How would going into a build invalidated it? The new covenant didn't begin until his resurrection.<quoted text>
Not. If the new covenant actually replaced the old covenant that the temple symbolically represented, Jesus logically would never have went to the temple because his existence would have invalidated it's meaning from his birth. He would never have defended it. He would have allowed to temple to be used as it was and would have never of defended it's unholy usage because his birth would have rendered the temple un-holy in purpose. It would have held no more specialness than a common synagogue.
But hone of that happened nor was any of that said.
Jesus defended the temple and it's purpose and it's usage and never declared it's ending or non-usage.
12And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves.13And He said to them,“It is written,‘MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER’; but you are making it a ROBBERS’ DEN.”
"God does not dwell in temples made with human hands"
The early church never built one, or commanded it's need.