Lucifer as a name for Satan is Anti-Biblical

Because in Greek mythology the Morning Star was the son of the Dawn goddess Eos (Aurora to the Romans) the Greek Septuagint translators of Isaiah 14:12 chose to render the personage seemingly identified as a "son of the Dawn" as Heosphorus, the Morning Star.  Which became Lucifer in Latin versions like the Vulgate.

Repeatedly people will tell you that scholars believe Isaiah 14:12 and up references a Canaanite myth about the god of the Morning Star named Heylel who was the son of Shahar god of the Dawn rebelling against El Elown.  (Elown is the Hebrew title translated "Most High" or "The Highest".)

What they won't tell you is they have no actual text or inscription describing that myth with those names.  It's all conjectured from their assumption that Isaiah 14 must be drawing on some kind of Canaanite myth.  The rebel against El in the Ugaric Baal cycle was Baal.

Shahar is the Hebrew word for Dawn (morning in the KJV but that's unfortunate because it's not the standard word for morning, Dawn is more accurate) used in Isaiah 14:12.  That word is also the name of a pagan Caananite (assumed to be male) god associated with the Dawn, his brother Shalim being Dusk.  Shahar and Shalim were among the sons of El Elown.  But there are NO texts outside Isaiah 14 that identify Shachar as having a son named Heylel.

Attar (also rendered Ashtar, Ishtar, Astar, and Athtar) was a god affiliated with Venus the Morning star.  But he is not associated with the name Heylel nor is he ever refereed to as a son of Shahar. He was a male counterpart to Ashteroth/Astarte, who's name is similar and was also affiliated with Venus.  We don't know for certain his position in the mythological genealogy but I'd suspect he was like a brother maybe even twin of Ashteroth, or her son.  Astarte was a sister/wife of Hadad and daughter of El.  Hadad would probably be the father of any of her children.

So the morning star and the Dawn in Caananite mythology were siblings or maybe uncle/nephew but not father and son.  There was a Mesopotamia Dawn Goddess named Aya but none of her children were Stars or Planets, that's a Greek thing.

The insistence of scholars that the Greek tradition of the Morning Star as a son of the Dawn must also be paralleled in the Near East is a product of Western Chauvinism, our tendency to filter all other pagan mythology through the basic framework of Greek Mythology.  It's something I my myself have fallen into when studying the Shinto Pantheon to help me understand all the Anime I watch.  But at the end of the day the fact is Joseph Campbell was wrong, different cultures do have different ways of thinking about these things, they aren't all the same Hero with a Thousand Faces.

Isaiah 14:12 is the only verse to use the word Heylel.  But Heylel could be just the noun form of the verb Halal (Strongs number 1984), which has a variety of meanings, shine, boast, celebrate, glory, praise, rage, mad, all words the KJV has rendered it as.   Heylel could also be Yalal (Strong number 3213) with a definite article, making it possibly a title not a name.  It means Howl or Howling, so as a title would mean Howling One or Howler.  Isaiah uses Yalal elsewhere in this chapter and in the prior one and many other places, however Halal is a more rare word in Isaiah.

English Translations of the Peshita version of Isaiah 14:12 don't even interpret Heylel as a noun but as a verb saying things like "Wail at Dawn" or "Howl in the morning" with the entire "son of" part completely absent.  Given how ambiguous the grammar in Isaiah's poetic style can be, I'm starting to think the Peshita may be the correct reading and that this statement directly corelates to Revelation 12:15. 

Actually I have discovered that the Septuagint reading doesn't contain the Son of designation either, nor does the Vulgate, both saying "Rise in the Morning" or "Morning Rising", however the use of Ben the Hebrew word for Son is in the DSS Isaiah Scroll so it was there in the BC era.  

This Website documenting the DSS Isaiah Scroll

http://dssenglishbible.com/isaiah%2014.htm

Classifies "Shining One" as an example of a spelling difference that doesn't effect the meaning, but I am skeptical given how disputed the word is.  It seems the Great Isaiah Scroll spelling of Heylel adds another Yot.  And that's a surprise because usually the DSS manuscripts use less Yots then the Masoretic because using Yots sometimes as vowels wasn't a thing yet.

The standard Masoretic spelling is Heh-Yot-Lamed-Lamed but in the Isaiah Scroll it's Heh-Yot-Lamed-Yot-Lamed.  When I put the that DSS spelling into Google Translate it comes out as "The Praise" or "The Blasphemer", if that is correct it verifies a Halal based interpretation over Yalal.  However the last half of the word looks like Layil the Hebrew word for Night.

Other Isaiah Scroll differences in Isaiah 14:12 include the lack of a definite article before Heaven, and Nation being singular rather then plural, which better fits the early part of the Chapter where it's about an Oppressor of Israel specifically.

There are only three verses where Halal as a verb is translated Shine or Shined in the KJV, in each case it described an action of a Light or Light source where poetically the Praise or Praised meaning of Halal could in my view fit just fine.  Hillel is a Hebrew name derived from halal with the Yot between the Ls but not between the H and L.  That name is always interpreted as meaning Praising.  So no even if Halal is the basis of Heylel "Shining One" is not a valid translation.

I'm still unsure what the words used in Isaiah 14:12 exactly mean, but no valid Hebrew etymology supports HYLL or HYLYL meaning Light-Bearer or Morning Star.

The KJV New Testament refers to Jesus as the Morning Star (Revelation 22:16) and the Day Star (2 Peter 1:19).  In the Greek the Day Star reference used a poetic name for Venus "Phosphorus" which cosmologically referred to the same star Heosphorus did, and has the same meaning Lucifer has in Latin.  Phos=Lux=Light and Phorus=Ferus=Bearer/Bringer.  

I wonder what those Hebrew Roots people who think the entire NT was actually first written in Hebrew think Peter called Jesus here?  The Hebrew equivalent of Phos is Owr the same word for Light used in Genesis 1:3.  Phorus/Pheros as a word for "bear" means in the sense of to carry something and isn't ever used of say childbirth or pregnancy.  So it's best Hebrew equivalent is probably Nasa which first appears in Genesis 4:13, 7:17 and 13:6.  But there is no known Hebrew compound word like that in antiquity, this concept is from Greek astronomy and so it's presence in the Epistle in my opinion itself refutes the possibility of it originating in a different language.

The title of Morning Star is most often given to Venus but other planets can be visible as Morning Stars in the right circumstances including Jupiter.  I of course don't think the main purpose of either of these NT verses is to make a specific Star symbolic of Jesus more then any others, I'm not arguing some type of Christian Astrology.  But I have decided the mystery of the Star of Bethlehem is in some way a Planet serving as either a Morning or Evening Star, but I don't have a final theory on it yet.

Psalm 110 is the most quoted chapter of the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament, always in ways that confirm it's subject is Jesus.  Verse 3 refers to Him as coming from the "Womb of the Morning" with the word for "morning" being a form of Shahar.  So even calling the villain in Isaiah 14 "Son of the Dawn" may be giving them a title that rightfully belongs to Jesus, or at least can in different ways equally apply to both.

It's possible to argue that the Woman of Revelation 12 is being described with Dawn Goddess imagery.  Eos is frequently depicted in Greek art and poetry as wearing Saffron robes, Saffron is a shade of the color yellow that is commonly identified as being the Sun's shade of yellow.  And since the Sun rises as the Moon is setting one could also say the Moon is under her feet. 

There was no Pre-Adamic Fall of Satan.

One of the first posts I made on my old Prophecy Blog was about the timing of Satan being cast out of Heaven.  But now that my basic view of Revelation has changed to Post-Mil/Partial Preterist (with some Historicism elements) I can't simply copy/paste all that here.  Plus I did diverge onto some other tangents I don't want to be a thing on this Blog.

There are two views on the timing of the Fall of Satan that can be valid and I currently haven't made up my mind which I prefer, and one of those can be further sub divided based on how you interpret Revelation.  They are...

1. During the First Advent of Christ based on Luke 10:18 and/or John 12:31, 14:30 & 16:11.

2. Still yet future when Revelation was written.

But first I need to explain why the popular Pre-Creation or Pre-Adamic Fall of Satan view is 100% wrong and Anti-Biblical.

There is only one clear Hebrew Bible reference to this topic and it's in Isaiah 14 often viewed as starting in verse 12.  With a second passage that I do view as possibly relevant but not in a way that helps with the timing in Ezekiel 28:11-19 (the first 10 verses were about a human ruler of Tyre the "King of Tyre") where Satan is identified with Melqart it's patron deity who's name means King of the City.  In Isaiah 14 I don't view there as being any human ruler in mind, the King of Babylon is Satan from the start.

In Isaiah it is specifically something that happens contemporary with or soon after the Fall of Babylon that Isaiah started talking about in chapter 13 which was at least still future when Isaiah gave this Prophecy.  At the soonest it was the destruction Babylon suffered as a result of it's revolt agaisnt Assyria in 652 BC (which is 100% what I view Isaiah 21 as being about), or you could view it as the fall to Cyrus or a further fall under Darius, or some event of the Hellenistic era involving the Seleucids, or the same event Revelation 17-18 is talking about.  But certainly not Pre-Adamic.

Isaiah 14 also foretells this being who falls from Heaven being imprisoned in "The Pit" that they will eventually be cast out of, that's obviously Revelation 20.

Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 confirm that the Serpent of Genesis 3 (that's the only thing "Old Serpent" could mean) is the same being as Satan, The Devil and The Great Dragon (which I view as Satan identified with Sobek in Ezekiel 29).  But it does not need an origin story, temping Eve was itself this creature's first act of rebellion against YHWH.  

Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 are both clear that Sin and Death began with Adam's Sin, there was no prior rebellion having already messed things up.  At the end of Genesis 1 God says everything is Very Good, so still no Rebellion yet.

Job depicts Satan as still residing in heaven serving as God's prosecutor and Revelation 12 agrees, that's what calling it our Accuser means.

Pagan Mythologies like having a Cosmology where there were already Wars between the gods before Human History began.  Greek mythology has several from Kronos overthrowing Ouranos and then Ophion to the Titanarchy and the Gigantarchy and the war with Typhon.  Egyptian Mythology had the wars between Ra and Apep as well as Horus vs Set.  Babylonian mythology had Marduk overthrowing Tiamat, the Ugarit Baal cycle has Hadad rebelling agaisnt El and also in conflict with Yam and Mot.  Norse Mythology has the Aseir-Vanir War and Japanese Mythology had the War of the Heavenly Kami against the Earthly Kami and the evil Kami known as Amatsu-Mikaboshi, and also Susanoo's conflict with Amaterasu which cast him out of heaven.

Judeo-Christian adaptation of this theme do not begin with something that looks exactly like Paradise Lost.  We see it in Enochian Literature both in 1st Enoch and 2nd Enoch being tied to Angel-Human Hybrid Heresy.  Then Wisdom of Solomon said it was by the Enyy of The Devil that Sin entered the world, an idea I believe Paul was in part responding to in Romans 5.  Then we see it in Rabbinic Judaism.

"In the days before Creation, Rahab, Prince of the Sea, rebelled against God. When commanded: 'Open your mouth, Prince of the Sea, and swallow all of the world's waters,' he cried: 'Lord of the Universe, leave me in peace!' Whereupon God kicked him to death and sank his carcase below the waves, since no land beast could endure its stench." (Bavli Baba Bathra 74b; Numeri Rabba 18:22; Midrash Wayosha, 46.)

That's why Paul warned us not to regard "Jewish Fables" in Titus 1:14.

Then in Christian history some of it's first manifestations were Gnostic Heresies where YHWH is the Evil Rebel against the True Creator and Jesus is identified with the Serpent of Genesis 3.  The false Two-Seedline Theory is also sometimes connected.

But eventually the "Lucifer" as a Rebel Angel who became Satan was standardized with the modern default framework being John Milton's Paradise Lost, and then Tolkien and C.S. Lewis created their fictional variations and then even more fictionalizations.

Now onto considering the two views I do consider Biblically Valid.

On my old Blog I firmly took a still yet future when Revelation was written view, I didn't much consider the John verses and dismissed Luke 10:18 as an example of when Prophets use past tense language to emphasize the certainty of something, indeed most of the Prophets I've cited here did that but it's the context that makes clear it's a Prophecy about what at least at that time was the future.  The context in Luke 10:18 is different however, the context is The Disciples returning from their Mission and Jesus saying this as if He saw it happening as an effect that was caused by their actions.

Honestly I'm starting to suspect the only way to make sense of all these passage is to take a view of Revelation that is more abstract in it's timing then I'd ever considered before.  A theory where Luke referred to when Satan was Cast out of Heaven and then John was talking about when he'll be Cast into the Abyss seemingly tying it to the Drama of His Passion and Resurrection.

But there is still some room for doubt that the timing implications of Luke 10:18 are meant to be taken literally at face value.

This is a subject I'll have to return to since I don't know how to figure it all out right now, I need to think about it more.  But the key thing I want to make clear here is that there was no Pre-Genesis Fall of Satan.

The Symbolic Woman of Revelation

I have come to view The Woman of Revelation 12, the Harlot of Revelation 17, The Bride of Christ in Revelation 19 and The Lamb's Wife in Revelation 21 as the same Symbolic Woman

Most theologians who would say something like this are neither Futurists like I used to be or Post-Mill/Amill like I am now but more taking an Idealist view of Revelation like Peter Heitt.  Pre-Trib/PreWrath Dispensationalists tend to view there as being three women (everyone agrees that the Bride and the Wife are the same), while Post-Trib Futurists prefer to see the Bride and the Mother in Revelation 12 as the same but the Harlot as still an irredeemable enemy who simply dies when she is killed, and Full Preterism and even some forms of Partial Preterism are similar.

I believe in Universal Salvation, the Metanarrative of Scripture is that Israel was Widowed and Divorced because of her Adulterous Harlotry but YHWH is going to Redeem and Remarry her just like Hosea and Gomer, He will Restore Judah and Samaria and even Sodom as Ezekiel 16 clearly states, Ezekiel 23 returns to those themes, this cycle was first laid out in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 29-30 and is reaffirmed in Malachi chapter 3 and Romans 11.  Rachab from the book of Joshua is another type of this theme.

The word "Wilderness" is used in the Book of Revelation three times, in the Greek it's also the same word all three times, even the same form of the word (Eremon rather than Eremos).  In Revelation 12 verses 6 and 14 it refers to the place where The Woman is taken to be protected.  But then in Chapter 17 verse 3, John is taken to The Wilderness to see a Woman sitting on a Beast.  And all three seem to use the definite article, The Wilderness, not a wilderness.  And in both cases the verses right before and after are also profoundly similar.  Jeremiah 6:24 is part of the reason we know the Woman of Revelation 12 is Israel(whatever you think Israel means in the New Testament).

Dispensationalists like to talk about the Woman of Revelation 17 boasting that she is not "widowed and divorced" as a contrast to Israel, described by The Prophets as widowed and divorced.  But others have interpreted that "boast" as being a denial.

And then there is Zachariah 5.  Some have long speculated that Woman is the Revelation 17 Woman.  But she's transported with parallel wing imagery to Revelation 12 which we overlook.  And in Daniel 7 the Lion representing Babylon has Eagle's Wings which are plucked.  Micah 4:9-10 seems to refer to the Daughter of Zion going to Babylon after travailing in Childbirth.

The Dispensationalist view on the Women of Revelation happens to resemble The Three Faces of Eve, which is an analysis of the concept that Patriarchal Society tends to see women in only 3 roles, a faithful Wife/Mother, a Harlotrous Seductress, or a Innocent Virgin/Child.  Of course my making all three the same woman can also be seen as an example of that.  Except that usually as stages in the character development of one character it goes in the opposite direction, you start as an innocent, then get sexually active, then settle down, The Woman of Revelation is introduced giving birth and ends the story as a Virgin.

As an Anime Weirdo, this reading of the Book of Revelation factors into why a number of my favorite Anime are shows where one of the principal Villains is also the Damsel in Distress at the same time, stories where saving the Villain may even be the Heroes' emotionally most important objective, the World being Saved in the process is just an added bonus, like how Ezekiel 16 frames the restoration of Sodom as being because it'd be unfair to save Israel but not Sodom, and Roman 11 clarified that it's not till the FULLNESS of the Gentiles are grafted into Israel that ALL Israel shall be Saved.

Pretear and a number of other Magical Girl stories fit this to varying degrees. SSSS.Gridman was one of the shows that first made me see this as a common theme. It's also a big part of Robotics;Notes and Chaos;Child and even in the end Higurashi, one could debatably see Utena and Princess Tutu as fitting too.  Oh and Future Diary counts as well, but be warned that one is an edgy and trashy ride to get there.  And Now after I finally watched it last year I can add Re:Creators to this list.  It would also be a massive over sight to fail to mention Fate/Stay night: Heaven's Feel III: Spring Song.

It would naturally spoil these shows a bit to go into detail, maybe you feel I've spoiled them by mentioning they do this at all, but I didn't say which characters this applied to.  SSSS.Gridman is a show that isn't good because anything was a surprise, if you're at all Genre Savvy it was clear from episode 1 where it was going.  In Robotics;Notes it is also clear early on that something like this was going on.

I'm sure there are stories that do this with a male character as well if you want to see these Gender norms subverted, it's just Anime Girls are who I'm most drawn to personally.

These are often exactly the Anime that lend themselves to Bring Me To Life AMVs.

But I should mention in some of these shows the character in question is not the only villain or even only major villain, there sometimes still is an Unrepentant Pure Evil Antagonist that an infernalsit viewer could view as representing the Reprobate or Satan.  But I can still just assume their Salvation comes later like all who die unrepentant.

Isaiah 7 and 8

I did a post already proving that Virginity is implied in the meaning of Almah. I want to deal now with other aspects of how people will try to discredit this as a Prophecy applicable to the time frame of 5-1 BC.

I do cautiously believe in the doctrine of duel fulfillments.  So no I'm not going to deny that this is in some way applicable to Isaiah's own time in the reign of King Ahaz, when the Northern Kingdom and Aram Damascus were allied against Judah.

I'll even concede that maybe the Prophetess who becomes Pregnant in Isaiah 8 is a lesser near fulfillment of the Almah mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

One thing I've seen is that some people think this Prophetess is Isaiah's wife.  It's difficult to know for sure, but I've generally more leaned towards the idea that this child in question is Hezekiah and the Prophetess is Abijah also called Abi his mother, and so the Zechariah who is Abi's father is the same as Zechariah son of Jeberechiah mentioned in Isaiah 8:2.

I think the basis for interpreting her as Isaiah's wife is taking the language of 8:3 as literally saying Isaiah fathered the child.  But I don't think that is the intent here.  It could be Isaiah's personal role in this first fulfillment is played in The Nativity narrative by Simeon and/or Anna in Luke 2.

My hunch is this Prophetess Office was directly inherited from that held by both Deborah and Miriam the Sister of Moses.  Thus backing up aspects of what I argued in the Almah post about the significance of Miriam being called an Almah.  And at the time of the Birth of Christ this Prophetess Office was held by Anna of Luke's Gospel.

Maybe at some point it became standard for this Prophetess to be among the wives of The King.  Like the ceremonial marriage between King and Priestess many pagan cultures had.  The Marriage between Jehoram's daughter Jehosheba and the Priest Jehoiada may have been a similar arrangement, a marriage alliance between the Royal family and the Priesthood.

Isaiah 8:14 is terminology drawn on by Paul (Romans 9:32-33, 11:9 and 1 Corinthians 1:23) as well as 1 Peter 2:8-10.  So quoting this promised Son as being Jesus was not unique to Matthew.

The key objection many might have to applying this prophecy all the way into Isaiah 8 to the time of Jesus birth is what's said in Isaiah 8:4.

For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, "My father", and "my mother", the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

I have argued that King Herod died during the 40 days between Jesus Birth and Presentation in The Temple.  After he died rebellions broke out in the lands Herod ruled, which did extend to include parts of Old Testament Aram.  And these were put down by Varus when he was governor of Roman Syria.  I don't think it's that hard to typologically say Rome is in the role of Assyria here.  Especially the Roman Province of Syria which was basically what the Seleucid Empire had declined to.  And the Greek name Syria is directly derived from Assyria.

Josephus talks in-depth about these campaigns.  One battle is clearly placed in the general area of Samaria.

But even if more time separated Jesus Birth from Herod's Death.  It can sometimes take a year or two before a child is able to speak.  Or that verse could refer to more then just being first able to speak.  It could make sense for Christians to see that point in Jesus development as the Passover that Luke 2 records after it's nativity narrative.

However the argument that Isaiah 7:14 needs to be understood in the immediate context of chapters 7-8 can also be countered by pointing out that they exist in the context of the chapters around them with no clear separation, not ending till chapter 12.  Meaning this promised Child is perfectly valid to identify with the Child foretold in Chapter 9 and the Branch of Chapter 11.  The overarching theme is foretelling Israel to be carried away into captivity but also that they will one day be regathered by a Messiah.

And in Genesis God made promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that weren't fulfilled in their lifetimes.  So no there isn't a guarantee this promise made to Ahaz had to be in his, especially since he himself said he didn't need such a sign.

The Lamb alone is Jesus in Revelation 4:1-22:5

The vision starts in Revelation 4:1 and then in Revelation 22:5 the text returns to the original framing device.

I have come to view in the vision only The Lamb as specifically Jesus and only Jesus.  Everything else that seems at first like a symbol for Jesus does so because it's referencing titles of Jesus from elsewhere that were never actually unique to Jesus, The Son of Man in Daniel 7 is a title of all Human Beings at The Resurrection not just Jesus.

This is especially true of The Rider on The White Horse in chapter 19, the language used of him mostly comes from the Promises to The Overcomer from chapter 2-3.  Ruling the Nations with a Rod of Iron connects him to the Man Child of chapter 21 which Isaiah 66 confirms is the reborn nation of Israel. 

The Rider on The White Horse in chapter 19 and perhaps also of chapter 6 is believers on Earth who are "conquering" the world but not in a military sense.  The word translated "Conquering" and "to conquer" in Revelation 6 is actually the word everywhere else translated Overcoming or Overcome.

The Rod of Iron concept comes from Psalm 2 which elsewhere in The New Testament is applied to Jesus but it was never only about Jesus but how every Believer is an Anointed Son of God.  Same is probably true with other Davidic Psalms quoted in The New Testament like 110 and 118, and also Psalm 45.

Heaven being opened can be idiom for Rain as we see in Genesis 7:11, in contrast to Revelation 11 refers to Heaven being Shut Up as an idiom for Draught.

This has become vital to my new Post-Millennial reading of Revelation.

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.