Would You Help To Rebuild The Jewish Temple?

[Linda8]

Who did the writer of 2 Thessalonians select to rebuild the temple described for the Man of Sin?

The situation here is that the writer died over 1800 years ago without meeting

anyone living TODAY.

Why did Apostles Paul and Peter, Jews, not ensure the detailed future rebuilding of a temple after Peter /Paul died?

Jesus must have then told someone specifically to rebuild the temple structure.

 

[Big Mouth Nana]

By His Grace,

Regarding the Jewish temple, who was given the responsibility of building the temple specified

in 2 Thess 2:4?

2 Thess 2:4 mentions a temple in which the man of sin would place himself .

Who was given the responsibility of building that temple when the prophecy was given?

The Bible must provide that information.. yes?

Could we name who specifically [A PERSON] was given the responsibility for rebuilding the temple specified in 2 Thess 2:4 from the Bible?

Well, if you know, enlighten us, LOL. My believe is that since Jesus is the One that told us about it, and God is the One who is going to allow it, that the Jews are the ones that will have to rebuild it. Other then that atkin, I haven't a clue. Who do you say?

 

[parousia70]

I know "rational thought" isn't employed very often around here but what "Temple" do you suppose the Thessalonians understood Paul to be speaking about?

A Rebuilt Jewish Temple 2000+ years in their future?

The Letter is addressed TO the Thessalonians of the 1st century after all, so wouldn't it make sense to try to discover how Paul wanted them to understand it, and what they understood it to mean? Clearly it had to have relevance to the people who first received it, right?

What Temple would have come to mind to the Thessalonians of the 1st century when Paul spoke to them about an event that was to take place in the "Temple of God"?

 

[Big Mouth Nana]

I would like to get peoples opinions on how they feel about supporting the rebuilding of the Jewish temple?

What are the jews/zionist Christians to do about the Dome of the Rock? and 1 billion muslims? I don't think a jewish temple will ever be rebuilt there, and I can't see the world allowing jews to sacrifice animals even if they did build a temple, what with peta and other animal rights activists. I wouldn't support such a thing.

Peace

Hi Ephron. The area where that Dome of the rock is sitting, has been proven to belong to the Jews. Now, what the Muslims do is their problem. From what I understand, they have several places that they can go worship in. The whole thing with them is, we have it, and you aren't getting it, and we think it is ours.
Oh, I'm sure that the animal rights activists will rear their heads up when this happens. Who knows, maybe that is one of the reasons that the sacrifices are stopped, and the AC wants to be Mr. Nice Guy, LOL. After-all, he is suppposed to come in as man of peace in the beginning.

 

[parousia70]

Hi Ephron. The area where that Dome of the rock is sitting, has been proven to belong to the Jews.

So anyone who rejects Christ and converts to Judiasm OWNS the land that the Dome of the Rock is on?

How exactly has that been "Proven"?

 

[Big Mouth Nana]

So anyone who rejects Christ and converts to Judiasm OWNS the land that the Dome of the Rock is on?

How exactly has that been "Proven"?

How did that statement come into play? No, the land that the temple ruins are sitting on, belong to the Jews. It doesn't matter if someone rejects Christ and reverts to Judism or not.
They have found a marking right outside the temple entrance on a piece of the wall , that show the fish thing. I don't know what it's called, the upside down fish with the tail around a lampstand base..... something like that. It's directly across from where the trumpets were blown to call to worship before the temple was destroyed.
It stand to reason that if the old temple ruins are there, and the Dome of the rock is sitting on the temple mount, who the site belonged to in the first place. The Palistinians are squatters. God said that Israels land would belong to her for ever.. Isaiah 60:21 ~ Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the LAND FOR EVER, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.

 

[parousia70]

BHG, it was a simple question.

Do you believe Converts to Judiasm own the land or not?

 

[Big Mouth Nana]

BHG, it was a simple question.

Do you believe Converts to Judiasm own the land or not?

We are the Spiritual house of Israel, but that doesn't make us Jews. Switching faiths doesn't make you a Jew either. The land was promised to the Jews, not their religion.

 

[Atkin]

How did that statement come into play? No, the land that the temple ruins are sitting on, belong to the Jews. It doesn't matter if someone rejects Christ and reverts to Judism or not.
They have found a marking right outside the temple entrance on a piece of the wall , that show the fish thing. I don't know what it's called, the upside down fish with the tail around a lampstand base..... something like that. It's directly across from where the trumpets were blown to call to worship before the temple was destroyed.
It stand to reason that if the old temple ruins are there, and the Dome of the rock is sitting on the temple mount, who the site belonged to in the first place. The Palistinians are squatters. God said that Israels land would belong to her for ever.. Isaiah 60:21 ~ Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the LAND FOR EVER, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.

It doesn't matter if someone rejects Christ and reverts to Judism or not???

.... You must have overlooked what the Bible says in this regard.

You cannot be right on this.

You mean to say God never placed conditions on the Jews regarding their faith-relationship with Him and their possession of the land?

Well, explain why God used Romans to KILL JEWS. in 70 AD and take away their land as CHRIST himself prophesised and allowed to happen.

Explain why God used Nebuchadnezzar to slaughter and dispossess Jews of their land --

2 Chronicles 36: 14 Moreover all the chief of the priests, and the people, transgressed very much
after all the abominations of the heathen; and polluted the house of the LORD
which he had hallowed in Jerusalem.

16 But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and
misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till
there was no remedy.
17 Therefore he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their
young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no
compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age:
he gave them all into his hand. .



Explain why God smashed the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel FOR THEIR WHOREDOM and Idolatry.

God is not one who just gives out land for free.. y'know.

============
Jeremiah 9: 11 And I will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons; and I will make the
cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant.
12 Who is the wise man, that may understand this? and who is he to whom the
mouth of the LORD hath spoken, that he may declare it, for what the land
perisheth and is burned up like a wilderness, that none passeth through?
13 And the LORD saith, Because they have forsaken my law which I set before
them, and have not obeyed my voice, neither walked therein;
14 But have walked after the imagination of their own heart, and after Baalim,
which their fathers taught them:
15 Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will
feed them, even this people, with wormwood, and give them water of gall to
drink.
16 I will scatter them also among the heathen, whom neither they nor their
fathers have known: and I will send a sword after them, till I have consumed
them.

 

[Atkin]

Who knows, maybe that is one of the reasons that the sacrifices are stopped.

Which god are the sacrifices intended for?

Or are the "sacrifices" for the humans themselves?

Please explain the entire concept behind the future sacrifices.

 

[parousia70]

We are the Spiritual house of Israel, but that doesn't make us Jews. Switching faiths doesn't make you a Jew either.

Thats Funny, for in 1970 the Israeli Knesset adopted legislation defining a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother or a convert.

Indeed, even in the OT we find many "Jews" who were Proselytes to the faith and not geneticly related to the hebrew race at all, yet they and their decendants are considered equally "Jew" by Mosaic Law.

You apprantly disagree with this.

The land was promised to the Jews, not their religion.

What if it can be shown that the Jews who reside in the land we call Israel today are made up of either converts to Judiasm or decendants of converts who have chosen to continue in the faith of their ancestors, with zero genetic relation to the pre desolation hebrew?

Would you still insist those folks there today own the land?

 

[Big Mouth Nana]

It doesn't matter if someone rejects Christ and reverts to Judism or not???

.... You must have overlooked what the Bible says in this regard.

You cannot be right on this.

You mean to say God never placed conditions on the Jews regarding their faith-relationship with Him and their possession of the land?

Well, explain why God used Romans to KILL JEWS. in 70 AD and take away their land as CHRIST himself prophesised and allowed to happen.

Explain why God used Nebuchadnezzar to slaughter and dispossess Jews of their land --

2 Chronicles 36: 14 Moreover all the chief of the priests, and the people, transgressed very much
after all the abominations of the heathen; and polluted the house of the LORD
which he had hallowed in Jerusalem.

16 But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and
misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till
there was no remedy.
17 Therefore he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their
young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no
compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age:
he gave them all into his hand. .



Explain why God smashed the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel FOR THEIR WHOREDOM and Idolatry.

God is not one who just gives out land for free.. y'know.

============
Jeremiah 9: 11 And I will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons; and I will make the
cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant.
12 Who is the wise man, that may understand this? and who is he to whom the
mouth of the LORD hath spoken, that he may declare it, for what the land
perisheth and is burned up like a wilderness, that none passeth through?
13 And the LORD saith, Because they have forsaken my law which I set before
them, and have not obeyed my voice, neither walked therein;
14 But have walked after the imagination of their own heart, and after Baalim,
which their fathers taught them:
15 Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will
feed them, even this people, with wormwood, and give them water of gall to
drink.
16 I will scatter them also among the heathen, whom neither they nor their
fathers have known: and I will send a sword after them, till I have consumed
them.

If a person has any intelligence, and have accepted Christ, they better stick with the "real deal" here, and not Judiasm...unless they are born again Jews. I didn't say that Isreal was never judged. You are talking about when the Jews were dispersed. They have since been brought back to their land...most of them. Most of the Jews in the US refuse to leave at this point. I'll stick with what I said before, if you aren't a Jew, then it doesn't matter if you switch to Judiaism or not, the land belongs to the Jews through the Abrahamic covenant, and God hasn't removed that covenant in all of these years.

 

[Atkin]

Well, if you know, enlighten us, LOL. My believe is that since Jesus is the One that told us about it, and God is the One who is going to allow it, that the Jews are the ones that will have to rebuild it. Other then that atkin, I haven't a clue. Who do you say?

The Jews are not using the words of Jesus as reference , so why do you mention Jesus's name?

Are you going to build a Temple based on nothing instructed by Jesus.

The Jews who want to rebuild the Temple ARE NOT doing so because they are following orders from Jesus.

Jesus never told anyone to build a Temple. Let us not lay the issue on Jesus's name.

Jesus spoke about the sacrilege in the temple but did not instruct anyone to build a temple.

Paul never instructed anyone to build one either..

2 Corinthians 6
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the
temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in
them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

 

[Trish1947]

[/color][/color][/font]

Thats Funny, for in 1970 the Israeli Knesset adopted legislation defining a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother or a convert.

Indeed, even in the OT we find many "Jews" who were Proselytes to the faith and not geneticly related to the hebrew race at all, yet they and their decendants are considered equally "Jew" by Mosaic Law.

You apprantly disagree with this.



What if it can be shown that the Jews who reside in the land we call Israel today are made up of either converts to Judiasm or decendants of converts who have chosen to continue in the faith of their ancestors, with zero genetic relation to the pre desolation hebrew?

Would you still insist those folks there today own the land?

Thats Funny, for in 1970 the Israeli Knesset adopted legislation defining a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother or a convert

And I suppose that if the Congress of the USA said that you are a Monkey by decent it makes it true??? God knows who are Jews and who are not.. Not goverment bodies. Those that have the calling by God in their hearts to return to Isreal are those that God is interested in, Not what the government decides what a Jew consists of. I'm sure with all the zeal these people have to return, God will take care of the rest of it.

 

[Big Mouth Nana]

[/color][/color][/font]

Thats Funny, for in 1970 the Israeli Knesset adopted legislation defining a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother or a convert.
The kenesset huh? Well, unless they go by the name GOD, so what?

Indeed, even in the OT we find many "Jews" who were Proselytes to the faith and not geneticly related to the hebrew race at all, yet they and their decendants are considered equally "Jew" by Mosaic Law.
Mosaic law? How about the covenant of God with Abraham? We aren't under the law anymore. Gods covenant with Abraham stands forever, or until we go to heaven at least.

You apprantly disagree with this.
Oh YEAH.



What if it can be shown that the Jews who reside in the land we call Israel today are made up of either converts to Judiasm or decendants of converts who have chosen to continue in the faith of their ancestors, with zero genetic relation to the pre desolation hebrew?
It's not religion, but blood. God knows who the decendants are. The kenesset can do whatever, or whoever these converts with no Jewish heritage are don't mean a thing.


Would you still insist those folks there today own the land?

The true decendands...YES.

 

[Big Mouth Nana]

The Jews are not using the words of Jesus as reference , so why do you mention Jesus's name?

Are you going to build a Temple based on nothing instructed by Jesus.

The Jews who want to rebuild the Temple ARE NOT doing so because they are following orders from Jesus.

Jesus never told anyone to build a Temple. Let us not lay the issue on Jesus's name.

Jesus spoke about the sacrilege in the temple but did not instruct anyone to build a temple.

Paul never instructed anyone to build one either..

2 Corinthians 6
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the
temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in
them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Give me a break!!! Since Jesus was talking about it. Anyone with some brains knows that it's going to be rebuilt, whoever rebuilds it, otherwise He wouldn't have mentioned it. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do myself, but God knows it is going to be rebuilt for HIS reasons only. I don't have to like it. You don't have to like it, or believe it, but what we think on this doesn't really matter. Gods thoughts are higher then our thoughts.

 

[Trish1947]

Give me a break!!! Since Jesus was talking about it. Anyone with some brains knows that it's going to be rebuilt, whoever rebuilds it, otherwise He wouldn't have mentioned it. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do myself, but God knows it is going to be rebuilt for HIS reasons only. I don't have to like it. You don't have to like it, or believe it, but what we think on this doesn't really matter. Gods thoughts are higher then our thoughts.

The Jews are not using the words of Jesus as reference , so why do you mention Jesus's name?

Well lets do some reasoning here.. Jesus said, I come in my Fathers name, and Him you will not accept.. Jesus said "Another shall come in His own name, and him you will accept. Jesus said, When you see the Abomination of Desolation, standing where it aught not (Temple) then look up for your redemption draweth nigh".
Paul said, that Jesus shall not come, until that man of sin, which opposes and exalts himself as God, and sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself as God. No, Jesus didnt say who builds the temple, but I dont take alot of thinking that it will be the Jewish Nation that builds it.. I think the Lord is pretty plain about mentioning it.

 

[Covenant Heart]

Dad Ernie suggested a word study for "hieron" and for "naos." That struck me as reasonable and intelligent. Too many such ideas are consigned to eternal oblivion. So, I gave Bibleworks for Windoze a kick and generated a few statistics. My eyes don’t always work the best. I don’t claim infallibility, but I think that this is reasonably accurate. Here’s the scoop.

When NT writers mention a stone-and-mortar temple, "hieros" is the word of choice. Mark (the earliest) mentions "temple" 12 times. 9 references are "hieros" and 3 are "naos." Matthew has 17 temple references of which 9 are "hieros." Of John's 14 temple references, 11 are "hieros." Of Luke's 18 references, 14 are "hieros" and 4 are "naos." Of 26 temple references in the Acts, 24 are "hieros." And in Act 19:24 "naos" is rendered not "temples" but "shrines." Acts 19:24 and 17:24 aside, it's "hieros" in the Acts every time. So when the NT writers make temple references, it is very clear that "hieros" is the dominant word by a wide margin.

But now an interesting thing happens. While so predominate in Matthew to Acts, "hieros" seems to drop off the face of the planet. 70+ hits-and then "boom!" "Hieros" occurs in 2Ti 3:15 where it is rendered "holy" (KJV, DRA, YLT, NKJ, BBE, NIV, NLT, NJB) and "sacred" (WEB, RWB, DBY, NAU, NRS). And it is mentioned in 1Co 9:13-14 as Paul discusses his salary package. Otherwise, "naos" rules from Acts 27 to Revelation 22! How weird is that!

But what’s even weirder is the way that "naos" is used after the Acts.

Paul witnesses time and again that believers in Christ are the Temple ("naos") of God. We see that in 1Co 6:19 (your body is the "naos" of the Holy Spirit), 2Co 6:16 (we are the "naos" of the living God) and Eph 2:20ff ("we are his "naos"). Paul asked, "don't you know that all of you together are the "naos" of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you? God will bring ruin upon anyone who ruins this "naos." God's "naos" is holy, and you Christians are that "naos" (1Co 3:16-17).

I’m struck by the similarity of this to John's use of "naos" (the body of Christ) in John 2:19-21. Did they compare notes? In the Revelation, John makes 13 references to "temple." Distributed fairly evenly throughout (chapters 3,7,11,14,15,16 and 21), "naos" accounts for all 13 temple references in the Revelation. "Hieros" recedes from view; "naos" alone stands.

One can argue that John's usage of "naos" in the Revelation recognizes no such distinction as "hieros = stone and mortar temple" and "naos = body of Christ." But that makes several of John's references pretty puzzling. In Rev 3:12, victors in Christ become pillars in the "naos" of God. In Rev 21:22, we read that God and the Lamb ARE the "naos" of the New Jerusalem. So if "naos" means a stone-and-mortar temple in the Revelation, we get some pretty bizarre stuff-believers as physical columns-and God apparently transubstantiates (pray take no offense, RC brothers/sisters) himself into a building.

But such images aside, so mixing uses of "naos" in the Revelation is still downright confusing. John knows that he is writing a canonical document (Rev 1:1) in which God's temple plays a key part. Yet rather than using "hieros" (far and away the dominant "stone-and-mortar" temple word), John says "naos." "Naos" can refer to a "stone-and-mortar" temple, yes. But can also refer to God's dwelling place [Rev 14:15], Spirit-filled believers [1Co 6:19], etc.). So given 1) earlier dominance of "hieros," 2) the use of "naos" in Paul’s ministry and 3) in his own Gospel (2:19-Christ's body as distinct from "hieros"), 4) the bizarre images that result from so reading the first and last "naos" texts in the Revelation (3:12; 21:22) PLUS 5), the comparative specificity of "hieros" over "naos," why would John do that? If a "stone and mortar" temple is so critical to the Revelation, would it not be much better to say "hieros" for temple as John himself did years earlier (John 2:19ff)?

My take is that since the resurrection of Jesus Christ, his body is the one temple in which the NT writers take interest. And this becomes increasingly apparent as years advance, the canon nears completion and "hieros" recedes until the Revelation of Jesus Christ by which time the once dominant "hieros" is totally eclipsed by "naos."

By His Grace’ original post referenced 2Th 2:4. Since "naos" is Paul's word for believers as God's temple, we might well expect 2Th 2:4 to say that, "he will seat himself in the "hieros" (stone-and-mortar temple) of God. But 2Th 2:4 says "naos." So however else we may interpret 2Th 2, it seems highly unlikely that Paul intended to say that the lawless one would park in a stone-and-mortar temple. That would run counter to every other use of "naos" by Paul without exception.

Don’t get me wrong. Paul had a profound interest in the "naos" of God as the body of Christ. But he shows no interest in a "hieros" temple whatsoever. And for that reason, neither do I.

 

[Trish1947]

Dad Ernie suggested a word study for "hieron" and for "naos." That struck me as reasonable and intelligent. Too many such ideas are consigned to eternal oblivion. So, I gave Bibleworks for Windoze a kick and generated a few statistics. My eyes don’t always work the best. I don’t claim infallibility, but I think that this is reasonably accurate. Here’s the scoop.

When NT writers mention a stone-and-mortar temple, "hieros" is the word of choice. Mark (the earliest) mentions "temple" 12 times. 9 references are "hieros" and 3 are "naos." Matthew has 17 temple references of which 9 are "hieros." Of John's 14 temple references, 11 are "hieros." Of Luke's 18 references, 14 are "hieros" and 4 are "naos." Of 26 temple references in the Acts, 24 are "hieros." And in Act 19:24 "naos" is rendered not "temples" but "shrines." Acts 19:24 and 17:24 aside, it's "hieros" in the Acts every time. So when the NT writers make temple references, it is very clear that "hieros" is the dominant word by a wide margin.

But now an interesting thing happens. While so predominate in Matthew to Acts, "hieros" seems to drop off the face of the planet. 70+ hits-and then "boom!" "Hieros" occurs in 2Ti 3:15 where it is rendered "holy" (KJV, DRA, YLT, NKJ, BBE, NIV, NLT, NJB) and "sacred" (WEB, RWB, DBY, NAU, NRS). And it is mentioned in 1Co 9:13-14 as Paul discusses his salary package. Otherwise, "naos" rules from Acts 27 to Revelation 22! How weird is that!

But what’s even weirder is the way that "naos" is used after the Acts.

Paul witnesses time and again that believers in Christ are the Temple ("naos") of God. We see that in 1Co 6:19 (your body is the "naos" of the Holy Spirit), 2Co 6:16 (we are the "naos" of the living God) and Eph 2:20ff ("we are his "naos"). Paul asked, "don't you know that all of you together are the "naos" of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you? God will bring ruin upon anyone who ruins this "naos." God's "naos" is holy, and you Christians are that "naos" (1Co 3:16-17).

I’m struck by a certain similarity of this with John usage of "naos" (the body of Christ) in John 2:19-21. Did they compare notes? In the Revelation, John makes 13 references to "temple." Distributed fairly evenly throughout (chapters 3,7,11,14,15,16 and 21), "naos" accounts for all 13 temple references in the Revelation. "Hieros" recedes from view; "naos" alone stands.

One can argue that John's usage of "naos" in the Revelation recognizes no such distinction as "hieros = stone and mortar temple" and "naos = body of Christ." But that makes several of John's references pretty puzzling. In Rev 3:12, victors in Christ become pillars in the "naos" of God. In Rev 21:22, we read that God and the Lamb ARE the "naos" of the New Jerusalem. So if "naos" means a stone-and-mortar temple in the Revelation, we get some pretty bizarre stuff-believers as physical columns-and God apparently transubstantiates (pray take no offense, RC brothers/sisters) himself into a building.

But such images aside, so mixing uses of "naos" in the Revelation is still downright confusing. John knows that he is writing a canonical document (Rev 1:1) in which God's temple plays a key part. Yet rather than using "hieros" (far and away the dominant "stone-and-mortar" temple word), John says "naos." "Naos" can refer to a "stone-and-mortar" temple, yes. But can also refer to God's dwelling place [Rev 14:15], Spirit-filled believers [1Co 6:19], etc.). So given 1) earlier dominance of "hieros," 2) the use of "naos" in Paul’s ministry and 3) in his own Gospel (2:19-Christ's body as distinct from "hieros"), 4) the bizarre images that result from so reading the first and last "naos" texts in the Revelation (3:12; 21:22) PLUS 5), the comparative specificity of "hieros" over "naos," why would John do that? If a "stone and mortar" temple is so critical to the Revelation, would it not be much better to say "hieros" for temple as John himself did years earlier (John 2:19ff)?

My take is that since the resurrection of Jesus Christ, his body is the one temple in which the NT writers take interest. And this becomes increasingly apparent as years advance, the canon nears completion and "hieros" recedes until the Revelation of Jesus Christ by which time the once dominant "hieros" is totally eclipsed by "naos."

By His Grace’ original post referenced 2Th 2:4. Since "naos" is Paul's word for believers as God's temple, we might well expect 2Th 2:4 to say that, "he will seat himself in the "hieros" (stone-and-mortar temple) of God. But 2Th 2:4 says "naos." So however else we may interpret 2Th 2, it seems highly unlikely that Paul intended to say that the lawless one would park in a stone-and-mortar temple. That would run counter to every other use of "naos" by Paul without exception.

Don’t get me wrong. Paul had a profound interest in the "naos" of God as the body of Christ. But he shows no interest in a "hieros" temple whatsoever. And for that reason, neither do I.

Well that was deep.. So whats the deception in your view. A false Spirit then? And not a earthly temple at all. Thats scarey.

 

[Big Mouth Nana]

Dad Ernie suggested a word study for "hieron" and for "naos." That struck me as reasonable and intelligent. Too many such ideas are consigned to eternal oblivion. So, I gave Bibleworks for Windoze a kick and generated a few statistics. My eyes don’t always work the best. I don’t claim infallibility, but I think that this is reasonably accurate. Here’s the scoop.

When NT writers mention a stone-and-mortar temple, "hieros" is the word of choice. Mark (the earliest) mentions "temple" 12 times. 9 references are "hieros" and 3 are "naos." Matthew has 17 temple references of which 9 are "hieros." Of John's 14 temple references, 11 are "hieros." Of Luke's 18 references, 14 are "hieros" and 4 are "naos." Of 26 temple references in the Acts, 24 are "hieros." And in Act 19:24 "naos" is rendered not "temples" but "shrines." Acts 19:24 and 17:24 aside, it's "hieros" in the Acts every time. So when the NT writers make temple references, it is very clear that "hieros" is the dominant word by a wide margin.

But now an interesting thing happens. While so predominate in Matthew to Acts, "hieros" seems to drop off the face of the planet. 70+ hits-and then "boom!" "Hieros" occurs in 2Ti 3:15 where it is rendered "holy" (KJV, DRA, YLT, NKJ, BBE, NIV, NLT, NJB) and "sacred" (WEB, RWB, DBY, NAU, NRS). And it is mentioned in 1Co 9:13-14 as Paul discusses his salary package. Otherwise, "naos" rules from Acts 27 to Revelation 22! How weird is that!

But what’s even weirder is the way that "naos" is used after the Acts.

Paul witnesses time and again that believers in Christ are the Temple ("naos") of God. We see that in 1Co 6:19 (your body is the "naos" of the Holy Spirit), 2Co 6:16 (we are the "naos" of the living God) and Eph 2:20ff ("we are his "naos"). Paul asked, "don't you know that all of you together are the "naos" of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you? God will bring ruin upon anyone who ruins this "naos." God's "naos" is holy, and you Christians are that "naos" (1Co 3:16-17).

I’m struck by a certain similarity of this with John usage of "naos" (the body of Christ) in John 2:19-21. Did they compare notes? In the Revelation, John makes 13 references to "temple." Distributed fairly evenly throughout (chapters 3,7,11,14,15,16 and 21), "naos" accounts for all 13 temple references in the Revelation. "Hieros" recedes from view; "naos" alone stands.

One can argue that John's usage of "naos" in the Revelation recognizes no such distinction as "hieros = stone and mortar temple" and "naos = body of Christ." But that makes several of John's references pretty puzzling. In Rev 3:12, victors in Christ become pillars in the "naos" of God. In Rev 21:22, we read that God and the Lamb ARE the "naos" of the New Jerusalem. So if "naos" means a stone-and-mortar temple in the Revelation, we get some pretty bizarre stuff-believers as physical columns-and God apparently transubstantiates (pray take no offense, RC brothers/sisters) himself into a building.

But such images aside, so mixing uses of "naos" in the Revelation is still downright confusing. John knows that he is writing a canonical document (Rev 1:1) in which God's temple plays a key part. Yet rather than using "hieros" (far and away the dominant "stone-and-mortar" temple word), John says "naos." "Naos" can refer to a "stone-and-mortar" temple, yes. But can also refer to God's dwelling place [Rev 14:15], Spirit-filled believers [1Co 6:19], etc.). So given 1) earlier dominance of "hieros," 2) the use of "naos" in Paul’s ministry and 3) in his own Gospel (2:19-Christ's body as distinct from "hieros"), 4) the bizarre images that result from so reading the first and last "naos" texts in the Revelation (3:12; 21:22) PLUS 5), the comparative specificity of "hieros" over "naos," why would John do that? If a "stone and mortar" temple is so critical to the Revelation, would it not be much better to say "hieros" for temple as John himself did years earlier (John 2:19ff)?

My take is that since the resurrection of Jesus Christ, his body is the one temple in which the NT writers take interest. And this becomes increasingly apparent as years advance, the canon nears completion and "hieros" recedes until the Revelation of Jesus Christ by which time the once dominant "hieros" is totally eclipsed by "naos."

By His Grace’ original post referenced 2Th 2:4. Since "naos" is Paul's word for believers as God's temple, we might well expect 2Th 2:4 to say that, "he will seat himself in the "hieros" (stone-and-mortar temple) of God. But 2Th 2:4 says "naos." So however else we may interpret 2Th 2, it seems highly unlikely that Paul intended to say that the lawless one would park in a stone-and-mortar temple. That would run counter to every other use of "naos" by Paul without exception.

Don’t get me wrong. Paul had a profound interest in the "naos" of God as the body of Christ. But he shows no interest in a "hieros" temple whatsoever. And for that reason, neither do I.

If I understood even half of this, I might have been interested, LOL. What is "hieros", & "naos"?