I am inclined to think that if any Earthly temple were rebuilt and sacrifices offered in it then it would be a blasphemy and not a remembrance of the costly sacrifice of Christ. The scriptures warn that an antichrist will sit in the Earthly temple and proclaim himself to be God (2Thess 2:4). That warning was not given as idle words. The rebuilding of an Earthly temple would be a warning to all christians that something very wicked is at work. It would not be a blessing to anybody, least of all to the faithful in Christ Jesus.
As most any practicing Jew would tell you, not all offerings were for the same thing. Scripture, in Torah, mentions many different kinds of sacrifices and offerings for different reasons.
In the Acts of the Apostles we see that Paul, for the sake of peace, entered into the Nazarite Vow along with other Jewish believers from Jerusalem, at the end of which--as proscribed by Torah--an offering was made at the Temple. I think it would be quite erroneous to accuse St. Paul here of blasphemy.
Though I would agree with you that if a temple were ever built in Jerusalem it wouldn't have any theological or religious significance for Christianity. But in the 1st century it seems fairly clear that many Jewish Christians continued to observe matters of Jewish observance, including attending Synagogue on the Sabbath (specifically Christian worship took place the day after the Sabbath and included Jewish and Gentile believers) as well as visiting the Temple for worship.
I don't believe Jewish Christians are any more beholden to observe the mitzvot of Torah than Gentile Christians, since what is in Christ is the fullness of what had been given in ancient times and looked forward to Christ; but I wouldn't argue that such things in and of themselves are wrong. St. Paul preached liberty of conscience on these matters.
Briefly: I think our position(s) ought to be more nuanced than hardline on these matters.
I cannot imagine that, should a temple be rebuilt, that Christians would be remotely welcome. The rabbis and Jewish sages are pretty clear about how they define who is and who isn't a Jew, a Jewish believer in Jesus is by Jewish definition a non-Jew. Further, I would like to think that no Christian would desire to participate in hypothetical rites of a hypothetical rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. As where I would agree with you is that it would be inappropriate
now. Though I feel that a hardline position that it is, as is, blasphemous too strong or too rigid, for the reasons I've already outlined earlier. Obviously St. Paul and other early Jewish Christians were not engaging in blasphemous practice. I would say, however, that with the cessation of the temple in 70 AD and the rather clean break between Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity by the end of the 1st century we have a very different situation today than in those earliest years of the Church. And that needs to be taken into consideration.
So a Christian would really have no good reason to attempt to participate in the rites of a future Jewish temple in Jerusalem; though in the 1st century the situation was different and it would be an error on our part to judge St. Paul and others for their continued engagement with historic Jewish religious tradition and worship.
-CryptoLutheran
