Jump to content

Veil Of Temple Rent In Twain


auteur55

Recommended Posts

Mark 15:38

And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom

Many evengelicals believe this to be symbolic of the end of the old law and the beginning of the new. Where God would speak openly to his children and no longer to prophets.

I would like to hear everyone's interpretation of this scripture and if it negates the need for prophets and temple worship.

Cheers!

-Auteur55

Link to comment
Mark 15:38 
And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom

Many evengelicals believe this to be symbolic of the end of the old law and the beginning of the new. Where God would speak openly to his children and no longer to prophets.

I would like to hear everyone's interpretation of this scripture and if it negates the need for prophets and temple worship.

Cheers!

-Auteur55

The gospel writer obviously included this detail for a purpose -- not every event of

Jesus' passion and death could have found a place in a short account. We read of

abnormal dakness, graves being thrown upon, resurrected beings, and the veil in the

Jerusalem Temple being rent asunder.

Why?

There are some learned commentaries on these gospel passages and I will not here

try to duplicate, or even summarize, that good scholarship. But the symbology seems

to fall into three categories of interpretation:

[ 1 ] The "old" covenant was abrogated

or

[ 2 ] Jesus in death symbolized the coming fate of Jerusalem Temple

or

[ 3 ] The priestly intermediaries between man and God were done away with

Some anti-semite "Christians" have pointed to the first explanation as proof that the

Jews have been cast aside by God, for their having been the murderers of Christ --

which makes them fair game for Christian wrath and persecution.

Could it be that God never again condescended to hear a Jewish prayer, after this

reported event? If so, then why did the early Jesus-followers in the congregation at

Jerusalem headed by James, continue to go to that same Temple?

Items 2 and 3 are inter-related, and result in the general precept that Jesus has

become the one true high-priest for spiritual Israel -- that all earthly priests are

either done away with or placed under his spiritual authority.

I'll leave these matters for others to discuss.

Uncle Dale

Link to comment
Mark 15:38
And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom

Many evengelicals believe this to be symbolic of the end of the old law and the beginning of the new. Where God would speak openly to his children and no longer to prophets.

I would like to hear everyone's interpretation of this scripture and if it negates the need for prophets and temple worship.

Cheers!

-Auteur55

If there were no need for prophets from this time forward then there would have been no need for prophets in the New Testament, but they are mentioned on several occasions, as are apostles who spoke directly with the Lord. That interpretation is n apostate justification for not having the authority to act in God's name. The fact is, Christians wanted to have everything the Jews had. The Holy Sepulchre was set up and treated like a temple, with ordinances going on and required pilgrimages and the like. They claimed it was a holier site than Jerusalem's temple. They claimed to have prophets for years, just like they claimed their temple ordinances were more valid than Jewish ones ever were.

Denying the need for temple worship is only a reaction to not having a clue where to begin.

Link to comment

And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom

It seems that an LDS temple serves a different purpose than that of an "EV temple".

I've been taught that when the curtain was rent in twain the Holliest of Hollies was released. This was the Spirit of God or the Holy Ghost that once dwelt in that place. Then only the priest was allowed into that place and he had to be spotless or else he who carried the sins of the people as well as the people would die. Every year, this rolling the sins forward would occur.

When the curtain was rent in two, the Spirit of God that was once contained, was released. There were no limitations or restraints where it could be.

What I've also learned and know from scripture is that the human body can be and is meant to be a temple of God.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17

16Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

17If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Matthew 26:61

61And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.

Matthew 27:40

40And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.

We can also see that Jesus in the flesh was a temple that the Spirit of God dwelt in. For Jesus was 100% God and 100% man (flesh).

Scripture says that the Lord or The Spirit of God can not dwell in a house. His Spirit is far to overwhelming.

Isa.66

[1] Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

[2] For all those things hath mine hand made, and those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

There is no need to have a built temple to worship God in, for we are that temple. We worship God from our inner most being. The Bible says in my house there are many mansions...It is often said that we can be those mansions.

Link to comment

It is clear to me that the veil represents the separation of the mortal and spiritual worlds. When Jesus resurrected, he broke the chains of death allowing him and the other dead the scriptures recite rose at that time access through the veil.

I see nothing that indicates that further revelation was not needed. In fact the entire NT was written after the veil was rent in twain and the day of Pentecost had not yet happened.

Carried to its logical extreme, this argument could say that what the Apostles had to say is no more important than of any other "inspired" man.

Link to comment
The veil was mended when Jesus was resurrected and people were still attending the temple

The veil was mended?!

Chapter and verse, please?

It wasn't mended by any "Christian", I can tell you that.

It may likely have been mended by Jews (or it may not have, given historical precedent), but such would have been for the continuance of animal sacrifices, which indicates a rejection of the sacrifice of Christ. So in terms of Christian doctrine, the "mending" seems completely irrelevant.

You seem to have forgotten that the Jerusalem temple was a Jewish temple, not a "Christian" one. Christians have never had "temples", as in buildings. The Temple was to offer sacrifice to God, so for the Christian a temple is no longer needed since the ultimate sacrifice in the body of Christ has already been given. This is a completed sacrifice, never needing to be repeated or added to, as the epistle of Hebrews explains.

The reason Christians went to the temple wasn't to "worship" (at least for Gentile Christians), but to evangelize the Jews. I see a striking similarity in the first Christians going to the Jewish temple to proclaim the true gospel, and modern day evangelicals going to the LDS "temples" to proclaim the true gospel to them today. The resemblence seems striking due to the LDS emphasis on "law", and "works", and "worthiness", and "temples", and "prophets", etc. etc.

and electing replacement Apostles

While I can understand your tendency to interpret such things according to the LDS view, it seems that you haven't considered alternative understandings. First of all, I'd like to know what basis you say, "electing replacement Apostles" (plural), as there is Biblical record of only replacing one apostle (namely Judas). And you seem to leave the question begging as to why he was replaced, seemingly assuming that the reason was for some "perpetual quorum" or something, rather than the quite obvious reason that Judas' betrayal disqualified him for the role. Other than the replacement of Matthias for Judas, there is absolutely no other record of "electing replacement apostles", either Biblically, or historically.

and receiving prophets, even after Jesus had left.

Again, that begs the question of what kind of "prophets" these are referring to.

But EVs seem to ignor that.

It seems rather uncharitable and (frankly) insulting for you to simply assume that we "ignor[e]" such things, simply because we disagree with the LDS view.

Theophilus

Link to comment
The veil was mended?!

Chapter and verse, please?

It wasn't mended by any "Christian", I can tell you that.

It may likely have been mended by Jews (or it may not have, given historical precedent), but such would have been for the continuance of animal sacrifices, which indicates a rejection of the sacrifice of Christ.  So in terms of Christian doctrine, the "mending" seems completely irrelevant.

I wonder if those sacrifices were continued under the short administration of James

the Just, as an opposition high priest in the Temple shortly before its destruction by

the Romans?

Not all church historians agree that James did indeed serve in that capacity in the

Jerusalem Temple -- but the tradition is a strong one, and I am left to wonder just

what did happen back then.

Uncle Dale

Link to comment
The reason Christians went to the temple wasn't to "worship" (at least for Gentile Christians), but to evangelize the Jews.  I see a striking similarity in the first Christians going to the Jewish temple to proclaim the true gospel, and modern day evangelicals going to the LDS "temples" to proclaim the true gospel to them today.

It is interpretations such as this that lead me to the conclusion that even though we all have eyes to read we all don't have eyes to see. Christ himself said "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Fulfill in this sense was to complete his mission which had been prophesied by every prophet since the beginning and to which all things pointed. Why in heaven or earth would he tear down all the ordinances and principles which he had established since the beginning? Why would he then organize the church so that it had specific offices and ordinances? Why would he put Peter in charge and organize a missionary program if organization were no longer required? Why would his church be one of disunity and chaos, which it became with the loss of the leadership?

I'm so glad to know that modern day EV's are at the temple to save me. It gives me such comfort. Of course you would think if they were representatives of God they would have a little class and some reverence for places of worship, even if they disagree with those who worship there. Even the Immortals in the Highlander series respected holy ground. :P

Link to comment
Christians have never had "temples", as in buildings.

That's very funny. :P

I suggest you read chapter three of my forthcoming book: Solomon's Temple: Myth and History. In will be published by the reknown LDS vanity press Thames and Hudson in London, due (according to their schedule) on April 6, 2007 (with 200 illustrations). You are, quite simply, completely wrong in your claim.

I suspect the rending of the veil either represents the withdrawal of the kabod/glory of God from the Temple (as per Ezekiel), or the passing of Christ the new Great High Priest into the Holy of Holies to complete the Great Atonement (as per Hebrews). I lean towards the latter.

Link to comment
It is interpretations such as this that lead me to the conclusion that even though we all have eyes to read we all don't have eyes to see.

Just because we disagree with you, doesn't mean we don't have "eyes to see".

Maybe our disagreement is evidence that it is LDS who "don't have eyes to see".

I'm of the opinion that since the "accusation" can just as easily made by other side, that such an accusation is inappropriate, serving no purpose but as an insult.

Christ himself said "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Yes, He most certainly did say that.

And for those of us who actually understand what He meant, it is truly a great blessing.

Fulfill in this sense was to complete his mission which had been prophesied by every prophet since the beginning and to which all things pointed.

I certainly agree.

Why in heaven or earth would he tear down all the ordinances and principles which he had established since the beginning?

And what "ordinances and principles" are you referring to?

And who is claiming they were "[torn] down"?

You seem to be engaging in quite a lot of question-begging.

Why would he then organize the church so that it had specific offices and ordinances?

Before your question can even be asked, you need to define and support your assertions. What "specific offices and ordinances" are you referring to? And where are they taught in the Bible? I get the distinct impression that you are referring to distinctly Mormon "offices" ("quorums", "seventies", "twelves", etc.) and "ordinances" (baptizing for the dead, etc.) rather than Biblical ones. But since you were not specific, I can only guess, so please elaborate.

Why would he put Peter in charge

He didn't.

I'm sorry you take the Roman Catholic misinterpretation of Scripture.

and organize a missionary program if organization were no longer required?

I guess it will surprise you greatly that I am in favour of both missionary work and of organization.

Why would his church be one of disunity and chaos,

That is not my position, of course.

which it became with the loss of the leadership?

The historical Christian church has never had a "loss of leadership".

Christ has always been our leader.

I'm so glad to know that modern day EV's are at the temple to save me. It gives me such comfort.

I'm glad you finally understand their motivation.

Theophilus

Link to comment
The reason Christians went to the temple wasn't to "worship" (at least for Gentile Christians), but to evangelize the Jews.

Unfortunately for Theophilus, it is quite clear that the New Testament apostles continued to worship in the Jerusalem temple after Christ's ascension (Acts 2:46, 3:1-10, 5:20-42). Even Paul worshipped there (Acts, 21:26-30, 22:17, 24:6-18, 25:8, 26:21). Paul is explicitly said to have performed purification rituals (Acts 21:26, 24:18), and prayed in the temple (Acts 22:17, cf. 3:1); he claims that he has not offended "against the temple," implying he accepts its sanctity (Acts 25::P. Indeed, Paul also offered sacrifice (prosfora) in the temple (Acts 21:26, cf. Num 6:14-18), a very odd thing for him to do if the temple had been completely superceded after Christ's ascension. Finally, and most importantly, Paul had a vision of Christ ("The Just One" ton dikaion) in the temple (Acts 22:14-21), paralleling Old Testament temple theophanies, and strongly implying a special sanctity in the temple, where God still appears to men even after Christ's ascension.

Link to comment
I've been taught that when the curtain was rent in twain the Holliest of Hollies was released. This was the Spirit of God or the Holy Ghost that once dwelt in that place. Then only the priest was allowed into that place and he had to be spotless or else he who carried the sins of the people as well as the people would die. Every year, this rolling the sins forward would occur.

Yike, a spotless place and here I thought it was were the ritualistic slaughter of animals was performed. I wouldn't want to dwell there but then maybe I am thinking with the dreaded presentism.

Link to comment
The reason Christians went to the temple wasn't to "worship" (at least for Gentile Christians), but to evangelize the Jews.

Unfortunately for Theophilus, it is quite clear that the New Testament apostles continued to worship in the Jerusalem temple after Christ's ascension (Acts 2:46, 3:1-10, 5:20-42).

Of course the Jewish Christians continued to worship there.

I never said any different, so there is no need for you to condescend to think it "unfortunate" for me.

I explicitly pointed out that the Gentile Christians didn't worship there. Did you forget your reading glasses, Bill?

Even Paul worshipped there (Acts, 21:26-30, 22:17, 24:6-18, 25:8, 26:21).

Perhaps you have forgotten that Paul was Jewish ("Hebrew among Hebrews")?

Paul is explicitly said to have performed purification rituals (Acts 21:26, 24:18),

"Purification rituals" aren't animal sacrifice.

Your apologetics seems incredibly imprecise.

and prayed in the temple (Acts 22:17, cf. 3:1);

Again, he was Jewish.

he claims that he has not offended "against the temple," implying he accepts its sanctity (Acts 25::P.  Indeed, Paul also offered sacrifice (prosfora) in the temple (Acts 21:26, cf. Num 6:14-18),

Not all sacrifice is sacrifice for sin, Bill.

a very odd thing for him to do if the temple had been completely superceded after Christ's ascension. 

Not at all.

Finally, and most importantly, Paul had a vision of Christ ("The Just One" ton dikaion) in the temple (Acts 22:14-21), paralleling Old Testament temple theophanies, and strongly implying a special sanctity in the temple, where God still appears to men even after Christ's ascension.

That's quite a bit of imaginative speculation, IMO.

Theophilus

Link to comment

I've been taught that when the curtain was rent in twain the Holliest of Hollies was released. This was the Spirit of God or the Holy Ghost that once dwelt in that place.

So during Old Testament times, God dwelt in the temple like a Genie in a bottle? He was released from that bottle once the curtain was rent? I also thought that God was some sort of omnipresent being that many claim. So how can an omnipresent being be bottled up in a small room?

Link to comment

Scripture says that the Lord or The Spirit of God can not dwell in a house.  His Spirit is far to overwhelming.

Many Christians have told me that since God is an omnipresent spirit who fills the universe. He even fills my colon and lungs. So why would God be in my lungs and small intestine but can't also dwell in a house? I think the point is that God's spirit is not limited to just being in the Temple. Oh and if God Spirit is in my small intestine at this exact moment and I am in a house, then God does dwell in a house.

Link to comment
The veil was mended when Jesus was resurrected and people were still attending the temple

The veil was mended?!

Chapter and verse, please?

The veil of the temple was repaired because Jesus was resurrected (Hebrews 10:20). The fact that the veil represents Christ's flesh, since Christ is resurrected, the veil was repaired (hence the continuing necessity of temples). The Christians worshipped daily in the Temple after the resurrection.

The temple then had a new signifigance. The New Testament states that after His Resurrection, Jesus Christ taught His Apostles in secret for 40 days teaching them the mysteries of the Kingdom of God. Secret traditions were being passed down to other worthy members from the Apostles via oral tradition Acts 1:3. (Clement the first Pope admitted being denied that knowledge in Clement 1)

Saint Paul had visions which were essentially insights in which he received "secret wisdom" to be shared only with those Christians he considers "mature".

"I have fed you with milk," Paul told the Corinthian saints, "and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet are ye now able" (1 Corinthians 3:2). If Paul ever gave this doctrinal "meat" to the Corinthians, it is not recorded in any extant version of the New Testament. Why not? Paul's first letter to the saints at Corinth discusses everything; from the order and glories of the resurrection to the various kinds of spiritual gifts found in the church, what could have been the "meat" that Paul withheld?

The Corinthians were "babes" in Christ; they were still unable to handle the "meat" of the gospel (1 Corinthians 3:1-2). However, Paul told them that "mature" saints were taught a "secret and hidden wisdom" (1 Corinthians 2:6-7). This secret wisdom undoubtedly constituted part of the "meat" that the apostle withheld from the Corinthians.

Plenty of apocryphal works speak of these secret temple teachings such as Pistis Sophia and elsewhere. But the version of Christianity that survived the second century had to stamp them out. To admit that there exists secret teachings that they had lost would undermind their authority. So all the different teachings were labeled as "Gnostic" and rejected. And you continue to reject the notion because your forefathers intended to protect the Catholic Church's authority.

Link to comment
Many evengelicals believe this to be symbolic of the end of the old law and the beginning of the new.

Sure. But be aware that Jesus was bringing about this change before he died by preaching the new gospel law.

Where God would speak openly to his children and no longer to prophets.

Not a single verse for this.

I would like to hear everyone's interpretation of this scripture and if it negates the need for prophets and temple worship.

Hebrews 10:20 is the key.

The veil represents the flesh of Christ. The rent occured at his death. What, therefore, is the symbolism of the resurrection? The veil is repaired! What's more, the flesh is changed (now glorious and immortal), this therefore further symbolizes not only the return of the Melchizedek Priesthood, but the continuation of necessary and new temple rites

This symbolism is absolute and irrefutable proof that the temple continues to be a necessary part of salvation, the new and living way which the flesh of Christ has made possible.

Link to comment

auteur55:

Many evengelicals believe this to be symbolic of the end of the old law and the beginning of the new. Where God would speak openly to his children and no longer to prophets.

I would like to hear everyone's interpretation of this scripture and if it negates the need for prophets and temple worship.

For what it's worth...

Here is an article with a different interpretation of the rending of the temple veil.

The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark's Cosmic " Inclusio"

The author makes the point that in Mark the veil rent was probably the outer veil of the temple, not the inner veil of the Holy of Holies. The outer veil, according to Josephus, had "a panorama of the entire heavens" portrayed on it. The tearing of the temple veil (Mk 15:38) may therefore function as a symbolic tearing of the heavens which parallels the "opening" of the heavens (Mk 1:10) at Christ's baptism. Thus the earthly career of Christ is bracketed by two symbolic "rendings" of the heavens: once when the "spirit like a dove" descended on Christ and once when he died and "gave up the ghost".

Link to comment
Christians have never had "temples", as in buildings. The Temple was to offer sacrifice to God, so for the Christian a temple is no longer needed since the ultimate sacrifice in the body of Christ has already been given. This is a completed sacrifice, never needing to be repeated or added to, as the epistle of Hebrews explains.

It seems rather uncharitable and (frankly) insulting for you to simply assume that we "ignor[e]" such things, simply because we disagree with the LDS view.

Theophilus

1. St. Jerome argues that the Holy Sepulchre is comparable (or "more venerable", to quote him, (Epistle xlvi, in Migne, Patrol. Lat. 22:486)) to the Jewish Temple. Many bishops of this time had a difficult time trying to convince the body of Christianity that entering the Holy Sepulchre was not a requirement for salvation. It was a very prominent practice for a long time. St. Helen built "the church" at the "very spot of the Sepulchre" to contain the cross, and called it the "New Jerusalem, in opposition to the old one, which had been deserted." (Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 1, 17) It was deserted because the Jews were deported. St. Ambrose started calling regular churches (patterned after the synagogue) "temples". Ancient Christian liturgy refers to Christian priests as Levites, and compares the bishop to the high priest.

2. That the Temple was merely a place of ritual sacrifice is a grossly uninformed oversimplification of what a temple was. God considered it His house. It was where the word of the Lord came from. It was the center of Israelite life. It was an economical and spiritual focal point. It was a legal institution. Bait mikdash means house of holiness. It was were the presence of the Lord is found. In the Old Testament the phrase "before the Lord" means, quite literally, "in the Temple". Above all it was a place of holiness, set apart from the rest of the world. Jerusalem itself was also set apart as more holy than surrounding areas, but not so holy as the temple. Different parts of the temple had different gradations of holiness. The temple, in this context, is the point of origin of holiness. God never said He was done with holy places. He did say that holiness and righteousness was far more important to Him than sacrifice.

3. I don't assume you ignore certain things, I conclude (by the fact that you are unaware of an entire body of literature and research dealing with what the temple really was) that you are simply arriving at an uninformed conclusion.

Link to comment
In the Old Testament the phrase "before the Lord" means, quite literally, "in the Temple".

That's simply not true at all.

Almost all occurrences of "before the LORD" in the OT are "before YHWH" (Jehovah). A couple are instead, "before the lord God" ("before adonai elohim").

Where do you get your misinformation?

Theophilus

Link to comment
That's quite a bit of imaginative speculation, IMO.

Ananias says Paul will "see the Just One." (Acts 22:14)

Paul then goes to Jerusalem (Acts 22:17)

"When I [Paul] was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance" (Acts 22:17)

Then he sees Christ/The Just One (Acts 22:18)

Christ tells him to leave Jerusalem (Acts 22:18) and go preach to the Gentiles (Acts 22:21).

What, precisely is "imaginative speculation"?

Link to comment
Accroding to Jewish Tradition, what did the Veil represent?

I think that in some ways it symbolized the old tabernacle -- though a precise analogy

cannot be made of the debir and the "tent of meeting."

Accoring to biblical history, the old Israelite tabernacle (or perhaps just the less

elaborate tent of meeting) was set up within the scared precincts of Mr. Moriah in

Jerusalem, and was retained within the Temple later built there by Solomon. This tent

was off-limits to all but Moses and Aaron (in one interpretation of the text). At any

rate it was an expecially holy place, in which the Glory of God" was present upon

some occasions, and that kavod was to be hidden from profane eyes.

I think that similar veils may have been present at the Shiloh shrine, the Arad temple,

and in Canaanite temples (though I'm not certain about the latter).

In Egyptian temples, the separation was a set of wooden doors, behind which the image

of the god was kept. Outside of the closed doors, the high-priest/king and his top

priestly attendants participated in various semi-public rites, but beyond the doors was

a terribly holy place, forbidden to nearly all of the top-most priestly group.

There is an invisible analogy in Exodus, where Moses approaches the burning bush

(the kavod of YHWH), but at a certain point he trod on holy ground. In later temples,

that point of division was marked by the closed veil.

UD

Link to comment
In the Old Testament the phrase "before the Lord" means, quite literally, "in the Temple".

That's simply not true at all.

Almost all occurrences of "before the LORD" in the OT are "before YHWH" (Jehovah). A couple are instead, "before the lord God" ("before adonai elohim").

Where do you get your misinformation?

Theophilus

I didn't mean the Hebrew should be translated differently, I meant that the OT authors, when the y said "before the Lord" it meant ""in the presence of the Lord", i.e., in the Temple. It means that pretty much without exception. I will gather the references for you later, but right now it is off to Priesthood with my father-in-law.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...