The fallacy of believing Jesus was talking about the temple of stones on the Mount of Olives

[TribulationSigns]

Both Matthew 24:1-2 and Luke 19 mirror the end of the corporate old Covenant congregation and the end of the corporate new Covenant congregation, because of their rebellions against God's word. If you are going to use Matthew 24:1-2 to justify it speaking about AD 70, then you must use Luke 19 to speak about that same event. How does he address the contradiction that if Mathew speaks of literal stones, then Luke must also be speaking of literal stones? To say anything different dabbles in the art of absurdity!

Matthew 24:1-2

• "And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
• And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

Luke 19:44 in en thee soi one stone "λίθος [lithos] ἐπί [epi] λίθος [lithos]." Literally stone on or upon stone. You're a stickler for literalism, aren't you, eh, Claninja and your gang? Not one that shall not be thrown down. That's pretty clear and specific, isn't it?

Both in Matthew 24:2 and Luke 19:44 the identical language there won't be left "λίθος [lithos] ἐπί [epi] λίθος [lithos]", literally one stone on another, because He is talking about the very same desolation of these people! And the reason is because of their abominations. Clearly, Christ is talking about the same event in both places, and the exact same stones of the entire city, including the Temple. For example, the whole holy city will not be left standing because the kingdom has been taken from it and given to another, because they knew not the time of their visitation.

Jeremiah 8:11-12

• "For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.
• Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down, saith the LORD."

Here again, God is speaking about people who didn't know the time of their judgment or visitation. What vistation? Roman? No, it was the Lord, the very one who they have rejected! Likewise, in Luke chapter 19, Christ is speaking to Jerusalem, the representative of the Holy city, not a literal city. Though He calls them Jerusalem, His message is to the people, allegorically as stones of the city, and the Temple building. Selah!

Luke 19:44

• "And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."

λίθος [lithos] ἐπί [epi] λίθος [lithos]. Not one stone on stone because this is their judgment for rejecting their Christ. God's not taking it out on physical buildings or a Temple like you think, but throwing down the people.

Selah!

 

[covenantee]

Both Matthew 24:1-2 and Luke 19 mirror the end of the corporate old Covenant congregation and the end of the corporate new Covenant congregation, because of their rebellions against God's word. If you are going to use Matthew 24:1-2 to justify it speaking about AD 70, then you must use Luke 19 to speak about that same event. How does he address the contradiction that if Mathew speaks of literal stones, then Luke must also be speaking of literal stones? To say anything different dabbles in the art of absurdity!

Matthew 24:1-2

• "And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
• And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

Luke 19:44 in en thee soi one stone "λίθος [lithos] ἐπί [epi] λίθος [lithos]." Literally stone on or upon stone. You're a stickler for literalism, aren't you, eh, Claninja and your gang? Not one that shall not be thrown down. That's pretty clear and specific, isn't it?

Both in Matthew 24:2 and Luke 19:44 the identical language there won't be left "λίθος [lithos] ἐπί [epi] λίθος [lithos]", literally one stone on another, because He is talking about the very same desolation of these people! And the reason is because of their abominations. Clearly, Christ is talking about the same event in both places, and the exact same stones of the entire city, including the Temple. For example, the whole holy city will not be left standing because the kingdom has been taken from it and given to another, because they knew not the time of their visitation.

Jeremiah 8:11-12

• "For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.
• Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down, saith the LORD."

Here again, God is speaking about people who didn't know the time of their judgment or visitation. What vistation? Roman? No, it was the Lord, the very one who they have rejected! Likewise, in Luke chapter 19, Christ is speaking to Jerusalem, the representative of the Holy city, not a literal city. Though He calls them Jerusalem, His message is to the people, allegorically as stones of the city, and the Temple building. Selah!

Luke 19:44

• "And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."

λίθος [lithos] ἐπί [epi] λίθος [lithos]. Not one stone on stone because this is their judgment for rejecting their Christ. God's not taking it out on physical buildings or a Temple like you think, but throwing down the people.

Selah!

You forgot this one:

Matthew 21:12
And Jesus went into His body of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in His body, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

 

[TribulationSigns]

You forgot this one:

Matthew 21:12
And Jesus went into His body of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in His body, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

Forgot? Not at all. Its you who are making a fool of yourself for lack of understanding.

The true integral Holy Place is within the Holy Temple which no one can enter into "except" through the curtain/veil that is the body of Christ (Hebrews 10:20). While you (and other Premillennialists/Dispensationalists as well) are so preoccupied with a physical building situated in a physical land, the truth is much more Spiritual and substantive than a pile of stones making up a physical Temple building. The truth is, the Only Holy Place that matters is your position in Christ, who is the Holy Temple wherein we can be restored. Selah! For example, the restoration of the Temple is not in the construction in the middle east, but in the Holy Temple being raised up in Christ. But again, these things are Spiritually discerned.

John 2:18-21

• "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
• Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
• Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
• But he spake of the temple of his body."

You sir, are making the exact same mistake that the Jews made in not understanding the Spiritual nature of the kingdom, the promised land, the Holy place within the Holy Temple, and what High Priest could enter it to make reconciliation for the people. Do you not understand how when Christ died for our sins the Sun was darkened, and the Temple veil (Luke 23:45) was torn from top to bottom? The torn veil symbolizes Spiritually that there is now a new and living way to enter into the Holiest Of Holies.

Moreover, what do you call a Holy Temple that is no longer Holy? I can only tell you what Christ called it.

Matthew 21:12-13

• "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
• And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."

Christ said they had turned the Temple of God into a den of thieves. Why? Because those within the Holy Temple were stealing from Him. So ultimately, what became of this Holy Temple? It was left desolate because of the people's abominations within it. Yes, it became an unholy place, its priests and rulers wicked and fallen. It is His body which represents people of the congregation, not about the physical stones falling, get it?

Therefore, the Old Testament Holy Temples allegorically or spiritually "represented" the body of Christ. Selah! It was a [skia] or type of shadow prefiguring the coming of the true Holy Temple wherein through the veil of His flesh true atonement for sin would be made. Christ is the true high priest it foretold would offer blood for the remission of sins. The priests that offered the blood sacrifices in the Old Testament dispensation, entering in through the Holy place, was merely a shadow "representing" that which was to come. Much as you might see a shadow coming around the corner at night before you see the actual person appear. I know you hate this so-called Spiritualization of the Scriptures, but I didn't do it. God did--if only man would consider it wisely, thoroughly, and in context.

Hebrews 9:6-14

• "Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
• But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
• The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
• Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
• Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
• But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
• Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
• For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
• How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

The second, the one through the veil, was the holy place, called the Holiest Holy, where only the priest went through that curtain/veil to make atonement for the people. This prefiguring the coming of the true, in Christ. Look at Exodus 26:33, and how the word of God addresses it. Do you not understand how it is a historical portrait of the coming Christ? He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit says unto the churches.

Hebrews 10:19-21

• "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
• By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
• And having an high priest over the house of God;"

 

[covenantee]

Forgot? Not at all. Its you who are making a fool of yourself for lack of understanding.

The true integral Holy Place is within the Holy Temple which no one can enter into "except" through the curtain/veil that is the body of Christ (Hebrews 10:20). While you (and other Premillennialists/Dispensationalists as well) are so preoccupied with a physical building situated in a physical land, the truth is much more Spiritual and substantive than a pile of stones making up a physical Temple building. The truth is, the Only Holy Place that matters is your position in Christ, who is the Holy Temple wherein we can be restored. Selah! For example, the restoration of the Temple is not in the construction in the middle east, but in the Holy Temple being raised up in Christ. But again, these things are Spiritually discerned.

John 2:18-21

• "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
• Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
• Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
• But he spake of the temple of his body."

You sir, are making the exact same mistake that the Jews made in not understanding the Spiritual nature of the kingdom, the promised land, the Holy place within the Holy Temple, and what High Priest could enter it to make reconciliation for the people. Do you not understand how when Christ died for our sins the Sun was darkened, and the Temple veil (Luke 23:45) was torn from top to bottom? The torn veil symbolizes Spiritually that there is now a new and living way to enter into the Holiest Of Holies.

Moreover, what do you call a Holy Temple that is no longer Holy? I can only tell you what Christ called it.

Matthew 21:12-13

• "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
• And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."

Christ said they had turned the Temple of God into a den of thieves. Why? Because those within the Holy Temple were stealing from Him. So ultimately, what became of this Holy Temple? It was left desolate because of the people's abominations within it. Yes, it became an unholy place, its priests and rulers wicked and fallen. It is His body which represents people of the congregation, not about the physical stones falling, get it?

Therefore, the Old Testament Holy Temples allegorically or spiritually "represented" the body of Christ. Selah! It was a [skia] or type of shadow prefiguring the coming of the true Holy Temple wherein through the veil of His flesh true atonement for sin would be made. Christ is the true high priest it foretold would offer blood for the remission of sins. The priests that offered the blood sacrifices in the Old Testament dispensation, entering in through the Holy place, was merely a shadow "representing" that which was to come. Much as you might see a shadow coming around the corner at night before you see the actual person appear. I know you hate this so-called Spiritualization of the Scriptures, but I didn't do it. God did--if only man would consider it wisely, thoroughly, and in context.

Hebrews 9:6-14

• "Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
• But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
• The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
• Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
• Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
• But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
• Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
• For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
• How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

The second, the one through the veil, was the holy place, called the Holiest Holy, where only the priest went through that curtain/veil to make atonement for the people. This prefiguring the coming of the true, in Christ. Look at Exodus 26:33, and how the word of God addresses it. Do you not understand how it is a historical portrait of the coming Christ? He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit says unto the churches.

Hebrews 10:19-21

• "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
• By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
• And having an high priest over the house of God;"

Explain the process by which Jesus went into His body of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in His body.

 

[claninja]

Once again, that's a terrible way for you to try to exegete the Scriptures. Where is it found in Isaiah 40:2 when God was saying to comfort Jerusalem, He was talking about people, not a literal city? It's not found there; it is found in other Scriptures that are relevant to it and explain it. Likewise, in Numbers 20:11 where Moses smote the rock, where is it written there that the Rock symbolized Christ? ...it's not. The truth of this is found in other passages and chapters of Scripture that illuminate this gospel truth (Ps 78:20). e.g.

1st Corinthians 10:4

• "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

To try to exegete Scripture without the qualification of Scripture is a fool's errand. Because Scripture is not understood in a vacuum. It is understood by the time-honored edict of God for us to study to show ourselves approved or accepted of God, as faithful workmen (2nd Timothy 2:15) that we rightly discern it as truthful messengers of God's glorious word. Because:

Proverbs 25:2

• "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."

It is an honor to search out what God's word means, and it is to the glory of God. If God intended for everyone to understand Scripture correctly, He would not have spoken in parables, or had it written in esoteric language, or mysterious imagery and cryptic terminology. Where is it written in Matthew 24 that when God said, "ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars, see that ye be not troubled," He wasn't referring to literal, physical ways, but spiritual warfare? The truth of these wars is found in other Scriptures! If someone hearing rumors about literal wars was a sign, then that would be no sign. Because we have always had, and always will have, rumors of war on the sin-cursed earth. But open warfare with God is something that never happens until the love of God grows cold in the world. THEN, you have a sign that the coming of Christ is near. Selah!

My point is that it doesn't have to be taught in Matthew chapter 24 like you think, because no Scripture stands as an island. Scripture "must" be interpreted by Scripture rather than man. Or to put it another way, "the Bible is its own interpreter!"

Selah!

Scripture is authoritative. Personal interpretation is not authoritative.

1 Corinthians 10:4 is an authoritative spiritual take on the rock during the time of Moses.

Isaiah 40:2 is simply a case of metonymy, which was common in the ancient near east, even outside of the Bible, and is common to this day.

When we come to Matthew 24, there is no grammatical, contextual, or textual indication that Jesus shifts from a literal temple to a spiritual one. In fact, the entire discourse is prompted by the disciples pointing to the physical temple (24:1), and Jesus’ response follows directly from that.

What you are doing is retroactively applying a spiritual meaning to the temple in Matthew 24 that is not derived from the text itself, and then justifying that move by appealing to Paul’s inspired interpretation in another passage.

But that is not a valid method because Paul’s interpretations are authoritative, as they are Scripture, and Your interpretation is not Scripture, and therefore requires textual evidence.

So my question remains:

Where, in Matthew 24 itself, is there any indication—grammatically or contextually—that the temple has become a spiritual entity rather than the literal one the disciples asked about?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Scripture is authoritative.

Of course.

Personal interpretation is not authoritative.

LOL!!! Despite the Scriptures I have quoted. Okay...

1 Corinthians 10:4 is an authoritative spiritual take on the rock during the time of Moses.

Isaiah 40:2 is simply a case of metonymy, which was common in the ancient near east, even outside of the Bible, and is common to this day.

Isaiah 40:2 can be understood both as authoritative Scripture and as containing figurative language.

It is authoritative Scripture. Within the context of the Bible, Isaiah is part of the prophetic writings inspired by God. So Isaiah 40:2 carries divine authority—it is a real message from God to His people about:

• The end of judgment (“warfare is accomplished”)
• Forgiveness (“iniquity is pardoned”)
• Restoration and comfort

Restoration and comfort for who exactly? Physical stones? So yes—this is authoritative revelation, not just literary expression.

And it also uses figurative language. There are clear figures of speech. For example:

• “Jerusalem” → represents the people of Israel (a classic metonymy: the city stands for its inhabitants)
• “Warfare” → refers to suffering, exile, or divine discipline—not literal ongoing battle as you think.
• “Speak to her heart” (Hebrew sense) → means to comfort deeply, not physically speaking to a heart

When we come to Matthew 24, there is no grammatical, contextual, or textual indication that Jesus shifts from a literal temple to a spiritual one. In fact, the entire discourse is prompted by the disciples pointing to the physical temple (24:1), and Jesus’ response follows directly from that.

What you are doing is retroactively applying a spiritual meaning to the temple in Matthew 24 that is not derived from the text itself, and then justifying that move by appealing to Paul’s inspired interpretation in another passage.

But that is not a valid method because Paul’s interpretations are authoritative, as they are Scripture, and Your interpretation is not Scripture, and therefore requires textual evidence.

So my question remains:

Where, in Matthew 24 itself, is there any indication—grammatically or contextually—that the temple has become a spiritual entity rather than the literal one the disciples asked about?

More denials, I see. Nothing I can do for you. Have fun with your 70AD sandbox.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Scripture is authoritative.

It is.

Personal interpretation is not authoritative.

LOL!!! Despite the Scripture I quoted. Okay...

1 Corinthians 10:4 is an authoritative spiritual take on the rock during the time of Moses.

Isaiah 40:2 is simply a case of metonymy, which was common in the ancient near east, even outside of the Bible, and is common to this day.

Isaiah 40:2 can be understood both as authoritative Scripture and as containing figurative language.
It is authoritative Scripture. Within the context of the Bible, Isaiah is part of the prophetic writings inspired by God. So Isaiah 40:2 carries divine authority—it is a real message from God to His people about:

• The end of judgment (“warfare is accomplished”)
• Forgiveness (“iniquity is pardoned”)
• Restoration and comfort

Restoration and comfort for who exactly? physical stones of the Jerusalem's buildings? Humm! So yes—this is authoritative revelation, not just literary expression.

And it also uses figurative language. There are clear figures of speech. For example:

• “Jerusalem” → represents the people of Israel (a classic metonymy: the city stands for its inhabitants)
• “Warfare” → refers to suffering, exile, or divine discipline—not literal ongoing battle as you think.
• “Speak to her heart” (Hebrew sense) → means to comfort deeply, not physically speaking to a heart

When we come to Matthew 24, there is no grammatical, contextual, or textual indication that Jesus shifts from a literal temple to a spiritual one. In fact, the entire discourse is prompted by the disciples pointing to the physical temple (24:1), and Jesus’ response follows directly from that.

What you are doing is retroactively applying a spiritual meaning to the temple in Matthew 24 that is not derived from the text itself, and then justifying that move by appealing to Paul’s inspired interpretation in another passage.

But that is not a valid method because Paul’s interpretations are authoritative, as they are Scripture, and Your interpretation is not Scripture, and therefore requires textual evidence.

So my question remains:

Where, in Matthew 24 itself, is there any indication—grammatically or contextually—that the temple has become a spiritual entity rather than the literal one the disciples asked about?

Like I said, you are making the exact same mistake that the Jews made in not understanding the Spiritual nature of the kingdom, the promised land, the Holy place within the Holy Temple, and what High Priest could enter it to make reconciliation for the people. If you deny that the stones of the buildings in Matthew 24:1-2 (and others) are spiritually, then there is nothing I can do for you.

 

[claninja]

LOL!!! Despite the Scripture I quoted. Okay...

I wasn’t referring to the scripture you quoted. I was referring to your personal interpretation of Matthew 24 - turning the literal temple into a spiritual temple, when there is no lexical, grammatical, or contextual reason to do so.

Simply it being your opinion doesn’t mean your opinion is necessarily authoritative or correct.

Paul has the authority to make a spiritual meaning out of passage when the context of said passage is absent of grammatical, lexical, or contextually markers to do so.

You, nor I, have this authority

Isaiah 40:2 can be understood both as authoritative Scripture and as containing figurative language.
It is authoritative Scripture. Within the context of the Bible, Isaiah is part of the prophetic writings inspired by God. So Isaiah 40:2 carries divine authority—it is a real message from God to His people about:

• The end of judgment (“warfare is accomplished”)
• Forgiveness (“iniquity is pardoned”)
• Restoration and comfort

Restoration and comfort for who exactly? physical stones of the Jerusalem's buildings? Humm! So yes—this is authoritative revelation, not just literary expression.

And it also uses figurative language. There are clear figures of speech. For example:

• “Jerusalem” → represents the people of Israel (a classic metonymy: the city stands for its inhabitants)
• “Warfare” → refers to suffering, exile, or divine discipline—not literal ongoing battle as you think.
• “Speak to her heart” (Hebrew sense) → means to comfort deeply, not physically speaking to a heart

Defining a group of people by the city they literally live in, is literary term called metonymy. It’s a common ancient near eastern literary motif not exclusive to the Bible. It’s what is being done in Isaiah 40:2.

Now, if God is calling a group of people by the name of another city for symbolic/figurative purposes, then The text often tells us it’s being used in this way via context or explanation, like revelation 11:8 or Isaiah 1:1,10.

Like I said, you are making the exact same mistake that the Jews made in not understanding the Spiritual nature of the kingdom, the promised land, the Holy place within the Holy Temple, and what High Priest could enter it to make reconciliation for the people. If you deny that the stones of the buildings in Matthew 24:1-2 (and others) are spiritually, then there is nothing I can do for you.

I affirm spiritual interpretations when they are grounded in the text itself. What I reject is imposing a spiritual meaning onto a passage where the text gives NO indication, grammatically, lexically, or contextually.

since your words are not scripture nor authoritative, then on what evidence are you making the claim that Matthew 24 is not about a literal temple, but spiritual, which directly contradicts Matthew 24, grammatically, contextually, and lexically.

 

[CTK]

I wasn’t referring to the scripture you quoted. I was referring to your personal interpretation of Matthew 24 - turning the literal temple into a spiritual temple, when there is no lexical, grammatical, or contextual reason to do so.

Simply it being your opinion doesn’t mean your opinion is necessarily authoritative or correct.

Paul has the authority to make a spiritual meaning out of passage when the context of said passage is absence of grammatical, lexical, or contextually markers to do so.

You, nor I, have this authority


Defining a group of people by the city they literally live in, is literary term called metonymy. It’s a common ancient near eastern literary motif not exclusive to the Bible. It’s what is being done in Isaiah 40:2.

Now, if God is calling a group of people by the name of another city for symbolic/figurative purposes, then The text often tells us it’s being used in this way via context or explanation, like revelation 11:8 or Isaiah 1:1,10.



I affirm spiritual interpretations when they are grounded in the text itself. What I reject is imposing a spiritual meaning onto a passage where the text gives NO indication, grammatically, lexically, or contextually.

since your words are not scripture nor authoritative, then on what evidence are you making the claim that Matthew 24 is not about a literal temple, but spiritual, which directly contradicts Matthew 24, grammatically, contextually, and lexically.

I certainly agree with you. In Matthew 24:1–2, I do think Jesus is referring to the physical Temple because the disciples are specifically pointing out the Temple buildings. His answer directly addresses what they are looking at.

But I don’t think the meaning stops with the physical structure. The destruction of the Temple would be the visible, historical consequence of a much deeper spiritual reality: Israel’s rejection of the Messiah, the true Temple of God.

So this is not an either/or issue. The Temple is physical in the immediate reference, but spiritual in its prophetic meaning. The stones would fall, but the fall of those stones pointed to something greater—the end of the old covenant system and the judgment that followed the rejection of Christ.

So, His disciplines are indeed looking at the physical temple and they ONLY see the physcial temple - they have no idea what is about to truly take place and the spiritual / symbolic meaning that will occur when the "true Temple" will go to the cross. Of course, Jesus certainly knows what is about to happen to Him and the physcial temple in 70 AD.

In Daniel 9, there are both physical and spiritual elements. The city, streets, walls, and sanctuary are physical realities. But the Messiah being cut off, reconciliation for iniquity, everlasting righteousness, and covenant fulfillment are spiritual realities. They belong together in the same prophecy.

The same is happening here. The physical Temple will fall, but the reason is spiritual: they did not know the time of their visitation, and they rejected the Messiah.

 

[claninja]

I certainly agree with you. In Matthew 24:1–2, I do think Jesus is referring to the physical Temple because the disciples are specifically pointing out the Temple buildings. His answer directly addresses what they are looking at.

But I don’t think the meaning stops with the physical structure. The destruction of the Temple would be the visible, historical consequence of a much deeper spiritual reality: Israel’s rejection of the Messiah, the true Temple of God.

So this is not an either/or issue. The Temple is physical in the immediate reference, but spiritual in its prophetic meaning. The stones would fall, but the fall of those stones pointed to something greater—the end of the old covenant system and the judgment that followed the rejection of Christ.

So, His disciplines are indeed looking at the physical temple and they ONLY see the physcial temple - they have no idea what is about to truly take place and the spiritual / symbolic meaning that will occur when the "true Temple" will go to the cross. Of course, Jesus certainly knows what is about to happen to Him and the physcial temple in 70 AD.

In Daniel 9, there are both physical and spiritual elements. The city, streets, walls, and sanctuary are physical realities. But the Messiah being cut off, reconciliation for iniquity, everlasting righteousness, and covenant fulfillment are spiritual realities. They belong together in the same prophecy.

The same is happening here. The physical Temple will fall, but the reason is spiritual: they did not know the time of their visitation, and they rejected the Messiah.

Agreed. Though, Jesus does not explain the spiritual meaning as to why the physical temple was to fall, in Matthew 24.

That can potentially be deduced elsewhere in the Matthew account, such as the parable of the wicked tenants or the parable of the wedding feast

 

[David in NJ]

Location: On the Mount of Olives:​

Luke 21:12-19:
"But BEFORE all these (birth-pain signs of the end of the age) they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake. And it shall turn to you for a testimony.

Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake. But there shall not an hair of your head perish. In your patience possess ye your souls."

What was Jesus talking about in the above passage?​

The persecution that the living stones of the New Testament Temple would experience BEFORE any of the birth-pain signs of the end of the age would be seen:

The stones of the temple on the Temple Mount, which Jesus had said would be left not on stone upon another:

.. continued in next post

JESUS was NOT referring to "living stones" in Matt ch24 when speaking of the Temple in Jerusalem.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I wasn’t referring to the scripture you quoted. I was referring to your personal interpretation of Matthew 24 - turning the literal temple into a spiritual temple, when there is no lexical, grammatical, or contextual reason to do so.

Simply it being your opinion doesn’t mean your opinion is necessarily authoritative or correct.

Paul has the authority to make a spiritual meaning out of passage when the context of said passage is absent of grammatical, lexical, or contextually markers to do so.

You, nor I, have this authority


Defining a group of people by the city they literally live in, is literary term called metonymy. It’s a common ancient near eastern literary motif not exclusive to the Bible. It’s what is being done in Isaiah 40:2.

Now, if God is calling a group of people by the name of another city for symbolic/figurative purposes, then The text often tells us it’s being used in this way via context or explanation, like revelation 11:8 or Isaiah 1:1,10.



I affirm spiritual interpretations when they are grounded in the text itself. What I reject is imposing a spiritual meaning onto a passage where the text gives NO indication, grammatically, lexically, or contextually.

since your words are not scripture nor authoritative, then on what evidence are you making the claim that Matthew 24 is not about a literal temple, but spiritual, which directly contradicts Matthew 24, grammatically, contextually, and lexically.

Right. Every passage where it speaks of the temple of God as the body of Jesus, a believer's body or the corporate body of Christ (the church), that is made clear in the text. There is nothing anywhere in the Olivet Discourse which indicates that Jesus ever refers to the spiritual temple of God. Jesus told the disciples that the physical temple buildings they were marveling at and talking to him about would be destroyed with no stone left upon another. In no way, shape of form did He indicate He was talking about anything but those very same physical temple buildings that the disciples were talking about. He even said: "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” (Mark 13:2). Why would He ask the disciples if they could see the spiritual temple while referring to it as "these great buildings"? Of course He wouldn't. When He referenced "these great buildings", He was obviously referring to the physical buildings of the temple standing at that time.

The bottom line here is that there is no reason whatsoever for spiritualizing the temple that Jesus said would be destroyed with no stone left upon another. There is no reason whatsoever for thinking that the first question the disciples asked was not related to the physical temple buildings that Jesus said would be destroyed. And there is no reason whatsoever for thinking that Jesus didn't answer that question.

 

[David in NJ]

Agreed. Though, Jesus does not explain the spiritual meaning as to why the physical temple was to fall, in Matthew 24.

That can potentially be deduced elsewhere in the Matthew account, such as the parable of the wicked tenants or the parable of the wedding feast

In the Gospel, JESUS explained to His disciples that His Body is the True Eternal Temple of GOD.

Therefore, the purpose of the physical building in Jerusalem had served it's purpose and was now to be done away with = destroyed.

The FATHER will not allow any building on earth to share in His Glory now that The Eternal Temple has Come.

We, who are in Christ, are Living Stones of the Living Temple = which is CHRIST

Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious,
5you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,

“Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”
7Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,

“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,”

 

[claninja]

Right. Every passage where it speaks of the temple of God as the body of Jesus, a believer's body or the corporate body of Christ (the church), that is made clear in the text. There is nothing anywhere in the Olivet Discourse which indicates that Jesus ever refers to the spiritual temple of God. Jesus told the disciples that the physical temple buildings they were marveling at and talking to him about would be destroyed with no stone left upon another. In no way, shape of form did He indicate He was talking about anything but those very same physical temple buildings that the disciples were talking about. He even said: "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” (Mark 13:2). Why would He ask the disciples if they could see the spiritual temple while referring to it as "these great buildings"? Of course He wouldn't. When He referenced "these great buildings", He was obviously referring to the physical buildings of the temple standing at that time.

The bottom line here is that there is no reason whatsoever for spiritualizing the temple that Jesus said would be destroyed with no stone left upon another. There is no reason whatsoever for thinking that the first question the disciples asked was related to the physical temple buildings that Jesus said would be destroyed. And there is no reason whatsoever for thinking that Jesus didn't answer that question.

Totally agreed. So let’s stir/muddy the waters for a moment with one I still struggle with - 2 Thessalonians 2:4 - The man of sin sits in the “temple of God”.

Are there any clear grammatical, contextual, or lexical indicators WITHIN the letters to the Thessalonians that indicate Paul was talking about a spiritual temple vs a literal temple?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Totally agreed. So let’s stir/muddy the waters for a moment with one I still struggle with - 2 Thessalonians 2:4 - The man of sin sits in the “temple of God”.

Okay, so maybe that's one verse where it's not made clear in the text itself that it's not talking about the physical temple, but we can use other scripture to make that determination, as I'll explain (see below).

Are there any clear grammatical, contextual, or lexical indicators WITHIN the letters to the Thessalonians that indicate Paul was talking about a spiritual temple vs a literal temple?

I don't think there are any of those indicators in that verse itself or in the letters themselves, but, as always, all scripture has to be taken into consideration. So, what has to be considered here is that the physical temple was no longer the temple of God at that point because it had been made spiritually desolate (Matthew 23:37-38), signified by the tearing of the veil of the temple in two, so it's not possible that Paul was talking about the physical temple there. Every other time he referenced the temple of God in his letters it was in reference to the temple of our bodies or to the corporate body of Christ (the church). And when you read all of 2 Thessalonians 2, the context relates to things that are happening during a time period future from the time Paul was writing that would occur before Jesus returns and we are gathered to Him, which will be "in the air" (see 1 Thess 4:14-17).

I believe the revealing of the man of sin sitting in the temple of God is directly related to the mass falling away (apostasy) that Paul indicated would occur before Christ returns. So, I see the reference to the man of sin sitting in the temple of God claiming to be God as a figurative reference to people in the church (spiritual temple of God) falling away and deciding that they no longer need God while essentially making themselves God as a result. I see the reference to the man of sin as being a general reference to sinful mankind or to the people who fall away rather than referring to any individual. Similar to how the reference to "the man of God" in 2 Timothy 3:17 is not a reference to an individual man of God, but is rather a general reference to the people of God.

 

[covenantee]

Totally agreed. So let’s stir/muddy the waters for a moment with one I still struggle with - 2 Thessalonians 2:4 - The man of sin sits in the “temple of God”.

Are there any clear grammatical, contextual, or lexical indicators WITHIN the letters to the Thessalonians that indicate Paul was talking about a spiritual temple vs a literal temple?

Paul is consistent in his identification of and distinction between the different temples.

No other examples of his within Thessalonians, but plenty outside of it.

Paul's "naos" temples refer exclusively to NT believers; collectively, the NT Church.

Paul's temples:

"naos" spiritual:

1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

1 Corinthians 3:17
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

1 Corinthians 6:19
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

2 Corinthians 6:16
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

Ephesians 2:21-22
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

2 Thessalonians 2:4
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

"eidóleion" physical:

1 Corinthians 8:10
For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

"hieros/hieron" physical:

1 Corinthians 9:13
Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

 

[claninja]

Okay, so maybe that's one verse where it's not made clear in the text itself that it's not talking about the physical temple, but we can use other scripture to make that determination, as I'll explain (see below).


I don't think there are any of those indicators in that verse itself or in the letters themselves, but, as always, all scripture has to be taken into consideration. So, what has to be considered here is that the physical temple was no longer the temple of God at that point because it had been made spiritually desolate (Matthew 23:37-38), signified by the tearing of the veil of the temple in two, so it's not possible that Paul was talking about the physical temple there. Every other time he referenced the temple of God in his letters it was in reference to the temple of our bodies or to the corporate body of Christ (the church). And when you read all of 2 Thessalonians 2, the context relates to things that are happening during a time period future from the time Paul was writing that would occur before Jesus returns and we are gathered to Him, which will be "in the air" (see 1 Thess 4:14-17).

I believe the revealing of the man of sin sitting in the temple of God is directly related to the mass falling away (apostasy) that Paul indicated would occur before Christ returns. So, I see the reference to the man of sin sitting in the temple of God claiming to be God as a figurative reference to people in the church (spiritual temple of God) falling away and deciding that they no longer need God while essentially making themselves God as a result. I see the reference to the man of sin as being a general reference to sinful mankind or to the people who fall away rather than referring to any individual. Similar to how the reference to "the man of God" in 2 Timothy 3:17 is not a reference to an individual man of God, but is rather a general reference to the people of God.

I agree that there are no absolutely clear contextual indicators, specifically within 2 Thessalonians, telling us that the temple is either physical or spiritual, like there is in Matthew 24. Additionally, I can’t find any Greek lexicons that strictly define it as either spiritual or physical. They all seem to keep it ambiguous.

That being said, Im going to play devils advocate - As to Paul’s others uses of the phrase “temple of God” in regards to the church, he consistently qualifies it with an explanation. In 2 Thessalonians, he does not qualify it. Additionally, while the body of Christ is a temple of God in certain contexts, that logic doesn’t require Paul couldn’t possibly be using its original lexical term in the letter to Thessalonians, especially since he doesn’t qualify it with an explanation (Similar to how Matthew referred to city of Jerusalem as Holy, even after the resurrection).

In the OD, Jesus mentions Antichrists and false prophets deceiving, and many falling away, but unfortunately makes no mention of the “revealing of the man of lawlessness”. And unfortunately, I was not one of the Thessalonians that Paul told this to prior to his letter (2 Thessalonians 2:5).

From a preterist framework, it makes more sense Paul is talking about the physical temple building. But that comes with its own problems, ie did Paul believe in a literal and physical coming? (Not looking to argue that point here, just point out preterist framework flaws that require negotiation with the text)

From a more futuristic framework (not hyperfuturist framework which can argue this Paul’s temple of God is the future 3rd temple of the OD) , it makes more sense Paul is talking about a spiritual temple. But this also lends to its own problems. The olivet discourse makes no mention of a specific individual or entity sitting in a spiritual temple prior to the coming of Christ. So is Paul going beyond the teachings of Christ, with special revelation? From a logical standpoint if the clear indication that Christ hadn’t returned yet was a man of sin must first be sitting in spiritual temple, you would think that would have been a very important piece to the olivet discourse?

All in all, my position is that there is just not enough evidence, within 2 Thessalonians, to determine if Paul was talking about a physical or spiritual temple, therefore, our framework may often fill in the gaps, whether right or wrong.

 

[claninja]

Paul is consistent in his identification of and distinction between the different temples.

No other examples of his within Thessalonians, but plenty outside of it.

Paul's "naos" temples refer exclusively to NT believers; collectively, the NT Church.

Paul's temples:

"naos" spiritual:

1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

1 Corinthians 3:17
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

1 Corinthians 6:19
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

2 Corinthians 6:16
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

Ephesians 2:21-22
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

2 Thessalonians 2:4
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

"eidóleion" physical:

1 Corinthians 8:10
For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

"hieros/hieron" physical:

1 Corinthians 9:13
Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

Devils advocate - he is very consistent with his distinction between the different temples. But, he is also very consistent with qualifying explanations when he is talking about them. Unfortunately, 2 Thessalonians 2:4 doesn’t contain a qualifying explanation of the “temple of God”. In fact, 2 Thessalonians doesn’t mention that the man of sin deceives the true church or believers at all.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I agree that there are no absolutely clear contextual indicators, specifically within 2 Thessalonians, telling us that the temple is either physical or spiritual, like there is in Matthew 24. Additionally, I can’t find any Greek lexicons that strictly define it as either spiritual or physical. They all seem to keep it ambiguous.

That being said, Im going to play devils advocate - As to Paul’s others uses of the phrase “temple of God” in regards to the church, he consistently qualifies it with an explanation. In 2 Thessalonians, he does not qualify it.

Right. I pointed this out in my post. But, as I said, the physical temple was no longer the temple of God at that point, so it's safe to say that he was not referring to the physical temple.

Additionally, while the body of Christ is a temple of God in certain contexts, that logic doesn’t require Paul couldn’t possibly be using its original lexical term in the letter to Thessalonians, especially since he doesn’t qualify it with an explanation (Similar to how Matthew referred to city of Jerusalem as Holy, even after the resurrection).

Hmmm. Why would he call the physical temple "the temple of God" at that point when, in his other letters, he went out of his way to show that we, the church, are the temple of God? I don't think that makes any sense. As for Matthew calling earthly Jerusalem the holy city after Christ's resurrection, keep in mind that Jesus rendered the temple to be spiritually desolate with His death and resurrection, not necessarily the entire city. His presence in the city until His ascension could still qualify it to be called the holy city up to that point.

In the OD, Jesus mentions Antichrists and false prophets deceiving, and many falling away, but unfortunately makes no mention of the “revealing of the man of lawlessness”.

He mentioned false Christs, not Antichrists. False Christs are those who claim to be Christ, but are not. Antichrists are those who deny that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah. As for hi not mentioning the revealing of the man of sin/lawlessness, I don't find that to be significant. Why would we expect Him to have mentioned that?

And unfortunately, I was not one of the Thessalonians that Paul told this to prior to his letter (2 Thessalonians 2:5).

No, but that brings up a point. While Paul did not explain whether he was talking about a physical or spiritual temple in his letter to them, he likely would have talked about it with them while he was with them in person. So, the reason he didn't explain which temple he was talking about is that he would have assumed they would know from what he had taught them in person. Regardless of that, I don't believe for a second that Paul would have referred to the physical temple as "the temple of God" at that point.

From a preterist framework, it makes more sense Paul is talking about the physical temple building. But that comes with its own problems, ie did Paul believe in a literal and physical coming? (Not looking to argue that point here, just point out preterist framework flaws that require negotiation with the text)

Based on some of the things he wrote, such as 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, Paul clearly did believe in a literal and physical coming of Christ.

From a more futuristic framework (not hyperfuturist framework which can argue this Paul’s temple of God is the future 3rd temple of the OD) , it makes more sense Paul is talking about a spiritual temple. But this also lends to its own problems.

I don't see any problem with that at all.

The olivet discourse makes no mention of a specific individual or entity sitting in a spiritual temple prior to the coming of Christ.

So? Do you expect that the Olivet Discourse should contain every possible detail related to the second coming of Christ? I don't think that's reasonable.

So is Paul going beyond the teachings of Christ, with special revelation?

Paul wrote a lot of things that Jesus didn't talk about specifically. Jesus never talked about homosexuality, for example. But, Paul did in Romans 1:26-27. That doesn't mean he was "going beyond the teachings of Christ, with special revelation", as if Jesus was somehow not aware that homosexuality is a sin.

From a logical standpoint if the clear indication that Christ hadn’t returned yet was a man of sin must first be sitting in spiritual temple, you would think that would have been a very important piece to the olivet discourse?

For one thing, I don't believe it's talking about an individual man of sin literally sitting in a spiritual temple (whatever that would even mean). So, I'm not sure why you would ask me that question in that way. I don't think there's any reason to think that every detail regarding the second coming should have been included in the Olivet Discourse. Why would Paul even bother writing about the second coming of Christ if he had nothing to add to what Jesus had already taught about it?

All in all, my position is that there is just not enough evidence, within 2 Thessalonians, to determine if Paul was talking about a physical or spiritual temple, therefore, our framework may often fill in the gaps, whether right or wrong.

Maybe not within 2 Thessalonians itself, but I believe there's plenty of evidence when you look at scripture as a whole.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Devils advocate - he is very consistent with his distinction between the different temples. But, he is also very consistent with qualifying explanations when he is talking about them. Unfortunately, 2 Thessalonians 2:4 doesn’t contain a qualifying explanation of the “temple of God”. In fact, 2 Thessalonians doesn’t mention that the man of sin deceives the true church or believers at all.

But he did say in 2 Thessalonians 2:5 "Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?", so it's quite possible that he didn't feel any need to give a qualifying explanation of the temple of God in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 since he had likely already done that when he was with them in person. It's quite reasonable to assume that he expected them to remember what he had already told them, so no explanation was necessary. Beyond that, I believe it just isn't reasonable at all to think that Paul would have referred to the physical temple as "the temple of God" at that point when he put so much emphasis on the spiritual temple of God in his other letters.

Based on his other writings, what would you reasonably expect Paul to be talking about if he referred to "the temple of God" without explanation of which temple he was talking about? You'd think he was referring to the spiritual temple of God since that's what he referred to every other time he referenced the temple of God, right? Of course, I'm talking about when the word temple was translated from the Greek word "naos", as covenantee showed.