The Church is the rebuilt tabernacle of David. Seems reasobable to infer that the Church, being the Temple of the Living God is what is symbolized by Ezek. 40-48.
I must admit being a little biased; the esoteric claims of dispensationalism with regards to the Ezekiel Temple were what drove me away from dispensationalism, eventually to covenental amillenialism. (Christ is going to re-institute animal sacrifices in the Millenium? Puh-lease.)
The animal sacrifices NEVER removed sin. Ever. They were always symbolic.
There is no impediment for Christ continuing the symbolism....unless one is a member of PETA, of course. :>)
While that is an important discussion, Jude, more important is when one recognizes that the other side doesn't build its arguments on a whim, but on scripture combined with a healthy dose of reflection.
You say that you have scriptural reasons for heading toward amillennialism. That's good. Others have scriptural reasons for staying with premillennialism.
To recognize the good scriptural motives of the other is important with eschatology. One wise man I read recently summed it up as we are best when we recognize that all schools of eschatology are dealing with "probabilities."
That's an excruciatingly honest appraisal.
<< the esoteric claims of dispensationalism with regards to the Ezekiel Temple were what drove me away from dispensationalism >>
Hysterical. Suggesting that the words might actually mean something even remotely like what the original writer AND readers would have taken them to mean is "esoterical."
Wonder whether we'll ever know the real reason you bailed.
Dan
Nine chapters of symbolism?
Ezekiel describes the phsycial dimensions of the temple down to the last cubit. Ezekiel's physical descriptions of the millenial Temple are such that one can build a model of it based only on the description given in Ezekiel. You don't get that exact if you are merely going to symbolize something.
It appears that you are willing to admit that the Ezekiel Temple has never been built. Your position now appears to be that it will never be built and that it is only a symbol of.... something else.
Cop out. The existence of Ezekiel's actual temple contradicts your preconceived notions about eshcatology so rather than throw out your preconceived notions, you symbolize the passages rather than view them in the literal sense in which they were given.
The fact is that if Ezekiel's temple never gets built, then Ezekiel was a false prophet. Why should we judge today's false prophets by a measure less than we would judge Edgar Cayce or Jeanne Dixon or Charles Taze Russell? If their prophecies did not come to pass we didn't let them get away with symbolizing their predictions, we called them false prophets.
Why should we hold Ezekiel to a lesser standard?