Page 5 of 22 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 328

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

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,601
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by m'lo goy View Post
    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.
    It is an interesting claim that the written Law is a shadow.
    However no scripture supports that view.
    We are NOT bound by the written Law because it was NOT given to us. It is NOT part of our Covenant with God.
    Just as any agreement one firm might make with another has no direct bearing on an agreement my firm might make with that firm, so also the written law as given to Moses has no direct hold on us.
    However that written law also notes the principles of the "Eternal Law", which is the character of God, within it.
    Righteousness, holiness, justice, goodness etc ALL only have meaning derived from WHO He is.

    Jesus quoted from it, and so did the writer of Hebrews noting that the God who gave that written law to Moses, is the SAME God, and His desires for giving that law to Moses, remain His desires for the whole world, that we might live rightly.

    The Council of Jerusalem noted things which predated the Law, and the Truths which are known and so stated it is these things which should be kept, along with that which is involved in the New Covenant. Therefore not a single one of the ten commandments is a law for a Gentile.
    The law itself though remains, and will remain as it is like gravity (in the physical world), that is it is an essential aspect of God. the Law does not matter to us IF we are IN Him becuase we will be a part of that essence and so over such the Law has no hold.

    However for the world, which is what is important the law remains true and will do so on judgement day when they will be judged according to that Law - even as Paul noted in Romans:
    Rom 2:12* For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.*
    Rom 2:13* For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.*
    Rom 2:14* For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.*
    Rom 2:15* They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them*
    Rom 2:16* on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

  2. #62

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    It is an interesting claim that the written Law is a shadow.

    .. that written law also notes the principles of the "Eternal Law", which is the character of God, within it.
    Righteousness, holiness, justice, goodness etc ALL only have meaning derived from WHO He is.
    That's why the written Law is the shadow. Christ is the author of the Law, and He is by nature obedient to the Law. He did not need a written Law to teach Him to be righteous or restrain Him from sin, like we (fallen man) did. He is obedient to God's Law by nature. God does not need any Law, and before the fall, neither did Adam - Adam only received one command, and it was a "thou shalt not" command, but there was no sin principle in Adam before he fell to cause him to sin, because he was made in the image and likeness of God, so Adam was without sin before the fall.

    Christ in us, the Holy Spirit, writes the Law on our hearts and puts it in our minds, and changes our nature from within, giving us a Christ-like nature:

    "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of extortion and excess.
    Blind Pharisee! First cleanse the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of them may be clean also." (Matthew 23:25-26)

    The Holy Spirit writes the Living Law on our hearts, puts it in our minds, and it is a minute-by-minute, second by second Living process, because the Holy Spirit will either prompt us to do and say things, or restrain us from doing or saying certain things (if Christ lives in us and we make Him our Master), and He will always do so in accordance with God's nature, of which the reflection is the written Law.

    "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law." (Galatians 5:18)

    The written Law you're talking about is a reflection of God's nature and character, and therefore yes, a shadow of the real thing, but not the real thing.

    As Christians we may not always be restrained by the restraint of the Holy Spirit, nor will be always do or say the good we were prompted to do or say, because it depends on the extent that we submit to Christ within us.

    I agree, the Law will condemn those under the Law who reject Christ's sacrifice for our sins - but it will not only judge Israel:

    "But we know that whatever things the Law says, it says to those who are under the Law; so that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may be under judgment before God," (Romans 3:19).

    The Law is not meant for Israel only. "For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law." (Romans 2:12).

    All mankind was made in the image and likeness of God, and so The Law, which is a reflection of God's nature, will judge those who do not accept the gospel of salvation through the blood of Christ. He died for the whole world, not just for Israel, because He is the Son of Man, the last Adam.

    The written code contained in the book of the Law is a reflection, a shadow of the real thing (of God's nature and character). Those who are led by the Spirit of God are led by the author of the Law, not by the Law, and the Law written on our hearts is the nature of Christ and the Holy Spirit either prompting us to do or say certain things, or restraining us from doing or saying certain things (beginning with restraining us from sin).

    This is why Paul could say to the Jews who thought that their reflection in the book of the Law meant they were "more righteous":

    " For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
    They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
    on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:14-16).

    There will be those who call themselves Christians who Christ will call lawless when He returns:

    " On that day many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?
    And then will I declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness. " (Matthew 7:22-23).

    The Greek word is anomia, "violation of law", and it is the same word used in 2 Thess 2:8:

    "And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming." (2 Thess 2:8).

    How can someone call Jesus Lord, cast out demons in His name, and still be lawless? It's because their works are not prompted by the Holy Spirit, and they have seared their consciences so that they are not restrained by the Holy Spirit, but their works are motivated by other things, beginning with a lust for recognition and drawing attention to themselves, and aggravated by an obsession with miracles and supernatural wonders.

    " Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,
    in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thess 2:11-12).

    The Law written on our hearts by Christ's Holy Spirit is not a reflection or shadow of the nature and character of God, it is Christ Himself within us. The Law written on tablets of stone or in the book of the Law is a reflection of God's nature, and hence, a shadow. Adam (mankind), before he fell, did not need to look to it (and it had not yet been given), since he had been created in the image and likeness of God and walked lawfully by nature.

    "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." (Galatians 3:24).

  3. #63
    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
    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.
    We've had Messianic Jews in our church, as well. Some of them, though evangelical, also have strong Judaic tendencies. That is, they want to restore some aspects of the Law of Moses. It sometimes is more than a purely cultural thing. It borders on legalism. Passover is advocated as virtually a requirement.

    The evangelical church has also maintained aspects of legalism, even though they are truly Christian. Tithing itself is an OT law, and has been prescribed for Christian living regularly. Church attendance is required as a virtual Sabbath law.

    Nobody would deny the need for regular church attendance. And nobody would deny the need to pay for church buildings and ministers. But I do think that despite our moral obligations we need to not connect them to our relationship with God. That would be legalism, and runs counter to our free salvation.

  4. #64
    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 m'lo goy View Post
    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.
    I think you're right that the *temple structure* and *prophetic symbols* are "shadows of Christ." The Law itself is a document that bound Israel to God in preChristian times. As such, it was a temporary covenant, designed to reinforce the original Abraham Covenant until that Covenant could be confirmed by Christ himself. So as a whole, the Law of Moses was a temporary image of the coming Christ.

    Col 2.16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

    Heb 8.5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”

    Heb 10.1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.


    Quote Originally Posted by m'lo goy
    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.
    Unless I am a Jewish believer I cannot enjoy feasts that were part of the Jewish culture. They were not designed for Gentiles. Can you imagine my getting satisfaction over celebrating deliverance from Egypt for a people other than my own? I might get real excited here in the US on Independence Day because I personally benefit from the freedoms Americans now have. But I don't celebrate the Russian Revolution, or the French Revolution, or the English Revolution!

    I might even appreciate how Israel's deliverance from Egypt symbolized our liberation from sin. But still, celebrating a festival for another people is not something I would personally celebrate! What I would do, however, is enjoy reading about it in the Bible, because it foreshadowed our Christian deliverance from sin.

    Quote Originally Posted by m'lo goy
    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 actually find the celebration of Christian festivals far more meaningful for me personally because I actually benefit from what these festivals represented. I'm very, very blessed every Christmas when I feel that special spirit at that time of year, celebrating the coming of God's Son to the earth for us. And at Easter I enjoy remembering Christ on the cross, bearing our sins, and giving us eternal life. These things are special to me, whereas the Feast of Tabernacles does nothing for me. I never went into the wilderness, and I was never delivered from Egypt!

    Quote Originally Posted by m'lo goy
    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.
    I couldn't agree more!

    Quote Originally Posted by m'lo goy
    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.
    I could be wrong, but I *don't* think Paul is speaking of believing Gentiles. I'm not sure that the Scriptures speak of the Gentiles except in terms of their pagan origins, separated from the Law of Israel. It is recognized that there were Gentile converts. And in the NT the gospel of Christ converted the Gentiles to the Law of Christ.

    But it didn't require Christianity to designate faith and conscience in a Gentile. The word "Gentile" is a more or less negative term, indicating a need for conversion. The fact Gentiles had a conscience indicated they could convert to and exercise faith. The Gentiles Paul spoke of seem to present the need for the whole pagan world to convert to Christianity, because *they had a conscience.*

    Quote Originally Posted by m'lo goy
    " 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.
    This is the very strong point you make here, that the written Law is not what saves us, but served only to foreshadow Christ, who does save us. It is the internal law of the Spirit that saves us, because it is Christ within who is our "hope of glory." The Law can inform us of what is right. But we need Christ himself, by faith, to do what is right.

    All of the externals of the Law cannot accomplish what only Christ can. Therefore, the Law was intended to point us to faith, so that we may actually do the Law of God.

    613 requirements informed us about the necessity of having faith and of the eventual need to have our sins fully atoned for. But serving those laws could not accomplish the full atonement that only Christ brought.

    And so, when Christ came he provided not just for full atonement, but also for a way that we could do God's Law. But it does no good to have faith in a system that provided only temporary atonement for sins. We must direct our faith in the atonement of Christ. And trusting in his righteousness we have no need to observe outdated laws that only pointed forward to his eternal atonement.

  5. #65

    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?


    Lately in Israel (among some prominent Jews) there has been a lot of excitement about the temple, and this excitement is coming from the Temple Institute, the Chabad/Lubivitch movement (of which Jared Kushner is a member), and some prominent Orthodox Rabbis, and apparently some very wealthy and powerful Jews are behind the Temple Institute's goals.

    It's not a conspiracy theory (you can find the statements of the head of the Temple Institute and some prominent Orhtodox Rabbis in YouTube).

    It boils down to the fact that these people believe "the Messiah" is here, and the Sanhedrin know who he is, and he will demolish the Dome of the Rock and adjacent Al Aqsa mosque soon, and he will lay the foundation of the 3rd temple.

    According to the goals of the Temple Institute, the Jewish "Messiah" will also head the newly formed United Nations, because the UN HQ will be shifted (according to their goals) to Jerusalem, and be restructured to consist of 70 nations having seats (based on the 70 nations dispersed from the Tower of Babel), and the Jewish "Messiah" will be its head. This "Messiah" will usher in world peace and rule from his "throne" in Jerusalem, which apparently is the new U.N with its 70 nations.

    There are quite a few Jews who believe this (although most probably don't adhere to the Temple Institute's thinking or the thinking of certain Orthodox Rabbis).

    However, Jared Kushner is a Chabad/Lubivitch member. They have strong ties with the Temple Institute and share the same goals. Jared Kushner has a strong friendship with Netanyahu, the two families have been close friends a long time, and as a boy, Jared Kushner once gave up his bed for Netanyahu when Netanyahu visited the Kushner in the states.

    In Revelation 17 we are told that the 10 kings on the beast (which Revelation 13 states rises from "the sea") will give all their power and authority to "the beast", but we are not told which beast. However Revelation 13 states the beast that rises from "the earth" will exercise all the power and authority of the first beast before it.

    To picture this, remember that Pharaoh placed all his power and authority in Joseph and all the power and authority of God is given to Christ.

    It is in the same way that the ten kings give all their power and authority to "the beast" (whichever "beast" it is talking about), and it is the same way that the beast rising from the earth in Revelation 13 exercises all the power and authority of the first beast, and causes those who dwell on the earth to erect an image to the first beast.

    The beast from the earth is one of only two entities in the Revelation performing miraculous signs iby which he deceives those dwelling on the earth (the other entity is "the two witnesses").

    The beast that rises from the earth has two horn like a lamb, yet he speaks like a dragon.

    The man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians also performs miraculous signs and lying wonders by which all those who refuse the love of the truth, are deceived. Many false prophets will be doing the same (Jesus says so in Matthew 24:11-12 and He speaks about the people calling Him "Lord, Lord" who had done miraculous signs in His name as workers of lawlessness (Mat 7:22-23).

    [Open speculation]

    Speculation speculation speculation

    "The image of the beast" is the 3rd temple in Jerusalem. All nations will go "up on pilgrimage" to worship there (because they will be commanded to do so).
    (The Temple Institute etc are making a very big deal about:
    " It shall come to pass in the latter days
    that the mountain of the house of the LORD
    shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
    and shall be lifted up above the hills;
    and all the nations shall flow to it,

    and many peoples shall come, and say:
    Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
    to the house of the God of Jacob,
    that he may teach us his ways
    and that we may walk in his paths.
    For out of Zion shall go the law,
    and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem." (Isaiah 2:2-3)

    (Note: "The house of the God of Jacob" is the temple of Christ. Christians better learn that soon).

    "The beast from the earth" is a Christian Jewish "Messiah".
    "The beast from the earth" rises out of "erets Yisrael (erets (earth) Israel.
    "The beast from the sea" is the new U.N headquartered in Jerusalem with its 70 nations.
    "The temple" that the man of sin sets himself up in is the church - he gets the Christians to worship God at the temple in Jerusalem.
    (The Greek word naos is not used in reference to the Jerusalem temple after the verse talking about the tearing of the veil in the temple).

    (Remember that this man's coming is "according to the working of Satan with many miracles and lying wonders).

    ]/close speculation]

    end speculation end speculation end speculation.



    The 10 kings

  6. #66

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

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I think you're right that the *temple structure* and *prophetic symbols* are "shadows of Christ." The Law itself is a document that bound Israel to God in preChristian times. As such, it was a temporary covenant, designed to reinforce the original Abraham Covenant until that Covenant could be confirmed by Christ himself. So as a whole, the Law of Moses was a temporary image of the coming Christ.

    Col 2.16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

    Heb 8.5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”

    Heb 10.1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.




    Unless I am a Jewish believer I cannot enjoy feasts that were part of the Jewish culture. They were not designed for Gentiles. Can you imagine my getting satisfaction over celebrating deliverance from Egypt for a people other than my own? I might get real excited here in the US on Independence Day because I personally benefit from the freedoms Americans now have. But I don't celebrate the Russian Revolution, or the French Revolution, or the English Revolution!

    I might even appreciate how Israel's deliverance from Egypt symbolized our liberation from sin. But still, celebrating a festival for another people is not something I would personally celebrate! What I would do, however, is enjoy reading about it in the Bible, because it foreshadowed our Christian deliverance from sin.



    I actually find the celebration of Christian festivals far more meaningful for me personally because I actually benefit from what these festivals represented. I'm very, very blessed every Christmas when I feel that special spirit at that time of year, celebrating the coming of God's Son to the earth for us. And at Easter I enjoy remembering Christ on the cross, bearing our sins, and giving us eternal life. These things are special to me, whereas the Feast of Tabernacles does nothing for me. I never went into the wilderness, and I was never delivered from Egypt!



    I couldn't agree more!



    I could be wrong, but I *don't* think Paul is speaking of believing Gentiles. I'm not sure that the Scriptures speak of the Gentiles except in terms of their pagan origins, separated from the Law of Israel. It is recognized that there were Gentile converts. And in the NT the gospel of Christ converted the Gentiles to the Law of Christ.

    But it didn't require Christianity to designate faith and conscience in a Gentile. The word "Gentile" is a more or less negative term, indicating a need for conversion. The fact Gentiles had a conscience indicated they could convert to and exercise faith. The Gentiles Paul spoke of seem to present the need for the whole pagan world to convert to Christianity, because *they had a conscience.*



    This is the very strong point you make here, that the written Law is not what saves us, but served only to foreshadow Christ, who does save us. It is the internal law of the Spirit that saves us, because it is Christ within who is our "hope of glory." The Law can inform us of what is right. But we need Christ himself, by faith, to do what is right.

    All of the externals of the Law cannot accomplish what only Christ can. Therefore, the Law was intended to point us to faith, so that we may actually do the Law of God.

    613 requirements informed us about the necessity of having faith and of the eventual need to have our sins fully atoned for. But serving those laws could not accomplish the full atonement that only Christ brought.

    And so, when Christ came he provided not just for full atonement, but also for a way that we could do God's Law. But it does no good to have faith in a system that provided only temporary atonement for sins. We must direct our faith in the atonement of Christ. And trusting in his righteousness we have no need to observe outdated laws that only pointed forward to his eternal atonement.
    We are 99.99% in agreement. The only thing is the Law only came because of the fall of Adam. Before the fall of Adam mankind had no need for any Law to reflect God's nature and character, because Adam was made in the image and likeness of God and the breath of God gave Adam life. Adam had one "thou shalt not" command and he would have had to suppress his conscience to eat of the forbidden fruit because the Spirit of God and nature of God in Adam would have restrained him.

    Between Adam's fall and Christ, there was no Holy Spirit in man to prompt to good works or restrain from evil. So Paul asks,

    "Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary." (Galatians 3:19)

    It was not added only because of Israel's transgressions.

    So the Law gave the nation chosen as the nation through whom the Saviour would come into the world, a reflection of God's nature and character (and hence it gave the world, through Israel, a reflection of God's nature and character in the Law) - but it could never replace the nature of God in Christ, the last Adam, and so now the Law is replaced with God in Christ and Christ in man:

    "At that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." (John 14:20).

    I think we elevate the genetic seed of Abraham too much. God had to bring the Savior into the world through someone, and because Abraham believed God, he was chosen, and his genetic descendants were chosen to bring Christ into the world - but they were only the channel by which God chose to bring the Messiah into the world:

    "Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, And to offsprings, referring to many, but referring to one, And to your offspring, who is Christ." (Galatians 3:16)

    The promises and the inheritance pertain to and belong to Jesus. No one else. He shares His inheritance with those who are His. The Law was only given to teach Israel (and through Israel, the world) that they were incapable of being like God (Adam was created in the image and likeness of God), and they needed Christ. That's the reason the covenant of Law was given to Israel. God knew they were incapable, and so long before Jesus came, He promised the New Covenant in Christ's blood.

    Israel was the channel, "the woman" of Revelation 12 with a garland of 12 stars on her head, and the Law was the reflection, the teacher. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, and all the rest is ready to vanish away (Heb 8:13). Mankind is restored from the fall of Adam through Christ, the last Adam, and like Adam before the fall, mankind will have no need of outward Law (Law outside himself), no need of a reflection of God's nature and character to look to and attempt to live by, since man will have the nature of Christ in Him, and he will have "put on Christ's righteousness".

    Those who reject God's salvation will be judged by the Law, because sin is sin and God's nature and the Law is a reflection of God's righteousness. The works of Christians will be judged too, but not unto condemnation, (that is, if we are in Christ Jesus, and through the prompting and restraining of the Holy Spirit, have not become lawless (Rom 8:1; Mat 7:23).

  7. #67
    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 m'lo goy View Post
    We are 99.99% in agreement. The only thing is the Law only came because of the fall of Adam. Before the fall of Adam mankind had no need for any Law to reflect God's nature and character, because Adam was made in the image and likeness of God and the breath of God gave Adam life. Adam had one "thou shalt not" command and he would have had to suppress his conscience to eat of the forbidden fruit because the Spirit of God and nature of God in Adam would have restrained him.
    I think on the most important points we are in agreement. But please allow me to nit pick a bit?

    There is some semantical confusion over the word "Law." God's Law did not require human sin because God's word of command applies to man whether man is a sinner or not. The word of God that required man to come into being is, in this sense, a "Law." The command of God for man to live in His image is a "Law," and does not require that man be a sinner. So we may be using the word "Law" a little differently?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Between Adam's fall and Christ, there was no Holy Spirit in man to prompt to good works or restrain from evil. So Paul asks,

    "Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary." (Galatians 3:19)

    It was not added only because of Israel's transgressions.
    I would have to dispute your notion that there was "no Holy Spirit" before Christ. We hear *lots* about the Holy Spirit in the OT Scriptures! So you may be referring to the Holy Spirit in the NT sense, as the "Spirit of Christ?" But as the Holy Spirit Himself, He is an eternal Being, and was necessarily connected to *everything* God did with Man.

    As to the purpose of the Law after Man's sin, its use was perhaps a kind of negotiation between God and men. As long as men maintained their loyalty to God, and kept His word, God was willing to look past their sins. The Law of Moses clearly dealt with sin in such a way as to allow Israel to go on in good standing with God, as long as Israel kept God's commandments.

    But it was God Himself who chose to absolve men of their guilt, when they observed His commandments. Forgiveness was something that God had to decide upon. Men could not absolve themselves of guilt, since they were the guilty party. They could only meet God halfway, and God would provide the atonement for sin.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So the Law gave the nation chosen as the nation through whom the Saviour would come into the world, a reflection of God's nature and character (and hence it gave the world, through Israel, a reflection of God's nature and character in the Law) - but it could never replace the nature of God in Christ, the last Adam, and so now the Law is replaced with God in Christ and Christ in man:

    "At that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." (John 14:20).

    I think we elevate the genetic seed of Abraham too much. God had to bring the Savior into the world through someone, and because Abraham believed God, he was chosen, and his genetic descendants were chosen to bring Christ into the world - but they were only the channel by which God chose to bring the Messiah into the world:

    "Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, And to offsprings, referring to many, but referring to one, And to your offspring, who is Christ." (Galatians 3:16)

    The promises and the inheritance pertain to and belong to Jesus. No one else. He shares His inheritance with those who are His. The Law was only given to teach Israel (and through Israel, the world) that they were incapable of being like God (Adam was created in the image and likeness of God), and they needed Christ. That's the reason the covenant of Law was given to Israel. God knew they were incapable, and so long before Jesus came, He promised the New Covenant in Christ's blood.
    I believe the Law did much more than teach Israel that they could not be like God. Rather, it showed Israel that they could not be *perfectly* like God. And so, it taught them that they needed redemption. They needed an eternal atonement for their sins. To show that they are sinners was not the exclusive purpose of the Law. The Law was also given to provide a form of righteousness that was temporarily acceptable to God.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Israel was the channel, "the woman" of Revelation 12 with a garland of 12 stars on her head, and the Law was the reflection, the teacher. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, and all the rest is ready to vanish away (Heb 8:13). Mankind is restored from the fall of Adam through Christ, the last Adam, and like Adam before the fall, mankind will have no need of outward Law (Law outside himself), no need of a reflection of God's nature and character to look to and attempt to live by, since man will have the nature of Christ in Him, and he will have "put on Christ's righteousness".
    Again, it depends on how you define "Law." God's word is eternal, and even after we are made perfect, God will have things to tell us to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Those who reject God's salvation will be judged by the Law, because sin is sin and God's nature and the Law is a reflection of God's righteousness. The works of Christians will be judged too, but not unto condemnation, (that is, if we are in Christ Jesus, and through the prompting and restraining of the Holy Spirit, have not become lawless (Rom 8:1; Mat 7:23).
    I notice a tendency to deflect away from God's promise to Israel as a nation. I don't believe God only used Israel to jump start salvation for the world. I believe it was also His intention to save *a nation.*

    As such, He showed concern for *every nation.* He cares not just about the individual, but also about the society. That's where social justice takes place. He cares about individual salvation and also about social justice.

    But thanks for your response to my remarks. We remain in strong agreement on the most important principles of the basis of salvation. It is Christ, and not external, formal laws. It is not dead religion. It is the process of life in which we interact with God.

    In obeying God we recognize that He is the exclusive source of our forgiveness, without which we are lost. Our good works would be of no value with respect to salvation. We obey God, knowing that He will forgive us, having chosen the way in which we should be forgiven. Ignoring that "way," we have no basis for salvation.

  8. #68
    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 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. Just that some do not understand that the law can exist without the animal sacrifices. And that's at the heat of their problem.

  9. #69
    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
    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?
    The point is why would God reveal something that is already fulfilled (destruction of the temple and city) to John at the time of the visions?

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,601
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    I completely agree. Just that some do not understand that the law can exist without the animal sacrifices. And that's at the heat of their problem.
    Indeed the Law exists without animal sacrifices.

    The question is what purpose is animal sacrifice.
    The answer is often thought to be remove sin. This is incorrect as we know that NO animal sacrifice removes sin.
    What it does is cover shame, EXACTLY as happened in Genesis 3.
    It is therefore a covering over of something which is shameful, until sin occurs no more and there is no longer anything to be shameful about.

    Now there are remain two questions:
    1) The purpose of sacrifice in the MK. Is this because with Jesus having returned then is something else required for that age?
    2) Are Jews still under the old order? As the apostles continued to follow the Law even after Jesus' death and resurrection, then does this remain a constant UNTIL He returns? (could it continue even after?)

    Whilst there is no temple then these are hypothetical questions, yet does scripture not prophesy there will be one?

  11. #71
    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 ForHisglory View Post
    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.
    I believe that at the time of Paul and the Apostles, the line was still blurred as to the aspects of the OT culture they should avoid. Change is sometimes difficult; it's obvious they were learning by the day in those days. For example, we have Peter eating with non-Jews but panics and withdraws himself when fellow Jews came to visit from Jerusalem (Gal 2:12-13).

    What I'm saying is that it was not a fast rule that they (Jewish converts) would have continued to indulge in sacrifices. It is my belief that as their understanding of the requirements of the NT age grew, they would have eventually done away entirely with sacrifices. Sadly, their time and development were truncated in 70 AD, so we won't know for sure.

  12. #72
    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 randyk View Post
    We've had Messianic Jews in our church, as well. Some of them, though evangelical, also have strong Judaic tendencies. That is, they want to restore some aspects of the Law of Moses. It sometimes is more than a purely cultural thing. It borders on legalism. Passover is advocated as virtually a requirement.

    The evangelical church has also maintained aspects of legalism, even though they are truly Christian. Tithing itself is an OT law, and has been prescribed for Christian living regularly. Church attendance is required as a virtual Sabbath law.

    Nobody would deny the need for regular church attendance. And nobody would deny the need to pay for church buildings and ministers. But I do think that despite our moral obligations we need to not connect them to our relationship with God. That would be legalism, and runs counter to our free salvation.
    I agree. If the 1st-century church had survives unscathed to date, they (Jewish Christians) would have had rich millennia long worth of Church dogma and tradition to draw from. I suspect that modern messianic are just making their way as they go along. For example, I think there will be some differences in the mode of worship of say, European, US and Israel based messianic Jews. I don't think they have a blueprint or a standardised form of worship.

  13. #73
    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
    I agree. If the 1st-century church had survives unscathed to date, they (Jewish Christians) would have had rich millennia long worth of Church dogma and tradition to draw from. I suspect that modern messianic are just making their way as they go along. For example, I think there will be some differences in the mode of worship of say, European, US and Israel based messianic Jews. I don't think they have a blueprint or a standardised form of worship.
    I've never attended a messianic service, but I have a number of friends associated with the messianic movement. I need to get around a little more? There are some TV messianic services. I think the intent is to explain the Bible from a Jewish pov, and to embrace the Jewish culture to some degree. I imagine that might celebrate ancient Hebrew feasts more, since it does apply to Jews.

  14. #74

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

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I think on the most important points we are in agreement. But please allow me to nit pick a bit?
    It's not nit-picking. It's pointing out error where you see or believe there is error.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post

    There is some semantical confusion over the word "Law." God's Law did not require human sin because God's word of command applies to man whether man is a sinner or not. The word of God that required man to come into being is, in this sense, a "Law." The command of God for man to live in His image is a "Law," and does not require that man be a sinner. So we may be using the word "Law" a little differently?
    Yes, in a sense God's command for light to come into being is also a "law".

    There was no command for Adam to live in the image of God, though. He was made in the image of God. "Let Us make man in Our image" is not a command to anyone.

    The only command to Adam was not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam would have had to suppress his conscience, brought about through the restraint of the Holy Spirit, in order to disobey that command. Afterwards, and from then onwards, Adam had to suppress his sin urges in order to obey God's Law.

    The positive commands came as a result of the fall.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post

    I would have to dispute your notion that there was "no Holy Spirit" before Christ. We hear *lots* about the Holy Spirit in the OT Scriptures! So you may be referring to the Holy Spirit in the NT sense, as the "Spirit of Christ?" But as the Holy Spirit Himself, He is an eternal Being, and was necessarily connected to *everything* God did with Man.
    Yes, agreed. I'm referring to the Holy Spirit in the N.T sense. Seth, Noah, Abraham and all those O.T prophets inspired by the Holy Spirit, had to suppress their sin urges in order to obey the Law of God, though, because they were all sons of Adam.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post

    As to the purpose of the Law after Man's sin, its use was perhaps a kind of negotiation between God and men. As long as men maintained their loyalty to God, and kept His word, God was willing to look past their sins. The Law of Moses clearly dealt with sin in such a way as to allow Israel to go on in good standing with God, as long as Israel kept God's commandments.

    But it was God Himself who chose to absolve men of their guilt, when they observed His commandments. Forgiveness was something that God had to decide upon. Men could not absolve themselves of guilt, since they were the guilty party. They could only meet God halfway, and God would provide the atonement for sin.

    I believe the Law did much more than teach Israel that they could not be like God. Rather, it showed Israel that they could not be *perfectly* like God. And so, it taught them that they needed redemption. They needed an eternal atonement for their sins. To show that they are sinners was not the exclusive purpose of the Law. The Law was also given to provide a form of righteousness that was temporarily acceptable to God.
    It was always only faith that pleased God.

    Abraham's faith was credited to him for righteousness - it was not his righteousness that was credited to him for righteousness, but his faith. The Law did not change this:

    "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." (Hebrews 11:6)

    "And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised," (Hebrews 11:39).

    The law required that atonement had to be made even for those whose faith pleased God, because of their sin.

    The reason I don't agree entirely with what you're saying is because the Law did not cleanse them of sin. Atonement had to be made, and this was God's mercy. It was not a kind of negotiation between God and man, because that would be like man meeting God half-way. But man could not negotiate with God because man's sin made this impossible.

    No matter how loyal and faithful man is, his 'righteousness' is as filthy rags in the sight of God:

    "But we are all as the unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as a menstruous cloth. And we all fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away". (Isaiah 64:6) .

    All man could ever do was to be grateful and thankful for God's mercy, and the Law, which provided atonement for sins, was part of that mercy.

    [QUOTE=randyk;3488689] Again, it depends on how you define "Law." God's word is eternal, and even after we are made perfect, God will have things to tell us to do.[QUOTE=randyk;3488689]

    So my thinking is: The only command Adam had was one: "thou shalt not". Jesus came to restore what man had lost because of the fall. Man's new nature in the regeneration, as a new creature, as a new creation created in Christ, will have God's image and likeness, Christ in man, just as Adam did. There will be no need for Law or commands since the Law on man's heart as a new creature created in Christ unto good works, will prompt man to do what is in accordance with God's nature, because in the regeneration he will have (and already to an extent has), Christ's nature.

    Adam had no need of commands except the one: "thou shalt not", which he knowingly ignored, and went ahead and did.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I notice a tendency to deflect away from God's promise to Israel as a nation. I don't believe God only used Israel to jump start salvation for the world. I believe it was also His intention to save *a nation.*

    As such, He showed concern for *every nation.* He cares not just about the individual, but also about the society. That's where social justice takes place. He cares about individual salvation and also about social justice.
    .

    Again, I disagree. God's promise to Abraham pertained to Christ (Gal 3:16). Only Christ can share His inheritance with whom He chooses.

    It's God's prerogative to elect, and the chosen nation was only chosen in order to serve, not to be served. Yes, there are blessings which the elect receive as God's called out ones, but this does not make us more special, and did not make Israel more special, than anyone else. It's like you said, it's not for the individual only. It's also not for one nation or one society only.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    But thanks for your response to my remarks. We remain in strong agreement on the most important principles of the basis of salvation. It is Christ, and not external, formal laws. It is not dead religion. It is the process of life in which we interact with God.

    In obeying God we recognize that He is the exclusive source of our forgiveness, without which we are lost. Our good works would be of no value with respect to salvation. We obey God, knowing that He will forgive us, having chosen the way in which we should be forgiven. Ignoring that "way," we have no basis for salvation.
    .

    I agree and thank you!

  15. #75
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    The point is why would God reveal something that is already fulfilled (destruction of the temple and city) to John at the time of the visions?
    Because Jesus predicted it as the bible shows prophecies fufilled

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
  •