57

CHAPTER 4
THE THEOLOGY OF THE TEMPLE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Introduction
In this chapter let us try to spell out certain speciIic Ieatures oI the
temple in the NT. Synoptic narration oI the ministry oI Jesus in Jerusalem, while
continuing the theme oI selI revelation, are characterized by an anti-temple theme as
well. This is particularly evident in the episode oI Jesus` cleansing the temple and the
prediction oI the destruction oI the man made temple, while at the same time
emergence oI the God made sanctuary is Ioreseen. In the same way, the letter to the
Hebrews and the Iorth gospel aIIirm that acceptable sacriIice is oIIered, and God is
authentically worshipped, not in a man made temple but in the God made sanctuary.
Paul too points out that Christians, because oI their relation to Christ, constitute God`s
own sanctuary
1
.

4.1. Temple in the life and Teaching of 1esus
The importance accorded to the temple in the OT continues in the NT.
Thus Jesus and his parents show great respect Ior the old temple. He is presented there
(Lk 2:22-39). He goes there Ior the great Ieasts (Lk 2:41-50; Jn 2:14). Although he
condemns Iormalism, he approves liturgical practices (Mt 5:23I; 12:3-7; 23:16-22). It
is Ior him the house oI God, his Father. He reacts with anger when its sanctity and
purposes are violated by people turning into a place oI commerce and he takes action to
puriIy it (Mt 21:12-17). Yet he announces its destruction (Mt 23:28). In the course oI
his trail Jesus is accused oI having said that he would destroy this sanctuary made with
hands and raise up another not made with hands (MK 14:58). At the moment oI his
death the curtain oI the temple is torn showing that the temple has lost its sacred
character. The temple has ceased to IulIill its Iunction as a sign oI the divine presence
2
.
Now let us try to understand the importance oI temple in the liIe and teaching oI Jesus
Christ in the NT in brieI.


1
Scaria Kuthirakkattel, 'The Man-made Temple and the God-made Sanctuary, in: Jeevadhara, III
(1993) 153.
2
CIr.George Keerankeri, 'The Temple, in: Jidyafyoti Journal of theological Reflection, LI/6 (2007)
443.
58
4.1.1. Temple in the Synoptic Teaching
We will be seen in the Iollowing sections, the synoptic authors` attitude
towards the temple, both positively and negatively. Though the same incidents have got
diIIerent meanings Ior them, because oI the diIIerent context in which they placed the
temple incidents.

4.1.1.1. Jesus Cleansing the Temple
There are various sayings in the gospel about the temple which need to
be evaluated, but oI particular importance is the so-called cleansing oI the temple. The
incident in the temple is recorded in all Iour gospels, although each gospel writer has
interpreted the event in a distinct way. Precisely because it is attested in all Iour
gospels, many believe that the incident traces to an event in Jesus` ministry although
there is considerable debate about its meaning
3
. Let us try to examine it in this section
very shortly.

4.1.1.1.1. Mark: The Symbolic Destruction
Mark Irames the incident in the temple with the cursing oI the Iig tree so
that the two episodes comment on each other (Mk 11:11-26). Seen in light oI the Iig
tree episode, the temple incident is not so much a cleansing as a symbolic destruction.
Because it has been unIruitIul like the Iig tree, the temple itselI will be withered away
to its very roots. Peculiar to Mark is the separation oI the entry Irom the temple
incident by a Iull day. Jesus Iirst enters Jerusalem, and coming to the temple scrutinizes
everything beIore returning to Bethany Ior the night. By depicting two visits to the
temple, Mark creates a place Ior the Iirst portion oI the Iig tree episode which
otherwise would have interrupted the triumphal entry. When on the Iollowing day
Jesus enters the temple and throws out the buyers and the dealers and throws over the
tables oI money changers and the chairs oI the dove sellers. By cleansing the temple he
expresses a desire to restore the holiness oI the temple because he believed in its
sanctity. Jesus` action is the symbolic prophetic action in which represents the rejection
oI the temple authorities and the economic systems that supported and enhanced their

3
CIr. William R. Herzog, 'Temple Cleansing, in: Joel B. Green et al. (Eds), ictionary of Jesus and the
Gospels, Leicester, 1992, 817.
59
control over its Iunctions. Then the reaction oI the chieI priests and scribes are to
destroy Jesus
4
.

4.1.1.1.2. Matthew: Cleansing the Temple
Matthew removes the cursing oI the Iig tree as a Irame work Ior the
incident in the temple. This allows him to elaborate on the entry itselI. When Jesus
enters Jerusalem the whole city was shaken (Mt 21:10-27). The implicit opposition oI
the crowd to Jerusalem indicates that this is a positive aIIirmation, Jesus as the
IulIillment oI the promise made in Deuteronomy 18:15. Matthew Iollows Mark in
describing the initial actions oI Jesus in the temple. The phrase 'Ior all nations is
omitted Irom the compound quotation, thereby intensiIying the accusation against the
temple authorities whose leadership has led the temple away Irom its divine purpose.
Having denounced the perversion oI the temple, Jesus restores its purposes by healing
the broken and the outcast, but draws a predictably negative response Irom the temple
leaders. Matthew portrays a great reversal: the insiders are either ignorant or
indignantly obstinate, while the outsiders respond graciously to God`s Messiah as he
restores the temple. The Iig tree episode conIirms the reversal oI the insider and
outsider, especially judgment on the temple insiders. The episode oI the question on the
authority hearkens back to the healings as well as the disruptions in the temple`s outer
court
5
.

4.1.1.1.3. Luke: Preparing the Temple
Luke has muted the entire incident. Jesus began to throw out the dealers
(Lk 19:41-20:19).missing are the reIerence to buyers, money changers and dove sellers.
Moreover, the pronouncement is directed to them alone in such a way that it appears as
though Jesus is objecting to their commercial activity, presumably because it detracts
Irom the divine purpose oI the temple as a house oI prayer. The immediate outcome is
that Luke portrays Jesus` cleansing away the activity oI the buyers, preparing the
temple so that he can restore the temple courtyard as a place oI teaching. For what then
does Jesus prepare the temple? In the context oI Luke-Acts, the incident was preparing
the temple Ior its role as the starting point oI a new movement away Irom Jerusalem

4
CIr. -id., 817-818.
5
CIr. -id., 818-819.
60
announced in the pattern oI witness Iound in Lk 24:47 and elaborated in Acts 1:8.
Jerusalem and the temple would no longer be the goal oI Pilgrimage but the launching
pad Ior a new mission
6
.

4.1.1.2. The Sayings Attributed to Jesus Concerning the Destruction and
Rebuilding oI the Temple
The over view oI the synoptic authors indicates the temple`s importance
Ior them, especially Ior Luke: approximately more oI the narrative is located in the
temple or is concerned with its Iate. In this section let us deal with sayings attributed to
Jesus and the temple.

4.1.1.2.1. Temple as the Place oI God`s Presence
The sympathetic tone in his opening two chapters shows that Luke
aIIirmed the traditional Jewish convictions concerning the temple`s signiIicance. There
is no suggestion that the close association with the temple oI characters such as
Zachariah, Simeon and Anna was erroneous. AIter his classically styled prologue Luke
introduces his readers without any apology or explanation to an old man serving as a
priest beIore God in the sanctuary oI the Lord (Lk 1:9). When Jesus is presented in the
temple, Luke`s Phraseology similarly indicates his conviction as to the temple`s status:
they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (Lk 2:22). Later Jesus
aIIirms the temple as his Father`s house (Lk 2:49)
7
.

4.1.1.2.2. Jesus, the Presence oI God
One oI the over-arching themes oI Matthew`s Gospel is that oI
Immanuel- God with us (Mt 1:23). Jesus is the one who in his own person is a
maniIestation oI the presence oI God, and who at the end oI the Gospel promises to be
with his disciples to the end oI the age (Mt 28:20). This is a development oI theological
ideas previously associated with the Jerusalem temple. Just as God, though in Heaven,
was able mysteriously to dwell in the temple, so Jesus, though about to depart Irom this
earth, could promise to be with his disciples. This theme is highlighted on at least two
other occasions. In Mt 18:20 Jesus promises that where two or three are gathered in my

6
CIr. -id., 819.
7
CIr. Peter W. L. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, Michigan, 1996, 61.
61
name, I am there among them. In Mt 23:38II then makes it plain that the absence oI
God Irom the temple is to be identiIied with the absence Irom now on oI Jesus: Ior I
tell you, you will not see me again.
8
.

4.1.1.2.3. The Prophecy oI the Temple`s Destruction
In the beginning oI the Apocalyptic Discourse (Mk 13), Jesus predicts
the Iorthcoming destruction oI the temple and it is the expected sequel. Jesus reveals
privately to Iour oI his disciples the inner signiIicance oI his earlier public action that
by the cleansing oI the temple he announces the end oI the temple. Jesus` physical
location- sitting on the Mount oI Olives opposite the temple- matches his theological
stance oI opposition to the temple. Moreover Mark`s portrayal oI the disciples as they
comment admiringly on the massive stones oI which the temple was built on and then
ask Jesus concernedly when this destruction will take place conveys suIIiciently the
shock they would have Ielt at hearing such a negative stance towards the temple. Jesus
is overturning all their preconceptions and dashing many oI their Iormer hopes. Despite
his prediction oI judgment, Jesus is evidently working on the assumption oI the
temple`s previous signiIicance. Indeed it was precisely because the temple was so
signiIicant that its judgment became necessary. God had purposes Ior the temple, but
they had been overturned. Jesus aIIirms that Irom God`s perceptive the temple was, as
Isaiah had said, my house; but it was now a den oI robbers (Mk 11:17). The temple was
judged, not because it was not special, but precisely because it was
9
.

4.1.1.2.4. The Eschatological Replacement oI the Temple
The Apocalyptic Discourse which itselI concerns the temple`s
destruction, is surrounded by two stories that hint at the temple`s replacement: the
widow`s oIIering (Mk 12:41-44) and the anointing oI Jesus by the woman in
Bethany (Mk 14:1-9). The widow gives generously to the temple and its treasury, the
woman gives generously to Jesus and anoints his body. Jesus commends them both.
Yet, given that immediately aIter his commendation oI the widow he predicts the
destruction oI the institution to which she has just given. By contrast, when the
accusation is made in Bethany that the woman has wasted the perIume, Jesus makes it

8
CIr. -id., 30.
9
CIr. -id., 7-8.
62
clear that it was not. Contrary to appearances, thereIore it was the giIt to the physical
temple that was wasted, not the giIt to Jesus. The two passages preIigure the
replacement oI temples and conIirmed supremely in the accusation made against Jesus
at his trail (Mk 14:58; 15:29)
10
.

4.1.1.2.5. Death oI Jesus and the Splitting oI the Temple Veil
In Mark`s narration there was a tension between two temples is played
out. He portrays Jesus as the one whom, having predicted the overthrow oI the physical
temple in Jerusalem, promises to establish a new temple in his own person. The Iate oI
the two temples is about to be decided. The custodians oI each have pronounced the
doom oI the other. At the time oI the cruciIixion it seems clear that Jesus is wrong: the
new temple, not the old, is on the point oI being destroyed, and the bystanders mock
the one who promised to destroy the temple (Mk 15:29). At precisely this moment in
Mark`s narrative, however, we are taken Irom the hill oI Golgotha to the opposite hill,
the Temple Mount, to witness a mysterious event: the curtain oI the temple was torn in
two Irom top to the bottom (Mk 15:38). For all its diIIerent possible meanings, Mark is
clearly drawing a close connection between Jesus` death and the temple, and most
probably suggesting that the great reversals that have been prophesied have now been
set in motion. With the killing oI Jesus that the die is cast; the prophecies oI Jesus will
be IulIilled. In some mysterious way the result oI Jesus, death will prove to be the end
oI the Jewish temple. For Mark thereIore the temple`s Iate was sealed, not simply with
the resurrection, but in the moment oI cruciIixion; the resurrection merely conIirms
this. The Jerusalem temple dies in the death oI Jesus; and the underlying rationale Ior
this is that Jesus himselI is the new temple not made with hands
11
.

4.1.1.2.6. Resurrection oI Jesus
There is no doubt that Mark saw the IulIillment oI the prediction in the
resurrection oI Jesus. The phrase in three days was too close to the normal way oI
reIerring to Jesus` is being raised aIter three days. For Mark, thereIore, the resurrection
oI Jesus brought into existence a new kind oI temple. This could be identiIied with
Jesus himselI, or, alternatively, with the Christian community (Mk 14:58; 15:29).

10
CIr. -id., 8-9.
11
CIr. -id., 11-12.
63
Further detail on this connection between the resurrection and the destruction oI the
Jerusalem temple is not Iound in Mark- except perhaps in the imagery oI the rejected
stone in Mk 12:9-11
12
. In outline Matthew`s presentation is similar to Mark`s, though a
little more detailed. In his version oI the charge at Jesus` trail Jesus is accused not oI
having threatened to build another temple but rather oI being able to build it and Jesus
himselI is the presence oI God (Mt 26:61; 27:40)
13
.

4.1.2. Temple in the Teachings oI John
The synoptic accounts, it is not entirely clear what the author saw as
Jesus` motivation Ior the cleansing oI the temple. But John`s own purpose is clear- to
show what this incident reveals about Jesus` identity. Jesus aIIirms the prior validity oI
the temple, but in a manner which points to his own unique relationship to God
14
. In
this section let us discuss how the Iorth gospel deals with this issue: the Temple
Logion.

4.1.2.1. John: The Cleansing and Replacement oI the Temple
The incident in John occurs at the beginning oI Jesus` ministry during
his Iirst trip to Jerusalem (Jn 2:13-22). SigniIicant diIIerences exist between the
Johannine and the synoptic versions. Jesus` actions are more extreme in John. He
makes a whip to drive out the sellers oI sheep and oxen, along with the money
changers whose coins he pours out onto the temple courtyard. But he treats the dove
sellers more leniently, simply ordering them to leave with their wares. The
pronouncement itselI contrasts the house oI my Father with a house oI trade
15
. More
importantly, his cryptic logian, destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,
becomes the basis Ior John`s claim that he was speaking oI the temple oI his body. In
the light oI the resurrection John was convinced that Jesus himselI, in his own body,
was a new temple
16
.



12
CIr. -id., 10-11.
13
CIr. -id., 30.
14
CIr. -id., 163.
15
CIr. William R. Herzog, Op. Cit., 820.
16
CIr. Peter W. L. Walker, Op. Cit., 163.
64
4.1.2.1.1. The Cleansing oI the Temple: A Contrast between John and
Synoptic Tradition
In John chapter 2 oI the Gospel is a synthesis oI its message presented
through two events oI the ministry oI Jesus: the changing oI the water into wine and the
cleansing oI the temple. The Evangelist has imposed an introductory Iunction on these
events which embraces the whole ministry oI Jesus: to take away` and to Iill up`, two
basic attitudes during the ministry oI Jesus. This introductory or exordial Iunction
explains why an event which in all probability happened at end oI the ministry oI Jesus
and which was the teaching oI synoptic tradition is placed by John at the very
beginning oI the ministry oI Jesus, namely the cleansing oI the temple
17
.

4.1.2.2. Jesus' Prediction on the Destruction oI the Temple
AIter describing Jesus` action oI puriIying the temple, John continues:
'the Jews then said to him, what sign have you to show us Ior doing this? (Jn 2:18).
He presents the temple- logion as an answer to the demand oI the Jews Ior a sign. He
reports: 'Jesus answered them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up
(Jn 2:19).

4.1.2.2.1. The Analysis oI the Temple Logion
The temple- logion has two parts, one dealing with the destruction oI the
temple, and the other dealing with its rebuilding. Destroy this temple`: the Greek word
yein (Destroy) means to unbind, dissolve, break up, put an end to, and break a legal
agreement or obligation. In John, however, the word yein has been used both in the
material and in the moral sense. It appears in the material sense when Jesus tells the
people around to unbind the resuscitated Lazarus. In all other contexts outside 2:19,
John has used this word in the moral sense oI breaking the Sabbath, or the Law oI
Moses, or the Scripture. So the more Irequent Johannine use oI yein is to denote a
moral breaking and not a material destroying. II we consider the context and tone oI the
temple- Logion, we are Iorced to conclude that John has used ysate in 2:19 a
primarily and directly in the moral sense. We have to bear in mind that in the words

17
CIr. Augustine Mulloor, 'Institution vs Charism: Johannine Perceptive, in: Jeevadhara, I (2001)
131.

65
that accompanied the action oI the temple cleansing, Jesus has already made it clear
that the Jews have destroyed the temple in the moral sense, by making the house oI the
Lord into the house oI trade. This same tone is repeated in the Iirst part oI the temple-
Logion
18
.
In three days I will raise it up`: this second part oI the temple-Logion
constitutes the cardinal point oI Jesus` saying. These words make clear what sign Jesus
on his part would present to prove his identity as the son oI God and the Messiah. This
time indication oI three days` has certainly a Christian connotation to indicate the
resurrection oI Jesus on the third day aIter his death
19
. The word egeirein has been used
both transitively and intransitively. Intransitively it is used to mean raise up or
originate. Transitively it is used to reIer to the resurrection. When Jesus speaks oI
Jesus` resurrection, he generally uses this word in the passive voice- it is God the Iather
who raises Jesus Irom the dead. In the temple- logion this word appears in the active
with the meaning that it is Jesus who raises himselI Irom the dead. The word egero (I
will raise) is used in the temple- logion to reIer to the resurrection oI Jesus. The reason
is that it was an answer to the challenges oI the Jews to prove his claim oI being the
son oI God. So John wants to make a comparison between the act oI the Jews oI
destroying and the act oI Jesus oI rebuilding the temple
20
.

4.1.2.2.2. The Misunderstanding oI the Temple Logion by the Jews
AIter presenting the temple- logion, John describes the immediate
reaction oI Jesus` audience (Jn 2:20). The whole stress Ialls on the raising up in three
days. Their question is concerned only with the building up oI the temple, and not with
the destroying oI the temple. In the temple- logion what was striking Ior the Jews, was
not a comparison between the destroying and rebuilding, but between the building up
oI the then existing temple in such and such a time (46 years) and the building up oI the
temple which Jesus was speaking oI (three days)
21
.




18
CIr. Lucius Nereparampil, estroy this Temple, Bangalore, 1978, 36-37.
19
CIr. -id., 49-50.
20
CIr. -id., 54-57.
21
CIr. -id., 62.
66
4.1.2.2.3. The ReIlection on the Temple Logion and the Realization oI its
Meaning by the Disciples
Jn 2:21-22 provide us with the Iull realization by the disciples oI the
true meaning oI the temple logion, aIter IulIillment oI the sign involved in it. The
evangelist and the disciples had one and the same realization.

4.1.2.2.3.1. The Remembrance and Realization by the Evangelist
John says: but he spoke oI the temple oI his body (Jn 2:21). The
expression shows that here the evangelist speaks oI his complete realization oI the
temple- logion that came about only later, aIter Jesus` resurrection. The evangelist has
no doubt at all that Jesus spoke oI his body
22
.

4.1.2.2.3.1.1. Jesus' Body as the Temple
John does not just say that Jesus spoke oI his body, but that he spoke oI
the temple oI his body. The Johannine emphasis in calling Jesus` resurrected body the
temple cannot be denied. By this special expression, the evangelist shows that the
templeness is really applied in concrete to the body oI Jesus and not to the Jerusalem
temple. For the evangelist, Jesus` resurrected body is the temple oI which Jesus was
speaking in the second part oI the temple- logion. Here, he is quite right especially
because oI the words in three days` oI the temple- logion, which were only veriIied in
the resurrection oI Jesus` body
23
.
Now there arises a question: by the word temple does the evangelist
mean only the resurrected body oI Jesus, or also Jesus` body beIore its resurrection or
even beIore his death? By body (soma) John always reIers to the body aIter the
moment oI death. Since John was answering the problem raised by Jews in 2:20,
namely, how Jesus could raise up the temple in three days; it is clear that he means here
explicitly the body oI Jesus aIter his death, although he does not exclude the possibility
oI his body beIore his death
24
.


22
CIr. -id., 65.
23
CIr. -id., 66.
24
CIr. -id., 67.

67
4.1.2.2.3.1.2. The Resurrected Jesus as the Temple
By the body oI Jesus, John does not mean merely the body, but the
whole person oI Jesus. When john speaks oI Jesus` Ilesh (sarx), attention is called to
the human nature oI Jesus which is subject to suIIering and death. But when he speaks
about Jesus` body (soma), a special attention is reIerred to his person. For, there it
means not merely the dead body but the risen body that has undergone suIIering and
death. Thus it is no more transient like the sarx but it has a permanent character and
signiIies not merely the body as a part oI man, but the whole person
25
.

4.1.2.2.3.2. The Remembrance and Realization by the Disciples
Jn 2:22 is the conIirmation oI the Johannine understanding oI the
temple- logion. The remembrance by the disciples took place only aIter the resurrection
oI Jesus. It is not mere remembrance oI the temple- logion, but a realization oI its real
meaning. It was when he was raised Irom the dead that his disciples understood the
sign contained in the temple- logion as veriIied in the body oI Jesus and not in the
Jerusalem temple. When the disciples realized the temple- logion as a prediction and
the resurrection oI Jesus as its IulIillment, they believed the scripture and the word
Jesus had spoken
26
.

4.1.2.3. The Revelation oI Jesus and the Temple
John uses Jewish Ieasts as the background Ior presenting the revelations
oI Jesus and thereby reinterprets them. Even these Ieasts had, in the course oI time,
become institutionalized and thus ceremonial, ritualistic, irrelevant and liIe-less. The
Ieast oI Tabernacle is the context in which Jesus` ministry in Jerusalem is presented by
John in chapters 7-10. The Iour Major revelations oI Jesus: come to me and drink.` I
am the light oI the world, I am the door and I am the good shepherd. Through this,
Jesus presented himselI as the true God whose presence Iills the new temple
27
.




25
CIr. -id., 70.
26
CIr. -id., 81.
27
CIr. Augustine Mulloor, Op. Cit., 135.
68
4.2. Temple in the Pauline Letters
Paul rarely reIers to the Physical temple in Jerusalem, but when he does
he makes it plain that he saw this institution as truly ordained by God in times past. In
Romans 2:4 he includes temple worship in the list oI the Jews` special privileges, and
in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 he describes it as the temple oI God. Both texts presuppose his
positive attitude towards the temple in principle. There are several indications that
Paul`s theology looked at the temple in a new light
28
.

4.2.1. The Christians, the Spiritual Temple
First, he made the bold assertion that the Christian church was truly the
temple oI God (1Cor 3:16-17; 2Cor 6:16). The Christian community is identiIied with
the temple, because it is the dwelling place oI God; as such it is holy, and those who
threaten the community`s liIe are duly warned. Each oI these sentiments, however, can
be paralleled to the Qumran community. They believed that the physical temple in
Jerusalem would return to its previous place within God`s purpose- once it was
properly puriIied. II they did not see themselves as a complete replacement Ior the
Jerusalem temple, it is likely that Paul believed this oI the Christian church
29
.

4.2.1.1. The Temple oI the Spirit
In arguing Ior sexual purity Paul asks the Corinthians, Do you not
know that your body is a temple oI the Holy Spirit within you, which you have Irom
God, and that you are not your own?`(1Cor 6:19). It is possible that some oI the
Corinthian believers
Still Irequented the pagan temples and had intercourse with the temple prostitutes; in so
doing, Paul argued, they became one body with a prostitute (1Cor 6:16). But Christ has
redeemed them so that they must be become united to him, anyone united to the Lord
becomes one spirit (with him)` (1Cor 6:17). Those sanctiIied by the Lord are now his
holy temple where he dwells by means oI the Holy Spirit
30
.



28
CIr. Peter W. L. Walker, Op. Cit., 119.
29
CIr. -id., 120.
30
CIr. Bruce Chilton et al. (Eds.), 'Temple, Jewish, in: Craig A. Evans & Stanley E. Porter (Eds.),
ictionary of New Testament Background, Leicester, 2000, 1179.
69
4.2.1.2. The Temple oI God
1Cor 6:19 is the only Pauline passage that describes the Individual
believer as God`s temple. Mistakenly, it is sometimes thought that 1Cor 3:16-17 also
speaks oI the individual but it is clear in the Greek text it speaks about the local church
in Corinth when he says: Do you not know that you are God`s temple and that the
Spirit oI God dwells in you?` (For, in the Greek text this sentence is used in the plural
Iorm oI the second person). Thus Christians as individual and as the community are the
temple oI God
31
.

4.2.1.3. The Temple oI the Living God
Paul in 2Cor 6:16- 7:1 speaks oI believers corporately as the temple oI
the living God and applies to them Ezekiel`s rendition oI the old covenant`s promise oI
the divine presence in Israel`s midst (Ezek 37:27). Because they are inhabited by the
holy God, they must live in holiness
32
.

4.2.2. Temple and Church
When the Corinthians heard Paul` analogy in 1 Corinthians oI the
church as God`s sanctuary, they would have understood the image Irom their
knowledge oI pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in
Jerusalem. In the history oI Israel this had helped to preserve the unity and identity oI
the people oI God. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity, Ior they were Iragmented
due to their individual preIerences (1Cor 1:10-13). In the context oI the letter Paul
emphasizes the need Ior the Corinthians to see that God was producing one spiritual
habitation in Corinth
33
.

4.2.2.1. The New Divine Dwelling
When Paul writes in 2Corinthians 5 oI the destruction oI the earthly tend
and its replacement by a building Irom God. a house not made with hands, eternal in
heaven, he is speaking not oI individual bodies but oI the corporate body oI Christ

31
CIr. -id.
32
CIr. -id.
33
CIr. -id., 1179-1180.

70
conceived as a new temple. In so doing Paul reIlects the tradition oI Jesus that he
would destroy this temple and built one not made by hands
34
.

4.2.2.2. The New Dividing-line
Paul`s theology was based on the conviction that in Christ there was no
longer Jew or Greek (Gal 3:28). The Jerusalem temple, however, was the greatest
boundary maker between Jew and Gentile. Paul`s message ran counter to the message
oI the temple at this point. The passage in Ephesians 2:14 expresses his conviction
succinctly: through the cross Christ has made both groups (Jew and Gentile) into one
and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. Three
passages are signiIicant in this connection. First, when Paul indicates that he now
regards no Iood as unclean (Rom 14:14). Secondly, in taking the gentile believers to
Jerusalem with their giIts oI money, Paul challenged people in Jerusalem to recognize
that these gentiles were indeed acceptable (Rom 15:25II). Thirdly, Paul may have had
the temple speciIically in mind (Rom 9:26): in the very place where it was said to
them, you are not my people, there they shall be called children oI the living God
35
.

4.2.3. Temple and Christology
Finally Paul seems to apply one aspect oI the temple imagery to Christ.
In Colossians 1:19 Paul speaks oI Christ as the one in whom all the Iullness was
pleased to dwell, and in Colossians 2:9 he writes in him all the Iullness oI God dwells
bodily. The language oI God being pleased to dwell is used in psalms 68:16 oI Zion,
the mountain where God would reside Iorever. So the Iullness oI God being pleased to
dwell in Christ suggests an application oI the temple metaphor to the incarnation
36
.

4.3. Temple in the Other New Testament Writings
There are other New Testament books which speak about the temple,
namely, Acts oI the Apostles speaks about the cultic piety oI the earliest church related
to the Jerusalem temple and the absence oI God led to its destruction. Revelation and

34
CIr. -id., 1180.

35
CIr. Peter W. L. Walker, Op. Cit., 124-125.

36
CIr. Bruce Chilton et al. (Eds.), Op. Cit., 1180.
71
letter to the Hebrews speaks about the Heavenly Temple as the replacement Ior
Jerusalem temple.

4.3.1. Temple and Cultic Piety in the Acts oI the Apostles
The Apostles` involvement in the temple, begun in Luke 24:53, then
continues in Acts 3-5. Nothing negative is said here against the temple. Instead it is the
meeting point Ior the disciples, and the natural place Ior the apostles to present their
claim to Jerusalem`s religious leadership that Jesus, though cruciIied, is Israel`s
Messiah.

4.3.1.1. The Apostles and the Temple
Luke presents the apostles as eIIectively giving the temple authorities
and the people as a whole, another chance (2:37-40; 3:17-21). He also makes it plain
that there was no inherent contradiction between the apostles` Irequenting the temple
and Jesus` prophetic words about its Iuture (Lk 21:6)
37
.

4.3.1.2. The Temple and the Charges against Stephan
This necessary ambivalence towards the temple comes to a head with
the charges brought against Stephan (Acts 6:13-14). There is nothing to indicate that
Luke distanced Irom the sentiments which Stephan expresses- as though they were the
mark oI an overly negative stand within the earliest church. So Luke endorses
Stephan`s most radical statement: the Most High does not live in houses made by
human hands (7:48-49). This gives the initial expression that Stephan is denying God`s
past sanctioning oI the temple, seeing it as a human mistake with no true place in
Israel`s history. Stephan`s brieI statement is not a total denial oI the temple`s past
validity. What he does is simply to remind his hearers oI the truth expressed by
Solomon at the temple`s dedication (1Kings 8:27). He was criticizing those who
overlooked this paradox and who were then prone to restricting God to the temple. The
temple has actually become an idol, not just subjectively in the hearts oI his audience,
but objectively in the sight oI God (Acts 6:14)
38
.


37
CIr. Peter W. L. Walker, Op. Cit., 65.
38
CIr. -id., 65-67.
72
4.3.1.2. The Temple Doors Shutting Behind Paul
The narrative then moves away Irom the temple and the issue is leIt
pending, only to resurIace in Paul`s Iinal Journey to Jerusalem. Paul is arrested in the
temple, and led away Irom its precincts, the temple doors shutting behind him (21:30).
Again the sensitivities oI those zealous Ior this holy place (21:28) have resulted in
actions which are Iar Irom holy. The messenger oI Israel`s Messiah is expelled Irom
Israel`s holy place, and in shutting the doors behind him the temple eIIectively shuts
out the God who once had dwelt there
39
.

4.3.2. The Heavenly Temple in the Epistle to the Hebrews
The author`s attitude to the temple is clear. He aIIirmed its vital role in
previous generations, but asserted that this had changed. We can go through the
changes made in the teaching oI temple in letter to the Hebrews.

4.3.2.1. The New Meaning oI Tabernacle
The establishment oI the tabernacle in the wilderness was clearly in
accordance with god`s purposes (Ex 8:5). In these last days, however, something had
occurred which gave regulations a whole new meaning. God`s Son, whose worthy oI
more glory than Moses had come into the world and provided puriIication Ior sins. He
had done this as a priest according to the order oI Melchizedek and through oIIering
himselI as a sacriIice Ior sins once Ior all, in comparison with the previous high priests
Jesus had received a more excellent ministry and was the mediator oI a better
covenant. As a result, the previous regulations Ior worship were part oI a covenant
which was now obsolete and growing old. A whole new way oI approaching the holy
God oI Israel had been Iorged through Christ`s atoning death. The Iact that he never
reIers as such to the temple, but only to the tabernacle, might initially suggest as a
spiritual point about the new access to God through Jesus (Heb 1:1-9:24)
40
.

4.3.2.2. The Contrast: Jerusalem Temple and Christian Worship
A strong contrast is established between Christian worship Iocused
through Christ and the worship Iocused on the tabernacle. Christian believers now had

39
CIr. -id., 67.
40
CIr. -id., 203.
73
an altar which was quite diIIerent Irom the one associated with the tent. In Christ they
had an altar oI their very own, which oIIered them a sure access into God`s presence.
This contrast between the Jerusalem temple and the new Christian dispensation was
implicit through out his argument concerning Jesus as the true High Priest (7:11-
10:25). What is new in chapter 13 Iorces a new sense oI contrast. Jesus` death had
taken place outside the city gate not in the sanctuary. A choice was thereIore required-
either to go to Jesus outside the camp or remain as it were within the city and Iocused
on the temple
41
.

4.3.2.3. The Future oI Jerusalem Temple
The author oI Hebrews, however, was not wanting to cast any
aspirations on the temple practice, but rather making a Iar more Iundamental point
concerning the very essence oI the temple. By concentrating his attention on the
tabernacle in the wilderness, he could argue that the tabernacle system oI worship, even
when considered in its most pristine and pure Iorm under Moses had been declared
redundant by God through Jesus. His criticism would have appeared not as
revolutionary but as merely reIorming. He believed the Jerusalem temple was but a
shadow oI the reality now Iound in Christ. He urged Christians to disassociate
themselves Irom it
42
.

4.3.3. The Heavenly Temple in the Book oI Revelation
The attitude towards the temple in Revelation is very close to that Iound
in John`s Gospel. In both the essence oI the temple is Jesus. But in Revelation an
additional emphasizes given to the reality oI the heavenly temple, oI which the earthily
temple had been a valuable Ioretaste
43
. Now we can go through this section and
understand it clearly.




41
CIr. -id., 206-207.
42
CIr. -id., 207-208.

43
CIr. -id., 248.

44
CIr. -id., 243-244.

74
4.3.3.1. The Jerusalem Temple: A Model
As with the other New Testament writers, there is no suggestion that
john denied the temple`s importance in the Old Testament era. The highest compliment
to the Jerusalem temple is that John`s vision oI heavenly worship is so clearly modeled
upon it. All the imagery is drawn Irom the Jerusalem temple, namely Ark oI the
Covenant and an altar. Here revelation proves to be a close parallel to the book oI
Hebrews. Both authors emphasize Jesus` death against the back drop oI the cultic
system associated with the Jerusalem temple
44

4.3.3.2. The Eschatological Reality oI New Jerusalem
The notion that Jesus is the Iocused presence oI God receives its clearest
expression in the Iinal vision oI the New Jerusalem when John makes the staggering
claim that there was no temple in the city, Ior its temple is the Lord God the Almighty
and the lamb (Rev 21:22). Speaking oI this Jesus who some years previously had
entered the temple in the earthily Jerusalem, john boldly claims that, together with God
the Almighty, he constitute the essence oI the temple in the Heavenly Jerusalem. This
necessarily cast the Jerusalem temple in a new light. According to the revelation given
to John, history was moving towards the eschatological reality oI a New Jerusalem,
which contained no temple
45
.

4.3.3.3. Christian Church: The True Temple oI God
On this reading oI Rev 11:1-19, he is speaking oI a diIIerent temple,
namely Christian community. He understands the temple and the city as symbols oI the
people oI God. It is as though a recollection oI the destruction oI that physical temple is
a springboard that prompts the realization that there must be another temple to which
this promise oI protection does apply. The prophecy then indicates that, even though
the church is outwardly vulnerable and prone to attack, it can rest assured that
spiritually it is under God`s sure protection. Thus Christian church is the true temple oI
God, the true inner sanctuary, and the sure outpost oI God`s presence in the world.

44
CIr. -id., 243-244.

45
CIr. -id., 244-245.



75
John`s readers were to see that they, not ethnic Israel, had the true temple: indeed they
themselves were that temple
46
.

Conclusion
As we saw in our overview oI the Biblical perspective on the temple,
especially the New Testament temple theology has something very positive to oIIer. In
the NT, the death oI Jesus marks the beginning oI a new temple. In place oI the temple
made with hands, a temple not made with hands has come about. This temple not
made with the hands but made up through his death and resurrection. And by accepting
radical love oI God and love oI people it is built among the Christian believers. We
ourselves are the temple oI God because God dwells in us and we are also the temple
oI the Spirit; Jesus is the High Priest oI our temple. So he brought the heavenly temple
Ior us. Now let us are part oI that temple by our liIe in the world.

46
CIr. -id., 247.