Should the Christian expect a Temple made of stone and mortar to be erected in Jerusa

[rejoice44]

There is so much talk about expectations of a new Temple, but what do scripture, logic, and practicality teach?


Jesus said he was the temple, Paul said Jesus was the temple, and John said Jesus was the temple.

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Ephesians 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

All the Jewish feasts point to Jesus as the temple and high priest. The culmination of the feasts comes when Jesus, the High Priest, the temple, and the sacrificial lamb makes the final sacrifice.

Why would God re-institute the beggarly elements of animal sacrifice? What in anyone’s mind would lead him to believe that God would say, Okay, you don’t accept my Son’s sacrifice so I will let you go on sacrificing animals?


Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

What evidence does anyone have to support the rebuilding of a stone and mortar temple in Israel?

[divaD]

There is so much talk about expectations of a new Temple, but what do scripture, logic, and practicality teach?


Jesus said he was the temple, Paul said Jesus was the temple, and John said Jesus was the temple.

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Ephesians 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

All the Jewish feasts point to Jesus as the temple and high priest. The culmination of the feasts comes when Jesus, the High Priest, the temple, and the sacrificial lamb makes the final sacrifice.

Why would God re-institute the beggarly elements of animal sacrifice? What in anyone’s mind would lead him to believe that God would say, Okay, you don’t accept my Son’s sacrifice so I will let you go on sacrificing animals?


Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

What evidence does anyone have to support the rebuilding of a stone and mortar temple in Israel?

If one does get built, I can't imagine it being God's idea. The point is, one could indeed be built. But the question is, why and by which commands of God to do so?

[fewarechosen]

whenever i think about looking for the temple/kingdom i remember a couple scriptures.

1Co_3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Luk_17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

[divaD]

whenever i think about looking for the temple/kingdom i remember a couple scriptures.

1Co_3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

.

Let me ask this then. When would you conclude from Scriptures that we became the temple of God? For example. Would anyone have been the temple of God while Jesus walked the earth? How about before He walked the earth?

[fewarechosen]

Let me ask this then. When would you conclude from Scriptures that we became the temple of God? For example. Would anyone have been the temple of God while Jesus walked the earth? How about before He walked the earth?

they way i understand it is when He sets up an abode with you and is in you, then one is the temple of God

you may be a temple before then but its not to God. meaning the Spirit of God must be in one to be a temple of God.

so - no and no, obviously Christ was the temple when He walked here though

probably hastey in saying no and no - because in a way could considered everyone a temple of God. ones we just tore down and built a temple to a false god in. so depends on a few layers of truth in a way.

could be pondered that you were set up a temple of God but then tore it down and fill it with our own desires, then when Christ came He showed us how to rebuild it


Joh_15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Joh_16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

[Raybob]

Let me ask this then. When would you conclude from Scriptures that we became the temple of God?...

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
(1Pe 2:5-6)

[divaD]

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
(1Pe 2:5-6)

Thanks, Raybob, that was a perfect Scripture to use. I think what I was trying to determine, if one could be the temple of God while a physical temple existed. Technically I would think yes, since the above would occur before the destruction of the brick and mortar temple a number of years later. So the point being, even if that temple had not been destroyed, it seems like the fact that there still remained the a brick and mortar temple, didn't take away the fact that we are now that temple.

[jesse]

He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him" (Daniel 9:27).

So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel - let the reader understand (Matthew 24:15)

The temple must be rebuilt before the Anti Christ comes. This is prophecy.

[Redeemed by Grace]

He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him" (Daniel 9:27).

So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel - let the reader understand (Matthew 24:15)

The temple must be rebuilt before the Anti Christ comes. This is prophecy.

That's how I understand it as well...

[rejoice44]

That's how I understand it as well...

1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

To expect a temple to be built to offer animal sacrifice is to not recognize that Christ is the temple and the sacrifice. The Jews, through ignorance, expect to resurrect a temple to offer animal sacrifice. God has not allowed them to resurrect the false temple for nearly two thousand years, and there is no reason to suspect that that is about to change.

Some people say that the temple described by Ezekiel is going to be the third temple. They say the second temple was not Ezekiel's described temple. They say it was not big enough. When you ask what are the dimensions that were not followed in building the second temple there is no answer, because they do not have for the most part the dimensions of the second temple. In the search for answers I have come to believe that the second temple was built to the dimensions of Ezekiel's described temple. There is a problem with one dimension as described by Ezekiel.

The problematic dimension given in Ezekiel is found in Ezekiel 42:20. "He measured it by the four sides: it had a wall round about, five hundred reeds long, and five hundred broad, to make a separation between the sanctuary and the profane place."

This dimension equates to approximately 694 acres. The total dimension of Old Jerusalem was 224 acres. That wall would be three times the size of old Jerusalem. Was the dimension given a spiritual dimension? Could it have been a spiritual hedge God placed around Jerusalem. Remember the chariots of fire that surrounded Elisha.

There are several reason why I believe the second temple was built according to Ezekiel's dimensions.

1. The altar of the first temple was 20 cubits by 20 cubits and the dimensions of Ezekiel's temple was 24 cubits by 24 cubits. We find in the Talmud (Mishna - Mas. Middoth Chapter 3) that R. Jose explains that when they came back from the captivity the altar in the second temple was enlarged on the North by four cubits and on the West by four cubits, making it the exact size as described in Ezekiel's dimensions. You will will find that the Porch's dimensions were also changed in the second temple to fit Ezekiel's dimensions.

2. Ezekiel was told four times that the sons of Zadok would be in charge of that temple. It is well documented that the sons of Zadok were in fact in charge of the second temple. Ezra was in fact one of those sons.

Ezekiel 43:19 And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord GOD, a young bullock for a sin offering.

Does anyone believe that God would again institute bulls for a sin offering after God offered up his Son?

[Redeemed by Grace]

1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

To expect a temple to be built to offer animal sacrifice is to not recognize that Christ is the temple and the sacrifice. The Jews, through ignorance, expect to resurrect a temple to offer animal sacrifice. God has not allowed them to resurrect the false temple for nearly two thousand years, and there is no reason to suspect that that is about to change.

Some people say that the temple described by Ezekiel is going to be the third temple. They say the second temple was not Ezekiel's described temple. They say it was not big enough. When you ask what are the dimensions that were not followed in building the second temple there is no answer, because they do not have for the most part the dimensions of the second temple. In the search for answers I have come to believe that the second temple was built to the dimensions of Ezekiel's described temple. There is a problem with one dimension as described by Ezekiel.

The problematic dimension given in Ezekiel is found in Ezekiel 42:20. "He measured it by the four sides: it had a wall round about, five hundred reeds long, and five hundred broad, to make a separation between the sanctuary and the profane place."

This dimension equates to approximately 694 acres. The total dimension of Old Jerusalem was 224 acres. That wall would be three times the size of old Jerusalem. Was the dimension given a spiritual dimension? Could it have been a spiritual hedge God placed around Jerusalem. Remember the chariots of fire that surrounded Elisha.

There are several reason why I believe the second temple was built according to Ezekiel's dimensions.

1. The altar of the first temple was 20 cubits by 20 cubits and the dimensions of Ezekiel's temple was 24 cubits by 24 cubits. We find in the Talmud (Mishna - Mas. Middoth Chapter 3) that R. Jose explains that when they came back from the captivity the altar in the second temple was enlarged on the North by four cubits and on the West by four cubits, making it the exact size as described in Ezekiel's dimensions. You will will find that the Porch's dimensions were also changed in the second temple to fit Ezekiel's dimensions.

2. Ezekiel was told four times that the sons of Zadok would be in charge of that temple. It is well documented that the sons of Zadok were in fact in charge of the second temple. Ezra was in fact one of those sons.

Ezekiel 43:19 And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord GOD, a young bullock for a sin offering.

Does anyone believe that God would again institute bulls for a sin offering after God offered up his Son?

Hi Rejoice,

It sounds like you lean towards to a form of dispensationism. For me, I see God working many paths, that of correcting Israel and that of building the church. So as with Israel's sin of rejecting Jesus [their Messiah], God scattered them at the destruction of the temple in AD70. As Daniel asks and prophesied, the last week of years is still waiting to happen before all Israel will be 'saved'.

I believe that as with multiple economies in the world today, that within the Millennial Kingdom of the future, there will be Jews who will believe and see that God and Jesus , with David sitting in a side court on their respective thrones on earth... This is what I see written within Ezekiel.

As to Matthew 24 and Daniel 9-11, I think that either a temple or a tabernacle will be reconstructed within the city of Jerusalem and that there will be devout Jews who will feel the need to return to their traditions of their fathers [Abraham and Moses] and offer up to God sacrifices as liken unto the 7 holiday feasts. The do this because they will want to 'come back' to Him in the only way they know how and thus will be the modern day devoutest of Jews.

So all these years until AD1947, Israel did not have their land... Step one. Then in AD1968, Jerusalem became a Jewish city again. Now things get closer to the timing of the end. IF... a temple or tabernacle is reconstructed, or a 7 year treaty is signed with Israel and then a temple or tabernacle is reconstructed within Jerusalem... then I will have great anticipation as to what will transpire next.

[rejoice44]

Hi Rejoice,

It sounds like you lean towards to a form of dispensationism. For me, I see God working many paths, that of correcting Israel and that of building the church. So as with Israel's sin of rejecting Jesus [their Messiah], God scattered them at the destruction of the temple in AD70. As Daniel asks and prophesied, the last week of years is still waiting to happen before all Israel will be 'saved'.

I believe that as with multiple economies in the world today, that within the Millennial Kingdom of the future, there will be Jews who will believe and see that God and Jesus , with David sitting in a side court on their respective thrones on earth... This is what I see written within Ezekiel.

As to Matthew 24 and Daniel 9-11, I think that either a temple or a tabernacle will be reconstructed within the city of Jerusalem and that there will be devout Jews who will feel the need to return to their traditions of their fathers [Abraham and Moses] and offer up to God sacrifices as liken unto the 7 holiday feasts. The do this because they will want to 'come back' to Him in the only way they know how and thus will be the modern day devoutest of Jews.

So all these years until AD1947, Israel did not have their land... Step one. Then in AD1968, Jerusalem became a Jewish city again. Now things get closer to the timing of the end. IF... a temple or tabernacle is reconstructed, or a 7 year treaty is signed with Israel and then a temple or tabernacle is reconstructed within Jerusalem... then I will have great anticipation as to what will transpire next.

I know that God is not done with Israel, but will it be God's way or Israel's way.

Do you think God will say to Israel, I have fulfilled the feasts, I have sent my Son to die for your sins, but now that you have not only rejected my Son, but crucified Him as well, that God will say okay lets try this over, we can go back to sacrificing animals?

[Fenris]

Do you think God will say to Israel, I have fulfilled the feasts, I have sent my Son to die for your sins, but now that you have not only rejected my Son, but crucified Him as well, that God will say okay lets try this over, we can go back to sacrificing animals?

I don't have a feeling on this discussion one way or the other. This is really a Christians only topic. Still, I want to point out something that you are doing here.

You are saying "I already know what I believe, now how can I interpret the text in light of that".

This strikes me as being backwards.

Your beliefs should conform to the text, not the other way around.

That is all.

[rejoice44]

I don't have a feeling on this discussion one way or the other. This is really a Christians only topic. Still, I want to point out something that you are doing here.

You are saying "I already know what I believe, now how can I interpret the text in light of that".

This strikes me as being backwards.

Your beliefs should conform to the text, not the other way around.

That is all.

Everything I believe is in light of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. If you believed in the New Testament you would probably agree with me.

[Fenris]

Everything I believe is in light of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. If you believed in the New Testament you would probably agree with me.

Ehhh I have no opinion on this subject.