Third Temple

[TribulationSigns]

Your rejection of the still pending plans for national Israel has screwed up your outlook. I didn't say anything about individual salvation in Christ. You added that as a type of strawman then attempted to make me look as if I oppose it on some level. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from these lies against me.

I won't refrain because the Gospel I have quoted (and WILL quote) testifies against your doctrine of "national Israel" in your flawed dispensational theology.

 

[SwordmanJr]

In eschatology when on the subject of a "third temple" to be rebuilt (or restored), it is written that ultimately only the outer court of the temple is desecrated according to Rev. 11:2.

Revelation 11:2 But do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months.

And also there is a reference in Daniel 9:27 that the desecration takes place on the 'wing of the temple' which suggests that not the whole temple complex (if you understand the tabernacle in the desert's layout) is desecrated. However, the inner court, the altar and the holiest place where the ark of the covenant sits appear to be not only intact but eternally in reverence by many according to Revelation. This implies that it is not a physical temple that many Christians seem to overlook, but a spiritual one.

It's usually good exegesis study to be aware (or to take into consideration) that the temple of the LORD has many assortments to its construction and very specific arrangments rather than being seen as a blanket term.

That's an interesting observation. I'll have to give that some thought.

Thanks

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

It's not allegorical. The Jews are still a people of God, although they have been placed under partial blindness for a time (Romans 11:25). They will rebuild a literal Temple, and Paul refers to this at the 'temple of God' in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

They are fully prepared to do so at a moment's notice. All material has been obtained, priests named and trained, the Sanhedrin fully functional, initial lamb sacrifices performed, and they are scheduling the sacrifice of the red heifer. It's basically 'GO' time. At this point, if someone denies this temple will be constructed has some serious blinders on.

I suspect that will be impossible to get agreement upon from those who are of the "replacement theology" crowd.

Jr

 

[TribulationSigns]

I suspect that will be impossible to get agreement upon from those who are of the "replacement theology" crowd.

I have dealth with your Red Herring "Replacement Theology" for what it is. A distraction from the truth of what God's word actually says concerning Israel, her Restoration in Christ, and the fruitless destiny of the nation.

Matthew 21:19

• "And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away."

Do you want to "deal with" the fact that, according to the authoritative word of God, no fruit will "ever" come from the nation of Israel again? Just say Amen!

Hosea 1:10

• "Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God."

Romans 9:26

• "And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God."

Christ fulfilled, satisfied, completed this by gathering all together in one Israel...in Him! Not national Israel. The only true Israel. God has brought those into a covenant relation to Himself, who was before deemed foreigners and strangers from Israel. Hello?

So, do you want to deal with that? Or just say Amen? Either will do.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Moreover...

Replacement Theology is not a phrase that is in the Bible. It is a phrase conjured up by those opposed to the truth of God's very own words concerning the Church and Israel, and it's meant to obfuscate the "real" issue.

Hebrews 8:9-10

• "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
• For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:"

The New Covenant with Israel is NOT with a physical Nation, but with a spiritual people whom God has put His laws into their mind and written them in their hearts. It never was an everlasting Covenant with a physical nation (nor could it be), and so the idea of replacement of a nation is null and void! The nation only outwardly "represented" God's people, and clearly, according to God's word, that was subject to conditions. I can you countless scriptures illustrating that. Far from being blessed people, God has pronounced judgment upon the Nation of Israel. As it is written:

Matthew 21:42-43

• "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
• Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

Clearly, those are the Lord's Words, not someone's private interpretation. The Kingdom representation has been taken from the nation of Israel. Period! Therefore, how can your theology teach that the Nation of Israel is still God's chosen people in the future? Come on! Clearly, God has chosen to remove the kingdom or reign from them, and give it to another that will bring forth fruit. Do you even know what fruit it is? What you falsely label Replacement Theology is Christ's Theology. No fruit will come from "the nation" Israel ever again. The "restoration of Israel," which is the real Biblical phrase, is accomplished in the rebuilding in Christ! Not in the heresy of physical governments/kingdoms or Temples or Blood Sacrifices. But in Christ, "The Israel of God!" You totally missed it with your dispensational theology.

Go ahead and pitch your chair in the hot sands of Middle East waiting for the show about the so-called national salvation for the Jews in national Israel. I am telling you the truth, you will end up shocked and disappointed like Jonah.

 

[eleos1954]

It's not allegorical. The Jews are still a people of God, although they have been placed under partial blindness for a time (Romans 11:25). They will rebuild a literal Temple, and Paul refers to this at the 'temple of God' in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

They are fully prepared to do so at a moment's notice. All material has been obtained, priests named and trained, the Sanhedrin fully functional, initial lamb sacrifices performed, and they are scheduling the sacrifice of the red heifer. It's basically 'GO' time. At this point, if someone denies this temple will be constructed has some serious blinders on.

Orthodox Israel denies Jesus is Messiah. They believe messiah is yet to come. Therefore they aspire to build a temple.

even if they were to build one ... the Shekhinah glory (presence of God) will not enter it.

Matthew 23:38 (Jesus speaking) “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” Jesus prophesied the city and the temple's destruction. To His own disciples, He said just three verses later, “There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (Matthew 24:2).

Luke 19
Berean Study Bible
They will level you to the ground—you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God.”

Jesus never entered the earthly temple after that. He is our High priest and ministers from the heavenly sanctuary ... the REAL one ... not one made with hands.

The earthly temple (even if were rebuilt) would remain desolate until Jesus returns.

Personally I don't believe it will be built ... but if so it will all be in vain.

We have an inner temple that shares spiritually with the heavenly temple until He returns ... THEN we will enter the heavenly temple both spiritually and physically. Amen!

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Where eschatology is concerned, we have been puzzled over the things said about the third temple, about the antichrist desecrating that temple.

How can that third temple have any descriptor as being "holy" when it is well established that we who are in Christ Jesus are the temples. When that veil was ripped down the middle, and thus exposing the place where the Lord once dwelt, buildings constructed by the hands of men no longer were holy by virtue of the dwelling place of the Lord.

How is it, then, that ANY place on this earth, in the post-cross era, be "desecrated" that's no longer the special dwelling place of the presence of the Lord. Was John's inspiration, to write those things that SEEM to indicate that place as truly holy from God's perspective, meant to point more toward the perspective of the Jews? If so, then I'm wondering why he didn't express that thought clearly.

It's one thing for the antichrist to proclaim himself God, and thus demand worship, but quite another that he did so in what will allegedly be a holy place.

I've read where some speculated that the designation of "holy" is actually a reference to the hearts of people moreso than the stone temple itself. The text doesn't seem to point in that direction as being merely allegorical.

Thoughts?

Jr

Well first off. John corrected the idea in the churches that the spirit of antichrist is going to be manifested in one human being. Aside from that. A third temple may or may not get built. If it does though it will be nothing more than a Masonic temple or a Catholic Cathedral to God. He won’t be there nor will he bless the effort. In fact if it causes a bunch of delusion among his saints it might stir up a little anger from him. Your correct. The plan HAS ALWAYS BEEN HIM dwelling with the faithful believers.....of all nations. That his people of all nations are his temple. Ancient Israel and the temple were just a means to that goal. He needed one people to bring his Word to all people. Modern Israelis should be proud of that.

 

[SeventyOne]

Orthodox Israel denies Jesus is Messiah. They believe messiah is yet to come. Therefore they aspire to build a temple.

even if they were to build one ... the Shekhinah glory (presence of God) will not enter it.

Matthew 23:38 (Jesus speaking) “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” Jesus prophesied the city and the temple's destruction. To His own disciples, He said just three verses later, “There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (Matthew 24:2).

Luke 19
Berean Study Bible
They will level you to the ground—you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God.”

Jesus never entered the earthly temple after that. He is our High priest and ministers from the heavenly sanctuary ... the REAL one ... not one made with hands.

The earthly temple (even if were rebuilt) would remain desolate until Jesus returns.

Personally I don't believe it will be built ... but if so it will all be in vain.

We have an inner temple that shares spiritually with the heavenly temple until He returns ... THEN we will enter the heavenly temple both spiritually and physically. Amen!

I understand your viewpoint, but let's not forget that Paul calls this individual a 'man' who takes a seat in the 'temple of God' Any interpretation we postulate regarding its fulfillment needs to be able to incorporate these aspects to have any hope of being correct. A man cannot sit in some inner spiritual temple. But if one persists on that route, another issue is the 'temple of God' is singular. If one wants to make a case we are individually a temple to God, then you've just reduced him 'sitting' within one believer (hardly impressive), but if you want to say the word 'temple' refers to all believers collectively, then you are making a case he sits within each and every believer, without exception. A case can't be made for either scenario.

Truth is, if our interpretation does not allow for either a 'man' or a singular 'temple of God', then that interpretation is immediately invalid. The only route that doesn't require mental gymnastics is the simple and obvious one. the Jews rebuilt a temple, then eventually the man of lawlessness will enter there and proclaim himself as God.

 

[SeventyOne]

I won't refrain because the Gospel I have quoted (and WILL quote) testifies against your doctrine of "national Israel" in your flawed dispensational theology.

All I asked you to do is not lie against me, but if that's too much to ask, then so be it. I'm not the one answering for it in the end.

 

[TribulationSigns]

I understand your viewpoint, but let's not forget that Paul calls this individual a 'man' who takes a seat in the 'temple of God'

God did not say the man of sin is one person.

Who is man of sin?

 

[eleos1954]

I understand your viewpoint, but let's not forget that Paul calls this individual a 'man' who takes a seat in the 'temple of God' Any interpretation we postulate regarding its fulfillment needs to be able to incorporate these aspects to have any hope of being correct. A man cannot sit in some inner spiritual temple. But if one persists on that route, another issue is the 'temple of God' is singular. If one wants to make a case we are individually a temple to God, then you've just reduced him 'sitting' within one believer (hardly impressive), but if you want to say the word 'temple' refers to all believers collectively, then you are making a case he sits within each and every believer, without exception. A case can't be made for either scenario.

Truth is, if our interpretation does not allow for either a 'man' or a singular 'temple of God', then that interpretation is immediately invalid. The only route that doesn't require mental gymnastics is the simple and obvious one. the Jews rebuilt a temple, then eventually the man of lawlessness will enter there and proclaim himself as God.

In Revelation ... it's a deception .... people willingly follow the beast. Already at work in the world.

It is a deceptive religious false teaching (religious system) led by a man (behind that man is satan) ... not someone sitting down and saying "Hey I'm God and you will worship me." (tongue in cheek ;o)

Satan wants worship and this is how he attempts to get it .... working through a man with global religious power. You think the nation of Israel is going to have global religious power .... I mean ... really?

Again ... Orothodox Jews believe messiah has not come .... you think they will convince millions of Christians to deny Jesus first coming?

Matthew 24:24
23At that time, if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders that would deceive even the elect, if that were possible

2nd Corinthians 11

Berean Literal Bible
And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

The only way a deception could happen through Israel would be IF the entire nation was to change their beliefs regarding messiah ... and with the Orthodox that isn't going to happen .... that is why indeed they do desire to build a temple in the first place ... they dismiss Jesus as Messiah.

 

[Timtofly]

I understand your viewpoint, but let's not forget that Paul calls this individual a 'man' who takes a seat in the 'temple of God' Any interpretation we postulate regarding its fulfillment needs to be able to incorporate these aspects to have any hope of being correct. A man cannot sit in some inner spiritual temple. But if one persists on that route, another issue is the 'temple of God' is singular. If one wants to make a case we are individually a temple to God, then you've just reduced him 'sitting' within one believer (hardly impressive), but if you want to say the word 'temple' refers to all believers collectively, then you are making a case he sits within each and every believer, without exception. A case can't be made for either scenario.

Truth is, if our interpretation does not allow for either a 'man' or a singular 'temple of God', then that interpretation is immediately invalid. The only route that doesn't require mental gymnastics is the simple and obvious one. the Jews rebuilt a temple, then eventually the man of lawlessness will enter there and proclaim himself as God.

The second Satan takes a seat in any temple, it is too late for that temple. Symbolically Satan has entered many, in spirit. But the temple could also be a seat of authority for the body of Christ itself. Thus sitting in Rome and making Christianity the state religion is enough of a fulfillment for me. When Satan moves from the Vatican to Jerusalem, it will be too late of a sign to be of use to the church. There is obviously no temple to even sit in yet. There are those in authority currently who know exactly what is going on. Satan is not sitting idle. We have to remember though, Satan has to ask permission for every move he makes. He is running out of time, and permissions.

 

[Timtofly]

God did not say the man of sin is one person.

The man of sin is one being. Satan is not a spirit. Satan is a created being, an angel. Satan as a man is not bound by the law of God on mankind. Thus humans have no control or authority over Satan, nor does Satan have authority to set up a human dictatorship. At least not yet. There is an alleged 3.5 year period John wrote about, and describes in Revelation 13. Satan is the man without law, so this deceiver cannot be a man, nor antichrist, with a capital "A" who is possessed by Satan. Even a demon possessed human is bound by God's law on mankind. Now humans may not be able to constrain a demon possessed human, but that is another argument.

If a beast or an angel pretending to be a man, (Hebrews 13:2) speaks like a dragon, walks like a dragon, hands out power like a dragon, demands worship like a dragon, creates an image of abomination like a dragon, is allowed to give life by breathing dragon breath into that image, then it is a dragon. Satan is the only being symbolized as a dragon. He is literally named in Revelation 20:2. He is named in Revelation 16:13. He is cast out of heaven in Revelation 12:13. He is the beast on the seashore assisting the FP in Revelation 13. But takes full control after the FP declares the entrance of Satan into his next move, which places Satan in a checkmate.

 

[Dave L]

Where eschatology is concerned, we have been puzzled over the things said about the third temple, about the antichrist desecrating that temple.

How can that third temple have any descriptor as being "holy" when it is well established that we who are in Christ Jesus are the temples. When that veil was ripped down the middle, and thus exposing the place where the Lord once dwelt, buildings constructed by the hands of men no longer were holy by virtue of the dwelling place of the Lord.

How is it, then, that ANY place on this earth, in the post-cross era, be "desecrated" that's no longer the special dwelling place of the presence of the Lord. Was John's inspiration, to write those things that SEEM to indicate that place as truly holy from God's perspective, meant to point more toward the perspective of the Jews? If so, then I'm wondering why he didn't express that thought clearly.

It's one thing for the antichrist to proclaim himself God, and thus demand worship, but quite another that he did so in what will allegedly be a holy place.

I've read where some speculated that the designation of "holy" is actually a reference to the hearts of people moreso than the stone temple itself. The text doesn't seem to point in that direction as being merely allegorical.

Thoughts?

Jr

Jesus is the third temple. He's the temple made without hands where God dwells. Ezekiel's temple is a symbol of him. Notice, nobody can build Ezekiel's temple but God. Because only he knows the measurements entirely. The only height measurements are for the two pillars. Which means no person can ever build it without adding to his word.

Also, if any plan on offering animal sacrifices in the future as though the temple were to exist, they commit an unforgivable sin according to Hebrews 6. So it's a damnable heresy to say it will be built and animal sacrifices will resume.

 

[SwordmanJr]

I have dealth with your Red Herring "Replacement Theology" for what it is. A distraction from the truth of what God's word actually says concerning Israel, her Restoration in Christ, and the fruitless destiny of the nation.

Matthew 21:19

• "And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away."

Do you want to "deal with" the fact that, according to the authoritative word of God, no fruit will "ever" come from the nation of Israel again? Just say Amen!

Hmm, when I read the context of Matt. 21, that tree doesn't come through as representing Israel. Jesus went on to say:

Mat 21:21 KJV - Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this [which is done] to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
Mat 21:22 KJV - And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Therefore, the only Red Herring I can see in this is the one of your own making, because the context doesn't uphold your subjective usage of that one passage ripped from its context., which is about faith, not Israel being withered away.

Hosea 1:10

• "Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God."

Again, the context doesn't uphold your overall message leading up to this passage ripped from its context. What's your point?

Romans 9:26

• "And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God."

Christ fulfilled, satisfied, completed this by gathering all together in one Israel...in Him! Not national Israel. The only true Israel. God has brought those into a covenant relation to Himself, who was before deemed foreigners and strangers from Israel. Hello?

So, do you want to deal with that? Or just say Amen? Either will do.

The contextual slaughter you seem to employ is most striking.

Rom 9:23 KJV - And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Rom 9:24 KJV - Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Rom 9:25 KJV - As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26 KJV - And it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

This fits in perfectly with the CONTEXT of what Paul said:

Rom 11:13 KJV - For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Rom 11:14 KJV - If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them.
Rom 11:15 KJV - For if the casting away of them [be] the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead?
Rom 11:16 KJV - For if the firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is] also [holy]: and if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches.
Rom 11:17 KJV - And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Rom 11:18 KJV - Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

He who has an ear, let him hear.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

Jesus is the third temple. He's the temple made without hands where God dwells. Ezekiel's temple is a symbol of him. Notice, nobody can build Ezekiel's temple but God. Because only he knows the measurements entirely. The only height measurements are for the two pillars. Which means no person can ever build it without adding to his word.

Also, if any plan on offering animal sacrifices in the future as though the temple were to exist, they commit an unforgivable sin according to Hebrews 6. So it's a damnable heresy to say it will be built and animal sacrifices will resume.

And yet that temple is called holy where the antichrist will desecrate it. How can the antichrist enter into Christ and desecrate Christ? I'm not completely following your thought.

Jr

 

[Dave L]

And yet that temple is called holy where the antichrist will desecrate it. How can the antichrist enter into Christ and desecrate Christ? I'm not completely following your thought.

Jr

The temple Paul speaks of where the man of sin sits is Christendom. And also in the hearts of many believers. Many doctrines commonly held by believers today come from the Antichrist who the Reformers identified as the Papacy. Free will, Dispensationalism, and legalism to name a few.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Truth is, if our interpretation does not allow for either a 'man' or a singular 'temple of God', then that interpretation is immediately invalid. The only route that doesn't require mental gymnastics is the simple and obvious one. the Jews rebuilt a temple, then eventually the man of lawlessness will enter there and proclaim himself as God.

You have hit upon the dilemma when you said:

The only route that doesn't require mental gymnastics is the simple and obvious one. the Jews rebuilt a temple, then eventually the man of lawlessness will enter there and proclaim himself as God.

Why is the third temple called holy in the inspired writings, and can therefore be desecrated by the antichrist? The language doesn't hint at the idea that it was only holy to the Jews, but that it will be holy, period. That seems to be a slap in the face of Christ who made temples built by the hands of men of no more value as the dwelling place of the Lord.

Now we're getting to the crux of my question.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

The temple Paul speaks of where the man of sin sits is Christendom. And also in the hearts of many believers. Many doctrines commonly held by believers today come from the Antichrist who the Reformers identified as the Papacy. Free will, Dispensationalism, and legalism to name a few.

This had occured to me before. I considered it, and yet the Greek from which our Bible are translated uses emphatic singular in its grammar, not plural. Thus the question.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

Well first off. John corrected the idea in the churches that the spirit of antichrist is going to be manifested in one human being.

Reference please.

Aside from that. A third temple may or may not get built. If it does though it will be nothing more than a Masonic temple or a Catholic Cathedral to God.

That sort of hits at my question, because it is written that it will be a holy place the antichrist can desecrate. How can the antichrist desecrate something that is not holy from God's perspective?

Your correct. The plan HAS ALWAYS BEEN HIM dwelling with the faithful believers.....of all nations.

Yes.

That his people of all nations are his temple. Ancient Israel and the temple were just a means to that goal. He needed one people to bring his Word to all people. Modern Israelis should be proud of that.

Agreed, and yet the text still leaves us with questions not yet answered.

Jr