1. Kessie says:

    I don’t know, I always thought there were enough Jews in Judaism who want a temple so they can start up the old sacrifice system again. In order to rebuild it, they need all the temple implements, the priests’ robes, and the big major ingredient, the ashes of the red heifer for temple dedication. That’s one reason they threw Vindel Jones out of Israel, because he knows where the ashes are. (He’s an archeologist, one of the inspirations for Indiana Jones.) But if they do turn up the ashes, there’ll be open war between the Jews and the Muslims about a new temple verses the dome of the rock, and nobody wants that. So it keeps getting put off. Not to mention a few other problems, like how true north has shifted, so they’d have to build it slightly different than the old foundations. (All this is quoted verbatim from Jones’s book and website, alas!)
     
    Sure, we don’t need a temple anymore because we have Jesus. But there are people out there who really want one. Fortunately, there are some roadblocks in their way.

  2. Bainespal says:

    What do you think about the modern nation of Israel?  I’m neither a theologian nor a die-hard prophecy nut, but it does seem like prophecy that Israel was reestablished after all those centuries, that Hebrew is a living language again.  I know that we don’t need another temple, but I would be afraid to side against the Jews if they decided to build a new temple.  The Jews have more of a right to have their temple on that spot than the Muslims have.  Should we join the chorus of Israel’s accusers?  That doesn’t bode well with me.

    • John Otte says:

      I’m almost hesitant to answer this question, because I worry that I’ll be accused of anti-Semitism. But I believe that the identity of God’s people has been transformed, just as the concept of the Temple has as well. More butterfly theology. The promise to Abraham in Genesis is the egg. The Old Testament nation of Israel was the caterpillar. The cocoon is always Jesus (Matthew’s gospel especially presents Jesus as Israel reduced to and/or fulfilled by one person). The butterfly is once again the Church, as evidenced by 1 Peter 2 and Romans 9-11 (along with a lot of other New Testament passages). What it means to be God’s chosen people was redefined by Jesus’ work.

      To me, the modern state of Israel is not a restoration of anything Biblical. It’s not a tribal league or a theocratic monarchy.  It’s a modern, secular democracy with a very strong religious segment to its government.

      Let me put it this way: suppose something were to happen to the United States of America. The whole thing gets destroyed and falls apart, its citizens scattered. Two thousand years from now, some of our descendants return to the land and set up an dystopian monarchical empire with no real human rights to speak of. Would they be right in saying that the United States of America had been restored?

      Now I’m not saying that we shouldn’t support the modern state of Israel. Far from it. Israel is the only stable democracy in the region and the U.S.’s historic ally. We should take that commitment seriously. But at the same time, I don’t believe that it’s a fulfillment of any prophecy.

      Consider this: Amos 9:11-12 seems to point to a “restoration of Israel,” And yet, in Acts 15:12-21, St. James says that the inclusion of Gentiles into the Church is the fulfillment of that prophecy.

      There is one other point that I wonder about: if Israel needs to have a Temple again, does that somehow imply that Jesus’ death and resurrection wasn’t sufficient for them for some reason? Just food for thought.

      • Bainespal says:

        I’m sorry to bring up this can of worms, but it seemed relevant to me. Maybe I don’t have enough faith to stand only on Scripture without considering what is going on in today’s world in questions of doctrine. But I don’t really trust any theological system to be correct enough, so I have to trust what I see. I think it would be a blindness not to look at what is happening in the world.

        Let me put it this way: suppose something were to happen to the United States of America. The whole thing gets destroyed and falls apart, its citizens scattered. Two thousand years from now, some of our descendants return to the land and set up an dystopian monarchical empire with no real human rights to speak of.

        By this analogy, I think that you are claiming that the worldview or values of the modern nation of Israel is not the same as that of Ancient Israel. Maybe that is true, but I think it would probably be true for any modern country compared to any ancient country. Beyond this, the analogy seems thin. It’s highly unlikely that the descendants of Americans would cling to an American identity for two thousand years after the devastation of the United States. The probability that an ethnic identity would exist for a scattered and defeated people for so long, and that the memory of ancient Israel remained so strong and so influential as to inspire the founding of the modern nation, do seem to point to the hand of Providence. Maybe I’m seeing more to current events than is really there, like the lousy literary critic who sees allegory when none was intended. But to me, this seems like Deeper Meaning.
         
        I don’t know how the Temple could literally be restored physically without contradicting the fulfillment of God’s fellowship with man in the person of Christ. However, your interpretation of the passage from Ezekiel just isn’t good enough for me. Despite the fact that not enough information for the Temple to actually be built is given in the text, the fact remains that a lot of specific details are there, more details than are necessary if the whole vision was a simple analogy pointing to Christ. Even if the Temple were rebuilt in Israel, it would still be a symbol of Christ, I think.
         
        Again, I’m sorry for raising this troubling topic.

        • John Otte says:

          No worries on my end.

          My analogy with the United States isn’t perfect, and it wasn’t so much about a difference in morality. It was more about the difference in governance. In the “golden age” of King David and King Solomon, Israel was a theocratic monarchy, where God was seen as the true ruler and the “king” acted as His regent. (As a side note, in the Hebrew, whenever the actual term for “king” is used in relation to the royalty of Israel, it always has a negative connotation. When they speak of royalty in a positive light, they call them “princes”). From where I’m sitting, a true restoration of Israel would be a restoration of that political structure. Hence my admittedly imperfect analogy. A true restoration of the U.S. would have to be a democracy, not an imperial monarchy.

          I’ll also concede that my explanation of the Temple vision isn’t perfect also. I have some questions about it as well. But, in my not-so-humble opinion, the weight of Scripture points to the fact that a Temple in Jerusalem is no longer needed. I wonder why God would want us to go back to shadows when we have a greater reality, that’s all.

      • Thomas says:

        I do not mean to sound offensive or impolite. I am a dispensational premillenialist, and I have studied prophecy and logic somewhat. I am not going to contend with the Temple (it will be rebuilt). My problem is with your butterfly theology. I think it’s clever, and I think it has some merit. But, constantly referring to Jesus Christ as a cocoon is incorrect. If you remember, He said he had not come to destroy the law (He didn’t say transform either), He said He had come to fulfill it. To fulfill it means to complete it. He did not complete the law with the church. He completed it within Himself. He was the completion of the Old Testament practice. He did not inaugurate a completion. Just my thoughts.

What do you think?