10

From my understanding of dispensationalism, at some point in the future, I believe either prior to or just after the rapture, the temple on Moriah will need to be rebuilt.

However, presumably, the reason for rebuilding the temple would be to resume the temple sacrifices that were going on there until the Romans destroyed it. This motivation seems even more likely (to me), given the imagery of the Millennial Temple in Ezekiel 40-48, where animal sacrifices are taking place.

But, if, as Paul seems to be saying below that all Israel will be saved, then what would the motivation be to rebuild a temple, given "sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary" (Hebrews 10:1-18) ?

Romans 11:25-26a

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved.

How do adherents of dispensationalism explain this? Where is my confusion?

  • This question is asking two different things. Are you asking why dispensationalists think the temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices will occur again, or are you asking how Romans 11 should be understood? – curiousdannii Sep 24 '14 at 1:30
  • @curiousdannii interesting, I had not thought of it that way, the question assumes dispensationalists believe the temple will be rebuilt, however I was unsure about the nature of sacrifices going on there. If there is diversity of thought here among dispensationalists, perhaps 3 questions are in order? 1) Will the temple be rebuilt 2) What is the nature of the sacrifices going on there 3) What is going on with Romans 11 in light of that. – aceinthehole Sep 24 '14 at 14:48
  • @aceinthehole it's more that I don't see a logical connection between the temple being rebuilt and all of Israel being saved. The temple could be an expression of Israel's continuing rebellion, or an expression of faith on only part of Israel. – curiousdannii Sep 24 '14 at 22:35
2

all Israel will be saved

The phrase above lends itself to several possibilities.

  1. Every descendant of Jacob will eventually end up in heaven.
  2. All those of Israel who were "blinded" will be saved.
  3. Israel is a metaphor for all those of faith who are Abraham's children.
  4. The Israel that will be saved is the faithful remnant that remains at the end of the tribulation.

I favor the remnant view in that I see the time element of the fulfillment of the new covenant.

Rom 11:26-27 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Jerimiah 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Matthew 24:15-16 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Revelation 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

0

But, if, as Paul seems to be saying below that all Israel will be saved, then what would the motivation be to rebuild a temple, given "sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary"

The temple will be rebuilt because the one sacrifice of Christ was rejected, and remains rejected by Jews even today. That temple will not be holy or sanctified but utterly godless -- the eventual seat of Antichrist. But Israel will finally realize her blindness (Rom 11:25) and will cry out to God, eventually weeping over Him who they pierced even as He comes to save them:

Behold, He comes with clouds; every eye shall see Him and they also which pierced Him: and all kindred of the earth shall wail because of Him. (Rev 1:7)

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on Me, the One they have pierced, and they will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for Him as one grieves for a firstborn son. (Zech 12:10)

  • 1
    Thanks for this answer Joe, and welcome! It would be great if you could support this answer with sources -- please take a minute to take the tour and learn how this site is different. – Nathaniel Jul 10 '15 at 12:14
  • I cited Scripture, isn't that enough? There is at the present no Temple. The Bible foretells an end-times temple; therefore, if we believe the Bible, it will be rebuilt. Paul indicates the Antichrist will be in that temple. If we believe the Bible, then we believe that's what will happen. The Bible further says Antichrist will betray Israel after striking peace with them. I could go on and on...why do you continue to ask for "support" and "sources" when I'm simply citing God's Word? – Joe Dokes Jul 10 '15 at 13:14
  • 2
    Sorry, I don't mean to frustrate you: you might find this post for newcomers helpful (I'm pretty new myself). In your answer, you don't actually cite verses for these statements (temple will be rebuilt, eventual seat of the Antichrist), and adding these would be a good first step. But furthermore, the question asks "how do adherents of dispensationalism explain this": the best source would be to quote and cite a published dispensationalist, so that it's clear that it's not just your opinion. – Nathaniel Jul 10 '15 at 13:26
-1

I think your confusion comes from defining "Israel".

In Romans 9:6 it says "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:" Just being ethnically a member of Israel, does not make you a part of Israel that Paul talks about in Romans 11:26.

In order to be "Israel" you had to follow the law laid out by God in Genesis-Deuteronomy.

  • 3
    Could you show that this is a common dispensational position? The Moody Bible Commentary says that 11:26 refers to ethnic Israel. – Nathaniel Jan 20 '16 at 18:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.