Monday, April 28, 2008

The Temple Is the Issue

According to my understanding of end-times, there are two streams of redemptive history flowing toward a common end. In saying this, let me be clear, there is only one way to be saved, and only one name given under heaven by which men must be saved. Whether Jew or Gentile, apart from Christ, there is no hope-- not yesterday, not today, not forever. Yet, God is dealing with each of these groups distinctively in time. How? Read this, and we'll talk...

When the Jews rejected their own Messiah, Paul tells us that God shifted his redemptive focus from them to the Gentiles. Granted, there have been quite a number of Jews who have put faith in Jesus Christ through the ages since he was rejected by the bulk of them, but by and large they are hardened to even the consideration of him. The banner over them as a people has been
Ichabod: the glory has departed. Does that mean that God has washed his hands of them? No, there are seven years of redemptive work yet to finish with them, and God ever true to his word, will not forget them nor stop short of his promise to them.

So when will the clutch be depressed and the stick shifted from Gentile gear to 70th week gear, and when will Jesus return for his bride? According to the scriptures,
no one knows, and no one could ever know! Wait a minute, aren't there dependable signs that clearly mark this out? Not really, and that's why his return will always remain unexpected. We can gather that we are closer to that event, but Christians have thought the end was at the door since Jesus ascended to heaven, and yet the bridegroom delayed.

The one thing that does seem to be significant is the Temple. At the start of the 70 weeks, in the
issuing of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, the Temple was paramount. Jesus said he would rebuild the Temple in three days, meaning the Temple of his body (which has become the Gentile church). Shortly thereafter, the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. It seems sensible to me, that in shifting the redemptive focus from the Gentiles back to the Jews, the Temple in Jerusalem would be the central issue again.


  1. I have seen articles and been part of conversations enough to wager that Israel has the materials to rebuild the physical temple. Considering the hatred between the Jews and the Arabs it seems inconceivable that the Arabs would, in any circumstance, give up the Dome of the Rock in order for the Jewish Temple to be rebuilt. Is it likely that this is made possible by the false peace agreement brokered by anti-christ after the Gentiles have been removed?

  2. heanous,
    How prescient! I do think that will be the Gordian knot that the Antichrist finagles in order to "sign a covenant with many for one seven". Though I may or may not blog about that, it will certainly be upcoming in my preaching series.

    As for the exact time of the signing of that covenant, it's hard to know, with certainty, whether or not that occurs just before, during, or just after the Rapture.

    The implacable amimosity between Jew and Arab, or better yet Muslim, makes it likely that the Antichrist will be a nominal Muslim who secretly (probably) has abandoned the god of his fathers. That will not be Obama, incidentally, he's not from the right part of the world.

  3. I agree with you that Obama is not a possible antichrist. I think he has a role to play in turning the independant America over to the one world system after the rapture has occurred. That's just my personal musing and is not based on any evidence. It seems inconceivable as well that the Independant American mind set would ever yield to a one world system either. Although, if I understand your teaching on the subject and God's word, that should be an easy task so long as the American citizens are under the prophesied "Delusion" from God.

  4. heanous,
    You understand me clearly, it won't be a problem at all!

  5. this is a bit beyond me...however, i am reading.

  6. Nanc,
    Keep reading, I hope this starts gelling into something coherent soon! ;-)

  7. hi...
    i've been trying to convince my friends that Creation is real. they believe that Evolution is true because it is backed up by science, and that Creation has no proof but the bible (which, of course, they don't believe in either). i said that things in history back up the bible, and when they asked to name some, i mentioned the possible Noah's ark boat being found in Turkey, that n event mentioned in Isaiah 20 about King Sargon capture of Ashdod was recorded on the palace walls, among other things. They responded with things such as "Ancient trivia and old boats do not a compelling argument for the supernatural make"...."and nothing you have said proves that the bible is 100% true.", etc.
    Do you think you can help me? i don't want to use too much reference from the Bible, because they obviously do not believe in the Bible. I really don't know how to respond to it please?

  8. Anon,
    I would ask them what exactly they mean by backed up by science. Evolutionary science has no answer for how life started, no answer for how it began replicating, no answers for how irreducibly complex systems developed, no answers for the development of symbiotic relationships between organisms or within ecosystems, no answers as to why life is not spontaneously developing in the environment it thrives in and reproduces in, and no explanation for the existence of the Christian church. The Bible has an explanation for all of it. Their faith in science is based on nothing, our faith in God is based on the historical fact, witnessed, of one rising from the dead. In the choice between their grasping at the wind and the ability of a sinner to grasp on to the hand of someone who beat death, I see no contest.

  9. Alright.
    Thank you so much


Any comment in ill taste or not germane to the post may be deleted without warning. I am under no obligation to give anyone an opportunity to call me names or impugn my motives or integrity. If you can't play nice, go somewhere else and play.