temple of the Church

[randyk]

I happen to think that Jesus and the NT believers began to think of the Church as the final temple of God. What do you think? Up until Herod's temple, it would've been naturally understood that the "temple" was a building. But Jesus began to speak of the temple as himself and those who belong to him. And Paul refers to the temple in the sense of it being God's People. Let me know...

2 Thes 2. ⁴ He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

This makes me wonder if when Paul says the Antichrist will situate himself in God's "temple" that he means Antichrist will try to position himself in God's Church--not in an actual physical building? Of course, Antichrist would never be able to take control of the true Church, but would have to position himself in a nominal Church organization, perhaps crossing denominations in Europe.

Paul could certainly have used the word "Church" instead of "temple." He could've said Antichrist will situate himself in "the Church." But I just can't find any valuable reference to a temple building in the NT that may solve this for me.

And Paul goes out of his way to identify the Church as God's temple. It may be that he wants us to recognize Antichrist wants to usurp God's place in the Christian Church.

[marty fox]

I happen to think that Jesus and the NT believers began to think of the Church as the final temple of God. What do you think? Up until Herod's temple, it would've been naturally understood that the "temple" was a building. But Jesus began to speak of the temple as himself and those who belong to him. And Paul refers to the temple in the sense of it being God's People. Let me know...

2 Thes 2. ⁴ He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

This makes me wonder if when Paul says the Antichrist will situate himself in God's "temple" that he means Antichrist will try to position himself in God's Church--not in an actual physical building? Of course, Antichrist would never be able to take control of the true Church, but would have to position himself in a nominal Church organization, perhaps crossing denominations in Europe.

Paul could certainly have used the word "Church" instead of "temple." He could've said Antichrist will situate himself in "the Church." But I just can't find any valuable reference to a temple building in the NT that may solve this for me.

And Paul goes out of his way to identify the Church as God's temple. It may be that he wants us to recognize Antichrist wants to usurp God's place in the Christian Church.

Yes Randy I agree I’ve been saying this for years.

So we do agree here but not with the timing. I believe Paul was talking about Nero as Nero declared himself god over everything including the church and demanded to be worshiped as god or die

An interesting fact about this is that Nero was also responsible for the death of Paul and Peter

[ForHisglory]

One of the questions which needs to be answered when trying to answer this question is:
When this letter or teaching was given, what was the meaning understood by those who would read it?
If you think this was written around 54 or 55 AD then we still had the Church headquartered in Jerusalem with the apostles based there. The temple of God still existed then and when Paul went to Jerusalem a few years after writing 2 Thessalonians, he went to the temple of God and acknowledged it as such, just as the apostles did and just as Jesus had.
If however you think it is NOT referring to an actual building as some try to argue, then you are stuck with a problem created by Paul's usage of the phrase. You see IF you make it about the TRUE Church, and that this is the REAL temple of God (which is a later development found in Paul's writings) then you have the problem of how the AC can sit in the TRUE temple of God. This then leads to your proposition of him not really being in the temple of God but a false temple of God. However Paul ONLY uses this analogy of the Church being the temple of God when speaking of the Holy Spirit uniting us, and in fact Paul uses the reality of a temple for the picture of the Church.
Nero does NOT fit because he never sat down IN the temple of God. Rather he sat down elsewhere, such as in the senate. He never had any temple made for himself and no one built one either. He took his divinity as being Apollo Incarnate. Domitian was the first emperor who demanded to be worshipped - https://readingacts.com/2010/04/02/t...peror-worship/
Paul stated something which to any readers would have a plain meaning at the time - someone seated in the temple at Jerusalem.
The ONLY reason why people struggle with this is because after 70 AD (after all but Revelation was written) there was no temple for such a person to sit in. Pre-trib therefore can't have this as a pre-requisite for a Rapture and Amil took the view (like marty) that it is either allegorical or having some other meaning. The preterists also latch onto it. However the anti-nicene ECFs held the view it meant the temple in Jerusalem, though they could not explain how. Ireneaus being an example.

[randyk]

One of the questions which needs to be answered when trying to answer this question is:
When this letter or teaching was given, what was the meaning understood by those who would read it?
If you think this was written around 54 or 55 AD then we still had the Church headquartered in Jerusalem with the apostles based there. The temple of God still existed then and when Paul went to Jerusalem a few years after writing 2 Thessalonians, he went to the temple of God and acknowledged it as such, just as the apostles did and just as Jesus had.
If however you think it is NOT referring to an actual building as some try to argue, then you are stuck with a problem created by Paul's usage of the phrase. You see IF you make it about the TRUE Church, and that this is the REAL temple of God (which is a later development found in Paul's writings) then you have the problem of how the AC can sit in the TRUE temple of God. This then leads to your proposition of him not really being in the temple of God but a false temple of God. However Paul ONLY uses this analogy of the Church being the temple of God when speaking of the Holy Spirit uniting us, and in fact Paul uses the reality of a temple for the picture of the Church.
Nero does NOT fit because he never sat down IN the temple of God. Rather he sat down elsewhere, such as in the senate. He never had any temple made for himself and no one built one either. He took his divinity as being Apollo Incarnate. Domitian was the first emperor who demanded to be worshipped - https://readingacts.com/2010/04/02/t...peror-worship/
Paul stated something which to any readers would have a plain meaning at the time - someone seated in the temple at Jerusalem.
The ONLY reason why people struggle with this is because after 70 AD (after all but Revelation was written) there was no temple for such a person to sit in. Pre-trib therefore can't have this as a pre-requisite for a Rapture and Amil took the view (like marty) that it is either allegorical or having some other meaning. The preterists also latch onto it. However the anti-nicene ECFs held the view it meant the temple in Jerusalem, though they could not explain how. Ireneaus being an example.

All good points, G. I'm arguing here not dogmatically, but theoretically--I'm not certain in any respect. I agree with you that Revelation was likely written *after* 70 AD, though I can't be certain. I agree with you that Nero doesn't fit the bill, simply because Antichrist appears, in Dan 7, as an endtime figure---not an Early Church figure.

This has nothing to do with the temple, but with the fulfillment of an endtime appearance of what I believe is a reemergence of the old Roman Empire. It takes place long after the ancient Roman Empire, according to Dan 2 and Dan 7.

I agree with you that the temple likely still stood in the time Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians, and thus Paul may have been referring to a literal building in Jerusalem. But elsewhere, Paul speaks of the temple as the Church, as if the only true temple is now a NT People--no longer a building.

In fact, a huge part of Paul's theology involves this "mystery" of the Church, which displaced the OT temple worship. It combined Jews, formerly under the Old Covenant, with other peoples, joined together as one in Christ under a brand new covenant. A physical temple, therefore, would likely be depreciated by Paul, in place of the Christian People. The letter of Hebrews makes this very clear, by insisting that a New Covenant structure completely replaces the Old Covenant structure.

Your point is good about the temple being used as a metaphor largely for the *true Church,* and not a false Church. This would make it unlikely that Paul would see the Antichrist as inhabiting the temple as the true Church, in which God dwells.

But I personally refer to the "Church" in a loose way, recognizing that in history, nominal Christianity is often virtually synonymous with true Christianity. As such, Antichrist could be viewed as ruling in the midst of a backslidden people, many of whom are not really Christians, and some of whom are on the edge of being deceived.

So I do see the possibility that Paul meant Antichrist will situate himself in the midst of historic Christianity, particularly in nominal Christian structures and organizations. Antichrist will not, I think, likely position himself in a temple, such as the OT temple or a temple devoted to Zeus. But a variety of Antichrists have already taken their place in Christian Europe throughout history, indicating that the future Antichrist will also establish his rule there.

Jesus wrote that false Christs and false Prophets would attempt to deceive, if possible, even God's elect. This means that these false teachers arise *within* the Church organization, deceiving those Christians who are nominal, and not genuine. In this way I see it as possible, but not certain, that Antichrist might locate his rule among a former Christian People, a "temple" that was determined by God to be His structure and His dwelling.

[ForHisglory]

All good points, G. I'm arguing here not dogmatically, but theoretically--I'm not certain in any respect. I agree with you that Revelation was likely written *after* 70 AD, though I can't be certain. I agree with you that Nero doesn't fit the bill, simply because Antichrist appears, in Dan 7, as an endtime figure---not an Early Church figure.
This has nothing to do with the temple, but with the fulfillment of an endtime appearance of what I believe is a reemergence of the old Roman Empire. It takes place long after the ancient Roman Empire, according to Dan 2 and Dan 7.
I agree with you that the temple likely still stood in the time Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians, and thus Paul may have been referring to a literal building in Jerusalem. But elsewhere, Paul speaks of the temple as the Church, as if the only true temple is now a NT People--no longer a building.

I try not to ever argue dogmatically, though some think I argue simply for the sake of it.
As Paul is believed to have been martyred by Nero around 64 BC (perhaps shortly after Rome burned) then the temple was still standing for certain.
Only those who argue that Paul didn't write 2 Thessalonians argue for a later date. Hence my first point.
The second point though is that Paul used a REALITY as a picture for us to understand what the Church is to be like. the Church as a temple (and also seen in Revelation 3:12 The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God.) is not used a being a REALITY in itself, but to help us understand the dynamic of what it means to be Church. No one is an actual pillar, just as no one is an actual stone when we are built as living stones. rather these are simply similes to help us understand a key point. In fact no one is a branch on a vine, nor a part of the body. rather ALL these descriptions are to help us understand a relationship and interaction with each other.
The Church as a temple of God means that we are the link between Man and God (hence we are also priests of God). We are also the people among whom He dwells.
Paul never actually replaces the PHYSICAL temple in Jerusalem with a SPIRITUAL temple, but rather conveys what we are like AS a spiritual temple, being like the physical.

In fact, a huge part of Paul's theology involves this "mystery" of the Church, which displaced the OT temple worship. It combined Jews, formerly under the Old Covenant, with other peoples, joined together as one in Christ under a brand new covenant. A physical temple, therefore, would likely be depreciated by Paul, in place of the Christian People. The letter of Hebrews makes this very clear, by insisting that a New Covenant structure completely replaces the Old Covenant structure.

Here we disagree, for Paul went to the temple to worship in the form of the OT by paying for sacrifices for oaths made.
Your view is based on RT (even though you don't recognise it) for you have the NT replace the OT. Instead we have an addition of NT worship and for at time this is the ONLY form.
A parallel to this in OT times was the exile to Babylon, and this I understand is when synagogues were started as worship in the temple was not possible. It didn't exist.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/synagogue

Your point is good about the temple being used as a metaphor largely for the *true Church,* and not a false Church. This would make it unlikely that Paul would see the Antichrist as inhabiting the temple as the true Church, in which God dwells.

But I personally refer to the "Church" in a loose way, recognizing that in history, nominal Christianity is often virtually synonymous with true Christianity. As such, Antichrist could be viewed as ruling in the midst of a backslidden people, many of whom are not really Christians, and some of whom are on the edge of being deceived.
So I do see the possibility that Paul meant Antichrist will situate himself in the midst of historic Christianity, particularly in nominal Christian structures and organizations. Antichrist will not, I think, likely position himself in a temple, such as the OT temple or a temple devoted to Zeus. But a variety of Antichrists have already taken their place in Christian Europe throughout history, indicating that the future Antichrist will also establish his rule there.

The problem here with you PERSONAL view is that the question is HOW DID Paul use the phrase.
There was no history when Paul wrote these words, therefore no one who read them would understand this as you mean it, which means you are ADDING a foreign concept to what would be their understanding.
Now if you choose to take the words prophetically and say that the Thessalonians were NOT meant to understand it THEN that causes a problem for your hermeneutics in regards to prophecy.
The usage of the temple as a metaphor of the Church was not written until Paul's later letters.

Jesus wrote that false Christs and false Prophets would attempt to deceive, if possible, even God's elect. This means that these false teachers arise *within* the Church organization, deceiving those Christians who are nominal, and not genuine. In this way I see it as possible, but not certain, that Antichrist might locate his rule among a former Christian People, a "temple" that was determined by God to be His structure and His dwelling.

Certainly false Christs HAVE arisen within the Church organisation, but are they able to sit IN the temple of God? This comes back to what "temple of God" means when used by Paul. Even in Paul's later letters when he wrote about the Church being a temple, he NEVER intimated or suggested that the Church of God, or Temple of God was anything but the TRUE Church, and people who were false were NOT part of that Church.
1Co 3:16 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?
1Co 3:17 If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.

Notice Paul equates the temple of God (or God's temple) with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit!
Notice also that us being God's temple does NOT prevent there being more than one temple.

1Co 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?
Again the Holy Spirit is what makes us a temple of God. Without the Holy Spirit then we are NOT the temple of God, but simply an organisation.

1Co 8:10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple
Paul also happily writes about false temples and calls them temples of idols. Therefore IF Paul meant a FALSE Church then he would not have calle dit the temple of God.

2Co 6:16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Again Paul equates the temple of God as where God dwells, so how can the AC sit where God is dwelling and walking? It is not possible!

Eph 2:21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.
Again it is a HOLY temple, so not one in which FALSE Christs hold power.

So any appeal to Paul founders on any application of temple being anything other than the Holy place where God's people are. This is the place which Paul states is where the Man of Lawlessness will sit, and is ONLY possible in a PHYSICAL place which WAS God's temple and now is corrupted. This is what the AoD refers to also in Daniel. The Holy Place being polluted. This is NOT possible when the Holy Temple is meaning where the Holy Spirit dwells.

[randyk]

I try not to ever argue dogmatically, though some think I argue simply for the sake of it.

Some times for sure. But I like the notion. Walter Martin had a rule. He said that God doesn't stutter or have a problem communicating. When he wants something to be taken dogmatically, he makes things clear enough for any reasonably educated person to know what He's saying. But it does require careful consideration of the background and context. If there is any question, we should keep ourselves open-minded.

As Paul is believed to have been martyred by Nero around 64 BC (perhaps shortly after Rome burned) then the temple was still standing for certain.
Only those who argue that Paul didn't write 2 Thessalonians argue for a later date. Hence my first point.

Yea, that's pretty obvious. Paul died before 70 AD. The whole question, then, is, when Paul mentioned the temple in his letters, what did he expect his readers to understand he was talking about?

It requires context. For the context of Antichrist to be understood, we wade into murkier waters. Some believe prophecies that I think referred to Antiochus 4 were to be applied to Antichrist, And Antiochus 4 had everything to do with the physical temple.

Some think that Daniel's 70th Week had to do with Antichrist. Again, that prophecy had everything to do with the physical temple, and I think applied to the time of the ancient Roman destruction of the physical temple in 70 AD.

So it really depends on how the various prophecies of Daniel are to be interpreted. And so things are not always so clear--it requires a lot of study and a lot of open-mindedness in the meantime. Since I've studied this my entire adult life, and I'm now retired, I've had plenty of time to be "open-minded," and I've in fact held to most of the competing interpretations. I have no axe to grind, and no stake in the game. My current belief is a pretty educated guess, but I remain open-minded on the nature of this "temple" Paul spoke of that Antichrist will situate himself in.

The second point though is that Paul used a REALITY as a picture for us to understand what the Church is to be like. the Church as a temple (and also seen in Revelation 3:12 The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God.) is not used a being a REALITY in itself, but to help us understand the dynamic of what it means to be Church. No one is an actual pillar, just as no one is an actual stone when we are built as living stones. rather these are simply similes to help us understand a key point. In fact no one is a branch on a vine, nor a part of the body. rather ALL these descriptions are to help us understand a relationship and interaction with each other.

Obviously, we are depicted as a metaphorical "temple." We all know that! We are the literal dwelling place of God, but we are not a physical temple such as we would normally understand it. Today, physical temples still exist. But no temple of God presently exists with respect to the God of Christianity, unless it is to be metaphorically described as a "temple" in heaven, or as the Church on earth.

The Church as a temple of God means that we are the link between Man and God (hence we are also priests of God). We are also the people among whom He dwells.
Paul never actually replaces the PHYSICAL temple in Jerusalem with a SPIRITUAL temple, but rather conveys what we are like AS a spiritual temple, being like the physical.

The letter of Hebrews actually indicates "replacement." And I think Paul insinuates the same. The remnants of temple worship followed the resurrection of Christ, but that didn't mean it was recognized by God. God was in the process of disposing of it all (70 AD), both the physical temple and its outdated worship.

Here we disagree, for Paul went to the temple to worship in the form of the OT by paying for sacrifices for oaths made.
Your view is based on RT (even though you don't recognise it) for you have the NT replace the OT. Instead we have an addition of NT worship and for at time this is the ONLY form.

Yes, I do have Replacement in this regard, that though Paul practiced Jewish cultural requirements, he was not sanctioning them as legitimate for Christians. Rather, he was becoming "like Jews to win Jews." It was a matter of lovingly showing respect for those who really believed they were still under the requirement of God to follow these rules. We can follow laws not as if really required of God, but only as a legitimate means of reaching out to those who think they really are being required by God. If these laws do not impose paganism in any way, it does not hurt us to avoid doing things that offend others by the rules of *their* religion.

A parallel to this in OT times was the exile to Babylon, and this I understand is when synagogues were started as worship in the temple was not possible. It didn't exist.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/synagogue

Yes, I've argued this with Jews before coming onto this forum. They believe that if the temple worship was made impossible by God, then they weren't really out of compliance with the Law. They did what they could. And there's some merit in that.

But my view is that the the Law was a covenant agreement between God and Israel. If Israel failed to keep their part of the agreement, a divorce would take place.

The Assyrian and Babylonian judgments were, in fact, divorces, and were said to be such by the Prophets. Even though the destruction of the temple in 586 BC indicated God had broken His pledge to Israel to bless them, He maintained connection with them on the basis of mercy. He planned to restore them despite their failure under the Law, and expected them to maintain what semblance of the Law that remained.

But I believe it is different in the NT. Christ's death meant a permanent divorce with Israel, with no maintenance of the Law being expected. On the contrary, though mercy from God continues, the expectation from God is that men turn to the Gospel of Christ as their rule for life. In this way a New Covenant is formed that cannot be annulled, as the Law was.

The NT rule is not like the Law, which was given to confirm the fact Israel could not, on their own, achieve national salvation. They had to depend on the atonement of Christ when it took place. And now that it has taken place, no more atonement under the Law is needed. All that is needed is our embrace of Christ's righteousness, along with his atonement. This means we no longer rely on our own record of righteousness, as the Law did, and instead, depend entirely on the righteousness that comes through Christ's Spirit.

Your point is good about the temple being used as a metaphor largely for the *true Church,* and not a false Church. This would make it unlikely that Paul would see the Antichrist as inhabiting the temple as the true Church, in which God dwells.

The problem here with you PERSONAL view is that the question is HOW DID Paul use the phrase.
There was no history when Paul wrote these words, therefore no one who read them would understand this as you mean it, which means you are ADDING a foreign concept to what would be their understanding.
Now if you choose to take the words prophetically and say that the Thessalonians were NOT meant to understand it THEN that causes a problem for your hermeneutics in regards to prophecy.
The usage of the temple as a metaphor of the Church was not written until Paul's later letters.

I disagree. I think Christ began using the temple as a metaphor for himself, and by extension, for the Church, his Body. He was the vine, and we are the branches. As such, we are the extension of his own Body, and share in this identification with Christ as the "temple" of God.

Certainly false Christs HAVE arisen within the Church organisation, but are they able to sit IN the temple of God? This comes back to what "temple of God" means when used by Paul. Even in Paul's later letters when he wrote about the Church being a temple, he NEVER intimated or suggested that the Church of God, or Temple of God was anything but the TRUE Church, and people who were false were NOT part of that Church.
1Co 3:16 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?
1Co 3:17 If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.

Yes, this is an essential part of the matter. But I'm not sure your point is convincing. There have been false Christians in the Church throughout history. The question, then, is: do the Scriptures identify the Church as exclusively saved people, or as the assembly of all those *claiming* to be saved? I think it is the latter, particularly when you look at how it is used of the 7 churches in the book of Revelation. There were a good number of false Christians in those assemblies, and they were still called "the Church."

So any appeal to Paul founders on any application of temple being anything other than the Holy place where God's people are. This is the place which Paul states is where the Man of Lawlessness will sit, and is ONLY possible in a PHYSICAL place which WAS God's temple and now is corrupted. This is what the AoD refers to also in Daniel. The Holy Place being polluted. This is NOT possible when the Holy Temple is meaning where the Holy Spirit dwells.

This is a separate issue for me. I do think that any conflation of Antichrist with Antiochus 4 muddies the picture, although there are definitely some parallels. Antiochus 4 was trying to paganize, or Hellenize, Judaism. Antichrist will come to destroy any hope for the coming of Christ's Kingdom.

These are two very different senses of opposing Religion. The 1st was aimed at the physical temple. The 2nd doesn't appear to be like that, even if there are similarities.

Thanks for your input. Even if we don't agree, your points need to be addressed. Again, I'm not dogmatic on this issue--I just have opinions, at this point. All this is not just to argue, as you stated. It is just to get out the fact and the thoughts so that others can make their own educated guesses, or perhaps to even know what is true.

[Slug1]

All good points, G. I'm arguing here not dogmatically, but theoretically--I'm not certain in any respect. I agree with you that Revelation was likely written *after* 70 AD, though I can't be certain.

Believe it or not, the easiest way to answer this question is to research who was the emperor when John was jailed at Patmos. A quick glance in history and we know that Domitian was Emperor. Due this this fact, the dating of The Revelation was either 95 or 96 CE.

[pdun459]

The only way this becomes an issue is if one discounts Israel's restoration and a temple building existing in Jerusalem in the future. The temple Paul refers to is a future temple in Jerusalem.

I don't think the New Testament believers saw the church as the final temple at all. It didn't take long for it to come to that; but that's not what the New Testament teaches:

"Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

'The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob;
and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.'

As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."—Romans 11:25-29

In the New Testament, the body of Christ is referred to metaphorically as a temple but this doesn't mean the church is a "final temple" or that there won't be a future temple in Jerusalem.

[ross3421]

I happen to think that Jesus and the NT believers began to think of the Church as the final temple of God. What do you think? Up until Herod's temple, it would've been naturally understood that the "temple" was a building. But Jesus began to speak of the temple as himself and those who belong to him. And Paul refers to the temple in the sense of it being God's People. Let me know...

2 Thes 2. ⁴ He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

This makes me wonder if when Paul says the Antichrist will situate himself in God's "temple" that he means Antichrist will try to position himself in God's Church--not in an actual physical building? Of course, Antichrist would never be able to take control of the true Church, but would have to position himself in a nominal Church organization, perhaps crossing denominations in Europe.

Paul could certainly have used the word "Church" instead of "temple." He could've said Antichrist will situate himself in "the Church." But I just can't find any valuable reference to a temple building in the NT that may solve this for me.

And Paul goes out of his way to identify the Church as God's temple. It may be that he wants us to recognize Antichrist wants to usurp God's place in the Christian Church.

Clearly the church is not the temple in the end times read rev 11. John is to measure the temple in the inner court while the gentles trodden the outer court without the temple.

2 these 2 is this same physical temple not to mention matt 24:15. For the ac to unsurp gods place he need to physically sit in the temple of god itself.

Now as I have pointed out elsewhere this temple is no ordinary temple the scriptures say it is the temple OF GOD. The ac would not decieve anyone sitting in a temple made with hands.

Not also the gentiles trodden the HOLY city. What city do you think this is? A city wherein lies the temple of god? You see this temple this city is the heavenly city which comes to earth before the second coming seen in rev 12.

[ewq1938]

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Paul wrote both of these which could imply he intended the temple of God to always represent Christians.

Look how closely associated the Apostasy is to this false God sitting in the temple of God claiming to be God. That's no coincidence. It is believing this one is God, inside their soul letting this belief enter into them, into their own personal temple of God, replacing God with a false God that causes and is the Apostasy or falling away from the true God.

[marty fox]

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Paul wrote both of these which could imply he intended the temple of God to always represent Christians.

Look how closely associated the Apostasy is to this false God sitting in the temple of God claiming to be God. That's no coincidence. It is believing this one is God, inside their soul letting this belief enter into them, into their own personal temple of God, replacing God with a false God that causes and is the Apostasy or falling away from the true God.

Yes I agree you are correct good sir

Wow we agree twice in one week LOL

[randyk]

The only way this becomes an issue is if one discounts Israel's restoration and a temple building existing in Jerusalem in the future. The temple Paul refers to is a future temple in Jerusalem.

I don't think the New Testament believers saw the church as the final temple at all. It didn't take long for it to come to that; but that's not what the New Testament teaches:

"Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

'The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob;
and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.'

As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."—Romans 11:25-29

In the New Testament, the body of Christ is referred to metaphorically as a temple but this doesn't mean the church is a "final temple" or that there won't be a future temple in Jerusalem.

If we're just talking opinions, and not "proofs," then I would have to disagree. I think the Church is indeed viewed as the final temple. Proving that is another matter!

With respect to the belief, whether in Dispensationalism or in Futurism generally, that Israel has a future hope, count me in! But I don't think that has anything to do with whether a temple will be rebuilt in the future. Israel will be restored, period. She will be made into a Christian country, as so many European and other countries already have. The first shall be last.

[randyk]

Clearly the church is not the temple in the end times read rev 11. John is to measure the temple in the inner court while the gentles trodden the outer court without the temple.

2 these 2 is this same physical temple not to mention matt 24:15. For the ac to unsurp gods place he need to physically sit in the temple of god itself.

Now as I have pointed out elsewhere this temple is no ordinary temple the scriptures say it is the temple OF GOD. The ac would not decieve anyone sitting in a temple made with hands.

Not also the gentiles trodden the HOLY city. What city do you think this is? A city wherein lies the temple of god? You see this temple this city is the heavenly city which comes to earth before the second coming seen in rev 12.

You have me completely confused, Ross! You say the Church is not the temple, but then you say the temple is the heavenly city, which I think is the Church. Please explain! Are you separating the Church from the city of Jerusalem?

[ross3421]

You have me completely confused, Ross! You say the Church is not the temple, but then you say the temple is the heavenly city, which I think is the Church. Please explain! Are you separating the Church from the city of Jerusalem?

I did not say the temple and the city are the same.

the city is a literal building made without hands wherein it is adorned by 12 foundations of jewels representing israel pearls and gold. It is also adorned in white linen which represents the saints. Read rev 21 again ...actually the city itself is more fashioned to israel than the church. Think of the body of the woman ie city with deminsions of israel with her garment attaire of the saints

So if you believe the city is merely the church you are confused.

[Keraz]

There must be a new Temple in Jerusalem, built before the Return and existing during the Millennium. Zechariah 14:16-21.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 Now about the Return of our Lord Jesus Christ, when He is to gather us to Himself: I beg you, my friends, do not suddenly allow yourselves to be fooled by wrong teaching, or become alarmed by any so called prophetic utterance, alleging that the great Day of His Return has already come.
Let no one deceive you in any way, for that Day cannot come before the final rebellion against God, when evil will be revealed in human form by the man doomed to destruction. He is the adversary who promotes himself above every so-called god or object of worship and even enthrones himself in God’s Temple, claiming to be God. But the restraining power of the Holy Spirit ensures that he will be revealed only at the appointed time, because already the secret forces of wickedness are at work, secret only for now until the restraining Hand is removed. Then he will be exposed, the great deceiver of the ages, the one who the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of His mouth and annihilate by the radiance of His presence.
This appearance of the wicked one is the work of Satan, it will be attended by all the powerful signs and miracles that falsehood can devise, all the deception that sinfulness can impose onto those doomed to destruction. All those people who refused to open their minds to the truth and so find salvation. Because they did not love truth or seek salvation, God has put them under a compelling delusion, which makes them believe what is false. Therefore, all who refuse to believe the truth, but have made sinfulness their choice will be brought to judgement.
Ref: REB. Some verses abridged.

‘The Return of Jesus’, The Return in glory, to commence His Millennium reign. Matthew 24:30, Revelation 19:11

‘That Day cannot come…’ The Return will not come until all the happenings prophesied to occur before that Day are fulfilled. Such as the Seal, Trumpet and Bowl punishments of Revelation, commencing in our time with the next event of a terrible fire judgement; the Sixth Seal. Isaiah 66:15-16, Zephaniah 3:8

‘The Adversary’, - That is: Satan, he empowers the Anti-Christ, who will be the leader of the forthcoming One World Government. He makes a peace treaty with New Israel, [Beulah – Isaiah 62:1-5] as those who gather in the holy Land will not be part of that worldwide government. Daniel 9:27

‘God’s Temple’, The Third Temple, to be built by the new inhabitants of Jerusalem. Zechariah 6:15 It will be ‘a Temple of greater splendor than Solomon’s’. Haggai 2:9, Ezekiel 43:4

‘a compelling delusion’, Rom. 11:8. ‘Eyes that look, but cannot see – ears that hear, but cannot listen’, Deuteronomy 29:4, Matt. 13:14 This applies to those who ‘confuse themselves’, Isaiah 29:9-10, ‘you will stay confused’. That is: by believing false teachings, such as the pre tribulation rapture. Jeremiah 29:8-9, Zechariah 13:2

‘Brought to Judgement’, There are three judgements: Next: the judgement/ punishment of the nations. Then: at the Return, the destruction of Anti-Christ’s army and the separation of the ‘sheep and the goats’. After 1000 years comes the final Judgement of all peoples at the Great White Throne. Rev. 20:11-14