Jeremiah 49:34-39’s Elam Prophecy

A number of years ago a Futurist wrote a book about this Prophecy advocating an interpretation I certainly can’t agree with now and wasn’t all that convinced of back then either.  But it got me thinking about this previously overlooked Prophecy.

For context to anyone new to this the Elamites were a people who lived in southern Iran just east of Mesopotamia. Susa/Shushan was their major Capital before it became Persian.

This Elam Prophecy is very similar to a lot of the Prophecies about the Nations before it.  The detail that is unique to it however, that really stands out, is in verse 38 where YHWH says He will place His Throne in Elam.

No where else in Scripture does YHWH ever indicate that He will place His Throne on Earth anywhere other than Israel (not that I currently recall anyway, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).  Where in Israel is not always as unambiguously uniformly Jerusalem as most assume, but it is definitely always in Israel. 

But recently I noticed that Ezra 4:9 refers to Elamites as being among the Pagan Gentile populations settled in Israel by Asnapper, along with Susanchites which may mean people of Susa.  Most scholars seem to view the name Asnapper here as a corruption of Assurbanipal.  And indeed Secular History shows Elam was conquered and defeated by Assurbanipal multiple times. 

The Elamites were seemingly not 100% removed from their original homeland, a remnant there continued to exist, showing up in history in the time of Cyrus and then Elymais existed during Greco-Roman/Parthian times.

But since Assurbanipal was before the time of Jeremiah, could it be that geographically speaking the Elam that Jeremiah is talking about is where they were settled in Israel rather than Elam in Iran?

All of these people were settled in former Northern Kingdom territories, where contrary to what many others assume there were remnants of the Northern Ten Tribes also still among them.  The Samaritans do NOT descend from these Gentiles but from those of Ephraim and Manasseh in the area of Shechem.

And this is where my arguments about Bethel and Shiloh come into play.  The Ezekiel 40-48 Temple is not within YHWH-Shammah but to the North. 

We know Bethel remained a center of the Idolatry of the Northern Kingdom co-opted by these Pagan Gentiles at least until Jeroboam’s original Idol was destroyed by Josiah in 2 Kings 23:15.

Ezra 2:28, Nehemiah 7:32 and 11:31 speaks of Bethel and Hai being resettled by the Tribe Benjamin.  Before the Captivity this area was more associated with Ephraim though on the border with Benjamin.

Jeremiah 49 makes reference to God placing His Throne in Elam and then in the next verse talks about ending Elam’s Captivity.  

Could it be Bethel was specifically Elamite from the time of Assurbanipal till Ezra-Nehemiah but then they returned to Iran to become Elymais? 

The most typical Preterist of this whole section of Jeremiah is that it's about the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar until Jeremiah shifts fucus to Babylon's future fall.  So maybe while he was taking many Jews to Babylon he also took some of these Elamites back to Susa.  But not all of them clearly., the process would have to be finished later. 

Ezekiel's Temple is actually a Tabernacle

This argument is important to my understanding of how Ezekiel's Prophecies and Revelation relate.  Something I laid out the gist of in my post about New Jerusalem passages being misapplied to The Millennium.

There are two different Hebrew words translated "Temple" in the King James Authorized Version of The Hebrew Bible.  Both are also used of the pre-Solomonic Tabernacles.  "Beth" is used more commonly but it's translated "House" on those occasions. 

Heykal is the Hebrew term that some want to treat as very technically applicable to Solomon's Temple but not any prior Tent based Tabernacles.  And yet 1 Samuel 1:9 and 3:3 do use that word of the Tabernacle at Shiloh.  In 2 Samuel 7 YHWH says through Nathan that He hadn't dwelt in any House like what David was wanting to build since He brought Israel out of Egypt.  So whatever Heykal technically etymologically means, it must have also been applicable to the Mosaic Tabernacle even if it is was used more rarely then.  It actually never became super common even while Solomon's Temple was standing with words like Beth and Mikadesh (Sanctuary in the KJV) being more common ways to refer to the main place of worship.  Again both of those were also applicable to The Tabernacle.  Psalm 78:60 also confirms that the Tabernacle at Shiloh was still a Tent(Ohel).

Heykal is also used in 2 Samuel 22:7 and Psalm 18:6 which are just different recordings of the same Davidic Psalm.  You could interpret that as referring to The Temple is Heaven but according to Paul in Hebrews it was the Tabernacle of Moses modeled after The Temple in Heaven, not Solomon's Temple.

In The Hebrew Bible no single word seems to be used for what Solomon's Temple was that the Tabernacles of Moses and David were not.  2 Samuel 7 helps define that for us but makes no single word an easy signifier for it.  However there is a word that is the opposite, that applies to The Tabernacles but not Solomon, Zerubbabel or Herod's Temples.

There are three Hebrew words that get translated Tabernacle.  Sukkot isn't a synonym for the Holy Place at all but refers to the Tabernacles of the Feast of Tabernacles.  Mishkan is most literally translated Habitation and is also applicable to Solomon's Temple even if The Hebrew does so rarely.  However Ohel is the literal word for Tent.  1 Kings 8:4 and 2 Chronicles 5:5 and what follows them basically describe the retiring of the Ohel as The Ark is removed from it and and then placed in Solomon's non Ohel Temple.  

Ezekiel 40:1 clearly defined the Heykal this very long Prophecy is about as an Ohel, a term consistently not applicable to Solomon's Temple.  If we take that detail as literally as most Futurists (and some Preterists) do everything else in these chapters, then we shouldn't be picturing Walls made of Stone or Wood but a Tent.  I don't think you can find anything in these chapters to contradict that.

Other Prophecies that use Ohel of the Place of Worship in the Eschatological Messianic Kingdom include Isaiah 16:6 and 33:20.  The former specifically says the Tabernacle of David which was set up in Zion the City of David which is in Ephratah not Jerusalem according to Psalm 132.  Amos 9:11 also refers to the Tabernacle of David but using Sukkot oddly, James in Acts 15 quotes that verse with Luke using the Greek equivalent of Ohel.  The Greek Equivalent for Ohel is also used when Revelation 21 calls New Jerusalem The Tabernacle of God.

More then one Greek word is translated Temple just like in the Hebrew, one is based on a word for Holy, one is also a word for House.  Naos, is the word that many may wish to treat as equivalent to Heykal, but I have some issues with that.  And I don't care how the Septuagint used Naos because I inherently distrust the Septuagint.

Stephen in Acts 7:48 and Paul in Acts 17:24 says God doesn't dwell in Naos made of human hands.  Literally that would exclude a Tent as much as a building made of Stone or Wood, and ultimately I believe it does, but Stephen's context in Acts 7:44-50 is tying that idea to his distinguishing Solomon's Naos from the Tabernacles of Moses and David.

What Naos meant in it's Pagan Greek context was also rather technical and precise in a way that I feel makes it not very applicable to how Heykal was used, at least not always.  The Naos referred specifically to a building that housed the Idol or representation of the god being worshiped and not the outdoor courtyards where sacrifices were made.  It's known usage in Egypt was the same, and as a Weeb I'd also equate it to the Honden of a Shinto Shrine.  Meaning if we translate that to how Herod's Temple worked it referred to the building that contained the Holy Place and Holy of Holies but not the outdoor area where The Brazen Altar was. 

Perhaps if any Hebrew term is equivalent to Naos it's Dbiyr a word used only of the Inner Sanctuary of Solomon's Temple (the KJV translates it Oracle but not every Oracle in the KJV is this word)  in 1 Kings 6:5-31, 7:49, 8:6-8 and 2 Chronicles 3:16, 4:20, 5:7-9 but was never part of The Torah's description of The Tabernacle.

So when Revelation 21:22 says New Jerusalem has no Naos for the Lamb is The Temple like He is The Light, it is chiefly a Temple like Solomon's or Herod I feel is meant.  A literal Tent based place of worship is perhaps equally as unnecessary, but not as definitely said to not be present.  And whether literal Tents are physically involved or not the text of Revelation 21 enthusiastically associates that Greek word with this future Worship.

The significance of the Naos being gone would then be the same as the significance of the Veil being torn.

New Jerusalem prophecies that are mistaken for the Millennium by many Premillenials.

Let's start with how Jesus promised The Twelve Disciples they would sit on Twelve Thrones ruling the Twelve Tribes of Israel at the Last Supper.  I've seen that applied to The Millennium multiple times, but The Twelve don't come up in Revelation 20.

Revelation 21:12-16 refers to Twelve Gates for the Tribes of Israel on which are named the Twelve Tribes and by them are Twelve "angels" and also Twelve Foundations in the Walls with the names of The Twelve Apostles.  I've already explained how "Angels" can refer to human believers but even without that detail I'd still conclude that this is where the promise of the Twelves' Thrones is fulfilled.  In the ancient Near East leaders of a city were often seated by the gate, this custom is alluded to in Ruth 4.

The word Kingdom is not used in any of the last three Chapters of Revelation.  The Kingdom of Heaven has always existed, Christ ruling from the Throne of David is always about New Jerusalem not the Millennium.

Outside Revelation allusions to The Millennium are much more rare.  But I maybe see it in Daniel 7:12.  When it comes to things like where Zechariah 14 ends or Isaiah 19 I'm far from decided.  But at least one other possible TNAK reference to the Millennium will come up later.

However the big passage I want to discus is Isaiah 65-66, chapter 65 verses 17 and 22 are what Revelation 21 verse 1 is practically directly quoting.  And verses 18-19 refer to New Jerusalem though without using the word "new" as explicitly, and Isaiah 66:1(as interpreted by Stephen in Acts 7:44-50) is possibly the reason New Jerusalem is said not to have a Temple.

But verse 20 is thrown around as proof this can't be The New Creation because people still die.  Isaiah is very poetic in style, and considering what I explained on my other blog about how to interpret Scripture Impressionistically rather then Lexically,  It feels to me like it should be blindingly obvious Isaiah 65:20 is actually saying the opposite, that this is his poetic way of saying people will not die and there will be no sin.

People abuse what Jesus said about people neither "Marrying or giving in marriage" in The Resurrection "Like the Angels in Heaven", to prove that there is no Biological Reproduction going on in the New Heaven and New Earth.  Jesus said that in the context of refuting the Sadducees trying to discredit The Resurrection by implying the Levirate Marriages will create Polyandrous situations.  It's marriage as redefined in Genesis 3:16 that will end, marriage as a hierarchy, not the Marriage of Genesis 2:23-24.  In New Jerusalem we will ALL be Married to Jesus and each other.  So to me this was Jesus way of saying Yes some people will be living Polyandrously and that's not a problem.

But on the other hand the verse in Isaiah 65 taken to imply new people being born is the very same poetic passage taken to imply some people will die.  Still I believe The Resurrection is the restoration of The Pre-Fall conditions, and so I lean towards suspecting painless childbirth will be an option.

The Patristics often didn't distinguish between The Millennium and New Jerusalem at all.  And while today they are distinguished by all Pre-Millennialists, there is still a desire to make The Millennium far more Utopic then it actually is.  The New Heaven and New Earth will be a Communist Utopia, The Millennium is more complicated and I felt that way even when I was still Pre-Mill liking to compare it to Marx's conception of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

For one thing The Saints are NOT ruling the entire world, we have a Camp which is also called the Beloved City.  And based on Revelation 20 alone there is no proof that Camp is Jerusalem or Zion or even in Eretz Israel. 

The Thousand years strictly speaking refers to the time Satan is bound not the Kingdom itself which will have no end.  

The involvement of Animal Sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48 is under Christian Theology a problem for seeing it being literally fulfilled as described in a still yet future time period at all.  The Epistle to The Hebrews is clear that Jesus Himself was the last legitimate Sacrifice period, no room for a temporary return.  Meanwhile Ezekiel 40-48 even specifically refers to Sin offerings and Trespass Offerings.  

But I'm amused when I see people use the Sacrifices here agaisnt it being the New Creation and for it being the Millennium while at the same time thinking Isaiah 65-66 is the Millennium when that prophecy explicitly says there will be no Sacrifices. Revelation 20 doesn't refer to Sacrifices one way or the other any more then 21-22 does.

And yet the nature of this passage by my own Impressionist standards does not permit it all being symbolic, it's simply too detailed, and Ezekiel is really not as poetic in style as Isaiah.  

Which is why the view that it was a Constitution that Israel was meant to implement at the return from the Babylonian Captivity but rejected is the most sensible one to me as regards to it's original intent.  I recommend this article on that subject.

https://www.equip.org/articles/making-sense-ezekiels-temple-vision/

However to the extent that Ezekiel is used as source material by The Revelation it is clearly chapters 21 and 22 that are drawing on this section, not chapter 20 which is instead connecting itself to Ezekiel 38-39 and perhaps also 37.

I already mentioned some Revelation 21 imagery that comes from Ezekiel, New Jerusalem like YHWH-Shammah has Twelve Gates for the Twelve Tribes.

The size is seemingly different, yet the shape is the same (usually interpreted as squared but I view it as a circle or dome), meaning the size difference could be a mater of perception.  Remember John and Ezekiel were trying to express their 3 dimensional senses' experience of a condition when we will no longer be limited to only 3 dimensions.

Revelation 21 says there is no Temple and yet also calls New Jerusalem the Tabernacle of God, every Hebrew word for "Temple" used in Ezekiel 40-48 is also used of the Pre-Solomon Tabernacle elsewhere, and Ezekiel 41:1 uses the word "Ohel" which literally refers to a Tent rather then a Stone building more then Mishkan does.  The fact is chapter 20 doesn't mention an earthly Temple or Tabernacle at all, that subject is only relevant to New Jerusalem.  And back in chapter 3 the message to Philadelphia established New Jerusalem and God's Temple as synonymous concepts.

Ezekiel 44:25 and 31 are the two verses that seem to refer to death.  Only 25 uses the Hebrew word Adam making it seemingly a clear reference to human death, verse 31 seems to be implying pure Vegetarianism is the new dietary law but that seems incompatible with having Sin offerings and Trespass offerings which were supposed to be eaten.  Verse 25 is simply echoing back to the Torah's own laws about unclean things not being allowed in The Tabernacle, and in that context does have parallels in Revelation 21-22.  Actually both verses are drawing on commands from the Torah.

These verses are about things that aren't happening, the priests aren't polluting themselves by touching dead bodies or eating dead things.  They are being brought up this way not so much because it's still theoretically possible but because it's being stressed that this is a true realization of The Torah.

I have considered in the past that these offerings are just the Blood of Jesus, ceremonial reenactments that won't actually kill anything.

There is also the sense in which maybe this part of Ezekiel isn't even claiming to be a Prophecy, maybe it's another vision of the Heavenly realm he's being shown, that this Temple is the same Heavenly Temple mentioned at the beginning and end of Revelation 11.  Hebrews also talks about how The Tabernacle was based on a Heavenly original.  These ideas are sometimes abused by those who want to make the Platonic Theory of Forms Biblical.  1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5 foretell how the Heavenly/Spiritual will be united with the Bodily/Carnal, and that is fully fulfilled when New Jerusalem descends in Revelation 21.

So there are layers to how we could apply this.  

Some historians now think The Golden Gate on Jerusalem's eastern wall was first sealed off during the Byzantine period (as opposed to the more popular mythology that Muslims did it), which suggests the possibility that they saw Ezekiel 46 as already fulfilled.