NT support for a third temple

[Hammster]

It seems that a third temple is instrumental in some folks eschatology. What NT support is their for a third temple?

 

[keras]

There will be a new Temple in Jerusalem as many Prophesies tell us.
2 Thess 2:4 says it will be a Temple dedicated to God and the Anti-Christ will desecrate it. As Daniel 9:27 prophesies.
After this desecration it will be given over to the ungodly peoples for 42 months. Revelation 11:1-3
Revelation 21:22 says there will be no Temple for Eternity. This means there was a Temple before that.

During His first sojourn on earth, the God/Man Jesus had nowhere to dwell (Matthew 8:20; Luke 9:28). His rightful place as God would have been the Temple in Jerusalem, but He is driven from there under threat of death by the rulers of Israel. But at the end of the age, this God-Man will become the ordained, accepted and anointed King of the whole earth by military defeat of His enemies. The question is then, "WHERE WILL HE LIVE PHYSICALLY, AND OF WHAT TYPE WILL HIS HOUSE BE?

Ezekiel answers this. The House in which Emmanuel (God with us) will live must fulfill a number of qualifications.

· It must be in Jerusalem

· It must be a Palace fit for the greatest King ever to live

· It must be a House that reflects the accomplishments of this great King

· It must be a House that allows the correct service to such an Holy One

· It must be a House that everyone of every nation can come up to to pray, worship and have audience with Emmanuel


Now, Jesus, having set aside His high position in heaven, and having come to earth to serve His Father and serve men, took a very low and humble position. He was devoid of money and dwelling. He was ministered to by women. He was threatened, rejected, reviled, beaten, spat upon, insulted and finally murdered among criminals, naked. This was all done to achieve what His Father needed done to satisfy His righteousness and extend mercy to depraved mankind. So when God sends His Son the second time as military Commander to retake Government of this earth, in His righteousness and justice HE MUST VINDICATE HIS SON IN PROPORTION TO WHAT HE LOST THE FIRST TIME. And part of this vindication is;

· His personal glory. It is so strong that it can dethrone and cast away the Beast who was the most powerful man on earth (2 Thess. 2:8)

· His House. The House that King Jesus will live in must reflect Who He is and what He has done. Zechariah 14:16-21

· That men must bow to Him in worship IN HIS PRESENCE AND OUT OF IT (Phil.2:10)

 

[Hammster]

There will be a new Temple in Jerusalem as many Prophesies tell us.
2 Thess 2:4 says it will be a Temple dedicated to God and the Anti-Christ will desecrate it. As Daniel 9:27 prophesies.
After this desecration it will be given over to the ungodly peoples for 42 months. Revelation 11:1-3
Revelation 21:22 says there will be no Temple for Eternity. This means there was a Temple before that.

During His first sojourn on earth, the God/Man Jesus had nowhere to dwell (Matthew 8:20; Luke 9:28). His rightful place as God would have been the Temple in Jerusalem, but He is driven from there under threat of death by the rulers of Israel. But at the end of the age, this God-Man will become the ordained, accepted and anointed King of the whole earth by military defeat of His enemies. The question is then, "WHERE WILL HE LIVE PHYSICALLY, AND OF WHAT TYPE WILL HIS HOUSE BE?

Ezekiel answers this. The House in which Emmanuel (God with us) will live must fulfill a number of qualifications.

· It must be in Jerusalem

· It must be a Palace fit for the greatest King ever to live

· It must be a House that reflects the accomplishments of this great King

· It must be a House that allows the correct service to such an Holy One

· It must be a House that everyone of every nation can come up to to pray, worship and have audience with Emmanuel


Now, Jesus, having set aside His high position in heaven, and having come to earth to serve His Father and serve men, took a very low and humble position. He was devoid of money and dwelling. He was ministered to by women. He was threatened, rejected, reviled, beaten, spat upon, insulted and finally murdered among criminals, naked. This was all done to achieve what His Father needed done to satisfy His righteousness and extend mercy to depraved mankind. So when God sends His Son the second time as military Commander to retake Government of this earth, in His righteousness and justice HE MUST VINDICATE HIS SON IN PROPORTION TO WHAT HE LOST THE FIRST TIME. And part of this vindication is;

· His personal glory. It is so strong that it can dethrone and cast away the Beast who was the most powerful man on earth (2 Thess. 2:8)

· His House. The House that King Jesus will live in must reflect Who He is and what He has done. Zechariah 14:16-21

· That men must bow to Him in worship IN HIS PRESENCE AND OUT OF IT (Phil.2:10)

There’s no mention of anti-Christ in 2 Thessalonians. (In fact, anti-Christ only appears in 1 John and 2 John, and it refers to those who deny that Christ came in the flesh.)And the temple was still standing when Paul wrote it, so he’s referring to the existing temple. That’s how his readers would have understood it.

 

[keras]

There’s no mention of anti-Christ in 2 Thessalonians. (In fact, anti-Christ only appears in 1 John and 2 John, and it refers to those who deny that Christ came in the flesh.)And the temple was still standing when Paul wrote it, so he’s referring to the existing temple. That’s how his readers would have understood it.

Maybe the few people who read Paul's writings before 70 AD, did think he could have meant the 2nd Temple. WE can see Paul didn't mean it.

The Anti-Christ has many names. In 2 Thess 2:4, he is referred to as one who opposes God and exalts himself. Other prophesies call him the 'beast', the 'devil', the 'accuser', etc. All the same person.

 

[TribulationSigns]

And the temple was still standing when Paul wrote it, so he’s referring to the existing temple. That’s how his readers would have understood it.

No. The temple on the side of the New Testament is not a Jewish temple, but church. According to the context of 2nd Thessalonians


2nd Thessalonians 2:6-10

• "And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
• For the mystery of iniquity doth already work, only he who restraineth will restrain, until he be taken out of the way.
• And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
• Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
• And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."

Satan’s principle weapon is that of deception. Here we see God clearly telling us that this spirit Satan which was already at work in the world even then, would be revealed in the future, and that the iniquity or lawlessness was being restrained, that the man of sin (man of lawlessness) could not rule in God's Temple at that time. But in the future this iniquity that was restrained would be loosed and only THEN would that iniquity be unrestrained, and Satan revealed. Not 70AD, obviously! Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and lying signs and wonders. Every false prophets and Christs with the spirit of Satan is the man of lawlessness. In 2nd Thessalonians 2 (Just as in 1st John) the Word of God says iniquity was 'already' at work in the world, and yet it was being restrained until a set time known only to God. It means the spirit of antichrist has been restrained so that God could build his Church through his Two Witnesses (Christians witnessing wtih Gospel). After the building of the church and all Elect being secured, Revelation 7:1-4, Satan will be loosened to work through men in the temple of God. Not in 70AD. Not about Jewish temple (remember it was not Holy in 70AD anyway). God is talking about the church, the temple of the New Testament.

 

[Hammster]

Maybe the few people who read Paul's writings before 70 AD, did think he could have meant the 2nd Temple. WE can see Paul didn't mean it.

The Anti-Christ has many names. In 2 Thess 2:4, he is referred to as one who opposes God and exalts himself. Other prophesies call him the 'beast', the 'devil', the 'accuser', etc. All the same person.

Actually, proper hermeneutics dictate that we read it as it was understood by its intended audience. You are assuming a third temple into the passage that the Thessalonians would not have had any reason to think would exist. So unless Paul is trying to deliberately confuse a church he is allegedly helping, we will have to go with him referencing the existing temple.

 

[Hammster]

No. The temple on the side of the New Testament is not a Jewish temple, but church. According to the context of 2nd Thessalonians


2nd Thessalonians 2:6-10

• "And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
• For the mystery of iniquity doth already work, only he who restraineth will restrain, until he be taken out of the way.
• And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
• Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
• And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."

Satan’s principle weapon is that of deception. Here we see God clearly telling us that this spirit Satan which was already at work in the world even then, would be revealed in the future, and that the iniquity or lawlessness was being restrained, that the man of sin (man of lawlessness) could not rule in God's Temple at that time. But in the future this iniquity that was restrained would be loosed and only THEN would that iniquity be unrestrained, and Satan revealed. Not 70AD, obviously! Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and lying signs and wonders. Every false prophets and Christs with the spirit of Satan is the man of lawlessness. In 2nd Thessalonians 2 (Just as in 1st John) the Word of God says iniquity was 'already' at work in the world, and yet it was being restrained until a set time known only to God. It means the spirit of antichrist has been restrained so that God could build his Church through his Two Witnesses (Christians witnessing wtih Gospel). After the building of the church and all Elect being secured, Revelation 7:1-4, Satan will be loosened to work through men in the temple of God. Not in 70AD. Not about Jewish temple (remember it was not Holy in 70AD anyway). God is talking about the church, the temple of the New Testament.

See post 6

 

[TribulationSigns]

See post 6

Post 6 = Wrong answer, wrong audience, and wrong timing.

The definition of a theory would be your idea that in AD 70 there was a physical "holy" Temple of God that unbelieving Jews used and that God called "holy." How that could possibly be, you have "typically" not bothered to address. That's not only theory, that is untenable theory. Because the only Holy Temple of God since 33AD and beyond, including AD 70 was the church, built with living stones, not the building the unbelieving Jews worshiped in. And that's not theory, that's a Biblical fact.

It is really all about sound exegesis, methodology, comparison, and hermeneutics. Because if our assumptions are wrong, then our conclusions will be wrong. It's important to understand that our personal conclusions do not equate to biblical theology "unless" it is soundly grounded in the Bible. Conclusions concerning AD 70 are based upon historical secular evidence and man's personal interpretation, rather than upon scripture. The whole idea of a prophecy of God's Holy Temple in AD 70 having abomination stand in it and falling (and this be the Jewish Temple) is altogether foreign to the bible. As I've demonstrated time and again with scripture, the Jewish Holy Temple fell at the cross in God's eyes. It is not "stubborn" to declare that many stones were left standing one upon another in AD 70, when the prophesy in scripture calls for not one to be left standing one upon another, it's FAITHFULNESS. What is stubborn is to attempt to force those explicit scriptures to be some sort of self-serving hyperbole, while at the same time insisting that it be taken very literally when referring to a physical Temple in AD 70. Inconsistency is the hallmark of error.

Mark 14:56-59

• "For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.
• And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,
• We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
• But neither so did their witness agree together."

Consistency means the witness has to agree with the Biblical facts. And inconsistency is the hallmark of error. In a superficial reading of this, one might think that they were accurately witnessing to the prophesy of Christ, but faithfulness requires us to see that though it might sound or "seem" somewhat right, it is in actuality false and inconsistent with what Christ actually said. Likewise, the belief that Christ's very specific prophesy that "not one stone" would be left standing one upon another (in the Temple and city) refers to AD 70, is found wanting. It sounds good when we read scripture superficially or when we listen to Josephus, but careful consideration of it (in the light of the Bible) finds the interpretation false and inconsistent with both scripture "and" the facts of history.

Did God tell Paul to flee to the mountains because the wicked were coming to beat him severely? Did God tell John to flee to the mountains because the wicked were coming to throw him into the prison on the isle of Patmos? Did God tell Stephen to flee to the mountains because the people were coming to stone him to death? The only place God tells the church to flee from (collectively) is an abomination. And to flee as a bird that flees to the mountains for safety from the snare of the wicked. God is equating the children of God who dwell in this sinful house at this time of trial and tribulation, to (as birds) flee to their spiritual place of safety. "Consider wisely." It is the character of the saints who have their God as their hope, to fly to God's spiritual mountain for security in time of great tribulation. By equating the bird fleeing to the mountain with those souls who trust in God and not physical mountains, temples, church building, the illustration God is painting is clear. It is the only place where we can trust that our souls will be secure from the wicked. Read it again.

Psalms 11:1-2

• "In the LORD put I my trust: how say ye to my soul, Flee as a bird to your mountain?
• For, lo, the wicked bend their bow, they make ready their arrow upon the string, that they may privily shoot at the upright in heart."

Psalms 72:3

• "The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness."

Psalms 124:7-8

• "Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers: the snare is broken, and we are escaped.
• Our help is in the name of the LORD, who made heaven and earth."

Proverbs 6:5

• "Deliver thyself as a roe from the hand of the hunter, and as a bird from the hand of the fowler."

Psalms 55:6-9

• "And I said, Oh that I had wings like a dove! for then would I fly away, and be at rest.
• Lo, then would I wander far off, and remain in the wilderness. Selah.
• I would hasten my escape from the windy storm and tempest.
• Destroy, O Lord, and divide their tongues: for I have seen violence and strife in the city."

As far as physical punishment, mental tribulation, and death, He told the disciples (and us) to expect it and endure it. God never taught that when we experience persecution, sufferings, or trial because of Christ, we should go hide in the physical mountains. That's not what being a Christian is about, anymore than being a Christian is about not being able to be "physically" hurt by scorpions and serpents. These are all spiritual metaphors for how we shall endure in time of great tribulation. And it's not by fleeing to physical mountains.

2nd Timothy 3:11-14

• "Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
• Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
• But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
• But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;"

In short, history doesn't prove anything about AD 70 and the Jews fleeing to the mountains. It's convenient in lieu of Scripture, but it doesn't prove anything Biblically, neither can it.

Moreover, how is what happened in AD 70 called an abomination in the "holy" place of God, when the Jewish Temple was NOT the Holy Temple of God at that time that it could something in it to qualify as an abomination in "The Holy Place." It was neither Holy nor the place of God in AD 70. When Christ said, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate," that meant that it's already Desolate and no longer the Holy house of God, no longer the Holy Temple, no longer the beloved city. 70 AD does NOT qualify! You got the wrong timing (and of course wrong audience). It could not possible qualify for being a Holy place where abominations stood where it shouldn't or "ought not" stand.

Selah

 

[Hammster]

Post 6 = Wrong answer, wrong audience, and wrong timing.

The definition of a theory would be your idea that in AD 70 there was a physical "holy" Temple of God that unbelieving Jews used and that God called "holy." How that could possibly be, you have "typically" not bothered to address. That's not only theory, that is untenable theory. Because the only Holy Temple of God since 33AD and beyond, including AD 70 was the church, built with living stones, not the building the unbelieving Jews worshiped in. And that's not theory, that's a Biblical fact.

It is really all about sound exegesis, methodology, comparison, and hermeneutics. Because if our assumptions are wrong, then our conclusions will be wrong. It's important to understand that our personal conclusions do not equate to biblical theology "unless" it is soundly grounded in the Bible. Conclusions concerning AD 70 are based upon historical secular evidence and man's personal interpretation, rather than upon scripture. The whole idea of a prophecy of God's Holy Temple in AD 70 having abomination stand in it and falling (and this be the Jewish Temple) is altogether foreign to the bible. As I've demonstrated time and again with scripture, the Jewish Holy Temple fell at the cross in God's eyes. It is not "stubborn" to declare that many stones were left standing one upon another in AD 70, when the prophesy in scripture calls for not one to be left standing one upon another, it's FAITHFULNESS. What is stubborn is to attempt to force those explicit scriptures to be some sort of self-serving hyperbole, while at the same time insisting that it be taken very literally when referring to a physical Temple in AD 70. Inconsistency is the hallmark of error.

Mark 14:56-59

• "For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.
• And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,
• We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
• But neither so did their witness agree together."

Consistency means the witness has to agree with the Biblical facts. And inconsistency is the hallmark of error. In a superficial reading of this, one might think that they were accurately witnessing to the prophesy of Christ, but faithfulness requires us to see that though it might sound or "seem" somewhat right, it is in actuality false and inconsistent with what Christ actually said. Likewise, the belief that Christ's very specific prophesy that "not one stone" would be left standing one upon another (in the Temple and city) refers to AD 70, is found wanting. It sounds good when we read scripture superficially or when we listen to Josephus, but careful consideration of it (in the light of the Bible) finds the interpretation false and inconsistent with both scripture "and" the facts of history.

Did God tell Paul to flee to the mountains because the wicked were coming to beat him severely? Did God tell John to flee to the mountains because the wicked were coming to throw him into the prison on the isle of Patmos? Did God tell Stephen to flee to the mountains because the people were coming to stone him to death? The only place God tells the church to flee from (collectively) is an abomination. And to flee as a bird that flees to the mountains for safety from the snare of the wicked. God is equating the children of God who dwell in this sinful house at this time of trial and tribulation, to (as birds) flee to their spiritual place of safety. "Consider wisely." It is the character of the saints who have their God as their hope, to fly to God's spiritual mountain for security in time of great tribulation. By equating the bird fleeing to the mountain with those souls who trust in God and not physical mountains, temples, church building, the illustration God is painting is clear. It is the only place where we can trust that our souls will be secure from the wicked. Read it again.

Psalms 11:1-2

• "In the LORD put I my trust: how say ye to my soul, Flee as a bird to your mountain?
• For, lo, the wicked bend their bow, they make ready their arrow upon the string, that they may privily shoot at the upright in heart."

Psalms 72:3

• "The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness."

Psalms 124:7-8

• "Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers: the snare is broken, and we are escaped.
• Our help is in the name of the LORD, who made heaven and earth."

Proverbs 6:5

• "Deliver thyself as a roe from the hand of the hunter, and as a bird from the hand of the fowler."

Psalms 55:6-9

• "And I said, Oh that I had wings like a dove! for then would I fly away, and be at rest.
• Lo, then would I wander far off, and remain in the wilderness. Selah.
• I would hasten my escape from the windy storm and tempest.
• Destroy, O Lord, and divide their tongues: for I have seen violence and strife in the city."

As far as physical punishment, mental tribulation, and death, He told the disciples (and us) to expect it and endure it. God never taught that when we experience persecution, sufferings, or trial because of Christ, we should go hide in the physical mountains. That's not what being a Christian is about, anymore than being a Christian is about not being able to be "physically" hurt by scorpions and serpents. These are all spiritual metaphors for how we shall endure in time of great tribulation. And it's not by fleeing to physical mountains.

2nd Timothy 3:11-14

• "Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
• Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
• But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
• But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;"

In short, history doesn't prove anything about AD 70 and the Jews fleeing to the mountains. It's convenient in lieu of Scripture, but it doesn't prove anything Biblically, neither can it.

Moreover, how is what happened in AD 70 called an abomination in the "holy" place of God, when the Jewish Temple was NOT the Holy Temple of God at that time that it could something in it to qualify as an abomination in "The Holy Place." It was neither Holy nor the place of God in AD 70. When Christ said, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate," that meant that it's already Desolate and no longer the Holy house of God, no longer the Holy Temple, no longer the beloved city. 70 AD does NOT qualify! You got the wrong timing (and of course wrong audience). It could not possible qualify for being a Holy place where abominations stood where it shouldn't or "ought not" stand.

Selah

I’m not reading all of this because your premise is still wrong. The Thessalonians would have understood that Paul was talking about the existing temple. And nowhere does he say that there will be a rebuilt third temple. Trying to spiritualize all of that just doesn’t fit the text.

So if that’s all you have for NT evidence for a rebuilt third temple, you have to admit that you can’t get that from the text, but have to assume it into the text.

 

[jeffweedaman]

It seems that a third temple is instrumental in some folks eschatology. What NT support is their for a third temple?

Mark 14
57 And then some stood up and began giving false testimony against Him, saying, 58 “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that was made by hands, and in three days I will build another, made without hands.’”


Its already been built and will stand forever.

 

[keras]

Actually, proper hermeneutics dictate that we read it as it was understood by its intended audience.

ALL Christians are Paul's intended audience.
What Paul said in 2 Thess 2:1-4 is for the end times; just before Jesus Returns.
It did console the Thessalonian Christians, as they then knew not to think Jesus had Returned until the Temple was desecrated by an ungodly man sitting in the holy Place. And still today, we can know it must happen before Jesus Returns.

 

[Hammster]

ALL Christians are Paul's intended audience.
What Paul said in 2 Thess 2:1-4 is for the end times; just before Jesus Returns.
It did console the Thessalonian Christians, as they then knew not to think Jesus had Returned until the Temple was desecrated by an ungodly man sitting in the holy Place. And still today, we can know it must happen before Jesus Returns.

Paul wrote to a particular church. He did not write to all Christians.

 

[TribulationSigns]

The Thessalonians would have understood that Paul was talking about the existing temple.

Nope.

And nowhere does he say that there will be a rebuilt third temple.

I agreed.

Trying to spiritualize all of that just doesn’t fit the text.

You don't have a problem when God spiritualizes? Hummm...

 

[TribulationSigns]

Paul wrote to a particular church. He did not write to all Christians.

As for Christ's audience, His audience is the Church. When He spoke to the disciples His audience was the Church. When God (through Paul) spoke to the Corinthians or Thessalonians, His audience was the Church. When He spoke to the Romans, His audience was the Church. When Christ told the disciples that in this world, they would have tribulation (John 16:33), His audience was the Church.

 

[Hammster]

Nope.

Yep. That’s how hermeneutics work.

 

[Hammster]

As for Christ's audience, His audience is the Church. When He spoke to the disciples His audience was the Church. When God (through Paul) spoke to the Corinthians or Thessalonians, His audience was the Church. When He spoke to the Romans, His audience was the Church. When Christ told the disciples that in this world, they would have tribulation (John 16:33), His audience was the Church.

Well, at least I understand how you come to your conclusions. You ignore hermeneutics.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Yep. That’s how hermeneutics work.

Not based on Scripture, but you forced the hermeneutics based on your preconceived mind of 70AD.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Well, at least I understand how you come to your conclusions. You ignore hermeneutics.

You think? Well, The Lord judge between false and true--and I am comfortable with that "because" I know that, unlike man, He judges righteously with a just balance.

 

[Hammster]

Not based on Scripture, but you forced the hermeneutics based on your preconceived mind of 70AD.

I never even brought up 70 AD in this thread. Please at least stay on topic.

 

[Aldebaran]

It seems that a third temple is instrumental in some folks eschatology. What NT support is their for a third temple?

I have a completely different view I'd like to offer based on what I've been hearing lately concerning how the one-world religion could come about.
The idea is that all the religions of the world will be mashed together to the agreement of most so that everyone will be willing to go along with the "united" one-world version. Therefore, this temple could be one that already exists and is used by any one of the current religions that will be part of the one-world religion that the anti-christ sets himself up as the head of.

The passage reads: "4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God."

See, he sets sets himself up as being over "everything that is called God or is worshiped". That would include Allah, Mary, Buddah, Gaia, the almighty dollar, the sun, or whatever else people call their god and worship. If Islam, Catholicism, Earth worship, etc. were combined to create a one-world religion that the anti-christ sets himself up over, then the temple could be just about anything.