Why the Dome-of-the-Rock is Better than a Re-Built Temple

Why is there no need for a Jewish Temple to replace the Muslim Dome-of-the-Rock?

Well, first of all, the Dome is very pretty, and would make a nice Church some day.

But secondly, the idea that a Jewish Temple must one day (soon) stand in the place of the Muslim Dome of the Rock is a pure superstition. It is founded upon a tradition of the Jews—infused with some imagination—and not upon any command of God’s Word.

With all of the talk and Bible study concerning the Jewish Temple Mount, you would expect the Bible to have much to say about that particular Mount. But most Christians—especially the ones who lecture us most about a coming rebuilt Temple—would certainly be surprised by how little the Bible actually says about that location. Most of what is assured to us today—and what is the subject of geopolitical tension and theological fighting—is founded upon little more than assumptions.

We are told in 2 Chronicles 3:1 that Solomon built the Temple on Mount Moriah, and that this was the location of Ornan’s threshingfloor which David purchased. Today archeological evidence places the site of the Second Temple (Herod’s Temple, the one which stood when Jesus walked the earth) where the golden-domed Mosque now stands. But surprisingly, there is no archaeological proof that the first Temple, Solomon’s Temple, stood on that same location, although there is no evidence of it being anywhere else, either. So, we are left with no proof—biblical or historical—that the current Temple Mount is in the same place as Ornan’s threshingfloor. But this is not the main point of the story.

Before we go further, we should remember that there are actually a series of mountains associated with the city of Jerusalem: Mounts Moriah, Zion, Olives, and a few others that have little or no biblical significance of which we can tell. Mt. Zion is the highest peak, and stands almost half a mile west of the Temple Mount itself, which is Mt. Moriah. Between the two is a considerable valley. Even farther east of the Temple Mount, across an even deeper valley, rises the Mount of Olives which is also higher than Mt. Moriah. From this peak, Jesus and His disciples looked westward upon the Temple, and Jesus declared its pending destruction (Matt. 24, Mark 13, Luke 21). A picture from the Mount of Olives today reveals the Mosque to the west where the Temple once was, and the clearly much higher ridge of Mt. Zion farther in the western background. Here’s a simple cross-section on Wikipedia illustrating the relationship in size and location of Mt. Zion (left) and the Temple Mount, Moriah.

For the location of the Temple, the Bible tells us Solomon chose Mt. Moriah, “where the Lord had appeared to David his father, at the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite” (2 Chron 3:1 ESV). “Appointed” is more properly “prepared,” as the KJV and NAS have it. David not only appointed this place, but actively established, made ready, or set up the site. And why did David establish this as a site for a permanent Temple? Did he have a command from God to do so?

Not really. The story of David and Ornan is told a few chapters earlier in 1 Chronicles 21. God had sent a plague upon the people of Israel as punishment for David numbering the people (1 Chron. 21:1–14). Via the Angel of the Lord, the plague killed 70,000 men. When the Angel reached Jerusalem, God stopped short of destroying the city, and the Angel was stopped at the point of Ornan’s threshingfloor.

Then God sent the prophet Gad to instruct David to go to Ornan’s threshingfloor and set up an altar in that place. This would have been a simple altar of uncut stones and without steps, according to God’s law (Ex. 20:24–26). David obeyed. The altar was eventually set up, David offered sacrifices and prayers to God, and God answered by fire from heaven upon the altar. All said and done, the Angel of the Lord was commanded to sheathe his sword, officially ending the plague upon Israel.

It is important to note all that was required of David, and the purpose for it. David was only required by God to build an altar, not even necessarily to sacrifice on it. And the purpose of the altar was clearly in response to the presence of God’s wrath via the Angel of the Lord and the temporary instance of the plague. There is no indication anywhere that God intended this to be a permanent location, and there certainly is no requirement, commandment, or statute that it should be so.

Ornan, however, was actually willing to donate the whole property to the King for this purpose. David insisted on paying for it. The transaction went down. Therefore, the property legally belonged to David. Since God never indicated any need to dedicate the property to the Lord or a Temple or Priesthood, then we can only assume that for the rest of David’s life, the property legally belonged to the King.

Consequently, it was purely David’s decision—not God’s command—that the Temple be built at the site of Ornan’s (Araunah in 2 Sam. 24) threshingfloor.

But David himself was not allowed to build a house for God; God forbid him to do so because he had been a man of bloodshed and war (1 Chron. 22:8). Rather, David’s future son would build the house, and “his name shall be Solomon” (1 Chron. 22:9). He would be a man of rest.

As a side note, we could easily assume that God referred to David’s then immediate son Solomon. But remember, when that Solomon was born, it was David who named him Solomon; but God sent the prophet Nathan to give the child a different God-given name, Jedidiah (2 Sam. 12:24–25). God did not see David’s “Solomon” as Solomon, but Jedidiah. Moreover, David’s words to Solomon indicate that the son who would build the Temple and bring peace was yet to be born: “Behold, a son shall be born to you who shall be a man of rest” (1 Chron. 22:9). Obviously, as David spoke, his Solomon was already born, alive and listening to his father speak. We are left to conclude that the ultimate Solomon—“peaceable and perfect”—which God promised David was Jesus. In the mean time, Solomon would provide a type of that yet-to-come True Solomon.

When Solomon later built a house to the Lord, he followed through with what his father had already established and prepared (2 Chron. 3:1). Like his father, Solomon had no explicit direction or command from God where to put the Temple, but only directions to build it and how. In addition to having bought the real estate and established it as the site, David also prepared raw materials, construction supplies, organized labor, and secured government clearances, support, and aid for the construction project he put before his son (1 Chron. 22:2–5, 14–19).

The whole project, from conception to completion, was David’s design. The only exception was the pattern for the Temple and its instruments: these God supplied to David (1 Chron. 28:11–19). But of the location of the Temple, God commanded nothing. It was David’s decision.

David decided this location not because he had a command from God or directions from the prophet, but because he was afraid of the Angel of the Lord that had been stationed at Ornan’s threshingfloor. Even though God had accepted David’s sacrifices, the Angel of the Lord had sheathed His sword, and the plague and threat were ended, David nevertheless was afraid.

Meanwhile, the actual priesthood, the tabernacle, and the ark of the covenant were all fifteen miles away in Gibeon (1 Chron. 21:29; 16:37–43). But, “David could not go before it to inquire of God, for he was afraid of the sword of the angel of the Lord” (1 Chron. 21:30). Yet in the very next verse (22:1), we find David declaring of Ornan’s threshingfloor, “Here shall be the house of the Lord God and here the altar of burnt offering for Israel.”

So not only did David not have a command from God where to build, but he never even asked God. Afraid to leave the place he was at, he just declared it, unilaterally, the site of God’s House.

Thus the location of Solomon’s Temple was the result of David’s momentary weakness and self-interested convenience.

Many people have argued that the site on Mt. Moriah is significant for the Temple because it is the same spot where Abraham bound Isaac as a sacrifice, and where God provided the substitute. Thus David’s altar was upon the same spot as Abraham’s altar, and thus the Temple belongs there. The proof of this is supposed to be in Genesis 22:2, where God tells Abraham, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” But notice here God does not designate “Mount Moriah” as is designated in 2 Chronicles 3:1. Here it only says the “land of Moriah,” which is a general area. Remember that this area, assuming it is the Jerusalem area, has several mountains. In this general area, God promises to reveal to Abraham “one of the mountains” on which to sacrifice. In the rest of the story in Genesis 22, we are never told exactly which one of the mountains God chose. Anyone arguing that it must be Mount Moriah is trying to get away with an argument from silence—a pure assumption unwarranted by the Scripture.

But there is good reason for this silence. God does not want any particular geographic location to become an idol for His people. He wants us to be free from all idolatry, including inordinate attachments to the rituals and rudiments he once commanded. At other times, God has “hidden” certain things in order to prevent idolatry. He would not allow the whereabouts of Moses’ body to be known after his death (Deut. 34:5–6). Similarly, He allowed the ark of the covenant to be lost (contemporary claims notwithstanding), as the Jews had allowed the mere presence of it along with the Temple rituals to become idolatry. Even after the Solomonic Temple was destroyed and the Second Temple rebuilt, the ark was never restored. Thus the writer of Hebrews could not speak of its existence (Heb. 9:5). Likewise, nowhere does Scripture specifically prescribe the location of the alleged Temple Mount. The word “Moriah” only appears in Scripture in two places (Gen. 22:2 and 2 Chron. 3:1), and “Mount Moriah” only the one time, and this latter was David’s choice, not God’s.

Scripture does say where God has chosen to dwell forever, and it is, in fact, in Jerusalem. Psalm 132:13–14 says it plainly: “For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his dwelling place: this is my resting place forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it.” But this does not require a Jewish Temple to be rebuilt at all, let alone on Mt. Moriah. Even if we presumed to interpret this literally (as we shall see, we should not), and presumed that God’s “dwelling place” indicates a literal Temple, then we should more properly desire a Temple upon the higher peak of Mt. Zion rather than Moriah; for the text says, “the Lord has chosen Zion.” Now, many times, especially in the Psalms, Scripture uses “Zion” to designate the entire city of Jerusalem. But this would rather expand the available real estate rather than narrow it to the so-called Temple Mount: we should then be open to place a Temple anywhere in Jerusalem.

I will summarize all I have said to this point: Scripture nowhere designates the so-called Temple Mount as a necessary place for a Jewish Temple. It never did, God never said it, God never required it, and He does not require it now or anytime in the future.

But many Christians today, swayed by the old dispensational school of theology, believe strongly that the exact location of the Temple Mount, Mt. Moriah, must be the location of a future Jewish Temple. And, of course, the problem is that large golden-domed Al Sakhra Mosque (and actually a second mosque as well, the Al Aqsa, sits within the southern wall of the Temple Mount) sits on that location. Supporters of a rebuilt Temple, therefore, wish for the day that Mosque will be removed. For example, one dispensationalist woman in the video Waiting for Armageddon (see at 1:18ff) is so committed to the claims of that system that she punctuates her tour of the Temple Mount with the exclamation: “There’s no place for that Mosque. It has to be removed.” In the same production, tour guide and dispensational scholar H. Wayne House imposes his belief in a rebuilt Temple via Photoshop: he displays a picture of the tour group with Temple Mount in the background, but has digitally cut out the Dome-of-the-Rock, and spliced in a rendering of the Jewish Temple. Voila! A digitally-answered prayer for a future re-built Jewish Temple on Mt. Moriah.

This prayer bears two parts: 1) that a future Temple must be built, and 2) that it must be built exactly where the Dome sits now.

The first claim often makes reference to Revelation 11:1–2. There John is told to “measure the temple of God.” Dispensationalists assume that this must refer to a Temple that will be built in the future. One reason for this is due to their belief that Revelation was not written until AD 90, when no Jewish Temple was left standing. But this assumption rests on highly fragile footing, surprising considering that so many people are ready to stake an international holocaust on it. But the work of Kenneth Gentry and others on the dating of Revelation has left this “late date” view severely crippled. His book Before Jerusalem Fell has established for decades now that Revelation was much more likely written before AD 70. David Chilton’s Days of Vengeance shows why such a dating allows the book to make much more sense: it mostly pertained to localized events of that time and place. And with an “early date” of AD 66 or 68 or so, it makes sense for John to be told to “measure the temple,” because the Jerusalem Temple was still standing.

Nevertheless, even if we granted that Revelation 11 speaks of a future Temple, it says absolutely nothing about where that Temple must be located. Silence. Anyone who assumes it must be Mt. Moriah, in the place of the Dome-of-the-Rock, is adding to Scripture here in a big way.

So we are absent any—and I mean any—Scripture mandate about where a Temple should have been, or should be located. This is no big deal to a preterist, of course, since he or she would not expect a rebuilt Temple anyway. But it should be quite freeing to a Zionist or a dispensationalist. For these people now no longer have to worry about replacing the Dome-of-the-Rock (perhaps, for my service in providing this illumination, they may desire to send a donation to American Vision). Since the whole complex of mountains called “Zion” is at their disposal, they could biblically, prophetically, start building a Temple tomorrow, or even today.

But, if the Jews want that Mount so badly as to insist on it, they should do what David did: pay fair market value. And if the Muslims don’t want to sell at any price, tough lamb chops. Go somewhere else.

Israel has control over all of Mt. Zion except the Mosque-domed Temple Mount. But Israel doesn’t need this, biblically speaking. So, I have a proposition: every Zionist, Orthodox Jew, Dispensationalist, and Premillennialist who believes there must be a rebuilt Temple ought immediately to start a foundation and a movement to build a Temple anywhere in Jerusalem that Israel already controls. This will hasten the last days and the coming of Jesus Himself!

Of course, failure to do this will be a tacit admission that all of these parties are more interested in bashing Muslims than advancing their own religion. Thus, their motivation to capture the Temple Mount when they don’t really need it will be revealed as pure envy.

Such a motivation may be masked by arguments about the special significance of the actual rock beneath that Dome—being the rock on which Abraham meant to sacrifice Isaac, or David stood, etc.—but we have already seen how none of these arguments has merit. To insist on these positions is to declare oneself in the service of the traditions of men, or ancient Jewish superstitions. Ironically, to do this puts the Christian or Jew on no better grounds than the Muslims who occupy that rock now, clinging to the superstition that Mohammed ascended to heaven from than spot.

Why trade one superstition for another? Especially with the risk of bloodshed and war, which cost David the privilege of building a Temple to begin with?

There is no biblical reason that any Temple should ever stand (or ever should have stood) upon Mt. Moriah. If anything, it should be upon Mt. Zion, taken either as the particular peak named Zion—a half-mile West of Mt. Moriah—or as anywhere in the general area of Jerusalem. To insist on anything more specific is to trade the dictates of Scripture for superstition.

I say let the Dome-of-the-Rock stand. In fact, I will go so far as to say that it would be non-Christian and unbiblical to call for its replacement by a Jewish Temple. Rather, in due time, Christ reigning from his current throne will spread the Gospel and subdue all His enemies—even the Muslim and Jewish enemies. He will bring them into the Church—His body—the only True Temple and Dwelling Place of God. Even Zion has been “spiritualized,” if you will—revealed to be fulfilled in the person of the Ascended Christ: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant” (Heb. 12:22–24). (Was the writer of Hebrews really guilty of “spiritualizing” the text?!)

What is Zion but the Spirit-Indwelt people of God? What is the Temple except these same Indwelt people of God? To trade this truth for any stack of concrete blocks on any hill is to trample the Son of God underfoot and slap God in the face.

Someday, even Muslims and Jews will be converted and understand this truth. Some dispensationalists may see it, too. When that day comes, that beautiful golden-domed Mosque may just make a very pretty church.

Before then, I would hate to see it spoiled with the worthless blood of bulls and goats, and the idolatrous incantations of would be Sadducees (Heb. 9).

So at least the muzzies are not total heretics. You mean aside from the fact that their "holy" book tells them to kill, ah, Jews like you and Christians like me?

That is beside the point. Yes, the muzzies are evil. BUT they are our cousins, Ishamael and Esau. They believe G-d is one. Take it up with G-d not me.

God permitted Hadrian to build a temple to Iupiter Capitolinus on top of the Temple Mount,

So what. It doesnt mean that G-d sanctioned it and it didnt stand long.

Incidentally, Jerusalem wouldn't be under Jewish control today without the help of some of those Christian "total heretics".

Oh, you mean the Church? Who slaughtered the Jews in the crusades? Inquistion? And hundreds of Pogroms of Europe? The Writings of Martin Luther that inspired one, Adolph Hitler? And the church of Rome still is kean of a State of Israel. It was G-d who founded and kept the State of Israel.

There is no Biblical indication of the time of the destruction of Damascus but it must happen in the future because Damascus is the longest continuously inhabited city in the world to date. It has never in recorded history been destroyed.

What do these verses from Isaiah 17 mean:

"The fortress also will cease from Ephraim,"

"In that day it shall come to pass That the glory of Jacob will wane, And the fatness of his flesh grow lean."

What is the “fortress of Ephraim” in modern terms? What is the “glory of Jacob”, and how will it's waning be manifest?

"I will turn you around, put hooks into your jaws, and lead you out, with all your army, horses, and horsemen, all splendidly clothed, a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords." (Eze. 38)

Who are the armies of Gog, and how do you see this being played out? Do you expect to see armies on horseback with swords and spears riding against modern Israel in the near future?

I would say that no one can believe that God would allow the Mosque and the Temple to both exist in Jerusalem.

Why can no on believe this? If you're speculating on the rest of this stuff, why must anyone believe this part?

And all this is supposed to happen in the next 7-8 years?

“You can leave us to deal with the muzzies...that is fine. G-d will protect us, not the church or America. The bible never says anything about the “nations” saving Israel. But G-d...will!”

Maybe God could start providing foreign aid as well. And all of these Christian ministries flying Jews to Israel on “wings of eagles” could let God fly them home on angels’ wings. Israel has very few friends in the world but you actually made the asinine comment that Muslims were closer to the truth than Christians. I’d say you both do have something in common as you both deny the true Messiah and you both are legalists. Maybe America should just stay out of it, “declare ourselves above it all” and let Israel and the Arab nations kill each other? Then we can put to the test which God is stronger, the god of the Talmud or the god of the Koran.

So have fun with that. I’ll be thinking of Moses and Mohammad when I enjoy me some barbecued pork.

And it was G_O_D who removed Biblical Israel from the land on more than one occasion for idolatry and whoring after other nations, and who finally destroyed the city in A.D. 70 for rejecting their Messiah.

Who’s to say G_O_D won’t allow that to happen again? I mean, you don’t even have the temple to hide behind now, and that certainly didn’t protect Israel from destruction or dispersion.

Face it, the majority of Israel are not even orthodox Jews; they are secularists. The Israeli I served with in the U.S. Army has tons of friends in the IDF. He told me that most of the young people hate religion. They view the orthodox rabbis the same way young Iranians view the mullahs. And when comparing the strict, legalistic superstitious Talmud with the Koran, it’s easy to see why. Thanks for pointing out all that you have in common with your brothers who your fellow Israelis may eventually have to offer dhimitude to, demographics being what they are... unless “Christian” America steps in and saves your “bacon”.

On a funnier note, my Israeli friend claims that most Israel would be happy with a tract of land in Arizona and to join the U.S., seeing that they are the 51st state and are nothing more than a strip of desert.

The End Times Christian fantasy of millions of dead Jews with the rebuilt Temple bears no relationship to its actual eventuality.
You’re right: End Times fantasists have no idea how difficult rebuilding the Temple is, frequently mistaking tourist attractions for the real thing.

If Agudath Israel of America and Chabad aren’t endorsing any attempt, it ain’t happenin’ any time soon!

Jeremiah 3:16 And when you have multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, declares the Lord, they shall no more say, “The ark of the covenant of the Lord.” It shall not come to mind or be remembered or missed; it shall not be made again.

Kind of fitting in contrast to this other 3:16,

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

From John Gill's Commentary on Isaiah 17

The burden of Damascus, &c.] A heavy and grievous prophecy, concerning the destruction of it; the Arabic version is,

``the prophecy of Isaiah concerning Damascus;''

and the Targum is,

``the burden of the cup of cursing to give Damascus to drink.''

Behold, Damascus is taken away from [being] a city; a kingdom, as the Targum; it was the head of one, but now its walls were demolished, its houses pulled down, and its inhabitants carried captive; this was done by Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, ( 2 Kings 16:9 ) it had been a very ancient city, see ( Genesis 15:2 ) and the head of the kingdom of Syria, ( Isaiah 7:8 ) , and though it underwent this calamity, it was rebuilt again, and was a city of great fame, when destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, ( Jeremiah 49:24 Jeremiah 49:25 ) after which it was raised up again, and was in being in the apostle's time, and still is, ( Acts 9:22 ) ( 2 Corinthians 11:32 )
and it shall be a ruinous heap; or a heap of stones, as the Targum and Kimchi interpret it. A "behold" is prefixed to the whole, as being very wonderful and remarkable, unthought of, and unexpected.
The cities of Aroer are forsaken The inhabitants of them being slain, or carried captive, or obliged to flee. Aroer was a city by the river Arnon, on the borders of Moab and Ammon, ( Deuteronomy 2:36 ) ( Deuteronomy 3:12 ) , it was originally in the hands of the Amorites, and sometimes in the hands of the Moabites and Ammonites: it was given by Moses to the Reubenites and, Gadites, from whom it was taken by the Syrians, and in whose possession it seems to have been at this time; see ( 2 Kings 10:33 ) though Jarchi thinks it was now in the hands of Pekah king of Israel, and said to be forsaken, because the Reubenites and Gadites were now carried captive. Jerom F13 says it was seen in his time, upon the top of the mountain. Here it seems to designs a country of this name, in which were many cities. Grotius thinks it was a tract of land in Syria, the same with the Aveira of Ptolemy F14. Vitringa is of opinion that Damascus itself is meant, which was a double city, like that divided by the river Chrysorrhoas, as this was by Arnon.
They shall be for flocks which shall lie down; instead of houses, there should be sheepcotes and shepherds' tents, and instead of men, sheep; and where streets were, grass would grow, and flocks feed and lie down; which is expressive of the utter desolation of these cities, or this tract of ground:
and none shall make [them] afraid; the flocks of sheep, timorous creatures, easily frightened; but so great should be the depopulation now, there would be no man upon the spot, or any pass by, to give them any disturbance.
The fortress also shall cease from Ephraim The ten tribes, now in confederacy with the Syrians, whose metropolis or fortress was Samaria, which seems to be intended here; and should be destroyed, at least taken out of the hands of the Israelites, and they be carried captive by Shalmaneser king of Assyria, ( 2 Kings 17:6 ) and this may be understood, not of that particular city and fortress only, but of all their strongholds, the singular being, put for the plural. The Targum is, "the government shall cease from Ephraim"; they shall have no more a king over them, nor have they to this day:
and the kingdom from Damascus, and the remnant of Syria; Damascus was the head city of Syria, where the kings of Syria had their palace; but now that and the rest of Syria should no more be a kingdom of itself, but should be subject unto others, as it has been ever since:
they shall be as the glory of the children of Israel, saith the Lord of hosts; that is, the Syrians, who were in alliance with Israel, should share the same fate; should be carried captive as they were; should have their metropolis and other cities, and their whole kingdom, taken from them, and be stripped of their grandeur and wealth, and have no more glory than they had; which was none at all; or at least very small, as the next verse shows ( Isaiah 17:4 ) .
And in that day it shall come to pass It being much about the same time that both kingdoms were destroyed by the Assyrians:
[that] the glory of Jacob shall be made thin; the same with Ephraim and Israel, the ten tribes, whose glory lay in the superior number of their tribes to Judah; in the multitude of their cities, and the inhabitants of them; but now would be thinned, by the vast numbers that should be carried captive:
and the fatness of his flesh shall wax lean:
like a man in a consumption, that is become a mere skeleton, and reduced to skin and bones: the meaning is, that all their wealth and riches should be taken away; so the Targum,

>>Where? And who are the “they” you are referring to?<<

It is my interpretation that after the Nations that come against Israel are destroyed the people of Israel realize and repent. I will concede that I could be wrong on that point but it seems correct from what I have studied.

Zechariah12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. 11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. 12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; 13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; 14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

It depends on what you mean by “fortune tellers”.

I am referring to the "prophecy teachers," who unsettle and alarm God's people with wild and extravagant claims. Such as -- "we are now living in the last days," or "the Second Coming is almost upon us!"

This lunatic fringe has done great harm to the people of God, and to the credibility of the Gospel. Other than the general resurrection at the end of history, the Bible is a book of fulfilled prophecy. If someone asserts differently, check your wallet -- he's trying to run a scam on you. He's trying to rob you of something far more precious than money -- namely, the hope of achieving substantial achievements for the glory of God. High achievement in strenuous and influential vocations takes TIME. And lots of it. How many folks will pursue careers as coloratura sopranos, or university professors, if they don't believe, deep down, that they have the necessary time to consecrate to preparing for those demanding vocations?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.