Two Questions About The Temple

[Phoneman777]

Many Christians today subscribe to the view of Jesuit Futurism which teaches that there will be a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem called the “Temple of God” in which a future Antichrist will arise and sit down on a literal throne and deceive people into believing that he is the long awaited Christ who has finally returned. We should consider the following questions:

1) Would God refer to any rebuilt temple in Jerusalem as the “Temple of God” in which the sacrifices offered would be a national rejection of Messiah the Prince and a collective Jewish middle finger in the face of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

2) Since the “Temple of God” in heaven (Revelation 11:19 KJV) and our heavenly High Priest Jesus (Hebrews 8:1-2 KJV) have both always been the “anti-types” to which the earthly “types” pointed, would God refer to any rebuilt temple in Jerusalem – which temple and its associated priesthood would be utterly useless and completely irrelevant to Him – as the “Temple of God”?

The obvious answer is “no”. To what, then, was Paul referring when he spoke of the Antichrist who is to sit in the “temple of God, showing himself that he is God” in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 KJV?

The view of Protestant Historicism is that the phrase “temple of God” is a prophetic symbol interpreted to mean the “church” based on the fact that every single time Paul refers to the church as a “temple” he uses the Greek “naos” – the exact same word translated “temple” in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 KJV:

• 
  1 Corinthians 3:16 KJV
  
• 
  1 Corinthians 3:17 KJV
  
• 
  1 Corinthians 6:19 KJV
  
• 
  2 Corinthians 6:16 KJV
  
• 
  Ephesians 2:21 KJV
  

Protestant Historicism teaches that Antichrist – which means “for Christ”; “in place of Christ”; “instead of Christ”; “in behalf of Christ” – is the Papacy, where the man at the head of the Papal system, the Pope, has from since its inception in 538 A.D. usurped Christ's seat of authority over the church and has there seated himself claiming to be “God on earth”, “Jesus Christ Himself hidden under the veil of flesh”, “Holy Father”, “Dispenser of Grace”, etc... – all titles and attributes that belong to Jesus Christ alone. The Antichrist could not arise so long as the Caesars occupied the throne in Rome, as unanimously taught by the Early Church Fathers, but once the Roman Empire fell, the Papacy arose swiftly and the “Man of Sin” seated himself over the church in the very seat vacated by the Caesars, and the line of succession of Popes has done so throughout history.

The Jews may tear down the Islamic “Dome of the Rock”.
They may rebuild a third Jewish temple.
They may offer meaningless sacrifices, offerings, and incense just as they continued to do after God tore the veil of the second Temple in half to signify that He was done with all such things.

They may claim that this rebuilt temple is the “Temple of God”, but it will never be His temple, for the only temple on earth that God considers the “Temple of God” is built not of stones, but of those who are in Christ Jesus.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Question #3: Do you think the Jews care one whit about what you believe regarding their building a Temple to God as they are to do in Jerusalem by the Law which Jesus said He did not obliterate?

 

[StanJ]

Not an easily exegeted scripture, but IMO as Paul refers to our bodies as Temples of God in 1 Cor 6, this probably refers to a human body taken over by Satan or a prince of the power of darkness. Only Satan and his minions do that and was their original sin.

 

[hopefuldivider]

@ Marcus: While Jesus did not destroy the law, he fulfilled it.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
(Matthew 5:17)

Remember that Jesus himself claimed to be the temple (John 2:19-21) and we are later called the Body of Christ (I Cor. 12:27).

It is interesting to note that John said he saw "the temple" in heaven and not "a temple".

@ StanJ: The problem with this exegesis is that only saved humans are temples of the Holy Spirit. I hope you are not suggesting that Satan will posses a Christian. On the other hand we are individually described as parts of a larger body, the Body of Christ (I Cor. 12), and Christ claimed to be the temple (John 2:19-21). Phoneman777's exegesis would seem to fit better with the context.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Gee, that's wonderful, and yeah, I know that, but you didn't answer the question...

The Jews who want to re-build the Temple don't believe in Jesus, don't accept His Atoning sacrifice, and look to fulfill the OT Law, which while Jesus "fulfilled" it, still stands as He Said.

 

[StanJ]

@ StanJ: The problem with this exegesis is that only saved humans are temples of the Holy Spirit. I hope you are not suggesting that Satan will posses a Christian. On the other hand we are individually described as parts of a larger body, the Body of Christ (I Cor. 12), and Christ claimed to be the temple (John 2:19-21). Phoneman777's exegesis would seem to fit better with the context.

Yes of course, he is a man of lawlessness.

 

[hopefuldivider]

@ Marcus: Perhaps I misunderstood your post. The OP doesn't argue that the Jews won't rebuild the temple, but that such a temple wouldn't be "the temple of God" as referred to in 2 Thess. Also, I would have to take issue with the idea that the law still stands.

@ StanJ: I want to make sure I understand you. Are you advocating that Satan will posses a Christian? Is this what you mean by "yes of Course"?

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

@ Marcus: Perhaps I misunderstood your post. The OP doesn't argue that the Jews won't rebuild the temple, but that such a temple wouldn't be "the temple of God" as referred to in 2 Thess. Also, I would have to take issue with the idea that the law still stands.

No, he argues that what we term as the third Temple, which the Jews are trying to build in Jerusalem is not the "Temple of God" even though Paul, as a Jew and a Pharisee would know of nothing else, and instead has the ridiculous notion that the anti-Christ is the Papacy and the restrainer was the pagan Roman Empire.

To be sure, the links that Stan J brought forth do argue for a spiritual component for the restrainer concluding with the notion that it is the Holy Spirit because only the Holy Spirit would be strong enough to restrain Satan.

I appreciate the inclusion of the spiritual aspect because it combats the OP's silly notion that a pagan kingdom is the restrainer. In Revelation 16:13-14, we know there are actually three spirits who possess not only the two principle men who are the antagonists in the end-times, but even the whole fourth terrible beast of a nation which is termed a dragon. In Daniel 2:34 we also know that it is the Roman kingdom which is last in the line of kingdoms that have sway over Israel that is crushed by the arrival of Christ (on the Day of the Lord and with subsequent Wrath).

But the aspect of the animating spirits is that while they are demonic, they are not Satan; so, some spiritual force is required to stop the agent of Satan from advancing his plans before God's timetable. Remember: God is in control and He allows the anti-Christ his authority for 42 months to wage war on us. God allows us to be tested by the Great Tribulation.

So in conclusion, Paul taught who the restrainer was to the Thessalonians. Too bad he didn't reiterate it in his letter... because now that information is lost and we are left to our theories. However, pegging this one is just as futile as trying to play pin the tail on the anti-Christ until we know more of what is going on behind the scenes. And if you don't have an inkling that major players are operating behind the scenes, you need to stop watching TV news and do some reading and watching world events for yourself.

 

[StanJ]

@ StanJ: The problem with this exegesis is that only saved humans are temples of the Holy Spirit. I hope you are not suggesting that Satan will posses a Christian. On the other hand we are individually described as parts of a larger body, the Body of Christ (I Cor. 12), and Christ claimed to be the temple (John 2:19-21). Phoneman777's exegesis would seem to fit better with the context.

No, the "man of lawlessness" couldn't possibly be a Christian. I could not find any commentary that supports the view that the "temple" in this scripture referred to an actual brick and mortar building.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

I could not find any commentary that supports the view that the "temple" in this scripture referred to an actual brick and mortar building.

I could.

Expositor's Bible Commentary on 2Th 2:4

...this individual "opposes and exalts himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped." His direct and determined opposition to the true God will be a leading feature of the continuing apostasy. It will be especially marked by removal of the symbolic articles from the Jerusalem temple. The man of lawlessness will occupy the holy precincts in order to accept and even demand worship that is due God alone. This evidently is a Jewish temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem in the future.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary

in the temple of God... that he is God-- "He will reign a time, times, and half a time" (Da 7:25), that is, three and a half years, and will sit in the temple at Jerusalem:then the Lord shall come from heaven and cast him into the take of fire and shall bring to the saints the times of their reigning, the seventh day of hallowed rest, and give to Abraham the promised inheritance "[IRENÆUS, Against Heresies, 30. 4].

Took me 2 minutes.

 

[Phoneman777]

Question #3: Do you think the Jews care one whit about what you believe regarding their building a Temple to God as they are to do in Jerusalem by the Law which Jesus said He did not obliterate?

No, he argues that what we term as the third Temple, which the Jews are trying to build in Jerusalem is not the "Temple of God" even though Paul, as a Jew and a Pharisee would know of nothing else, and instead has the ridiculous notion that the anti-Christ is the Papacy and the restrainer was the pagan Roman Empire.

To be sure, the links that Stan J brought forth do argue for a spiritual component for the restrainer concluding with the notion that it is the Holy Spirit because only the Holy Spirit would be strong enough to restrain Satan.

I appreciate the inclusion of the spiritual aspect because it combats the OP's silly notion that a pagan kingdom is the restrainer. In Revelation 16:13-14, we know there are actually three spirits who possess not only the two principle men who are the antagonists in the end-times, but even the whole fourth terrible beast of a nation which is termed a dragon. In Daniel 2:34 we also know that it is the Roman kingdom which is last in the line of kingdoms that have sway over Israel that is crushed by the arrival of Christ (on the Day of the Lord and with subsequent Wrath).

But the aspect of the animating spirits is that while they are demonic, they are not Satan; so, some spiritual force is required to stop the agent of Satan from advancing his plans before God's timetable. Remember: God is in control and He allows the anti-Christ his authority for 42 months to wage war on us. God allows us to be tested by the Great Tribulation.

So in conclusion, Paul taught who the restrainer was to the Thessalonians. Too bad he didn't reiterate it in his letter... because now that information is lost and we are left to our theories. However, pegging this one is just as futile as trying to play pin the tail on the anti-Christ until we know more of what is going on behind the scenes. And if you don't have an inkling that major players are operating behind the scenes, you need to stop watching TV news and do some reading and watching world events for yourself.

1) Again, you miss the focus of the question, which is not man's opinion of the temple, but what is GOD'S opinion.

2) What's most silly and ridiculous is the stubborn denial that a future blasphemous, useless, and irrelevant rebuilt temple in Jerusalem would never be considered by God to be His temple. I'll bet you've bought into the leftist narrative that the Fort Hood shooting was "work place violence", ISIS is just a "non-Islamic group of violent extremists", and Brian Williams "mis-remembered" his chopper ride due to "fog of memory".

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

The text says Temple, and it refers to a physical structure in the Bible.

Jesus does not render an opinion on whether or not the Father accepts what happens in the Temple which the Jews are trying to rebuild, He just says the "Holy Place." Biblically speaking, that is defined from Exodus as inside the Temple where the Priests would perform their daily activities.

Your focus, which is not God's is to put forth a Preterist style proposition whereby an empire which is not aligned with God restrains the papacy which you have identified on your particular pin-the-tail on the anti-Christ as the player Paul was talking about.

As we know from Revelation that the anti-Christ, the false prophet, AND the dragon of a kingdom are all possessed by evil spirits, it follows that with the spiritual aspect animating them that a spiritual aspect is also restraining them. The various forms of male and female gender designations for the restrainer also indicate that spiritual entity may very well be the Holy Spirit.

But we cannot know that for certain - but I do know that that the papacy is not the anti-Christ. The Roman Catholic Church is more like the harlot riding the Roman dragon of a kingdom as portrayed in Revelation 17.

So I think you're just as wrong about your exegesis as you are about my political leanings.

 

[StanJ]

I could.

Expositor's Bible Commentary on 2Th 2:4

...this individual "opposes and exalts himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped." His direct and determined opposition to the true God will be a leading feature of the continuing apostasy. It will be especially marked by removal of the symbolic articles from the Jerusalem temple. The man of lawlessness will occupy the holy precincts in order to accept and even demand worship that is due God alone. This evidently is a Jewish temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem in the future.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary

in the temple of God... that he is God-- "He will reign a time, times, and half a time" (Da 7:25), that is, three and a half years, and will sit in the temple at Jerusalem:then the Lord shall come from heaven and cast him into the take of fire and shall bring to the saints the times of their reigning, the seventh day of hallowed rest, and give to Abraham the promised inheritance "[IRENÆUS, Against Heresies, 30. 4].

Took me 2 minutes.

Good for you, but I guess I should have qualified my post by saying "credible".

Now answer me one question....where IN scripture, does it prophecy the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem? It's been 2000+ years and it is still NOT rebuilt. Judaism has moved on and doesn't have anything in their religion that has ANY reference to the temple days. The temple was destroyed in 70AD based on prophecy and based on the NT it is now obsolete in God's eyes. However the teaching that our bodies are the temple of God is very clear so in light of the teachings in the entire NT and what Paul clearly teaches elsewhere, how do you come up or believe that Paul's reference is an actual building? Scripture interprets scripture.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

The Expositor's Bible Commentary is more than "credible." It is one of the reference commentaries used at our local Bible College and is comprised of a multitude of theologians working together.

Where are the measurements of the Temple John observed in Revelation 11? Try reading Ezekiel.

So just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.

After all, for centuries, Amillennial teachers taught that there was no Israel... so there was no way to take end-time prophecy concerning that nation literally.

 

[StanJ]

The text says Temple, and it refers to a physical structure in the Bible.

Jesus does not render an opinion on whether or not the Father accepts what happens in the Temple which the Jews are trying to rebuild, He just says the "Holy Place." Biblically speaking, that is defined from Exodus as inside the Temple where the Priests would perform their daily activities.

Yes it does, and so does 1 Cor 6:19, but in much clearer terms. Look also at what Jesus did say in John 2:19. The Jews tried to prevaricate about this and used it to condemn Him. Now do you think either one of these references are about the actual temple building that was in Jerusalem at the time?

Let's try to not equivocate by bringing in OT/OC ideas and stick to the NT/NC that Jesus brought with Him. Context is always key when you are trying to exegete scripture.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Scripture interprets Scripture:

The first definition of naos is a physical Temple!

Mt 23:16 "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.'

That word is naos.

So is it here:

Mt 23:35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

and here:

Mt 27:5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

Jesus said the Abomination would be set up in the Holy Place.

Exodus 26:33 Hang the curtain from the clasps and place the ark of the covenant law behind the curtain. The curtain will separate the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place.

Paul uses naos in 2Th 2:4 when the Man of Lawlessness is in the Temple.

Jesus and Paul are in agreement.

Scripture interprets Scripture; the Temple in 2Th 2:4 is a physical building.

 

[StanJ]

The Expositor's Bible Commentary is more than "credible." It is one of the reference commentaries used at our local Bible College and is comprised of a multitude of theologians working together.

Where are the measurements of the Temple John observed in Revelation 11? Try reading Ezekiel.

So just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.

After all, for centuries, Amillennial teachers taught that there was no Israel... so there was no way to take end-time prophecy concerning that nation literally.

That would be your opinion, but as it is obviously taken OUT of context and does not use the balance of the NT to interpret this scripture then IMO it is NOT credible. I think if you try harder you will find other commentaries that are much more thorough in dealing with this issue.

The fact that John saw a temple IN HEAVEN in Rev 11:19 doesn't mean a thing, as this was a Revelation and in this case very obviously symbolic. Do you really think there was an earthquake and hailstorm in heaven?

Scripture interprets Scripture:

The first definition of naos which is a physical Temple!



Mt 23:16 "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.'

That word is naos.

So is it here:

Mt 23:35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
and here:

Mt 27:5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

Jesus said the Abomination would be set up in the Holy Place.

Exodus 26:33 Hang the curtain from the clasps and place the ark of the covenant law behind the curtain. The curtain will separate the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place.

Paul uses naos in 2Th 2:4 when the Man of Lawlessness is in the Temple.

Jesus and Paul are in agreement.

Scripture interprets Scripture; the Temple in 2Th 2:4 is a physical building.

Actually you do not scripture. God himself tore the curtain from top to bottom when Jesus died. There was no backup and ignoring the scripture that clearly shows temple as being our bodies doesn't make the above any more credible.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Actually you do not scripture.

"(I) do not scripture"... you know that grammatically, your sentence doesn't make sense.

God himself tore the curtain from top to bottom when Jesus died.

I think you mean the Holy Spirit, because God the Father didn't and Jesus was busy at the time. Of course, it could have been an Angel as well, or any other number of spirits whom God can and has employed in the past to work in the affairs of men on this earth.
Furthermore, Jesus said the Abomination, spoken of by the prophet Daniel WOULD be set up in the Holy Place.

That is a fact.

It is also a Biblical fact as I demonstrated from Exodus 26:33 WHERE the "Holy Place" is.

So being God, Jesus would certainly know that the second Temple's Curtain would be torn in two, and yet there would still be a future "Holy Place" to be desecrated by the anti-Christ.

 

[StanJ]

I think you mean the Holy Spirit, because God the Father didn't and Jesus was busy at the time. Of course, it could have been an Angel as well, or any other number of spirits whom God can and has employed in the past to work in the affairs of men on this earth.

Furthermore, Jesus said the Abomination, spoken of by the prophet Daniel WOULD be set up in the Holy Place.

That is a fact.

It is also a Biblical fact as I demonstrated from Exodus 26:33 WHERE the "Holy Place" is.

So being God, Jesus would certainly know that the second Temple's Curtain would be torn in two, and yet there would still be a future "Holy Place" to be desecrated by the anti-Christ.

I said what I meant...the Holy Spirit had not been given yet.

Actually it is also rendered "And one who causes desolation will come upon the wing of the abominable temple, until the end that is decreed is poured out on the desolated city"

So not quite the fact you make it out to be. As I said let's stick to the OP and not equivocate by bringing in other non pertinent scriptures.

I have no doubt that JESUS knew what He was talking about. The trick is for us to get it right and I'm pretty sure you haven't.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

The Holy Spirit didn't have to be given in order to be active. I can quote Scripture which suggests the Holy Spirit, being a part of the triune God was active at creation some eons ago. So too could it have been acting when Jesus died for us on the Cross.

"It is also rendered" - ha! There are so many versions of Daniel 9:27 because it is such a difficult passage to interpret! So you can find just about any way you'd like to have the original language made suitable for you. That rendition misses the mark for me by quite a wide margin so as to be illegitimate! The word abomination is not an adjective modifying the Temple in the original Hebrew. What you have presented as Scripture is literally wrong so as to completely warp Scripture to say something it does not say in the Hebrew. Shame on the authors for shoddy work.

As far as sticking to the OP, each thread takes on a life of its own. The question of where the anti-Christ sets up is quite pertinent to the person the OP says he is as to who restrains him as well. Either his take on it matches all of it, or it doesn't match it in part.

I'm sure you think you are right, and I am wrong; just as much as I think i am right and you are very much wrong.