Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 63

Thread: Is there a need for a future temple?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    3,325
    Blog Entries
    2

    Is there a need for a future temple?

    A debate has encouraged me to post this thread

    Does God need or require a future temple with oblation or sacrifice?

    No He doesn't we are now the temple that God dwells in that's part of the reason God has allowed the temple to be destroyed and has allowed the dome of the rock to be on the location to stop a temple from being built.

    1 Corr 3:16-17
    16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.

    1 Corr 6:19
    19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

    Acts 17:24
    "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.

    Acts 7:48-53
    48 However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says:

    49 “‘Heaven is my throne,
    and the earth is my footstool.
    What kind of house will you build for me?
    says the Lord.
    Or where will my resting place be?
    50 Has not my hand made all these things?’[l]

    51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53 you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.”

    1 Kings 8:27
    But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!


    The Holy Spirit now dwells in us and Paul clearly tells us in 1 Corr 3:16 that we are now Gods temple. If the Jews accept Jesus they would then understand the scriptures and not need the temple. If a future antichrist desecrates a future temple why would it matter to them or to God? Then they could now worship Jesus twice daily wherever they are each alone by themselves.

    The Jews have all that they need to realize who Jesus is just like the parable of the rich man and Lasurs says. The Jews have rejected Jesus and killed Him now it is up to each Jewish person to realize who the Messiah is just like thousands already have over the last 2000 years.

    Here is a rule that I go by to understand the proper meaning of scripture

    The whole of scripture is greater than the sum of its individual passages. You can not comprehend the bible as a whole without comprehending its individual passages and you cannot comprehend its individual passages without comprehending the bible as a whole. The individual passages can never be interpreted in a way as to conflict the whole of scripture.

    A need for a future temple would contradict the scriptures that I provided so it can't be. So why would God seam to use a future temple method when all we need is the scriptures God has already provided to realize who the Messiah is?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    3,807

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    A debate has encouraged me to post this thread

    Does God need or require a future temple with oblation or sacrifice?

    No He doesn't we are now the temple that God dwells in that's part of the reason God has allowed the temple to be destroyed and has allowed the dome of the rock to be on the location to stop a temple from being built.

    1 Corr 3:16-17
    16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.

    1 Corr 6:19
    19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

    Acts 17:24
    "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.

    Acts 7:48-53
    48 However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says:

    49 “‘Heaven is my throne,
    and the earth is my footstool.
    What kind of house will you build for me?
    says the Lord.
    Or where will my resting place be?
    50 Has not my hand made all these things?’[l]

    51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53 you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.”

    1 Kings 8:27
    But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!


    The Holy Spirit now dwells in us and Paul clearly tells us in 1 Corr 3:16 that we are now Gods temple. If the Jews accept Jesus they would then understand the scriptures and not need the temple. If a future antichrist desecrates a future temple why would it matter to them or to God? Then they could now worship Jesus twice daily wherever they are each alone by themselves.

    The Jews have all that they need to realize who Jesus is just like the parable of the rich man and Lasurs says. The Jews have rejected Jesus and killed Him now it is up to each Jewish person to realize who the Messiah is just like thousands already have over the last 2000 years.

    Here is a rule that I go by to understand the proper meaning of scripture

    The whole of scripture is greater than the sum of its individual passages. You can not comprehend the bible as a whole without comprehending its individual passages and you cannot comprehend its individual passages without comprehending the bible as a whole. The individual passages can never be interpreted in a way as to conflict the whole of scripture.

    A need for a future temple would contradict the scriptures that I provided so it can't be. So why would God seam to use a future temple method when all we need is the scriptures God has already provided to realize who the Messiah is?
    It is true that the Church is the Temple of God. But our Lord Jesus will physically return to earth, touch down on Mount Olives, relieve Jerusalem, physically fight Armageddon and physically return from Bozrah after dealing with Edom covered with blood (Rev.19:13; Isa.63:1). He will set up a physical Throne on earth to judge and rule the nations (Matt.25:31). After the dust of battle and judgement is settled, and our Lord is ensconced in Jerusalem as King of kings ON EARTH, He will need a Palace. This ABODE (call it a Palace or a Temple) will be built to the specifications of the the Temple of Ezekiel's closing Chapters. He will be surrounded by the Levites who will serve Him.

    There is one other point. The Beast will need a Temple for his worship and for the Abomination of Desolation in the "Holy Place" (Matt.24:15; Mk.13:14; 2nd Thess.2:4). So there is need for a Temple in Jerusalem before Christ returns. This will be the third Temple, but there is not evidence that our Lord Jesus will enter it. It has been defiled by the Beast and is most probably destroyed in the great earthquake of Jerusalem during the Great Tribulation (Rev.11:13).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    3,325
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    It is true that the Church is the Temple of God. But our Lord Jesus will physically return to earth, touch down on Mount Olives, relieve Jerusalem, physically fight Armageddon and physically return from Bozrah after dealing with Edom covered with blood (Rev.19:13; Isa.63:1). He will set up a physical Throne on earth to judge and rule the nations (Matt.25:31). After the dust of battle and judgement is settled, and our Lord is ensconced in Jerusalem as King of kings ON EARTH, He will need a Palace. This ABODE (call it a Palace or a Temple) will be built to the specifications of the the Temple of Ezekiel's closing Chapters. He will be surrounded by the Levites who will serve Him.

    There is one other point. The Beast will need a Temple for his worship and for the Abomination of Desolation in the "Holy Place" (Matt.24:15; Mk.13:14; 2nd Thess.2:4). So there is need for a Temple in Jerusalem before Christ returns. This will be the third Temple, but there is not evidence that our Lord Jesus will enter it. It has been defiled by the Beast and is most probably destroyed in the great earthquake of Jerusalem during the Great Tribulation (Rev.11:13).
    Well we definitely have a difference of opinion in this LOL.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Thames, New Zealand
    Posts
    554

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    I agree that there will be a third Temple in Jerusalem. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Revelation 11:1 prove it.

    The truth that we Christians are the spiritual Temple of God during this Church age, does not mean there cannot be another physical Temple.
    Several OT prophesies also confirm this new Temple. Zechariah 6:15, Haggai 2:9, Isaiah 2:1-3, Isaiah 60:7

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    3,325
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keraz View Post
    I agree that there will be a third Temple in Jerusalem. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Revelation 11:1 prove it.

    The truth that we Christians are the spiritual Temple of God during this Church age, does not mean there cannot be another physical Temple.
    Several OT prophesies also confirm this new Temple. Zechariah 6:15, Haggai 2:9, Isaiah 2:1-3, Isaiah 60:7
    Revelation talks like the temple was their and I believe that it was at the time and Paul was talking about us as the temple

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,692
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    It is true that the Church is the Temple of God. But our Lord Jesus will physically return to earth, touch down on Mount Olives, relieve Jerusalem, physically fight Armageddon and physically return from Bozrah after dealing with Edom covered with blood (Rev.19:13; Isa.63:1). He will set up a physical Throne on earth to judge and rule the nations (Matt.25:31). After the dust of battle and judgement is settled, and our Lord is ensconced in Jerusalem as King of kings ON EARTH, He will need a Palace. This ABODE (call it a Palace or a Temple) will be built to the specifications of the the Temple of Ezekiel's closing Chapters. He will be surrounded by the Levites who will serve Him.

    There is one other point. The Beast will need a Temple for his worship and for the Abomination of Desolation in the "Holy Place" (Matt.24:15; Mk.13:14; 2nd Thess.2:4). So there is need for a Temple in Jerusalem before Christ returns. This will be the third Temple, but there is not evidence that our Lord Jesus will enter it. It has been defiled by the Beast and is most probably destroyed in the great earthquake of Jerusalem during the Great Tribulation (Rev.11:13).
    Very good. I might add that the temple in the KOG will be located not in the city but in the northern part of the land surrounding the city per EZ. And yes the beast will AOD in this temple claiming to be who? If God would not do it then why would the beast??.

    13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    In His Service
    Posts
    2,124

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    If they build a new temple what would Israel be expecting.. Is this what Israel is after?

    Exodus 25:22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.


    Jude
    Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


  8. #8

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Of course, there is need for the future temple without which there can be no fullness of God and perfection in the NHNE. Because the Lamb and the Lord God Almighty are the temple, there is no need to "build" a temple as neither of them can be "built".

    Other than the Lamb and the Lord God Almighty, any prior or future temple made or built for God can only be temporary, whether a physical building, our physical bodies, or any kind of spiritual body. Every temporary temple will be brought down and made to pass away. Neither Israel nor the Church can be that future temple.
    Grace and peace unto you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ!

  9. #9

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    A debate has encouraged me to post this thread

    Does God need or require a future temple with oblation or sacrifice?

    No He doesn't we are now the temple that God dwells in that's part of the reason God has allowed the temple to be destroyed and has allowed the dome of the rock to be on the location to stop a temple from being built.

    1 Corr 3:16-17
    16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.

    1 Corr 6:19
    19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

    Acts 17:24
    "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.

    Acts 7:48-53
    48 However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says:

    49 “‘Heaven is my throne,
    and the earth is my footstool.
    What kind of house will you build for me?
    says the Lord.
    Or where will my resting place be?
    50 Has not my hand made all these things?’[l]

    51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53 you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.”

    1 Kings 8:27
    But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!


    The Holy Spirit now dwells in us and Paul clearly tells us in 1 Corr 3:16 that we are now Gods temple. If the Jews accept Jesus they would then understand the scriptures and not need the temple. If a future antichrist desecrates a future temple why would it matter to them or to God? Then they could now worship Jesus twice daily wherever they are each alone by themselves.

    The Jews have all that they need to realize who Jesus is just like the parable of the rich man and Lasurs says. The Jews have rejected Jesus and killed Him now it is up to each Jewish person to realize who the Messiah is just like thousands already have over the last 2000 years.

    Here is a rule that I go by to understand the proper meaning of scripture

    The whole of scripture is greater than the sum of its individual passages. You can not comprehend the bible as a whole without comprehending its individual passages and you cannot comprehend its individual passages without comprehending the bible as a whole. The individual passages can never be interpreted in a way as to conflict the whole of scripture.

    A need for a future temple would contradict the scriptures that I provided so it can't be. So why would God seam to use a future temple method when all we need is the scriptures God has already provided to realize who the Messiah is?
    I agree. The temple in the New Covenant is Jesus and the Church, Jesus' body. There is no need any more for the Law and its temple worship. The old priesthood has passed away. Animal sacrifices have become moot in view of the eternal sacrifice Christ made for all sin.

    Even the OT temple was built and patterned after the heavenly temple. That temple is not built of wood and stone. Rather, it is God's dwelling place in the heavens, the place of His throne. We can see it perhaps in Rev 4-5.

    Antichrist may or may not seat himself in an actual physical temple. What I do believe is that Antichrist will claim to be deity, and will find a place to do this. That is not a restored Jewish temple, nor will a proper Jewish temple ever be rebuilt again, in my opinion.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    3,807

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I agree. The temple in the New Covenant is Jesus and the Church, Jesus' body. There is no need any more for the Law and its temple worship. The old priesthood has passed away. Animal sacrifices have become moot in view of the eternal sacrifice Christ made for all sin.

    ....
    You create problems for yourself with this belief. I will show you one so we don't get bogged down with pages of writing.

    The Passover, a crucial part of the Law, involved both the killing of a one-year-old Lamb without blemish. Our Lord Jesus was under Law and would have thus killed and eaten the Passover for thirty three years. Added to this our Lord Himself said in Matthew 5:18; "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Now, the heaven and earth pass away AFTER the Millennial Kingdom of Jesus. The first thousand years of His everlasting Kingdom will be on the old earth, or, the earth as we know it. That is, the Law in its entirety will not only be in effect during the Millennial Kingdom, but it will be fulfilled - NOT BY CHRIST Who has already fulfilled the Law, but by Israel who, until the return of Christ, have NOT fulfilled the Law. In His final act before His death we read in Luke 22:12-16;

    12 "And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready.
    13 And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
    14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
    15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
    16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God."


    Whatever a man's perception of the matter is, the grammar is clear. Our Lord Jesus will kill and eat the Passover after His Second Coming when the Kingdom has been set up on earth. I can write another page to explain why, but this should suffice to show that the Law, the Levitical Priesthood, and the Temple, which is an integral part of the Law, MUST BE IN PLACE in Israel during the Millennium. And so the Book of Ezekiel becomes real and literal.

  11. #11

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    You create problems for yourself with this belief. I will show you one so we don't get bogged down with pages of writing.

    The Passover, a crucial part of the Law, involved both the killing of a one-year-old Lamb without blemish. Our Lord Jesus was under Law and would have thus killed and eaten the Passover for thirty three years. Added to this our Lord Himself said in Matthew 5:18; "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Now, the heaven and earth pass away AFTER the Millennial Kingdom of Jesus. The first thousand years of His everlasting Kingdom will be on the old earth, or, the earth as we know it. That is, the Law in its entirety will not only be in effect during the Millennial Kingdom, but it will be fulfilled - NOT BY CHRIST Who has already fulfilled the Law, but by Israel who, until the return of Christ, have NOT fulfilled the Law. In His final act before His death we read in Luke 22:12-16;

    12 "And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready.
    13 And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
    14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
    15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
    16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God."


    Whatever a man's perception of the matter is, the grammar is clear. Our Lord Jesus will kill and eat the Passover after His Second Coming when the Kingdom has been set up on earth. I can write another page to explain why, but this should suffice to show that the Law, the Levitical Priesthood, and the Temple, which is an integral part of the Law, MUST BE IN PLACE in Israel during the Millennium. And so the Book of Ezekiel becomes real and literal.
    No, you're completely wrong. Just a quick read through Galatians and through Hebrews you will recognize that the Law of Moses is kaput--finished! It was finished at the moment the veil was rent, or at the moment Jesus said, "It is finished."

    Unless you understand this you will have to be written off as a "Judaizer," or as something like the Ebionites were--an ancient group that believed in reestablishing the Law.

    The Law of Moses and the Covenant of Law are synonymous terms, and refer to a temporary system put in place in perpetuity until such time as Israel committed apostasy, or until the Messiah removed all obstacles to Israel's redemption. The Law was a temporary means of dealing with sin in Israel until the problem of sin could be finally dealt with.

    "Until heaven and earth pass away" is a kind of oath, suggesting that God's promises on earth are as certain as the stars. Certainly the heavens and the earth will experience some kind of reformation, allowing the current fallen state of the universe to pass away. But the universe, and earth, will actually continue to exist forever, although in this newly reformed state.

    Jesus was saying that God's laws are as intractable as the universe itself. As sure as sin is in man so it's certain that sin had to be dealt with under the Law. Obviously, when sin is dealt with remedies under the Law are no longer needed.

    And that is why Jesus said "until all be fulfilled." It is not when the universe passes away, or is reformed, that the Law ceases to be required. The principles of sin and the need for redemption continue as long as the current universe exists.

    However, when sin was dealt with legally at the cross, the problem of sin was dealt with in a different way from the way the Law dealt with it. The Law was unable to present a final fix for sin, legally. But Christ was able to do this on the cross, and not at the end of the universe.

    Redemption from sin will not be complete until the end of the current universe. But Christ's solution to sin, ending the era of Law, took place on the cross. His was a completely different system of dealing with sin from the Law, and His solution provided an eternal remedy, whereas the system of Law could not.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    3,807

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    No, you're completely wrong. Just a quick read through Galatians and through Hebrews you will recognize that the Law of Moses is kaput--finished! It was finished at the moment the veil was rent, or at the moment Jesus said, "It is finished."

    Unless you understand this you will have to be written off as a "Judaizer," or as something like the Ebionites were--an ancient group that believed in reestablishing the Law.

    The Law of Moses and the Covenant of Law are synonymous terms, and refer to a temporary system put in place in perpetuity until such time as Israel committed apostasy, or until the Messiah removed all obstacles to Israel's redemption. The Law was a temporary means of dealing with sin in Israel until the problem of sin could be finally dealt with.

    "Until heaven and earth pass away" is a kind of oath, suggesting that God's promises on earth are as certain as the stars. Certainly the heavens and the earth will experience some kind of reformation, allowing the current fallen state of the universe to pass away. But the universe, and earth, will actually continue to exist forever, although in this newly reformed state.

    Jesus was saying that God's laws are as intractable as the universe itself. As sure as sin is in man so it's certain that sin had to be dealt with under the Law. Obviously, when sin is dealt with remedies under the Law are no longer needed.

    And that is why Jesus said "until all be fulfilled." It is not when the universe passes away, or is reformed, that the Law ceases to be required. The principles of sin and the need for redemption continue as long as the current universe exists.

    However, when sin was dealt with legally at the cross, the problem of sin was dealt with in a different way from the way the Law dealt with it. The Law was unable to present a final fix for sin, legally. But Christ was able to do this on the cross, and not at the end of the universe.

    Redemption from sin will not be complete until the end of the current universe. But Christ's solution to sin, ending the era of Law, took place on the cross. His was a completely different system of dealing with sin from the Law, and His solution provided an eternal remedy, whereas the system of Law could not.
    Thanks for your answer. As you did not enter into ....
    1. our Lord killing and eating the Passover in the kingdom WHEN HE COMES,
    2. the direct and unambiguous statement of our Lord Jesus that the Law would not pass "UNTIL" heaven and earth passed ("until" indicates that it will eventually pass)

    ... I will let my posting stand.

    You spoke much about "sin". I did not even address it. I take your answer as a smokescreen.

  13. #13

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    Thanks for your answer. As you did not enter into ....
    1. our Lord killing and eating the Passover in the kingdom WHEN HE COMES,
    2. the direct and unambiguous statement of our Lord Jesus that the Law would not pass "UNTIL" heaven and earth passed ("until" indicates that it will eventually pass)

    ... I will let my posting stand.

    You spoke much about "sin". I did not even address it. I take your answer as a smokescreen.
    You didn't answer my points either. Shall I take that as a "dodge?" No, I meant to point out that NT Theology discredits any effort at reviving OT laws and rituals. If Jesus said he will eat again in the Kingdom then it will be the same as the Communion service, a *remembrance* of his death for sin.

    In mentioning "sin" am I "dodging?" No, the Law was all about sin. The Passover was all about sin. In completely dealing with sin there is no longer need for reference to the Law. Its remedy for sin was temporary. But now that sin has been dealt with for all time, the Law is moot with respect to dealing with sin.

    But you didn't deal with the very serious charge that you could be construed as a Judaizer. Why don't you deal with that serious question? If NT Theology upholds my view that the Law is kaput and done away with, and if countering this would make you a Judaizer, why don't you just admit that you don't believe the NT Scriptures when they denounce anybody who reestablishes the Law of Moses?

    Perhaps this is why you charge me with putting up "smokescreens?" You just don't want to face the music. NT Theology condemns any effort by Christians to reinstitute the Law. Do I really need to quote Galatians and Hebrews?

    Gal 3.3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?

    Heb 7.12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.


    As for Matthew 5, the passage reads...
    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

    Jesus said this while he was still under the Law of Moses, while he was still in his earthly ministry. He did not annul the Law at that time. His purpose was to fulfil the purpose of the Law, which was to prepare the way for his own coming. It was not to remain in effect forever. Rather, it was to show the way to Christ's own righteousness, which is completely separate from the Law.

    The passage also says...
    Mat 5.18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

    What you have to understand is what Jesus saw as the *accomplishment* of the Law. Israel continued to have to keep the Law until the veil was rent. It was kept, according to Jesus, as a testimony to himself and to his own righteousness! It was not a testimony to itself, as if the Law would have to be kept forever!

    So it is the testimony to Jesus by the Law that would endure throughout the age, and not the continuing validity of the Law as a covenant. That covenant was violated by Israel at the death of Christ, and will not be renewed. But the testimony of the Law to Christ is an eternal testimony, which cannot ever be eradicated. All that the Law represented, the inability of man to redeem himself, was demonstrated in the righteousness of Christ, which no man could attain to. And this testimony remains forever. Every jot and tittle of the Law pointed to Christ's perfection, and to the inability of sinful man to redeem himself.

    Mat 5.19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


    Here Jesus is calling for Israel to continue following every jot and tittle of the Law because at that time Israel was still under the Law. Jesus was not calling for Israel to follow the Law forever. Rather, he was pointing out how the Law was a testimony to himself.

    "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

    And so the Law was not meant to point to itself as an eternal covenant. Rather, it was a continuing testimony to man's inability to attain to salvation under the Law. It was a continuing testimony to Israel's inability to find eternal salvation under the Law. It was a continuing testimony to Christ, whose works in redemption would bring an end to the condemnation of the Law.

    This testimony of the Law shows man's need for a complete bodily redemption while the current universe exists. As long as sin exists on this earth the testimony of the Law will point to our need for Christ as our deliverer from sin. The Law could *never* provide eternal deliverance from sin, and so gave way to Christ alone.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    3,807

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You didn't answer my points either. Shall I take that as a "dodge?" No, I meant to point out that NT Theology discredits any effort at reviving OT laws and rituals. If Jesus said he will eat again in the Kingdom then it will be the same as the Communion service, a *remembrance* of his death for sin.

    In mentioning "sin" am I "dodging?" No, the Law was all about sin. The Passover was all about sin. In completely dealing with sin there is no longer need for reference to the Law. Its remedy for sin was temporary. But now that sin has been dealt with for all time, the Law is moot with respect to dealing with sin.

    But you didn't deal with the very serious charge that you could be construed as a Judaizer. Why don't you deal with that serious question? If NT Theology upholds my view that the Law is kaput and done away with, and if countering this would make you a Judaizer, why don't you just admit that you don't believe the NT Scriptures when they denounce anybody who reestablishes the Law of Moses?

    Perhaps this is why you charge me with putting up "smokescreens?" You just don't want to face the music. NT Theology condemns any effort by Christians to reinstitute the Law. Do I really need to quote Galatians and Hebrews?

    Gal 3.3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?

    Heb 7.12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.


    As for Matthew 5, the passage reads...
    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

    Jesus said this while he was still under the Law of Moses, while he was still in his earthly ministry. He did not annul the Law at that time. His purpose was to fulfil the purpose of the Law, which was to prepare the way for his own coming. It was not to remain in effect forever. Rather, it was to show the way to Christ's own righteousness, which is completely separate from the Law.

    The passage also says...
    Mat 5.18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

    What you have to understand is what Jesus saw as the *accomplishment* of the Law. Israel continued to have to keep the Law until the veil was rent. It was kept, according to Jesus, as a testimony to himself and to his own righteousness! It was not a testimony to itself, as if the Law would have to be kept forever!

    So it is the testimony to Jesus by the Law that would endure throughout the age, and not the continuing validity of the Law as a covenant. That covenant was violated by Israel at the death of Christ, and will not be renewed. But the testimony of the Law to Christ is an eternal testimony, which cannot ever be eradicated. All that the Law represented, the inability of man to redeem himself, was demonstrated in the righteousness of Christ, which no man could attain to. And this testimony remains forever. Every jot and tittle of the Law pointed to Christ's perfection, and to the inability of sinful man to redeem himself.

    Mat 5.19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


    Here Jesus is calling for Israel to continue following every jot and tittle of the Law because at that time Israel was still under the Law. Jesus was not calling for Israel to follow the Law forever. Rather, he was pointing out how the Law was a testimony to himself.

    "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

    And so the Law was not meant to point to itself as an eternal covenant. Rather, it was a continuing testimony to man's inability to attain to salvation under the Law. It was a continuing testimony to Israel's inability to find eternal salvation under the Law. It was a continuing testimony to Christ, whose works in redemption would bring an end to the condemnation of the Law.

    This testimony of the Law shows man's need for a complete bodily redemption while the current universe exists. As long as sin exists on this earth the testimony of the Law will point to our need for Christ as our deliverer from sin. The Law could *never* provide eternal deliverance from sin, and so gave way to Christ alone.
    Once again I read through a comprehensive answer of yours and yet you do not address our Lord killing and eating the Passover when He comes in His Kingdom. Surely, if you disagree with this, you can explain why the Master Himself said He was going to do it. Let's fix this one thing, then we can go on to explain why the Law will NOT pass till heaven and earth pass. It is no good pitting one scripture against another. That only shows that you disregard the Bible as a whole as inerrant. You cannot discard our Lord's PROMISE to kill and eat the Passover in His Kingdom when He comes. You have to explain it. It is no good rebuking me. I did not say this. The Bible did.

  15. #15

    Re: Is there a need for a future temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    Once again I read through a comprehensive answer of yours and yet you do not address our Lord killing and eating the Passover when He comes in His Kingdom. Surely, if you disagree with this, you can explain why the Master Himself said He was going to do it. Let's fix this one thing, then we can go on to explain why the Law will NOT pass till heaven and earth pass. It is no good pitting one scripture against another. That only shows that you disregard the Bible as a whole as inerrant. You cannot discard our Lord's PROMISE to kill and eat the Passover in His Kingdom when He comes. You have to explain it. It is no good rebuking me. I did not say this. The Bible did.
    Why do you say I did not address it? I said: "If Jesus said he will eat again in the Kingdom then it will be the same as the Communion service, a *remembrance* of his death for sin."

    Apparently you didn't connect this answer with your question? The Eucharist is not a perpetuation of Passover, since the Law is no longer in effect as a covenant. It is retained as a congregational meal to corporately remember Christ in our midst. It is to acknowledge the purpose of his mission, and the centrality of his spirit in the life of the Church.

    The synoptic gospels inform us of the initial event, the Last Supper. John's version is vague, focusing on the spiritual relationship of Christ to the Church.

    When Jesus said he will drink wine again in the Kingdom of God he did *not* say he was perpetuating Passover. He only said he was going to have congregational fellowship with his people again with wine served. This is a reference to the resurrection.

    Obviously, in all of the times Christians have done this in the Eucharist they have never viewed this as a continuation of Passover, even though it began in the OT era at Passover. The Law is *no longer in effect.* To have this experience again, then, is simply a kind of Communion service, a gathering of Jesus with his people over a meal to commemorate this spiritual relationship.

    Matthew 26.29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

    Jesus *never* indicated he would kill the Passover in the Kingdom. He said he would drink wine with his disciples, indicating that his prophesied death would result in a resurrection. This is, in fact, a prophecy of the general resurrection in the Kingdom of God.

    You still do not address NT Theology, which adamantly claims that the Law is no longer in effect, that its function is useless with respect to eternal salvation. On the other hand, a rite like Eucharist, which *remembers* Christ as our salvation, is useful as a memory tool. Passover has no such function.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (3 members and 1 guests)

  1. marty fox,
  2. CadyandZoe

Similar Threads

  1. Image of the beast = future temple Aod established
    By ross3421 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jul 20th 2016, 01:41 PM
  2. My future!
    By MyRock in forum Praise
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Jun 11th 2013, 07:01 AM
  3. Replies: 116
    Last Post: Mar 20th 2012, 06:25 PM
  4. Replies: 230
    Last Post: May 15th 2011, 09:46 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •