Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 331

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

  1. #31

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    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?
    IMO It cannot be reconciled unless we go with those who think we should have both law and grace, or Jesus + written code of the law and the temple. I will never go with those doctrines.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,693
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    The question then is, how can a city you claim that is "not made with hands" be destroyed by man-made fire?
    Her clothes are man made.

    It would be the clothing of this woman in which she is dressed by man purple and scarlet linens. Her clothes are initially burnt and she has become naked.

    4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour,
    16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

    Note God ultimately finishes the job.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,693
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    [QUOTE=Trivalee;3487931]
    Quote Originally Posted by ross3421 View Post

    The 'waters' represent multitudes of people.
    I agree but FHG was trying to assert that the city is not Jerusalem due to it not being by many literal waters. He takes it to be literal water.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,299
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    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.
    Since there is an undeniable connection between the 42 months that Gentiles will tread upon the temple and the city and the 42 months of the Antichrist, doesn't this eliminate any connection of this vision to the destroyed temple?

  5. #35

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

    Quote Originally Posted by m'lo goy View Post
    If this is the case, then why?

    (So I don't exactly have an answer to the above question, I'm just saying ..)
    Add to that what [member/poster] The Beginner pointed out some time back, that in the places where it refers to us ["the Church which is His body" (my point)], it does not use the definite article ('the').

    I've made similar points before.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,299
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by m'lo goy View Post
    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 ..)
    I confess that that I'm not proficient in Greek and merely get by with the online interpretation which isn't always reliable. But you've certainly raised important issues. Thanks for chipping in...

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,598
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    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?
    Paul who also wrote 2 Thess 2 tells us more than once that we are now the church. I see it as when Nero declared himself God over everything including the church

    I see the 42 months as the time of the siege of the Romans

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,299
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by m'lo goy View Post
    IMO It cannot be reconciled unless we go with those who think we should have both law and grace, or Jesus + written code of the law and the temple. I will never go with those doctrines.

    I share the same view as well. The way I see it, either one believes and accepts the doctrine of the NT as whole or they don't. I don't believe there's room to believe in it and somehow squeeze in the law as well.

  9. #39

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    I share the same view as well. The way I see it, either one believes and accepts the doctrine of the NT as whole or they don't. I don't believe there's room to believe in it and somehow squeeze in the law as well.
    Good to know, Trivalee. I get confused as to why people should be confused. The people of Israel promised to obey all that was written in the book of the law (Exo 24:7-8). They did not. In God's promise of the New Covenant (Jer 31:31), He stated very, very clearly that the new covenant would not be like that covenant made in the wilderness, because that covenant had been broken by Israel's disobedience.

    Then He stated very, very clearly that the law would be written by Him (by God Himself) on our hearts and put in our minds - and Paul stated very clearly:

    " Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
    For: "Do not commit adultery; do not murder; do not steal; do not bear false witness; do not lust;" and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
    Love works no ill to its neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." (Romans 13:8-10)

    And this is repeated throughout the New Testament by Paul and by John.

    Jesus fulfilled the Law and He represents us before God. His righteousness through our faith in Him is credited to us. Christ in our hearts compels us to love and restrains us from sin.

    Attempts at obedience to the written code brought only death, because of the sin in us.

    It's the gospel, and many Christians are being turned aside from it today, especially because many Messianic Jews cannot let go of the law. The Jews who do not believe in Christ cannot let go of it. To them it's God's marriage contract with Israel and if they do not have the covenant of Law, they have no covenant relationship with God.

    That's the awful stumbling-stone which caused Paul to lament the breaking off of most of Abraham's natural descendants, where Paul laments this tragic loss in Romans 9 through 11.

    They cannot let go of the Law and accept the New Covenant. They do not realise that God has already remembered "the House of Israel and the House of Judah" (whom the new covenant was promised to) in the blood of Christ, and it has indeed replaced the covenant of Law.

    And thousand upon thousands of Christians are being led astray by this - falling from grace by re-embracing the Law of Moses,

  10. #40

    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.
    Your take makes sense to me and I'm glad I came back for a (not so quick any more) visit to Bible Forums. I learned from your take, and you expressed your thoughts clearly. Thanks

  11. #41

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    I share the same view as well. The way I see it, either one believes and accepts the doctrine of the NT as whole or they don't. I don't believe there's room to believe in it and somehow squeeze in the law as well.
    Thanks for starting this thread. I'm learning here.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,668

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    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.
    Thanks for the word study. We can all profit from it. There are these difficulties in translation. I am the first to admit it.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,668

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    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?
    Man, because of the fall, has many problems. The various sacrifices, the day of atonement, the pictures gleaned from the Tabernacle and Israel's journey from Egypt to Canaan all show solutions by God to man's many and varied problems. But man's TWO MAIN problems are:
    1. His POSITION before God. That is, what is man's standing when ushered into the presence of the Almighty
    2. His DISPOSITION before God. That is, how does he react to commands by the Almighty

    Aaron is a good example. He is;
    1. The High Priest who must, once a year, enter the presence of the Almighty. This was a singularly dangerous exercise that needed minute attention to detail in washings, and clothing and blood-letting. If any other man, Levite or not, tried this, he would be killed instantly. Here, man deals with Gods holiness, and in all things man is unworthy unto death
    2. A man under Law. In his everyday life he is, like all other Israelites, subject to the 620 odd Laws that make up the Covenant of Sinai. God waits to see what Aaron will do and what he will decide. If he breaks certain of these Laws, he can restore the damage and sacrifice to cover his sins. Breaking other Laws meant his death. David was "DISPOSED" to keep God's Commandments, Saul not.

    In the first problem, that of man's POSITION before the Almighty, the Law cannot justify him. There is nothing on the face of the earth that man can do to be justified to survive the presence of God. So Romans 3:20 says; "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

    In the second problem, REWARD and LOSS are set before the man. If he keeps the Law of Moses he is judged as "justified". Examples;
    1. 2nd Chronicles 6:23; "Then hear thou from heaven, and do, and judge thy servants, by requiting the wicked, by recompensing his way upon his own head; and by justifying the righteous, by giving him according to his righteousness".
    2. Matthew 12:37; "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
    3. Romans 2:13; "(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified."

    The matter of occupying the Land of Canaan is NOT a matter of POSITION before God. It is a matter of keeping the Law (Deut.5:33, etc.). In Deuteronomy 30:1-5 God sets forth a condition, NOT for ushering men into His holy presence, but for a nation to be restored to their Land. POSITIONALLY they are PROFANE - as they always were since the night of the Passover in Egypt. But DISPOSITIONALLY they have had a change of heart concerning the Law of Moses. This allows God to reverse the reason why they were ejected from the Land. It is about the Land - not salvation from the Lake of Fire.

    Because Israel has largely been ignored, and the great battle of the Reformation was "justification by WORKS" versus "justification by FAITH", we tend to be fixated on the latter. It is true that the BELIEVER'S POSITION is made by Christ's work. His work caused God to tear the Veil of the Temple and make a path for man to stand before God without being killed. But this same man has to walk before God in OBEDIENCE in his everyday life. Israel, because they did not believe, are POSITIONALLY still offside. So in the Millennium they serve the Temple to make sure nothing profane enters and defiles Emmanuel's holiness. But because of his new DISPOSITION towards the Law, he is restored to his Land amid multiple blessings.

    Hope this helps.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,329

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Since there is an undeniable connection between the 42 months that Gentiles will tread upon the temple and the city and the 42 months of the Antichrist, doesn't this eliminate any connection of this vision to the destroyed temple?
    I don't know what kind of connection there could be to the temple in 70 AD? The 3.5 years, or 42 months, have to do with the end of the age, specifically the reign of Antichrist. This is 2 millennia later!

    A vision of the temple was given in the time when Herod's temple was destroyed. So that temple was fresh in the mind of John when he received this vision. He had to know that this vision was symbolic of something greater than Herod's temple.

    Therefore, John likely viewed this temple vision as a picture of how Christians were the true worshipers in God's spiritual temple, whereas the Jews, who remained under the Law, were not true worshipers. This temple represented this truth, I believe, particularly in the context of the endtimes, when Israel would still be belligerent and Christians would still be persecuted.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,747
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    I share the same view as well. The way I see it, either one believes and accepts the doctrine of the NT as whole or they don't. I don't believe there's room to believe in it and somehow squeeze in the law as well.
    Where there is confusion is that some have ERRONEOUSLY claimed there is NO Law.
    Yet Paul clearly states in his letters that the Law continues, and sin is known because of the Law.
    It is like some people claim because Jesus brings Grace so God is NOT a consuming fire.
    He is BOTH, a God of consuming fire and a God of Grace.

    When we reject a part of God's character, His righteousness and Holiness then we also lose a proper understanding of who He is and His view of sin.
    The OC was SPECIFICALLY a codification of God's Law for the people of Israel, in order that they might live correctly for Him and in relationship with each other. It includes the principles on which this OC is based, namely Love God and Love your neighbour. It also notes the cost of sin and the need for salvation.
    Where Jews, and many others go wrong is they FALSE idea that by keeping the Law one could gain eternal life. We see poster after poster stating this, but this is NEVER offered in the OT, and there is but a couple of verses which IN CONTEXT do not support the view, but only when isolated (which makes them a PRETEXT).

    The Law is what ALL men will be judged against, but differently depending on whether they are Jew or Gentile.
    We further note that AFTER Jesus returns there is a Millennial Kingdom, during which there is a temple (clearly seen in the OT prophecies), but which is found in the NJ in the NT.

    So it is for us to ACCEPT what the OT and NT teach us and put them together in agreement.

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
  •