That is all find and dandy, and I am well aware that Irenaeus was a futurist. But that label will never explain why Irenaeus claims something that was seen almost in his day, had somehow became "ancient" by the time it was written down. And you have no explanation for that. I believe our discussion was about the dating of the Revelation. Let's not get too misdirected, please.
Note that Irenaeus wrote of the temple. Did Irenaeus explain that the "temple of God" that Paul was writing about was a spiritual temple? It seems that it is spiritual when evaluated in the Greek with all other instances of the two words used for "temple." In a general sense, there is one Greek word for former temple at Jerusalem, and a different one for the temple of the body. This is Paul:
"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:" (2 Th 2:3-11 KJV)
Note the last two highlighted fragments. Don't you think that is an odd thing for him to say to a group of people who will dead 2000 or more years before this man of sin arrives on the scene? LOL!
John wrote of the falling away, as well. When one evaluates "falling away," or equivalent themes in the N.T., they always seem to refer to those who had received the spirit and then reverted back to Judaism. Now, if this son of perdition (not Judas, the son of perdition, but a different one,) had received the power of the Holy Ghost, and had an unclean spirit, would it be logical for him to think that he was God, and his body was the temple of God? Seems logical to me.
The Greek word for temple in that instance, is the same Greek word used for temple in every case but one after the book of Acts. For example, these are a couple:
"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Eph 2:19-22 KJV)
"God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;" (Acts 17:24 KJV)
They refer to the body as the temple. The only time a different Greek word is used after the book of Acts, is this:
"Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?" (1 Cor 9:13, KJV)
As you can see, that verse is most definitely not talking about the body as the temple. It used the same Greek word that was used to describe the temple in Jerusalem that Jesus taught in.
If that is the only evidence of a third temple one can find in New Testament, maybe that doctrine is not a sound as claimed. And maybe all the twisting and contorting of the scriptures to "prove" the other late-date claims should also be questioned.
Philip
No, Irenaeus did not expound on a spiritual temple. He was a plain writer and where he did not think something was literal but symbol, he explains it. In Against Heresies, "temple" is "temple" period. Just as antichrist is a literal world leader yet to come for him and not "spiritual." There is nothing mystic about his writings, as he quotes heavily from Scriptures.
As you can see, that verse is most definitely not talking about the body as the temple. It used the same Greek word that was used to describe the temple in Jerusalem that Jesus taught in.
Another example of shifting hermeneutics. We both know our Lord spoke very clearly and literally and also used simile and parable to explain a truth. When Jesus tells us about the Temple in Matthew 24 and Paul in 2 Thes. 2 it is literal and not figurative. Irenaeus would know the local recent history. I am sure as in our days today there was talk of building another temple. I am sure he was under the same impression since that was a goal of the Jewish rebellion in ca. 132AD which failed. So there is no indication Irenaeus is "spiritualizing" 'Temple' in Against Heresies. He is quite clear what he opines on is yet future.
As stated earlier...Even if Irenaeus believed Revelation was written before 70 AD does it make a difference of 20 or so years for a document to be deemed ancient? The same use of "ancient" can mean the oldest known copies of a document. The importance of his writings is he was convinced the prophecies of Matthew 24, Paul and Revelation were yet future to his time.