Dr. Brown Answers Your Questions

[Download MP3]

Is it ever right for Christians to take one another to court? What is the meaning of “word of wisdom” and “word of knowledge” in the New Testament? Is the church using modern explanations for homosexuality rather than biblical ones? Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.

 

 

Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: There is turmoil around us. There is moral insanity around us, which means be sober, be vigilant, and keep your eyes fixed on the Lord.

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Righteousness shines! Righteousness cannot be defeated, and truth will never be overcome!

SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
This week, we’re offering two important resources from Dr. Brown, his brand new book, Can You Be Gay and Christian?, and his DVD debate with gay activist (and professing born-again Christian) Harry Knox. You can get both of these key resources for the super low price of just $25! Postage Paid! That’s a $15 savings!
Order Online!

Other Resources:

How to Test the Spirits

Cessationist Call-In Day

Dr. Brown Debates Homosexuality with Prof. John Corvino and Then Discusses Mean-Spirited Communication in the Body (and More)

572 Comments
  1. Bo,

    EISEGESIS: the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eisegesis

    Many of your premisses are based upon it. Such as follows:

    “Peter’s vision had a singular meaning. Also the voice did not say that anything that was unclean before was now to be eaten. It said, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” It did not say that everything on the sheet was cleansed. The sheet represented the concept in Peter’s mind…his prejudice about gentiles…that they were all unclean. It was a wrong concept. Just like some animals were cleansed/sanctified to eat shortly after Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden and Noah knew what they were at the time of the flood, so now Peter was to get the point that some gentiles were cleansed and acceptable to YHWH.”

    Complete eisegesis.

    Lets break it down. I agree with the first sentence, “Peter’s vision had a singular meaning” which it did, but I repeat: The reality of the symbolic command is important for the reality of the command it symbolized.

    “Also the voice did not say that anything that was unclean before was now to be eaten”, this is ignoring the plain meaning of the scripture. The voice said just that.

    Acts 10
    12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

    13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

    The voice lowered unclean animals down, along with clean, and made no distinction between them but the gave the very clear command (at least to Peter) to eat them, with no distinction. The Voice did not say “Slay and eat the clean animals”. So you are eisegeting by adding that command.

    “It did not say that everything on the sheet was cleansed.” – Then verse 13 has no meaning, nor verse 15. Lowered down was “all” kinds, unclean/common, and clean. What does common mean? Well lets look at koinoō in the Greek.

    koinoō – koi-no’-ō (pronunciation)

    Outline of Biblical Usage

    1. to make common

    A. to make (Levitically) unclean, render unhallowed, defile, profane

    B. to declare or count unclean

    It was a secondary way of saying ‘unclean’, expressing Peter’s revulsion against eating unclean animals of any kind. As in fact the only definition of ‘common/koinoō’ is “unclean”. In fact many times it is translated as ‘defiled’, carrying the meaning of unclean.

    Usage of koinoō in Hebrews for reference:

    Hebrews 9:13

    13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean [koinoō], sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

    14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

    Bo- “The sheet represented the concept in Peter’s mind…his prejudice about gentiles…that they were all unclean. It was a wrong concept.” -True, we agree.

    Bo- “Just like some animals were cleansed/sanctified to eat shortly after Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden and Noah knew what they were at the time of the flood,” -Eisegesis. Nowhere are Adam and Eve told that certain animals were clean to eat and other unclean to eat. They were given herbs and plants to eat. So that part is eisegesis. We know that Able sacrificed animals, so God may have given clean and unclean rules for sacrifice, but not for eating. And the clean/unclean in regards to sacrifice is also conjecture. It may be true, but is conjecture non-the-less and could be counted as eisegesis since nowhere does the Bible say this.

    Regarding Noah. It’s also pure eisegesis to claim that Noah knew which animals were clean/unclean to ‘eat’. He only knew which animals were clean/unclean to sacrifice as the Bible states.

    Genesis 8
    20 And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

    No mention of eating, just God smelling the sweet savour of sacrifices. What we do read about eating in Noah’s family is this:

    Genesis 9
    3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

    4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

    Noah was allowed to eat ‘every moving thing that liveth’ as long as the blood was drained.

    Israel’s food laws have no foundation in Adam and Eve, nor Noah.

    Bo- “so now Peter was to get the point that some gentiles were cleansed and acceptable to YHWH.” -adding the word “some” is eisegesis since the the Lord included “all” kinds in his educational vision. Bo is blurring the lines that the nations are now to be blessed by Israel and included in her blessings, by limiting it to ‘some’.

  2. Bo, yes I disagree.

    “The reality of the symbolic command is important for the reality of the command it symbolized.”

  3. But I’m always willing to listen and stand with those whom I disagree with, as long as we agree on the fundamentals.

    Sorry for the mini-posts.

  4. Bo,

    EISEGESIS: the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eisegesis

    “Peter was eating with the gentiles until the dudes from Jerusalem came. He was reprimanded for hypocrisy. For acting differently than the truth for the sake of looking good to the Jerusalem dudes. Nothing is said about anyone eating unclean animal meat. They may have been only eating bread or vegetables or Hebrew National Hot Dogs on bagels. The text does not say what they were eating. To insert into the text that Peter, or the gentiles for that matter, were eating anything unclean is eisegesis instead of exegesis.”

    Bo, what hyprocrisy is Paul speaking of if not that Peter would “eat” what the Gentiles ate? Come on! It was no longer “considered unclean” is the whole point. That’s why Peter felt “at liberty” to eat with them. Because in Christ he has that liberty and that’s exactly what Paul goes on to say. What does he mean when he says he won’t build again what was torn down. What was it that was torn down?

  5. Bo,

    I won’t be drawn off topic here, for you and I have covered the same ground now for years. I’m working on discovering a literal temple or not with Nicholas.

    Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
    14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
    15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
    16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
    17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
    18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

    We don’t have access through “one law” but “one Spirit.”

    The center wall of partition—the law—was torn down.

    And, Bo, when you say, YHWH, remember who He is!!

  6. Bo,

    I worry for you. You’re a lovely person but with a misguided idea of how to please God. It pleased God to send His Son to reconcile you to Himself. You have no righteousness apart from Him yet you set about to establish rules and regulations anyway. It’s admirable that you so want to please Him but what pleases Him is that you walk in faith in the work of Jesus not of the law of Moses.

    God doesn’t need to establish a world of Jewry. He made all the nations and has saved all the nations who come to Him through Messiah not the works of the law.

    Now, you may say you know that, but then you’ll launch right into verse after verse of why it’s not so. I pray that you’ll have the veil removed from your eyes for as long as you’re romancing Moses you’re distancing yourself from the blood of Messiah.

  7. Bo,

    But if there’s going to be a literal Third Temple, then I have to be circumcised, right? Either way, if it’s the body of Christ or if it’s an actual building, Ezekiel seems to demand that we be circumcised in order to enter. Do I have that understanding correct?

  8. Hi Sheila,

    Do Millennialists believe that Christ will reign on earth in a period before the Last Judgement, and prior to the Resurrection, during which people will still be living normally, as we do now, albeit in peace, marrying and giving in marriage, being born and dying, etc, and that the Lord will set up his Kingdom in Israel and reign from Jerusalem?

  9. Hi Sheila,

    Actually, I believe you already answered the question in my preceding post. When Christ returns in the Millennial Age, there will be a Resurrection, but only of the righteous? But we are to expect another event after the Second Coming, after 1,000 years, which will complete the Judgement?

  10. Nicholas,

    You still do not quite have it right. To enter the body of Messiah, we do not need to be circumcised Physically…but we are circumcised in heart when we enter. To enter the the third temple, we do have to be circumcised physically and in heart according to Ezekiel. So, the third temple is not the body of Messiah. The only way to say that the third temple is the body of Messiah is to insist on physical circumcision to be saved or not believe Ezekiel.

    Shalom

  11. Eze 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

  12. Hi Nicholas,

    Yes, that’s correct. Only the righteous in Messiah, Jesus, will be resurrected when He returns. We’ll receive our new bodies that will be eternal like His. Scripture says the saints will reign with Him for a 1,000 years during which time the people of the nations will live out their natural lives. The idea of the saints reigning and executing righteous judgement with Messiah is spoken of in the FT (First Testament) too.

    Psalm 149

    Dan 7:22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

    Dan 7:27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

    Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

    2Ti 2:12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:

    Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

    Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

    At the beginning of the Mill. Satan will be chained up and cast into the bottomless pit for those 1,000 years.

    Rev 20:1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

    We’ll have to backtrack to this event later, but the ones known as the Beast and the False Prophet are already in the bottomless pit having been conquered upon Christ’s return. The Beast and the False Prophet are humans who have given themselves over to the influence of evil, satanic spirits who are able to gather together a confederacy of nations to make war against Israel before Messiah returns. I’ll cover that in a later post as there are FT Scriptures that speak to the same thing.

    At the end of the 1,000 years Satan is released from his imprisonment and immediately goes out to deceive the nations once more and to gather them together to now do battle with Messiah. He gathers a great number from the four corners of the earth, which is said to be Gog and Magog and surrounds Jerusalem and the camp of the saints but it is no battle at all for God very decisively causes fire to come down from Heaven and it devours them immediately! Satan is cast alive into the lake of fire and tormented for all eternity. That Satan is able to gather anyone at all speaks to the truth that man is still capable of sin and only the saints are wholly righteous during the Millennium. Rebellion against God is still possible and is not eradicated until after this event.

    Rev 20:7-10

    After the 1,000 years are over and the last rebellion takes place, the rest of the dead will be resurrected to the final judgement, also known as the Great White Throne Judgement. All those not written in the Lamb’s Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire. At that time death and hell will be consigned to the lake of fire as well. The heavens and the earth will be made anew and the New Jerusalem will come down to us from Heaven, the curse will be lifted and there will be no more death, sickness or sin. There will be no more evil inclination for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord and only the righteous will remain. Hallelujah!

    Rev 21:1
    And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
    2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
    3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

    I can understand the preterist view that Revelation was written to the churches of John’s day because they’re right, it was. However, it can’t possibly be only to those of John’s day because we see that we’re not living in a new heaven and a new earth. The antichrist hasn’t come yet and neither have the saints possessed any kingdom yet. We’re not ruling with Messiah and we’ve not received our new bodies. While it is true that John absolutely had a message for the churches in his day, I believe the message was the soon destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Jesus had warned that when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by an army to flee immediately and not even take the time to pack.

    The hyperbolic language of all the prophets was also used by John and he incorporated it in the same way. Where he differs is in the formulaic outline that he used. Whereas the prophets of the FT would give paragraphs of events for their time and then out of the blue drop a prophecy about Messiah, or then give paragraphs about future events, sometimes stating the future before the present warning, John’s formula follows sort of a one-step-forward and two-steps-back rhythm. He takes you forward to events and then backtracks to greatly elaborate on certain events he’s just outlined. It took me years to be able to understand what he was doing because I found the book to be more than intimidating at first!

    There’s more in depth Scripture to share in future posts that will hopefully make things even clearer for you concerning how I’ve come to interpret the Millennium and the events that lead up to it. I hope I’m not boring you to death! 🙂 If I’m moving too fast just let me know.

    If we have no third temple there’s no way antichrist can enter it and proclaim to be God.

  13. Sheila,

    It is time to turn off the emotions and turn on the reason. Reading between the lines is not good Biblical scholarship. Read what it says…nothing is said about what was being eaten, but only that Peter and Barnabas stopped eating with the gentiles when the Jerusalem dudes came down. We do not know what believing gentiles ate or were eating. It is an assumption that they were eating unclean animal meat. If you assume nothing into the text, there is no way to stated that Peter was eating unclean meat nor that the gentiles were. Try no assumptions and no emotions.

    We know from scripture that the Jerusalem dudes were upset with Peter going into a gentiles home and eating with them from Acts 11. You really need to know what things Orthodox Jews consider unclean before you jump to conclusions about what Peter might have eaten.

    I stayed in an Orthodox home in Israel that had two sinks…one for meat the other for milk products. They will not even eat chicken with cheese because of their interpretation of not eating of not boiling a kid in its mother’s milk.

    So a gentile could be eating chicken with bovine milk gravy and be considered totally unclean by the Jews, though chickens and cows are not in any way boiling a baby goat in its mother’s milk. It is not a Torah law to not eat with gentiles, but is a Jewish law…and Peter was fearing man and tried to please them instead of YHWH. But you will not see what you do not want to see.

  14. Bo,

    I don’t mean that you have “no” righteousness but that none of us have what it takes to face God in the final analysis.

    Shalom my friend!

  15. Bo,

    “It is time to turn off the emotions and turn on the reason.” -This seems to be out of line, and with no reference to what you are talking about.

    Her concern for you? Or what you said in the next sentence? “Reading between the lines is not good Biblical scholarship”? -Actually it’s the mark of a great thinker, an in-depth scholar. One of the best things that I was taught when studying Scripture is to always ask questions. When did Jesus say this to that person? Why did Jesus say this to that person? Where did Jesus say this to that person? Did He say it on a feast day? Where the Pharisees listening when He said it? etc, etc. It drives you to find the answers.

    -Bo, “We do not know what believing gentiles ate or were eating. It is an assumption that they were eating unclean animal meat.” -And a very well educated assumption at that, one that you would naturally draw from the text, specially if you asked questions and dug into it. But lets look at that last part again, “It is an assumption that they were eating unclean animal meat”, you are making assumptions as well Bo, you are assuming that they were not eating unclean meat. It’s just that your assumption is the opposite of Sheila’s, and mine. Sheila looks at the verse and doesn’t just see that they were eating with Gentiles, but when the Jews came around they kept their distance. No, she sees that Peter was ‘living after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews’ and she also see’s that eating was involved and was mentioned in the immediate context of the passage. So whatever ‘living after the manner of the Gentiles’ means, it’s dealing with their food customs, and these are Gentiles after all, they have no food laws.

    And you have yet to answer Sheila in her request to know what Galatians 2:18-19 means.

    18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

    19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

  16. Benjamin,

    I am assuming nothing. The text does not say what they were eating. It only says that Peter stopped eating with the gentiles. I have shown some things that have been true of orthodox Jewish People for a long time. You assume that the gentile believers were eating unclean meat. Noah was a gentile. He knew what animals were clean and unclean. Actually Noah was a pre-gentile and a pre-Israelite that had revelation from YHWH about clean and unclean. Clean and unclean is not a Mosaic law, it existed long before Moses. The law’s requirements is not something that came into being in a vacuum and all of a sudden was a bunch of rules and regulations to follow. Many things existed as the instructions of YHWH that were carried over into what YHWH told Moses to teach.

    Noah is held up as a righteous person…so was Cornelius. It is totally wrong to assume that either Noah or Cornelius or the gentiles that Peter was eating with ate unclean animals. With no assumptions, all we know is that the Orthodox Jews did not approve of eating with gentiles and that Peter tried to placate them. With a little history and further investigation into their commandments of men, we know that they were apposed to such “fellowship” because of many things other than unclean animal meat. I just leave it as, “we do not know what the gentiles were eating and that we have no evidence that Peter or Paul or anyone in scripture was eating unclean animal meat. The passage does not tell us anything about what Peter or the gentiles were eating. It tells us that Peter was hypocritical for seeking to pleas man instead of YHWH.

    Try again to just say what the passage does say with no reading between the lines. Start with what is said and build other scriptures on that. You do not know how hard I fought against doing this…just as you are doing now. But when I really laid down my preconceived notions and only accepted what was actually said, I could not justify eating unclean animals from the words of scripture.

    I will deal with your unfounded statements about what was indicated in Peter’s vision when I have more time. Suffice it to say that there is no precedent in scripture where visions are taken as literal, and most are obviously impossible to take literally. No one believes that John ate a physical book or that the baker had three baskets on his head.

  17. Bo,

    Ezekiel refers to circumcision of the flesh. Okay, so I have to be circumcised to enter the Third Temple.

    Well, now I have another question: What about women? Will they have to be circumcised, too?

  18. Hi Sheila,

    No, I’m not bored at all.
    We’re getting into very interesting territory. 🙂

    Revelation is indeed a complicated book. The idea that there will be two resurrections seems to me to be foreign to the Catholic conception of the End Times. The Church teaches emphatically that the Second Coming will mark the Last Judgment, the general judgement. And we are not to expect any other judgement. Immediately upon his return, Christ will resurrect the dead, reward or condemn souls, defeat Satan and the Antichrist, and establish his kingdom on earth. All of this will occur at the same time. Then, the New Heaven, the New Earth, and the Heavenly Jerusalem will come down and the Eternal Age will commence. Having said that, I will admit that it is difficult for me to make sense of verses in the OT, and in the NT, which seem to allude to a period during which the nations will serve the righteous, with whom Christ will reign. I have to research the issue a bit more.

    When the Bible speaks of a castigation of Israel, of the nations surrounding Israel, we believe that this refers to the persecution of Christians (specifically, of the Catholic Church) which will take place in the Tribulation, as it did in the time of the Roman emperors.

    The Church recognizes a body of extra-Magisterial revelation (the prophecies of saints, holy men and women, and, usually, the Virgin Mary, who appears in apparitions in places like Lourdes, France and Fatima, Portugal). Although the Church does not mandate that we recognize “private revelations,” most Catholics take them into consideration. In several Church-approved apparitions, the Virgin explains, “Rome will become the seat of the Antichrist.” There will be an apostate pope, the vicar of the Antichrist. He will put an end to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. A false religion, a false church, will eclipse the true Church, the remnant of which will go into hiding, back to the catacombs, at it were.

    The Antichrist will set himself up in the Temple of God, which is the Catholic Church, in our understanding (more specifically, the Catholic altar). He will use the Church to accomplish his end. However, this does not necessarily mean that he will not have a physical presence in the physical city of Jerusalem.

    That’s how we see it.

  19. Nicholas,

    Thank you for being honest even though it must pain you to consider that your beloved church could be tempted away from the truth. I’m wondering now if we don’t need each other in order to tie the end time scenario all together? Let’s forge ahead with our studies and exchange of thoughts and ask the Lord to bless our endeavor.

    The persecution will come it’s just a matter of being conscious of how to meet it when it does. I’m afraid in that respect, we’re both in the same boat together with Israel. There is the final “Time of Jacob’s Trouble” as it’s called.

    Jer 30:7 Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.

    Even the Orthodox Jews are expecting the same! I would have to think on how all three might fall into place according to Scripture.

    I’ll say, it certainly is getting interesting! Can’t wait to pick it up again tomorrow.

    Talk to you then!

  20. Well, Sheila, Revelation is obviously very nuanced, and minds far more gifted than mine have been struggling to understand its true meaning for generations, so I have to take care not to be hasty in my interpretation, especially if my ideas start to conflict with the Church’s.

    It’s good stuff!
    Talk to you tomorrow.

  21. Nicholas,

    “Ezekiel refers to circumcision of the flesh. Okay, so I have to be circumcised to enter the Third Temple.

    Well, now I have another question: What about women? Will they have to be circumcised, too?”

    The above is rhetoric and sarcasm. It is not an admission to what Ezekiel says. It is not even dealing with what Ezekiel says. There is no such thing in all of the Bible a s female circumcision. It is a red herring to ask such a question instead of dealing with the matter at hand. So please answer in an honest tone.

    Does Ezekiel say that one must be circumcised in the flesh and in heart to enter the third temple? If your answer is “yes,” how can that be reconciled with the idea that the body of Messiah is the third temple since the apostles said otherwise about entering the body of Messiah? If your answer is “no,” what does “uncircumcised in flesh” mean? If you have evidence that Ezekiel didn’t really write what is contained in 44:9 then you do not need to answer either “yes” or “no,” but you must show what he did write. If you think he wrote “uncircumcised in flesh,” then you must show what he did mean.

    Eze 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

    Obviously, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either one must be circumcised in the flesh and heart to enter the body of Messiah or the the body of Messiah is not the third temple.

    Please be fair with your response and speak truthfully. If the verse does not square with your theology, then admit it. If there is a good explanation as to why your theology does line up with this verse, then show us how that is true. But do not post red herrings and sarcasm in answer to a sincere scriptural question.

  22. Bo,

    Alright now, this is hilarious!

    “It would also be a bad hermeneutic to start eating gentiles since some of them are now cleansed 🙂 But if you want to go for a literal interpretation…”

    Don’t be angry, Bo. Just answer the questions, please.

    Benjamin,

    Thanks for the vote of confidence. It does my heart good!

  23. Sheila,

    I am not angry…do you see the smiley face?

    What do you think of the passage in Ezekiel that I have been speaking to Nicholas about? Do you see how the verse tells us that there will be a 3rd literal temple where circumcision is required to enter and that the third temple cannot be the body of Messiah because circumcision is not required to enter it?

  24. Good morning,

    Bo- “I am assuming nothing. The text does not say what they were eating. It only says that Peter stopped eating with the gentiles.” -We need to be fair with the text Bo. You are making assumptions. You believe they were eating clean foods and so you assume that to be the case in spite of the evidence to the contrary. Peter was not just breaking Jewish custom to eat with Gentiles, he was ‘living after the manner of the Gentiles’ which carries meaning, it means he was indulging in Gentile customs, and the context is ‘eating’.

    Bo- “Noah was a gentile. He knew what animals were clean and unclean.” -Thank you for dropping the idea of clean/unclean to ‘eat’. Since that was not known to Noah. Noah knew which animals God wanted as sacrifices upon the altar.

    Bo- “Clean and unclean is not a Mosaic law, it existed long before Moses.” -For food this is not true. Unclean/clean laws regarding food came with Moses. Show me scripture stating otherwise and I will retract. The only law Noah had was to refrain from eating blood.

    Bo- “Many things existed as the instructions of YHWH that were carried over into what YHWH told Moses to teach.” -Show this to be true regarding clean/unclean dietary laws.

    Bo- “It is totally wrong to assume that either Noah or Cornelius or the gentiles that Peter was eating with ate unclean animals.” -How so? Noah had no such laws, Cornelius had no such laws. Noah was told to eat ‘everything that liveth’. How does eating animals pre-dietary laws make one unrighteous? Specially seeing that Abram was counted righteous before being circumcised, which that law came after.

    Bo- “Start with what is said and build other scriptures on that.” -Sheila and I seem to be the ones doing just that, raising very relevant scriptures which you have not responded to.

    Bo- “You do not know how hard I fought against doing this…just as you are doing now.” -Don’t give up the fight. You are building for yourself what is supposed to have been destroyed.

    It seems folks are moving on to the temple, I may comment on that soon.

  25. Was just thinking and had to make another small post.

    Bo said, “Also the voice did not say that anything that was unclean before was now to be eaten[in other words, clean]…. ”

    But then a contradiction and refutation of this idea is given.

    “…so now Peter was to get the point that some gentiles were cleansed and acceptable to YHWH.”

    But according to the arguments given thus far, nothing new was cleansed. But now some gentiles are cleansed? How do we draw this conclusion from the vision if the vision didn’t cleanse anything that was previously unclean/common?

    To give a further quote in this regard which contradicts the argument, Bo said, “It would also be a bad hermeneutic to start eating gentiles since some of them are now cleansed”. If something is now cleansed, it was not cleansed before.

  26. Bo,

    Actually I’ve been thinking on it for the longest time now.

    A certain passage comes to mind concerning it, not that it sums it up completely but that it does speak to the circumcision. It has something to do with there being “no more the Philistine in the house of the Lord.” Do you know the one I mean? My memory fails me right now. That’s happened too often lately. I think it’s this new allergy medication. I have this constant tickle in my throat. Doctor said it’s actually my sinuses. (I’m constantly stirring up the dirt where all the pollen has settled)

    I believe we may have a situation where the Jews in the Millennium are taken to serve a literal temple. It doesn’t make sense though in light of the Body of Messiah being taken for Priests too. How do we incorporate both into the prophecies? I don’t know yet.

    Why the difference in dimensions, if in fact there are any, because I certainly haven’t double checked that? It’s only what I’ve heard so maybe I should investigate that statement further. I’m not usually slack like that.

    Why would members of the Church need to be circumcised to enter? They don’t. But then there is no mention of another temple after Jesus other than the one antichrist is said to enter. Although that’s a biggie in my mind and there’s no way around it, antichrist appears to enter a literal temple as a figurative one doesn’t fit the passage at all.

    It’s something we definitely need to work out. And if there is a literal temple is it in direct opposition to the figurative one? I don’t think so. If we look at the allusion to the “bride” we see we have different examples of it. The bride of the FT, the bride of Christ. The New Jerusalem as the bride. So it could be we have different examples of the temple of God. They don’t have to negate each other.

    But we’re back to the idea of no uncircumcised person entering. We know there never were any females involved so we can rule out those in the body of Christ. That leaves only the males and probably the Jews. That way the FT prophecies concerning them will be fulfilled as well. That makes the most sense to me. That in the Mill. the Jews will serve the temple in Jerusalem during Messiah’s reign.

    Okay, so, what is the purpose of the temple? The sacrifices “are” in opposition to the sacrifice of Messiah. The antitype has been absolutely fulfilled. That’s the major problem that I can see. There is one partial idea but it still needs a Scriptural basis I think. There will still be natural people and they will be eating natural food BUT then we have the wolf lying with the lamb and the animals eating straw together so are people going to still be eating them?! That’s sad…and maybe that’s why we would offer thanksgiving to God for providing their life to us as well. After all there is still the evil inclination in mankind as we’re the only ones with resurrected bodies. After all, even the angels ate regular food (as well as manna) while they were on our earthly plain.

    ???

    We need to talk that out and bandy some ideas around.

  27. Temple in Ezekiel 44:

    9 Thus saith the Lord God; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

    It seems this passage is only dealing with strangers. Gentile believers are no longer strangers. So this passage is not dealing with believers. The drive of the passage is to show that nothing defiling will enter the Sanctuary being spoken of.

    A parallel passage is Revelation 21:27

    27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

    Still digging around.

  28. Thanks Benjamin,

    Something just came to me. Whenever we see the words “abomination and a lie” it’s referring to idolatry. That means no one who practices idolatry shall enter.

  29. Zec. 14:21 Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holiness to the LORD of hosts. Everyone who sacrifices shall come and take them and cook in them. In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

  30. You know, if I was hosting that site I’d insist they found something else to advertise on it! Good grief!

  31. Hi Bo,

    I was not being sarcastic at all. My point was to demonstrate that Ezekiel’s reference to circumcision of the flesh cannot possibly be taken literally.

    In Christ Jesus, there is no gender distinction, since we are all one in him. Ezekiel’s Temple, in which all of us enter, cannot make circumcision of the flesh a condition, especially since the Apostles did away with it altogether.

    Therefore, Ezekiel, through typology, identifies the rite through which all believers will pass on their way into the true Temple, the body of Christ. This new inauguration will effect a true circumcision, both of the flesh and of the heart, a real spiritual regeneration.

    Ezekiel is referring to baptism.

    Bingo!

  32. Nicholas,

    “Therefore, Ezekiel, through typology, identifies the rite through which all believers will pass on their way into the true Temple, the body of Christ.”

    The Temple is not the body of Christ since it is the body of Christ which enters the Temple. They are distinct.

  33. Benjamin,

    In what sense does the body of Christ enter the Temple? Are you referring to Christ himself, or to the body of believers?

  34. The body of believers. Sorry for not clarifying.

    Isaiah 16:5

    5 And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness.

    Jeremiah 23:5-6

    5 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

    6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord Our Righteousness.

    These I raise just to show that Jesus will physically reign here on Earth from Israel on the Throne of David during the Millennium.

  35. Christ will reign on the Throne of David, yes, I agree. He is not going to reign in Rome. He will reign in the New Jerusalem.

    Even so, we enter his body, which is the Temple (John 2:19), when we become Christians (from the Catholic point of view, upon being baptized).

  36. Sheila,

    You do understand my point that, according to our view, the Catholic Church is a literal Temple, by virtue of the Sacrifice of the Mass, as well as a spiritual temple?

    I tend to interchange “figurative” and “spiritual.” Ezekiel’s vision is a figurative one, but it has a literal component, as well. The Temple represents a spiritual reality, because the Church (the Mystical Body of Christ) is spiritual. However, the Church offers a literal sacrifice of atonement (the Eucharist) upon a literal altar.

    I think we have come to a point where the issue revolves around our understandings of the Millennium.

  37. Nicholas—“You do understand my point that, according to our view, the Catholic Church is a literal Temple, by virtue of the Sacrifice of the Mass, as well as a spiritual temple?”

    I’m trying. If the Catholic Church is a literal Temple what is it’s function?

    I understand that we, ourselves, are also a temple and that Christ dwells in all believers by way of the Holy Spirit.

    I understand spiritual and figurative. I do the same.

    The only reason I look to Ezekiels’s vision as having a literal component is that “someone” will desecrate a literal temple is what it sounds like to me. It would be untenable to say that antichrist could ever desecrate the entire body of Christ as He is the Temple of the Lord. According to Scripture that literal temple is in Jerusalem. Also, the New Jerusalem doesn’t come down to us until after the Millennium is over. In the New Jerusalem there is no temple.

    Concerning the Millennium. I’m only interpreting what Scripture says will be. I’ve not read anything into it that’s not written in black and white.

    If we take the FT Scriptures that tell of the events leading up to Christ’s second coming we’re left with the verses that speak to His reigning over His enemies until all are subdued under Him. According to the Revelation, the last enemy to be conquered is death and that is only after the Millennium too.

    There are so many Scripture verses that can only be fulfilled during the Millennium, or at least during a literal reign of Messiah. He didn’t come to reign the first time but He will fulfill the Scripture that speaks to that the second time.

    I’ve no reason at all to doubt a literal 1,000 year reign that all might be fulfilled.

    I’ll gather a few verses that could only be completed during that time.

  38. Nicholas,

    I just wanted to draw attention to a portion of the Scripture I quoted, “and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.” which indicates that at the time Jesus is reigning on the Throne of David, there will be injustices requiring judgements.

    Isaiah 65:17-20 sheds light on the restoration of heaven and Earth in the Millennium, but also the fact that it will not be perfect until the Eternal Order begins. Sins requiring judgements are still present while Jesus is reigning on the Throne of David.

    17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

    18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.

    19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

    20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

    The ESV renders verse 20 as follows:

    20 No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.

    I really want to dig into this, “However, the Church offers a literal sacrifice of atonement (the Eucharist) upon a literal altar.” but I will refrain since it will take us way off topic.

  39. Nicholas,

    Or do you mean the Catholic Church “has” a literal temple–a place of centralized worship?

    Question—Why isn’t it in Jerusalem rather than Rome?

  40. Benjamin,

    I don’t think it’s way off topic, but right in line with the third temple—sacrifices of what type?

  41. Benjamin,

    I wasn’t asking that question of you, I was just giving an example of what we’re looking into!

  42. Hi Sheila,

    No, there is no “centralized” place of worship, as Christ explains, “Believe me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.”

    The centrality of Jerusalem was a characteristic of the Old Covenant, but, in the New Covenant, Jerusalem is a spiritual reality: the Church. The Catholic position holds that the terms “Israel,” “Jerusalem,” and “the Temple,” these refer to the Body of Christ, both the physical body of Jesus and the Mystical Body, the body of believers, the people of God (as per Peter, who refers to Christians as living stones of the spiritual house). The Church, in her liturgy, offers to the Father the selfsame sacrifice of propitiation which Christ offered upon Calvary. Because there is no centrality in worship, the sacrifice is one which is offered “in every place,” “from the rising of the sun to its setting,” as Malachi prophesies. The sacrifice takes place upon the altar. The altar can be anywhere, in any church, (in any building, in fact), in anyone’s home, outdoors, etc. We have to ask ourselves, “What is the point of the Temple?” It exists because of the altar on which its sacrifice takes place. “Israel” and “Jerusalem,” even in the Old Covenant, these concepts were only as relevant as the Temple which stood in the midst of the nation, in its capital city. The Church, the new nation of God, has in its center, in the “source and summit of the Christian life” (as the Catechism states), the Eucharist, the pure oblation, the re-presentation of Christ’s perfect work of reconciliation.

    When the Antichrist comes, he will enter the Temple: he will penetrate the body of believers, and he will desecrate their altar. There will be an apostasy. Those who remain true to the faith delivered to the Apostles will have to flee and go into hiding. This will take place in the Tribulation.

  43. Benjamin,

    There are verses which can be interpreted as referring to a Millennial reign of Christ prior to the Last Judgment. I understand. But I am still uncomfortable with the idea that there will be two resurrections. That seems to be totally contrary to historical Christian doctrine.

  44. Nicholas,

    I don’t see what else we can come to in light of Revelation 20:4-7 and beyond.

    4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

    5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

    6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

    7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

    So the Bible says blessed are they who participate in the first resurrection, implying there will be a second. Which is described further down in the same chapter:

    13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

    14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

    15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Comments are closed.