DEBATE III / TOPIC III / REBUTTAL (b.)
The Problem of Ezekiel’s
Temple/City Vision
Rebuttal
Tim Warner
Debate Index
Copyright ©
The Last Trumpet —
Before I begin my refutation of Frost’s paper, the reader
should note that Frost’s entire argument is against premillennialism, not
futurism. This debate is about preterism vs. futurism. There are many futurists
(amillennialists) who would agree with nearly everything Frost wrote in his
paper. His first mistake was in choosing his subject. The whole argument is a
straw man. Even IF Frost’s arguments were correct, the result is not that
preterism stands vindicated and futurism is cast into doubt. Rather,
premillennialism would be cast into doubt, but no harm is done to futurism if
one is amillennial.
Secondly, some understand Ezekiel’s prophecy to be
conditional on
Sam Frost began his comments by pointing out that the
redemptive work of Christ is the core of the biblical message. “All of the Bible is to be read in light of
the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and interpreted in that fashion. Jesus said that the Scriptures ‘spoke of me’
and that he was the fulfillment of the ‘law and the prophets.’” As a
Progressive Dispensationalist, I agree completely. The problem is Frost has
taken such statements of Jesus to imply that the Bible does not mean what it
says. He thinks this is a license to discard the plain sense meaning of
language in favor of a hidden meaning which he attempts to supply in extremely
vague terms (never really giving a serious “interpretation” of the details of
the prophecies). That is a far cry from what Jesus actually said in the above
quotes. Frost has based his arguments on a faulty methodology which denies the
Bible outright in many passages. Also, his arguments in this paper are meant to
show that a premillennial interpretation cannot be maintained using a
consistent methodology. He is wrong on all counts, because his opinions are
based on faulty presuppositions that lead him to wrong conclusions.
Wrong
Presupposition #1 – Animal Sacrifices Atoned for Sin
The crux of Frost’s argument (and nearly all Reformed
theologians’) is that after Christ died,
any further animal sacrifices would be blasphemous and unthinkable. Frost
acknowledges that premillennialists have always claimed that future sacrifices
are merely memorial in nature, and do not themselves atone for sins. His
opposition to future sacrifices being “memorial” is based solely on the fact
that Ezekiel did not say they would be “memorial.” Frost writes, “Let it be known that I will not accept a
statement that they are 'memorial' without full and scriptural warrant to that
effect. Second, I want to hear how Warner
deals with why they must be 'memorial.'
Obviously, if these sacrifices are NOT memorials, then we have
blood-atoning sacrifices being offered AFTER the one time sacrifice of Christ. Hopefully, Warner realizes that this is a
massive contradiction of Scripture.” We shall demonstrate that there is no
contradiction whatever in our interpretation. The “massive contradiction” is
between Frost’s presupposition that such are “blood-atoning sacrifices”
when in fact Paul wrote that such was “impossible.” The apparent
contradiction Frost raises is based on his wrong presupposition regarding the
nature of animal sacrifices in general.
Paul stated plainly that the actual (literal) animal
sacrifices of the Old Covenant were themselves symbolic, and had absolutely no
atoning quality. “For the law, having a
shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can
never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year,
make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be
offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more
consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins
every year. For it is not possible
that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.” (Heb 10:1-4
NKJ). The purpose of the animal sacrifices was a reminder of the seriousness of
the worshipper’s past sins and consequently his need for atonement. This need
is supplied in Christ alone, as Paul so eloquently proclaims in Hebrews.
Therefore, the Old Covenant sacrifices were prophetic of Christ. Yet, when we
read the Torah, the animal sacrifices were commonly called “atonement” sacrifices, and “sin offerings” (Lev. 9:7 &c.). Is there
a contradiction between Moses and Paul? Paul stated plainly that they had no
such power! Therefore, the language of the Old Testament in calling them “sin
offerings” and “atonement sacrifices,” was itself symbolic language. These
terms did not point to some inherent quality of animal blood. It pointed to
their prophetic symbolism toward Christ’s future atonement. This is a part of
the “mystery” of Old Testament prophecy. It is therefore wrong for Frost to
insist that such terminology in Ezekiel’s prophecy must point to a literal
cleansing from sin of the worshippers, when that was not even the case when the
Jews offered the animal sacrifices under the Law!
It should surprise no one that Ezekiel’s vision used
similar terminology for the future sacrifices, particularly since the “mystery”
of the Gospel had not yet been revealed, and the symbolic nature of all animal
sacrifices was not yet clearly understood (1 Pet. 1:10-12). If we are to be
consistent, and allow the New Testament to interpret the Old, then all of the
sacrifices in the Old Testament, whether found in historical narrative or
prophecy, should be seen as symbolic in
significance but literally carried out by the worshippers. Paul’s argument
in Hebrews is that animal sacrifices simply have no power to cleanse from sin.
If that was true in OT times and in Paul’s day, it is true now and will always
be true. Therefore, any future sacrifices must be understood in light of the
fact that all such sacrifices are signs (symbolic) even though they are
literally offered by spilling real blood. The only difference in Scripture between
animal sacrifices in historical
narrative (which were prophetic in nature) and prophetic narrative (which are historical {‘memorial’} in nature),
is merely their timing – past or future. The former looked forward
prophetically to Christ, while the latter look back historically to Christ. Our
breaking and eating the bread and drinking the wine look back to Christ as a
“memorial” in the same manner. Communion is a “memorial” sacrifice, offered
using literal elements. The breaking of the loaf symbolically memorializes
Christ’s body being broken for us. The drinking of the wine is a symbolic
memorial of His shedding His blood for our sins. The sacrifices to be offered
at the new
Is Frost willing to admit that the Apostles themselves
practiced a “massive contradiction” in their leadership of the early Church? If
offering animal sacrifices after Christ’s death is so abhorrent to Christians
and blasphemous to God, why did the early Jewish Church in Jerusalem under the
leadership of the Apostles continue to offer sacrifices at the Temple right up
until its destruction in AD70? Paul himself
participated in such sacrifices when in Jerusalem (Acts 21:20-27 & 1 Cor. 9:20). Apparently the Apostles themselves were
ignorant of the spiritual gnosis that Frost apparently has obtained!
Wrong
Presupposition #2 – Future Sacrifices Means a Return to the Mosaic Law
None of the Old Testament prophecies of the future Kingdom
of God indicate a return to the Mosaic Covenant. The Bible is clear that the
coming of the New Covenant has made the Old Covenant obsolete (Heb. 8). The Law
of Moses prescribed certain feasts and ordinances that must be carried out to
the letter. But, Ezekiel’s prophecy, while having some things in common with
the Law of Moses, also indicates radical departures from the Law of Moses. The
Kingdom Law is therefore not a reinstitution of the Law of Moses. It is merely
a new dispensation, having some things in common with the former dispensations
(just as this dispensation has many things in common with the previous one).
One notable difference is the Throne of the Lord will occupy the place where
the “ark of the covenant” used to be.
Ezek
43:1-7
1 Afterward
he brought me to the gate, the gate that faces toward the east.
2 And
behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east. His voice
was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory.
3 It was
like the appearance of the vision which I saw-- like the vision which I saw
when I came to destroy the city. The visions were like the vision which I saw
by the River Chebar; and I fell on my face.
4 And
the glory of the LORD came into the temple by way of the gate which faces
toward the east.
5 The
Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory
of the LORD filled the temple.
6 Then I
heard Him speaking to me from the temple, while a man stood beside me.
7 And He
said to me, "Son of man, this is
the place of My throne and the place of the soles of
My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of
(NKJ)
Jer 3:16-17
16
"Then it shall come to pass, when you are multiplied and increased in the
land in those days," says the LORD, "that they will say no more, 'The ark of the covenant of the LORD.'
It shall not come to mind, nor shall they remember it, nor shall they visit it, nor shall it be made anymore.
17
"At that time Jerusalem shall be
called The Throne of the LORD, and all
the nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem.
No more shall they follow the dictates of their evil hearts.
(NKJ)
In the above verses, Jeremiah stated plainly that the “ark
of the covenant” will not be employed in worship anymore. Rather, the Throne of the Lord will replace it. That
is, He will be present in person, which is what the Greek word “parousia” means. Also, rather than Israel alone coming to
worship the Lord at the Temple, all the Gentile nations will come to worship.
Interestingly, when Ezekiel listed the feasts that will be celebrated in the
Kingdom, only the Passover and feast of Tabernacles are mentioned. The “Day of
Atonement,” which is the only feast of Israel where the “ark of the covenant”
was used, is not included by Ezekiel (Ezek. 45:21-25). It is specifically
excluded by Jeremiah. This is important in two ways.
Firstly, it shows perfect agreement with the book of
Hebrews, when both are interpreted literally. There, Paul referred to the
ceasing of the rituals offered on the “Day of Atonement.” This was the only
sacrifice where the priest took the blood into the Most Holy Place yearly.
Heb
9:6-9
6 Now
when these things had been thus prepared [the original Tabernacle was
built by Moses according to the pattern],
the priests always went into the
first part of the tabernacle [the “Holy Place”], performing the services.
7 But into the second part [the “
8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that
the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the
first tabernacle was still standing.
9 It was
symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered
which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the
conscience--
(NKJ)
The regular priests offered their offerings and sacrifices
in the “Holy Place” daily. Yet, Paul pointed out that the high priest went only once per year into the
“Most Holy Place” to sprinkle the “ark of the covenant.” The significance of
this yearly event was to show that the object of the symbolic sacrifices
(Christ) had not yet come. It follows then, that after Christ has come, this
uncommon (yearly) part of the symbolism must be discontinued. This agrees
perfectly with Jeremiah and Ezekiel, which preclude the “Day of Atonement” from
the festivities that will be celebrated after Christ’s return. There is no
conflict, only perfect harmony.
Secondly, if Frost is correct that Ezekiel’s and others’
OT Kingdom prophecies point only to a mystical reality of the present age, it
seems odd that the very thing Paul held up as uniquely referring directly of
Christ (the Day of Atonement) is excluded from the prophetic passages that
Frost seeks to apply to our day! Why would Ezekiel and Jeremiah exclude the one
thing that Paul says points most plainly to Christ’s atonement? The fact is,
there is no need to explain away the plain sense of Ezekiel’s prophecy when it
is understood in light of the revelation of the Mystery, which we now
understand, but Ezekiel’s original readers did not.
There is no reinstitution of the Mosaic Law in the
prophecies of Scripture. The Law of Moses permitted absolutely no deviation from
the rituals established by God. Yet these prophecies show enormous differences
with the Law of Moses as well as many similarities. Zechariah indicates that
Gentiles will be the main worshippers, coming to the Temple to keep the Feast
of Tabernacles after the Lord defeats the armies that attack Jerusalem (Zech.
14). Finally, the prophecy of Isaiah will be fulfilled. “Even them I will bring to My holy mountain,
and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.
The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of
The Law of Moses did not permit Gentile acceptance in the
Temple of God. Nor did it prescribe world-wide observance of its laws. But, the
prophecies of the Kingdom greatly expand the scope of influence, to include all
nations.
Wrong
Presupposition #3 – The Reality Forever Precludes the Symbol
It is true that Paul commonly exhorted Gentile Christians
not to take up the rituals of the Law. But, it was not because doing so would
be some kind of abomination. The passages where Paul takes up this theme (like
Galatians) were meant to counter the Judaizers who insisted that Gentiles must
keep the Law of Moses to be saved. It was necessary for Paul to counter their
arguments, because to the Judaizers, the “weak and beggarly” elements possessed
some kind of inherent quality to make one righteous. The Judaizers made the
same mistake that Frost and other Reformed teachers make, that observance of
sacrifices had the ability to make one righteous. The difference between the
Judaizers and Frost is merely whether this alleged property of Torah observance
ended with Christ’s atonement or not.
Progressive Dispensationalists point to the fact that such ritual observance
NEVER had any such quality in the first place. Therefore, whether this ended
with Christ is a moot point. Granted, the animal sacrifices did indeed stop
being offered because the Temple was destroyed. But, it is clear from Acts that
the Jewish believers did NOT stop immediately after Christ’s sacrifice, but
continued to offer sacrifices and keep the festivals for decades. And this was
done with the full blessing of the Apostles in
1 Cor
19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a
servant to all, that I might win the more;
20 and
to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under
the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;
21 to
those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God,
but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law;
22 to
the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things
to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 Now
this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.
(NKJ)
If Paul could live as Jew under the Law, no doubt using these
very symbols to preach Christ to His Jewish brethren, what is wrong with the
same symbols being used on a world-wide scale for the rest of the nations? Why
do you suppose that God had the Jewish people go through all those rituals for
so many years, if “the blood of bulls and
goats can never take away sins”? It was to teach them the spiritual
principles of the seriousness of sin, judgment, and atonement. When Christ
came, those who had understood the lessons of the “shadows” embraced the
reality – Christ. The rituals of the Law were used as object lessons for one
nation,
Frost wrote, “Paul …
considered the things of the Law to be ‘rubbish’ and considers them ‘a loss’…”
This statement is simply not true. It completely misrepresents Paul’s opinion
of the Law. Frost was referring to the following passage. “Yet indeed I also count all
things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord,
for whom I have suffered the loss of all
things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ, and be found in
Him, not having my own righteousness,
which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the
righteousness which is from God by faith” (Phil 3:8-9 NKJ). Paul’s point
was NOT that God’s commandments through Moses were all “rubbish.” What Paul
counted as “rubbish” was his own past attempt at self-righteousness through
keeping the Law by human self-effort, apart from reliance on the grace of God
and having the faith of Abraham. Paul told Timothy that “the law is good, if a man use it lawfully” (1 Tim. 1:8 NKJ). And
to the Romans Paul wrote, “Therefore the
law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good” (Rom.
Paul never taught that the reality found in Christ forever
precludes the use of symbols. Rather, he taught that all such symbols pale in
comparison to the reality found in Christ. It was necessary for him to stress
this point because of the Judaizers fascination with the symbols, and their
insistence that salvation was found in the symbols rather than the reality.
Wrong
Presupposition #4 – Future Sacrifices are Designed for
Our Future Worship
As we observed above, the main difference between the
historical Temple observances and the future prophetic Temple observances is
the participation of all the Gentile nations, not Israel exclusively. Under the
former dispensation, only one nation
was taught these things through symbolic observances. In this dispensation, a
select remnant of
God is in the process of progressively restoring the whole
creation to Himself (Col. 1:20). This is being accomplished through a series of
dispensations. God started His redemptive process with one man, Abraham, from
among the whole fallen human race. From this man God established a “seed,” a
holy nation. This nation was taught the things of God through the symbolism of
the sacrificial system, from direct teaching, and from a long history of interaction
with Jehovah. When Jesus came, He called out of Israel His elect remnant. What
about the rest of the nations? God used His Apostles to begin the process of
calling remnants from among the Gentile nations as well. Once there is a
remnant from EVERY nation and ethnic group capable or reigning with and for
Christ over their respective peoples (Rev. 5:9-10), He will return to establish
His political Kingdom on earth (Matt. 24:14). Then, the remainder of Israel and
the nations will be taught “the knowledge
of the Lord” using the same kind of teaching aids of the “schoolmaster” to bring the rest of the
nations to God.
Frost concludes by saying; “I am charging that Warner cannot maintain consistency here without
somehow finding a loophole that damages his entire Dispensational paradigm and
hermeneutic.” I believe I have been
totally consistent with the Progressive Dispensational paradigm, as well as my
professed hermeneutic. The problem with Frost’s presentation is he is arguing
against the wrong paradigm —
traditional dispensationalism — and he
is using the faulty presuppositions articulated above.