Rebuilding the Temple

Many are aware of the conflicts between the Christians, Muslims, and Jews. There is a fourth group, the Armenians, who should also be considered as a one of the players in this struggle to understand God and his relationship to humanity.

There is no doubt that Jerusalem is a city in the world that is peculiar in its significance as a location of religious focus. While there are other cities that draw our attention toward thoughts of the divine (Lhasa, Tibet; Mecca, and Medina, Saudi Arabia; Varanasi and Pushkar, India; the Vatican City; Salt Lake City, Utah), few--if any--bring such focused dispute concerning the nature and will of God as does the most controversial location in the world, the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem.

In fact, the four representatives of the conflict at hand (Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Armenians) have set themselves in neighborhoods that array this location, as shown in the image below:

The disputed landmark, which is supposed to have been the location that God chose to reveal his "right" plan for humanity in ancient times, remains a focal point for the attention of these most powerful religious ideologies to this day. There are Zionist plans to rebuild the temple, while the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNSESCO) has affirmed the significance of the landmark as important to the cultural heritage of the Islamic faith. Zionist Christians have deemed that the location should be properly understood as the place to which Jesus will return to reign upon earth, and that rebuilding of the temple is a necessary step in moving God's divine plan forward. As one apologist writes:

The rebuilding of the temple is important because it is the place from which the Messiah (Jesus) will rule the earth as the seat of his kingdom. The rebuilding of the temple also signifies that the enemies of Israel have been conquered and their presence removed from the land.

The Judaistic claim to the site dates back to God's promises declared in the Torah to Abraham, Moses, and David. They view the site as property of Israel, ratified by King David's purchase of the temple for fifty shekels of silver (II Samuel 24:24):

 24And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy [it] of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.

In the view of God's Chosen People, the Temple represents the affirmation of his covenant that extends both backwards and forwards in time, and there is no doubt that there are many passages in the Torah and Old Testament that suggest that God's will is, in fact, that a temple will indeed be built upon earth that will serve as a testimony to God's faithfulness to his people. God says to King David (I Kings 8:19):

19Nevertheless thou shalt not build the house; but thy son that shall come forth out of thy loins, he shall build the house unto my name.

Again, God speaks through Isaiah (Isaiah 28:16):

16Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

In the day of Ezekiel, God became very specific in his purpose, providing the prophet with a detailed set of instructions for the rebuilding of the temple (Ezekiel 40).

But the eschatological focus upon Jerusalem is not particular to Jews and Christians alone. Muslims, too, view Jerusalem as an inevitable location of God's judgment:

Jerusalem is at the heart of Islamic apocalyptic drama because of source texts linking it to the eschatological end. According to some the Dajjal reigns in Jerusalem, the Mahdi and Jesus defeat him there, the Ka'ba will come from Mecca to Jerusalem, and Jerusalem is then depicted as the site of the last judgement and the resurrection.

While the dispute between Islam and Judaism is more obvious, more investigation is required to understand the presence of four quarters that surround the holy site. What separates the Armenians from the Christians? One way of approaching this question may be to consider them through different labels, especially since Armenians do not consider themselves non-Christian in ethic, but rather, in national identity. In some ways, Jews are to Egyptians as Christians are to Jews as Armenians are to Christians. Each group, in its turn, eschewed a nationalist identity in favor of a religio-ethnic identity. Perhaps as a natural consequence of civilization building, when a group refuses rule under political authority in favor of divine authority, the people find themselves in conflict as they work about the mundane tasks of rebuilding for themselves new orders of social contract. When the people of Israel followed Moses into the wilderness, abandoning the structures of civilization provided by the Pharaoh,  they discovered a need for a new set of laws, rituals, and ethics that would allow them to live in peace amongst themselves. The early Christian church was no different. While abandoning The Law in favor of spiritual guidance, on principle, the early apostles soon found themselves, as did Moses, in the undesirable circumstance of judging disputes among a group that had not yet fully formed an ethic of lifestyle that was distinctive from the teachings of Jewish and Roman lawgivers. Eventually, these dictates solidified into a nationalist identity in the empires of the eastern and western catholic churches that became insufferable to those who disdained to find their Christian identity in the state and not in their God.

In America, we are well acquainted with the brand of Protestantism that revolted directly against the Roman Catholic church and its royal institutions in the west and led us toward a more individualized expression of self-governance under law in obeisance to a personal integrity toward God. While this gave rise to Democracy, with growing distrust in the godliness of human representative governments, many now find themselves asking if, once again, there should be a break from national identity toward spiritual identity. But we are generally less familiar with the history of the Eastern Orthodox church. It may be good enough to regard Armenians as "protestants," not of Roman Catholicism, but of the Byzantines.

It is in this context that the Armenian quarter of Jerusalem may be viewed: a Muslim quarter for Sharia, a Jewish quarter for the Torah, a Christian quarter for the State, and an Armenian quarter for the Individual.

While the description of the Armenian quarter may not be entirely accurate, the Armenian approach to eschatology does seem consistent with the methods of scriptural interpretation that are employed by Zionist Christians who view scripture paradoxically as both literal and figurative:

[On Armenian eschatology] Historical events of the past are used as the model or pattern for eschatological stories. This is neither unique or exceptional. Old prophecies were not only considered witnesses of the past, but were re-interpreted as indicative of current events.

The modern, western, protestant, democratic-yet-fundamentalist Christian has been influenced by Armenian doctrine perhaps more than he knows. Among the evangelical Christian community in America, particularly within the halls of theological colleges and seminaries, the debate between the Calvinist and Armenian protestants still rages. In any case, whether the above analysis be true or not, the question remains concerning what should be the attitude of the individual in regard to the situation in Jerusalem. Whether or not one believes in God, it is foolish to believe that Jerusalem is not a powder keg of ideology and there are many who are keen to rush into it holding matches. The explosion will be felt by all. Christians who view that that God speaks both through scripture and the Spirit should be interested to discern what attitudes toward Jerusalem are most godly.

There are causes to discern that any support for building of a temple in Jerusalem is inadvisable, but chiefly, the question falls upon the question of the Foundation Stone.

Currently, the Temple Mount is topped by the Dome on the Rock, a Muslim shrine that celebrates the location to which Muhammad was given instructions from God and later taken into heaven. Beneath the Dome is a rock that Jews believe to be the very site upon which God meant to fulfill his destiny with mankind (Midrash Tanchuma):

As the navel is set in the centre of the human body,so is the land of Israel the navel of the world...situated in the centre of the world,and Jerusalem in the centre of the land of Israel,and the sanctuary in the centre of Jerusalem,and the holy place in the centre of the sanctuary,and the ark in the centre of the holy place,and the Foundation Stone before the holy place,because from it the world was founded.

The fundamental question that Christians should ask themselves is this: What is the Foundation Stone? Do we agree wth those who rejected Jesus as the Anointed Messiah that the Stone refers to an outcrop of rock beneath a Muslim shrine, or do we believe, as Paul writes (Ephesians 2:19-22):

19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; 21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

John seems to agree with the idea presented in the Midrash Tanchuma, but understanding that this Foundation Stone represents Jesus Christ, not the top of a hill in Israel (John 1:1-3):

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Jesus answers this question explicitly when he declares that the temple would be torn down and that he would rebuild it in three days (John 2: 19-22):

 19Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21But he spake of the temple of his body. 22When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word whichJesus had said.

There is no question that Christian theology depends wholly upon the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no temple but the Body of Christ, a body to which we are made one through marriage to the Son of God. He is the Temple. We are the Temple.

This view is further supported by God's reluctance to allow King David to build a temple (II Samuel 7:4-7):

5Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the LORD, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in? 6Whereas I have not dwelt in [any] house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle. 7In all [the places] wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of cedar?

Moreover, God does not allow King David to build a temple, but he does give that authority to a son. The son to which God referred was two-fold: The first son, Solomon, built a temple of earthly materials, and Zionists see this as a fulfillment of the perfect an inerrant Word of God. However, Zionists forget that God's Word is also paradoxiacally perfect and conditional. As God tells Solomon (I Kings 9:3-9):

3And the LORD said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually. 4And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, [and] wilt keep my statutes and my judgments: 5Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel. 

6[But] if ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your children, and will not keep my commandments [and] my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods, and worship them: 7Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people: 8And at this house,[which] is high, every one that passeth by it shall be astonished, and shall hiss; and they shall say, Why hath the LORD done thus unto this land, and to this house? 9And they shall answer, Because they forsook the LORD their God, who brought forth their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and have taken hold upon other gods, and have worshipped them, and served them: therefore hath the LORD brought upon them all this evil.

Galatians 3:16, a passage that should be as memorable to Christians as John 3:16, reminds Christians that the son to whom God ratifies his inerrant promise to King David was not Solomon, but rather, Jesus:

 16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

In Genesis, God provides a covering for the sin of Adam and Eve with the skin of an animal. In Exodus, God instructs Moses to construct a dwelling for God's presence in a tabernacle of skin. In Kings, God admonishes David that he does not desire a permanent structure of cedar trees, but rather, wants to move with his people. What God do Christians who desire a temple to be built in Jerusalem expect to serve? Do they wish for a God who must be visited by hajj, or do they want a God who not only visits them, but also dwells within their skin and bone?

God's will is discernible to those who seek it, to those who read the scriptures, who surrender to his authority, and who meditate upon his promises, seeking his voice in prayer and supplication. Jesus, after all, gave specific messages to his disciples concerning Jerusalem:

1. Wait there until the Spirit comes.
2. After receiving the Spirit, leave Jerusalem and proclaim the Gospel to all nations.
3. Flee Jerusalem when abominations come. 

For these reasons, no support should be given by Christians to the construction of a temple in Jerusalem unless they wish to participate deceitfully with their Jewish friends. Zionist Christians are eager for the Temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem because they view it as a harbinger of destruction. On moral principal, it is offensive to suggest an action to someone with the belief that the action will lead to the individual's destruction. Even if the Zionist Christians are correct in their interpretation of scripture, encouraging someone to hasten his own destruction offends Christian ethics. It is no different than offering a drink to an alcoholic, or giving a suicidal man a gun. The Christian attitude, instead, should be to continue to do as Christ commanded: To go into all the world and to preach the Gospel.

While God suffered that his people would build religious temples to attest to his glory, he also knew and knows that these temples ultimately become abominations. There is little doubt that the fickle kings of ancient Israel were unable to maintain unity under God through laws, temples, or burnt offerings. The Old Testament is a reminder to us that there is no hope for eternal peace that can ever come through human efforts. All one has to do in order to be assured that no temple built in Jerusalem will bring an everlasting peace to humanity is to actually read the Old Testament. Rarely (perhaps never) did a godly dynasty last more than two generations. Remember Uzzah, who thought to put his hand to the Ark of the Covenant in order to keep it from falling off the ox cart (II Samuel 6). It was not only Uzzah's sin that led to his death (for he was not ordained to touch the ark), but it was also the sin of King David who ordered that the Ark be brought to Jerusalem according to the manner of the Philistines (carried by oxen-driven wagons), and not carried in the hands of sanctified men, as God had commanded (I Chronicles 15). Remember, too, Psalm 127: "Unless the Lord builds the house, the laborers labor in vain."

Those who seek to build a dwelling of stone have rejected the Chief Cornerstone and the very Word of God. The foundation of God's habitation with humanity has already been laid in Zion, and the work has continued endlessly for two millennia. Do not forget that Jesus rejected Satan's offer for the all the kingdoms of the earth. Facing human death, Jesus confessed the truth about himself to Pilate, a truth which Christians would be wise to understand: "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36).