I do not understand your remarks about Jesus needing a rebuilt Temple .
James speaks in Acts 15 of the Tabernacle of David , but this is not the Temple surely .
Revelation 21 speaks of the Tabernacle of God , but neither is this the Temple surely .
Isaiah 66 v1 -2 tells us that ' those things hath been '........
This is an interesting subject. Most evangelcal writers that I am aware of believe that one will be rebuilt, probably two. The first will be the one that antichrist will sit in as said in Thessalonians, and the other the mellenial temple describes in the book of Ezekiel. The reason for building them would be to look back at the meaning of the sacrifice of
Christ typically as they looked forward to it before Christ died.
Good Christians disagree on this subject for obvious reasons. But if we do without the mellenial temple than the prophecy of Ezekiels temple did not nor ever will come to pass, unless we understand it only in symbolic way which creates even more problems. For how can we subjectively treat one passage one way and another literally?
Ezekiel's Temple is like David's Tabernacle .
' The Lord is There .'
But the Third Temple I just don't get . If Solomon's Temple was anthropomorhic , it served one purpose , as a shadow of Christ .
Christ even related himself to the Temple , body-wise .
I just don't understand why any sane Christian would want to build a Temple devoted to obsolete animal sacrifices ( as warned against in Isaiah 66 ) and later habitation by the Antichrist !!
I'm not getting it , and I don't see what the Third Temple has to do with Ezekiel's Temple . I don't see why the latter necessitates the former .
The temple that antichrist will sit in will be built in unbelief and rebellion. But Ezekiel's is another story. It was never built. The elaborate plans were never fulfilled. If we say they are just symbolic than we run into a very knotty problem hermeneutically speaking. Who decides what is pure symbolism from that which for hundreds of years was taken as symbolic? Do you really think that Ezekiel and the Jews of Ezekiel's day thought of the temple of Ezekiel 40 as symbolic only?
Jesus said that Herods temple was like His body, yes, but He did not deny the reality of Herods temple. The literal was a symbol of the spiritual. But to have non-literal temple symbolic of a spiritual reality is inconsistent with the way the bible speaks throughout on other subjects. What is literal is literal? There are no clues in Ezekiel that tell us that Ezekiel's temple is not real, but only figurative. Is the war in the two chapters before Ezekiel 40 also just symbolic? How about the return to their own land in Ezekiel 36-37? And just because the one had an initial fulfillment in the return of 537 BC does not mean that that it does not apply to yet future events such as 1948.
And if that prophecy of the return home to Israel was fulfilled never to again have any future fulfillment, than what about the war in Ezekiel 38-39? Why are they side by side and why do they even overlap, for the last verses of Ezekiel 39 tie in to Ezekiel 36-37 about the return home. Chapters 36 to the end of the book are one unit, especially chapters 36-39. Beside, Revelation speaks of "Gog and Magag" as battling at the end of the Mellenium, and hence another great war since the first happens just before the Mellenium. (Unless you are an amellenialist or post mellenialist.) Thus the prophecy of Gog and Magog refers to more than one battle. And if this prophecy refers to more than one event, than why not the chapters before Ezekiel 38 about the return of the nation back to thier homeland?
I am going to put this on the forum for others to read. I think it will be helpful for others too.