Die tempel in Jerusalem

Die tempel in Jerusalem


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Volgens die Joodse tradisie is die oorspronklike Jerusalem -tempel deur Yahweh/God georden, soos beskryf in 2 Samuel 7:12, waar Yahweh Nathan beveel om vir Dawid te sê:

As u dae vervul is en u by u voorouers gaan lê, sal ek u nageslag verwek, wat uit u liggaam sal voortkom, en ek sal sy koninkryk vestig. Hy sal 'n huis vir my naam bou, en ek sal die troon van sy koninkryk vir ewig vestig.

Sowel as die post-eksiliese teks, 1 Kronieke 28: 2-7, waar Dawid verklaar:

Ek was van plan om 'n huis van rus te bou vir die verbondsark van die Here, vir die voetbank van ons God; en ek het voorbereidings getref vir die bou. Maar God het vir my gesê: 'Jy mag nie 'n huis vir my naam bou nie, want jy is 'n vegter en het bloed vergiet' ... Hy het vir my gesê: 'Dit is jou seun Salomo wat my huis en my voorhowe sal bou, want ek het hom gekies om vir my 'n seun te wees, en ek sal vir hom 'n vader wees. Ek sal sy koninkryk vir ewig vestig as hy vasbeslote bly om my gebooie en my verordeninge te onderhou, soos hy vandag is. '

Sosio-ekonomiese agtergrond

Die konstruksie van die Eerste Tempelperiode was 'n oorgang van nomadiese of migrerende na 'n vaste en gevestigde leefstyl. Die Israelitiese, of Judese, gemeenskap was nie meer mobiel nie, en daarom was die draagbaarheid van die tabernakel nie meer 'n prioriteit nie. Die gemeenskap was nie net meer beweeglik nie, maar daar is ook 'n monargie gestig wat 'n beduidende oorgang in die politieke en sosio-ekonomiese lewenswyse verteenwoordig. Interessant genoeg, in die omgewing van die tempel, is 'n paleis opgerig, wat argitektonies vir die Israeliete simboliseer dat Yahweh deur die koning werk. In 'n sekere sin het die tempel die 'privaat kapel' van die koning geword, wat die tempel as 'n elitistiese vorm van aanbidding voorgestel het, 'n konsep wat versterk is deur die krag van die ontwikkelende priesterklas.

Ligging

Eerste en Tweede Tempel Judaïsme was 'n offer van godsdiens, en dit was in die Tempel dat sulke praktyke ingestel is.

Die ligging van die tempel is nie toevallig gekies nie, maar is eerder opgerig op 'n plek van groot betekenis binne die Bybelse tradisie: die berg Moria. Dit was op die berg Moria dat Abraham beveel is om sy seun, Isak, as offer aan sy God te bring. Sy toewyding het verseker, God het Isak gered en sy verbond met Abraham gesluit (Gen. 22). Op 'n taamlik poëtiese manier lyk die oprigting van die tempel op hierdie plek heeltemal sinvol. Eerste en Tweede Tempel Judaïsme was 'n offer van godsdiens, en dit was in die Tempel dat sulke praktyke ingestel is. Die feit dat die tempel opgerig is op dieselfde plek waar die Jode geglo het dat Abraham byna sy eie seun opgeoffer het, was beslis nie toevallig nie, en dit was inderdaad die boodskap wat die Jode probeer opbou het. In plaas daarvan is die gebou waarskynlik opgerig voordat genl. 22 opgeneem is, wat die teks 'n poging gemaak het om die ligging en dus die oprigting van die tempel te legitimeer. Al met al moet die gebou en die teks verstaan ​​word as twee dele van 'n ingewikkelde stelsel van heiligmaking en legitimering deur die gemeenskap om die oorgang van 'n migrerende en mobiele vorm van aanbidding na 'n beweerde permanensie te rasionaliseer.

Terminologie

Alhoewel hier na die tempel as 'n enkele instelling verwys word, is dit belangrik om daarop te let dat die Jerusalem -tempel minstens drie keer in die oudheid herbou is. Die eerste is onder Salomo opgerig, soos in 1 Konings 5-6, ongeveer gedurende die 10de eeu v.G. Die tweede is gebou deur ballinge in ongeveer 515 vC terug te keer, terwyl die derde en mees uitgebreide onder Herodes ontwikkel is in ongeveer 19-9 vC, hoewel dit onder opknappingswerk gebly het totdat dit in 70 nC vernietig is. Oor die algemeen word die tempel wat deur die teruggekeerde ballinge en die tempel van Herodes opgerig is, met mekaar in verband gebring en word dit eenvoudig die 'Tweede Tempel' of die 'Tweede Tempelperiode' genoem. Alhoewel die beskrywe fisiese eienskappe na bewyse van die Tweede Tempel sal verwys, sal die term 'Tempel' hier al drie verteenwoordig, aangesien dit die algemene instelling van die instelling is wat interesseer eerder as die argitektoniese verskille tussen al drie.

Aanbidding en opoffering

Aangesien die tempel die middelpunt van aanbidding geword het met offerande wat 'n belangrike, selfs deurslaggewende rol gespeel het in die ou Judaïsme, is wette en verpligtinge ingestel om te voldoen aan offervereistes wat aan die Judese gemeenskap gestel is, sowel in die ou Palestina as in die Diaspora. Beide die boek Exodus en Deuteronomium getuig van drie verpligte pelgrimstogte: Pesach, Shavuot, en Sukkot.

Hou jy van geskiedenis?

Teken in vir ons gratis weeklikse e -pos nuusbrief!

Drie maal per jaar verskyn al jou mannetjies voor die aangesig van die Here jou God op die plek wat hy sal kies: op die fees van die ongesuurde brode, op die fees van die weke en by die huttefees. Hulle mag nie met leë hande voor die Here verskyn nie; almal sal gee soos hulle kan volgens die seën van die Here jou God wat Hy jou gegee het (Deut. 16: 16-17).

Drie maal in die jaar moet jy vir my 'n fees hou ... Niemand mag met leë hande voor my verskyn nie ... Drie keer in die jaar sal al jou mans voor die Here God verskyn (Exodus 23: 14-17).

Hierdie gedeeltes dui daarop dat nie net pelgrimstogte nodig was nie, maar ook tiendes en offergawes, soos blyk uit Deuteronomium 16: 6.

[B] daar bring u brandoffers en offerandes, u tiendes en u skenkings, u vrywillige geskenke, u vrywillige offergawes en die eersgeborenes van u kuddes en kleinvee.

Sulke gedeeltes toon die belangrike ekonomiese rol wat die tempel in die antieke wêreld gespeel het. Met groot instromings van pelgrims, instellings soos koshuise, publiek mikva'ot, geldwisselaars, ensovoorts, sou in Jerusalem ontwikkel het om te voldoen aan die behoeftes van die individue wat reis om opofferingsvereistes te handhaaf.

Argitektoniese ontwerp

Die offerpraktyke wat binne die Tempel plaasgevind het, word weerspieël in die argitektoniese ontwerp, met die verdeling van die Tempelplatform in twee afsonderlike howe: die Outercourt (nie-Judese en Judese het toegang verleen) en die Binnehof (slegs Judeas het toegang verleen). Die Innercourt is daarna verdeel in drie kleiner howe, waaronder die Priesterhof, wat bestaan ​​het uit die tempel en altaar, sowel as die hof van Israel en die hof van vroue. As gevolg hiervan is aanbidding seksueel geskei en was toegang tot die Allerheiligste slegs toegelaat vir die Hoëpriester. Aangesien die binnehof slegs vir die Jode toeganklik was, is die tempel gemerk as 'n ruimte vir Israeliete alleen, en sodoende die grens van die Judese afgebaken etnos (mense).

Die einde van die tempelperiode

Alhoewel toegang tot die antieke sinagoge nie net tot die Jode beperk was nie, is verskeie van die tempelrituele na die vernietiging van die tempel in 70 nC na die sinagoge oorgedra. Rituele soos die blaas van die shofar en die waai van die lulav gedurende Sukkot is binne die sinagoge beoefen, met die behoud van die tempel -tradisies sowel as 'n ritualistiese aspek van die tempel -Judaïsme. Hoewel offer slegs in die tempels toegelaat is, het geslagte na die vernietiging van die tempel kompromieë en aanpassings gesoek om hul kulturele en ritualistiese erfenis te behou, en in baie situasies het die sinagoge kontinuïteit gebied.


Tempelberg: sy geskiedenis en#160 toekoms

Die Bybelse geskiedenis van die Tempelberg en mdasha het 'n gelyk gebied op die berg Moriah in Jerusalem begin en lank voor die bou van die eerste tempel. Ongeveer 900 jaar voor die eerste tempel is aan Abraham gesê om na die berg Moria (die berg van die Here) te gaan om Isak te offer (Genesis 22: 2, 14).

Hierdie ligging was naby die dorpie Salem, wat later Jerusalem geword het (Josua 18:28 2 Kronieke 3: 1). Dit was hier waar Abraham gekom het om 'n tiende aan Melgisedek te gee en deur die beter geseën is (Genesis 14: 18-20 Hebreërs 7: 1-4, 7-8). Dit lyk asof hierdie spesifieke ligging reeds deur God gekies is vir Sy toekomstige tempel.

Met die oog op 400 jaar na die tyd van Moses, sien ons in die Hooglied van Moses 'n verwysing na die berg van u erfdeel, en die hel wat U vir u eie woning gemaak het (Exodus 15:17). Aan die einde van die veertig jaar in die woestyn het God deur Moses beveel dat Israel die plek waar die HERE jou God kies, uit al jou stamme moet beveel om sy naam te plaas vir sy woonplek [woonplek in die King James Version] en daar sal jy gaan & rdquo (Deuteronomium 12: 5).

Toe God die eerste keer met die Israeliete begin werk het, was sy woonplek 'n draagbare tent, genaamd die & ldquotabernacle & rdquo (Exodus 25: 9 26: 1). Dit was die plek vir aanbidding op God en rsquos jaarlikse heilige dae, waar God sy naam & rdquo (Deuteronomium 12: 5).

Deur die jare het hierdie tabernakel na verskillende plekke verhuis, waaronder Kadesh, Gilgal, Shiloh, Nob en Gibeon. Nadat ongeveer 400 jaar van tyd tot tyd die tabernakel verskuif is, is 'n permanente kliptempel vir God in die stad Jerusalem gebou en die plek is deur God self gekies (Psalm 132: 13 1 Konings 11:13 14:21 2 Kronieke 33 : 7).

Die verkryging van die toekomstige Tempelberg

Toe Dawid koning word oor al die stamme van Israel, was een van sy eerste take om die vesting van Sion van die Jebusiete vas te lê en dit te herdoop (2 Samuel 5: 7-9). Deur die vesting van Sion te verower, verkry Dawid beheer oor die strategiese gebiede van die stad en die vesting. Jerusalem het toe die middelpunt van Israel en die hoofstad van Israel geword. Dit het dit vir David moontlik gemaak om later te onderhandel oor die aankoop van die gebied wat die Tempelberg sou word.

Die Tempelberg -ligging is deur David verkry na sy sonde om 'n volkstelling van Israel te neem. God het die engel van die Here gestop wat gestuur is om Dawid en Israel vir hulle sondes te straf en die engel opdrag gegee om die profeet Gad in kennis te stel om vir Dawid te sê om 'n altaar vir die Here op die dorsvloer van die Jebusiet Ornan op te rig (2 Samuel 24 : 1 1 Kronieke 21: 18-24).

Na die aankoop van die dorsvloer by Ornan, bou Dawid 'n altaar en brandoffers en dankoffers en roep die HERE aan. & Rdquo God antwoord Dawid deur bonatuurlik die brandoffer deur vuur uit die hemel aan te steek. Dawid het besef dat God hom gewys het & ldquothis is die huis van die HERE God (1 Kronieke 21: 24-30 22: 1).

Omdat Dawid 'n krygsman was wat baie bloed gestort het, het God hom nie toegelaat om die tempel te bou nie. Maar Dawid is toegelaat om sy seun Salomo voor te berei om die tempel te bou (1 Kronieke 22: 5-9).

Die eerste tempelperiode

Salomo het die eerste tempel begin bou in die vierde jaar van sy regering, dit was 480 jaar nadat Israel uit Egipte gekom het (1 Konings 6: 1). Die Tempelberg, wat die platform vir die tempel was, het groot fondamentstene vereis om die terrein plat te hou en te stabiliseer. Hierdie platform, of fondament, was nodig omdat die berg Moriah nie gelyk was nie, maar aan die bokant afgerond was. Dit sou later, gedurende die tweede tempelperiode, vergroot word om uiteindelik die trapeziumvormige Tempelberg te word soos dit vandag is.

Die eerste tempel het ongeveer 375 jaar geduur voordat dit in 586 v.C. deur die Babiloniërs vernietig is.

God het aan Salomo gesê dat as hy of sy nageslag sou wegkeer om Hom te gehoorsaam, en hierdie huis wat Ek vir My Naam ingewy het, uit my oë sal verdryf (1 Konings 9: 6-7).

Alhoewel sommige van die konings van Juda en rsquos God gedien het, het die meerderheid van die Here afgewyk en die nasie toegelaat om afgodery te beoefen. Uiteindelik, in die tyd van Esegiël (597 v.C.), het die profeet in 'n gesig gesien hoe die heerlikheid van die Here van die tempel afwyk (Esegiël 10:18). Binne 'n paar jaar is die tempel heeltemal verwoes.

Die tweede tempelperiode

Die tweede tempel is gebou op die plek van die eerste tempel op die Tempelberg na die terugkeer van die Jode uit die ballingskap van Babilon (535-515 v.C.). Dit het nie die skoonheid en prag van die tempel van Salomo en rsquos nie.

Later sou Herodes die Grote die tweede tempel met beter klippe herbou. Dit was die tempel waarheen Jesus gekom het tydens sy bediening (Johannes 2:20). Die tweede tempelperiode het byna 600 jaar geduur vanaf 515 v.C. tot 70 n.C.

Aan die begin van hierdie tweede tempeltydperk is die profeet Haggai (520 v.C.) geïnspireer om te skryf, en die heerlikheid van hierdie laaste tempel sal wees groter as eersgenoemde. & hellip En op hierdie plek sal ek vrede gee, & rsquo sê die HERE van die leërskare & rdquo (Haggai 2: 9). Die groter heerlikheid van die tweede tempel verwys na toe Jesus Christus daarna gekom het en ewige vrede vir die mens gebring het deur sy offer.

Verwoesting en verwoesting

Die Tempelberg het 'n geskiedenis van oorlog en vernietiging gehad. In die tweede eeu v.C. (168-165) het die magte van Antiochus IV Epiphanes van die Seleucidiese koninkryk meer as 40 000 Jode geslag en 'n heidense altaar op die altaar opgerig vir brandoffers. In Daniël 11:31 word na hierdie handeling verwys as die & ldquoabomination of desolation & rdquo. Dit het drie jaar geduur totdat die Makkabeër -opstand die Seleukiede omvergewerp en die tempel gereinig het. Die reiniging en herstel van die tempel word jaarliks ​​herdenk tydens die Joodse fees van Hanukkah, ook bekend as die viering van die inwyding (Johannes 10:22).

Hierdie verwoesting was 'n voorloper van wat Jesus beskryf het in die eindtyd op die Tempelberg (Matteus 24:15).

Net voor Sy kruisiging in die lente van 31 n.C., het Jesus vir sy dissipels gesê dat daar nie een klip op die ander gelaat sal word wat nie neergegooi sal word nie (Matteus 24: 2). Minder as 40 jaar later is die tweede tempel (wat deur Herodes versterk is) in 70 nC deur die Romeine verwoes en verbrand.

Alhoewel die basiese klippe van die Tempelberg blykbaar gebly het ('n gedeelte van hierdie fondament staan ​​vandag bekend as die Klaagmuur), is die tempel wat bo -op die berg sit, heeltemal verwoes. Die gebeure wat gelei het tot die verwoesting van Jerusalem en die tempel, was ook 'n soort toekomstige verwoesting en verwoesting wat deur Christus geprofeteer sou word in die eindtyd (Matteus 24:15).

Die oppervlak van die Tempelberg sou in 'n toestand van verwoesting bly tot die Moslem -invalle in die sewende eeu. Dit het daartoe gelei dat die Rotskoepel oor die ou tempelterrein gebou is en dat die Al-Aqsa-moskee aan die suidekant van die Tempelberg gebou is. Hierdie twee strukture bly vandag ongeskonde.

Die komende gruwel

In die Olyfberg -profesie het Jesus vir sy dissipels gesê: & ldquoDaarom, as u die verwoesting van verlatenheid sien, waarvan die profeet Daniël gepraat het, in die heilige plek staan ​​(Mattheüs 24:15). Daniel het van meer as een gruwel gepraat. Hierdie spesifieke gruwel sou Jesus se wederkoms voorafgaan.

Daniël praat van hierdie eindtydse gruwel in Daniël 12:11. 'N Voorloper van hierdie gruwel in die eindtyd word in Daniël 11:31 gevind.

Die gruwel in die eindtyd sal insluit dat die daaglikse offers by die altaar gestaak word (Daniël 8: 11-14 12:11). Jesus het gesê dat hierdie gruwel in die heilige plek sou staan ​​& rdquo (Matteus 24:15) en dat dit nie sou behoort nie (Markus 13:14). Dit dui daarop dat dit langs of op die altaar sal staan.

Om die profesie van die gruwel van verwoesting te vervul, op 'n stadium in die toekoms, voordat die Groot Verdrukking oor hierdie wêreld kom, sal die Joodse volk blykbaar weer begin offer op die Tempelberg. Die daaglikse offers is op die altaar buite die tempel gebring waar die mense die diens kon waarneem. Die gruwelike gruwel en rdquo (Daniël 9:27, Tanakh) sal op die heilige plek afgedwing word deur die een wat verwoesting sal bring vir alles wat heilig is op die Tempelberg. Dit mag wees dat daar op daardie tydstip slegs 'n altaar sal wees. Gedurende die tweede tempelperiode was daar offers op die altaar terwyl die tempel gebou is (535-515 v.C.) en dit was ook die geval gedurende die tyd dat Herodes die tempel herbou het.

Die apostel Paulus het geskryf dat die persoon wat die gruwel veroorsaak en as God in die tempel van God staan, wys dat hy God is (2 Tessalonisense 2: 4). Die betekenis van hierdie gedeelte kan wees dat hierdie persoon in 'n letterlike tempel van God sal sit of dat hy sy krag sal uitoefen soos God gedoen het toe God die tempel voorgehou het. (Ons let op dat alhoewel hierdie gedeelte 'n profesie oor die toekoms is, die tweede tempel nog bestaan ​​en funksioneer toe Paulus dit geskryf het.)

Om die profesie van die gruwel van verwoesting te vervul, op 'n stadium in die toekoms, voordat die Groot Verdrukking oor hierdie wêreld kom, sal die Joodse volk blykbaar weer begin offer. Iets baie dramaties sal moet plaasvind om dit te kan gebeur. Die Rotskoepel en die Al-Aqsa-moskee sit tans op die Tempelberg, en dit verteenwoordig belangrike politieke en godsdienstige hindernisse vir enige Joodse konstruksie op die Tempelberg.

Die duisendjarige tempel en berg

Die wederkoms van Jesus Christus sal 'n dramatiese verandering in die topografie van Jerusalem en die Tempelberg tot gevolg hê. Ons lees van & ldquoa groot aardbewing & rdquo wat 'n & ld kwotent van die stad vernietig & rdquo en dood maak & ldquoseven duisend mense & rdquo aan die einde van die sesde basuin in Openbaring (Openbaring 11:13).

Die profeet Sagaria het geprofeteer dat 'n groot aardbewing die Olyfberg, oos van die Tempelberg, sal skeur en 'n nuwe vallei daardeur sal skep (Sagaria 14: 4). Hierdie aardbewings sal blykbaar die huidige Tempelberg vernietig en die bou van 'n nuwe een vereis.

Die profeet Esegiël het 'n visioen gekry wat 'n nuwe duisendjarige tempel in detail beskryf (Esegiël 40-44). Jesus Christus kom om die koninkryk van God op die aarde te vestig (Sagaria 14: 9), en daar sal 'n tempel wees gedurende sy duisendjarige heerskappy op aarde.

Die doel van Christus is om die mensdom tot kennis van God te bring, tot bekering van sy sondige weë en na die pad na die ewige lewe. Hierdie manier is beskikbaar vir diegene wat vandag daarvan wil weet.

Lees meer oor die Midde -Ooste die artikels in hierdie afdeling oor die & ldquoMiddle East in Bible Prophecy. & Rdquo

Jim Haeffele

Jim Haeffele is 'n kerklike pastoor in die Church of God, 'n wêreldwye vereniging. Hy is tans predikante in gemeentes in Fort Myers, Miami en West Palm Beach, Florida. Hy dien al meer as 46 jaar in die bediening van die Kerk van God. Gedurende daardie jare het hy en sy vrou, Lois, gemeentes bedien van Portland, Oregon, waar hy grootgeword het, na Utah, Ohio, Noord -Carolina en nou Florida.


Die tweede tempel in Jerusalem: die geskiedenis en die struktuur daarvan

Die metadata hieronder beskryf die oorspronklike skandering. Volg die skakel "Alle lêers: HTTP" in die boks "Bekyk die boek" links om XML -lêers te vind wat meer metadata bevat oor die oorspronklike beelde en die afgeleide formate (OCR -resultate, PDF, ens.). Sien ook die Wat is die gidsstruktuur vir die tekste? FAQ vir inligting oor lêerinhoud en naamkonvensies.

Vir diegene wat belangstel in geestelike diepte en persoonlike geestelike groei, kan 'n paar ander boeke u werklik help. [Gratis in alle formate, insluitend PDF en Kindle]

'N Paar werke oor die moderne gevare van sommige van die oordrewe in baie Charismatiese of ander groepe, kan u inlig oor die oorsprong, die wortels, die teologie en die implikasies van sommige van hierdie nuwe spiritualiteitstrome. , soos:

['N Beplande misleiding, die opvoering van 'n New Age Messias]].
(of sien die historiese vervolging oor wie die ware Messias is)


(Let daarop dat NIE ALLE Charismatiese of Pinkster -groepe of kerke sleg is of verkeerde leerstellings onderrig nie. [Sommige verander of verbeter 4 des te beter]. dat u seker kan wees dat u die goeie leerstelling ontvang (Titus 1: 9 en nie dié in Tim 4: 3-4).))

Vir die geskiedenis van Bybelse leerstellings, (ook bekend as Leer), kan sommige van die werke van George Stanley Faber (en ander) bemoedigend wees.

Vir diegene wat belangstel in die dieper agtergrond van die Ou -Testamentiese skriftuur [hou in gedagte dat 40% tot 60% van die Nuwe Testament die Ou Testament is]. Alles wat in die Nuwe Testament gedoen word, word steeds gedoen met betrekking tot die Ou Testament. (Let wel: Diegene wat byna niks weet van die Ou-Testamentiese gedeelte van die Bybel nie, sal goed doen as hulle begin lees en herlees in die Psalms sowel as die Spreukeboek).


Die kwessie van Bybelweergawes bly steeds gewild en 'n onderwerp vir studie:


Geskiedenis van die Christendom in Europa en die impak daarvan op die wêreld
In Engels– deur Daubigne, Merle D'Aubigne

--- aangaande die Apokriewe --- (sien ook die gedeelte onder weergawes, aangesien die uitgawe van weergawes [watter weergawe van die OT-NT moet gebruik] ook die kwessie behels van watter boeke in die Bybel hoort [kanonisering genoem]. boeke oor weergawes handel dus ook oor die kwessie van watter boeke in die Bybel hoort, of watter nie).


Die kwessies van die druk van die apokriewe is ietwat behandel in die volgende werke:
Vir diegene wat belangstel in die kwessies rakende die apokriewe (selfs deur Jerome verklaar dat hulle nie deel van die Skrif is nie), kan die volgende boeke u inligting en historiese inligting gee:

Ander werke oor Kerkgeskiedenis kan interessant wees:

Vir diegene wat belangstel in Current Events (nwo), kan die werk van prokureur C Cumbey van belang wees

Die werk van Scofield. en Darby. is buite hierdie plasing. Maar hulle werk. word soms as 'n omstrede bron van hul sukses voorgehou. en hulle [ortodoksie] .. (Met ander woorde, hulle was in lyn met die oorweldigende meerderheid van die historiese leerstellings van die Christendom. Baie weet dit nog steeds nie, omdat hulle nie hul werke gelees het nie.)


Vir diegene wat belang het in die Geneva Bile of die King James,

Die historiese KJV (1611) weergawe in Engels kan gevind word [hier]. . 'N Baie goeie woordeboek vir die bestudering van die Engelse taal is die werk van Webster, dicionario [[Volume 1]]. [[Deel 2]]. .


Geneva Bible - Genewa Biblii - Genf Bibel - Ginebra Biblia –1560

Die Nuwe Testament in Koine Grieks, Moderne Grieks, Hebreeus, Persies, Sentraal -Asië, Arabies, Italiaans, Turks, Hongaars, Spaans, Pakistan, Sanskrit

Ou Nuwe Testament in [akkurate] Koine Grieks - Klassieke uitgawe

Hier is die skakels vir die weergawe in Modern Grieks.

Hebreeuse Hebreeuse Joodse Nuwe Testament - Nouveau Testament Juif Hebreu

Persies New Testament - Nouveau Testament persan [Perse - Iran] - Farsça Yeni Ahit - Nuevo Testamento persa - Persisch Neuen Testament - Testamento Novo persa


Nuwe Testament Azerbeidjan - Sentraal -Asië. Kaukasus - Arabiese skrif - Nouveau Testament Asie Centrale - nieuwe testament Centraal -Azie - Neuen Testament Zentralasien. - Новый Завет в Центральной Азии

Turkish New Testament -Turk Yeni Ahit - Neuen Testaments in turkischer (nuus) .v- Nuevo Testamento en turco- Nouveau Testament en turc - Nieuwe Testament in het Turks -

Hongaars -
Hier is die skakels vir die weergawe in Hongaars.

Spaans, Espagnol, Espanol - Cipriano de Valera, Casiodoro de Reina - Werklike oorspronklike uitgawe

Vir die weergawe in Sanscrit,

Daar is 4 volumes in hierdie uitgawe. Hier is die skakels.

Die Ou Testament in Hebreeus - Hebreu


Die Ou Testament in Spaans


Moderne Griekse Ou Testament

Ou Testament (en nuut) in Chinees

Heilige Skrif van die Ou en Nuwe Testament - Chinese literêre taal [1902] Schereschewsky

Die Ou Testament in Hebreeuse Manuskrip, klassieke uitgawe van 1524-25 [ben chayyim] van Gedruk deur Daniel Bomberg

Hier beskikbaar The Second Rabbinic Bible - ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah


Watter Hebreeuse manuskripte is die beste, beter bekend as die klassieke deur C.D. Ginsburg in 2 volumes:

Inleiding tot die Masoretico-kritiese uitgawe van die Hebreeuse Bybel 01

Boeke van Ginsburg (wat ook die Hebreeuse Nuwe Testament vertaal het):

Vir meer inligting oor Jesus as die Messias, geskryf deur Alfred Edersheim (Oxford), sien The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah


Vir ander boeke (argeologie - forensiese - bewyse) oor die tabernakel van die kinders van Israel onder Moses, of vir
inligting oor die Tweede Tempel, sien die werk van Caldecott
[Die tabernakel sy geskiedenis en struktuur (1904)]. [Die tweede tempel in Jerusalem - geskiedenis en sy struktuur]. [[[Pentateug - Historiese akkuraatheid van]]].

Hierdie spesifieke vermelding is nie vir diegene wat gevolgtrekkings wil glo SONDER bewyse nie, of vir diegene wat bloot wil glo dat "hulle" die verlore stamme is. Die volgende verslae hieronder [ooggetuieverslae deur geleerdes] is vir diegene wat werklik waarheid, akkuraatheid en historiese bewyse soek, en dit vergelyk met 'n gedetailleerde studie van die Skrif. Dit is ooggetuieverslae oor diegene wat die verlore stamme werklik gevind het en met hulle gepraat het. Hierdie boeke moet almal saam gelees word, indien moontlik, aangesien die inhoud van elke gebeurtenis vertel.


Joodse bevolkings in Afrika [buitekant] - wie is die lemba?


Sound & amp Solid Commentaries on the Old Testament: Ebenezer Henderson

ECF (Early Church Fathers) oor die Drie -eenheid


ECF (Early Church Fathers) oor die godheid van Jesus

Geskiedenis van die Karaïete [nie-talmudiese ortodokse] Jode (1870)

Soos die Karaïete bevestig: Niks by hulle is gesaghebbend wat nie Goddelik is nie. God alleen is vir hulle die fontein van gesag. Hulle bely dat hulle bereid is om hulle aan Hom te onderwerp en hulle ten alle koste te onderwerp. Dit is die normale beginsel van Karaïsme. Hulle verklaar dat hulle onbeperk eerbied betoon aan die Geskrewe Wet van God, vervat in die Ou Testament. Hulle verwerp die mondelinge wet heeltemal en is nou vervat in die Talmoed. Dit is 'n interessante kontras met wat geld vir die tradisionele Ortodokse Judaïsme, wat baie anders is as om bloot die Ou Testament te volg. Dit is deesdae nie wat die ortodokse Judaïsme is nie.

Vandag het dit meestal ontaard in okkultiese talmoediese Judaïsme met die voortdurende bestudering van die Talmudiese okkultisme [wat blykbaar baie ooreenstem met baie materiaal wat in The Two Babylons deur Hislop voorkom]. Op dieselfde manier as wat diegene in Islam die eienskappe van Allah moet vergelyk met dié van die Almagtige God, moet diegene wat Ortodokse talmudiese okkultiese rabbyne is, bereid wees om hul aanbidding van hul 'Eerste Oorsaak' met die God van die Ou Testament te vergelyk.


Daar is baie hulpbronne. hier. As u mislei of mislei word, is dit slegs u skuld en is u die skuldige. Ons is elkeen daarvoor verantwoordelik. ons eie geestelike pad, en die inligting en leer wat ons gekies het om onsself te ontneem, te ontken of te ignoreer of uit te stel. Soos alles, is u geestelike verbinding en wandel met God wat u daarvan maak. Die Bybel is vol inligting. [nie in kerke bekendgemaak of daaroor gepraat nie] .. U moet self die Nuwe Testament lees. [die Evangelie van Johannes is 'n goeie plek om te begin, en onthou om 'n goeie, historiese en akkurate weergawe te gebruik. Dit is nie wat u "teoreties" wil doen, of wil doen nie, wat tel. Watter verskil sal dit maak as u geestelik mislei word, dat u 'gaan studeer' of 'gaan leer'? Sal jy wees. minder bedrieg, want jy sou [in die toekoms] eintlik die tyd in jouself belê om te leer.

Neem die tyd en leer n-o-w, terwyl jy kan.

Onthou jy die Skrifwoorde:

II Timoteus 2: 15 Bestudeer [STUDIE. ] om aan God goedgekeur te word, 'n werker wat hom nie hoef te skaam nie, en tereg [REGS] die woord van waarheid verdeel.
16 Maar vermy onheilige en ydele gebabbel; want hulle sal toeneem tot meer goddeloosheid.


II Timoteus 2:19 Tog is die fondament van God seker, met hierdie seël: die Here ken die wat syne is. En, laat elkeen wat die naam van Christus noem, van die ongeregtigheid afwyk.
20 Maar in 'n groot huis is daar nie net voorwerpe van goud en silwer nie, maar ook van hout en aarde en sommige om te eer, en sommige om te oneer.
21 As iemand hom dus hiervan reinig, sal hy 'n voorwerp tot eer wees, geheilig en vergader vir die gebruik van die meester, en gereed vir elke goeie werk.
22 Vlug ook na die begeerlikhede van die jeug; maar volg geregtigheid, geloof, liefde, vrede, met diegene wat die Here uit 'n rein hart aanroep.


Dit is eintlik wat u [EINTLIK. ] doen, wat jy eintlik [EINTLIK. ] studeer. Hou op om te wag dat ander jou help, en begin om jouself te help. Die dag sal binnekort aanbreek dat niks hiervan bestaan ​​nie, en dan is alles wat u sal hê, in u kop, in u eie gedagtes.

Bid vir jouself dat jy uit jou koma sal wakker word, dat jy 'n liefde vir God sal hê, 'n liefde vir Sy ware en outentieke Woord (Bybel), 'n diepe begeerte om die Woord te bestudeer en dat God jou sal wys hoe om te hê die geestelike en persoonlike innerlike krag vir hierdie tye. Bid dat u nie u tyd sal mors nie, maar dat u sal waardeer en doen wat God wil hê u moet doen, en dat HY u sal help om die antwoorde te vind waarna u soek.


Wat mense van God MOET glo om Hom te vind en waarom geloof in God nodig is -------  Hebreërs 11: 6 Maar sonder geloof is dit onmoontlik om hom te behaag; want hy wat tot God kom, moet glo hy is, en dat hy 'n beloner is van die wat hom ywerig soek.

Om die ooglopende te herhaal:
JY = "hy wat na God toe kom"
MOET GLO:
1) dat hy is, [Dat God bestaan], en
2) dat hy 'n beloner is van die wat ywerig [Ywerig. ] soek hom.


Lukas 21: 8
8 En hy sê: Pas op dat julle nie mislei word nie; want baie sal in my Naam kom en sê: Ek is Christus en die tyd kom nader; gaan dan nie agter hulle aan nie.

II Tess 2
10 En met alle bedrieglikheid van ongeregtigheid. omdat hulle die liefde vir die waarheid nie ontvang het nie, sodat hulle gered kan word.

(wat het hulle nie ontvang nie? Dit beteken dat daar iets is wat sekere mense verkies het om nie te ontvang nie. Wat is dit ??)

Voorbeeld: waaroor hulle dikwels nie in die kerk praat nie:

Titus 2: 1
2: 1 Maar spreek die dinge wat 'n gesonde leer word:
2 Dat die bejaarde mans nugter, ernstig, gematig, gesond in die geloof, in liefde, in geduld moet wees.
3 Die bejaarde vroue, ook, dat hulle gedra soos dit heilig is, nie valse beskuldigers nie, nie te veel wyn gegee nie, leraars van goeie dinge
4 sodat hulle die jong vroue kan leer om nugter te wees, om hulle mans lief te hê, om hul kinders lief te hê,
5 Om verstandig, kuis te wees, huisbewaarders, goed, gehoorsaam aan hulle eie mans, sodat die woord van God nie gelaster word nie.
6 Jongmanne vermaan eweneens om nugter te wees.
7 In alles toon jy jouself 'n patroon van goeie werke: in leerstelling wat korruptheid, swaartekrag, opregtheid toon,
8 Goeie spraak, wat nie veroordeel kan word nie, dat hy wat daarenteen is, kan skaam sonder om iets boos van u te sê.
9 Spoor dienaars aan om gehoorsaam te wees aan hul eie meesters en hulle goed te behaag in alles wat nie weer antwoord nie
10 Nie in 'n verklaring nie, maar met goeie trou, sodat hulle die leer van God, ons Verlosser, in alle opsigte kan versier.
11 Want die genade van God wat redding bring, het aan alle mense verskyn,
12 Ons leer dat ons, deur goddeloosheid en wêreldse begeerlikhede te ontken, nugter, regverdig en godvresend moet lewe in hierdie huidige wêreld
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

Obviously, the links will only take you to the pages for the Free PDF. What you download is your choice.


Introduction to the Theme: The Jerusalem Temple in History, Memory, and Ritual

The following group of essays emerged out of a seminar held at the Association for Jewish Studies conference in 2015. As section heads of Jewish History and Culture in Antiquity and Rabbinic Literature and Culture, tasked to think about how to address gaps in our fields, we recognized that despite a large amount of scholarship available on the Jerusalem Temple and its priesthood, there was a dearth of cross-disciplinary scholarly exchange, especially between ancient Jewish historians and those of us who engage in literary analysis of rabbinic sources. As a result, our divisions joined together to create “The Jerusalem Temple in History, Memory, and Ritual,” taking advantage of the “seminar” format at the conference. Twelve scholars, each working with different source material and employing different methodological approaches, participated.

The following group of essays emerged out of a seminar held at the Association for Jewish Studies conference in 2015. As section heads of Jewish History and Culture in Antiquity and Rabbinic Literature and Culture, tasked to think about how to address gaps in our fields, we recognized that despite a large amount of scholarship available on the Jerusalem Temple and its priesthood, there was a dearth of cross-disciplinary scholarly exchange, especially between ancient Jewish historians and those of us who engage in literary analysis of rabbinic sources. As a result, our divisions joined together to create “The Jerusalem Temple in History, Memory, and Ritual,” taking advantage of the “seminar” format at the conference. Twelve scholars, each working with different source material and employing different methodological approaches, participated. Voetnota 1

This special journal theme is the outcome of these seminar sessions. The five essays included here reveal something of the range of conceptions of the Temple discussed at the seminar, undermining the notion that Jews in antiquity remembered the Temple the same way. Indeed, physical sites serve as “magnets—organizing, classifying and calibrating … glu[ing] disparate details into cultural textures.” Footnote 2 But, as these essays show, different cultural textures emerge depending on the sources that one uses to think about the Temple. Therefore, when viewed together, these sources prevent us from speaking about die Temple in Jerusalem and remind us how difficult it can be to make the leap from literature to history. Footnote 3 If religion, as the work of Mircea Eliade and Jonathan Z. Smith shows, is strongly connected to holy places, Footnote 4 and for the Jews that holy place is the Temple, sources about the Temple can offer us a more nuanced sense of Judaism in antiquity: attitudes toward its priesthood and its ritual reflections on the power dynamics that emerged between one group of Jews and another the nature of its institutions and its ideological struggles.

Our intention is for the essays included here to emphasize the significance of putting scholarly examinations of the Temple that contest one another into dialogue. Making sense of the Temple exceeds the work of one scholar, using one methodology and one set of sources. It points directly to the significance of thinking far more critically about the notion that rabbinic Judaism is the direct outgrowth of a crisis generated by the Temple's destruction in 70 CE. Our seminar, as reflected in the articles included here, problematizes the Temple as a central space, its rituals as forerunners of post-Temple rites, and its priesthood as the leadership institution that Jews would protect and desire to reinstate. Each author opens up different aspects of a long-needed cross-disciplinary discussion, provoking further contemplation and reconsideration of the complexities of remembering the Temple, whether by working in historical frameworks or in literary ones. With each construction of the Jerusalem Temple we expose different issues and theological perspectives that do more to convince us that the Jews of antiquity were struggling with the burden of one central holy space, inasmuch as they wished to embrace and identify with it as well.

We begin this foray into the study of the Jerusalem Temple with Benjamin Gordon's essay, “Sightseeing and Spectacle at the Jewish Temple.” It sets the stage for the collection of essays that follow in the way that it presents insights about the historical Temple alongside considerations of abstract conceptualizations of it. Before proceeding to discuss texts written outside the Land of Israel and/or that postdate the destruction of the Temple, Gordon's essay serves to anchor this discussion by reminding us that even when the Temple was a fully functioning institution and priests offered sacrifices, it was already an imagined site as much in the Land of Israel as in the Diaspora. Much of the Temple Scroll, a text created in the Land of Israel, describes a Temple recalled (in the sense that it is presented as an ancient, authentic revelation) and anticipated (in that this instruction was never fulfilled), at a time when the pre-Herodian Temple was fully functioning. Footnote 5 The Letter of Aristeas (83–99) as well as Philo in the Special Laws (1.70–76) both glorify the Temple, offering quite distinct recollections. Additionally, modifications to (or desecrations of) Temple praxis under Antiochus IV prompted eschatological imaginations of a new Temple (e.g., Daniel 7–12). Some of these imaginings of a coming Temple betray the anxiety that the Second Temple was impure from its beginning in the sixth century BCE. The only solution was a future divinely authorized sanctuary (1 Enoch 89:72–74, 90:28–29).

Gordon also emphasizes the role of pilgrimage, so central to accounts of Temple ritual. By looking beyond the sacrificial acts at the center of Temple pilgrimage, Gordon argues that much of what drew people to travel great distances and to incur steep costs was the sheer marvel of this Jerusalem holy site. Gordon draws on analogies with the emerging Greek literary genre of periegesis, or travel narrative. In the first century, for Jews as for others, curiosity and wonder were not entirely separable from the religious responsibility that offering sacrifices inspired. Indeed, pilgrims were just as much tourists as they were anything else. Scholars in recent years have sought to argue that Diaspora Judaism in the Second Temple period was less focused on the Temple than Palestinian communities. Footnote 6 However, if Gordon is correct, Diaspora Jews were equally interested in religiously motivated and culturally fueled pilgrimages, whether they were interested in cultic practice or wished to imagine it. As such, Diaspora writers and their audiences took a strong interest in a literature that bridged the distance between audience and this faraway place.

Gordon's essay prompts us to think about additional challenges presented by the sources we analyze. Periegetic literature of the type to which Gordon compares Jewish descriptions of the Temple was part of a Greek cultural reconfiguration under Roman imperial rule. Lucian of Samosata's The Syrian Goddess, which plays a significant role in Gordon's essay, has been studied both as ethnography of a Middle Eastern cult in the second century and as literary fiction. Footnote 7 This is a significant observation for those of us studying the place of the Temple in contemporaneous or post-Temple Judaism. Indeed, the fullest descriptive accounts of the Jerusalem Temple, those of Josephus and the Mishnah, postdate the destruction of the Temple and open the question of the memory of the Temple even as they provide us much of the evidence from which we might hope to reconstruct the physical layout of its predestruction design.

Indeed, sources that offer reactions to the Temple following its destruction, including rabbinic sources, provoke us to think about a cycle that takes us from Temple to text and from text back to Temple. Although the authors of these sources look back on the institution of the Temple and do the work of textual commemoration, they present us with the challenge of how to read them. Do we look for, even expect, a burden of loss over the Temple and/or a desire for religious change? Do rabbinic depictions of a glorified Temple in Jerusalem parallel conceptions of the priests and the sacrificial cult in rabbinic literature? Where do our sources point and why do they point us there?

Naftali Cohn proposes the use of ritual theory to think through what we can learn about the Mishnah's representational (and not “actual”) descriptions of the Temple, its priests, and its rituals. He emphasizes that while place is a key component in thinking about Temple ritual, we also need to consider how ritual actions, ritual actors, ritual time, objects, and groups, as well as beliefs, attitudes, and emotions play a role in conceptualizing the rabbinic view of the Temple. The Mishnah's representations point us toward how the rabbis (in the post-Temple era) framed and understood the function of ritual. In this way, studying the Mishnah for its reconceptualization of Temple rites and its priests leads us toward a keen sense of what changed in the era following the Temple's destruction. What are the continuities and discontinuities as well as consequences of ritual when we compare the past Temple to the post-Temple world? Studying the Temple in rabbinic sources then becomes a way for us to make sense of the ritual developments posed by the rabbis.

Marjorie Lehman also examines the textualized ritual of tractate Yoma, exposing it as a place for the rabbis to conceptualize the rabbinic self. Like Cohn, she pays close attention to the transition in the tractate from the physical Temple-based Yom Kippur to a distinct rabbinic Yom Kippur. More pointedly, in thinking about the texts of tractate Yoma from a feminist perspective, rather than from the perspective of ritual theory like Cohn, she stresses the significance of the rabbis and their relationship to the priests by examining what their sources communicate through references to the physical body, specifically feet. In her feminist reading of the move from Temple to text and from text back to Temple she recognizes in the rabbis a desire to marginalize the priests and women in order to assert a position of legitimacy, authority, and power. Given the ways in which the Temple is glorified in so many rabbinic sources, Lehman pushes us to tread more carefully, focusing on the differences in how the priests are treated in Yoma as opposed to sources that focus on the Temple itself. She takes note of the differences in the way that feet are treated in the first seven chapters of the tractate in comparison to the final chapter that focuses specifically on the rabbinic Yom Kippur, as a way to think about its connection (or lack thereof) to the earlier Temple rite. Finally, she reminds us to think about the tractate and its overall agenda, as compared to other tractates and their treatment of the Temple and its priests, noting that the rabbinic view of the Temple and its priesthood is complicated even within rabbinic literature itself.

Michael Swartz, through his study of a papyrus found in the excavations at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, as well as other early examples of Avodah liturgy, such as the liturgical poem (piyyut) known as Shivʿat yamim, Footnote 8 indicates that post-Temple Jews (including the Diaspora community in late antique Egypt) ritualized the Mishnah's rich descriptions of the Yom Kippur Avodah. By transforming the contents of Mishnah Yoma into verbal utterances, Jews “performed” their memory of the Temple. As such, ritual does not ignore the Temple, but rather functions to reenact what occurred there, glorifying its role and treating the Mishnah's Temple narratives as actual memories, rather than as idealized or metaphorical descriptions of the past. Swartz challenges us, in our studies of the Jerusalem Temple, to reconsider how we read later uses of the Mishnah's narratives, recognizing them as verbal reenactments that were experienced as replacements for sacrifices so that prayer became “a sacrifice of the heart.”

Naomi Koltun-Fromm leads us in yet another direction, reminding us that Christians and Muslims also idealized the Temple in Jerusalem. She focuses our attention on the Temple as an imagined space. Koltun-Fromm demonstrates how the rabbis reinvigorated older biblical and ancient Near Eastern motifs to make claims on the space of the Temple, as well as reworked rabbinic traditions about a mythical foundation stone, the ʾeven shetiyah, to mark the physical space where the Temple stood. As she points out, the rabbis’ attachment to the ʾeven shetiyah is also enmeshed in competing claims to the spiritual and earthly Jerusalem that arose between Christians and Muslims, not to mention the rabbis’ desire to secure their attachment to it. In fact, by the early eleventh century, the Dome of the Rock, built by Muslims on the site of the Jerusalem Temple, will be consecrated as a church called Templum Domini by the Crusaders. Footnote 9

Although Koltun-Fromm emphasizes the Jewish use of Temple imagery in late antique and early Islamic Palestine, her contribution reminds us that not only Jews, but Christians and Muslims, too, “recalled” the Temple. The production and manifestation of Jewish memories, she argues, is entangled in changing circumstances that include an ongoing debate about who has claims to this remembered sacred space. Continuing such discussions can deepen our understanding of the Temple Mount not only as a common source of religious empowerment, but also as a contested space, one that physically changed hands and religious faiths many times after the destruction of the Jews’ Temple. In addition, such responses to the Jerusalem Temple, whether as a destroyed holy site or as renewed sacred space, reveal much about Christian and Muslim relationships to Jews and Judaism. They expose significant cross-cultural influences between these three religions that developed in the same region. As such, we encourage further debate and interdisciplinary conversation regarding the issues we have raised here, in the interest of furthering our understanding of the complex relationship between the holy space of the Jerusalem Temple and the people who made its memory so central.


Will Israel Build a Temple in Jerusalem?

One of the important results of the six-day war of June, 1967, when Israel conquered Jerusalem, was the revival of the question whether Israel would rebuild a temple on the traditional temple site in Jerusalem. Orthodox Jews for many years have been praying daily for the rebuilding of the temple. In this expectation, they have had the support of premillenarians who interpret Scriptural prophecies as meaning what they say when they refer to a future temple in Jerusalem. The world as a whole, as well as the majority of the church, have tended to ignore this expectation as being too literal an interpretation of prophecy. Often this disinterest was based on the fact that Israel was not in position to accomplish such an objective, and disbelief about rebuilding the temple stemmed from disbelief concerning any future for Israel as a nation.

The majority of the church for the last several generations has followed amillennial interpretation, which either spiritualizes promises concerning the nation Israel and its possession of their land and city or has considered these promises forfeited by unbelief. According to amillenarians, Israel would never return to their ancient land, never restore the kingdom of Israel, and never rebuild the temple.

The stirring events of the twentieth century have caused many of them to rethink this question, for the facts of history have supported the orthodox Jewish hope as well as the expectation of premillennial Christians. Now the fact that Israel has greatly extended the territory under its control and has for the first time in many centuries possessed the ancient city of Jerusalem has renewed the question concerning the rebuilding of the temple.

Rumors are rife that plans are already well advanced for rebuilding such a temple. An article appearing in The Christian and Christianity Today reports news “received from authoritative sources in Sellersburg, Indiana” to the effect that 500 railroad carloads of stone from Bedford, Indiana, are already en route to Israel and that a portion of it has arrived in Israel. Included in the report is the information that the two bronze pillars for the new temple have already been cast.1 Although the Israeli government flatly denies the entire story and the authority for it is vague, the rumor highlights current interest in the question concerning the rebuilding’of the temple. The Limestone Institute of America has been unable to find any confirmation of such an order, and Israel’s ambassador states that if a temple is built native stone would be used.

Two radically different groups in Israel are in favor of building the temple.The one consists of extreme nationalists who regard it as a symbol of Israeli victory and the center of religious culture.The other is the relatively small group of orthodox Jews who are motivated principally by religious concepts. The main body of Jews throughout the world have not committed themselves definitely to the project. It would seem, however, a natural result of the revival of Israel both as a nation and as a religious entity that ultimately such a temple should be built. This is supported by the long history of the temple as the heart of Israel both as a nation and as a religious group.

History of Previous Temples

The first Temple which served the people of Israel was that built by Solomon, the details of which are given in 1 Kings 5:1&mdash6:38 7:13-51 2 Chronicles 2:1&mdash4:22 . The plans for the Temple were revealed by God in detail, and construction included lavish use of precious metals, making it one of the most costly structures in the ancient world. The dedication of the Temple was likewise an elaborate procedure (1 Kings 8:1-66 2 Chron 5:1&mdash7:11 ). The Temple served as the center of Israel’s religious life for four hundred years, until it was finally destroyed in 586 B.C.

For seventy years the Temple lay desolate. The pilgrims returning under Zerubbabel beginning in 541 B.C. began the process of the restoration of Israel in the land. Soon after arrival they laid the foundation for a new Temple. This early attempt to build the Temple was stopped approximately 535 B.C. Construction was not renewed until 520 B.C. when Darius gave authority for resumption of the building (Ezra 6:1-12). Finally in 516 B.C., the Temple of Zerubbabel was completed with mingled joy and sorrow, joy for the restoration of the Temple, but sorrow because the new Temple fell far short of the grandeur of Solomon’s Temple which had been destroyed.2 According to the dimensions given in Ezra 6:3-4, the new Temple was about one-third larger than Solomon’s Temple, but lacking its magnificence.3 The Talmud mentions five things lacking in Zerubbabel’s Temple that were found in Solomon’s, that is, the ark, the sacred fire, the shekinah glory, the Holy Spirit, and the Urim and Thummim.4 Instead of the ark a stone was placed in the holy of holies.

This Temple served Israel also for about four hundred years when its rebuilding was undertaken by Herod in 20 B.C., not long before the birth of Christ. Its building progressed during Christ’s lifetime on earth, and was brought to completion in A.D. 64, only a few years before its destruction in A.D. 70. From that day until this, there have been no Jewish sacrifices and no Jewish temple.

The Larger Question of the Form of Jewish Revival

The answer to the question of whether Israel will rebuild their temple is integral to the larger question of whether the Bible teaches Israel’s restoration as a nation. As previously pointed out, amillenarians tend to deny any restoration to Israel at all and claim that the present activity in the Middle East on the part of the nation Israel has no prophetic or religious significance. Albertus Pieters, for instance, writes: “In conclusion, some will ask what we think of Zionism and of the establishment of the state of Israel in Palestine&hellip. No doubt God has His plans for this new development, as for the whole course of affairs in the world, but as students of prophecy it is our task to determine what He has revealed concerning such plans and whether this new state becomes permanent or not, we are still sure that no such thing is to be found in the scriptures.”5

Postmillenarians like Charles Hodge, in answer to the question, “Are the Jews to be restored to their own land?” state: “The idea that the Jews are to be restored to their own land and there constituted a distinct nation in the Christian Church, is inconsistent not only with the distinct assertions of the Scriptures, but also with its plainest and most important doctrines&hellip. The restoration of the Jews to their own land and their continued national individuality, is generally associated with the idea that they are to continue a sort of peerage in the Church of the future, exalted in prerogative and dignity above their fellow believers and this again is more or less intimately connected with the doctrine that what the Church of the present is to look forward to is the establishment of a kingdom on earth of great worldly splendour and prosperity. For neither of these is there any authority in the didactic portions of the New Testament.”6

In contrast to the amillennial and postmillennial denial of a future restoration of Israel to their ancient land, premillenarians have long taught that Israel will be finally regathered in their ancient land to enjoy the kingdom of Christ on earth for a thousand years.7 This is based on interpreting Scripture in its normal sense in its reference to Israel in the land and to another temple in Jerusalem.

Scriptural Evidence for a Future Temple

The fact that Israel is now in their ancient land organized as a nation, and the impressive recent events which have put the city of Jerusalem itself into the hands of Israel, have to a large extent revealed the premises and conclusions of both the amillenarians and postmillenarians to be in error. To claim that this supports the entire premillennial interpretation may be presumptive, but it certainly gives added force to the normal interpretation of Scripture in predicting such a situation. A number of important Scriptures may be cited in support of the concept of a future rebuilding of the temple.

Matthew 24:1-2, 15 . One of the most important prophecies relative to a future temple is found in the Olivet Discourse. In the introduction to Christ’s prophecy concerning the end of the age, He predicted concerning the great Temple being built by Herod: “There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” This prophecy was strikingly fulfilled in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed. The Temple indeed was left with not one stone standing upon another. The wailing wall still standing in Jerusalem may have been part of the extreme western outer wall which was not a part of the Temple itself. Later in the seventh century, the Mosque of Omar was built by Caliph Omar supposedly on the precise site of the Temple which presumes its complete destruction.

In Matthew 24:15, however, as an immediate sign of the second advent of Christ, the prediction is made that those living in that generation will “see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand).” This prediction obviously could not refer to A.D. 70 as it is an event immediately preceding the second advent of Christ described, in Matthew 24:27-31. The prediction, however, gives us the clue concerning the future Temple.

The abomination of desolation has reference to a future event paralleling to some extent “the abomination that maketh desolate” of Daniel 11:31 fulfilled in the desolation of the Temple in the second century B.C. by Antiochus Epiphanes which sparked the Maccabean revolt.

The future abomination of desolation is mentioned in Daniel 9:27 where, according to premillennial interpretation, “the prince that shall come” (Dan 9:26) will break his covenant of seven years in the middle and “he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate.” The act of desolation is confirmed in Daniel 12:11 where it is stated: “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate is set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.” If the usual premillennial interpretation is correct, this act of desecration of the sacrifice will take place approximately three and one-half years before the second advent.

This interpretation obviously presents some difficult problems including the question as to whether orthodox Jews will renew the Mosaic sacrificial system. Judging by Scriptures, this is precisely what they will do as it would be impossible to cause sacrifices to cease if they were not already in operation. The usual method of dismissing this as something which occurred in A.D. 70 does not provide a reasonable explanation of the text nor account for the fact that the second coming of Christ occurs immediately thereafter.8

The question of renewal of sacrifices in this period prior to the second advent should not be confused with another eschatological problem, that of sacrifices in the millennium which are related to prophecies of Ezekiel’s temple (cf. Ezek 40&mdash48 ). The Jews who offer the sacrifices which are forcibly stopped are orthodox Jews, not Christians, and there is no real relationship between the problem of Ezekiel’s temple and the sacrificial system predicted with that of the temple and its desecration described by Christ. The implication is clearly in favor of a temple prior to the second advent which is different in structure and function than Ezekiel’s temple.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 . Additional confirmation of this concept of a temple in the period preceding the second advent is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4. In this passage prediction is made that the future man of sin “who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped” assumes the role of deity, “so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess 2:4). Using this passage as an interpretation of the prediction of Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:15, it may be concluded that following the desecration of the Jewish temple and its sacrifices the future man of sin identified by many as “the prince that shall come” (Dan 9:26) will become an object of worship. A later phase of this is that he is replaced by an idol or image of himself, according to Revelation 13:14-15. The passage does not say precisely, however, that the image is in the temple, but this would be a reasonable location.

Problems of Fulfillment

Problems incident to rebuilding the temple are considered in an illuminating essay by Daniel Fuchs.9 The contemporary difficulties in the way of rebuilding such a temple are tremendous. The Mosque of Omar now occupies the site which many believe was the location of the holy of holies of Solomon’s temple. This magnificient mosque recently completely rebuilt at an expense of many millions of dollars could not be razed without precipitating a major war. This is commonly recognized by most Jews, and only extreme nationalists have dared to suggest that the Temple should be built upon this site. When Col. Chlomo Goren held a religious service in the present mosque area in August, 1967, he was almost universally condemned by the Israeli press.10 Orthodox Jews considered this area off limits as desecrated by Gentiles and fear lest they should walk upon the holy ground unwittingly.

In addition to political problems, real difficulties face any attempt to restore a Mosaic system of sacrifices in a temple. In addition to the Scriptures themselves, the Jewish Mishna contains many laws and specifications which orthodox Jews would consider necessary. Orthodox Jews tend to believe that the temple will not be built until the Messiah returns and hence oppose a temple being rebuilt now. Such a temple would also involve animal sacrifices to which the majority of Israel are now opposed.

In attempting to solve these problems, one is reminded of all the insuperable difficulties which lay in the way of Israel’s return to their ancient land. History has recorded that Israel did return in spite of the difficulties. It is safe to conclude that future history will also record a rebuilding of the temple. Such a rebuilding could take place before the rapture of the church but not necessarly. The temple could be built anytime in the period after the rapture but prior to the desecration of the temple, which will occur three and one-half years before the second coming of Christ to the earth.

Summary of Predictions

On the basis of Matthew 24:15 with supporting Scriptures from Daniel, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 13, it may be concluded that Scriptures anticipate a future temple with a sacrificial system which will be under way at the time “the prince that shall come” exercises his authority, desecrates the temple, and establishes himself as the object of worship.

If such a temple is to be built, it is reasonable to assume that it will be built in Jerusalem as no other site would be acceptable for a temple built in fulfillment of the Mosaic system. One of the remarkable features of the recent history of Israel is that the stage is set precisely for such a move, and if so, the end of the age may be very near.

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.

1 The Christian and Christianity Today , August 4, 1967, pp. 7-8.

2 Cf. the picture and description of Solomon’s Temple with meager details given of the new Temple in article on “Temple,” The International Bible Encyclopaedia , V, 2930-34.

3 Cf. article, “Temple,” Unger ’ s Bible Dictionary , pp. 1079-80.

5 Albertus Pieters, The Seed of Abraham , p. 148.

6 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology , III, 810-11.

7 Cf. John F. Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom , pp. 159-220, 256-334.

8 For further discussion, cf. John F. Walvoord, The Return of the Lord , pp. 58-79.


Oor hierdie bladsy

APA -aanhaling. Meistermann, B. (1912). Temple of Jerusalem. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14499a.htm

MLA -aanhaling. Meistermann, Barnabas. "Temple of Jerusalem." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14499a.htm>.

Transkripsie. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Lucy Tobin.


number of important historical events occurred in the period between the Old Testament and the New Testament (c. 420 B.C.—1 A.D.), called by Protestants the “intertestamental” period and by Roman Catholics the “deuterocanonical” era. During those four centuries, one of the greatest warrior kings of history arose—Alexander the Great, and his Not-So-Great successors, the Diadoche—four of Alexander’s generals who divided up his empire for themselves, after his death in 323 BC. One of the most aggressive and successful leaders, Seleucus I Nicator, ruled over a province that would eventually contain the area of the modern nations of Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, central Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan, which collectively became known as the Seleucid Empire, which lasted to 63 BC. The Seleucids (pronounced Sel-oo-sids) brought Hellenistic (ie. Greek) culture to the Middle East, maintaining and expanding the cultural continuity of Alexander’s conquests. One of the most brutal of the post-Alexandrian rulers acquired the name of Antiochus Epiphanes, and in his reign fulfilled a prophecy made centuries earlier in the Book of Daniel of the Hebrew Scriptures.


Antiochus Epiphanes (c. 215 BC -164 BC), Hellenistic king of the Seleucid Empire

For most of their rule, the Seleucids followed Alexander’s policy of using local satraps and princes to help rule the vastly diverse tribes of the Levant. Jews were permitted to maintain their religious ways and culture as long as they paid the required tributes. In 187 B.C. Antiochus III was succeeded by his eldest son, Seleucus IV Philopater, and then by his youngest son Antiochus IV Epinphenes. The kingdom he inherited contained resistance and rebellion in enough measure to warrant a crackdown, and Epiphanes was just the man to crush dissent.

Antiochus determined to unify the religions of the region by compelling everyone to worship him as the paramount god—the Greek god Zeus—in human form. For the first time, his image appeared on the coinage to remind the people he was “Theos Epiphanes” the “manifest god.” Wise guys live in every culture, and someone changed one letter in his name for it to read Epimanes—the “madman,” a most popular public joke.


Approximate geographical area of the Levant, a large area in the Eastern Mediterranean region of Western Asia


Coin depicting Antiochus IV Epiphanes

A dispute over who should be the high priest of the Jews in Jerusalem resulted in a war of bribery, won by the pro-Greek Jason over his traditionalist brother Onias. A couple years later one Menaleus, not a descendant of Aaron, paid a higher bribe to Antiochus and was installed as the new high priest. Menaleus plundered the temple, causing riots in Jerusalem, and Jason returned to lead the revolt. Antiochus took it all personally and entered the city with an army, finished the temple plundering, and established martial law. Always suspicious of Ptolemaic Egypt, he converted Jerusalem into a fortress city and announced that it would be Greek in religion, abolishing Jewish rites, burning all the Torahs, and requiring the worship of “the manifest god.”


Model of the Second Temple in Jerusalem


The Triumph of Judas Maccabeus
, by Sir Peter Paul Rubens

The ultimate breaking point came when Antiochus erected an altar to Zeus on top of the altar of burnt offerings, and sacrificed a pig on December 16, 167 BC. The events of the raging Antiochus Epiphanes are foretold—many Bible scholars believe—by the accounts recorded in Daniel 11, including the military strikes on Egypt and the outrages perpetrated in Jerusalem. The details of the Jewish revolt are recorded in the books of the Maccabees found in the Apocrypha, the non-canonical, mostly history, books placed between the Old and New Testaments in most Bibles, up to and including Luther’s Bible and the original King James Version.


The Punishment of Antiochus
, as recounted in 2 Maccabees Chapter 9, by Gustav Doré

The perpetrator of the profanation of the Second Temple, Antiochus Epiphanes, contracted a most painful wasting disease while on a military campaign in the east, and died in agony. God’s preservation of His people from that particular period is remembered in a Jewish holy day known as Hanukah. The state and its leaders down through history have demanded worship, but The True and Living God will only be truly worshipped in the ways He has specified in the Scriptures, and will ultimately put a painful end to idolatrous usurpers.


The Focal Point of Jewish Worship

The Temple was central to Jewish religious life in a way that is hard to recapture today. Many Jews believed that sin itself could be overcome only by bringing a sin offering in the Temple. Without such forgiveness, the sinner was condemned to alienation from God, which is equivalent to estrangement from valid existence. But the channel of sacrifice was now cut off.

For many Jews, the whole experience of Judaism was sacramental. The Priests served the ignorant masses watched their religious lives were illuminated only by those extraordinary moments when multitudes gathered in Jerusalem. There, in the awe of a Paschal sacrifice or at the Yom Kippur atonement ritual, they felt an emanation of divine force that showered grace and blessing on the people and made the Lord&rsquos power a stunning presence. For these people, after the destruction there was only emptiness.


The Temple in Jerusalem - History

70 C.E., Temple is Destroyed

100 C.E., Trajan gives Jews permission to rebuild the Temple which, however, they neither could nor would make any use.

118 C.E., Hadrian allows the Jews to return to Jerusalem and grants permission for the rebuilding of their Holy Temple, but soon reneges.

132 C.E., Rebel Bar Kochba re-institutes ritual sacrifice in Jerusalem. Aspirations of rebuilding Jewish Temple.

138 C.E., Antoninus Pius allows Jews to return to Jerusalem.

332 C.E., 'Bordeaux Pilgrim' reports that Jews anoint the "lapis perfusus" rock near Hadrian's statues on Temple Mount.

333 C.E., Edict of Milan, Jews start to build Temple.

362 C.E., Julian besieges the Persian city of Ctesiphon. Julian plans to rebuild the Temple and even begins construction.

438 C.E., Eudokia (wife of Theodosius II) gives the Jews permission to pray on Temple Mount.

443 C.E., Eudokia permits Temple reconstruction.

512 C.E., Jewish Exilarch Mar Zutra II tries to make Jewish State in Persia

525 C.E., Joseph Asher Dhu Nuwas, King of the Jewish Kingdom of Arabia, revolts against Rome with Persian help.

584 C.E., Maurice sent Jewish builders from Constantinople to Jerusalem to repair Julian's structure on Temple Mount.

614 C.E., Persian-Jewish alliance conquers Jerusalem, and attempt to construct a temple on Temple Mount

638 C.E., Judeo-Arab alliance conquers Jerusalem. Jews build wooden Temple on Temple Mount

691-692 C.E., Dome of the Rock is built by 'Abd al-Malik on site of Jewish Temple

After the destruction of the Jewish Temple (70 C.E) and subsequent Jewish Revolt (135 C.E.), Jerusalem passed into the hands of Rome. It's name was changed by the Romans to Aelia Capitolina and Jews were officially forbidden to live there.

Jerusalem, however, continued to serve as the focal point of Jewish national and spiritual aspirations. The hope of again making Jerusalem the capital of the Jewish Nation and rebuilding the Temple was kept alive among the Jews and Temple sympathizers dispersed in many countries. Ώ ]

It is estimated that about six million Jews lived throughout the Roman Empire and another two million lived under the Persian Empire. ΐ] The Jews living in the Persian Empire were wealthier and enjoyed a much greater degree of freedom than their co-religionists living in the Roman Empire. At times the Jews in Persia attained semi-autonomy, collecting taxes and managing their own small army.

Jews accounted for perhaps as much as 10% of the Roman Empire. The Roman government tried to influence its sizeable Jewish population, especially during it’s many wars with Persia Α] , by rewarding or punishing Jews through it’s policies towards Jerusalem. It was in the interest of Rome to hint at promises of 'restoring Jerusalem' to try and sway its Jewish population from siding with Rome's long time enemy, or to punish them for misbehavior by further desecration of the sacred place. Β] These policies inflamed Jewish nationalism and may have helped to keep it alive.


Rebuilding the Temple?

Destruction of Solomon’s Temple, by Francesco Hayez (1867) / Gallerie dell’Accademia, Wikimedia Commons

Ever since its destruction in 70 C.E., Jews have prayed that God will allow for the rebuilding of the Temple. This prayer is a formal part of the thrice-daily orthodox Jewish prayer services. Not all rabbis agree, however, on what would happen in a rebuilt Temple, or even if a Temple should be rebuilt at all. It has traditionally been assumed that some sort of animal sacrifices would be re-instituted, in accord with the rules in Leviticus and the Talmud. However there is another opinion, beginning with Maimonides, that God deliberately has moved Jews away from sacrifices and toward prayer, as prayer is a higher form of worship. Today the main branches of Judaism line up on the question as follows:

  • Orthodox Judaism believes and prays that the Temple will be rebuilt and that the sacrificial services, known as the korbanot will once again be practiced with the rebuilding of a Third Temple. Most religious Jews feel that the Temple should only be rebuilt in the messianic era, and that it would be presumptuous of people to force God’s hand by rebuilding it themselves.
  • Conservative Judaism has modified these prayers its prayer books call for the restoration of Temple, but do not ask for resumption of animal sacrifices. Most of the passages relating to sacrifices are replaced with the Talmudic teaching that deeds of loving-kindness now atone for sin.
  • Reform Judaism calls neither for the resumption of sacrifices nor the rebuilding of the Temple, although some new Reform prayer books are moving towards calling for the latter as an option.

A few Christian fringe groups advocate constructing a Third Temple today, believing it to be a necessary precursor to the Second Coming of Christ. Almost all Jews—including the majority of the Orthodox—oppose this. Additionally, of course, the Israeli government is dead set against rebuilding the Temple due to the enormously hostile reaction from Muslims that would likely result. The Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque were built on the site of the destroyed Jewish Temples several centuries after the destruction of the Jewish Temple. The Temple Mount is believed by Muslims to be the place where the prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven. Israel has pledged to honor the integrity of the Mosque and the rights of Muslims to worship there.


Kyk die video: Doku Der Tempelberg - Salomos verlorener Tempel HD


Kommentaar:

  1. Mikabei

    Verruklik ..

  2. Rajab

    Dit is jammer dat ek nie nou kan praat nie - baie besig. Osvobozhus - maak seker dat u mening oor hierdie kwessie is.

  3. Judah

    Ek vra om verskoning dat ek inmeng ... Ek is vertroud met hierdie situasie. Ek nooi u na 'n bespreking. Skryf hier of in PM.

  4. Alaric

    Hurray Hurray .... Skrywer Senks!

  5. Deerward

    alles duidelik



Skryf 'n boodskap