Temple in the Millenium, does it contradict the Gospel?

[Hevosmies]

lol, which is my point in that if it is not considered Holy then it cannot be polluted by an image being set up in it, it could just as well be a portable building if God was not in it. That's why I am saying it has to be a temple of the will of God,with him in it before it could be polluted by the MoS's image.

What do you suggest the temple is then?

 

[Locutus]

John 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

Can't be much of a temple the AC builds in 3 and half years.

 

[iamsoandso]

Here are a few thoughts with regard to what it is I *think* you are conveying... My thoughts:

--nowhere in the NT is the definite article ('the') used with the word "temple" WHEN it is referring to "the Church which is His body" [US, you and me, we all ] (just "temple" in the Grk)

--in both 2Th2:4 and Rev11:1, the definite article IS used in the phrase " the temple of God" (and in Rev11:1 the wording definitely DISTINGUISHES "the temple of God" from [the phrase] "... and THEY that worship THEREIN")

--I believe "the Church which is His body" ("temple" ... "in this present age [singular]") will not be present on the earth (starting just BEFORE the INITIAL "birth PANG [singular; 1Th5:2-3/Mt24:4/Mk13:5]" / aka SEAL #1 is opened [i.e. JUDGMENTS unfolding on the earth, over the course of the 7-yrs]), therefore there will be no particular "place" on the earth (at that INITIAL moment, or beginning span of time, there) that is considered "holy" (meaning, at the START of the 7-yrs)... but does this idea prohibit that there will be none at any point thereafter? or does Scripture indicate that (once our Rapture takes place) Israel will eventually have such a place, at least at some point (being "earthly"... and in fulfillment of their promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age and its designations and so forth), aka "the kingdom of the heavens [on the earth; like Dan7:27]," aka "the wedding FEAST/SUPPER [on the earth]," aka "the age [singular] to come" [where "age [SINGULAR]" is always connected with the earth]; etc...). If so, then this is not wholly unreasonable, as I see it.

____________


Here's an article I posted before, that goes along with this somewhat:

"Forty Reasons for Not Reinterpreting the OT by the NT: The Last Twenty" by Paul Martin Henebury

https://sharperiron.org/article/forty-reasons-for-not-reinterpreting-ot-nt-last-twenty


[quoting from article]

"33. It ignores the life-setting of the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 in the context of their already having had forty days teaching about the very thing they asked about (“the kingdom” – see Acts 1:3). This reflects badly on the clarity of the Risen Lord’s teaching about the kingdom. But the tenacity with which these disciples still clung to literal fulfillments would also prove the validity of #’s 23, 26, 27, 28 & 32 above.

"34. This resistance to the clear expectation of the disciples also ignores the question of the disciples, which was about the timing of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, not its nature."

[end quoting; bold and underline mine]

But then if the Church,his body,temple in this present age,,,,as you said is gone after the rapture then the antichrist cannot pollute it unless he does so before the rapture...(which is post trib. not pre)...

 

[Locutus]

This might help calm the Knights Templers nerves:

 

[garee]

I have read Ezekiel 40-48 and surely this hasnt literally ever happened. Which leads everyone(almost) to agree this is yet future, and most say it happens in the millennium.

Aside from the reinstitution of animal sacrifices, when we read these chapters we come across some things that seem to be very anti- New Covenant language:

Ezekiel 44:9 This is what the Sovereign Lord says: No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh is to enter my sanctuary, not even the foreigners who live among the Israelites.

Isnt this completely opposite of Paul's message of "circumcision is nothing"? How are we to assume we would be going back to a worse system in the future? I realize that all the Christians would be in resurrection bodies, but to me it sounds like a DOWNGRADE to go from being in heaven, to getting a resurrection body and watching a bunch of animals get slaughtered and maybe even your family members live in the flesh and possibly dying/rebelling in the end. Sounds like i'd rather stay in heaven lol.

Another contradiction is: Jesus said His body is the temple now, in the new covenant, NOT a physical stone building somewhere:

John 2:19
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

What sayeth ye? Im especially looking forward to EG, Ahwatukee, VCO, dcon, TheDivineWatermark contributing! BUT ALL COMERS WELCOME THOUGH lets keep it friendly this time

That would be like a DOWNGRADE. No mixture of corrupted flesh and new bodies as that in which we will be. They will be neither male not female Jew not gentile but a new creation not made of the rudiments of this corrupted dying creation

That why the Amil position works the best. All one work of faith in the twinkling of the eye on the last day. Corruption will go up in smoke. It will not inherit the incorruptible.

I would think it is in respect to the eternal temple . To place any temple made with human hands as standing in the Holy place of God .the unseen place as a source of faith is a abomination of desecration.

The phrase uncircumcised in heart and flesh is not in respect to the ceremonial circumcision of the flesh alone. That as a ceremonial law speaks of the suffering our husband Christ. Heart and flesh the whole being. a picture of the gospel .

Ezekiel 44:7 In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.

 

[iamsoandso]

What do you suggest the temple is then?

There's only these options,, the temple has already been polluted,AoD set up and destroyed in ad70(preterist stance) and we don't seem to understand it,which is why I quiz them on those details but seemingly none can answer,lol,. Or in a futurist view the next temple in Israel will be by the will of God and he will be in it and then it will be polluted by the Image/AoD being set up.

 

[garee]

Question to you brothers: The entire earth will be blessed during MK right? Including the gentile nations, right? I think we can all agree on that? Where do the gentile nations learn the ways of the Lord, if they cant enter Jerusalem without being circumcised? Will there be some raptured saints teaching them in these gentile nations? Anyone know? any guesses? any verses?

Raptured saints teaching them in these gentile nations? What kind of bodies will thy have ? Will they be male and female, Jew and gentile?

From a Amil position the last days began at the renting of the veil as a unknown amount of time, signified by the metaphor "thousand years". It is found in that parable found in Revelation 20 . Another reference of a "thousand years used as a metaphor .A thousand years is as a day... a unknow un-revealed thief in the night.

There would be no one left to be circumcised. The corrupted creation had already gone up and smoke and the new incorruptible had began the former things will not be remembered or ever come around.

 

[Hevosmies]

That would be like a DOWNGRADE. No mixture of corrupted flesh and new bodies as that in which we will be. They will be neither male not female Jew not gentile but a new creation not made of the rudiments of this corrupted dying creation

That why the Amil position works the best. All one work of faith in the twinkling of the eye on the last day. Corruption will go up in smoke. It will not inherit the incorruptible.

I would think it is in respect to the eternal temple . To place any temple made with human hands as standing in the Holy place of God .the unseen place as a source of faith is a abomination of desecration.

The phrase uncircumcised in heart and flesh is not in respect to the ceremonial circumcision of the flesh alone. That as a ceremonial law speaks of the suffering our husband Christ. Heart and flesh the whole being. a picture of the gospel .

Ezekiel 44:7 In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.

How do you explain satan being bound yet in rev 12 and rev 13 he deceives the world?

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Rev 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

 

[iamsoandso]

That would be like a DOWNGRADE. No mixture of corrupted flesh and new bodies as that in which we will be. They will be neither male not female Jew not gentile but a new creation not made of the rudiments of this corrupted dying creation

That why the Amil position works the best. All one work of faith in the twinkling of the eye on the last day. Corruption will go up in smoke. It will not inherit the incorruptible.

I would think it is in respect to the eternal temple . To place any temple made with human hands as standing in the Holy place of God .the unseen place as a source of faith is a abomination of desecration.

The phrase uncircumcised in heart and flesh is not in respect to the ceremonial circumcision of the flesh alone. That as a ceremonial law speaks of the suffering our husband Christ. Heart and flesh the whole being. a picture of the gospel .

Ezekiel 44:7 In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.

At the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 they discussed whether or not the gentiles should be circumcised and follow the law like the Jews. Where in it did one of them say neither should because the NC was in affect in ad48-50?

 

[Ahwatukee]

Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

When will that stop? ^

In order for Ezekiel 40-48 to be literally fulfilled in the future, thats gotta go. As do the hebrews verses I posted

How can it be one man in Christ Jesus, if gentiles and levites are treated as different again? Gentiles are "unclean" again and circumcision in the flesh means something again in Ez 40-48, which means Philippians 3:3 is out too!

Is anyone else seeing this?

There is no way to reconcile this unless someone pulls out a verse saying the one man in Christ, Eph2, Phil 3:3, etc. no longer apply after the rapture happens or something, and ive never seen a verse like that.
I've seen "until the times of gentiles" but thats IT!

Im surprised this hasnt caused any more controversy in the churches, have people not read Ezekiel 40-48 and they take the pastor's word for it, or do they just not see the way it contradicts all of the NT and im just a crazy guy that done lost his mind?

Hello Hevosmies,

The church is made up of both Jew and Gentile. The nation Israel, who did not acknowledge Jesus as their Messiah and who are still seeking righteousness by obeying the law given to Moses, are those God is going to deal with during the tribulation period, the time of Jacob's trouble. This is why it is important to recognize that the church and Israel are two different dispensations, i.e. the church and Israel have different programs with God.

As I said previously, Daniel was told that seventy sevens (seventy seven year periods) were decreed upon Israel and Jerusalem. Since only sixty nine of those seven year periods have been fulfilled, then there is one seven year period left which must be fulfilled upon Israel and Jerusalem. And that last seven years must be fulfilled with the same conditions that existed when the decree was mad, i.e. Israel under the law and an active temple with sacrifices.

Everything written in God's word must be fulfilled, which means that the seventieth seven must take place.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Ok, lets look at this a moment,,,

As you say the antichrist will make a 7 year deal with them and permit them to build a temple and then he breaks the deal.

Is God the Almighty present in the that temple and does he see it as Holy? If not and it is not seen as Holy by God how can the antichrist pollute something that is not regarded as Holy by God?

This is irrelevant, because what ever is written in the word of God must take be fulfilled. Therefore, since only sixty nine of the seventy sevens has been fulfilled, then the last seven years must take place, because God decreed it.

 

[iamsoandso]

This is irrelevant, because what ever is written in the word of God must take be fulfilled. Therefore, since only sixty nine of the seventy sevens has been fulfilled, then the last seven years must take place, because God decreed it.

lol, I would think it to be relevant in that if God did not desire that temple to be there then it was just like a portable building and the antichrist could set up images of his own self in his little house and that he would not have polluted the Lords. On the other hand if he set his image up in my Lords house he would then have polluted it, But only if my Lord see's it as his and Holy.

 

[Locutus]

Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

Heb 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

No mention of another temple in the newt - all we have from the proclaimers of another physical temple is myth.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

But then if the Church,his body,temple in this present age,,,,as you said is gone after the rapture then the antichrist cannot pollute it unless he does so before the rapture...(which is post trib. not pre)...

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my post.

I am saying that "THE temple of God" (mentioned in both 2Th2:4 and Rev11:1) is DISTINCT FROM "the Church which is His body" called [only ever] "temple" with no definite article ['the'] in the Greek, here (so, not "THE temple" as the other references to "THE temple of God" are shown to be). So it is not "the Church which is His body" (those references of "temple" with no definite article) that the antichrist will "sit in" and "shewing himself that he is God" ...

You may recall that I believe the Gog-Magog War will take place in the 2nd SEAL Wars time-slot [early in the trib] (see also Ezek37:18-19 ["WRATH" words],20-23... 39:7-8 ["in this way shall *I* make My holy name known in the midst of MY PEOPLE ISRAEL" (note: Rom9:26/Hos1:10 etc)],39:11-14 ["seven months"... "that they may CLEANSE THE LAND"], and others, similar...).

In other posts (of other threads) I have already repeatedly put forth the SEQUENCE issues that show when our Rapture takes place IN RELATION [time-wise] TO "the time period" when the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]"+ will commence to unfold upon the earth (with many more "birth PANGS [PLURAL] that follow on from there)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ EDIT to add:

Hebrews 7:22 [blb] -

"By so much also, Jesus has become the guarantee [/surety] of a better covenant."

 

[tanakh]

A temple started by Christ rejecting people can never be considered holy. I think everyone agrees with that.

One would think so but on this site at least its surprising what some people think!

 

[Hevosmies]

There's only these options,, the temple has already been polluted,AoD set up and destroyed in ad70(preterist stance) and we don't seem to understand it,which is why I quiz them on those details but seemingly none can answer,lol,. Or in a futurist view the next temple in Israel will be by the will of God and he will be in it and then it will be polluted by the Image/AoD being set up.

I definately reject the latter view, ANY physical temple started by Christ rejecting russians in Israel would be an abomination in itself! Christ is the ONLY way!

 

[cv5]

lol, I would think it to be relevant in that if God did not desire that temple to be there then it was just like a portable building and the antichrist could set up images of his own self in his little house and that he would not have polluted the Lords. On the other hand if he set his image up in my Lords house he would then have polluted it, But only if my Lord see's it as his and Holy.

"Then there shall be a PLACE which the LORD your God shall choose to cause his NAME to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the LORD" (Deu. 12:11).

Deuteronomy 16:2
"You shall sacrifice the Passover to the LORD your God from the flock and the herd, in the place where the LORD chooses to establish His name.

1 Kings 14:21
Now Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he became king, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the LORD had chosen from all the tribes of Israel to put His name there. And his mother's name was Naamah the Ammonitess.

2 Kings 23:27
The LORD said, "I will remove Judah also from My sight, as I have removed Israel And I will cast off Jerusalem, this city which I have chosen, and the temple of which I said, 'My name shall be there.'"

Jeremiah 32:34
"But they put their detestable things in the house which is called by My name, to defile it.

Ezekiel 48:35
"The city shall be 18,000 cubits round about; and the name of the city from that day shall be, 'The LORD is there.'"

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Jesus had said, in Matthew 24:15-16,

"15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains."

Those who hold to Preterist viewpoint believe this pertains to the 70ad events, when Jesus' own Body [they acknowledge as "the temple of His body" Jn2:21] was in Heaven, and the believers ["temple"] were present on the earth in more than one location, but they have no problem calling it [the singular location they refer to as] "the holy place" mentioned here, that involved (in their view) the AOD at that time (the events surrounding 70ad). Any explanation as to why that is the case? Just wondering.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

On a different note, why would Jesus say the following (note the bold):

Luke 22:30,16,18 -

15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. [see also Matt26:29 "UNTIL THAT DAY when I drink it NEW WITH [G3326 - meta - accompanying] YOU in My Father's kingdom"]

[…<snip>…]

28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.

29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. [see also Matt19:28 (comp. Matt25:31-34 for its TIMING)]