FRED COULTER IN HIS SABBATH SERMON OF JULY 1ST 2023, STILL HOLDS TO A JEWISH REBUILT TEMPLE.
HE BACKED IT UP BY GIVING YOU REVELATION 11.
WELL HERE'S THE TRUTH OF IT FROM ALBERT BARNES BIBLE COMMENTARY——
QUOTE
Verse 1
And there was given me - He does not say by whom, but the connection would seem to imply that it was by the angel. All this is of course to be regarded as symbolical. The representation undoubtedly pertains to a future age, but the language is such as would be properly addressed to one who had been a Jew, and the imagery employed is such as he would be more likely to understand than any other. The language and the imagery are, therefore, taken from the temple, but there is no reason to suppose that it had any literal reference to the temple, or even that John would so understand it. Nor does the language used here prove that the temple was standing at the time when the book was written; for, as it is symbolical, it is what would be employed whether the temple were standing or not, and would be as likely to be used in the one case as in the other. It is such language as John, educated as a Jew, and familiar with the temple worship, would be likely to employ if he designed to make a representation pertaining to the church.
A reed - κάλαμος kalamos. This word properly denotes a plant with a jointed hollow stalk, growing in wet grounds. Then it refers to the stalk as cut for use - as a measuring-stick, as in this place; or a mock scepter, Matthew 27:29-30; or a pen for writing, 3 John 1:13. Here it means merely a stick that could be used for measuring.
Like unto a rod - This word - ῥάβδος rabdos - means properly a “rod, wand, staff,” used either for scourging, 1 Corinthians 4:21; or for leaning upon in walking, Matthew 10:10; or for a scepter, Hebrews 1:8. Here the meaning is, that the reed that was put into his hands was like such a rod or staff in respect to size, and was therefore convenient for handling. The word “rod” also is used to denote a measuring-pole, Psalms 74:2; Jeremiah 10:16; Jeremiah 51:19.
And the angel stood, saying - The phrase, “the angel stood,” is missing in many MSS. and editions of the New Testament, and is rejected by Prof. Stuart as spurious. It is also rejected in the critical editions of Griesbach and Hahn, and marked as doubtful by Tittmann. The best critical authority is against it, and it appears to have been introduced from Zechariah 3:5. The connection does not demand it, and we may, therefore, regard the meaning to be, that the one who gave him the reed, whoever he was, at the same time addressed him, and commanded him to take a measure of the temple and the altar.
Rise, and measure the temple of God - That is, ascertain its true dimensions with the reed in your hand. Of course, this could not be understood of the literal temple - whether standing or not - for the exact measure of that was sufficiently well known. The word, then, must be used of something which the temple would denote or represent, and this would properly be the church, considered as the abode of God on the earth. Under the old dispensation, the temple at Jerusalem was that abode; under the new, that special residence was transferred to the church, and God is represented as dwelling in it. See the notes on 1 Corinthians 3:16. Thus, the word is undoubtedly used here, and the simple meaning is, that he who is thus addressed is directed to take an accurate estimate of the true church of God; as accurate as if he were to apply a measuring-reed to ascertain the dimensions of the temple at Jerusalem. In doing that, if the direction had been literally to measure the temple at Jerusalem, he would ascertain its length, and breadth, and height; he would measure its rooms, its doorways, its porticoes; he would take such a measurement of it that, in a description or drawing, it could be distinguished from other edifices, or that one could be constructed like it, or that a just idea could be obtained of it if it should be destroyed.
If the direction be understood figuratively, as applicable to the Christian church, the work to be done would be to obtain an exact estimate or measurement of what the true church was - as distinguished from all other bodies of people, and as constituted and appointed by the direction of God; such a measurement that its characteristics could be made known; that a church could be organized according to this, and that the accurate description could be transmitted to future times. John has not, indeed, preserved the measurement; for the main idea here is not that he was to preserve such a model, but that, in the circumstances, and at the time referred to, the proper business would be to engage in such a measurement of the church that its true dimensions or character might be known. There would be, therefore, a fulfillment of this, if at the time here referred to there should be occasions, from any cause, to inquire what constituted the true church; if it was necessary to separate and distinguish it from all other bodies; and if there should be any such prevailing uncertainty as to make an accurate investigation necessary.
And the altar - On the form, situation, and uses of the altar, see the Matthew 5:23-24; Matthew 21:12. The altar here referred to was, undoubtedly, the altar situated in front of the temple, where the daily sacrifice was offered. To measure that literally, would be to take its dimensions of length, breadth, and height; but it is plain that that cannot be intended here, for there was no such altar where John was, and, if the reference were to the altar at Jerusalem, its dimensions were sufficiently known. This language, then, like the former, must be understood metaphorically, and then it must mean - as the altar was the place of sacrifice - to take an estimate of the church considered with reference to its notions of sacrifice, or of the prevailing views respecting the sacrifice to be made for sin, and the method of reconciliation with God. It is by sacrifice that a method is provided for reconciliation with God; by sacrifice that sin is pardoned; by sacrifice that man is justified; and the direction here is equivalent, therefore, to a command to make an investigation on these subjects, and all that is implied would be fulfilled if a state of things should exist where it would be necessary to institute an examination into the prevailing views in the church on the subject of the atonement, and the true method of justification before God.
And them that worship therein - In the temple, or, as the temple is the representation here of the church, of those who are in the church as professed worshippers of God. There is some apparent incongruity in directing him to “measure” those who were engaged in worship; but the obvious meaning is, that he was to take a correct estimate of their character; of what they professed; of the reality of their piety; of their lives, and of the general state of the church considered as professedly worshipping God. This would receive its fulfillment if a state of things should arise in the church which would make it necessary to go into a close and searching examination on all these points, in order to ascertain what was the true church, and what was necessary to constitute true membership in it. There were, therefore, three things, as indicated by this verse, which John was directed to do, so far as the use of the measuring-rod was concerned:
(a)To take a just estimate of what constitutes the true church, as distinguished from all other associations of people;
(b)To institute a careful examination into the opinions in the church on the subject of sacrifice or atonement - involving the whole question about the method of justification before God; and,
(c)To take a correct estimate of what constitutes true membership in the church; or to investigate with care the prevailing opinions about the qualifications for membership.
And there was given me - He does not say by whom, but the connection would seem to imply that it was by the angel. All this is of course to be regarded as symbolical. The representation undoubtedly pertains to a future age, but the language is such as would be properly addressed to one who had been a Jew, and the imagery employed is such as he would be more likely to understand than any other. The language and the imagery are, therefore, taken from the temple, but there is no reason to suppose that it had any literal reference to the temple, or even that John would so understand it. Nor does the language used here prove that the temple was standing at the time when the book was written; for, as it is symbolical, it is what would be employed whether the temple were standing or not, and would be as likely to be used in the one case as in the other. It is such language as John, educated as a Jew, and familiar with the temple worship, would be likely to employ if he designed to make a representation pertaining to the church.
A reed - κάλαμος kalamos. This word properly denotes a plant with a jointed hollow stalk, growing in wet grounds. Then it refers to the stalk as cut for use - as a measuring-stick, as in this place; or a mock scepter, Matthew 27:29-30; or a pen for writing, 3 John 1:13. Here it means merely a stick that could be used for measuring.
Like unto a rod - This word - ῥάβδος rabdos - means properly a “rod, wand, staff,” used either for scourging, 1 Corinthians 4:21; or for leaning upon in walking, Matthew 10:10; or for a scepter, Hebrews 1:8. Here the meaning is, that the reed that was put into his hands was like such a rod or staff in respect to size, and was therefore convenient for handling. The word “rod” also is used to denote a measuring-pole, Psalms 74:2; Jeremiah 10:16; Jeremiah 51:19.
And the angel stood, saying - The phrase, “the angel stood,” is missing in many MSS. and editions of the New Testament, and is rejected by Prof. Stuart as spurious. It is also rejected in the critical editions of Griesbach and Hahn, and marked as doubtful by Tittmann. The best critical authority is against it, and it appears to have been introduced from Zechariah 3:5. The connection does not demand it, and we may, therefore, regard the meaning to be, that the one who gave him the reed, whoever he was, at the same time addressed him, and commanded him to take a measure of the temple and the altar.
Rise, and measure the temple of God - That is, ascertain its true dimensions with the reed in your hand. Of course, this could not be understood of the literal temple - whether standing or not - for the exact measure of that was sufficiently well known. The word, then, must be used of something which the temple would denote or represent, and this would properly be the church, considered as the abode of God on the earth. Under the old dispensation, the temple at Jerusalem was that abode; under the new, that special residence was transferred to the church, and God is represented as dwelling in it. See the notes on 1 Corinthians 3:16. Thus, the word is undoubtedly used here, and the simple meaning is, that he who is thus addressed is directed to take an accurate estimate of the true church of God; as accurate as if he were to apply a measuring-reed to ascertain the dimensions of the temple at Jerusalem. In doing that, if the direction had been literally to measure the temple at Jerusalem, he would ascertain its length, and breadth, and height; he would measure its rooms, its doorways, its porticoes; he would take such a measurement of it that, in a description or drawing, it could be distinguished from other edifices, or that one could be constructed like it, or that a just idea could be obtained of it if it should be destroyed.
If the direction be understood figuratively, as applicable to the Christian church, the work to be done would be to obtain an exact estimate or measurement of what the true church was - as distinguished from all other bodies of people, and as constituted and appointed by the direction of God; such a measurement that its characteristics could be made known; that a church could be organized according to this, and that the accurate description could be transmitted to future times. John has not, indeed, preserved the measurement; for the main idea here is not that he was to preserve such a model, but that, in the circumstances, and at the time referred to, the proper business would be to engage in such a measurement of the church that its true dimensions or character might be known. There would be, therefore, a fulfillment of this, if at the time here referred to there should be occasions, from any cause, to inquire what constituted the true church; if it was necessary to separate and distinguish it from all other bodies; and if there should be any such prevailing uncertainty as to make an accurate investigation necessary.
And the altar - On the form, situation, and uses of the altar, see the Matthew 5:23-24; Matthew 21:12. The altar here referred to was, undoubtedly, the altar situated in front of the temple, where the daily sacrifice was offered. To measure that literally, would be to take its dimensions of length, breadth, and height; but it is plain that that cannot be intended here, for there was no such altar where John was, and, if the reference were to the altar at Jerusalem, its dimensions were sufficiently known. This language, then, like the former, must be understood metaphorically, and then it must mean - as the altar was the place of sacrifice - to take an estimate of the church considered with reference to its notions of sacrifice, or of the prevailing views respecting the sacrifice to be made for sin, and the method of reconciliation with God. It is by sacrifice that a method is provided for reconciliation with God; by sacrifice that sin is pardoned; by sacrifice that man is justified; and the direction here is equivalent, therefore, to a command to make an investigation on these subjects, and all that is implied would be fulfilled if a state of things should exist where it would be necessary to institute an examination into the prevailing views in the church on the subject of the atonement, and the true method of justification before God.
And them that worship therein - In the temple, or, as the temple is the representation here of the church, of those who are in the church as professed worshippers of God. There is some apparent incongruity in directing him to “measure” those who were engaged in worship; but the obvious meaning is, that he was to take a correct estimate of their character; of what they professed; of the reality of their piety; of their lives, and of the general state of the church considered as professedly worshipping God. This would receive its fulfillment if a state of things should arise in the church which would make it necessary to go into a close and searching examination on all these points, in order to ascertain what was the true church, and what was necessary to constitute true membership in it. There were, therefore, three things, as indicated by this verse, which John was directed to do, so far as the use of the measuring-rod was concerned:
(a)To take a just estimate of what constitutes the true church, as distinguished from all other associations of people;
(b)To institute a careful examination into the opinions in the church on the subject of sacrifice or atonement - involving the whole question about the method of justification before God; and,
(c)To take a correct estimate of what constitutes true membership in the church; or to investigate with care the prevailing opinions about the qualifications for membership.
Verse 2
But the court which is without the temple - Which is outside of the temple proper, and, therefore, which does not strictly pertain to it. There is undoubtedly reference here to the “court of the Gentiles,” as it was called among the Jews - the outer court of the temple to which the Gentiles had access, and within which they were not permitted to go. For a description of this, see the notes on Matthew 21:12. To an observer this would seem to be a part of the temple, and the persons there assembled a portion of the true worshippers of God; but it was necessarily neither the one nor the other. In forming an estimate of those who, according to the Hebrew notions, were true worshippers of God, only those would be regarded as such who had the privilege of access to the inner court, and to the altar. In making such an estimate, therefore, those who had no nearer access than that court, would be omitted; that is, they would not be reckoned as necessarily any part of those who were regarded as the people of God.
Leave out, and measure it not - Margin, “cast out.” So the Greek. The meaning is, that he was not to reckon it as pertaining to the true temple of worshippers. There is, indeed, a degree of force in the words rendered “leave out,” or, in the margin, “cast out” - ἔκβαλε ἔξω ekbale exō - which implies more than a mere passing by, or omission. The word (ἐκβάλλω ekballō) usually has the idea of “force” or “impluse” (Matthew 8:12; Matthew 15:17; Matthew 25:30; Mark 16:9; Acts 27:38, et al.); and the word here would denote some decisive or positive act by which it would be indicated that this was not any part of the true temple, but was to be regarded as pertaining to something else. He was not merely not to mention it, or not to include it in the measurement, but he was to do this by some act which would indicate that it was the result of design in the case, and not by accidentally passing it by.
For it is given unto the Gentiles - It properly pertains to them as their own. Though near the temple, and included in the general range of building, yet it does not pertain to those who worship there, but to those who are regarded as pagan and strangers. It is not said that it was then given to the Gentiles; nor is it said that it was given to them to be overrun and trodden down by them, but that it pertained to them, and was to be regarded as belonging to them. They occupied it, not as the people of God, but as those who were without the true church, and who did not pertain to its real communion. This would find a fulfillment if there should arise a state of things in the church in which it would be necessary to draw a line between those who properly constituted the church and those who did not; if there should be such a condition of things that any considerable portion of those who professedly pertained to the church ought to be divided off as not belonging to it, or would have such characteristic marks that it could be seen that they were strangers and aliens. The interpretation would demand that they should sustain some relation to the church, or that they would seem to belong to it - as the court did to the temple; but still that this was in appearance only, and that in estimating the true church it was necessary to leave them out altogether. Of course this would not imply that there might not be some sincere worshippers among them as individuals - as there would be found usually, in the court of the Gentiles in the literal temple, some who were proselytes and devout worshippers, but what is here said relates to them as a mass or body that they did not belong to the true church, but to the Gentiles.
And the holy city - The whole holy city - not merely the outer court of the Gentiles, which it is said was given to them, nor the temple as such, but the entire holy city. There is no doubt that the words “the holy city” literally refer to Jerusalem - a city so called because it was the special place of the worship of God. See the notes on Matthew 4:5; compare Nehemiah 11:1, Nehemiah 11:18; Isaiah 52:1; Daniel 9:24; Matthew 27:53. But it is not necessary to suppose that this is its meaning here. The “holy city,” Jerusalem, was regarded as sacred to God - as his dwelling-place on earth, and as the abode of his people, and nothing was more natural than to use the term as representing the church. Compare the Galatians 4:26 note; Hebrews 12:22 note. In this sense it is undoubtedly used here as the whole representation is emblematical. John, if he were about to speak of anything that was to occur to the church, would, as a native Jew, be likely to employ such language as this to denote it.
Shall they tread under foot - That is, the Gentiles above referred to; or those who, in the measurement of the city, were set off as Gentiles, and regarded as not belonging to the people of God. This is not spoken of the Gentiles in general, but only of that portion of the multitudes that seemed to constitute the worshippers of God, who, in measuring the temple, were set off or separated as not properly belonging to the true church. The phrase “should tread under foot” is derived from warriors and conquerors, who tread down their enemies, or trample on the fields of grain. It is rendered in this passage by Dr. Robinson (Lexicon), “to profane and lay waste.” As applied literally to a city, this would be the true idea; as applied to the church, it would mean that they would have it under their control or in subjection for the specified time, and that the practical effect of that would be to corrupt and prostrate it.
Forty and two months - Literally, this would be three years and a half; but if the time here is prophetic time - a day for a year - then the period would be twelve hundred and sixty years - reckoning the year at 360 days. For a full illustration of this usage, and for the reasons for supposing that this is prophetic time, see the notes on Daniel 7:25. See also Editor’s Preface, p. 25: In addition to what is there said, it may be remarked, in reference to this passage, that it is impossible to show, with any degree of probability, that the city of Jerusalem was “trampled under foot” by the Romans for the exact space of three years and a half. Prof. Stuart, who adopts the opinion that it refers to the conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans, says, indeed, “It is certain that the invasion of the Romans lasted just about the length of the period named, until Jerusalem was taken. And although the city itself was not besieged so long, yet the metropolis in this case, as in innumerable others in both Testaments, appears to stand for the country of Judaea.” But it is to be remembered that the affirmation here is, that “the holy city” was thus to be trodden under foot; and even taking the former supposition, in what sense is it true that the “whole country” was “trodden under foot” by the Romans only three years and a half?
Even the wars of the Romans were not of that exact duration; and, besides, the fact was that Judaea was held in subjection, and trodden down by the Romans for centuries, and never, in fact, regained its independence. If this is to be literally applied to Jerusalem, it has been “trodden down by the Gentiles,” with brief intervals, since the conquest by the Romans, to the present time. There has been no precise period of three years and a half, in respect to which the language used here would be applicable to the literal city of Jerusalem. In regard, then, to the proper application of the language which has thus been explained Revelation 11:1-2, it may be remarked, in general, that, for the reasons just stated, it is not to be taken literally. John could not have been directed literally to measure the temple at Jerusalem, and the altar, and the worshippers; nor could he have been requested literally to leave out, or “cast out” the court that was without; nor could it be meant that the holy city literally was to be trodden under foot for three years and a half. The language clearly is symbolical, and the reference must have been to something pertaining to the church. And, if the preceding exposition of the tenth chapter is correct, then it may be presumed that this would refer to something that was to occur at about the period there referred to. Regarding it, then, as applicable to the time of the Reformation, and as being a continuation of the vision in Revelation 10:1-11, we shall find, in the events of that period, what would be properly symbolized by the language used here. This will appear by reviewing the particulars which have been explained in these verses:
(1) The command to “measure the temple of God,” Revelation 11:1. This, we have seen, was a direction to take an estimate of what constituted the true church; the very work which it was necessary to do in the Reformation, for this was the first point which was to be settled, whether the papacy was the true church or was the antichrist. This involved, of course, the whole inquiry as to what constitutes the church, alike in reference to its organization, its ministry, its sacraments, and its membership. It was long before the Reformers made up their minds that the papacy was not the true church; for the veneration which they had been taught to cherish for that lingered long in their bosoms. And even when they were constrained to admit that that corrupt communion was the predicted form of the great apostasy - antichrist - and had acquired boldness enough to break away from it forever, it was long before they settled down in a uniform belief as to what was essential to the true church. Indeed, the differences of opinion which prevailed, the warm discussions which ensued, and the diversities of sect which sprang up in the Protestant world, showed with what intense interest the mind was fixed on this question, and how important it was to take an exact measurement of the real church of God.
(2) The direction to “measure the altar.” This, as we have seen, would relate to the prevailing opinions on the subject of sacrifice and atonement; on the true method of a sinner’s acceptance with God; and, consequently, on the whole subject of justification. As a matter of fact, it need not be said that this was one of the first questions which came before the Reformers, and was one which it was indispensable to settle, in order to a just notion of the church and of the way of salvation. The papacy had exalted the Lord’s supper into a real sacrifice; had made it a grand and essential point that the bread and wine were changed into the real body and blood of the Lord, and that a real offering of that sacrifice was made every time that ordinance was celebrated; had changed the office of the ministers of the New Testament from preachers to that of priests; had become familiar with the terms altar, and sacrifice, and priest hood, as founded on the notion that a real sacrifice was made in the “mass”; and had fundamentally changed the whole doctrine respecting the justification of a sinner before God. The altar in the Roman Catholic communion had almost displaced the pulpit; and the doctrine of justification by the merits of the great sacrifice made by the death of our Lord, had been superseded by the doctrine of justification by good works, and by the merits of the saints. It became necessary, therefore, to restore the true doctrine respecting sacrifice for sin, and the way of justification before God; and this would be appropriately represented by a direction to “measure the altar.”
(3) The direction to take an estimate of those “who worshipped in the temple.” This, as we have seen, would properly mean that there was to be a true estimate taken of what constituted membership in the church, or of the qualifications of those who should be regarded as true worshippers of God. This, also, was one of the first works necessary to be done in the Reformation. Before that, for ages, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration had been the established doctrine of the church; that all that was necessary to membership was baptism and confirmation, was the common opinion; the necessity of regeneration by the influences of the Holy Spirit, as a condition of church membership, was little understood, if not almost wholly unknown; and the grand requisition in membership was not holy living, but the observance of the rites and ceremonies of the church. One of the first things necessary in the Reformation was to restore to its true place the doctrine laid down by the Saviour, that a change of heart that regeneration by the Holy Spirit - was necessary to membership in the church, and that the true church was composed of those who had been thus renewed in the spirit of their mind. This great work would be appropriately symbolized by a direction to take an estimate of those who “worshipped in the temple of God”; that is, to settle the question who should be regarded as true worshippers of God, and what should be required of those who professed to be such worshippers. No more important point was settled in the Reformation than this.
(4) The direction to leave out, or to “cast out” the court without the temple. This, as we have seen, would properly mean that a separation was to be made between what was the true church and what was not, though it might seem to belong to it. The one was to be measured or estimated; the other was to be left out, as not pertaining to that, or as belonging to the Gentiles, or to paganism. The idea would be, that though it; professedly pertained to the true church, and to the worship of God, yet that it deserved to be characterized as paganism. Now this will apply with great propriety, according to all Protestant notions, to the manner in which the papacy was regarded by the Reformers, and should be regarded at all times. It claimed to be the true church, and to the eye of an observer would seem to belong to it, as much as the outer court seemed to pertain to the temple. But it had the essential characteristics of paganism, and was, therefore, properly to be left out, or, cast out, as not pertaining to the true church.
Can anyone doubt the truth of this representation as applicable to the papacy? Almost everything that was unique in the ancient pagan systems of religion had been introduced into the Roman communion; and a stranger at Rome would see more that would lead him to feel that he was in a pagan land, than he would that he was in a land where the pure doctrines of Christianity prevailed, and where the worship was celebrated which the Redeemer hack designed to set up on the earth. This was true not only in the pomp and splendor of worship, and in the processions and imposing ceremonials; but in the worship of images, in the homage rendered to the dead, in the number of festival days, in the fact that the statues reared in pagan Rome to the honor of the gods had been reconsecrated in the service of Christian devotion to the apostles, saints, and martyrs; and in the robes of the Christian priesthood, derived from those in use in the ancient pagan worship. The direction was, that, in estimating the true church, this was to be “left out,” or “cast out”; and, if this interpretation is correct, the meaning is, that the Roman Catholic communion, as an organized body, is to be regarded as no part of the true church - a conclusion which is inevitable, if the passages of Scripture which are commonly supposed by Protestants to apply to it are correctly applied. To determine this, and to separate the true church from it, was no small part of the work of the Reformation.
(5) The statement that the holy city was to be trodden under foot, Revelation 11:2. This, as we have seen, must mean that the true church would thus be trodden down by those who are described as “Gentiles.” So far as pure religion was concerned; so far as pertained to the real condition of the church, and the pure worship of God, it would be as if the whole holy city where God was worshipped were given into the hands of the Gentiles, and they should tread it down, and desecrate all that was sacred for the time here referred to……..
END QUOTE
IF THE MEASURING WAS LITERAL THEN MEASURING THE PEOPLE MUST BE ALSO LITERAL—— IT IS SILLY TO SAY JOHN WAS MEASURING A LITERAL PHYSICAL TEMPLE BUILDING, AND HE WAS ALSO LITERALLY MEASURING THE PEOPLE. IF ONE IS LITERAL SO MUST BE THE OTHERS IN THE SAME SENTANCE, LITERAL.
ALBERT BARNES COULD SEE THE RIDICULOUS IDEA OF THINKING THIS WAS LITERAL.
SO FALLS FRED COULTER'S GIVING YOU REVELATTION 11 TO BACK UP HIS IDEA OF A LITERAL PHYSICAL JEWISH TEMPLE DURING THE LAST 42 MONTHS OF THIS AGE.
COULTER ALSO SAYS THE JEWISH PRIESTS ARE CHOMPING AT THE BIT TO BUILD THIS TEMPLE—- [WORDS TO THAT AFFECT], NO THEY ARE NOT—- THE ORTHODOX JEWS TEACH THE PHYSICAL TEMPLE MUST BE BUILT BY THE MESSIAH, AFTER HE HAS COME TO EARTH.
Keith Hunt
But the court which is without the temple - Which is outside of the temple proper, and, therefore, which does not strictly pertain to it. There is undoubtedly reference here to the “court of the Gentiles,” as it was called among the Jews - the outer court of the temple to which the Gentiles had access, and within which they were not permitted to go. For a description of this, see the notes on Matthew 21:12. To an observer this would seem to be a part of the temple, and the persons there assembled a portion of the true worshippers of God; but it was necessarily neither the one nor the other. In forming an estimate of those who, according to the Hebrew notions, were true worshippers of God, only those would be regarded as such who had the privilege of access to the inner court, and to the altar. In making such an estimate, therefore, those who had no nearer access than that court, would be omitted; that is, they would not be reckoned as necessarily any part of those who were regarded as the people of God.
Leave out, and measure it not - Margin, “cast out.” So the Greek. The meaning is, that he was not to reckon it as pertaining to the true temple of worshippers. There is, indeed, a degree of force in the words rendered “leave out,” or, in the margin, “cast out” - ἔκβαλε ἔξω ekbale exō - which implies more than a mere passing by, or omission. The word (ἐκβάλλω ekballō) usually has the idea of “force” or “impluse” (Matthew 8:12; Matthew 15:17; Matthew 25:30; Mark 16:9; Acts 27:38, et al.); and the word here would denote some decisive or positive act by which it would be indicated that this was not any part of the true temple, but was to be regarded as pertaining to something else. He was not merely not to mention it, or not to include it in the measurement, but he was to do this by some act which would indicate that it was the result of design in the case, and not by accidentally passing it by.
For it is given unto the Gentiles - It properly pertains to them as their own. Though near the temple, and included in the general range of building, yet it does not pertain to those who worship there, but to those who are regarded as pagan and strangers. It is not said that it was then given to the Gentiles; nor is it said that it was given to them to be overrun and trodden down by them, but that it pertained to them, and was to be regarded as belonging to them. They occupied it, not as the people of God, but as those who were without the true church, and who did not pertain to its real communion. This would find a fulfillment if there should arise a state of things in the church in which it would be necessary to draw a line between those who properly constituted the church and those who did not; if there should be such a condition of things that any considerable portion of those who professedly pertained to the church ought to be divided off as not belonging to it, or would have such characteristic marks that it could be seen that they were strangers and aliens. The interpretation would demand that they should sustain some relation to the church, or that they would seem to belong to it - as the court did to the temple; but still that this was in appearance only, and that in estimating the true church it was necessary to leave them out altogether. Of course this would not imply that there might not be some sincere worshippers among them as individuals - as there would be found usually, in the court of the Gentiles in the literal temple, some who were proselytes and devout worshippers, but what is here said relates to them as a mass or body that they did not belong to the true church, but to the Gentiles.
And the holy city - The whole holy city - not merely the outer court of the Gentiles, which it is said was given to them, nor the temple as such, but the entire holy city. There is no doubt that the words “the holy city” literally refer to Jerusalem - a city so called because it was the special place of the worship of God. See the notes on Matthew 4:5; compare Nehemiah 11:1, Nehemiah 11:18; Isaiah 52:1; Daniel 9:24; Matthew 27:53. But it is not necessary to suppose that this is its meaning here. The “holy city,” Jerusalem, was regarded as sacred to God - as his dwelling-place on earth, and as the abode of his people, and nothing was more natural than to use the term as representing the church. Compare the Galatians 4:26 note; Hebrews 12:22 note. In this sense it is undoubtedly used here as the whole representation is emblematical. John, if he were about to speak of anything that was to occur to the church, would, as a native Jew, be likely to employ such language as this to denote it.
Shall they tread under foot - That is, the Gentiles above referred to; or those who, in the measurement of the city, were set off as Gentiles, and regarded as not belonging to the people of God. This is not spoken of the Gentiles in general, but only of that portion of the multitudes that seemed to constitute the worshippers of God, who, in measuring the temple, were set off or separated as not properly belonging to the true church. The phrase “should tread under foot” is derived from warriors and conquerors, who tread down their enemies, or trample on the fields of grain. It is rendered in this passage by Dr. Robinson (Lexicon), “to profane and lay waste.” As applied literally to a city, this would be the true idea; as applied to the church, it would mean that they would have it under their control or in subjection for the specified time, and that the practical effect of that would be to corrupt and prostrate it.
Forty and two months - Literally, this would be three years and a half; but if the time here is prophetic time - a day for a year - then the period would be twelve hundred and sixty years - reckoning the year at 360 days. For a full illustration of this usage, and for the reasons for supposing that this is prophetic time, see the notes on Daniel 7:25. See also Editor’s Preface, p. 25: In addition to what is there said, it may be remarked, in reference to this passage, that it is impossible to show, with any degree of probability, that the city of Jerusalem was “trampled under foot” by the Romans for the exact space of three years and a half. Prof. Stuart, who adopts the opinion that it refers to the conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans, says, indeed, “It is certain that the invasion of the Romans lasted just about the length of the period named, until Jerusalem was taken. And although the city itself was not besieged so long, yet the metropolis in this case, as in innumerable others in both Testaments, appears to stand for the country of Judaea.” But it is to be remembered that the affirmation here is, that “the holy city” was thus to be trodden under foot; and even taking the former supposition, in what sense is it true that the “whole country” was “trodden under foot” by the Romans only three years and a half?
Even the wars of the Romans were not of that exact duration; and, besides, the fact was that Judaea was held in subjection, and trodden down by the Romans for centuries, and never, in fact, regained its independence. If this is to be literally applied to Jerusalem, it has been “trodden down by the Gentiles,” with brief intervals, since the conquest by the Romans, to the present time. There has been no precise period of three years and a half, in respect to which the language used here would be applicable to the literal city of Jerusalem. In regard, then, to the proper application of the language which has thus been explained Revelation 11:1-2, it may be remarked, in general, that, for the reasons just stated, it is not to be taken literally. John could not have been directed literally to measure the temple at Jerusalem, and the altar, and the worshippers; nor could he have been requested literally to leave out, or “cast out” the court that was without; nor could it be meant that the holy city literally was to be trodden under foot for three years and a half. The language clearly is symbolical, and the reference must have been to something pertaining to the church. And, if the preceding exposition of the tenth chapter is correct, then it may be presumed that this would refer to something that was to occur at about the period there referred to. Regarding it, then, as applicable to the time of the Reformation, and as being a continuation of the vision in Revelation 10:1-11, we shall find, in the events of that period, what would be properly symbolized by the language used here. This will appear by reviewing the particulars which have been explained in these verses:
(1) The command to “measure the temple of God,” Revelation 11:1. This, we have seen, was a direction to take an estimate of what constituted the true church; the very work which it was necessary to do in the Reformation, for this was the first point which was to be settled, whether the papacy was the true church or was the antichrist. This involved, of course, the whole inquiry as to what constitutes the church, alike in reference to its organization, its ministry, its sacraments, and its membership. It was long before the Reformers made up their minds that the papacy was not the true church; for the veneration which they had been taught to cherish for that lingered long in their bosoms. And even when they were constrained to admit that that corrupt communion was the predicted form of the great apostasy - antichrist - and had acquired boldness enough to break away from it forever, it was long before they settled down in a uniform belief as to what was essential to the true church. Indeed, the differences of opinion which prevailed, the warm discussions which ensued, and the diversities of sect which sprang up in the Protestant world, showed with what intense interest the mind was fixed on this question, and how important it was to take an exact measurement of the real church of God.
(2) The direction to “measure the altar.” This, as we have seen, would relate to the prevailing opinions on the subject of sacrifice and atonement; on the true method of a sinner’s acceptance with God; and, consequently, on the whole subject of justification. As a matter of fact, it need not be said that this was one of the first questions which came before the Reformers, and was one which it was indispensable to settle, in order to a just notion of the church and of the way of salvation. The papacy had exalted the Lord’s supper into a real sacrifice; had made it a grand and essential point that the bread and wine were changed into the real body and blood of the Lord, and that a real offering of that sacrifice was made every time that ordinance was celebrated; had changed the office of the ministers of the New Testament from preachers to that of priests; had become familiar with the terms altar, and sacrifice, and priest hood, as founded on the notion that a real sacrifice was made in the “mass”; and had fundamentally changed the whole doctrine respecting the justification of a sinner before God. The altar in the Roman Catholic communion had almost displaced the pulpit; and the doctrine of justification by the merits of the great sacrifice made by the death of our Lord, had been superseded by the doctrine of justification by good works, and by the merits of the saints. It became necessary, therefore, to restore the true doctrine respecting sacrifice for sin, and the way of justification before God; and this would be appropriately represented by a direction to “measure the altar.”
(3) The direction to take an estimate of those “who worshipped in the temple.” This, as we have seen, would properly mean that there was to be a true estimate taken of what constituted membership in the church, or of the qualifications of those who should be regarded as true worshippers of God. This, also, was one of the first works necessary to be done in the Reformation. Before that, for ages, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration had been the established doctrine of the church; that all that was necessary to membership was baptism and confirmation, was the common opinion; the necessity of regeneration by the influences of the Holy Spirit, as a condition of church membership, was little understood, if not almost wholly unknown; and the grand requisition in membership was not holy living, but the observance of the rites and ceremonies of the church. One of the first things necessary in the Reformation was to restore to its true place the doctrine laid down by the Saviour, that a change of heart that regeneration by the Holy Spirit - was necessary to membership in the church, and that the true church was composed of those who had been thus renewed in the spirit of their mind. This great work would be appropriately symbolized by a direction to take an estimate of those who “worshipped in the temple of God”; that is, to settle the question who should be regarded as true worshippers of God, and what should be required of those who professed to be such worshippers. No more important point was settled in the Reformation than this.
(4) The direction to leave out, or to “cast out” the court without the temple. This, as we have seen, would properly mean that a separation was to be made between what was the true church and what was not, though it might seem to belong to it. The one was to be measured or estimated; the other was to be left out, as not pertaining to that, or as belonging to the Gentiles, or to paganism. The idea would be, that though it; professedly pertained to the true church, and to the worship of God, yet that it deserved to be characterized as paganism. Now this will apply with great propriety, according to all Protestant notions, to the manner in which the papacy was regarded by the Reformers, and should be regarded at all times. It claimed to be the true church, and to the eye of an observer would seem to belong to it, as much as the outer court seemed to pertain to the temple. But it had the essential characteristics of paganism, and was, therefore, properly to be left out, or, cast out, as not pertaining to the true church.
Can anyone doubt the truth of this representation as applicable to the papacy? Almost everything that was unique in the ancient pagan systems of religion had been introduced into the Roman communion; and a stranger at Rome would see more that would lead him to feel that he was in a pagan land, than he would that he was in a land where the pure doctrines of Christianity prevailed, and where the worship was celebrated which the Redeemer hack designed to set up on the earth. This was true not only in the pomp and splendor of worship, and in the processions and imposing ceremonials; but in the worship of images, in the homage rendered to the dead, in the number of festival days, in the fact that the statues reared in pagan Rome to the honor of the gods had been reconsecrated in the service of Christian devotion to the apostles, saints, and martyrs; and in the robes of the Christian priesthood, derived from those in use in the ancient pagan worship. The direction was, that, in estimating the true church, this was to be “left out,” or “cast out”; and, if this interpretation is correct, the meaning is, that the Roman Catholic communion, as an organized body, is to be regarded as no part of the true church - a conclusion which is inevitable, if the passages of Scripture which are commonly supposed by Protestants to apply to it are correctly applied. To determine this, and to separate the true church from it, was no small part of the work of the Reformation.
(5) The statement that the holy city was to be trodden under foot, Revelation 11:2. This, as we have seen, must mean that the true church would thus be trodden down by those who are described as “Gentiles.” So far as pure religion was concerned; so far as pertained to the real condition of the church, and the pure worship of God, it would be as if the whole holy city where God was worshipped were given into the hands of the Gentiles, and they should tread it down, and desecrate all that was sacred for the time here referred to……..
END QUOTE
IF THE MEASURING WAS LITERAL THEN MEASURING THE PEOPLE MUST BE ALSO LITERAL—— IT IS SILLY TO SAY JOHN WAS MEASURING A LITERAL PHYSICAL TEMPLE BUILDING, AND HE WAS ALSO LITERALLY MEASURING THE PEOPLE. IF ONE IS LITERAL SO MUST BE THE OTHERS IN THE SAME SENTANCE, LITERAL.
ALBERT BARNES COULD SEE THE RIDICULOUS IDEA OF THINKING THIS WAS LITERAL.
SO FALLS FRED COULTER'S GIVING YOU REVELATTION 11 TO BACK UP HIS IDEA OF A LITERAL PHYSICAL JEWISH TEMPLE DURING THE LAST 42 MONTHS OF THIS AGE.
COULTER ALSO SAYS THE JEWISH PRIESTS ARE CHOMPING AT THE BIT TO BUILD THIS TEMPLE—- [WORDS TO THAT AFFECT], NO THEY ARE NOT—- THE ORTHODOX JEWS TEACH THE PHYSICAL TEMPLE MUST BE BUILT BY THE MESSIAH, AFTER HE HAS COME TO EARTH.
Keith Hunt
No comments:
Post a Comment