Posted on 06/21/2005 4:27:46 PM PDT by Buggman
"Forever", but you must interpret that to mean except for right now (actually for the last 2000 years or so). Correct?
He was more definitive than even Lindsey.
Frankly I never noticed it before. It doesn't say that the sacrifice will not be interrupted, it merely states that there will be forever be a Levite to offer burnt offerings. It also seems to indicate that the burnt offerings will continue "forever".
I'm gonna have to think about that one for a while. That's why I posted the Red Heifer.
I've read Clark and JFB's commentaries on pretty much all the prophecies (along with Matthew Henry's, Barnes', and pretty much all the rest that you can get for free on e-Sword), and to be honest, they aren't always that convincing, especially when one catches them making broad statements that spiritualize away clear promises of God, but without really present a convincing schema for explaining the symbolism. (JFB are better than Clarke and Henry in this regard, but they still slip from time-to-time.)
Not that I deny that there is symbolism to be found in the constructs of Ezekiel's Temple. There was symbolism to be found in Solomon's and in the Tabernacle too which we've only just skitted the surface of. However, the fact that Solomon's Temple appears to describe the architecture of the body, soul, and spirit of the believer (the temple of the Holy Spirit) does not mean that Solomon's Temple was not an actual building. Likewise, the Tabernacle clearly was designed to give a picture of Heaven (note the differences between the two for some interesting insights) as well as to the "architecture," if I may, of the Messiah in whom God "tabernacled among us," but that doesn't mean that it's description in Exodus and the Tanakh was fictional.
Likewise Ezekiel's Temple. Indeed, we know that at some point there must be a Temple upon the earth to fulfill Jeremiah 33:17-18 (see post #592, and please forgive me for forgetting to ping you to it). The Levites were given a priesthood forever, not just until the Messiah came.
Now regarding Clarke, let me deal with the reason that I find his commentary here to be unconvincing. In the opening to his commentary on Ezk. 40, he writes,
As the prophet knew that the Chaldeans had utterly destroyed the temple, he thought it necessary to preserve an exact description of it, that on their restoration the people might build one on the same model.Notice that he claims that the prophet decided, on his own volition, to write Ezekiel 40-48 as a historical record. This belies the prophet's own claim that he recorded what he saw in a vision. Whether he's intending to or not (and Clarke is deliberate and analytical enough that I have to believe that he knows what he's doing), he's trying to play down Ezekiel's Temple vision as prophecy by right up front denegrating it so that the reader won't pay too much attention. Then he goes on to say,
As to allegorical meanings relative to this temple, I can say nothing: God has given no data by which any thing of this kind can be known or applied; and as to those who have laboured in this way, perhaps "Solomon's Temple Spiritualized, by John Bunyan," is equally good with their well-intended inventions. Those who wish to enter much into the particulars of this temple must have recourse to the more voluminous expositors, who on this subject seem to have thought that they could never say enough.So, while declaring the whole Temple allegorical and symbollic, he refuses to explain, or even attempt to explain, the symbolism. That frankly doesn't make him much of a choice as an authority on which to base one's theology about Ezekiel's vision.
JFB's interpretation is frankly, pretty premillennial. We might dither on some of the details, but what strikes me about their commentary is that they continually discuss every element of the Temple as if they thought it to refer to something literal.
Perhaps, in the absence of an explanation of some of the symbolism (as we inevitably get in apocalyptic prophecy like Daniel's or Zechariah's visions or the Revelation), the wiser course is to assume literalness until it is proven otherwise.
Not so. I understand that it's very clear in context that Smith is wishing/speculating about the return of the Lord.
For example, I am convinced that Christ will return in my lifetime. I have said it before. (Yet, I don't have the assurance that Simeon had about seeing the infant Jesus.)
Am I a whacko for that reason? Cannot faithful Christian brothers and sisters still offer their modifications/refutations/rebuttals/refinements of my statements?
Has Yeshua reigned on David's throne for the last 2000 years? No. God's throne, yes, but that's a separate issue--David's throne is over Israel, not in Heaven. Yet, though there is a break, David's line and dynasty are preserved forever in Yeshua the Messiah, who will return and rule over Israel and the world as promised. Has that break annuled the promise? No!
Now, just because the sacrifices have been interrupted (as indeed they were about to be when Jeremiah penned this prophecy), does that mean that there are no Levites who could offer sacrifices? Not at all. They only need a proper Temple and a cleansing ceremony to begin--indeed, there is already a group that has been trained for just such service in Israel.
In other words, a pause or a delay in the fulfillment of God's promise due to Man screwing up does not annul the promise.
But just as Yeshua must someday reign forever on David's throne to fulfill God's promises to David, the Levites must someday minister before the Lord forever as well, or else the Word of God is broken. Ezekiel 40-48 describes just that happening, and even describes how the Prince (the Messiah) will participate.
Notice how far you're having to go to avoid the plain meaning of this text! You don't even offer a reasonable interpretation; only an easily-overcome objection! Who was it who said when you don't have anything on your side, just argue? Premillennial eschatology can accept that God means what He says and says what He means, but yours must constantly seek loopholes or else ignore 3/4ths of Scripture (declaring it "old") in order to preserve your traditional views!
Apparently the next words after Chuck Smith said he was convinced that the Lord would return before 1981 was "I may be wrong, but....
Yeah he was wrong. but who hasn't been wrong? I know if you ask him today if he thinks the Lord will return in his lifetime he will say (I will paraphrase what he has said) that he really isn't convinced of that anymore, that he had always believed that the Lord would return in his lifetime but now he's not so certain and if he doesn't then he won't be upset because the second he leaves this life he will step into the presence of the Lord.
I do not believe there have been too many generations of Christians who have not had the hope or the expectation that Christ will return in their lifetimes. I have that hope and expectation. The good news is that at least one generation will be right.
The problem is that if you state your conviction too strongly and too publicly, you may live to regret it. There are some sins that Christians can never seem to forgive. Chuck Smiths's optimistic predictions three decades ago seem to be numbered among them.
The above is the more complete quote.
In other words, Smith was NOT trying to be a prophet or a seer. As I said, he was simply expressing a WISH and a HOPE.
He did not introduce any new theology of numerology in which he added years and days and months and epic events of history and bible to arrive at the date of 1981.
He was looking at how bad the situation was at that JIMMY CARTER era: Soviets on the march in Afghanistan, hostages in Iran, Communism creeping in Nicaragua, Atomic Weaponry, liberalism, abortion...
And his eschatology led him to wish for a soon return of the Lord. But then he said, "I could be wrong..."
Amen.
See my #608.
I do have the conviction/hope that the Lord will return in my lifetime.
Plagerist. See my 607. :-)
Beat you by a minute.
Yes, but I have historical context! :>)
Actually, yes. Jesus has been reigning the throne of David.
"Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses." (Acts 2)
The throne of David was representative of the reign of Israel. That is precisely where Jesus sits right now, reigning and subduing the nations, Israel included. As Jews and gentiles come to Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, they testify of Christ's reign.
That probably won't satisfy your hermenuetical presuppositions, but if does fit the facts.
Those who claim that Jesus will physically sit on "David's throne" can't possibly account for the fact that David's physical throne does not exist, and has not existed for millennia.
In other words, a pause or a delay in the fulfillment ...
Notice how far you're having to go to avoid the plain meaning of this text!
You've just confirmed that the "plain meaning of the text" is not so plain, and requires a certain amount of "spin" (in you case by inventing a "pause or delay") no matter what your persepctive.
It's not about David's own personal throne any more than it's about David's own personal hairbrush. It's about the kingship in the lineage of David over all of the tribes of Israel.
"I'm convinced" ... "deep conviction". Hey, you're right, we've all wrong at some time or another. Teacher will be held to a high account for their words.
As I said, he was simply expressing a WISH and a HOPE.
He was expressing a conviction. Now, perhaps his conviction on the timing of Christ's return was not as sure the the fact of Christ's return, but his words still express a conviction of what would occur 20 years ago. He was wrong.
But the deeper question still remains, what in Smith's theology made him say what he did -- to express his conviction -- and where was his error?
And his eschatology led him to wish for a soon return of the Lord.
Not just soon. 1981 soon! But what in his eschatology led him to try to fix a date in the mind of his readers?
Exactly. That's why Jesus can and is fulfilling the prophecy from His throne in heaven. He is exercising kingly dominion over Israel (and the rest of the nations). He doesn't need a man-made throne.
So in other words, he doesn't believe the signs are there any longer. Otherwise he would still be convinced. It was the "clear signs" that convinced him the first time. Is that the case?
How 'bout you? Do you believe there are signs that point to Jesus returning to "this generation"?
I had already dealt with your objections in #583 even before the discussion of Chuck Smith.
As long as the discussion is within an established eschatological model....which it was (premillennialism).
As long as the author is careful to distinguish his speculations....which he was (I could be wrong)
Then I have no reason to believe I'm dealing with anything other than a hopeful Christian and not with any kind of new cult. The job of the others in the church gifted in prophetic scripture and prophetic gift is to challenge those who allow their exhuberance to outweigh the available BIBLICAL evidence.
I trust that Chuck Smith's Christian friends disagreed with him and showed him why.
This makes me wonder if you understand the premillennial viewpoint. In that model based on literal fulfillents, there must be an earthly reign of a Davidic Kingdom.
Certainly, it could be many other things. It could be in NYCity from the FoxNews tower, but it isn't.
It's Jerusalem, King in Davidic Line, earth, 1000 years.
But not literally on David's throne. Somet things are more literal than others. I'm starting to understand. :-)
No I don't think you understand. As you can see below, the word throne can literally mean the royal power of the person and not just the chair. The word "throne" has long been a metaphor for the power of the king.
The strength of the premillennial position is it's literal approach. It only spiritualizes or takes symbolically that which the context specifically permits.
Main Entry: 1throne Pronunciation: 'thrOn Function: noun Etymology: Middle English trone, throne, from Old French trone, from Latin thronus, from Greek thronos -- more at FIRM 1 a : the chair of state of a sovereign or high dignitary (as a bishop) b : the seat of a deity 2 : royal power and dignity : SOVEREIGNTY 3 plural : an order of angels -- see CELESTIAL HIERARCHY
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.