Who is the restrainer?

[Lovette]

When I read Jesus’ words to the Samaritan woman, I don’t see Him abolishing the category of a temple; I see Him correcting her assumption that worship is geographically restricted. He tells her that true worship is not tied to Gerizim or Jerusalem, because the Father seeks worshipers who come to Him in spirit and truth. That’s about the mode of worship, not the non‑existence of any future temple. Jesus never says, “There will never again be a temple,” and He never redefines every prophetic temple passage as “the body of believers.” He simply tells her that salvation is not locked to a mountain.

And when Jesus says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” I don’t treat that as a universal definition of “temple.” John explicitly tells me He was speaking of His body, not redefining every future use of the word. If Jesus’ body were the final and only meaning of “temple,” then Paul could never say I am the temple of the Holy Spirit, and Revelation could never speak of the heavenly temple. Scripture uses the word naos in multiple ways, and Jesus’ statement in John 2 is one of those ways — not the only one.

So when someone tells me, “Jesus taught that the future temple will be only inside the body,” I simply point out that He never said that. He taught that worship is not confined to a location, and He taught that His own body is the true dwelling of God — but He never erased the prophetic temple language of Ezekiel, Zechariah, or Revelation. I’m not going to collapse all those categories into one metaphor just because a system wants them flattened. The text deserves better than that.

Whatever you think of the temple in Ez. 40-48 is, it won't be a physical temple built in the current Jerusalem - "you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father." Lk. 20:24 also states that Jerusalem will be trampled until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled. Therefore from 70 AD to his return, the temple could only be the church, as his resurrected body. If a new temple is built for worship, wouldn't he be lying? The prophetic temple language, as I said, was meant for the millennial kingdom, consider that the fourth temple then.

 

[OMC]

Whatever you think of the temple in Ez. 40-48 is, it won't be a physical temple built in the current Jerusalem - "you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father." Lk. 20:24 also states that Jerusalem will be trampled until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled. Therefore from 70 AD to his return, the temple could only be the church, as his resurrected body. If a new temple is built for worship, wouldn't he be lying? The prophetic temple language, as I said, was meant for the millennial kingdom, consider that the fourth temple then.

What you’ve written is thoughtful but driven by a system that forces Jesus’ words into a shape He never intended.
When Jesus tells the Samaritan woman, “neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father,”
He is not abolishing the possibility of any future physical temple; He is correcting her assumption that worship is geographically restricted.
He is speaking of the mode of worship, not the non‑existence of any future sacred structure. If I let the text speak instead of a system, I cannot turn John 4 into a universal cancellation of prophetic temple language.
And when you cite Luke 21:24 about Jerusalem being trampled until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, that does not mean “there can never again be a temple.”
It means Jerusalem’s sovereignty is suspended until God’s appointed time.
You’ve taken that and built a conclusion Scripture never makes: that from 70 AD until Christ’s return, the only possible temple is “the church as His resurrected body.”
That is a theological system, not an exegetical conclusion.
And when you say that if a physical temple were ever built Jesus would be “lying,” I must gently chastise that attitude because it pits Jesus against the prophets, as though His words in John 4 erase Ezekiel, Zechariah, or Revelation. They do not.
Jesus never said, “There will never again be a temple.” He said worship is not confined to Jerusalem. That is a different claim entirely.
So I say this kindly: do not let a system flatten Scripture’s categories. The prophetic temple language stands on its own terms, and John 4 does not cancel it.

 

[Lovette]

What you’ve written is thoughtful but driven by a system that forces Jesus’ words into a shape He never intended.
When Jesus tells the Samaritan woman, “neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father,”
He is not abolishing the possibility of any future physical temple; He is correcting her assumption that worship is geographically restricted.
He is speaking of the mode of worship, not the non‑existence of any future sacred structure. If I let the text speak instead of a system, I cannot turn John 4 into a universal cancellation of prophetic temple language.
And when you cite Luke 21:24 about Jerusalem being trampled until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, that does not mean “there can never again be a temple.”
It means Jerusalem’s sovereignty is suspended until God’s appointed time.
You’ve taken that and built a conclusion Scripture never makes: that from 70 AD until Christ’s return, the only possible temple is “the church as His resurrected body.”
That is a theological system, not an exegetical conclusion.
And when you say that if a physical temple were ever built Jesus would be “lying,” I must gently chastise that attitude because it pits Jesus against the prophets, as though His words in John 4 erase Ezekiel, Zechariah, or Revelation. They do not.
Jesus never said, “There will never again be a temple.” He said worship is not confined to Jerusalem. That is a different claim entirely.
So I say this kindly: do not let a system flatten Scripture’s categories. The prophetic temple language stands on its own terms, and John 4 does not cancel it.

I've already told you that Jesus's teaching was not at any odds with the prophets' vision, the temple they saw was meant for the millennial kingdom - after the Lord's return. Any possibility of a physical third temple is excluded, because per Daniel's prophecy, "desolation is determined till the end." It's not about this or that system, but what the text plainly states, unless you question the translation.

 

[God-fearing]

Another question if I may...

The scripture refers to .......time of the Gentiles ful filled.
How does this relate to the church when we read....there is no Greek or Jew but all are one in Christ Jesus?

 

[OMC]

I've already told you that Jesus's teaching was not at any odds with the prophets' vision, the temple they saw was meant for the millennial kingdom - after the Lord's return. Any possibility of a physical third temple is excluded, because per Daniel's prophecy, "desolation is determined till the end." It's not about this or that system, but what the text plainly states, unless you question the translation

You say a physical third temple is “excluded” because Daniel declares “desolation is determined till the end,” and you treat that phrase as though it means no temple can ever exist again.
But Daniel never says that. “Desolation” describes the condition of Jerusalem under Gentile trampling, not the impossibility of a rebuilt structure.
You’ve taken a prophecy about judgment and turned it into a prophecy about architectural impossibility, and I must gently chastise that attitude because it is the system speaking, not the Scripture.
When Jesus says, “neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father,” He is not cancelling future prophetic geography; He is correcting the Samaritan woman’s assumption that worship is restricted to a location.
He is speaking of the mode of worship, not the non‑existence of any future temple.
And when you say the prophets’ temple is “meant for the millennial kingdom,” you are right — but then you contradict yourself by insisting that “any possibility of a physical third temple is excluded.”
If the prophetic temple belongs to the millennial kingdom, then by your own words a physical temple must exist after the Lord’s return. The system you’re leaning on forces you to deny what you just affirmed.
So I say this kindly: the text does not exclude a future temple; your framework does.
Daniel speaks of desolation, not impossibility. Jesus speaks of spiritual worship, not the abolition of prophetic structures. The prophets speak of a millennial temple, and nothing in Scripture calls them liars.

 

[Lovette]

Another question if I may...

The scripture refers to .......time of the Gentiles ful filled.
How does this relate to the church when we read....there is no Greek or Jew but all are one in Christ Jesus?

First, see Rom. 1:16, salvation is first for the Jews then to the Greeks/Gentiles, then the church will be predominantly Gentile; Second, politically speaking, Jews will be dominated by Gentiles, and Jerusalem will be occupied by Gentiles, until the Lord returns.

 

[Lovette]

What you’ve written is thoughtful but driven by a system that forces Jesus’ words into a shape He never intended.
When Jesus tells the Samaritan woman, “neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father,”
He is not abolishing the possibility of any future physical temple; He is correcting her assumption that worship is geographically restricted.
He is speaking of the mode of worship, not the non‑existence of any future sacred structure. If I let the text speak instead of a system, I cannot turn John 4 into a universal cancellation of prophetic temple language.
And when you cite Luke 21:24 about Jerusalem being trampled until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, that does not mean “there can never again be a temple.”
It means Jerusalem’s sovereignty is suspended until God’s appointed time.
You’ve taken that and built a conclusion Scripture never makes: that from 70 AD until Christ’s return, the only possible temple is “the church as His resurrected body.”
That is a theological system, not an exegetical conclusion.
And when you say that if a physical temple were ever built Jesus would be “lying,” I must gently chastise that attitude because it pits Jesus against the prophets, as though His words in John 4 erase Ezekiel, Zechariah, or Revelation. They do not.
Jesus never said, “There will never again be a temple.” He said worship is not confined to Jerusalem. That is a different claim entirely.
So I say this kindly: do not let a system flatten Scripture’s categories. The prophetic temple language stands on its own terms, and John 4 does not cancel it.

How about we just agree to disagree. I never suggested that the temple prophecy in Ezekiel is cancelled out, it's for a rededicated temple in the millennial kingdom, but not any time before that.

 

[God-fearing]

You say a physical third temple is “excluded” because Daniel declares “desolation is determined till the end,” and you treat that phrase as though it means no temple can ever exist again.
But Daniel never says that. “Desolation” describes the condition of Jerusalem under Gentile trampling, not the impossibility of a rebuilt structure.
You’ve taken a prophecy about judgment and turned it into a prophecy about architectural impossibility, and I must gently chastise that attitude because it is the system speaking, not the Scripture.
When Jesus says, “neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father,” He is not cancelling future prophetic geography; He is correcting the Samaritan woman’s assumption that worship is restricted to a location.
He is speaking of the mode of worship, not the non‑existence of any future temple.
And when you say the prophets’ temple is “meant for the millennial kingdom,” you are right — but then you contradict yourself by insisting that “any possibility of a physical third temple is excluded.”
If the prophetic temple belongs to the millennial kingdom, then by your own words a physical temple must exist after the Lord’s return. The system you’re leaning on forces you to deny what you just affirmed.
So I say this kindly: the text does not exclude a future temple; your framework does.
Daniel speaks of desolation, not impossibility. Jesus speaks of spiritual worship, not the abolition of prophetic structures. The prophets speak of a millennial temple, and nothing in Scripture calls them liars.

Jesus speaks of a kingdom to come and all nations to come to worship. This does point to a material structure built up again.
I agree with your findings here but with this in mind would this be regarded as the 4 temple.
I see the third temple as destroyed because of the abomination of desolation that temple was made for sacrificial service which is not required any more.

 

[OMC]

Jesus speaks of a kingdom to come and all nations to come to worship. This does point to a material structure built up again.
I agree with your findings here but with this in mind would this be regarded as the 4 temple.
I see the third temple as destroyed because of the abomination of desolation that temple was made for sacrificial service which is not required any more.

Your point is sincere but shaped by a numbering system Scripture never uses.
You’re right that Jesus speaks of a future kingdom and nations coming to worship, and that this points to a real, physical, millennial temple — but when you say the “third temple” must be destroyed because its sacrificial purpose is no longer required, you’re adding a theological layer the text itself never states.
Daniel speaks of desolation, not the permanent cancellation of any pre‑millennial structure; Jesus speaks of abomination, not the abolition of all future temples; and Ezekiel simply describes the millennial temple, without calling it the fourth or implying that a prior one cannot exist. The prophets never number the temples, never forbid a pre‑millennial one, and never say the millennial temple replaces a “third” that must be destroyed. That numbering comes from a framework, not from the Word.

 

[God-fearing]

Your point is sincere but shaped by a numbering system Scripture never uses.
You’re right that Jesus speaks of a future kingdom and nations coming to worship, and that this points to a real, physical, millennial temple — but when you say the “third temple” must be destroyed because its sacrificial purpose is no longer required, you’re adding a theological layer the text itself never states.
Daniel speaks of desolation, not the permanent cancellation of any pre‑millennial structure; Jesus speaks of abomination, not the abolition of all future temples; and Ezekiel simply describes the millennial temple, without calling it the fourth or implying that a prior one cannot exist. The prophets never number the temples, never forbid a pre‑millennial one, and never say the millennial temple replaces a “third” that must be destroyed. That numbering comes from a framework, not from the Word.

But one would have to admit that the alter and blood pits will not be in use nor the Levitical priest.
The possibility of restoration and reconstruction seems to be relevant but not conclusive?

 

[OMC]

But one would have to admit that the alter and blood pits will not be in use nor the Levitical priest.
The possibility of restoration and reconstruction seems to be relevant but not conclusive?

You’re right that the altar, blood pits, and Levitical sacrifices will not be in use in the millennial kingdom the way they were under Moses — the cross has fulfilled the sacrificial system, and Hebrews makes that unmistakable. But that does not mean Ezekiel’s temple vision excludes an altar or priestly service; it means the function changes, not the existence. The prophets describe a restored structure, restored worship, restored priestly order, and restored national approach to God — but they never say the restoration must replicate Mosaic blood rituals, nor do they say the absence of those rituals makes the prophecy “inconclusive.” The possibility of reconstruction is not only relevant; it is textually expected. What remains open is not whether God restores a physical sanctuary, but how its worship operates in a post‑cross world.

 

[Lovette]

Jesus speaks of a kingdom to come and all nations to come to worship. This does point to a material structure built up again.
I agree with your findings here but with this in mind would this be regarded as the 4 temple.
I see the third temple as destroyed because of the abomination of desolation that temple was made for sacrificial service which is not required any more.

God himself denounced further animal sacrifice, Is. 1:11, not the Antichrist. Lord Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice.

“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?”
Says the Lord.
“I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
And the fat of fed cattle.
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
Or of lambs or goats.

 

[God-fearing]

Now another question.
Is it true Tim Allen will be in charge of the restoration of the temple?

 

[Omegatime]

Salvation is over by faith for the gentiles when the Day of the lord comes. Those who enter the vial or bowl judgements are saved by works, not by faith.

When the Lord returns in the sheep/goat judgement that is about works, not faith

 

[Researcher]

What matters is whether the interpretation actually follows the text’s grammar, context, and canonical usage...

And yet, you have demonstrated time and time again that it doesn't matter to you. Your rhetoric is becoming extremely hypocrytical.

Put up or shut up. Stop avoiding my challenges.

— not whether someone feels convinced by their own reading

Again, you are being hypocritical. Stop 'feeling convinced' that I am wrong and prove it.

 

[OMC]

And yet, you have demonstrated time and time again that it doesn't matter to you. Your rhetoric is becoming extremely hypocrytical.

Put up or shut up. Stop avoiding my challenges.



Again, you are being hypocritical. Stop 'feeling convinced' that I am wrong and prove it.

What challenge? Lets do it.

 

[Researcher]

What challenge? Lets do it.

I will create a new thread sometime this weekend.

 

[cv5]

No there won't be a physical brick and mortar third temple. The Aqsa mosque is the "abomination of desolation" that will remain till the Lord returns.

No. Evidently you do not yet realize that the so-called Temple Mount is undoubtedly the Antonia Fortress precincts. And that the true location of the Temple is in the city of David, presently Israeli territory.

And now you do.

And your theory that the A of D is the mosque complex is absurd biblically illiterate nonsense.

 

[Lovette]

No. Evidently you do not yet realize that the so-called Temple Mount is undoubtedly the Antonia Fortress precincts. And that the true location of the Temple is in the city of David, presently Israeli territory.

And now you do.

And your theory that the A of D is the mosque complex is absurd biblically illiterate nonsense.

The third temple is the body of Christ, Jn. 2:21, period.

 

[Lovette]

No. Evidently you do not yet realize that the so-called Temple Mount is undoubtedly the Antonia Fortress precincts. And that the true location of the Temple is in the city of David, presently Israeli territory.

And now you do.

And your theory that the A of D is the mosque complex is absurd biblically illiterate nonsense.

and this thread is about the identity of the restrainer, not the temple.