Can you agree with Whitcomb on Ezekiel's Temple but believe in mytho-history for Genesis 1-11?

I know very little about dispensationalism, but I know it’s connected to literal Biblical interpretations. I was watching a John Whitcomb video about Ezekiel 40-48 and to me, it made a lot of sense. That said, I personally read Genesis 1-11 as mytho-history, and I know that dispensationalists like Whitcomb take Genesis literally. Is it possible to agree with Whitcomb on what we do with Ezekiel’s Temple, but still read Genesis 1-11 as mytho-history? They would seem to me like two totally different areas that have nothing to do with each other, but I wanted to check on this. Here is the video:

-John Whitcomb | Ezekiel 40-48 and Millennial Sacrifices | 2008 - YouTube

1 Like

Well, I personally cannot watch a long video from someone I know I disagree with. What are some of his main points you find attractive. There are a couple of discussions of dispensationalism and rapture theology on the Holy Post podcast that are interesting that go over the history of that point of view, which seems to be his approach. Also it is mentioned that there are few theologians under age 70 who currently hold that position, as most have moved on.

From what I’ve seen so far, he just views the Abrahamic Covenant, priestly system, tribal system, etc. as a permanent, everlasting thing, and therefore something that will lead to the establishment of a Temple and sacrifices that point back to Jesus in the End-Times. Not anything too extreme, but I guess he just isn’t someone who sees the Ezekiel Temple as something that we get a fuller picture of in Revelation. I would think a lot of non-dispensationalists and non-Young Earthers out there would agree.

1 Like

I had no preconception of disagreeing with Whitcomb, but difficulties rose rather quickly.

The first was his reference to Jesus speaking of Elijah and making it proof that Elijah will come again before the Second Coming identified with one of the two witnesses in Revelation. But Jesus made it abundantly clear that when He spoke of Elijah, that we are to understand that John the Baptist is the Elijah which is to come. Using scripture in such a way contrary to the actual text is not something I can abide by.

His praise of the book of Revelation was not encouraging because it seems to me that this book is the refuge of pseudo-Christian groups because of the ease with which they can make it mean just about anything.

Most important… I have very little interest in eschatology.


YEC’s like Whitcomb would take Genesis literally, but not all dispensationalists would agree. Check out C. I Scofield, of Scofield Bible fame, who probably did more than anyone to spread dispensationalism and wasn’t a YEC but proposed the Gap Theory.

I am watching this video…however, i note that the professor has already made what i consider to be a stuff up in his theology. The two witnesses in Revelation are not Elijah and Moses…the two witnesses historically have been shown to be the two testaments of the Bible (ie the Old and New Testaments).

anyway…i will listen on

Care to provide a reference, other than Ms. White. Given the New Testament didn’t exist when Revelation was written I wonder how someone came up with this interpretation.


sure i can dig up a couple of studies on that for you.

I do accept that Mrs White believed this as do the SDA church generally, however, as an organization they have done quite a lot of study into it. I accept that these studies above are SDA interpretations of scripture, but i think given research of real historical events it does fit the prophecy quite well.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.