Finding Unity in Diversity

Aaron Whitmire

Revelation • Sermon • Submitted 3 years ago

Revelation 11:1

Temple

0 ratings

· 5 views

John was told to rise and measure the temple of God.

Notes

Transcript

Introduction

A couple of months ago Katie and I were out doing some last-minute shopping for Christmas and we found a funny little tin sign that we decided to buy for both my dad and her dad, my father-in-law. The sign was navy blue with bright yellow writing that reads as follows, “Ask Dad, he knows it all!”. I’m not sure where my father-in law put his sign, but the last time I saw my dad’s, it was right where everyone can see it when they come into my parents’ kitchen! Why(?), well, because like the sign says, ask dad he knows it all! ---- Now, I know that sounds funny, and mine and my wife’s intention in giving those signs to our dads was to get a good laugh from everyone, but how often do we apply the words of that sign to our favorite preacher, our favorite commentator, or even ourselves when it comes to interpreting the Bible? ---- Ask (put any name here), he/she knows it all! ---- The fact is, church, that there are passages in the Bible that are difficult to understand, whether we like to admit it or not, and when you stop and think about it what do these passages seem to most often do to believers? ---- They divide them. But that shouldn’t be the case, should it? Shouldn’t these passages that can often be so divisive actually cause us to come together in unity because they point us to the fact that we have to place our faith and trust in Jesus Christ, and not some fallible preacher? ---- The passage we come to today, Revelation 11, is one of those passages, and I am the fallible preacher who’s going to present it to you. I’m going to confess to you here at the outset of this message that I am unsure as to what the minute details of this chapter are actually about. I think the major themes surrounding the persecution, protection, and triumph of God and his people are crystal clear, but as to what the temple; the holy city; the time periods of 42 months and 1260 days; and who exactly the two witnesses are; I humbly confess to you that I really don’t know. All I have to give you are my opinions, just like other preachers, based on how I read other portions of Scripture. My hope is that in presenting you with the different views godly men and women hold concerning what’s said in this chapter, you’ll see the need for us to find unity in the clear things given to us in God’s word. So, with that said, let’s read Revelation 11.

Read Rev. 11 (back up and focus on Rev. 11:1)

Prayer

Today, we’re going to focus our attention on one verse, that being Revelation 11:1 where John mentions God’s sanctuary (HCSB) or the temple.

11:1 “The Temple”

As we start to look at Rev. 11, the first thing I want you to keep in mind is that what John says in this chapter is part of one long vision running from Rev. 10:1 to the end of chapter 12. What does that mean? It means that that all of the information in this long portion of Scripture is interrelated in some way.

-Today, we’re going to focus our attention on one verse, that being Revelation 11:1 where John mentions God’s sanctuary (HCSB) or the temple.

-Take a look at v.1; John says that he was told to “rise and measure the temple of God, and the alter, and those who worship in it.” When you read that, the obvious question is what temple is John talking about? ---- To say that there’s A LOT of debate about the answer to that question would be a vast understatement, and the fact is that any one of four common answers could be given, and these depend totally on how you read other parts of the Bible. So, if you’re ready, lets dive in a take a look at these!

1) The first interpretation is that John is taking about Herod’s Temple which stood at the time of Christ (this would be the temple the disciples referred to in Mt. 24; Mk. 13; and Lk. 21 as they we’re walking with Jesus to the Mount of Olives). Most commentators seem to believe this interpretation hinges on when John wrote Revelation. If the book was written before AD 70, then John could be referring to Herod’s Temple. If that’s the case, then it would mean that Revelation 11 is giving us a description of the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 by the Romans under Titus. Like I said just a minute ago, the big problem with this view is that most of the evidence seems to point to Revelation having been written somewhere around AD 95, fifteen years after the destruction of Jerusalem and Herod’s Temple. That said, however, this doesn’t totally rule out this interpretation (that this is talking about Herod’s Temple) because it may be that John is speaking retrospectively about what happen in AD 70, after all, Revelation can and does often flash to different points of time in history, both past and future. Also, you have to bear in mind what John said in Rev. 1:19 about what he was told to write, “Write therefore the things which you have seen (it’s highly probable that John witnesses the destruction of the temple in AD 70), and the things which are, and the things which shall take place after these things.” Although the view that John is talking about Herod’s Temple is a minority position, you can easily see how some commentators like Kenneth Gentry and Hank Hanegraaff (the Bible Answer Man) hold it. Also, older commentators like Adam Clarke mention this as a possibility. ---- The problem for this view is that it doesn’t seem to coincide with what Ezekiel says in his vision of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-48, and in Rev. 11:1 John is making a reference to Ezekiel’s vision.

2) The second interpretation holds that John is referring to a future temple yet to be built. Dispensational interpreters like David Jeremiah; Dwight Pentecost; Charles Stanley; and John Mac Arthur follow this line of reasoning, but there are also some non-Dispensationalists like Walter Martin and Richard Hess, professor at Denver Seminary who believe this is referring to a future rebuilt temple. Some of the interpreters who hold this view (like Jeremiah; Pentecost; Stanley; and MacArthur) believe that the church will be removed from the earth via what’s known as the pre-tribulation rapture, prior to a future seven-year period of time known as the tribulation. Others like Walter Martin and Richard Hess would say, no, the church won’t be removed from the earth, but will be protected while witnessing the building and use of this future temple in Jerusalem. The strength of viewing what John says here in Rev. 11:1 as a reference to a future rebuilt temple is that is takes what the text says at face value, and also what’s said about Ezekiel’s Temple in Ezekiel 40-48 at face value as well. The problem for this view is that its simplicity may well be its downfall because it’s well known that the Hebrew language can be, and often is, highly symbolic. Also, you’ve got to remember that the book of Revelation itself is apocalyptic literature which is extremely symbolic (Rev. 1:1). So, is John referring here in Rev. 11:1 to a future rebuilt temple in Jerusalem? Only time will tell!

3) The third view is that the temple John refers to in Rev. 11:1 is a symbolic way of referring to all of God’s people, what you and I would know as the church made up of both believing Jews and Gentiles. Interpreters holding this position believe that the rapture happens at the end of the tribulation period, the rapture being part of a whole complex of events we know as the second coming of Christ. They would say that the church remains on earth, but she is given special protection by God until the end. You’d find this view in commentators like Baptists Craig Keener and Jim Hamilton Jr, and Presbyterian Scholar G.K. Beale. Interpreters holding this view do so based on a combination of what’s said in both Ezekiel 40-48 and Revelation 11. To better understand it we’ll need to read the first few verses of Ezekiel 40, and then I’ll make a few comments.

“1 In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was taken, on that same day the hand of the Lord was upon me and He brought me there. 2 In the visions of God (remember that phrase, it’s important) He brought me into the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain, and on it to the south there was a structure like a city. 3 So He brought me there; and behold, there was a man whose appearance was like the appearance of bronze, with a line of flax and a measuring rod in his hand; and he was standing in the gateway. 4 The man said to me, “Son of man, see with your eyes, hear with your ears, and give attention to all that I am going to show you; for you have been brought here in order to show it to you. Declare to the house of Israel all that you see” (Ezek. 40:1-4). (And then Ezekiel is taken on a tour of the temple and given its measurements.)

-Obviously we don’t have time to read Ezekiel 40-48, but some things those holding to a symbolic view would point out about the temple Ezekiel sees in his vision, and how it possibly relates to the temple mentioned by John in Rev. 11:1 are as follows: 1) at no point is Ezekiel or anyone else ever told to build this temple. 2) Ezekiel is only given dimensions of length and width, there are no height dimensions for the temple. 3) Ezekiel’s vision of the temple is introduced with the phrase “visions of God” in Ezek. 40:2, and that terminology, when it’s used elsewhere in Ezekiel, is used in conjunction with prophetic visions that are highly symbolic (Ezek. 1:1; 8:3; and a version of it is used in Ezek. 11:24). If you’re going to be consistent about how you interpret what’s said in Ezekiel 40-48 (Ezekiel’s Temple), if you interpret the other visions that use this terminology as symbolic in some manner, then you have to do the same in the vision of the temple in chapters 40-48. (NOTE: It’s important to realize that just because something is symbolic, that doesn’t mean it’s not referring to a real reality, whatever that reality might be! Neither does interpreting something in a symbolic way mean that someone is allegorizing or spiritualizing what’s said in the text. Accusing someone of that is a strawman argument, and that dog won’t hunt!) 4) Ezekiel’s vision of the temple comes after the battle of Gog and Magog (Rev. 20:7-10) which comes after the thousand years (the millennium) which would place what’s being described in Ezekiel’s temple vision of Ezekiel 40-48, not in the millennium, but in the new heaven and earth of Revelation 21 and 22. Now, those holding the symbolic view would say here, hold on, there’s a huge problem if you want to say this is a future temple to be built during the millennium because John places Ezekiel’s temple vision not in the millennium, but in the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21; 22). Here’s the issue; listen to what John says in Revelation 21:22, “And I saw no temple in it (that is the new heaven and earth), for the Lord God, the Almighty, and the Lamb are its temple.” You cannot escape the fact that every reference in Ezekiel 40-48, Ezekiel’s vision of the temple, found in the book of Revelation occurs not in Revelation 20 (the millennium), but in Rev. 21 and 22, the new heaven and the new earth, and John says there’s no temple there. So, those who hold a symbolic view would say, if you believe this is a future rebuilt temple, you have to deal with these issues. 5) Fifth and lastly, those holding to the view that the temple of Revelation 11 is symbolic of the church would say that the entire NT presents Jesus as the completion and fulfillment of everything the OT temple with its sacrificial system stood for. All one has to do to realize that is read the book of Hebrews, it’s pretty clear that the Temple and the whole OT sacrificial system, the Old Covenant, finds its fulfillment in Christ. Hebrews 8:13 says, “When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.” (In fact, it can be argued quite persuasively that the mediatory role of the nation of Israel, to the other nations, finds its fulfillment in Christ as well.) All of this is why the NT authors use building or temple language to refer to believers! In 1 Cor. 2:16-17 Paul writes, “16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.” Also, as Peter writes, “You also, as living stones, are being built up as spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:5). All of this, to those holding to a Symbolic view of the temple, would mean that there is no longer a need for a physical temple with a sacrificial system. ---- The strength of this view is that is takes very seriously the symbolic nature of the language, but that’s also it’s weakness; what if the language isn’t meant to be taken so symbolically.

4) The fourth and final view says that John’s vision of the temple in Rev. 11 is referring to the ultimate preservation and salvation of the Jewish people. This view holds that the temple is symbolic, but because of the Jewish flavor surrounding what John writes, the symbolic language must refer in some way to ethnic Israel. Interpreters holding this position would say that John is drawing off of the same premise as Paul in Romans 11:25-27. Paul writes, “25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.” 27 “This is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.” In other words, what John is giving us here in Revelation 11:1, according to this view, is a symbolic picture of the believing remnant of ethnic Israel, and their conversion in the last days right before the return of Christ. Just like the other views this one is held by some serious Bible scholars like George Eldon Ladd, I.T. Beckwith, and Danny Akin. Its biggest strength is that it seems to combine all of the best from the other views, which may also be its weakness.

Conclusion

So, are you confused yet? As you can see there’s quite a bit of difference concerning what this temple in Rev. 11 is. The reason I gave you the names of the individuals who hold these different positions is to show you that there are serious preachers and Bible scholars who differ in what they believe John is talking about! And do you know what(?), they’re all fellow believers and followers of Jesus Christ, and I’m certain that one day I’ll see every one of them in heaven. Paul said in Romans 14:5, “One man regards one day above another, another regards everyday alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind.” The point is that while there are fundamental things in the Christian faith that we, as believers, cannot disagree about and still call ourselves Christians, there are other things, gray areas, we can debate and still be brothers and sisters in Christ. ---- (I know, however, that most of you are wondering where I stand on this, and rightfully so. I my mind, the temple John mentions in Rev. 11 is a symbolic reference either to the church as a whole, or to the ultimate preservation and salvation of the Jewish people. Personally, I don’t’ see the need for a rebuilt temple when I consider what Jesus has accomplished. However, it’s not going to bother me if they start laying blocks in Jerusalem either because wouldn’t it be amazing if the temple were to be rebuilt!) Either way, that’s not the most important thing; the most important thing is whether or not you are a believer in the one to whom the temple pointed, Jesus Christ. Let’s close with a word of prayer.