DEBATE III / TOPIC III / RESPONSE TO REBUTTAL (c.)
The Problem of Ezekiel’s
Temple/City Vision
Response to Rebuttal
Samuel
M. Frost, M.A.R.
Copyright ©
The Last Trumpet —
Warner accuses the first submission of being a “straw
man.” My choice in topics, he presumes,
has nothing to do with “futurism.”
That’s interesting, because I thought that Ez 40-48 had everything to do
with the future, since it is a prophecy, and an obviously unfulfilled one at that if the
conditions for its fulfillment mean the literal application of such. What else is that he then moves on to tell
us, in his view, of what the future is
going to be like! It is going to be
a millennial kingdom with literal animal sacrifices that have only a symbolic
function. What I said is that Ezekiel
was viewing the Church through elaborate symbolism (in agreement with
A-millennialism and Post-millennialism).
This is the preterist
interpretation as opposed to the futurist
interpretation (both millennial views incorporate a preterist
hermeneutic in many places). Thus,
Warner’s first assertion is false. This
is entirely in keeping with the debate.
Secondly, since the A- and Post- views do agree with
Preterism on this point, it is then easy to demonstrate their
inconsistency. Here is where Warner is
correct: the visions of Ezekiel on this matter come AFTER the Second Coming of
Christ. Preterism takes the strengths of
each millennial view and harmonizes them into a coherent solution. Once again, if Pre- is right, and the Second
Coming PRECEDES the Ezekielian Temple setting, and if
the A- and Post- are right in that this represents the church age presently,
then, together, the Second Coming was in A.D. 70 which PRECEDED the fulfillment
of the ‘age to come’ church age which we are in now. Therefore, to error of the Pre- school (which
Tim espouses) is that the Second Coming has not happened, yet. The error of the A- and Post- schools is that
the Second Coming does not precede the temple vision, but comes AFTER it.
Clearly, Warner can see that to place the Second Coming
AFTER the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s Vision is ludicrous. Yet, Warner is entirely correct in that this
vision is fulfilled on earth. In fact, all
three millennial views understand the earthly fulfillment. Preterists wholeheartedly agree on this
unity. Ezekiel is not talking about
heaven (else, how could you explain dead bodies in heaven as per Ez
44.25-27). The two main problems, then,
is where to place the Second Coming and how to understand the nature of Ezekiel’s symbolism (how it is
lived out). Preterists agree with Warner
that the Second Coming PRECEDES the vision, but agree
with the strength of the A- and Post- schools on the nature of how this vision is lived out now. This is just one example of demonstrating
that Preterists are not operating in a vacuum, but build on the
strengths/weaknesses of the previous models tradition has given us. In fact, Warner wrote that the A- view would
“agree on nearly everything Frost wrote.”
In conclusion of this first issue, when Warner wrote, that my
interpretation of the vision does not “in any way
support preterism,” he is entirely false, misleading or simply confused as to
the point I made. Ask yourself, Mr.
Warner, that if Ezekiel’s vision is being fulfilled NOW in the church, and if,
in your view, the Second Coming PRECEDES the fulfillment of this vision, then
are you willing to assert that this does not “in any way” at all support
preterism? That is like saying corked
bats do not “in any way” help the batter gain distance for the ball!
Now that the reader understands my angle for selecting
this portion of Scripture, we can move on to consider the points Warner
champions. 7 pages is a lot to respond
to for a four page article, but I will try anyhow.
Warner still falsely posits a dichotomy between “hidden
meanings” and his “plain sense” meaning.
Yet, as his paper demonstrated, “atonement” does not mean
“atonement”! When it says “atonement” it
is only a SYMBOL of atonement in Jesus according to him. Hidden meaning, Tim? The PLAIN SENSE is that atonement means
atonement. The PLAIN SENSE is that
“sin-offering” means “sin-offering”.
But, no, Warner says these are not REAL sin-offerings in Ezekiel, these
are mere “symbols” to convey the once and for all “sin offering” of the Lamb of
God. Agreed. But, Mr. Warner, you had to write a few pages
to elicit that “meaning” into the word “atonement”. The continued false attack that we advocate
“hidden meanings” then is just silly.
Mr. Warner and myself are in AGREEMENT that the offerings in Ezekiel
SYMBOLIZE (i.e., have a “hidden meaning”) Christ. The ISSUE is, is how will these activities be carried out? Let’s stay focused here and save paper.
He wrote, “after Christ died any
further animal sacrifices would be blasphemous.” This is NOT what I said (though, being
honest, from my statement it could appear that that is what I meant, and for
that Warner’s assertion here is entirely an honest mistake). The Reformed theologians are wrong to assert
that the “old covenant” stipulations “died” when Christ “died.” Hebrews
8.13 asserts plainly enough that the “old” would “soon vanish”. This was written some 30 years after Christ’s
death. Warner agrees with Preterists
that this refers to the destruction of
Let me quote from Mr. Warner concerning areas where we
agree on this matter. First, there was
no “inherent conflict” with Paul offering sacrifices in
If the Law commanded circumcision for Gentiles, then the
Jews who demanded circumcision (Acts 15.1,5), who were also “believers” and “zealous for the Law”,
were correct to insist on this command.
However, Paul insists on this not being done. We can see, now, how Paul can be accused of
being a law-breaker by his Jewish brethren.
Let us throw in another text: “I came not to abrogate the
law and the prophets, but fulfill them.
I tell you the truth, until heaven
and the land disappear not one jot nor tittle will by
any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Mt 5.18). What was “vanishing” according to Hebrews 8.13? Jots? Clearly, Paul forbade the Law’s insistence
that Gentiles be circumcised. Why? Why did he forbid some things of the law and
not others? Was the Law in process of
“vanishing” or “disappearing”? Yes. Heaven and the
He wrote, “the Law of Moses
permitted absolutely no deviation from
the rituals established by God” (italics mine). Then why did Paul deviate? Was he following
prophecy? Warner wrote, “Yet these
prophecies show enormous differences with the Law of Moses.” Let me get this straight. The Law allowed for no deviation, but the
prophecies state that there would be deviation.
I smell Preterism! Let me quote
Mr. Warner again: “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” (italics mine).
When did Jesus say that “jots and tittle”
would depart? “When heaven and the Land”
depart. Was Paul departing from the Law
of Moses? To answer “no” would be to fly
in the face of everything biblical.
“Christ is our Passover, therefore, let us keep the feast.” The “weak and beggarly elements” were
“destined to pass.” When? Were they “already passing” in Paul’s day? Yes.
Did the old covenant “soon vanish”?
Yes. Therefore, we have Paul living in the days of Ezekiel’s Vision.
Syllogism: If the Law of Moses demanded obedience to the
letter and Ezekiel’s prophecy departed from the Law of Moses, and Paul departed
from the Law of Moses, then Paul must have been living in the times when the
departures from the Law of Moses was being fulfilled. Therefore, Paul must have been living when
Ezekiel’s visions were being fulfilled.
The old covenant was vanishing.
Thus, Paul could obey “some things” of the Law, but not “all things” to
“the letter” because the “the letter” was fading and the “glory” was
coming. Heaven and the Land, old
covenant
The logic of Warner’s position reveals that he has shot
himself in the foot. Paul himself quotes
Ez 37.27 in
II Co 6.17. This was becoming the reality. This same verse is quoted in Revelation 21.3 in the new heavens and
the new earth. Ezekiel was seeing the
“new heavens and the new earth.” The
generation of Paul was witnessing the “vanishing/departures” from the Law of
Moses until, FINALLY, it vanished completely.
Heaven (what the Jews called the
Warner may try to sidestep this and say, “well, in the Millennium, the Law of Moses will be carried
out.” But he denies this. The letter was not carried out under Paul,
and cannot at all be carried out now, and in Warner’s admission, will not be
carried out “to the letter” when Ezekiel
is fulfilled, in his view, in the Millennium.
That MUST mean that at least SOME jots and tittles have PASSED. Did the Bible foresee of a time when these
departures would occur? Yes! In Ezekiel!
Have these departures occurred?
YES!
Warner quotes Jer 3.16-17. There,
the ark of the Lord is no more. Is it
today? Didn’t the Romans sack the
Before wrapping this up, a few more brief criticisms can
be made. Warner quotes from Hebrews 10.1-4 to note that the blood of
animals “never atoned for sin.” But, is
that what the passage says? No. To deny the efficacy of any
atonement qualities whatsoever of the OT sacrificial system is, again, to
destroy the “plain meaning” of the Law.
“The life is in the blood” Leviticus said. The offerings “were a sweet
smell” to God. In several OT
stories, after sacrifice was made, God “was pleased.” To even touch the ark of God, Uzzah died. For Saul
to offer sacrifices unlawfully cost him his kingdom. To say that these sacrifices had “no atoning
quality” at all is simply unbelievable.
The context of
these verses state that the “yearly” offerings “make those who approach perfect.” If it could, the writer argued, then why were
they offered year after year? Obviously,
such a system of atonement could never ultimately “take away
sins.” It could never take away sins to
the extent that in the removal of sins it would bring perfection and thereby
remove the need for atonement. Atonement
was needed. The Law provided for it. The blood of bulls and goats took away
sins. But, guess what. The sins came back. And they would have to offer more bulls and
goats. Then sins were forgiven and
atoned for. Then, guess what, sins came
back. They would have to offer more
bulls and goats. Sins were
forgiven. Then, guess what? Sins cam back….and on and on and on it went. Such a system could not “perfect” the
sinner. Such a system showed them that
for sins to be forgiven under it, then this system must go on forever. This is clearly contrasted with the “once and
for all” sacrifice of Jesus Himself. He
ENDED the system. He ENDED the Law. He FULFILLED it. And it VANISHED as a result in A.D. 70. Thus, ask yourselves, are we living in a time
today when we have no literal “ark” and do not have a yearly “Day of
atonement”? If you answer, “yes”, then
welcome to Ezekiel’s and Jeremiah’s world.
When did the day of atonement end? A.D. 70.
Do we have it now? No. Did Ezekiel see a time when God’s priests had
no day of atonement? Yes. If Tim is correct, then we have no day of
atonement now and will not have one
in the Millennium, either. But did
Ezekiel envision two periods of time when atonement was no longer needed? No. He only saw one. If he only saw the Millennium period, then
where is period of time that describes our day of atonement-less time? The Dispensational answer: The Prophets do
not mention the Church Age Dispensation!
And cows jump over the moon.
Warner, as I have stated, was correct to see that Paul had
no issues with Jews carrying out the sacrificial system and knowing Christ as
well. However, what of this insistence
when
The “temple of the LORD” is Jesus himself. He is a house of prayer for all nations. Warner quotes this as insisting that Jesus
foresaw thousands of years into the future when
In conclusion to all of this, it has been demonstrated
that Mr. Warner must, if he is honest, rework a great deal of his beliefs. We are in the time of Ezekiel’s vision,
serving day and night as a nation and kingdom of priests. We serve God and have entered into his holy
city and throne through the blood of Jesus.
We are priests. The time of
change has come. John’s vision of the
New Jerusalem parallels exactly Ezekiel’s.
For example, Ezekiel is taken in by a man and led to a mountain and
shown a vision of the city and temple.
So is John. John’s angel had a
measuring rod. So did Ezekiel’s. The first thing John mentioned is the
“walls.” So, too,
Ezekiel. John saw gates facing
“east, north, south, west”. Ezekiel follows the same pattern: east,
north, south, west.
John sees living waters. Ezekiel
does, too (47). They are seeing the same
thing. Another problem happens,
though. For Warner, Ezekiel’s vision is
in the millennium. For John, the New
Jerusalem is in the new heavens and the new earth! Is the Millennium the new heavens and the new
earth? Not on Tim’s watch! Then how can he explain it? He can’t, but I am sure he will try. This is embarrassing. The vision of Ezekiel is the same as John’s,
and John’s vision is of the new heavens and the new earth, therefore, so was
Ezekiel’s. Where is the Millennium,
then? Does the “living waters” of
Ezekiel flow in the Millennium “for the healing of the nations” and also flow in the new heavens and the new
earth “for the healing of the nations”?
Maybe they are seeing two completely different types of “living
waters”! I digress.
One last thing, Tim never dealt with the Gentiles in Ez 44.9. He wrote that Gentiles will celebrate at the
throne of the Lord. Ezekiel denies
this. No foreigner, whether circumcised in heart or in flesh shall enter my sanctuary, but only the sons of Zadok. Too bad for Gentile
believers in the Millennium. But,
since Tim has us cutting up animals anyhow, that should not bother him. It bothers me, though. Solution: Paul:
“therefore, ye (Gentile) are NO LONGER FOREIGNERS AND ALIENS BUT FELLOW
CITIZENS WITH GOD’S HOLY PEOPLE.”
Problem solved. I am not a
foreigner, but a member of Israel. As a
priest, a “son of Zadok” (which in Hebrew means “son
of righteousness”), I have full access.
Tim denies access because this “spiritualizes” Ezekiel. Last I checked, though, Paul talked about
Israel’s “spiritual things”. I digress.
Folks, the issue is solved
if we think outside the “traditional” box and realize that we have “every
spiritual blessings” in Christ and that all the promises are “yes and amen” in
Christ and that we serve God “day and night in his temple.” Let’s live like that. Let’s demonstrate to the world that reality. Let us, once again, turn this world upside
down by truly showing from Scriptures a true alternative universe in King Jesus, Ruler of all things and all
peoples!