The Destruction of the Temple.

[Solly]

Dispies say, the end requires a temple to fall, and since this (Matt 24) isn't the end, there must be another, 3rd, temple.

Praeterists say, since the end requires a temple to fall, and the temple fell in 70ad, then that must have been an end of some kind. :hrm:

Discuss.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jesus made it clear what Temple He was referring to in the Discourse, the one that was then standing. If another Temple is ever built, and I doubt it, it will have absolutely nothing to do with prophecy. Jesus is the Temple, God is not going to go back to the "weak and beggarly elements."

[Faramir]

The destruction of the Temple in AD 70 was the end of the sacrificial system of Judaism, or the sacrificial age. Jesus provided the ultimate sacrifice, hence no need for a temple. God gave the Jews 40 years to accept the sacrifice of Jesus, they did not, hence destruction of temple and end of sacrificial system of worship.

Why would a third temple need to be built, as Jesus is the only sacrifice that is needed now?

[Solly]

hey guys, I think you missed the point. :hrm:

[Faramir]

:huh:

OK explain the point.

[Solly]

Same view, different dates. End of the/an age requires destruction of the/a temple. Interesting I thought. As an amill, for me it doesn't.

OK, everybody off topic now.

[Faramir]

02-25-2003 @ 09:46 AM
Solly:

Same view, different dates. End of the/an age requires destruction of the/a temple. Interesting I thought. As an amill, for me it doesn't.

OK, everybody off topic now.

I'm still not sure I understand. The end of the/an age does not require the destruction of the/a temple. Rather the Olivet Discourse describes the destruction of the temple as the end of the/an age. So it is the destruction of the temple that requires the/an end of the age not the end of the/an age that requires the/a temple to be destroyed.

I hope I made myself clear. Reading the post however, I feel that I have failed miserably.

[Solly]

That's alright, it's clear. Either way, it is interesting that dispism and neo-praeterist-post-millennialism have the destruction of the temple as the end of an age. One being futurist and the other historicist/praeterist. It was the conincidence of view that appealed to me. The disp admits that the dest of the temple is the end of the age, they just put it in the future.

As an amill I don't see it that way.

Don't mind me, as I look into these things I'm just throwing out little morsels.

[philpott]

You made several comments in this thread that are somewhat amazing. Could you provide Scripture proof for these comments:

1) "The destruction of the temple in 70 AD was the end of the sacrificial system."

I always thought that Christ's sacrifice did that.

2) "The Olivet Discourse describes the destruction of the temple as the end of the age."

Where?

3) "He gave the Jews 40 years to accept the sacrifice of Jesus."

Are you an Arminian dispensationalist?

[Hitch]

I always thought that Christ's sacrifice did that.

Well Christ was born the Savior of the world. Yet the historical process of his coming of age and earthly ministry had to be completed. That took over thirty years.

God graciously allowed that generation its full measure of time, to fill up its sins or repent, s the case would prove. But as the Savior had come long before the actual work of the cross. A similar lag in the announcement of the jugement and it execution are seen in this example.

It is and has always been the entire First Advent, from the Virgin Birth, throught the Cross and Resurrection and the rendering of the Judgement that ended the old world. The division is not a fine line but a generational line.

take care

Hitch

[Faramir]

03-13-2003 @ 01:04 PM
philpott:

You made several comments in this thread that are somewhat amazing. Could you provide Scripture proof for these comments:

1) "The destruction of the temple in 70 AD was the end of the sacrificial system."

I always thought that Christ's sacrifice did that.

Christ sacrifice brought an end for the need of the sacrificail system (praise God). 1st Century Jews rejected the sacrificial work of Christ on the cross, and continued to offer temple sacrifices up until AD70. So the system, though obsolete, was still in place.


03-13-2003 @ 01:04 PM
philpott:
2) "The Olivet Discourse describes the destruction of the temple as the end of the age."

Where?

Matthew 24

1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

Jesus said the temple would be destroyed (which is was in AD70). The Desciples asked when these things would take place, and then asked what the signes are to indicate the end of the age.



03-13-2003 @ 01:04 PM
philpott:
3) "He gave the Jews 40 years to accept the sacrifice of Jesus."

Are you an Arminian dispensationalist?

No. I am an Arminian preterist. :yipee: (Leaning toward molinism actually)

[efta777]

As Solly said, though, the biggest problem for Dispies is the fact that the world didn't end at the destruction of the temple then standing. So, there would necessarily have to be another temple if their view of the end of the age is indeed correct. However, my FIRST argument for this is the fact that it would make Jesus' prophecy only partly true. He prophecied what would lead up to the destruction of the temple, the destruction itself, and his coming. According to Dispensationalism, Christ did not come back, therefore, this was not the temple he was referring to.

The problem is a wrong perception of what Christ's "Coming" was all about. My challenge for dispensationalists who believe this is to look at all the other Old Testament comings of God to Earth.

Look it up.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hitch...


The division is not a fine line but a generational line.



That is a great way to put it...absolutely great. I hope you don't mind if I cop that line from you.

[Dee Dee Warren]

No. I am an Arminian preterist. (Leaning toward molinism actually)





Egad man!! Are you my twin brother???

[Faramir]

03-14-2003 @ 03:25 PM
Dee Dee Warren:



Egad man!! Are you my twin brother???

Should I be scared sis?

:shy:

[Dee Dee Warren]

I think so....

[Faramir]

03-13-2003 @ 01:51 PM
Hitch:

I always thought that Christ's sacrifice did that.

Well Christ was born the Savior of the world. Yet the historical process of his coming of age and earthly ministry had to be completed. That took over thirty years.

God graciously allowed that generation its full measure of time, to fill up its sins or repent, s the case would prove. But as the Savior had come long before the actual work of the cross. A similar lag in the announcement of the jugement and it execution are seen in this example.

It is and has always been the entire First Advent, from the Virgin Birth, throught the Cross and Resurrection and the rendering of the Judgement that ended the old world. The division is not a fine line but a generational line.

take care

Hitch
:thumb:

Well said Hitch, well said indeed.

[jazzact13]

Why would a third temple need to be built, as Jesus is the only sacrifice that is needed now?

The end-times temple has nothing to do with re-legitimizing sacrifices.

One of the big things the temple will be for is the false religion of the last days. There is II Thessalonians 2, which talks about the 'man of sin' who will 'sit in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God'.

There is also what Daniel said, that the sacrifices and offerings will be stopped, and something called that Abomination of Desolation will be set up.

[Ted]

03-13-2003 @ 01:51 PM
Hitch:

I always thought that Christ's sacrifice did that.

Well Christ was born the Savior of the world. Yet the historical process of his coming of age and earthly ministry had to be completed. That took over thirty years.

God graciously allowed that generation its full measure of time, to fill up its sins or repent, s the case would prove. But as the Savior had come long before the actual work of the cross. A similar lag in the announcement of the jugement and it execution are seen in this example.

It is and has always been the entire First Advent, from the Virgin Birth, throught the Cross and Resurrection and the rendering of the Judgement that ended the old world. The division is not a fine line but a generational line.

take care

Hitch

Please allow me to amplify your point about a lag in announcement and execution of judgment. First, the cross is not the announcement of judgment. It was an event at which judgment was executed against Jesus. He “became sin for us” and was legitimately executed in that role (2 Cor 5:21). I know that sounds odd, but at that moment, Jesus was our sin. (Study the sanctuary type for further understanding.)

Next, judgment (determination of guilt) against the Jews did not take place for another 3 1/2 years. Stephen (Acts 6:15-7:60) was God’s prosecuting attorney in God’s covenant lawsuit against the Jews. The elements are:
1. Preamble (God identifies Himself) 6:15
2. Historical Prolog (God tells how He kept His side of the covenant) 7:2-50
3. Indictments (How Israel broke the covenant) 7:51-53
4. Witnesses (None needed, since the Council was the same body that murdered Jesus by violating multiple elements of their canon of laws) 7:54
5. Verdict (Aborted by the stoning of Stephen) 7:55-56. This is a view of Jesus standing to render judgment.

The verdict was rendered in AD34. This can be dated by the chronology of Galatians 1-2. At this point, the 70 weeks ended. The Jews were no longer God’s chosen missionaries. That task was picked up by the church, which affirmatively carried it to the Gentiles (8:4). The final execution of judgment, the destruction of the Temple and the city, waited another 36 years.


The end-times temple has nothing to do with re-legitimizing sacrifices.

One of the big things the temple will be for is the false religion of the last days. There is II Thessalonians 2, which talks about the 'man of sin' who will 'sit in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God'.

There is also what Daniel said, that the sacrifices and offerings will be stopped, and something called that Abomination of Desolation will be set up.

This comment misunderstands the Temple in end-times. First, the physical temple is in heaven. The book of Hebrews is quite explicit on this. Next, this misunderstands Ezekiel. The prophecy there uses the Temple as an allegory of the plan of salvation, and is a stimulus to repentance. (See http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=720091&postcount=7 for detail.)
Third, it misunderstands the other use of “temple” in the end-times. Note that saints will be “pillars in the temple” (Rev 3:12). This is parallel to the thought in 1 Peter 2 where we are “living stones” to be used in building the house of God.

The abomination of desolation was clearly an event of AD70. Matt 24:15-20 is quite explicit on that point. As for 2 Thess 2, and the “man of sin” in the Temple, we must use the Bible’s own definition of the Temple in those days. It’s not a physical building. Further, God did not prophesy that sacrifices would be re-established. Again, that is a misunderstanding of Ezekiel.

The Dispy idea that sacrifices must be re-established in a rebuilt temple is a man-made invention. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen. But it does mean that it’s not part of God’s plan or something that God has prophesied.

Ted