Posted on 12/10/2010 9:41:02 AM PST by topcat54
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.
The Biblical Data
On what grounds was the Temple ever built on Mt. Moriah to begin with?
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.
Zion or Moriah?
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.
A Re-Built Temple?
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.
Why Not Start Tomorrow?
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?
Conclusion
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).
“Your use of the word polemic is rather telling. You see any understanding of prophecy other then your own as “warlike or hostile” which indicates a fear of your point of view being wrong. I simply equated the future Temple worship as an extension or continuence of the Temple worship of the Old Testament which I see as fulfilling prophecy which will lead to the completion of the 490 years of God’s covenant with Israel. Why you see that as hostile or warlike is idicative of a weak faith in your interpretation.”
Why don’t you stick to your “literalist” interpretation instead of playing arm chair psychiatrist? I have no problem with “polemics”, just the weakness and irrationality of yours.
I’ll have to look more into your claim. I am not a supporter (or detractor) of American Vision. I don’t know if wanting Jews to convert to genuine Christianity = “don’t like any Jew” but I will look at the link you have provided.
Myself, I wish Jews (and other groups) would get past their political correctness of proselytizing = hatred/racism.
I don’t have a problem with honest respectful proselytizing. That is to say that people admit that they are proselytizing, when doing so, and respectfully accept the wishes of the other person if he or she declines. I hold Christians to the same standard here as I do Chabad (Lubavitcher Hasidim).
I agree with you 100%.
The word is derived from the Greek polemikos, meaning "warlike, hostile".
Ignorance? I do believe my take on the word is rather accurate.
>>I have no problem with “polemics”, just the weakness and irrationality of yours.<<
Why don’t you show me where I am in error then. I have Biblically backed all of my assertions.
Read it. Don’t know what to feel about it. I don’t see a carte blanche defense of Luther’s antisemitic remarks that you do.
Your major contention would be with the Apostle Paul and New Testament teaching rather than simply the folks at American Vision:
“For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God” (Rom. 2:28–29).
“Especially the latter, for perhaps nothing has caused more dissent, prejudice, and name-calling in the modern church than the fixation on prophecy matters, and the future role of a people who have no other avenue of salvation than anyone else. Instead of herding the Jews to “Israel” for Armageddon (how pro-Israel is that?), the premils and dispys should be trying to evangelize and convert them to True Judaism.”
Whether or not you find that distasteful, there’s no doubt that dispy/futurist teaching about Israel is not pretty and far from being “pro-Israel”. Let’s be honest. They believe a whole bunch of you are going to be killed before converting to Christianity.
FWIW, I’m not a reconstructionist. I have one large foot in the historic pre-mill camp but see some merit to preterist arguments. I’m kind of agnostic, exploring on some of these eschatologies... though I find pure dispensationalism to be antinomian heresy (apart from their eschatology).
>>I have no problem with “polemics”, just the weakness and irrationality of yours.<<
“Why don’t you show me where I am in error then. I have Biblically backed all of my assertions.”
You clearly and deliberately misrepresented my point. That is our point of contention. Is it too much to ask, hope, that you will be honest about this?
AGAIN:
“Idolatry? You call the Temple worship of the Old Testament idolatry? Wow!”
Umm, no, that’s what I would call an “End Times” temple in lieu of Christ’s sacrifice. Why should one trust your “literalist” hermeneutic when your polemic is so blazingly dishonest as demonstrated above?
Okay, so we can argue “roots” of words all day long. My larger point is that I don’t necessarily consider polemics to be evil or a dirty word much like modern day PC evangelicals do... along with the words “argue” or “debate”... and therefore I wasn’t assigning any nefarious “warlike, hostile” intent to your point when I referred to it as such. You then used that interpretive grid to read back into my comment psycho-analysis claiming that I viewed any point that differed from mine (and you have probably mistakenly assumed that I am a reconstructionist/preterist) with “warlike hostility”.
Clear enough?
>> You clearly and deliberately misrepresented my point. That is our point of contention. Is it too much to ask, hope, that you will be honest about this?<<
I was not “deliberately misrepresenting” your point. I was pointing out that the future Temple including sacrifice is simply a continuation of the earlier Temple and Sacrifice as far as the Jewish people’s relationship to God is concerned. My point was that if the future Temple and Sacrifice are idolism then you would have to agree that because it is a continuation of the Old Testament Temple and Sacrifice they would have been idolism also.
“I was pointing out that the future Temple including sacrifice is simply a continuation of the earlier Temple and Sacrifice as far as the Jewish people’s relationship to God is concerned.”
Well, can you “Biblically back up that point?”
As far as the “Jewish people’s relationship to God is concerned”, they don’t have one as long as they continue in a state of rejecting Christ.
”He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him (John 3:36).”
“My point was that if the future Temple and Sacrifice are idolism then you would have to agree that because it is a continuation of the Old Testament Temple and Sacrifice they would have been idolism also.”
And now that I understand your assertion, I take back my claim that you were “deliberately misrepresenting” me although I don’t see how you can make the case above without engaging in some kind of hermeneutical gymnastics.
From the comments section:
“I am surprised you did not mention the excerpt in the Talmud that states that Jesus is being tormented by burning in boiling semen, because excrement was too good for him. Just sickening. I am sorry, I do not remember the exact reference, but I do remember Gary North used that reference in his book, “The Judeo-Christian Tradition”. Jehova Witnesses and Mormons are closer to the kingdom than Jews.”
“Oh yes, and let’s not forget the wonderful Orthodox Jews that openly oppose Zionism. Here is a quick list of the websites I am aware of:
http://www.nkusa.org/
http://www.ijsn.net/
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
It would be an utter contradiction to call these Jews “anti-Semitic.”
Daniel 9
24Seventy weeks [490 years] are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off [this was Jesus crucifiction], but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary[this is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD]; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week [this is when the Anti Christ will make the peace treaty with Israel]: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease[this is where the Anti Christ declares himself to be God and takes over the rebuilt Temple], and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
You will notice that in verse 24 I have put the words “make an end of sins” in bold. If, as some will contend, the destruction of the Temple in 70AD fulfilled all of prophecy concerning the Temple why was not the end of sin also fulfilled? There must be a future Temple to be used during the last seven years of the Covenant God made with Israel which will be the seven years of the Tribulation period.
There are many other references to the rebuilt Temple but I will keep the length of this post down.
Sorry for spamming you:
Another comment from that article:
“Thanks for this article, Mr. McDurmond. I am quite weary of people, ranging from far-left agitators to dispy pastors, playing the “anti-Semitism” card and laying the blame for the crimes of the last century at Luther’s feet. Many Christians have unwittingly picked up the “anti-Semitism” charge in its broadest sense, not realizing that the people who use it the most, i.e., groups like the Anti-Defamation League, see the New Testament as one of the biggest sources of “hatred” against Jews.”
This is in reference to the article that rmlew linked to me here: http://americanvision.org/3640/was-luther-wrong-about-modern-day-israel/
I am familiar with the 69th and 70th week gap controversy but it has been a while. It will take me a while to digest your argument. My head’s starting to hurt. lol
Can one of the smart people here take a look at this?
So what is the wailing wall? I was told it was the outer courtyard of the temple - if so, it is at the site of the Dome.
You claimed elsewhere that the Ezekiel 38-39 conflict will take place within a year. At that within 8 years will be Daniel's 70th week. You still good with that schedule? How do you come to that conclusion and what should we think if it doesn't happen?
Such claims appear inherently bogus
>>but you guys have a bloody future in mind for them.<<
“Russia, Iran, Turkey and other Mid East countries attack Israel, God intervenes and totally destroys those who come against Israel and you claim that is a bloody future for Israel? Huh?
Then all countries aligned with the Anti Christ and God, after protecting the Jews, totally destroys all who aligned took the sign of the Anti Christ and again you think the Jews have a bloody future? Does that all come from the fairy tale book you use?”
No, that comes from the majority dispensationalist view and has already been pointed out by another, you seem painfully ignorant of your the tenets of your own theological system or simply ignore the points that are uncomfortable to deal with. Maybe yours is a subset of dispensationalism: CyincalBearDispyism?
http://americanvision.org/1704/dr-armageddon-future-of-israel/
Dr. Armageddon and the Future of Israel
John Hagee’s “Christians United for Israel” held its annual meeting in Washington, D.C., last month (July 2007). Supporters of CUFI are looking forward to Armageddon. Of course, they believe they won’t be around to experience it. God will finally fulfill his covenant promises to Israel, but not until He wipes out millions of Jews and billions of others around the world in one final judgment. No wonder an increasing number of people fear “Dr. Armageddon” and his millions of followers. Could their political clout push us toward an all-out Mideast war? There are Jews who support Hagee and CUFI, but I bet they don’t know the whole story.
John Walvoord writes that these supposed future judgments will be “without parallel in the history of the world. According to Revelation 6:7 the judgments attending the opening of the fourth seal involve the death with sword, famine, and wild beasts of one fourth of the world’s population. If this were applied to the present world population now approaching three billion, it would mean that 750,000,000 people would perish, more than the total population of North America, Central America, and South America combined.”[1]
Hal Lindsey supports Walvoord’s position, affirming that during the “great tribulation” there will be “death on a massive scale. It staggers the imagination to realize that one-fourth of the world’s population will be destroyed within a matter of days. According to projected census figures this will amount to nearly one billion people!”[2] Of course, with the latest census figures (6.6 billion), with the dispensational view in mind, about 1.65 billion people will die. Not only does the world come in for a beating under the dispensational hermeneutic, but Israel is specifically hit hard. Walvoord, with his view of a future post-rapture “great tribulation,” must claim that a large number of Jews living in Israel will be slaughtered. He writes:
The purge of Israel in their time of trouble is described by Zechariah in these words: “And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith Jehovah, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third Part into the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried” (Zechariah 13:8, 9). According to Zechariah’s prophecy, two thirds of the children of Israel in the land will perish, but the one third that are left will be refined and be awaiting the deliverance of God at the second coming of Christ which is described in the next chapter of Zechariah.[3]
Israel’s present population is around 7 million. If two-thirds of the Jews living in Israel at the time of the “great tribulation” are to die, this will mean the death of more than 4.5 million! In addition, there is continued immigration from the former Soviet Union supported by Christian organizations like “On Wings of Eagles.” Financial support is raised by Christians to fund Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. “‘This is a biblical issue,’ says Theodore T. Beckett, a Colorado developer who founded the Christian-sponsored, adopt-a-settlement program. ‘The Bible says in the last days the Jews will be restored to the nation of Israel.’“[4] For every three people who enter, two of them will be killed during the dispensational version of the “great tribulation.” Why aren’t today’s dispensationalists warning Jews about this coming holocaust by encouraging them to leave Israel until the conflagration is over? Instead, we find dispensationalists supporting and encouraging the relocation of Jews to the land of Israel. For what? A future holocaust?
Israel was warned by Jesus to “flee to the mountains” (Matt. 24:16). The New Testament is filled with warnings about the coming A.D. 70 holocaust with no encouragement to take up residence in Jerusalem. In fact, there was a mass exodus from the city by those who understood the world-wide implications of the gospel message and the approaching destruction of what was the center of Jewish worship at the time (John 4:21–24).
Preterists believe that the events described in Matthew 24:1–34 were fulfilled in the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. “The guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom [they] murdered between the temple and the altar” (Matt. 23:35) fell upon the generation of Jews who “did not recognize the time of [their] visitation” (Luke 19:44) and crucified “the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8). How do we know this? Because Jesus told us: “Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation” (Matt. 23:36 and 24:34). No future generation of Jews is meant here. Hagee and his supporters are wrong and dangerous.
Footnotes:
[1]John F. Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan/Academie, [1962] 1988) 108.
[2]Hal Lindsey, There’s a New World Coming (New York: Bantam Books, [1973] 1984), 90. Emphasis in original.
[3]Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy, 108. Emphasis added.
[4]Ann LoLordo, “Evangelical Christians Come to Jews’ Aid,” Atlanta Constitution (August 8, 1997), A8.
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.
