|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Oct 27, 2011 10:41:13 GMT -5
This thread is solely devoted to whether or not all of Ezekiel had been fulfilled in Ezekiel's day (give or take) but well before Christ's personal ministry... I say chapter 37 was NOT fulfilled until the first century - well past Ezekiel's time frame. Ezekiel 37:22-28 - And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:
23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.
24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore. I fail to see when those bolded sections were fulfilled in Ezekiel's day. The two kingdoms (Israel, Judah) never became one again in the OT as far as I know. How could David be their prince forever more? How could it be an everlasting covenant if it was still in the old covenant age? Perhaps Jack would be willing to enlighten me as to the Scriptures to indicate the fulfillment of my three objections??? And one other question...Since Paul taught nothing other than the Law and the prophets, especially in regard to the resurrection (Acts 24:14-15), where in the Prophets did Paul get his resurrection doctrine for Israel if not Ezekiel 37? Just as a reminder for some folks who may not have been in on Jack's initial stance, you can find his dogmatic statement that "ALL OF EZEKIEL IS FULLFILLED INCLUDING CHAPTER 37!" according to his chapter 12 theory here: forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?72636-Two-death-blows-to-the-creedalist-s-quot-sanctified-quot-reincarnation-teaching&p=2188945#post2188945 |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Oct 27, 2011 11:10:32 GMT -5
...you can find his dogmatic statement that... As an outsider looking in to discussion, your posts and statements in the original thread appeared equally dogmatic. I don't believe these derogatory items need to be inserted. These types of things do not appear to be said in love or respect and reflect poorly, not only on the one saying them, but also on the message that one presents. In truth, we are all generally 'dogmatic' in our opinions, until we change them and find different 'dogma'. If we didn't believe our statements were true when we say them, we wouldn't believe them ourselves, would we? |
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Oct 27, 2011 14:22:31 GMT -5
...you can find his dogmatic statement that... As an outsider looking in to discussion, your posts and statements in the original thread appeared equally dogmatic. I don't believe these derogatory items need to be inserted. These types of things do not appear to be said in love or respect and reflect poorly, not only on the one saying them, but also on the message that one presents. In truth, we are all generally 'dogmatic' in our opinions, until we change them and find different 'dogma'. If we didn't believe our statements were true when we say them, we wouldn't believe them ourselves, would we? Morris, that was not how I was using the word dogmatic! I was taking it to mean "for a surety," "without certainty," "clarity," "no uncertain terms," etc. I was using dogmatic to express how clearly Jack had stated that ALL of Ezekiel had been fulfilled back in Ezekiel's day. In essence, I was not allowing any possible "wiggle" room. I have asked him to confirm or deny that statement once again... I did not, in any way, mean for it to be derogatory, NONE AT ALL. If you take a look at my recent posts to him you will see no impoliteness, no derogatory tone, no bad attitude whatsoever. In my original response to Jack over at CARM, I even started off with "While I agree with most of what you said..." I am trying to be nice here. Derogatory - Detracting from the character or standing of somethingThat does not match at all what I have spoken... Microsoft Word's thesaurus of synonyms gives these alternatives: Rigid, unflexible, unbending, strict, assertive, fixed, authoritarian. Those words are right in line with the way I used the word. Remember, it was his STATEMENT and nothing else that I referred to as being dogmatic (in my usage). Dogmatism - positiveness in assertion of opinion, especially when unwarranted or arrogantPart 2 of that definition DID NOT APPLY. I saw nothing arrogant in his statement of " ALL OF EZEKIEL IS FULLFILLED INCLUDING CHAPTER 37!" except maybe the exclamation mark...<giggle> <just kidding> <joking around> One thing though, you said I was being equally dogmatic. Does this mean I was being arrogant and derogatory? I fail to see that at all. If others would like to show me where they see those traits in the above post, I would most appreciate it. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Oct 27, 2011 16:00:32 GMT -5
Fair enough, edwardgoodie.  Perhaps that is the danger in trying to determine a word's meaning by examining how it appears to be used, instead of consulting an authoritative dictionary for its meanings.  |
|
jack
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by jack on Oct 27, 2011 16:21:54 GMT -5
24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. 25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. Okay here are the facts about David the king (prince). 1. He offers sacrifices for his own sins (Ezekiel 45:22; 46:10-12). 2. He is subject to death (Ezekiel 46:17,18; note the word ‘inheritance’). 3. He has a wife and sons (Ezekiel 46:16). 4. He is allowed to bestow gifts only from his own inheritance (Ezekiel 46:17,18). 5. He is warned against exercising oppression (Ezekiel 45:8; 46:18). A succession of princes seems to be implied (Ezekiel 45:8). www.christadelphianbooks.org/haw/ezek_temple/ch03.htmlSuch details require reference to a mortal prince of Israel.
So come right out and say it Ted. Say the words, "CHRIST-WILL-BE-MORTAL-PRINCE-WHO-WILL-OFFER-SACRIFICES-FOR-HIS-OWN-SINS"[/color] How could David be their prince forever more?
How could it be an everlasting covenant if it was still in the old covenant age?[/quote] First, the Hebrew "olam" simply means "to [consummation of] the age." The same word is used in reference to the ordinance of circumcision. God said that circumcision was an "everlasting (olam) covenant" (Genesis 17:9-14). We know that circumcision is old covenant and came to an end. Second, David the king (prince) was not a reference to a single individual but to a succession of princes (Ezekiel 45:8). Ted knows that if Ezekiel 37 was fulfilled before Christ, then his "corporate resurrection" theory falls to the ground. He needs for the dry bones prophecy to be fulfilled after Christ in order to sustain his erroneous "corporate resurrection" view. Jack |
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Oct 27, 2011 16:22:36 GMT -5
Perhaps that is the danger in trying to determine a word's meaning by examining how it appears to be used, instead of consulting an authoritative dictionary for its meanings. I would say that you have it backwards. (I am thinking that you have chosen your words VERY carefully here). The problem with most exegesis is that they go to dictionaries to determine meanings instead of checking how it was used in various instances. Appearances can be deceiving. Perhaps consulting the source (me) regarding my usage would have clarified things much earlier. Unfortunately, we cannot consult with the apostles and prophets on a personal basis...Man! That those would be quite the conversations!!! And that reminds me...supposing the apostles and prophets are able to look upon this life, can you imagine how they must feel regarding the misrepresentation they have received for centuries?! Of course, this is predicated on IF one can feel anything but total happiness (bad word choice) wherever they are... |
|
jack
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by jack on Oct 27, 2011 16:26:24 GMT -5
Ted,
We posted at the same time so scroll up in case you missed it.
Jack
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Oct 27, 2011 19:08:13 GMT -5
24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. 25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. Okay here are the facts about David the king (prince). 1. He offers sacrifices for his own sins (Ezekiel 45:22; 46:10-12). 2. He is subject to death (Ezekiel 46:17,18; note the word ‘inheritance’). 3. He has a wife and sons (Ezekiel 46:16). 4. He is allowed to bestow gifts only from his own inheritance (Ezekiel 46:17,18). 5. He is warned against exercising oppression (Ezekiel 45:8; 46:18). A succession of princes seems to be implied (Ezekiel 45:8). www.christadelphianbooks.org/haw/ezek_temple/ch03.htmlSuch details require reference to a mortal prince of Israel.
So come right out and say it Ted. Say the words, "CHRIST-WILL-BE-MORTAL-PRINCE-WHO-WILL-OFFER-SACRIFICES-FOR-HIS-OWN-SINS"I don't really appreciate your tone, so let me end this line of questioning real quick. What are you doing in Ezekiel 45? Who is David their prince forever from the ORIGINAL Ezekiel 37 thread? And just for the record, Jesus was subject to death (unless you believe He did not die). And yes, Jesus was the sacrifice. He did not do the preparations though because He was not a priest until the priesthood was destroyed. . Yes, Jesus did have a wife (bride) and sons (sons of God). #4 & #5 don't make any sense to me.
But I repeat my question, Who is David their prince forevermore? Saying that it represents a succession is just your opinion. It must be proven from Scripture. Again, what are you doing in Ezekiel 45?
26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. 27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore. [/color] How could David be their prince forever more?
How could it be an everlasting covenant if it was still in the old covenant age?[/quote] First, the Hebrew "olam" simply means "to [consummation of] the age." The same word is used in reference to the ordinance of circumcision. God said that circumcision was an "everlasting (olam) covenant" (Genesis 17:9-14). We know that circumcision is old covenant and came to an end. Somehow you have deflected again from the question and end up talking about circumcision. I am talking about an everlasting covenant - like the new covenant for instance. How was this fulfilled in Ezekiel's day? Please stay on topic. Second, David the king (prince) was not a reference to a single individual but to a succession of princes (Ezekiel 45:8). Ted knows that if Ezekiel 37 was fulfilled before Christ, then his "corporate resurrection" theory falls to the ground. He needs for the dry bones prophecy to be fulfilled after Christ in order to sustain his erroneous "corporate resurrection" view. Jack Again with Ezekiel 45...you were the one who said all of Ezekiel 37 was fulfilled in Ezekiel's day. I want you to show me the fulfillment in Scripture please. And please, do not try to guess my motives; it is not fruitful. If you are serious about having an interaction, you will address all my questions; not just cherry pick a few you wish to deflect into another chapter...You must prove your supposition to me - that ALL of Ezekiel (including chapter 37) was fulfilled in Ezekiel's day. BTW, you did not affirm that, but I think it is pretty clear that you still adamantly (not dogmatically) believe that. Unaddressed.. Although not a direct question (but a definite objection and grouped with two others), please tell us where in Scripture the two kingdoms were united into one. If you say all of Ezekiel 37 was fulfilled in Ezekiel day, surely you must have some kind of proof, else why would you say so? This question alone is devastating to your proposition. I am not surprised that it got no attention... The following question was ignored completely...let me repeat: Since Paul taught nothing other than the Law and the prophets, especially in regard to the resurrection (Acts 24:14-15), where in the Prophets did Paul get his resurrection doctrine for Israel, if not Ezekiel 37?Consider yourself lucky. I could ask you where he gets that doctrine from the Law... And some ending Scripture to meditate upon... Acts 3:21-2421 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
All except Ezekiel, of course! <giggle> |
|
jack
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by jack on Oct 28, 2011 15:53:59 GMT -5
Ted wrote:
What do you mean by asking what I am doing in Ezekiel 45? Your question is designed to be evasive. The prince of Ezekiel 37 is the same prince throughout. Ezekiel says that he offers sacrifices for his own sins. This excludes him from being Christ!
Christ was mortal but was not to reign until He assumed His immortality. Christ was to reign as an immortal King. But the prince of Ezekiel was to be a mortal ruler. Therefore, Christ is excluded. I can't believe that I must say these things to a so called Preterist.
Ezekiel 45:21-25 CLEARLY says that the prince was to do the preparations.
The prince was to bestow gifts to his sons ONLY from his own inheritance. This excludes Christ because He is "heir of all things" and could not be restricted by such a law (Heb. 1:2). PLEASE pay attention to what you read.
The succession of princes is seen in that David the prince was to begin his reign over Ezekiel's contemporaries. Look at 37:18-28. God said to Ezekiel, "If the people come to YOU and ask YOU saying, 'show US what you mean by these things'...YOU must tell THEM...."
Do you see it? The "THEM" is Ezekiel's contemporaries from the time God said to Ezekiel "Go tell THEM" and every time thereafter. So God was going to begin with Ezekiel's contemporaries when He said, "I will make a covenant of peace with THEM," and when He said, "David my prince shall reign over THEM." It was to continue with "THEIR children and THEIR children's children forevermore.
This is the scriptural proof that it was to be a succession of princes. It was to begin with Ezekiel's contemporaries and was to continue to THEIR children and to THEIR children's chilldren. But it never got beyond THEM because it was a conditional covenant and was rescinded because of Israel's disobedience (Jeremiah 18:9-10). I have also given Ezekiel 45:8-9 where God addresses His princes saying, "My princes." This necessarily infers a succession.
This is the Futurist's tactic. They say, "Show us when Euphrates river was dried up." I told you last year that I feel like I am dealing with a Futurist when discoursing with you. Ezekiel is about the ideal restoration that can never be realized because Israel had not met the terms of that conditional covenant. It never got beyond Ezekiel's contemporaries.
Jack
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Oct 28, 2011 16:41:49 GMT -5
Ted asked: This is the Futurist's tactic. They say, "Show us when Euphrates river was dried up." I told you last year that I feel like I am dealing with a Futurist when discoursing with you. Ezekiel is about the ideal restoration that can never be realized because Israel had not met the terms of that conditional covenant. It never got beyond Ezekiel's contemporaries. Jack Jack, please stop trying to question my motives. It is not fruitful. It is not a futurist's tactic in the least. It was God's command the HE would bring the two kingdoms together. You disagree. That's fine. You are welcome to your own opinion. Ezekiel 37:21-25 - And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:
22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:
23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.
24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. Poor, poor Israel...never going to get restored. God lied; Jack is right. Apparently, the disciples were looking forward to the restoration of the Israel, even though you are not... Acts 1:6 - When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? Even Cleopas and the other individual with him were looking forward to this restoration: Luke 24:21 - But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.Literally, I am astounded that you fail to see the future restoration of Israel. How you cannot see that the people from those two nations/kingdoms represents the faithful remnant that the entire New Testament speaks about is absolutely beyond me. I would be very curious as to how you would explain Romans 11:25 in reference to the fulness of the Gentiles (nations) mentioned there. But please, start another thread for that purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Oct 28, 2011 18:36:40 GMT -5
The "THEM" is Ezekiel's contemporaries from the time God said to Ezekiel "Go tell THEM" and every time thereafter. So God was going to begin with Ezekiel's contemporaries when He said, "I will make a covenant of peace with THEM," and when He said, "David my prince shall reign over THEM." It was to continue with " THEIR children and THEIR children's children forevermore. How do people apply the principle of audience relevance to these passages? |
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Oct 28, 2011 20:47:33 GMT -5
The "THEM" is Ezekiel's contemporaries from the time God said to Ezekiel "Go tell THEM" and every time thereafter. So God was going to begin with Ezekiel's contemporaries when He said, "I will make a covenant of peace with THEM," and when He said, "David my prince shall reign over THEM." It was to continue with " THEIR children and THEIR children's children forevermore. How do people apply the principle of audience relevance to these passages? Morris, it is my understanding that all of this is contained in a future vision and deals with Israel... I also wanted to add that if Israel has not FIRST received the promise, then WE are still waiting. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Oct 29, 2011 8:00:55 GMT -5
I would like to ask one final question in regard to the timing of the fulfillment of Ezekiel, and I would like a yes or no answer to this very specific question FROM JACK. Others, of course, may respond as well...
"Do you really believe there is no specific prophecy anywhere in Ezekiel pointing toward Christ?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Oct 29, 2011 10:36:01 GMT -5
How do people apply the principle of audience relevance to these passages? Morris, it is my understanding that all of this is contained in a future vision and deals with Israel... So, it doesn't matter who this was spoken to, or to who the message was delivered. It was spoken to them but was not for them in their time. Am I correct in this understanding? By the way, I do believe that there are Messianic prophecies in Ezekiel. |
|
jack
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by jack on Oct 29, 2011 16:03:48 GMT -5
It is not a futurist's tactic in the least. Oy yes it is! He also commanded they would be gathered INTO THE LAND and that it would be fulfilled "in THEIR days," It has become clear that TO YOU the "command" did NOT include the original recipients for which it was CLEARLY intended. You apply the "command" to their future generations only. You mean that everyone but the original recipients will be brought into the land. Wow! God said that it was to begin with THEM and that it was to continue to their immediate children and the children of their immediate children. Herein lies the difference between me and you: I say that it was a conditional covenant and that the grandchildren got robbed because of the disobedience of their first parents. You say that it is an unconditional covenant to the grandchildren alone robbing the first parents. YOU err because the kingdom promises to Israel were conditional: Note that it says that God will "REPENT" of the evil or the good He has COMMANDED depending upon THEIR obedience or disobedience. Your view that the kingdom promises were unconditional is hard core Dispensationalism. The difference is that you don't accept the logical implications. But maybe you do. Poor Israel! Poor Israel because they disobeyed and lost out on an earthly kingdom inwhich they would have continued to offer animal sacrifices forever and ever. Poor Israel because they got stuck with the ONCE FOR ALL sacrifice of Christ instead. Poor Israel because God turned their disobedience into salvation for the world. Poor Israel because they missed out on the kingdom inwhich long life but NOT immortal life was the reward. The "cleansing" was to be accomplished through the old covenant sacrificial system (chapters 43-44). That cleansing was the CEREMONIAL cleansing of their outward filth. The cleansing of the conscience comes through the sacrifice of Christ ALONE! Poor Israel! Poor Israel because their disobedience had caused them to miss out on the daily, ceremonial cleansing of their outward filth. Poor Israel because they stuck with the ONCE FOR ALL cleansing of their conscience by the blood of Christ. Poor Israel because God used their disobedience of Ezekiel's covenant and established a covenant which was founded on "BETTER PROMISES" (Hebrews 8:6). POOR POOR ISRAEL!! Romans 11 is about the elect remnant (vs. 4-5). It had nothing to do with Ezekiel's visions regarding their regathering into the land because his visions regarding that involved a temple inwhich animal sacrifices would be offered up forever and ever and ever and ever world without end. This is what some Dispensationalists believe. Some of them believe that Ezekiel is about the reinstitution of the old covenant system that will continue in the new earth forever and ever. Some Dispensationalists who read this topic will think that you are on their side and that you belong to them. If you want to talk about Romans 11, then YOU start the thread. You don't dictate anything to me. I am now persuaded that you have not cast off all of Futurism and that you still retain some strong Dispensationalist tendencies. Jack |
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Oct 29, 2011 20:19:21 GMT -5
Thank you for your time, Jack.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Oct 29, 2011 20:24:33 GMT -5
Morris, it is my understanding that all of this is contained in a future vision and deals with Israel... So, it doesn't matter who this was spoken to, or to who the message was delivered. It was spoken to them but was not for them in their time. Am I correct in this understanding? By the way, I do believe that there are Messianic prophecies in Ezekiel. I agree that there were Messianic prophesies contained in Ezekiel too. Therefore, if that be the case, all was and could NOT fulfilled in Ezekiel's day. I am not an expert on visions and how that pertains to audience relevance but it definitely concerned the future. It seems odd that so many prophets (even in the Torah) spoke of the distant future to their present audience. Perhaps it was a message that would be (or should have been) handed down from one generation to the next until that generation arrived who would witness the events and remember what the prophet had said. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Oct 29, 2011 21:32:28 GMT -5
I am not an expert on visions and how that pertains to audience relevance but it definitely concerned the future. It seems odd that so many prophets (even in the Torah) spoke of the distant future to their present audience. Perhaps it was a message that would be (or should have been) handed down from one generation to the next until that generation arrived who would witness the events and remember what the prophet had said. I hope you realize that this is exactly the same kind of argument that dispensationalists use in the new testament. So, while I agree that these prophecies in Ezekiel also point to the future Christ, and that many new testament prophecies (such as "this generation will by no means pass away") also refer to their present, why should this principle of audience relevance apply in some instances and not in others? How are we to know when it applies and when it doesn't? Is it simply based on when it fits with our paradigm of biblical understanding? I don't believe we can answer the question of Ezekiel's fulfillment, or any other for that matter, until these questions (and probably others) are answered. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Oct 30, 2011 7:47:52 GMT -5
I am not an expert on visions and how that pertains to audience relevance but it definitely concerned the future. It seems odd that so many prophets (even in the Torah) spoke of the distant future to their present audience. Perhaps it was a message that would be (or should have been) handed down from one generation to the next until that generation arrived who would witness the events and remember what the prophet had said. I hope you realize that this is exactly the same kind of argument that dispensationalists use in the new testament. So, while I agree that these prophecies in Ezekiel also point to the future Christ, and that many new testament prophecies (such as "this generation will by no means pass away") also refer to their present, why should this principle of audience relevance apply in some instances and not in others? How are we to know when it applies and when it doesn't? Is it simply based on when it fits with our paradigm of biblical understanding? I don't believe we can answer the question of Ezekiel's fulfillment, or any other for that matter, until these questions (and probably others) are answered. I don't think it is that argument at all. In Ezekiel, we are given a indefinite future vision. In Matthew 24, Jesus speaks one-on-one with living disciples and mentions THIS generation. If you were there, how would you have understood "this generation"? Ezekiel mentions no such distinction. Dispensationalism totally ignores (and believe me I have tried endlessly) the " THIS" word. They ignore it in Acts 2:16 regarding Joel's prophecy. They ignore it in Acts 15:15 regarding Amos' prophecy. They ignore the present fulfillment of Isaiah 11:10 in Romans 15:12. In fact, they have to ignore it because it destroys their millennial view and their dual fulfillment of OT Scriptures to Israel (physical) and the church (spiritual). They will not accept the apostles understanding of the OT Scriptures as the ONLY understanding - they still resort to the Pharisaical teaching of the OT... At least that is how I see it. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Oct 31, 2011 14:12:59 GMT -5
I don't think it is that argument at all. In Ezekiel, we are given a indefinite future vision. What makes it an indefinite future vision? Ezekiel 2:3,7 " And He said to me: “Son of man, I am sending you to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against Me; they and their fathers have transgressed against Me to this very day. You shall speak My words to them, whether they hear or whether they refuse, for they are rebellious". Ezekiel 3:17-19, " Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me: When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet, if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul". This is repeated again in chapter 33. Ezekiel 6:13, " Then you shall know that I am the LORD, when their slain are among their idols all around their altars...". How would Ezekiel know without seeing the results of the vision? God said he would see it. In Ezekiel 7 we read, " An end! The end has come upon the four corners of the land. Now the end has come upon you...
Thus says the Lord GOD: ‘ A disaster, a singular disaster; Behold, it has come! An end has come, The end has come; It has dawned for you; Behold, it has come! Doom has come to you, you who dwell in the land; The time has come, A day of trouble is near, And not of rejoicing in the mountains...
Behold, the day! Behold, it has come! Doom has gone out...
The time has come, The day draws near" That doesn't sound indefinite. In Ezekiel 12 we read of Ezekiel acting out being taken into captivity, and doing so in front of the people, the same people God says will be taken away. Verses 25 to 28 declare, " For I am the LORD. I speak, and the word which I speak will come to pass; it will no more be postponed; for in your days, O rebellious house, I will say the word and perform it,” says the Lord GOD.’”
Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Son of man, look, the house of Israel is saying, ‘The vision that he sees is for many days from now, and he prophesies of times far off.’ Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “None of My words will be postponed any more, but the word which I speak will be done,” says the Lord GOD.’”" Among all the proclamations against the various nations, the Lord says, " Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon". This isn't indefinite. There appears to be a time lapse in chapter 33, verse 21 where it says, " And it came to pass in the twelfth year of our captivity, in the tenth month, on the fifth day of the month, that one who had escaped from Jerusalem came to me and said, “The city has been captured!” ". This seems to be confirmation of fulfillment for what preceded it. Then proclamations are made concerning judgments against those that came in to take the land of Israel as their possession, and promises to that land of Israel. Ezekiel 36:8, " But you, O mountains of Israel, you shall shoot forth your branches and yield your fruit to My people Israel, for they are about to come". Even this new string of visions appears to be 'near-future' in nature. My conclusion after looking through this much more carefully is that the visions are mainly near-term in nature, however, the principle of audience only seems to apply in some cases as there is a mixture of spoken 'public prophecies' and written 'private visions'. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Oct 31, 2011 20:07:25 GMT -5
I'm sorry Morris, I was thinking that you were speaking in similar regard to Ezekiel 37 about the two kingdoms becoming one again. I am sure there were a number of things fulfilled near Ezekiel's time...
|
|
