Why the Third Temple will not be built.

[Josheb]

I agree. It is in the OT, not that we find the interpretation of passages, but it is the only place where we find the usage of the symbolic images used in Revelation. That is where they are embedded and are what the visions referred to.

Yes, the NT throws light on what was veiled in the OT, though it was revealed to the Prophets according to 1 Peter 1: 10-12. We do know, however, because we have the whole book. It takes the NT to know and to know "what".

To the rest of your post, rather than add to what you have said with commentary. I will just say great examples and also "wow", so obvious the errors committed with a dispensational framework of whatever stripe.

Yep. Everything in the OT was/is understandable in light of the newer revelation without the newer revelation BUT the truth is more difficult to grasp, especially for the Old Testament era Jew or the Judaizing Christian eschatologies (futurist or not, although it is the modern futurisms that does this more frequently, more substantively, and more persistently or unyieldingly). Old-line Judaism thought there was no life after death and such a thing impossible. There are, however, OT verses that speak of a resurrection and an afterlife (which is one of the reasons the Pharisaic sect arose during the intertestamental period). There are clear indications the kingdom of God which God spoke about in the OT about had nothing to do witha kingdom like the other nations.

1 Samuel 8:5
...and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.”

God's response does not take any added interpretation. What He said means what He stated.

1 Samuel 8:6
Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you. For it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected Me as their king.

So at it's very foundation premillennialism is asserting a kingdom exactly like the one God rejected. The only difference is they have Jesus on earth as the king ruling a kingdom that will abjectly fail in one thousand years. Some king. What kind of eternal king fails? What kind of kingdom ruled by a fully God and fully man King of kings has a rule that fails in rebellion? I digress. The point is that the OT does, as you correctly observe, contain all we need to know but that which was previously veiled is made clear in the newer revelation. This applies to the temple, too (lest we forget this op ). God made it clear that three people would build His temple: 1) God Himself, 2) A son of David's, and 3) a son of God's. If we were Jews living in the OT era when the predominant religious teaching was there is no life after death AND God would never condescend to become human AND the exiting monarchy was a good thing then it's completely understandable how the Judaic theology became all the more distanced from the prophecies' true meaning, the Messianic truth. How would an Old Testament Jew possibly fathom God was talking about people, not a building made of rocks? It would be difficult but not impossible. The OT contains all the necessary information but that which was previously hidden or veiled (or God deliberately blinded some from understanding what they'd read) was made explicitly clear in the NT (see John 2:21 and 1 Cor. 3:16).

AND.....

If anyone goes back and re-reads God's commentary on His temple with the body of Christ in mind, then the OT makes much more sense and contains much more consistency with the NT AND the progressive waywardness of Judaism becomes more observable. None of that happens in premillennialism (Historic or Dispensational). At least the Historic alternative does not predicate its premillennialism on the relevance of geo-political nation-state Israel.


God never wanted a temple made of rocks. He always intended a temple of Spirit-indwelt people and every temple and synagogue that had an altar of shaped stone was defiled (the tabernacle's altar was made of wood and the temple's was made of bronze). Dispensationalism never considers this, and when this information is broached the responses are, "So your entire defence depends on Jesus's body is a temple? Thankyou for your opinion. Your premise is rejected," or "The man of lawlessness that will be destroyed by a coming of the Lord...." or "You wasting my time and Paul is not a flawed source. You are," or a post so violently ad hominem that it has to be deleted for violating the TOS (can't link to a post that no longer exists ).

The point is that the OT does reveal what God meant when He first spoke of His temple but what He stated becomes much clearer in the NT because the NT is where His words are explained (see John 2:21 and 1 Cor. 3:16).
.