Page 4 of 22 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 320

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

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,540
    Blog Entries
    1

    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.
    Actually you do as you quote Jeremiah 31.
    What confuses you - and it seems many others is that it is the LAW which is written on the hearts:
    Jer 31:33* For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    It is the LAW which is written on our hearts and placed within us.
    The Law does NOT NULLIFY Grace, just as Grace does NOT NULLIFY the Law.
    Rather they go together.
    The LAW is about righteous living which is noted by you as being achieved through the Love of God in us, and by faith in Him.
    This is correct, but then shows that the written Law is NOT removed nor contrary to what God desires.

    It is perhaps the question of the FORM of the Law as given to the people of Israel which really causes you to state the above.
    This very question was what the Council of Jerusalem was about.
    Notice they did NOT say that what Jews understood as to the OC for themselves was removed, rather they noted that it was NOT for the Gentiles:
    Act 15:5* But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”

    Act 15:11* But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

    Act 15:16* “‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it,*
    Act 15:17* that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things*
    Act 15:18* known from of old.’*
    Act 15:19* Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,*
    Act 15:20* but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.*
    Act 15:21* For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

    The above quote seems to be from Amos 9:
    Amo 9:11* “In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old,*
    Amo 9:12* that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name,” declares the LORD who does this.*
    Amo 9:13* “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when the plowman shall overtake the reaper and the treader of grapes him who sows the seed; the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and all the hills shall flow with it.*
    Amo 9:14* I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel, and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine, and they shall make gardens and eat their fruit.*
    Amo 9:15* I will plant them on their land, and they shall never again be uprooted out of the land that I have given them,” says the LORD your God.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,540
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    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...
    A couple of things to note - one is that we have different authors who therefore will use different words.
    Key in this is that Paul wrote nothing before Acts and therefore we don't find any of his writing being before.

    John who does uses the same words:
    Joh 2:19* Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”*
    Joh 2:20* The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?”

    Notice in John 2:19 and 20 it is "naos" as it is in Rev 11, and refers to the same thing, yet one is an oblique reference to Jesus' own body, which means naos can be used metaphorically/symbolically.

    Also note that the CONCEPT of the Community of Believers didn't exist as being the Temple, except as the House of God, which of course we find in the idea of the House of Israel and My Father's House:
    Mat 12:4* how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?

    It seems however that heiron seems to speak of the Holy and thus is about the sanctuary or holy place in a Temple, whilst naos means the dwelling place and thus can be more generally to the whole temple.
    You can see both heiron and naos being used in the LXX version:
    1 Samuel 1:9 has naos
    1 Chronicles 29:4 has heiron used

    So BOTH are equivalents to speak about the Temple, but it seems that heiron is meant to be used about the whole Temple complex, whilst naos is more about the Sanctuary.
    However over time words change usage.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,149
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by m'lo goy View Post
    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,
    This is a wonderful post, so I will only correct the emboldened. Those of Israel who refuse to let go of the Mosaic Law is the Judaics - not to be confused with messianic Jews who are no different in faith with you and I. The messianics are Jewish Christians who have fully embraced Christ and have adopted Evangelical type of worship. They have zero reliance on the law in contrast to their Judaic majority who still cling to it.

    I know this for a fact because some of their pastors have visited my church in England and on an invitation, some from church (myself included) also attended one of their services.

  4. #49

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Actually you do as you quote Jeremiah 31.
    What confuses you - and it seems many others is that it is the LAW which is written on the hearts:
    Jer 31:33* For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    It is the LAW which is written on our hearts and placed within us.
    The Law does NOT NULLIFY Grace, just as Grace does NOT NULLIFY the Law.
    Rather they go together.
    The LAW is about righteous living which is noted by you as being achieved through the Love of God in us, and by faith in Him.
    This is correct, but then shows that the written Law is NOT removed nor contrary to what God desires.

    It is perhaps the question of the FORM of the Law as given to the people of Israel which really causes you to state the above.
    This very question was what the Council of Jerusalem was about.
    Notice they did NOT say that what Jews understood as to the OC for themselves was removed, rather they noted that it was NOT for the Gentiles:
    Act 15:5* But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”

    Act 15:11* But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

    Act 15:16* “‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it,*
    Act 15:17* that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things*
    Act 15:18* known from of old.’*
    Act 15:19* Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,*
    Act 15:20* but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.*
    Act 15:21* For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

    The above quote seems to be from Amos 9:
    Amo 9:11* “In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old,*
    Amo 9:12* that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name,” declares the LORD who does this.*
    Amo 9:13* “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when the plowman shall overtake the reaper and the treader of grapes him who sows the seed; the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and all the hills shall flow with it.*
    Amo 9:14* I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel, and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine, and they shall make gardens and eat their fruit.*
    Amo 9:15* I will plant them on their land, and they shall never again be uprooted out of the land that I have given them,” says the LORD your God.
    What you say is very interesting, and I understand hat it comes from many years of thought and study on this question, but the written Law, like the tabernacle, is a shadow of the Law of Christ, not the Law of Christ itself.

    So I'll give you an example of what I mean. I'm a Gentile, but since becoming a Christian, and even though I do not observe/celebrate Pesach (Passover), I have over time developed a love for Passover, and the meaning of Passover as it relates to Christ (the cup of Redemption which He took when He said it represents the New Covenant in His blood, etc). The same goes for The Day of Trumpets (a.k.a Rosh Hashanah) and the feast of tabernacles, and I deeply appreciate the meaning of the feast of firsfruits, as it relates to Christ, Pentecost, the Day of Atonement, etc.

    I don't feel the need to religiously observe any of these appointed times (meaning I do not believe I need to "obey the law of Moses"), but I believe that they are far more meaningful than the feasts the Church replaced them with, since hey are, indeed, as the Hebrew calls them, moedim (God's "appointed times"). So much of what Jesus said about the gathering of the harvest etc comes directly from these "appointed times", and they coincide with the agricultural cycle in Israel.

    I observe Christmas and Easter with my Gentile family because I'm a Gentile, but I don't feel any religious "lawful" need to, and if I had to start observing Passover and the feast of Tabernacles, the same would apply.

    So what I'm saying is, the Law, the REAL Law, is to love God and neighbour, as Jesus said, and this fulfils all the Law. The rest (the written Law), like the earthly tabernacle, is a shadow. Nothing more. Paul stated that once the written Law has led us to Christ, we have no more need of a teacher to teach us what sin is. I think conscience would give us that:

    " For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
    Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
    In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." (Romans 2:14-16).

    The Gentiles Paul is speaking about are not non-Christians, else they could not and would not have the law written on their hearts, and it is their conscience which causes them to be obdient to the Law of Christ within them.

    " So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.
    But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
    for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
    For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Galatians 3:24-27).

    There are many other verses. Paul stating we have died to the Law, etc. It's not the Law of Christ we died to, but the shadow - the Mosaic Law with its written code.

  5. #50

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    This is a wonderful post, so I will only correct the emboldened. Those of Israel who refuse to let go of the Mosaic Law is the Judaics - not to be confused with messianic Jews who are no different in faith with you and I. The messianics are Jewish Christians who have fully embraced Christ and have adopted Evangelical type of worship. They have zero reliance on the law in contrast to their Judaic majority who still cling to it.

    I know this for a fact because some of their pastors have visited my church in England and on an invitation, some from church (myself included) also attended one of their services.
    Thank you! That's good to know. I just keep coming across websites by Jewish believers in Christ who keep telling people that the written Law still applies (and then they have to explain which laws apply and which do not, and why). So they always start with the 10 commandments, which were written on stone. They don't understand the difference between the real and the shadow.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,149
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    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.
    Somebody had suggested that John's vision in Rev 11:1-2 refers to Herod's temple. That's why I pointed out that the 42 months attributed to the time of this temple makes it impossible to associate it with the one destroyed by the Romans.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,149
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    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.
    I completely agree that the law is eternal. But those who argue for the law, do not see it in this light, for when they talk about the law - what they really mean is the whole shindig, ie with animal sacrifice!

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,149
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    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.
    Thanks for your detailed post. But what you have ignored by insisting that the essence of Israel reverting to the law is for the purpose of inheriting the Land promise as against 'salvation' and lake of fire is that the Jew who partakes of the land promise must FIRST have salvation. That is, he must be saved and be in the kingdom of God first. The Jews (from the time of the Patriarchs to those at Christ' returns) who end up in the lake of fire certainly will not be part of those who enjoy the land promise according to Matt 8:11-12.

    So you see, positionally, your doctrine is faulty. There is no get out of jail free promise from God that every Jew will partake in the land because it is reserved for those who make it into the kingdom. Therefore, as the Bible is emphatic that there's NO other way to God in the NT age, but Christ, the focus is for Israel to accept him. And in Christ, the Law and its attendant traditions have no value.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,149
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by m'lo goy View Post
    Thank you! That's good to know. I just keep coming across websites by Jewish believers in Christ who keep telling people that the written Law still applies (and then they have to explain which laws apply and which do not, and why). So they always start with the 10 commandments, which were written on stone. They don't understand the difference between the real and the shadow.
    Well, it depends on the narrative and context in which claims about the law is made. Perhaps you can avail yourself by reading post #45, there, FHG put it a whole lot better than I've read anywhere else to clarify that the law remains eternal. However, when we say it is no longer valid or abrogated, what is actually intimated refers to those aspects like sacrifice, etc that Jesus put paid to.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,536

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Thanks for your detailed post. But what you have ignored by insisting that the essence of Israel reverting to the law is for the purpose of inheriting the Land promise as against 'salvation' and lake of fire is that the Jew who partakes of the land promise must FIRST have salvation. That is, he must be saved and be in the kingdom of God first.
    What a pity you did not give scripture for this. I understood that the condition for possessing the Land was (i) be a seed of Isaac (Genesis 12:7 13:15, 15:18, 17:8, 21:12; Rom.9:7), and (ii) circumcision (Genesis 17:10-14).

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    The Jews (from the time of the Patriarchs to those at Christ' returns) who end up in the lake of fire certainly will not be part of those who enjoy the land promise according to Matt 8:11-12.
    I would word this thus; "The seed of Isaac who end up in the Lake of Fire WILL be restored to their Land IF they were circumcised - for the condition of possessing the Land is NOT faith in Jesus but circumcision. But no man in the Lake of Fire can "enjoy" anything." I would give Daniel 12:2 as my proof. You see, the Lake of Fire is NOT a PLACE. It is a CONDITION of body and soul (Matt.10:28). It is "THEIR worm" and "THEIR fire" (Isa.66:24). Matthew 8:11-12 does not point to the Lake of Fire. It points to those not included in the Kingdom of Heaven - not the Kingdom of ISRAEL. They are in "OUTER" darkness. "OUT" means "not inside", and "DARKNESS" is the absence of light. If our Lord Jesus is the "light of the world" (Jn.8:12) and those in the Kingdom of Heaven will "shine forth in the Kingdom" (Matt.13:43), then it means that those who should have inherited the Kingdom of Heaven are shut out from the presence of Christ and the activities of those IN the Kingdom of Heaven. The weeping and gnashing of teeth is the result of deep regret, not the result of a "worm" and a "fire".

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    So you see, positionally, your doctrine is faulty.
    What means "positionally"? And while you are free to make the above judgement, have you ever considered that a man who doesn't understand something will always call the other "faulty". But "calling" is different to PROVING (with scripture and solid exegesis). That is why I regret so much that you will not document your statements with scripture. Then you can see if it is wild statement or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    There is no get out of jail free promise from God that every Jew will partake in the land because it is reserved for those who make it into the kingdom.
    Where did yo get this? Was this one of my statements? You box your own shadow. What means "get out of jail free promise"? The PROMISE was; "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God" (Genesis 17:8). And this statement we are reminded in Hebrews 6:13-18 that God made it by swearing an oath. Do you see God lying? I don't! Any seed of Isaac who was circumcised WILL gain the Good Land for an everlasting possession. But if he can enjoy it is another matter (Dan.12:2).

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Therefore, as the Bible is emphatic that there's NO other way to God in the NT age, but Christ, the focus is for Israel to accept him. And in Christ, the Law and its attendant traditions have no value.
    But we are NOT talking about the New Testament age, and we are NOT talking of the "way to God". You box your shadow again. We discuss the MILLENNIAL age. Then, and only THEN, will Israelites will be restored to their Land (Act.15:14-16).

    And what "focus" you do talk of? Scripture says that ALL Israel is CONCLUDED BY GOD IN UNBELIEF (Rom.11:32). How do you propose that Israel "accept Him"? Israel "accept Him BY SIGHT! When He breaks through the clouds THEN ONLY will Israel mourn Him (Rev.1:7).

    And, you say that the "Law and its attendant traditions have no value"? My! What means then Romans 2:8-13?
    8 "... wrath,
    9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
    10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
    11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
    12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
    13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified."


    Aaron, Saul, Mephibosheth and Ahab will be judged by the Law - and it has no value? From where then comes the "everlasting contempt" of Daniel 12:2? Was Moses lying under inspiration in Deuteronomy 30:1-5? Shall Israel be gathered from her Diaspora by luck, or by turning back, with heart and soul, to what Moses was expounding THAT DAY?

    May I humbly point what drags you into these dilemmas. You keep applying that which belongs to the CHURCH to Israel. But this will never work. Israel are ALL in UNBELIEF by conclusion of the Almighty. There is no rebirth by faith for Israel. There is no "divine life" in an Israelite. The Israelites CANNOT become sons of God. Israel forfeit the kingdom (Matt.21:43). BUT DOES THIS MAKE THE PROPHETS WRONG? Read the prophets and see what is in store for Israel. Not ONE prophets predicts rebirth for Israel. Not one prophet predicts that they will become the sons of God. Not one prophet predicts that Israel will become the "spiritual House of God". So what do they predict? It is neatly packaged as a summary by the prophet Zacharias in Luke 1:67-79;
    • 67 "And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
    • God will redeem His people - Which People? - Israel! He is the "Lord God of ISRAEL!" (v.68)
    • God has, by Jesus, raised a horn of Salvation - To WHO?- "the House of DAVID - king of Israel, not the Church" (v.69)
    • God has spoken by "His holy prophets"- SINCE WHEN? - PENTECOST? NO! Since the "AGE began" (aion - Gk.). What age was Zacharias from? - LAW!* (v.70)
    • God will SAVE them. Who ? Israel! From what? The Lake of Fire? NO! "THEIR ENEMIES!" (v.71)
    • God will "perform the mercy PROMISED to our fathers" By what means? His COVENANT to Abraham - the Covenant of PROMISE BY OATH (v.72-73)
    • God will put them, Israel, to SERVE Him. Where? IN THE LAND and IN THE TEMPLE (v.74)
    • "Without Fear". Why? Because the New Covenant of LAW made with Israel (not the Church) is superior and will be kept (Heb.8:6)
    • Serve Him in holiness and righteousness". Here, there is no talk of "IMPUTED righteousness. It is "SERVE" - WORKS! (v.75)
    • And the child will give the knowledge of "salvation" TO ISRAEL. How? because He died for the sins of the WORLD - not just the Church (1st Jn.2:2) (V.76-77)
    • "Has visited US". Who is "US"? - Israel! (v.78)
    • God will give "OUR" feet the way of peace. Who is "our" according to the context? Israel of course! (v.79)

    I recommend you CONSCIOUSLY put the Church in one box, and Israel in another - each with their CONDITIONS. Only then can the Bible make sense. Take each one of my statements for what it says, examine it in the light of my proffered proof, and if it is true then it must stand.


    * The Law was until John Baptist's ministry (Matt.11:13, Lk.16:16). Here, our Lord Jesus was still a baby - about 30 years before John's ministry. Thus Zacharias belongs to the age of Law. His revelation by the Holy Spirit is Jesus as MESSIAH of Israel - not Head of the Church. And so the prophets.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,079

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Somebody had suggested that John's vision in Rev 11:1-2 refers to Herod's temple. That's why I pointed out that the 42 months attributed to the time of this temple makes it impossible to associate it with the one destroyed by the Romans.
    Right. Preterists tend to view the book of Revelation as written *before* the 70 AD event, and make it all about that time period. I don't.

    I believe the book was likely written *after* 70 AD, although I don't know that for certain. That would explain why John is talking about a temple *vision,* and not the temple itself.

    However, the recent memory of the temple would serve to remind John of what Jesus said would happen to the Jewish People. The temple would be destroyed, stone by stone, and the Jewish People would be distributed among the nations as a punishment for their unbelief.

    This vision gave assurance that some believers remained among the Jews and could be counted as true worshipers at God's temple in heaven. Since this vision is fulfilled at the end of the age--at the last 3.5 years of the age--it shows the end of all these matters. The Jews will continue to be punished due to the unbelief of the majority. But a remnant will remain true--a symbolic 144,000 from all the tribes.

    This vision indicates that the last 3.5 years of the age will bring Israel's punishment to an end, as the Jews continue in punishment, without a temple, whereas true believers continue in hope, despite their persecution, knowing that the end is near.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,510
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Right. Preterists tend to view the book of Revelation as written *before* the 70 AD event, and make it all about that time period. I don't.

    I believe the book was likely written *after* 70 AD, although I don't know that for certain. That would explain why John is talking about a temple *vision,* and not the temple itself.

    However, the recent memory of the temple would serve to remind John of what Jesus said would happen to the Jewish People. The temple would be destroyed, stone by stone, and the Jewish People would be distributed among the nations as a punishment for their unbelief.

    This vision gave assurance that some believers remained among the Jews and could be counted as true worshipers at God's temple in heaven. Since this vision is fulfilled at the end of the age--at the last 3.5 years of the age--it shows the end of all these matters. The Jews will continue to be punished due to the unbelief of the majority. But a remnant will remain true--a symbolic 144,000 from all the tribes.

    This vision indicates that the last 3.5 years of the age will bring Israel's punishment to an end, as the Jews continue in punishment, without a temple, whereas true believers continue in hope, despite their persecution, knowing that the end is near.
    If revelation was written after 70AD wouldn't you think that there would be some reference to the worst event for the Jews when they lost the city and the temple?

    The bible is full of showing prophecies being fulfilled like Jesus predicting the destruction of the city and the temple proving again that He was God wouldn't there be at least some reference to it in Revelation?

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,079

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

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    If revelation was written after 70AD wouldn't you think that there would be some reference to the worst event for the Jews when they lost the city and the temple?

    The bible is full of showing prophecies being fulfilled like Jesus predicting the destruction of the city and the temple proving again that He was God wouldn't there be at least some reference to it in Revelation?
    I don't really know when John's revelation took place. It doesn't really matter to me--I wasn't given to know. It could easily have been referenced, as you say, if it had already taken place. Or, John could've just assumed everybody already knew about it. I'm stuck with what the scholars say, and most of them seem to believe that John's revelation followed 70 AD.

    So I'm not dogmatic about it. I just tend to believe the revelation came later.

    It doesn't really matter, though, with my interpretation of Revelation. I feel that the time, times and half a time John refers to in the revelation is a reference back to the time, times and half a time in Dan 7. And there, the context is the end of the age, and not the ancient Roman Empire.

    So it doesn't really matter to me if the temple was already destroyed or not at the time of John's writing. What matters is how we see events unfolding from that time forward and on until the end of the age.

    The physical temple was being used by John to identify true worshipers. The OT temple did not do that, in my view. It is the true temple in heaven that determines who is true and who isn't.

    We know the Jews, as a people, do not tend to worship God properly. They reject Christ. And so, they are identified with the OT temple, which is destroyed.

    But this temple in Rev 11 is used to mark those who are true worshipers. The OT temple was destroyed, marking the beginning of an age-long punishment for unbelieving Jews. But this temple in Revelation reveals that even as the temple's external court appears to be overrun with pagans, there are still true believing Jews who worship at God's temple in heaven.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,540
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    If revelation was written after 70AD wouldn't you think that there would be some reference to the worst event for the Jews when they lost the city and the temple?
    The bible is full of showing prophecies being fulfilled like Jesus predicting the destruction of the city and the temple proving again that He was God wouldn't there be at least some reference to it in Revelation?
    No, why would Revelation IF written 25 years after the Temple was destroyed make reference to that event?
    Revelation ONLY makes reference to Jesus having come, it is not a gospel or a recording of PAST events but a Revelation of what Jesus was doing in the churches AT THAT TIME and for the future to when it was written.
    It is NOT a book that deals with the change from Old to New, which in itself shows that the Old is not of any real consideration, which points to the Temple being gone.
    Rather the reverse would be true that IF the Temple was still in existence then a lot more would have been put about it, and Rev 11 certainly does NOT speak about 70 AD.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,540
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    I completely agree that the law is eternal. But those who argue for the law, do not see it in this light, for when they talk about the law - what they really mean is the whole shindig, ie with animal sacrifice!
    When did animal sacrifice start?
    Gen 3:21* And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

    This predates Moses by a couple of thousand years or so.
    A little Hebrew lesson.
    Words in Hebrew are formed from the consonants in the word.
    The most basic, and therefore fundamental words have a single consonant.
    So Dad is Ab (or Av - there are arguments as to how that particular letter should be pronounced in certain circumstances and sounds change over time).
    The word for near is qarob:
    H7138
    קָרֹב*** קָרוֹב
    qârôb*** qârôb
    kaw-robe', kaw-robe'
    From H7126; near (in place, kindred or time): - allied, approach, at hand, + any of kin, kinsfolk (-sman), (that is) near (of kin), neighbour, (that is) next, (them that come) nigh (at hand), more ready, short (-ly).

    Its consonants are q r b.

    The word for sacrifice (offerings of all kinds) is qorban:
    H7133
    קֻרְבָּן*** קָרְבָּן
    qorbân*** qûrbân
    kor-bawn', koor-bawn'
    From H7126; something brought near the altar, that is, a sacrificial present: - oblation, that is offered, offering.

    Its consonants are q r b (and n).

    A sacrifices purpose is to draw near to God. The "n" used in Hebrew makes the thing that is making the action.

    An example in English is we have "study" and we have "student". The student is the one who studies.
    We change the ending to show the connection and role.

    In Hebrew the same happens with qrb and qrbn. It is the qrbn that achieves the qrb.
    Sacrifice (or offerings) bring us near to God.

    This leads us to sacrifices also being mentioned in the NT, such as a sacrifice of praise which leads us near to God.
    Now Jesus' sacrifice is for those who accepted Him. Yet Paul (and the other Apostles) still made animal sacrifices after Jesus' death.
    This was not done for eternal life, but about how they saw they should live in relation with God as Jews.

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
  •