Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 328

Thread: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,516
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    I see mystery Babylon the great as the literal city Jerusalem but more so as the people of that city which killed the prophets and the saints.

    Matthew 23:37-38
    37Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate.

    Both were destroyed and never the same again

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,118

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Rev 11:1 [FONT="]And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.[/FONT]Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

    The timeline (42 months) that John was told the Gentiles will tread the holy city and the temple underfoot is most significant as it coincides with the time of the Beast, vide; Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

    I have no doubt that we are all familiar with the above texts. So in conjunction with 2 Thess 2:4, isn't this the irrefutable proof that finally puts to bed the discussion whether a brick and mortar temple will be built prior to the coming of the Antichrist?

    Although, some hold the view that the temple mentioned in Rev 11:1-2 is symbolic, what's your opinion?


    I really don't know whether this vision takes place before the temple is destroyed or after. But I do believe it is a symbolic vision, since the temple lost its applicability when Christ died on the cross. The whole Law lost its value. And it was replaced by something better--the sacrifice of Christ.

    Measuring the temple is as it was under the Old Covenant--a measure of who truly worshiped God. Those who truly serve Christ are those measured as true worshipers.

    The "holy city" is Jerusalem, who quite literally will remain oppressed by non-Jewish peoples until the end of the age--just as Jesus said in Luke 21. This is not Babylon, the Harlot. The holy city is Jerusalem, representing her destiny in the Kingdom age to come. Until that time she is oppressed by unbelieving nations. And until that time the Jewish People remain largely an unbelieving people.

    The temple, therefore, is being measured because the Jewish People are not practicing the true worship of God. The true worshipers are Jews who embrace Christ Jesus. The 3.5 years mentioned in this time is the final period in the age, when the Antichrist reigns, and 2 prophets declare the truths of Christ to the Jewish People.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by ross3421 View Post
    15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

    So are the "waters" bodies of water or bodies of people?
    Well in one view it is literal bodies of water, perhaps like Alexandria in the Nile Delta, or Istanbul which has a couple of rivers as well as the sea.
    It is also speaking though of mixed peoples, so a city which is not predominantly one people.

    This city is not any city currently on earth.
    It could be.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    "THE Covenant" has an article. It is therefore a Covenant already in place but which is weak.
    I thought you had a strong point here, but when I checked we find it is NOT "the covenant" but "a covenant". There is NO definite article in the Hebrew:
    H1285
    בְּרִית
    berı̂yth
    ber-eeth'
    From H1262 (in the sense of cutting (like H1254)); a compact (because made by passing between pieces of flesh): - confederacy, [con-]feder[-ate], covenant, league.
    Total KJV occurrences: 284

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post
    I've read differing views on this. Some say the definite article ('the') is there; others say it isn't.

    In this source, it isn't there: https://biblehub.com/text/daniel/9-27.htm

    (but... the next word "with many," some say does have the definite article included in the Hebrew term, so "with THE many" but which isn't reflected in the Bible Hub source here).
    I checked and there is no "the" with the following word either.
    לָרַבִּ֖ים

    This is literally "la" meaning with and rabbim which is the plural of rab, so should be manys or manies - except we don;t have a plural of many - perhaps lots of many, or many lots...
    In Hebrew they do have it in the singular as well, and it means large or many.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,567

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post
    I've read differing views on this. Some say the definite article ('the') is there; others say it isn't.

    In this source, it isn't there: https://biblehub.com/text/daniel/9-27.htm

    (but... the next word "with many," some say does have the definite article included in the Hebrew term, so "with THE many" but which isn't reflected in the Bible Hub source here).
    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I thought you had a strong point here, but when I checked we find it is NOT "the covenant" but "a covenant". There is NO definite article in the Hebrew:
    H1285
    בְּרִית
    berı̂yth
    ber-eeth'
    From H1262 (in the sense of cutting (like H1254)); a compact (because made by passing between pieces of flesh): - confederacy, [con-]feder[-ate], covenant, league.
    Total KJV occurrences: 284
    Thanks guys. Good for you for checking. I am aware that the article is disputed. I don't want to fight it to the death because the "sacrifice" and "oblation" have already indicated which one it was, but here are my thoughts on it.

    The word Covenant (Strong's #1285, Hebrew) appears some 285 times in the Bible. In the vast majority of these mentions, it translated is either "my Covenant" or "the Covenant", even though the article is not found. That is, the translator(s) have to decide on the sense of the word, and in the vast majority it is clear that the Covenants are from God, and that they are specific to the text. Let's have a look at the very first Covenant in Genesis 9:9-17:

    9 "And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
    10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
    11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
    12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
    13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
    14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
    15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
    16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
    17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth."


    In this passage there is no doubt which Covenant is spoken of even though it carries "my", "the" and "a" COVENANT. It is specific to the text. We must now turn to the caliber of translator(s). As you are no doubt aware of the commission that the King James Translators received did not have a political agenda for the translation itself. It had the political motive of King James getting the consensus of the population so that he could remove himself and his behavior from under the Pope. Thus, the 49 renowned scholars who were divided into 7 groups of seven, and which all independently translated, and then compared notes, did not have restraints as to the text. They studied, decided, compared notes, decided again and came up with the Authorized Version. Now, till today, no translation can boast this foundation. I am not saying the King James cannot be criticized, but the Caliber of the Translation has not been matched since.

    And if 49 of the best Hebrew and Greek Scholars of the time, with no agenda, all agree that the article has its place in over 200 mentions of the word "Covenant", whether it be "my", "the" or "a", we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. And in Daniel 9 it concerns "Daniel's People" who had a specific Covenant which contained the sacrifice and oblation. In no other Covenant given to Israel was a daily sacrifice (morning) and oblation (afternoon) required. Can there be any doubt as to which article goes before "Covenant", AND, which Covenant it is?

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    Thanks guys. Good for you for checking. I am aware that the article is disputed. I don't want to fight it to the death because the "sacrifice" and "oblation" have already indicated which one it was, but here are my thoughts on it.

    The word Covenant (Strong's #1285, Hebrew) appears some 285 times in the Bible. In the vast majority of these mentions, it translated is either "my Covenant" or "the Covenant", even though the article is not found. That is, the translator(s) have to decide on the sense of the word, and in the vast majority it is clear that the Covenants are from God, and that they are specific to the text. Let's have a look at the very first Covenant in Genesis 9:9-17:

    9 "And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
    10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
    11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
    12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
    13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
    14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
    15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
    16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
    17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth."


    In this passage there is no doubt which Covenant is spoken of even though it carries "my", "the" and "a" COVENANT. It is specific to the text. We must now turn to the caliber of translator(s). As you are no doubt aware of the commission that the King James Translators received did not have a political agenda for the translation itself. It had the political motive of King James getting the consensus of the population so that he could remove himself and his behavior from under the Pope. Thus, the 49 renowned scholars who were divided into 7 groups of seven, and which all independently translated, and then compared notes, did not have restraints as to the text. They studied, decided, compared notes, decided again and came up with the Authorized Version. Now, till today, no translation can boast this foundation. I am not saying the King James cannot be criticized, but the Caliber of the Translation has not been matched since.

    And if 49 of the best Hebrew and Greek Scholars of the time, with no agenda, all agree that the article has its place in over 200 mentions of the word "Covenant", whether it be "my", "the" or "a", we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. And in Daniel 9 it concerns "Daniel's People" who had a specific Covenant which contained the sacrifice and oblation. In no other Covenant given to Israel was a daily sacrifice (morning) and oblation (afternoon) required. Can there be any doubt as to which article goes before "Covenant", AND, which Covenant it is?
    KJV was good for its time, though it is very similar to Tyndale's translation (for the NT), even though that was translated by one man.

    There are some odd things, such as in Dan 9 they translate "anointed one" as Messiah, even though in the rest of the OT they always translate it as "anointed.
    Now looking at your example, we find the following:
    9:9 the Hebrew has the word ayth, which means belonging or of ones own, so my is in addition to the word covenant.
    9:11 also has this additional word
    9:12 in this word it has the prefix "ha" meaning the, so it is correct to translate as "the" covenant.
    9:13 does not have the prefix "ha" and so is correctly "a covenant" though we would understand it is relating to the covenant aforementioned.
    9:15 again has the additional word ayth
    9:16 is an example of English requiring an article which is NOT there in the Hebrew, and not required.
    9:17 here we have the definite article with the word

    IOW in English we use articles in ways differently to how Hebrew uses them. When the Hebrew uses the definite article it is being specific in the way we consider "The Covenant" as a Name fro what is.

  8. #23

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I checked and there is no "the" with the following word either.
    לָרַבִּ֖ים

    This is literally "la" meaning with and rabbim which is the plural of rab, so should be manys or manies - except we don;t have a plural of many - perhaps lots of many, or many lots...
    In Hebrew they do have it in the singular as well, and it means large or many.
    Okay, thank you. Good points.

    I was looking through the other forms (of that second word) and in a couple places it is translated either as "elder" (this would be singular, I guess, in Genesis 25:23) or "and the princes [/chief officers]" in Jeremiah 41:1. There's probably no chance [?] that the word in Daniel 9:27 should be translated in such a way, is there? Like, instead of "with many," perhaps "with elders [plural; /chief officers]" or something like that (referring to some form of leaders/chiefs)?? Just thinking aloud.

  9. #24

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    And in Daniel 9 it concerns "Daniel's People" who had a specific Covenant which contained the sacrifice and oblation. In no other Covenant given to Israel was a daily sacrifice (morning) and oblation (afternoon) required. Can there be any doubt as to which article goes before "Covenant", AND, which Covenant it is?
    The remainder of the context is certainly something to take into consideration, here. Thanks for your post.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,180
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by ross3421 View Post
    Huh?????
    18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

    Mystery Babylon is Jerusalem. Howbeit one not made with hands. So a literal city but not brick and mortar.
    Looks like you didn't read Rev 17 from the start because if you did, you'd have noticed that Mystery Babylon (the great city) was burnt by fire. The question then is, how can a city you claim that is "not made with hands" be destroyed by man-made fire?

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,180
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man View Post
    There will be a Temple more than likely, Matthew 24:15-16, etc. But Rev. 11 is clearly Metaphoric in nature IMHO.

    That being Measured is not the Temples size per se, but the Measurement of Judgment that is coming to those that do not serve God !!

    From G3358; to measure (that is, ascertain in size by a fixed standard); by implication to admeasure (that is, allot by rule); figuratively to estimate:—measure, mete.
    —Strong's (Greek Dictionary of the New Testament)

    Admeasure definition: to measure out (land, etc) as a share; apportion | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples.

    Rev. 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. 2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. 3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

    Basically the angel is telling us what the Two-witnesses are going to do, REMEMBER, chapter 11 is all about the Two-witnesses Ministry. Jesus is telling John his apportionment plans for everyone. This is basically Jesus telling John he's going to take measure of those who SERVE HIM (at the Altar) and alot their judgment via protection in Petra and He's going to Measure those Gentile's that come not to the Altar of Repentance but instead trample over/Beast over Jerusalem, and alot their Judgment via the Plagues of God as called down by the Two-witnesses. (Seal, Trumpet and Vial Judgments)

    Rev. 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. 4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. 5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

    6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

    So God is MEASURING between His people and the Wicked Gentiles in order to measure out His apportionment of Judgment as He sees fit, and it's going to be delivered by the prayers of the Two-witnesses.

    That is my take.
    Interesting indeed....

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,180
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    [QUOTE=ross3421;3487702]

    15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.


    So are the "waters" bodies of water or bodies of people?

    This city is not any city currently on earth.
    The 'waters' represent multitudes of people.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,180
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    Besides your proofs there is another in Daniel Chapter 9. But to understand that one must go back to Deuteronomy Chapter 28. In it are all the curses of the Law if broken. The last and saddest is that Israel will be ejected from their Land and dispersed among all the nations (vs.63-66). But, as in most prophets, hope is set forth just a two Chapters later. Deuteronomy Chapter 30 sets forth the conditions for God to restore Israel and gather her back to her Land. The condition found in verses 1-5 is that Israelites turn back, with all their heart and mind, to what Moses was expounding "THAT DAY". Now, on "THAT DAY" Moses was expounding the Law.

    The Temple is an integral part of keeping the Law (Deuteronomy 12:5, 11, 12:21, 14:23-24, 16:6, 11, 26:2). Without it, the Covenant of Law cannot be kept. Now, in Daniel 9:27 it says;

    "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

    1. "He" according to the grammar is that future prince of the Romans that shall come when the seventieth Seven starts
    2. "confirm" means "strengthen" in the Hebrew
    3. "THE Covenant" has an article. It is therefore a Covenant already in place but which is weak. Which Covenant it is is confirmed by the "sacrifice and oblation". It is the Covenant of Law from Moses

    God needs Israelites to go back to the Law to fulfill Deuteronomy 30:1-5. Israelites need a Temple to do this. The Temple of Revelation 11 is a literal Temple with a literal altar (v.1).

    For those who would pass it off as an allegorical effigy,
    • When has an altar been allegorical?
    • Gentiles which trample the outer court are literal. When have the Gentiles ever been allegorical?
    • Or when has the "outer court" been allegorical?
    • And so we go on ...
    • until verse 8 and then the matter whether it is physical or allegorical is settled forever. Our Lord was crucified where this Temple is erected

    If the context is literal then the Temple is literal.
    You've certainly raised some crucial factors that require further study.

    However, your assertion that God requires Israel to revert to the Law is at odds with Paul's position that no one (including Israel) is justified by the law before God (Gal 3:11). In this NT age, that is. So how do you reconcile this?

  14. #29

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Rev 11:1 [FONT="]And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.[/FONT]Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

    The timeline (42 months) that John was told the Gentiles will tread the holy city and the temple underfoot is most significant as it coincides with the time of the Beast, vide; Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

    I have no doubt that we are all familiar with the above texts. So in conjunction with 2 Thess 2:4, isn't this the irrefutable proof that finally puts to bed the discussion whether a brick and mortar temple will be built prior to the coming of the Antichrist?

    Although, some hold the view that the temple mentioned in Rev 11:1-2 is symbolic, what's your opinion?


    I'm going to throw another stick into the wheel's spokes.

    If you search each word "temple" in the KJV (N.T), and use Strong's Greek Dictionary to see which Greek word/s are translated into English as "temple", you will discover that,

    hieron and naos are the only Greek words used for the temple in Jerusalem, except once, where the word oikos (Luk 11:51) is used.

    Note: Completely different Greek words are used in reference to pagan temples throughout the New Testament. The above words are the only words used in reference to the temple of God.

    But here's the thing:

    Until the death of Jesus and the verse talking about the tearing of the veil in the temple, both hieron and naos are used interchangeably in reference to the temple in Jerusalem (The word naos is used where Christ refers to His body being the temple which He will rebuild in three days, suggesting that hieron refers to the temple structure and buildings, whereas naos seems to refer to "the holy place").

    So here's the big thing about the Greek New Testament used by the KJV:

    The word naos is only used in reference to the temple in Jerusalem until the death of Christ.

    From Acts onward, every time the temple in Jerusalem is referred to, only the word hieron is used.

    After the death of Christ, naos is used only where the church, or the bodies of individual saints is referred to as "the temple of God".

    THE ONLY (POSSIBLE) EXCEPTIONS:

    1. The man of sin setting himself up in the temple of God showing himself forth that he is God (2 Thess 2:4); and
    2 The verses in Revelation 11:1-2.

    Those verses suddenly use the word naos again.

    That is, IF the consistency of the Greek Received Text using ONLY the word hieron in reference to the temple in Jerusalem following the Lord's death, and ONLY the word naos in reference to the church and bodies of individual believers, is broken by it's sudden re-use of the word naos in reference to the Jerusalem temple, THEN those two references to naos are referring once again to a different "temple" - the one in Jerusalem.

    If this is the case, then why?

    (So I don't exactly have an answer to the above question, I'm just saying ..)

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,180
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    I believe that it was the literal temple before it fell in 70AD.

    I see the temple in 2 Thess 2 as the church

    A future temple would put walls up between God and man
    Gentiles
    If it was the temple before its destruction in 70 AD, how do you explain the 42 months the Gentiles are supposed to tread it and the city under foot? Remember it's almost 1900 years since Gentiles have been trampling down the city from 70 AD. So either Rev 11's 42 months is a lie or you are wrong. Which one is it?

    If the temple in 2 Thess 2:4 is the church, please explain how the Man of sin can sit on it and show himself as God?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. How literal are you?
    By DavidC in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: Aug 1st 2017, 09:00 PM
  2. A literal temple of God?
    By The Lion and his lamb in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: Apr 14th 2015, 06:32 PM
  3. Replies: 143
    Last Post: Jul 6th 2010, 07:46 PM
  4. how literal....
    By ilovemetal in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Aug 1st 2009, 05:37 PM
  5. Discussion A Literal Temple?
    By ZAB in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: May 26th 2009, 11:18 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
  •