Friday, January 21, 2011

Ezekiel 40

6 comments:

Chris said...

I searched out Dave's Bible for some clues regarding the importance of this vision. As I suspected, it mentioned that this may not be a literal heavenly temple described, since there are places for burnt offerings and sacrifices... Christ was the final sacrifice for sins, no longer are physical sacrifices needed. It gave some other suggestions, but nothing definitive.

Prairie Chick said...

totally lean toward this being a literal and future temple. have studied the different arguments at length for literal versus figurative, can't find an online resource to point you to a really great study I did on this, but did find this;

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/templemi.htm

which basically covers the same ground.

I think the difficulty in interpreting passages like this one comes when God's dealings with Israel and the Church are not recognized as two different covenants. so many people just assume that the church has taken over God's program and that Israel will be assimilated into it. This is why I love reading Fruchtenbaum's teachings at Ariel.org, because more than anyone else I have ever read he is able to identify and expound on the two different relationships God has, one with Israel, His bride, and one with the Church, the bride of His Son, and His adopted children.

Seriously one of those things necessary to get a good handle on (the difference between God's dealings with Israel and the Church) if one wants to be able to interpret scripture and divide it rightly. Otherwise we can get so confused trying to cram different portions into different paradigms where they really don't belong.

Chris said...

Wow! That is an eye-opener. There is a slough (slew??) of information there. I may have to slug through it, but at an initial glance it's really overwhelming. The more I read the less I know :P While I'm tempted to be discouraged each time I'm corrected, I realize the benefit of reading this together. I'll keep reaping those benefits and humbly receive it. Thanks, friend. <3

Prairie Chick said...

oh, no, my friend, you misunderstand me. notice that although I used the word "totally", I paired it with LEAN. I think one can't be too careful in being willing to examine their own interpretation and be always conscious of the fact that God's truths are vast and deep and we are only human after all. So in no way is it a "correction", just my own leaning after having delved into studying this issue, there are smarter people than I who think differently, so take it for what it's worth :)

Getting into the habit of reading the bible is one thing, starting to take an issue and really delve into it and study it in depth is another. Don't get overwhelmed, it's a VERY exciting (although more time consuming than 5 min's a day) discipline. I used to study a lot, certain seasons in our life allow for it, now, not so much, but I do love to delve into an issue when questions are raised in my readings and see what different scholars have to say about and make my own informed convictions. It's good to be informed!

so please, don't be discouraged, and no need to be humble about it either. It's just two different takes on one issue, which is part and parcel of this journey.

Prairie Chick said...

>>I think one can't be too careful in being willing to examine their own interpretation and be always conscious of the fact that God's truths are vast and deep and we are only human after all.<<

If that wasn't clear, and I think it wasn't, I was referring to myself. I tend to take a "side" that seems to fit best to me after careful study, but being ever conscious of my limitations I never feel stubbornly "positive" about it. Make sense?

Chris said...

clear as mud! ;)