theorize mainly descend from Simeon (probably from the clan of Jamin) Simeon and Levi were both destined to be scattered among the other tribes.

I also see a poetic logic in the early Jewish Communities of Rome (who existed at least as early as the first Pentacost) coming from Benjamin.   Given the wolf association of both.

I think some remnant of Judah may exist among them.  But mostly I think Judah went to Africa after 70 AD.  Though I also think the descendants of the half-siblings of Jesus, and of Jesus Apostles, inevitably became absorbed into gentile populations.

David promised Johnathon Ben Saul that his seed would be preserved.  And we see him keep that later when he spared Johnathon's son Mephibosheth from the killing of descendants of Saul done to appease the Gibeonites.  Often such promises correlate to that line having a role to play in Eschatology.

Benjamin was the only son born in the Promised Land.  Maybe that is a reason for it to make sense he would be the only one who's Nation at the time of the Regathering would be already in Israel.

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.

Zion and New Jerusalem

I've expressed in the past my view that The Church isn't on The Earth during The Millennium.  We're in New Jerusalem, which is also Yahweh-Shammah.

The physical city of New Jerusalem already exists, it's in Heaven, maybe it's accurate to say in a sense it IS Heaven.  It is the Heavenly Jerusalem and Zion of Hebrews 12:22.

The term "Sides of The North" appears in The Bible twice.  Once dealing with Lucifer's Fall in Isaiah 14, and once in Psalm 48 talking about the Heavenly Zion when it descends as New Jerusalem.

It is my belief that the 144,000 are part of the Church and in some sense represent The Church.

Revelation 14 describes them as standing on Mount Sion.  In terminology that implies now they have been Resurrected.

I see The Rapture in the Seventh Trumpet (which extends into the opening part of Revelation 12).

Revelation 14 depicts the Raptured Church standing in the Heavenly Zion.

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.

The Partial Rapture Theory

All of my previous posts addressing Rapture views I disagree with have been focused on the main three popular views, Pre-Trib, Post-Trib and Pre-Wrath.

The Partial Rapture Theory isn't really a matter of timing, it can overlap with any of the other views.  It is sometimes linked to an idea that more then one Rapture will occur and thus they might all be right.  Some people believing a from of this I know are mainly Mid-Trib in their timing, so I feel the need to make sure people know this isn't a view I agree with.

The Partial Rapture Theory is that not all of the Saved alive on Earth at the time are Raptured at the Rapture, or at least not the first Rapture.  Only those who are the most Obedient and Faithful.

My views on Soterology and Ecclesiology could be viewed as lending themselves to this view.  I believe firmly in Eternal Security, yet I disagree with Calvinists and others who say they believe in Eternal Security but then turn around and say "if you are really saved you won't ______" whatever their line is.

I believe that like the Prodigal Son a Believer can squander their Inheritance but will never lose their Sonship.  I recommend Chuck Missler's studies on Eternal Security, including Hebrews 6.  Though I disagree with him on a few verses concerning Predestination where he sounds like he unwittingly agrees with the Calvinist view, but those are minor.

When Jesus in Matthew refers to the "Outer Darkness" that's not Hell.  Revelation 21:25-27 tells us that not everyone living in the New Heaven and New Earth will be in New Jerusalem.  And that some won't be allowed to enter it.  That's the "Outer Darkness" Jesus was referring to (because the context was clearly describing saved individuals, only the Saved are his servants), being outside New Jerusalem.

So some people when responding to certain views on Rewards tie in a disapproval of any notions that all Christians aren't equal at the Bema Judgment.  I believe we should not be Judging each other during our life on Earth, but it's clear in Eternity there will be distinctions.

BUT, that differentiation happens at the Bema Seat Judgment, and thus after The Rapture.  So it does not exclude anyone from The Rapture.  We are during our life on this Earth all part of the Body of Christ regardless of our obedience or faithfulness.

Some who agree with my view that the 144,000 are part of The Church and that they are Raptured in Revelation 14, will add that only the 144,000 are Raptured.  As I've said in other posts on that subject, they are a specific group that represents the whole.

I've said before that not all saved are part of The Church.  A related question to that however is, are all saved during the Church Age part of The Church?  While we're alive, yes.  I believe we're all The Body of Christ.  But after the Bema Seat Judgment, I do think it's possible some of us will lose our opportunity to be the Bride of Christ.

The Ten Virgins Parable of Matthew 15:1-13 is one Bible passage that could be used to support a Partial Rapture.  Actually the way Partial Rapture supporters interpret this is kind of the natural conclusion of the way Pre-Tribbers use it.  (That the Five Virgins taken represent those who hold the Pre-Trib view, and others those who do not).  Problem is, what Jesus tells the Foolish Virgins "I know you not" is how other Eschatological passages from Jesus define the unsaved.  Yet Pre-Tribbers don't usually want to say they think your not saved if your not Pre-Trib, but that seems to be the implication of their attitude sometimes.

Pre-Tribbers often forget that parables are not always what they seem.

I don't think this Parable is about the timing of the Rapture, or that the difference between the groups has anything to do with their theory on it's timing being correct or not.  Christ's offer to be his Bride is extended to all Humanity, but only the Saved are prepared to be ready to accept it when he comes.  Because the Saved have the Light of the World in us, our Lamps won't go out.

The Letters to the Seven Churches can also be used by Partial Rapture theorists.  Mainly the messages to Thyatira and Philadelphia.  Where certain statements make it seem like the former is told they will go into the "Tribulation Period" and the latter they will not.

To Thyatira he says of "Jezebel" and those committing Whoredom with her "Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds."  Thing is, in my Great Tribulation study I show that it isn't a specific time period at all, it refers to all Persecution the Church has faced.

To Philadelphia he says "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth."  This is often used against Post-Trib in general.  One Question is, if this is about the Rapture, does it being only in Philadelphia's message mean it applies only to Philadelphian Christians?  The Promise for the Believer parts of the other Letters seem to embody many things characteristic of all Believers, so no I don't think so.

But also it this really Rapture relevant?

This Verse doesn't use Wrath or Tribulatio, or Day of The LORD.  It says Hour of Temptation.  I'm reminded of how in the Lord's Prayer, we're instructed to pray that we are lead not into Temptation and delivered from Evil.  And in Matthew 24:24 Jesus says "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." The key complication is that it isn't possible.  I don't think this means we're immune to being tricked in general.  But once the Abomination of Desolation happens, things will be crystal clear to those with the Holy Spirit.

So neither of those two passages from the letters to the Churches I view definitively as Rapture relevant.

Was Marriage ordained in Genesis 2 or Genesis 3?

The default answer among my fellow Fundamentalist, theologically Conservative Christians would be that it's clearly established by Genesis 2.  The simple fact that God created Two Genders proves that God's sole intent for both Sex and Marriage was inter-gender relations.  And those two things are inseparable from each other.

But Genesis 2 has no ceremony, nor does it lay out any rules or costumes for how this Male-Female relationship is supposed to be.  We're simply told it was not good for Adam to be alone, so God created a Helper for him, and then told them to be fruitful and multiply and to fill and populate the Earth.  And in reference to future generations, that a man would leave his father's house and join with a woman.  (The emphasis is on the man leaving his family, not the other way around, interesting).

It's not till Genesis 3:16, after The Fall happens and the The Curse begins that we're told.  "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"

So it's at least accurate to say that marriage as we know it is the product of The Fall.

I've done many posts on the nature of The Resurrection here, since it's linked to The Rapture.  And feel at times it's important to remind people that The Resurrection is the restoration of Humankind to how we were meant to be before The Fall.  But there is one key verse on The Resurrection people constantly forget to consider with that context in mind, Matthew 22:30 (and it's parallel in the other Synoptics).

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

This is abused by supporters of The Sethite view of Genesis 6 by insisting this means Angels are not Biologically capable of sexual reproduction.  But even people who get Genesis 6 right still have it in their mind that this means Believers when we're Resurrected will not engage in any sexual procreation.  They're politically wrapped up in the notion that NEVER under any circumstance is ANY sex allowed outside Marriage.

Problem is Isaiah 65 and Ezekiel 40-48 both refer to reproduction going in the coming Kingdom.  And I have argued that that Kingdom is the New Jerusalem, not the Millennium.

Either way on that.  I have trouble being sold on the idea that The Millennium is at it's start populated by anyone but Resurrected Believers.  Which combined with people who's Eternal Destiny wasn't decided yet clearly being in existence for Satan to deceive at the end of The Millennium, implies Resurrected Believers biologically reproducing during that time.

I know it's popular to argue that even though there are Resurrected Believers co-ruleing during The Millennium, there are also still normal fallen Humans who survive The 70thWeek.  But the problem is I don't hold the Post-Trib view of The Resurrection and the meaning of Revelation 20.  So to me verse 5, "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection." must mean that only the Damned were not Resurrected yet.

I believe those born to Resurrected individuals will not need to be Resurrected if they side with Jesus, they will not be born with original Sin.  But they can still choose to fall as Adam did, unlike those of us who'll be Redeemed in the Blood of The Lamb.

Because in The Resurrection we'll be immune to even the temptation of Sin.  There is plenty of reason to see there as being less moral restrictions then we have now.  And we're already no longer bound by The Law.

Now let me be clear.  I believe while we're under The Curse that Biblical Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, that potentially procreative Sex should only be performed between a Husband and Wife.  Because it's important in this fallen world to provide Children with a healthy family.  I do not pass judgment on people who aren't able to follow that however.

But in The Millennium, and the New Heaven and New Earth there will be no failure to provide that family.  Resurrected Born Again people will not fail to make sure they provide for and take care of their Children.

The context in Matthew 22:30 was Jesus responding to Sadducees trying to discredit the Resurrection doctrine altogether.  They were confused about situations where Widows had married other Husbands in obedience to The Torah.

I think some Christians take this phrase in English as if the "Given in Marriage" part refers to the consummation of the union.  But the Greek word there is actually specifically about the act of a Father giving his daughter to a man to wed.

I think it's the Genesis 3 redefining of Marriage that Jesus was referring to as being done in The Resurrection.  But Marriage does exist in a sense in Eternity in New Jerusalem being The Lamb's Wife.

Hosea 2:16 refers to Baal as a name or title Yahuah has been called, but as one he doesn't like.  The main context there is how Ish and Baal are both words for Husband (marriage is the major theme of Hosea) but Baal also means Lord while Ish is a word for man as in male gender that is introduced in Genesis 2.

In the Eternal Kingdom no one will be leaving one family to join another.  All The Saved will be one family.  With Jesus as the Patriarch, The Church as the Matriarch, and the rest of The Saved as their children.

But I do think we might still be held to God's original instruction to Adam and Eve from before The Fall, to be fruitful and multiply.  And I think Saved Women in The Resurrection will be able if they choose to experience painless Childbirth as was originally intended.

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.