The year is 2050, and Jesus has not yet returned. Things have radically changed. Muslim buildings have been completely removed from Palestine, the Jews have rebuilt a temple in Jerusalem, and the Mormons have built a temple of their own in Samaria.
What would Jesus say to them concerning the “hour”?
Can you imagine a Jew and a Mormon discussing whether either place was more appropriate to worship at? It’d be the first century all over again.
The words of Jesus two thousand years ago still ring true and relevant for today.
Update:
HankSaint asked, “Why Samaria?”, and Martin gave a great answer:
Possibly Aaron is referring to Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan Woman (John 4:4-26) [Aaron’s note: exactly]. She asks Jesus his views on the Temple in Jerusalem, and He answers “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem (John 4:21-23).
We often intepret this as meaning that the worship of the heart is more important than the physical location of the worshipper Its a valid exegesis, but it goes from A to C whilst leaving out B.
What’s not immediately apparent from the text is that the Samaritans had actually built a Temple on Mount Gerazim to rival the one in Jerusalem. It had been destroyed by John Hyrcanus, one of the Maccabees, about 130 years earlier.
If we note the Jews’ dislike of their gentile neighbours, then the subtext of the encounter between Jesus and the woman becomes apparent. Jesus, a Jew, passes through a Samaritan town, and after a discussion about buckets and water, the woman confronts Jesus with the most important issue of her day; something like “We had a temple, but your guys came and ripped it down. Now we have to go to Jerusalem to worship, but when we do, you treat us like dirt.”
Here’s the important bit. If Jesus had been promoting a temple-building movement, he would have said something along the lines of “Your temple was illegitimate, but ours is the real deal” – kind of “our temple is better than yours”. He should have defended the Temple in Jerusalem.
But he doesn’t. In fact he removes both temples from the equation, stating that true worship doesn’t come from the Temple, it comes from the worshipper; “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24).
So, Jesus did not consider the Jerusalem Temple to be an essential part of true worship. It was destroyed in AD 70, never to be rebuilt and I believe the early Christians saw this as God vindicating their message.
This is why I continue to stress reading the Bible together with itself. In context, it all reads more clearly.
In chapter 2, verse 6, we see that God would be right to punish Israel because they have cast Him aside.
Then starting in verse 10 of Chapter 2, here comes Jesus again. By virtue of who He is, His rule, His judgments, etc, He will bringing the haughty to their knees. He will be abolishing all idols. He will be the Majesty and the Glory that shakes all the junk out of this world.
I’m going to stop here for just a second to say: I hope you realize that there is nothing in here about lots of temples, or about other people having to help Jesus do His job. It’s just God showing Israel that one day, He will come to the rescue of humanity, and Jesus will sit down as our perfect ruler, rule from Jerusalem, and all the world will love Him and be straightened out.
Ok, on to Malachi 3 and 4. I see you dismissed what gundeck said about it, but he was correct. Jesus said “Elijah did come already”. He was talking about John the Baptist.
When Jesus “comes suddenly” to His temple in Jerusalem, notice that in Malachi 3:2-3, He’s going to come like a refiners fire (burn up all the dross) to the Jews, at which time their offerings will finally be acceptable to Him again.
They are waiting, do you know? For events to come together so they can build the final temple. I’m pretty sure that they know what it means for them to get it built. But again, this is an “Israel” and Jerusalem thing, and does nowhere even suggest other temples which do other things.
To see this “Kingdom of God” as being the LDS church is to ignore the fact that God said that when this Kingdom gets here, it will have Jesus ruling out of the Temple in Jerusalem (which has not been built) and that peace and righteousness will be worldwide.
Naturally, I agree with OLSEN on this point. None of the explanations given really go into a concrete explanation of the verses he sites.
I would like to make one comment about what Gundeck said concerning the verses in Matthew.
All these verse refer to John the Baptist as Elias who was to come. I agree with this completely. However, the Malachi references are not in complete Harmony.
First, in Malachi three his coming is described as a “Refiner’s Fire.” This seems to be a direct reference to the Second Coming when Christ will destroy the wicked. At this time he will purge the sons of Levi and the sacrifice offered in Jeruselem will be accepted by God again, and christ will sit in judgement. None of this happened at the time that John the Baptist lived, and so this cannot be a reference to John the Baptist, at least not only John the Baptist.
Second, in Malachi 4: 5 Malachi makes a prophecy concerning Elijah who was taken into Heaven in a chariot of fire. The Matthew references cannot be calling John the Baptist Elijah (unless you except reincarnation) as John was born to Mary’s cousin. Even in John 1: 21 John the Baptist himself denies being Elijah.
People interpret the Matthew verses in the way they do because Elias in the Greek form of the Hebrew Elijah. However, John the Baptist, though he is Elias, is not Elijah the Prophet. Thus, the name Elias in the NT must have more than one meaning.
This also shows that the Bible does not record the return of Elijah as prophecied by Malachi.
Setfree,
Thank you! Thanks for digging in, reading the text, and trying to make a reasonable interpretation that is not simply an attempt to dismiss LDS doctrine.
So you agree that the temple spoken of in Isaiah 2 is not the first or second temple in Jerusalem- that is not the temple of Christ’s day? That is the first issue.
It is very easy to confuse time frames in reading Isaiah- he switches reference points constantly and quickly- from post-exile Israel to meridian-of-times Israel to latter-day Israel. And many of the fundamental issues, prophecies, and themes from those different periods are the same.
Let’s look again at the timing issue. Verse 2 reads “in the last days.” This is a reference to pre-mellenial days (i.e. pre second coming). This quickly is followed by “And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people.” His second coming will be a day of judgement and “rebuking.” This is then followed by “and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” It is a quick flow from last days to second coming and the opening of the millennial era. You can disagree with me, but this interpretation holds up from all angles.
You claim that this passage says Jesus will set up the perfect kingdom, but you notice it does not say that at all. Rather it says “the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.” Nothing about perfection- nothing that would narrow it to the post-second coming reign Christ
The point of the article that started this thread is the claim that Christ no longer uses a temple in His work or gospel. I am referring to Isaiah to show that this is not true- Christ still does and will use “His house” and temple to achieve His purposes.
Continued…
“And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us ago up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the flaw, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” “Many people” will go to the House of the Lord to be taught the Lords ways and walk in His paths. The temple is and will be very closely associated with Christ’s kingdom, doctrine, and law.
Now I never mention many temples. It is simply not the issue I am talking about. And I agree that this prophecy is about Christ and His people and His temple. This could not be clearer.
The Malachi verses you mention, again, refer to Christ coming to HIS TEMPLE. So He clearly has or will have a temple when He returns to the earth at His second coming. These are my very points. I am fine with you maintaining that that temple is ONLY the Jerusalem temple. My point is that it will be HIS temple. In other words, CHRIST STILL EMPLOYS TEMPLES TO CONDUCT HIS WORK AND KINGDOM.
As far as Elijah- I did not want to divert discussion into when Elijah would return. Shem’s comments are correct in that the Greek word in Matthew is Elias (totally different but interesting topic-). My question was regarding what appears to be a very important statement: “he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” My question is- what in the world does that mean? Seems important enough that the earth will be cursed if this doesn’t happen. What is the evangelical explanation?
P.S. About Elias- the Greek text reads “And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him……”
My question- WHAT DID JOHN THE BAPTIST RESTORE? Elias is to restore “all things.” The reality is that “Elias” is not simply a person, but a calling to be a forerunner of something greater. John the Baptist was an “Elias”- he came before and was a forerunner to Christ at His first coming. Elijah the prophet also had the calling of being a forerunner- he restored the priesthood keys of sealing to the earth before the SECOND coming of Christ. Without those keys and work- the earth would be cursed at Christ’s second coming.
Jim,
You make a few leaps in logic that I can’t go along with. The first one is that “last days” is pre-millenial reign. You said I may disagree with you, and I do. You also said that your interpretation holds up from all angles. What are you talking about?
I said Christ would be the perfect King of the perfect Kingdom. Do you or do you not believe that His teachings, His judgement, His laws, will be perfect? So much so that the nations will be in peace and will desire Christ like they do not now? This is what I meant by what I said.
I don’t see Him doing that right now, reigning from His temple in Jerusalem, bringing peace.
Here’s the second jump of logic that you made: that just because Christ will come back to His Jerusalem temple, that He uses lots of them. Is there any Biblical evidence for many temples? Did God ever use more than one at a time?
This brings back several topics that I can’t cover right here, but going by the Bible, like we are presently, where does it say that Jesus ever used a temple for marriages, baptisms for the dead, sealings, endowments, etc?
It looks as though you believe that John the Baptist was a forerunner “Elijah/Elias” type. That’s good, because Jesus said he was. And the gospels record him as being one who would “turn the hearts” in Luke 1:12-17.
Where does it say, in the Bible, because that’s where we’re getting our information, that Elijah brought back the keys to the priesthood? That is another jump in logic that I’d like you to explain to me FROM THE BIBLE. You have asserted that Elijah will come to restore all things, which is fine, since it says that in the Bible. But then you jump and say this is the “priesthood”.
I am glad that we are reading the Bible, just going through it as it is. Can we stick to that for a while and see if we can sort out this whole priesthood-keys-restoring thing?
I can see two questions up above that I haven’t answered, but I’d like you to answer mine first. Please?
To All,
Let’s say I wrote a long letter to you. You get my letter, but you’re too busy (or whatever) to read the whole thing. However, as you go to set my letter down, a phrase catches your eye. I’ve written “I’ve got to go…”.
Well, you’re so excited that you get out your highlighter, mark that part of sentence, and go to tell your neighbors the news.
Your neighbors wonder why this is so exciting, and you realize, you’re not sure. Maybe I continued my sentence to say that I’m going to the doctor. Maybe to the bank. Maybe to a play. Maybe I’m going to jail!
At this point, you can make a guess. At that very moment, it goes through your head that I’ve gone to Africa! You figure you’re pretty “in tune” with me, so you must be right. So you tell your neighbors I went Africa. They’re impressed and that was fun and you never do read my letter. It’s fun enough for you to picture me in Africa, and think of how in-tune with me you are to know that without even my having to tell you.
Or, you can go back, read my whole letter, and see what all I have to say. At this point, you can tell your neighbors for sure where I had to go.
Of course, after telling your neighbors I went to Africa, if you read my whole letter and found out I was going to a baby-shower, it may be hard to go back and tell your neighbors that you had reached a judgment too quickly. But you’d be right to fess up, right? And let them know what my letter really said?
Reading the Bible to see what IT has to say is important. It makes a world of difference over just taking out parts of it.
The Bible is a lengthy story about the One God and the Salvation He provides us in Jesus because we (humanity) can not live up to His standard.
I’m a person who used to highlight “I’ve got to go” and run around telling my neighbors what that meant before I knew anything about the whole letter.
Now that I actually read the Bible, I am here to “fess up” to what it really says.
In Him,
Does anyone else read this in the NT?
When the NT describes the system of (earthly) Temple and Priest, it describes a system that has failed. Arguably, the OT does the same thing.
What I mean by “failed” is “failed to bring the people to God”. The big message of the NT, I believe, is that the Temple (or temples) cannot bring a person to God. However, Christ has brought the people to God, which is why He is referred to as the true Temple (Rev 21:22). Christians in the present day become part of the true Temple because we are in Christ (1 Cor 3:16).
Given that the phrase “the law” is used in the NT as shorthand for “the Temple System, its traditions, prophets and God-given charter”, in this context, I think it is quite appropriate to paraphrase Gal 2:26 to “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the [Temple], but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the [Temple]: for by the works of the [Temple] shall no flesh be justified”
Here’s another angle.
On a recent thread, we were discussing John 3:5 “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”. The Evs here were arguing that being “born of water” referred to physical birth. I commented on the reflective idea that Jesus is saying that to qualify for the Kingdom, one must first be born as a human being.
It might seem obvious to us, because we are used to the Jesus paradigm, but why would he say something so apparently obvious? The answer, I think comes from the conflicting ideas of locating the Kingdom in the Temple or in the people. Jesus is saying that the Temple building is not a part of the Kingdom. Or, to put it another way, the Kingdom does not comprise the physical assets of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Kingdom, He said, is “within you” (Luke 17:21).
No wonder they crucified Him. He was telling them that their Temple was redundant.
I believe Jesus would say the same thing of the LDS temples.
HankSaint asked “Why Samaria?”
Possibly Aaron is referring to Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan Woman (John 4:4-26). She asks Jesus his views on the Temple in Jerusalem, and He answers “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem (John 4:21-23).
We often intepret this as meaning that the worship of the heart is more important than the physical location of the worshipper Its a valid exegesis, but it goes from A to C whilst leaving out B.
What’s not immediately apparent from the text is that the Samaritans had actually built a Temple on Mount Gerazim to rival the one in Jerusalem. It had been destroyed by John Hyrcanus, one of the Maccabees, about 130 years earlier.
If we note the Jews’ dislike of their gentile neighbours, then the subtext of the encounter between Jesus and the woman becomes apparent. Jesus, a Jew, passes through a Samaritan town, and after a discussion about buckets and water, the woman confronts Jesus with the most important issue of her day; something like “We had a temple, but your guys came and ripped it down. Now we have to go to Jerusalem to worship, but when we do, you treat us like dirt.”
Here’s the important bit. If Jesus had been promoting a temple-building movement, he would have said something along the lines of “Your temple was illegitimate, but ours is the real deal” – kind of “our temple is better than yours”. He should have defended the Temple in Jerusalem.
But he doesn’t. In fact he removes both temples from the equation, stating that true worship doesn’t come from the Temple, it comes from the worshipper; “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24).
So, Jesus did not consider the Jerusalem Temple to be an essential part of true worship. It was destroyed in AD 70, never to be rebuilt and I believe the early Christians saw this as God vindicating their message.
Martin, your answer to Hank was so great I included it in the original post. It reminds me of what Jesus said, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.” (John 4:21)
A side-question: Were Samaritans even allowed to visit the temple in Jerusalem since they were considered ceremonially unclean?
SETFREE
The “leaps in Logic” you describe were not really made.
How is the “last days” being pre-melenial a leap in logic? Aren’t these the last days before the end of the world and the estaqblishment of the Kingdom of God on earth?
As to the perfect kingdom, I don’t and LDS would disagree that it will be perfect. OLSEN simply said that this perfect kingdom will not be set up until after the “Mountain of the Lord’s House” is exalted, which is perfectly logically given the order of events in the chapter.
Nowhere in his posts did OLSEN make the claim that Christ would have multiple temples, only that he would have at least one. I know it is hard to think about what people actually say without trying to find some way to put in an attack on LDS doctrine, but please look at what he is saying. He is saying that, regardless of whether or not you except LDS doctrine concerning the Temple, you must except that Christ will have a temple before he returns again. Would you agree with that simple statement? (remember, do not comment on LDS doctrine, but on the argument that a temple will be used by Christ.)
Lastly, what was Elijah to restore if not the Priesthood? According to you nothing needs to be restored, so what is the purpose of Elijah returning?
MARTIN
Your posts are all very logical, but I think you are doing exactly what you accuse the LDS of doing, which is reading more into the text than is really there. That is fine. I really have no complaint, except that you accuse us of teh same thing.
In talking with the Samaritan woman Christ was telling us that it is our faith, the worship in our hearts, that is the important thing. But he does not tell us that the Temple is not needed. Regardless of where we worship, if our hearts are not pure it really doesn’t matter, and that is all Christ was saying.
As to the whole born again thing, I have to disagree with you, and it really seems you have little to stand on in you interpretation.
First, Christ says we are to be born again. He is then asked what that means “can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” Christ then explains what he means by born again, which is to be born of the water and of teh spirit. It seems to be indicating that both the water and the spirit are part of being born again, not just the spirit. Thus, to be born of the water would most logically indicate baptism.
shematwater, you’re ignoring, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.” (John 4:21)
Setfree,
I maintain that when Isaiah 2:2 says “last days,” he means last days- the last days before the mellennial reign of Christ. I can see why you would interpret it the way you do, but I disagree. My central point is that Christ did not end the use of temple(s) when the Law of Moses was fulfilled. “He will come to His temple suddenly.”
When I said my interpretation holds up- I mean if you look at each word and its meaning in context, one will conclude that the timing is just before the second coming, and that this passage is prophetic of The Lord’s House and temple being established in that day. Botton line- the Lord is not done with temples.
About perfection- I do not think you are getting what I tried to say. I am saying nowhere in Isaiah 2:2-5 does it says the Lord’s House that will be established will be perfect. It simply does not say that. Of course Christ is perfect and is the perfect King- but that is a totally different concept.
Again- when did I ever argue that there would be lots of temples. I never tried to make that leap. I do not know where you are getting that. I will say again that my point is to show that Christ will have a temple in the last days. CHRIST IS NOT DONE USING A TEMPLE.
As far as Elijah- not really wanting to argue that point- it is not layed out in every detail (or even close) in the Bible. My earlier point was to ask what your explanation for the statement “he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” I simply gave you my explanation. I don’t expect you to accept it like I do. I simply wanted to know how you interpret that statement.
I never made any claims that all the ordinances performed today are clearly outlined in the Bible. That was never my point of contention. Don’t really want to get side-tracked from addressing the claim of this thread.
Martin,
You said “Given that the phrase “the law” is used in the NT as shorthand for “the Temple System, its traditions, prophets and God-given charter..” My friend, you are reading quite a bit into one word. The “law” and the Temple of the Lord are not synonymous. There is overlap, but they are not synonymous.
Some people interpret every usage of the word “law” in the NT as “law of Moses.” This is often true, but sometimes it refers to the generic universal “Law of God”- not just the Law of Moses. Making these two different things the same leads to confusion.
Some parts of the Law of Moses involved the temple- absolutely. Some elements outside the temple.
My point is that it is not correct to strictly equate the law of Moses with the temple. You have to deal with the prophecies that say Christ will establish and come to His temple in the last days, sometime around the time of His second coming.
Aaron- John 4:21 does not necessarily mean temples will be done away with. Was He prophesying that those places would one day be destroyed? You appear to be reading into it what you wish.
I think it’s clear that Mormons just don’t understand the purpose of the temple, nor do they understand the tearing of the temple veil. Until this is understood, there is a lot of wasted energy on topics that really need this foundational understanding.
Grace and Peace…
Jim,
To quote you: “CHRIST STILL EMPLOYS TEMPLES TO CONDUCT HIS WORK AND KINGDOM.”
(emphasis in original)
So, in answer to your question, that is where I was “getting that”.
So, if I understand correctly, we agree that there will be a temple when Jesus comes back. It will be the Jerusalem temple, built by the Jews who are gathering back to their homeland. Right? Do we agree on that?
Is that the final desired product from this discussion in your mind, or did you want to extrapolate?
I am avoiding answering two of your questions until we are established with this topic. The first question I’m not dealing with yet is what is the evangelical answer for what it means when it says “lest I come and strike the earth with a curse”.
The other question is “what is Elijah supposed to be restoring?”
Shem said that I said “nothing needs to be restored”. Did I say that Shem? or were you just kind of glancing over what I said, because a lot of times, I’ll admit, it appears as though you have only glanced over what gets written on here.
I know that the LDS see the “last days” as now, but unless Jesus is reigning out of a temple in Jerusalem in those verses, you just can’t say that the “last days” being spoken of there are NOW.
Sorry, I said “emphasis in original” meaning the ALL CAPS, not the bold letters. Those were mine.
Shematwater,
Reread Malachi 3:1 There are two people there the “messenger” and the “Lord”. “But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire…” (Mal 3:2) is not talking about the “messenger” it is talking about the “Lord”.
There are two other places I would refer you. First Mark 9:12, 13 where on the Mount of Transfiguration Jesus Christ says “But I tell you that Elijah has come…” Second in Luke 1:17 where an angel of the Lord tells Zechariah that his barren wife will have a son who will he will “go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah.”
You are correct that John the Baptist denies being the Christ and Elijah in John 1:20, 21 but Jesus Christ says he was (Matt 11:11-15) and an angel says he was (Luke 1:17). I am willing to bet that Jesus Christ understood the prophesies concerning the return of Elijah better than John the Baptizer. It is generally understood that Malachi must have been referring to the Elijah as the prototypical Old Testament prophet.
Now I know that you cannot accept the Testimony of Jesus Christ in Matt 11:11-15 or Mark 9:12, 13 where our Lord plainly says John the Baptist fulfilled the prophesies regarding Elijah have been fulfilled. I know what D&C 110 says. When you are examining this conflict with your prophet and the direct testimony of Jesus Christ Himself think about the humility of John the Baptist and his denial in John 1:20, 21 and the superciliousness of Smith’s claims in D&C 110.
Setfree,
My only real point of contention is that Christ will have a temple to come to “suddenly” when He returns. If this is so, then there is still some role for temple(s). It will be HIS temple, and it will be a place where many will go to receive the law of the Lord and to walk in His paths. I don’t expect to convince ya’ll of much more than that.
I believe that in addition to a temple in Jerusalem, there is a great center of Christ’s Kingdom in America in the Rockies. But I know you dimiss that.
The reason for making my point about temples not being “extinct” in the eyes of the Lord is that it contradicts the evangelical take on the suject. The two views can’t both be correct.
Jackg- the renting of the veil of the temple at the time of Christ’s death was symbolic of more than one thing. Just to start with, it was a symbol of the barrier between this life and the next. It ultimately symbolized the barrier between man and God. Under the law of Moses, only the High Priest could enter that holy, symbolic place. With Christ’s death, He passed through the gulf or veil into paradise, ultimately releasing those who had waited in that prison. It was symbolic of breaking down the gates of prison, or Sheol. The Law of Moses was also fulfilled such that everyone thereafter had access to the “Holy of Holies” of the temple, not just the High Priest.
It was a symbol of the barrier between God. It symbolized the gulf to be traversed between this life and entering God’s presence. And who had just past that barrier- that is correct- Jesus Christ. That barrier would be ultimately broken by Christ’s resurrection and return to the Father.
Jim,
“My only real point of contention is that Christ will have a temple to come to “suddenly” when He returns. If this is so, then there is still some role for temple(s). It will be HIS temple, and it…”
This looks a little split-tongued to me. I agree, there will be A TEMPLE (singular) for Him to come to, IT will be His temple, IT…” but to throw that little (s) on the end of temple is to try to include temples (plural) in the middle of your acknowledging that the Bible speaks of just ONE TEMPLE.
“I believe that in addition to a temple in Jerusalem, there is a great center of Christ’s Kingdom in America in the Rockies. But I know you dimiss that.”
Yes I dismiss it. Any more temples than the just the one Jewish/Israel/Hebrew temple are never mentioned in the Bible, right? And that is what we have been talking about, is what the Bible says, right? So can we now go with the conclusion that the Bible only speaks of the one temple at a time?
The evangelists here have not been saying that the temples are extinct; rather we have been trying to point out what the Bible has to say about the one temple, which is that Jesus became the real temple, and when He left, those of us who are indwelt with His Holy Spirit are “the temple”. I thought Martin did a great job explaining this above, but here’s his quote:
“However, Christ has brought the people to God, which is why He is referred to as the true Temple (Rev 21:22). Christians in the present day become part of the true Temple because we are in Christ (1 Cor 3:16).”
Is this part fully argued out then, or no?
Aaron asked “Were Samaritans even allowed to visit the temple in Jerusalem since they were considered ceremonially unclean?”
We know there was a “Court of the Gentiles”, followed by a “Court of the Women”, followed by the “Court of Israel”, within which there was the Porch, Holy Place, and Most Inner Sanctuary. Death-threats written over some of the gateways to stop people getting too far without the right “qualifications”.
It was more tightly guarded than Fort Knox. How far a Samaritan might get into this system would depend on how ritually fit he or she was.
Remember that only one High Priest could get into the Inner Sanctuary, only once a year. I understand that these priests were selected from just a few ruling families, so a “half-blood” Samaritan had little or no chance.
Incidentally, I’ve heard that genetic studies in the mid 20th Century identified a fairly high rate of adulteries in conservative, religious Jewish families. One reason, I guess, is that women wanted their sons to have the right parentage in order to qualify for the top jobs in their religion, even if they couldn’t get it from their husbands. I can imagine the same thing going on in 1st Century Jerusalem.
Returning to the woman at the well, her predicament was that, even if she wanted to be “properly” cleansed of her sin, she’d have to go to the Jerusalem Temple and get through considerable barriers – physically, culturally and emotionally. Even if she did get on the program and overcome these obstacles, she still could not “approach the throne with boldness”(Heb 4:16). Like the paralytic in Mark 2:1-12, the road to her cleansing was blocked with insurmountable obstacles; God remained unreachable, locked away in the vault.
What Jesus does in these cases is revolutionary. He does not send them to the Temple, he brings the Temple to them and proclaims on them the Lord’s forgiveness. He says that true forgiveness and cleansing are found in Him, not in the Temple.
Jesus is the true Temple
Martin and Setfree,
You bring up a scripture that actually proves the LDS point regarding the timing of the latter day temple, but which you misinterpret.
Again- look at the temporal context of Revelations 21:22. WHAT IS THE TIME SETTING OF THIS CHAPTER?
I will answer for you- first, here is the first verse of the chapter:
“And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.”
He then goes on to describe the jewels and gems that make up the walls and gates of New Jerusalem that has descended “out of heaven from God.”
You guys constantly criticize LDS for our interpretation of the Bible. But I a finding an extremely sloppy method and result by our EV friends here.
This chapter is talking about Jerusalem AFTER the earth has been celestialized and perfected. I absolutely agree that there is no temple in the Celestial Kingdom of God because there is no barrier within that Kingdom between God and its inhabitants- THEY LIVE WITH GOD.
Setfree- you and I agreed (I think) that there WOULD BE a temple when Christ returned to earth. In fact, it is called HIS TEMPLE. (Malachi 3:1) (By the way, how would a temple be His if it were built by the Jews who do not even believe in Him?). So considering both passages- Malachi 3 and Revelations 21- doesn’t that help with the time frame in the revelations about the latter-day temple? The temple that is Christ’s, and which He returns to, is built before the earth is renewed. Because after the earth is celestialized, there will be no physical temple as John saw.
And regarding 1 Cor 3:16. Yes, our bodies are the temple of God, a place for the Holy Spirit to dwell. What about the people who lived before Christ. Were their bodies not considered the temple of God?
If you say no, consider these verses:
“And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man.” Gen 6:3
“And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them.” Num 11:17
“And the Lord said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him.” Num 27:18
“Thou gavest also thy good spirit to instruct them, and withheldest not thy manna from their mouth, and gavest them water for their thirst.” Nehemiah 9:20
“And the pattern of all that he had by the spirit, of the courts of the house of the LORD..” 1 Chron 28:12
You get my point.
So it would seem that the Spirit of God DID dwell in the bodies of the ancient folks. You argue that because the Spirit dwells in us, we do not need a physical temple. If this were the rule, why was it not true before Christ?
Olsen,
Interpret Is. 43:10. This will help give you the proper biblical perspective to interpret other passages. Since your lense is skewed, everything you bring up is laced with the tainted LDS perspective. You really need to study biblical exegesis so you can take that faulty lense off. Until you do, everything you present will be nothing but biblical eisegesis. Here’s hoping you allow the true Spirit of God to work in your heart and in your mind.
Praying for you as always…
Olsen Jim
Malachi 3:1 “…and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in…”
…has happened. You can read all about it in Matthew 21:12-17, Mark 11:11-26 and Luke 19:45-46. No, the Jews did not believe that their God had turned up on their doorstep, but that’s the point the Gospel-writers are making.
Regarding Rev 21:22, did you notice why the Holy City has no Temple? Its not because the relationship between humanity has changed, as you suggest; its because ‘… the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple…’. Now, are you suggesting that God will change at the eschaton, such that He can become something that He is not already? I suggest He will not change (see Mal 3:6), but our relationship will change so that we can truly see Him as He is (1 Cor 13:12, Rev 1:9). If the Lamb is the true temple in heaven, then He is the true temple now.
Or, think about it this way. Everything that the Jersualem Temple did, Christ has done (I believe that the Gospel-writers were careful to catalogue Jesus’ works in this respect). However, the Jerusalem Temple was ephemeral (its been destroyed twice already) but Christ is eternal.
If you’re having trouble with the OT references to the Temple, I suggest you need to start thinking at what the OT was pointing towards. It wasn’t bricks and mortar, it was the reality that the bricks and mortar pointed to themselves.
Some of the above posts have attempted to get some mileage out of the reference to the “last days” in Isaiah 2:2-5. The inference is that the “last days” have commenced recently, which legitimizes the building of latter-day temples in the Rocky Mountains.
Though this is a favorite meme of 19th and 20th Century North American religion, it has more to do with regional pride than the Biblical perspective.
Consider Peter’s speech to the crowd on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:14-36. He opens by explaining his actions in terms of the prophesy of Joel 2:28-32. In doing so, Peter uses the term “In the last days…”. So, as far as Peter was concerned, the “last days” had arrived – he was living in them, and the actions of the early apostles were the evidences to show it.
If we discount the idea that Peter did not know what he was talking about, we are left with the possibilities that the “last days” started at Pentecost, or they had started earlier, or that the term does not relate to a particular period of time (rather like the modern, rhetorical phrase “when the west was won”). What is NOT in view is the idea that the “last days” refer to some distant future period.
Now, if the ‘last days’ refers, literally, to a period, then it had begun on, or before, Pentecost (circa 35 AD), which poses profound problems to the LDS schema on the Temple of the Last Days, for example Olsen Jim’s assertion ‘Still doesn’t explain the timing of the establishment of the “Lord’s House” and “Temple” in the “Last days.”
When Peter declared that the “last days” had started, there was a physical temple in Jerusalem at Pentecost, but it got destroyed soon after, in 70 AD. So, we soon had the “last days” but no Temple.
Ctd..
Ctd…
Don’t you think its more robust to consider the Temple of the Last Days as referring to something that’s not made out of brick and stone; something that cannot be shaken?
Did you know Jerusalem is built in an earthquake zone? It follows that its temple, on Mount Zion, would get physically shaken from time to time.
The Biblical writers KNEW this. They knew that the shaking of the earth could reduce their buildings to rubble, but it could not shake the true Temple. Why? Because the true Temple was not made of brick and stone; it was built on the hearts of the believers. Don’t you see that the Temple of the Last Days IS the Church, which has been here since Pentecost. Isaiah 2 speaks of the wise among the nations looking to the Church for light, and that is why the Church is here, now, in the world, doing its job as the city on the hill.
‘For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched…But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem…See that ye refuse not him that speaketh…Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven…And this word, yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain…Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear’ (Heb 12:22-28, abridged).
Martin,
When did Christ “suddenly” come to His temple? Was His first coming the “great and dreadful day of the Lord?”
And you stated previously:
“[Christ] should have defended the Temple in Jerusalem. But he doesn’t. In fact he removes both temples from the equation…”
Doesn’t really sound like, in your opinion, Christ had a high opinion of the temple. Why would the emphasis then be on His “suddenly” coming to His temple if it was no longer of any importance and if He in reality distanced Himself from it?
Again, you take scripture out of context- Heb 12:22-28. It is describing a “heavenly Jerusalem,” and “innumberable angels in festal gathering.” Context my friend.
You are dismissing very clear references and prophecies.
Jim,
I am not well educated on this subject, hence my relative silence on it. However, I do know that there is a growing number of Christians and scholars who believe as Martin do. From what I understand, the idea that the last days are yet to come came in 19th century, around the time Smith lived.
Just providing this to give you some food for thought, in that there is much more to the debate than what I think you know. The historical context of the scripture is hugely important, and this is a big part of what you don’t want to see, from what I can tell here.
Michael P,
Are you admitting that the non-LDS Christian interpretation and perspective on the Bible evolves? What is to ensure it is evolving in the correct direction?
Setfree, Michael P, Martin,
Evangelicals often quote the following verse and say it applies to Joseph Smith and the LDS:
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.” 1 Tim 4:1
Are these the latter days or not? Make up your mind. Were they the days of Christ’s ministry or are they our day?
How about these verse:
“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” 2 Tim 3:1-5
No other time fits this description better than ours.
If these are not the “last days,” explain this passage:
“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the LAST DAYS scoffers, walking after their own clusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? ….But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” 2 Peter 3
Seems like the last days are not going to be perfect and heavenly as Setfree and Martin want to claim. Yet it is in the “last days” that the Lords House shall be established in the top of the Mountains. And Christ will “suddenly” come to His temple at the “great and terrible day of the Lord.”
You guys are glossing over a lot in your interpretations. You are clumping all verses that use similar phrasing into one vague, incorrect concept about timing. But you seem to be willing to accept the idea that the “last days” were at the time of Christ and after Christ’s second coming. But you are not willing on this thread to accept that our day is considered by a great many prophets of old to be the “last days.”
I haven’t been following the discussion here but I think jackg has pretty much nailed the bigger issue which is correct methodology of Biblical interpretation. I spent consideraly time and effort on another thread going through this entire process pointing out the basic principles of Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis.
Cults get started and are maintained because someone is either very clever in manipulating the Biblical text, or people are too ignorant to check on things for themselves, or to lazy to put the time in to do a proper job of Biblical interpretation.
Hermeneutics is the science and art of Biblical interpretation. It is a science because it is guided by rules within a system; and it is an art becuase the application of the rules is by skill, and not by mechanical imitation. The primary goal of hermeneutics is to ascertain what God has said in the Sacred Sripture; to determine the meaning of the Word of God.
Now having said all this, it doesn’t mean that the average person can’t read and understand the Bible and that the Holy Spirit can’t reveal His truth to us through God’s Word. What it does mean is that there is a gigantic “caution” light blinking that warns us not to take the Biblical test places it wasn’t meant to go. People come up with all sorts of erroneous meanings and try to build doctrines, practices and patterns of beliefs that are simply not supported by the Biblical text.
That’s why Mormonism generally and Joseph Smith specifically could run wild with all sorts of speculation that is sold as “revelation”. Enthusiasm coupled with conviction sells regardless if something is true or not.
I would like to say a few things about the last days, as I read them in the Bible.
The term “Last Days” can have more than one meaning, and does. It has been used to refer to the time of Christ, and to the time just before the second coming and Milenial reign. Thus, in order to know what time is being spoken of in any given verse we must look at the rest of the events being described in other verses with it.
It is also true that many Old Testiment prophecies have more than one fulfillment, and thus, though it has already been fulfilled, it may yet again be fulfilled.
An example of this is the “Abomination of Desolation” as spoken by Daniel. Many people agree that this is a discription of the final tribulation period. However, scholars have also shown that all the details of this prophecy were fulfilled when the Greeks conquered Isreal and made their religion illegal. It was also fulfilled when Rome destroyed jeruselem and persecuted the Christians. Thus, this one prophecy already had two fulfillments, and yet there is a possible third in the future.
Thus, the refeneces given in the New Testiment of Christ having already come to his Temple (though I do not agree with this interpretation) may be a fulfillment, but that does not mean it will not be fulfilled again.
Concerning Acts, there are other signs given (which are also in Joel) that have yet to be fulfilled, thus the Last Days as spoken by Peter did begin with the day of Pentacost. However, while many did receive the spirit at that time, it was hardly poured out on all people, thus the actual fulfillment was not complete until very recently when it became possible to take the gospel, and thus the spirit, to all people.
Shem,
Bravo! This may be the first of your posts that makes complete sense (to me, anyway). Nice job!
Now, as to the Isaiah quote, I think, given the events that seem to immediately follow the term of “last days” this speaks to the time immediately preceeding the second coming, and does not reference in any way the first coming.
I would also speak to the actual words used in this chapter, as well as the parallel words in Micah 4.
“in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills.”
What is this actually saying. Now, the LDS know this as a reference to the Temple, but it is truly much more than that.
The Lord’s House is a reference to the Temple, for that is the only thing that is called the Lord’s House anywhere in the Bible.
However, the Mountian is not the house. It is the Mountian of the House. Also, while the house may be built, the Mountain is established, not built. As this prophecy is speaking of the Mountain of the Lord’s House, and not the house itself, than it means something outside of the Temple.
Thus, one must ask what the Mountian is, and how it is to be established.
First, what things are established. Now the online dictionary give the following definitions of Establish.
1. to install or settle in a position, place, business
2. to show to be valid or true
3. to cause to be accepted or recognized
4. to bring about permanently
5. to enact, appoint, or ordain for permanence, as a law; fix unalterably.
6. to make (a church) a national or state institution
Thus, the Mountain is an organization, or institute, set up with the Lord’s House (or Temple). This is the Lord’s church, having the Temple, but being separate. The Mountain, as has been pointed out earlier, is singular, meaning that there is only one. Thus, in the Last days the Church of God will be established (made permanent) in the top mountains.
Now, nothing in the above interpretation speaks to the LDS church. After all, Christ organized the church in Jeruselem, which is in the top of the mountains. Thus, this is just as easily applied to the rest of Christianity.
It only applies to the LDS if you believe in the Temple as a building set apart as the earthly dwelling place of God, which I find confirmed in the Bible. However, as others don’t this just as easily applies to the Christian church.
More Personal
MARTIN
I know perfectly well that there are two people spoken of in Malachi 3. I never denied this. What I said is that the chapter describes events that have not yet occered, and thus it cannot apply to what has already happened, or at least not only that.
As to John the Baptist being Elijah, Christ does not say this. He calls him Elias, which was to come. As I pointed out, the name Elias in the New Testiment has more than one meaning. It can mean Elijah, as it is the greak form of that name. However, since John denied being Elijah, it must also have a second meaning. This is the meaning being used by Christ when he called John Elias. Elias is a title given to men who are called to be a forrunner of great events. John was an Elias, or one “Crying in the wilderness” to make the paths of God strait.
Thus, all the scriptures are reconciled. John denied being Elijah, because Elijah is a different man, and had a different function. However, he was Elias because he was the messenger sent to prepare the way for the coming of Christ.
Shem,
Isaiah 2:2
“And it shall come to pass in the last days
That the mountain of the LORD’S house
Shall be established in the top of the mountains, And shall be exalted above the hills;
And all nations shall flow unto it.”
Will you listen to why your (LDS-taught) interpretation does not hold?
First of all, you changed the first occurrence of “mountain” to “The Church” because of it being “established”. However, the second occurrence of “mountain”, which is the exact same word in the Greek, you left to say “mountains”.
To be consistent, your interpretation of the first “mountain” would lead you to have to say that “the Church of God will be established (made permanent) on the tops of the church”.
The next problem is that this is a Jewish book, written to and about the Jewish people. To try to stuff the LDS organization into a partial phrase of a partial book is to completely ignore that the Jews understood this to be a temple that they would have in their midst.
The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that someone (I’m not giving you the blame) is using the LDS church to promote the idea that you can just pick a piece of verse from the Bible, fit yourself into it, and call it “revelation”. You can take many many verses out of context in the Bible, and go on to believe something that is not Biblical at all.
In fact, the best way to ensure that trusting people like you believe it is to mix the lie right together with the truth of the Bible.
I see the LDS church as one of the most clever things Satan has ever done, and this is why. Running away from something that is evil is something good people will do. Running toward something that is supposed to be God/Jesus is also something good people will do.
So setting up “the only true church about God/Jesus” and then proceeding to change the truth about everything God has ever said, is setting good people up in the most sinister way imaginable.
a question for kholland: I am in the same situation as you, that is being married to an active LDS. I would like to converse with you privately via e-mails if possible, about how to endure such tests of faith and how to live with someone of a different faith.
To be completely honest, I’m spiritually worn-out living this way. We have three young children and I worry for them and the influence their father is exerting upon them, even though they DO NOT attend the mormon church! We fight constantly about our different faiths, and just last night we almost called it quits because of my opposition of him going to the temple for the first time. He’s taking temple preparation classes, and I’m freaking out! I know well in whose presence he will be when he’s at the temple, and that is scary!
I would like to find a support group somewhere for people that are in the same situation as us.
I have been praying for him for ten years, but more intensely for the last three as he went back to the mormon church. I ask for prayers from the people in this blog. May the HOly Spirit open his eyes to see the falsehood of the mormon church, and give him the courage to walk away from it!!! Thanks!
Martin,
If Jesus came suddenly to His temple is referring to when He was on this earth the first time, then would it not reference the first instance He came to the temple when He was 12 (Luke 2:46) and not a second (Matt 4:5, Luke 4:9) or third (Mark 11:11) or what ever other time before He cleansed the temple? Why specifically would you say that it refers to an occurrance after He had already been there in the recent past? Especially when we look at Mark 11:11 and Mark 11:15 which says that Jesus visited the temple the day before He cleansed it.
Shematwater,
I understand that you cannot accept that John the Baptizer as Elijah. Your prophet claimed to fulfill this prophesy himself, but let’s look at who Elias is, if he is not Elijah. First we must understand that both Elias and Elijah are transliterations. The translators of the AV chose to transliterate the Greek word “Ἠλίας/Helias” to Elias maintaining the distinction between the Hebrew word “אֵלִיָּה / ’Eliyah” transliterated Elijah. The use of these two names referring to the same person in both Testaments shows the origionial source language of each Testament Greek and Hebrew in the New and Old Testaments respectively. The Orthodox Churches because of their use of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) also maintain the use of Elias for Elijah.
Elias is used in the AV 30 times (Matt 11:14; 16:14; 17:3; 17:4; Matt 17:10, 11, 12; 27:47, 49; Mark 6:15; 8:28; Mark 9:4, 5, 11, 12, 13; 15:35, 36; Luke 1:17; 4:25, 26; 9:8, 19, 30, 33, 54; John 1:21, 25; Rom 11:2; James 5:17)
A couple of examples will help in the AV John the Baptist does not deny being Elijah he denies being Elias (John 1:21). In the AV Elijah does not appear on the Mount of Transfiguration Elias does (Mark 9:4). In the AV James and John do not ask to call down fire as Elijah had done but as Elias had (Luke 9:54).
Michael P wrote “However, I do know that there is a growing number of Christians and scholars who believe as Martin do.”
Credit where its due here, I owe most of these ideas to N.T. Wright.
Actually, I’m willing to listen to all sides of the debate on pre-, post- and a-millenialism. I don’t think its really worth losing sleep over; that is, until someone pops up and says “we’re in the Last Days, so let’s build a Temple in the Rockies”. Where does that idea come from?
The underlying conflicts of the New Testament (and arguably the OT) fit well against the backdrop of the issues surrounding the intents and purposes of the Temple. I think there is considerable substance to the idea that Jesus and his followers comprised a counter-Temple movement.
In particular, the NT describes Jesus doing what the Temple should have been doing, but he does it in himself, without reliance or reference to the (physical) Temple. This is why, I believe, John’s Revelation includes the statement in Rev 21:22. Also, this is why the writer to the Hebrews goes to such great lengths to describe a Temple Mount “that cannot be touched” (Heb 12:18) and that “cannot be shaken” (Heb 12:27).
Another way to approach it is to say that, as the Temple Mount was the central focus (the “highest of the Mountains”, Isaiah 2:2) of the identity of ethnic Israel, so Jesus comprises the central focus of the identity of the true Israel, the Kingdom of God. The life of the Kingdom does not revolve around worship in the Temple; it revolves around worship in Christ.
I’ve suggested before that if you go through the NT and substituted the phrase “in Christ” with “in the Temple”, you actually get a meaningful description of how the Biblical Temple functioned. Insert the right words back in, and you see that the NT writers were moving the Temple aside and putting Christ in its place.
Let LDS build temples if they wish, but what they are doing is what Jesus and his followers stood against
Grace,
Feel free to email me any time. [email protected]
Sounds like you are going though a hard time. Just trust in the Lord and everything will work out the way God planed it.
Since there is still confusion about what the “last days” or “latter days” refers to, I will repost these verses:
“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” 2 Tim 3:1-5
No other time fits this description better than ours.
If these are not the “last days,” explain this passage:
“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the LAST DAYS scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? …But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” 2 Peter 3
In the “last days,” before the second coming of the Lord, there will be “scoffers” who deny that He will return. Can there be any question about the timing of this verse?
Setfree- your whole argument about the plurality of “mountain(s)” is moot- it in no way effects our interpretation. Single or plural- it is the same. And I do not interpret the word “mountain” to church.
Martin- did you see my rebuttal to your reference to Revelations 21:22 and Hebrews? You are continuing as if your interpretation stands- when it is way off track.
By the way, your method of replacing words in the NT with words you are trying to define is a circular process that produces the result you desire. This is poor textual criticism at the least.
SETFREE
Did you not read my post? I am perfectly willing to admit that if you believe as most Christians do this verse would have no reference to the LDS church. However, I believe in the Temple, and thus I can see this in the text.
Also, as to the mountains, I really don’t care what the Greek word was, and I probably never will. As the first is obviously being used as a symbol and the second is not what difference does the greek word mean? How many words in Greek can be translated mountain? From what I know there is only one, making this point of no consequence.
If you want a more full discription of what I think the passage means, I think the Mountains are literal mountains. I think the hills that the Mountian of the Lord’s House is to be exalted above, however, are the rest of the Christian sects. However, my point was not to give personal interpretation, but to do as people so frequently ask of me, which is to let the words interpret themselves. By doing this I get what I gave in my previous post.
ABOUT JOHN AND ELIJAH
If you believe John to be Elijah you have to either accept reincarnation (as Elijah would have been born twice) or you must accept that the Prophecy of Malachi did not refer to the prophet who was taken up in a chariot of fire. However, if Malachi did mean this prophet, and reincarnation is false, than you must accept that John is not Elijah and that by calling him Elias Christ was refering to something else besides Malachi’s prophecy. Any other explanation is without logic.
Jim,
I find myself amazed to be quoting Shem, but since it was a Mormon who wrote it, maybe you’ll “buy” it better?
“The term “Last Days” can have more than one meaning, and does. It has been used to refer to the time of Christ, and to the time just before the second coming and Milenial reign. Thus, in order to know what time is being spoken of in any given verse we must look at the rest of the events being described in other verses with it.”
I believe that the problem you’re having with Martin’s verses is that he is looking at them from the frame of mind of knowing the entire Bible and what it is about at a very studied level. You are just trying to take some verses out of context and use them. Hence, you cannot hear what he is saying because your frames of reference are so far apart.
Even if my point about mountains is “moot”, as you say, you have yet to show me how the Bible is speaking about the LDS church. Have you found your LDS temple stuff in the Bible somewhere (ordinances, etc)? Have you ever found where it says there will be lots of temples? Have you found a place where it says Lucifer should get the glory in a play in the temple?
Until you do, your point, my friend, is “moot” because you are simply pulling something out of mid air and squishing it into the text to suit yourself.
Shem,
You are obviously quite young. I really don’t know what else to say to you.
Shematwater,
In order to believe that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophesy of Elijah you do not have to accept reincarnation, you only have to accept that Jesus Christ understood these prophesies better than we do and trust him when he says it has been fulfilled.
In order to not believe that John the Baptist did not fulfill the prophesy concerning Elijah you have to reject the direct testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ determine that Christ lied to his disciples and believe the words of the man Joseph Smith instead.
For me this is not a hard choice.
Setfree,
You said “I believe that the problem you’re having with Martin’s verses is that he is looking at them from the frame of mind of knowing the entire Bible and what it is about at a very studied level.”
In other words- you like his interpretation better. What do you know of my knowledge of the Bible? The circular nature of the logic of some LDS critics here is mind-boggling.
This is really becoming tiresome. Can you please show me how I am wrong with the text. Simply saying I am biased, or don’t have the correct view of the bible doesn’t work. I have shown you time after time in many verses that the time frame often referred to as the last days refers to the days before the second coming of Christ.
The verses Martin referenced in Revelations and Hebrews describe Jerusalem in the context of a “new heaven” and “new earth.” Are you saying that this has all happened? I am shocked and disappointed with the EV interpretation of the Bible here- seriously.
Please, please provide a linear answer to my several scritpural examples that show the time frame for the last days.
By the way, Israel functioned under the Aaronic Priesthood under the Law of Moses and not the Melchizedek. Hence, the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood were not practiced in the temple in Jerusalem from Moses to Jesus.
Gundeck- The “spirit of Elias” has multiple applications. Zacharias was told his son, John, would go forth in the “Spirit of Elias” (or Elijah). That does not mean he was Elijah. Jesus said “Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already…..” He is saying that Elias/Elijah will come and has already come- TWO EVENTS. So John was operating in the “spirit of Elias/Elijah,” but was not the prophet Elijah. The return of Elijah the Prophet (not the spirit of Elijah/Elias) was to occur 1800 years later. That is our take, and it does not contradict what Malachi, John, or Jesus said.
Jim,
I’ve been reading and meditating on Malachi in order to answer a couple of your other questions.
The “curse” you asked for an interpretation for is described inside of the book of Malachi (of course!). Basically, the curses are the opposite of the blessings God says will come if His people will turn back to Him.
For example, notice that in Mal 3:10-11, God says if the people will start tithing again, He will “open for you the windows of heaven And pour out for you such blessing that there will not be room enough to receive it! And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes so that he will not destroy the fruit of your ground, Nor shall the vine fail to bear fruit for you in the field”.
At the time of Malachi’s warning, among other evil things going on, the Levite priests have been teaching the people to loathe God’s commands (Chapter 1 and 2) and the Israelite men are divorcing their wives to marry women who worship foreign gods, etc. “Turning the hearts of the fathers” is about getting them to repent and turn back to God. The children will get to see God in the lives of their fathers, and will be in a position to learn His ways now that the fathers are “back in line”. Of course, when the fathers get right with God, they’ll naturally see what kind of leaders they ought to have been to their children, and be inclined to be better parents.
The Elijah restoring thing (see the agreement with Luke 1:17) is about “preparing the way” for the LORD, by getting the people to repent of their sinful ways and get ready to receive Him.
It’s the same story in Malachi as it is when John the Baptist comes to get people ready for Jesus to come on the scene.
Now look at Malachi 4:5-6:
“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet
Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD And he will turn
The hearts of the fathers to the children,
And the hearts of the children to their fathers,
Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse”
See how it fits? ctd