Luke 22:21-30

Last evening we looked at 1) the betrayal of our Lord (vv. 21-23), and 2) the concept of greatness (vv. 24-27), and 3) the concept of kingdom-judgment (vv. 28-30).  Below we will focus only on our Lord's betrayal, for it is all we have space and time for.

A Christological insight

            Christology is simply the study of ‘the person of Jesus’.  How are we to understand his humanity, his divinity?  With brief summary, the Councils of Nicea, in 325 A.D. and Constantinople, 381 A.D. gave us summaries of Christ’s divinity, e.g., his pre-existence, while the Councils of Ephesus, 431 A.D. and Chalcedon, 451 A.D. gave us summaries of his humanity; in particular, how the human nature was related to his divine nature.  Councils are often a response to error.  The Council of Ephesus responded to the view of those (Nestorian) who held that there were two persons within Christ, one divine and the other human.  While the Council of Chalcedon responded to the view (Eutychian) that held that Christ only had one nature, a kind of merging of the two into one.  The end result was the famous confession – filled with tension – of the two natures.  It states that the two natures (human and divine) exist in Christ, “…without confusion, without change, without division and without separation.”

HOLDING ONTO THE TENSION OF HIS HUMANITY AND DIVINITY

If we don’t affirm two natures within Christ, then we are pressed to understand how he can be “fully human” or “fully divine,” both of which are extremely important.  I mention this because our text makes subtle use of this tension.  Jesus opens with the phrase (v. 21):

“But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.”

We can easily gloss over this too quickly and conclude this is a figure of speech that merely affirms his divinity, i.e., Jesus knew he was going to be betrayed before it happened.  A metonymy is definitely present, i.e., something is presented which represents something or someone (the hand), without explicitly identifying something or someone (Judas).  So Jesus’ future knowledge of Judas’s betrayal, i.e., his divine omniscience, is certainly in view.  Judas’s betrayal was traitorous, and therefore was an act of treason; he betrayed the divine Christ and his kingly reign.  But I believe there is something more; something humanly beautiful yet tragic. 

While the “hand of him” represents something tragically schemed against our Lord, such tragedy cannot be fully appreciated without grasping the beautiful connotations embedded in “the hand” phraseology elsewhere in Scripture.  In Genesis 21:18 the Angel of the Lord says to Hagar, regarding her son, Ishmael, “Lift the boy up and take him ‘by the hand’ for I will make him into a great nation.”  Now obviously, this is a figure of speech, an idiom, which means - come alongside him - journey with him - help him – befriend him – nurture him, and we could go on.  Making Ishmael a nation was not to happen that day, but rather, “taking him by the hand” meant that she was to be in relationship with him.  This is the 'positive' dimension of 'hand'.  We find this dimension fleshed out in Psalm 41:9 where we see the betrayal predicted long before Christ's birth:

“Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.”

Here we see a glimpse of the pain involved.  Betrayal involves ‘trust’ and ‘friendship’, and such experiences bespeak ‘transparency’ and ‘vulnerability’ between two people.  This verse points backward to Ge 3:15 where the serpent was prophesied to ‘strike the heel’ of the woman’s offspring, i.e., Christ, and also points forward to our text, where its fulfillment commences with Judas’s betrayal and climaxes in his Jesus’ crucifixion.  The heel of the woman is struck implying a kind of defeat, i.e., Jesus is crucified; whereas the serpent’s head is struck, implying ultimate defeat, i.e., Jesus is raised to life.  But we need to hold ‘the tension’ and see both the divine & human dimension.  To be sure, here is glorious theology saturated with redemption, but this redemption comes at a heavy ‘human’ price - that of deep betrayal of a trusted friend.  Lifting up the heel implies an attack of great deception, an ambush (Josh 8:13), a ploy, and a trap (Job 18:9), and Jesus felt all the emotions and consternation that accompanies such an act (DOTE, vol 3, p. 504).  In other words, depth of wound directly parallels depth of relationship, and our Lord’s devotion to his disciples was second-to-none; he was, is, and will ever remain, our truest friend; and therefore his wounds went deep.

In summary, we as image-bearers of the divine, have significance.  No one can take it away, and it doesn’t fluctuate; it’s a constant.  We also, however, have a desire for our significance to be affirmed, by which its objective reality is experienced as something beautiful.  Yes, this can be twisted and categorized as sinful, but it need not be, and here it is not.  The desire for the affirmation of our significance is quite natural, normal and healthy.  Having a friend is a rich experience of our significance.  He or she affirms our personhood as a unique individual; that’s what having and being a friend partly means. When Jesus says “the hand of him,” I believe we are witnessing the human grief of betrayal and all the deep hurt this entails, but such hurt necessarily rides the coattails of human intimacy within the context of human friendship.  It pained Jesus to undergo this friend’s betrayal; it hurt, just as it hurts us when someone close betrays our confidence; we are inwardly violated and wounded.  We know our Lord’s response however – he gives himself for the good of his enemies – he bears their sins and defeats our great enemy – death itself, and he now calls us to behave in the same manner (Luke 6).  (I am elaborating on the insight obtained from Marshall 1978, p. 808, mentioned by Bock 1996, p. 1733)

HOLDING ONTO THE TENSION OF DIVINE CAUSATION

            We not only see tension within our Lord’s humanity and divinity in his friendship with Judas, but we also see tension as to the event in terms of causation.  Jesus says:

“For the Son of a Man goes as it has been determined…” (v. 22a, ESV).

Luke is fond of this divine causation (Ac 2:23; 10:42; 17:26, 31).  This is nothing other than God’s will set in motion, being determined by his good pleasure (Ep 1:11c).  But back to back with what some describe overall as God’s sovereignty, we have human responsibility:

“…but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” (v. 22b, ESV)

This is not the setting to delve into various theological/philosophical diatribes, e.g., divine middle knowledge, congruism, or the mystery of secondary causes, et al. (a profitable journey in themselves), but we must receive the tension which rides the surface; it’s what Luke wants us to receive.  Humans act and are accountable, not in lieu of, but in light of, God’s all-controlling providence.  They are both sandwiched together, and I believe for the purpose of creating an awe-inspired fearful reverence for God.  He exists in a category all to himself; no one is like him.  He is to be feared and worshipped.  We cry out, “How can this be!?”  As creature we are simply caught in the mystery of it all and can only cry out, with Paul, in doxological praise:

“For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?”  “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?”  For from him and through him and to him are all things.  To him be glory forever.  Amen.

Luke 22:7-20

Last evening we looked at 1) preparation of the Last Supper (vv. 7-12), and 2) the celebration of the Last Supper (vv. 13-20). 

How are we to understand the preparations of the Passover?

            While the instructions are clear and detailed, a level of ambiguity quickly enters.  First, after the inquiry by the apostles, Jesus responds by saying, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you.  Follow him to the house that he enters, and say to the owner of the house, ‘The teacher asks: Where is the guest room…He will show you a large upper room, all furnished.”  Perhaps you’re like me wondering, “Is this a miracle, or did Jesus make these plans and arrangements ahead of time?”  I don’t think the text says, but we are drawn into the possibility.  Perhaps we are to compare and contrast the birth of Jesus, where a room could not be obtained, but here, the Lord’s redemptive purposes are backed by the providence of God, and arrangements are not in doubt.  Soon we will find that Jesus knows the future events of betrayal down to the detail of who will break the trust.  He will tell Peter to his face, while leaving the act that leads to the crucifixion somewhat mysteriously hanging – creating a climate of introspection by all.

            The two disciples whom Jesus sent (Peter and John) to make preparations had the responsibility of obtaining five items: 1) securing a room, 2) get the lamb slain at the temple, 3) purchase the unleavened bread, and 4) obtain the bitter herbs, and 5) get the wine.  Without doubt, whether by miracle or prearrangement, the entire account has an “air of expectation and drama” (Bock), yielding a sense of heightened importance.         

What is the Passover?

            Its source is from the Hebrew people, and is a celebration centered around a meal, of their deliverance by God from Egyptian bondage.

⁶ "Therefore, say to the Israelites: 'I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. ⁷ I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God, who brought you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. ⁸ And I will bring you to the land I swore with uplifted hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. I will give it to you as a possession. I am the LORD.' " (Ex 6:6-8)

Note the promises in this announcement by God of his intervention:  1) I will bring you out & free you, 2) redeem you, 3) take you as my own, 4) I will bring you to the land, and 5) I will give it to you.  On the eve of their deliverance the Passover meal is instituted (Ex 12).  They were to slay a lamb (vv. 3-6), obtain bitter herbs and bread without yeast (v. 8), and sprinkle its blood on the doorframes of their own homes (v. 7), so that when the Lord comes across the land in judgment, and kills all the firstborn, the homes covered by blood will be passed over in judgment (vv.12-13).  This feast was to be a lasting ordinance for generations to come (14).  Technically, the Passover was an event on one day, and the Feast of Unleavened Bread was a week duration, but loosely the two were often equated (Luke 22:1).

How did the meal unfold, and what did the various elements represent?             The event started with a blessing pronounced over those in the household, then everyone would drink wine from their own cup; this is when the first cup of wine was drunk.  The youngest among them would then ask this question, “Why is this night different from other nights?”  The father, or host, would then recount the deliverance from Egypt (Deut 26:5-9), and explain the symbolism:

Passover lamb – the blood of the sacrificial lamb that protected the people of Israel from the angel of death; unleavened bread – the quickness of God’s deliverance; bowl of salt water – the tears shed in bondage and in crossing the Red Sea; bitter herbs – the bitterness of captivity; four cups of wine – the four promises of Exod. 6:6-7. (Stein)

Participants then would collectively recall the promises made to Abraham, and subsequently renewed with Isaac, Jacob, and Moses.  Upon completion of such glorious deliverance, they sang the Hallel Psalms during which a second cup of wine was drunk; this would also mark the beginning of the meal itself.  After the meal, or very near its end, came the unleavened bread and bitter herbs.  This was the third cup.  Then the remainder of the Hallel Psalms were then sung.  This was around midnight, and upon reaching this segment, a fourth cup of wine was drunk, thus marking the end. 

What cup was the first cup mentioned in v. 17?  Some think it was the first, some the third; and yet others, that Jesus ushered in a separate cup to speak of a New Covenant.  All are perhaps interesting, but not theologically significant.  It is debated whether Jesus drank all cups or stopped at some point; little significance is there as well.    

What did Jesus mean when he said: “I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God”?

            We have the same issue in v. 18 concerning the wine, but with a slightly different twist.  There Jesus says he will not drink, “until the kingdom of God comes.”  So I think it is safe to assume that fulfillment comes when the kingdom comes.  That’s the easy part!

            Jesus is going to partake of the Passover meal again in the kingdom of God?  First, and minimally, we can say that since the Passover meal in the old covenant was but a shadow, then it will be celebrated ‘differently’ when the kingdom arrives.  Some say the difference is with regard to the banquet itself; it is an eschatological banquet (see Luke 13:28-29).  Second, the question as to ‘when’ this kingdom comes, or when the eschatological banquet is, needs to be addressed.  Some say it must be future, the consummation (Bock. et. al.).  Others see perhaps fulfillment residing in the Lord’s Supper of the NT church, while yet others attempt to split it saying vv.15-18 refer to the parousia, and vv. 19-20 refer to the Lord’s Supper (Jeremias, Ellis, et. al.). Those who deny any reference to the Lord’s supper seem to be driven more by their dislike of any prominence of the Supper, a fear of some ‘sacramentalism’ whereby something not only conveys, but actually confers salvation.  I do believe the church has long too obsessed with the WHAT and HOW of his presencem e.g., transubstantiation, consubstantiation, etc.  I believe one NT scholar, Arthur Just, hit the nail on the head when he unpacked the timing of the kingdom of God/banquet from the perspective of the New Testament.  Regarding fulfillment of the Passover, Just says:

This fulfillment occurs progressively, in a succession of events.  The kingdom of God was present (in a more preliminary way) in the OT era through the patriarchs, Moses, the theocracy, the Davidic (messianic) monarchy, and the ministries of the prophets and priests.  The OT Pasover will be fulfilled when Jesus, the Passover Lamb, is slain.  The kingdom of God will come as the Messiah gives up his life for the world and is raised again.  Then Jesus will eat and drink again with the disciples after he rises from the dead prior to his ascension (Lk. 24:30, 41-43; Jn 21:9-14; Acts 10:41).  Jesus will also be with his disciples during the era of the church when they celebrate the Passover anew in the Lord’s Supper and receive his body and blood (e.g., Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7; 1 Cor 11:17-34).  However, the complete, manifest, and final fulfillment of the Passover and of this verse will be in the eschaton (e.g., Rev 19:6-9).  That is why the church still petitions in the Lord’s Prayer, “Let your kingdom come” (Lk 11:2).  Only in the eschaton will the meaning and significance of the Passover be fully revealed to all.  Until then, the saving power of the cross and the grace and forgiveness given in the Lord’s Supper are veiled, hidden from the eyes of the unbelieving world and “visible” only to eyes of faith.” (emphasis mine).

So like we found out with "the coming of the son of man" phraseology, here too we find elasticity.  Obviously Jesus' eating, though in some sense future, will certainly not be regressive, i.e., he will not re-institute the  Passover of the old covenant, so the eating will be a heavenly banquet kingdom eating, and is probably best seen as incremental levels of disclosure leading to fulfillment.  That is the essential meaning of the 'New Covenant' - Christ is the lamb!  This means of course that we have a certain level of eating with Christ NOW.  So do you?  Do you take advantage of this and eat with our Lord?  In faith do you actually mesh with him, fellowship with him, enjoy him??????

What are we to glean? 

When I think of Luther, the most cherished notion comes from his frequent use of the Latin phrase pro nobis which means “for me.”  Fundamentally, for Luther, being a Christian is being persuaded that in the cross of Christ I find, meet, and encounter, a God who is truly for me.  Jesus said in v. 19, “This is my body given for you.”  And when he spoke of the wine, he said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”  I said earlier, the church has focused too much on the 'what' and the 'how'; the focus should be on the fact of "on your behalf." To be sure this points to divine substitution for our sins, but what drives it?  Is it an act that just floats in some black hole deep in the universe, or does it fundamentally reflect something within the being of God?  I think our answer is found in Luke 1:78, where it speaks of forgiveness of sins springing forth from “the tender mercy of our God.”  God’s kindness is manifested in this proleptic, i.e., calling the future into the present) event, and it is here we must pause, ponder, and wonder - that God truly loves – me!

Luke 21:5-38

Last evening we looked at Jesus’ prophesy with regard to the destruction of Jerusalem and also, perhaps, the beginning of the end of the world.  This is the culmination of Israel’s rejection in the midst of Jesus’ compassionate plea to bring forth the fruit of repentance.  He called; he warned; he wept, and now with their resistance settled, our Lord renders a prophecy of judgment. 

How do we understand a God whose patience is limited and who will judge those who resist his reign?

            First, God is king.  He is free to enter into relationship with humanity and dictate its parameters and demand compliance, i.e., a covenant.  It is his divine right.  While he sets all the parameters, one should know that they are designed for our complete and total happiness, as the second century apologist, Irenaeus, put it:  “The image of God in man is man fully alive!”

Second, God is patient because in some sense, God himself would have it be otherwise.  He says in Ezekiel, “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked?...Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” (Ez 18:23).  Jesus did not feign his weeping over Jerusalem (Lu 13:34), nor is God the Father insincere when he says that he takes “no delight” in the death of the wicked; rather, God is patient and longsuffering and does not ‘desire’ that any perish, but that all come to repentance” (2 Pe 3:9).

Third, perhaps the notion that God’s patience should ‘run out’  is a surprise to some; it might even imply to others that he is less than perfect, since God should not ‘run out’ of anything – much less patience.  Scripture does say that God is “the God of patience” (Ro 15:5) – but it also declares it has limits.  Paul rhetorically asks, “…do you think you will escape God’s judgment,” should you to choose to “show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance, and patience?” (Ro 2:3-4).  Implied in this rhetorical device of Paul is ‘personhood’ and therefore ‘choice’.  To be sure, obedience to the covenant is not optional, but it is ‘relational’, and judgment is rendered only to those who display a settled and defiant stance against that covenant relationship.   

Are there two events, two judgments – one in Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and the other at the end of the world?
            Most see Jesus addressing two - Jerusalem’s destruction (vv. 5-24) and the world’s (vv.25-36).  While I agree with the first judgment, I’m less persuaded of the latter.  First, if Luke is talking about the end of the world, it is the only place in the entire gospel where the historical events are unfolded.  Second, there is no clear demarcation…no in-the-face indicator that Jesus has gone from discussing temple/city destruction to world-wide/destruction – no change in audience, location, or time.  I believe the majority of scholars point to the prophecy concerning the coming of the Son of Man as their chief reason why they believe the end of the world is what Jesus is addressing.

What does the phrase: “the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory” mean?

            First, let’s acknowledge that point/counterpoint is doable in just about everything that follows, and this is not the format for ‘delving’ into the subject with detail.  Second, I am going to ‘present’ an alternate view with regard to the phrase “the son of man coming,” but one that is gaining adherents among contemporary bible scholars.  I myself am unsure, and will continue to ponder.  The phrase “the son of man coming” is found in Daniel 7:13.  RT France, an eminent NT scholar, has noted there is nothing in the context of Daniel to support the use of the phrase, as though the son of man were coming to us on earth; rather, the son of man was coming to God in heaven, which leads him to question the assumption that the phrase in the NT refers to ‘the second coming’ of Jesus.  France believes in the second coming, but states there has been an unexamined assumption that the two are interchangeable.  He believes, in Daniel’s context, the son of man comes to God in heaven, and therefore the phrase refers to a heavenly enthronement, after a period of suffering.  In the case of the NT, then, such enthronement refers to, “the vindication and empowering of the Son of Man after his earthly rejection and suffering, when God will turn the tables on those who thought they had him in their power.”  In Greek, the technical term for Jesus’ return, (parousia, which means presence, coming, advent) is used only four times in the gospels – all in Matthew, and all in chapter 24 (vv. 3, 27, 37, and 39).  This is significant because at the time of Matthew’s writing (early 60s is still a minority view, but is gaining) the term ‘parousia’ was established as a formal referent for Christ’s second coming.  It is noteworthy, that in Daniel, and in the NT where the Daniel passage is referred to, a very common term for coming is used, reflecting further perhaps, that the son of man passages do not necessarily refer to the second coming. 

When was Jesus vindicated and empowered? 

When you examine the phrase and its use in Matthew (10:23; 16:27-28; 19:28; 24:30; 25:31; 26:64; 28:18) it is difficult, if not impossible, to always equate "the coming of the son of man" with Christ’s second coming.  For example, take the first instance (Matt 10:23), where Jesus is speaking to his twelve apostles, and he says, “When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another.  I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”  Is Jesus referring to the second coming here?  Doubtful.  In its most natural sense it refers to the apostles mission, which their Lord had laid out for them previously (vv. 5-16), i.e., he limits their mission to “the house of Israel.”  Now we know that mission changed to include the whole world (Mat. 28:19), and in the verse immediately preceding the inclusion of all nations, we find this phrase, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”  Here the Son of Man operates as king – already vindicated and empowered!  Also noteworthy, is Luke 22:69 where Jesus responds to the chief priests and teachers of the law, “But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”  Here he proclaims enthronement even before his death, which would lead us to take his comments in a proleptic sense, i.e., treating a future act as though it were already present.

Lastly, we need to say that since his vindication and empowerment have been referred to ‘before’ his crucifixion (Lu 22:69) and ‘after’ his crucifixion (Matt 10:23), then maybe a strict temporal placement is not what Jesus intended.  But these various time-frames merely mean that the phrase should be seen as an evocative pronouncement that can be applied within various historical time-frames, and that the ultimate fulfillment is realized and recognized at the consummation of the ages – in eschatogical judgment (Matt 25:31) and/or with an emphasis on the eschatological renewal of all things (Matt 19:28).    

Who is the referent in vs. 32 when Jesus says, "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened"? 

Well that all depends.  If verse 27 and its over-all context point to an end-times situation, then "this generation" could be:  1) a timeless evil generation, 2) the Jewish people, 3) all humanity 4) the generation in which these signs appear, or 5) the contemporary generation, which if true, then Jesus got it wrong.  If, however, the assumed event of v. 27 is not the second coming, but a regal coronation or something similar, and if, as we have already seen that 'in principle' it has been applied to pre & post resurrection situations, e.g., expanded mission of the apostles, the exchange with Israel’s leadership, eschatological judgment, and eschatological renewal, then we are free to take "this generation" in its most natural sense, i.e., the generation which Jesus was speaking to when he spoke.  Are there any problems with this option?  Some claim the language after verse 25 is apocalyptic and strongly lends itself to an end-time scenario. 

The apocalyptic language of vv. 25-26, where the natural order seems to come undone, says: “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars…the heavenly bodies will be shaken," and this also points many to seeing this as 'end-times'.  But are we 'hearing' the text presumptuously?  The eminent NT scholar, N.T. Wright, summarizes such language this way:

They do not speak of the collapse or end of the space-time universe.  They are…typical Jewish imagery for events within the present order that are felt or perceived as ‘cosmic’ or, as we should say, ‘earth-shattering’.  More particularly, they are regular Jewish imagery for events that bring the story of Israel to its appointed climax.  The days of Jerusalem’s destruction would be looked upon as days of cosmic catastrophe (Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 362).   

So certainly it is possible that Luke doesn’t address the end-times at all.  Understanding these words metaphorically isn't being liberal; rather, it is understanding the type of text before us, i.e., apocalyptic, and therefore we must interpret this as it is 'intended' to be taken.  An apriori literalism is not a biblically faithful approach; rather, a text must be approached on its own merits.  When Jesus talks about 'this generation', he seems to be speaking in a straight-forward historical manner.  On the other hand, when he speaks of "the son of man coming," and its context of where he pulled the text does not refer to a 'going to earth', but its opposite, - a going to heaven - then we need to be careful of ascribing something 'new' to the text.  In verse 32, it seems most natural to take it in a straight-forward historical sense.  Any futuristic end-times sense, e.g., a wicked generation, an unbelieving generation, the Jews living when Christ returns, et. al., all seem to go against the imperatives that immediately follow, which Jesus clearly addresses to those who are listening (vv. 34-36).  So historically, some of the ones listening would still be alive when the destruction of Jerusalem took place.  But we must look at yet another issue before we wrap this up.

How does the temple/city destruction vindicate the Son of Man?

            Remember the son of man in Daniel is one who –after his suffering – comes to God in heaven for vindication over his enemies.  So when Jesus said, “Destroy this temple (his body) and I will raise it again in three days” (Jn 2:19), the resurrection – after his suffering – became the onset of vindication for the Son of Man; indeed, our resurrection continues his vindication! (Jn 6:39-40), since our resurrection is the creation of the new temple! (Eph 2:21).

            Keep in mind the temple was the focal point of all Jewish worship; in itself a mere shadow, the temple was the presence of God among his people.  Jesus attacked the religious system that ran the temple, and claimed over and over again that it had abdicated its responsibility, and lost its right to lead the people (Lu 11:46-52; 12:35-48; 13:34-35; 14:15-24; 15:11-32; 19:11-27; 20:9-19), and for this critique of Israel's leadership, he was killed.  In not being able to discern the times (Lu 11:29-32; 12:54-56) they failed to see the fulfillment of the temple's primary meaning, i.e., presence, was always to be in the Christ, the Son of Man/Son of God.  They missed the moment/event where the shadow gave way to reality.  The destruction of the earthly temple in A.D. 70, which really was symbolized at the death of Jesus, when the curtain ripped in two (Mat 27:51) was vindication of the son of man, who was given all power and authority at the resurrection.  The temple was gutted of its place within redemptive history; and thus Jesus and all his teachings were vindicated!  Any post A.D. 70 re-creation of the temple is therefore without redemptive historical significance.  In the book of Revelation, there is no temple in the new Jerusalem, because God and the lamb are its temple (Re 21:22-23).  The church being joined with Christ is so unionized with him (Luther calls us 'one-cake'), that we are not even mentioned - obviously nothing can harm us, for nothing can harm "the Christ - the Son of God!"  He is the temple; he is the city's light (so no need for sun or moon); indeed, in Him is the light of men!