Replies

n the millennium of the classic premil there is no distinction between Jew and gentile. There is no return to ritualistic sacrifices ala the older covenant. There is no rebuilt temple, reconstituted priesthood or need for red cows.

Then you need to go gripe about Ezekiel 40-48, not about dispensationalism (which I would join you in criticizing on certain grounds, but not this). Nobody denies that it's ever been fulfilled in history, so either Ezekiel is a false prophet, or your theology is wrong.

Tell me something: What does God mean when He says this through Jeremiah (33:17-18)?

David shall never lack a man
To sit on the throne of the house of Israel,
Nor shall the priests the Levites lack a man
Before Me to offer burnt offerings,
And to kindle grain offerings,
And to do sacrifice forever.

The man who will sit on the throne of the house of Israel is obviously the Messiah Yeshua, but what about this second promise? It can't speak of Yeshua--His priesthood is of the order of Melcheizedek, not Levi--and yet God puts it side-by-side with the Davidic Covenant of the Messiah to show that it is every bit as sure.

So tell me, was Jeremiah a false prophet? Will God fail in His promise of a Levitical priesthood every bit as eternal as His Son's rule? Or is there, perhaps, something wrong with your comfortable theology that simply dismisses 3/4ths of the Bible as "old"?

David shall never lack a man
To sit on the throne of the house of Israel,
Nor shall the priests the Levites lack a man
Before Me to offer burnt offerings,
And to kindle grain offerings,
And to do sacrifice forever. Jeremiah (33:17-18)

Holy Cow!

Then you need to go gripe about Ezekiel 40-48, not about dispensationalism (which I would join you in criticizing on certain grounds, but not this). Nobody denies that it's ever been fulfilled in history, so either Ezekiel is a false prophet, or your theology is wrong.

Actually, Clarke points out in his commentary on Ezek. 40 that Ezek. 40 referenced the Christian Church:

Whatever was august or illustrious in the prophetic figures, and not literally fulfilled in or near their own times, the ancient Jews properly considered as belonging to the time of the Messiah. Accordingly, upon finding that the latter temple fell short of the model of the temple here described by Ezekiel, they supposed the prophecy to refer, at least in part, to the period now mentioned. And we, who live under the Gospel dispensation, have apostolical authority for the assertion that the temple and temple worship were emblematic of Christ's Church, frequently represented in the New Testament under the metaphor of a temple, in allusion to the symmetry, beauty, and firmness of that of Solomon; to its orderly worship; and to the manifestations it held of the Divine Presence.

Jamiesson, Fausset and Brown likewise state that

There are things in it so improbable physically as to preclude a purely literal interpretation. The general truth seems to hold good that, as Israel served the nations for his rejection of Messiah, so shall they serve him in the person of Messiah, when he shall acknowledge Messiah (Isaiah 60:12, Zechariah 14:17-19; compare Psalms 72:11). The ideal temple exhibits, under Old Testament forms (used as being those then familiar to the men whom Ezekiel. a priest himself, and one who delighted in sacrificial images, addresses), not the precise literal outline, but the essential character of the worship of Messiah as it shall be when He shall exercise sway in Jerusalem among His own people, the Jews, and thence to the ends of the earth. The very fact that the whole is a vision (Ezekiel 40:2), not an oral face-to-face communication such as that granted to Moses (Numbers 12:6-8), implies that the directions are not to be understood so precisely literally as those given to the Jewish lawgiver. The description involves things which, taken literally, almost involve natural impossibilities.