Rebuild the Temple

The early disciples had a strange relationship to the Jerusalem Temple for they seem to have continued to visit the Temple, so for example we read in Acts 3 that Peter and John were going ‘to the temple at the hour of prayer’. When Jesus had spoken about ‘not one stone remaining on another’ those words came as quite a shock to the disciples. The building was awesome, immense and impressive. The Temple was a subject of conversation among travellers within the Imperial world. ‘But have you seen the Temple in Jerusalem?’ would be a comment when a traveller was recounting what they had seen as they travelled across the Roman world. The Temple site occupied around 20% of the entire footprint of Jerusalem – this was not so much a city with a Temple (Canterbury with its cathedral is a city with a cathedral) but a Temple with surrounding buildings. The reference of Jesus to ‘my Father’s house has many [store-]rooms’ is based on the historic Temple with its many storehouses.

The shock of it coming down certainly indicated the end of the age, in our culture something like the detonation of an atomic bomb, with a significant before and after. The trauma of AD70 was intense… The great hope was of God delivering Jerusalem with many prophetic voices asking the people to stay firm. In the midst of the years of assault the Roman armies withdrew as Rome central was in crisis – imagine how those who believed the prophets would have rejoiced. However Jesus had warned about such ‘false prophets’ and once Rome stabilised they returned to finish the work and the end result was utter destruction. [I am deeply concerned that a considerable part of the prophetic movement globally is caught in that position currently – when I hear of ‘go back’, ‘God will vindicate’, or I read of the rejoicing when an intellectual proclaims a return to biblical foundations I get a tad worried, for the prophetic is not about yesterday but about tomorrow. Yesterday might stir faith but it is faith for ‘a new thing’. I see parallels between Jerusalem and today – the crisis we are in is to bring us through to something different, to landscape that is all-but unrecognisable.]

There is a hope for the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem that is held to by some Zionists and Christians influenced by Dispensationalism, but seems so unlikely to me. There is no hope found in early Christian literature of the hope of the Temple being rebuilt that I am aware; Ezekiel’s vision of the Temple is never specified as being in a specific location, other than the city shall be called ‘The Lord is there’. Ezekiel’s vision fuels John’s vision in Revelation 21 of the New Jerusalem, the city that comes down with dimensions that fill the whole earth, and John says ‘I saw no Temple there’… The old Jerusalem was a Temple with a city around it, and any visitor would say ‘I saw the Temple’ for there was no way that one could visit the city and not see the Temple. John’s statement is in total contrast. A city without a temple! Or as we read we know the city is both a city and a temple. The eschaton has no hope of a third temple.

One final text that is quite powerful are the closing words of Matthew’s Gospel known as the Great Commission. Matthew begins his Gospel with the Genesis of Jesus Christ, he often then writes of Scripture being fulfilled, then comes to the close with the Great Commission:

Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Let any of those among you who are of his people—may the Lord their God be with them!—go up.

OH, did I get the wrong quote? Maybe not. The last words of the Writings (2 Chronicles) – the ‘Great Commission’ of king Cyrus, to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem… ‘Go to Jerusalem’ from the place of Exile, and may God go with you… OK here comes the quote,

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

The direction has always been the radical opposite, Jerusalem… to the ends of the earth, Jerusalem to all exilic places; temple building, but not with stones one upon another. Presence – now what does the Presence of God look like / feel like? The Presence is the evidence. Presence with, among not simply for people and certainly way beyond a power to act on people. There is a Temple being rebuilt, and maybe these next years will see a ‘temple’ that we are convinced will remain intact being removed one stone from another? I am not an iconoclast, but I do believe in a journey into the unknown, hence the promise of ‘I am with you always’ is so important.

More time, please

Beliefs evolve, I guess they adapt and I am sure mine are no different. In this post I am jumping to the end. Yes to the big one the ‘eschaton’, but I want to do it in a way that pulls back into the here and now, into our context.

I believe in the ultimate transformation of what we term creation. Will it look the same – solar system, sun, earth, moon and all that makes up what we might term creation? I guess there will be similarities and dissimilarities, as the body of Jesus is the pattern. Recognisable (visible wounds, eats, talks) and not simply with dissimilarities such as appearing and disappearing but as I hold he(?) is no longer male some big dissimilarities (OK dropped that in so that you hope the rest of the post will be worth reading). A material creation – ‘resurrection’ (as symbol and reality) and such words as ‘regeneration’ can hardly suggest something different. Some of the final words in Revelation of seeing a ‘new heaven and a new earth’ with God making ‘all things new’ – not making all new things – are strong words indeed. Strong words that can almost mock us when we read that every day in the past 12 months has seen the ocean temperature at the highest on record. Can creation survive? Time is not on our side to give a positive answer to that one.

There are (for me) two options. Either Jesus returns and bales us out, the ultimate rescue mission for this creation… or… And I hope for the ‘or’ possibility.

I hope for the ‘or’ option cos I consider that the work of Christ is finished as far as redemption is concerned, and redemption involves the whole of creation; I hope for the ‘or’ because I consider Jesus is worthy of more than being called on to rescue us; I hope for the ‘or’ because creation is looking to the ‘sons and daughters of God’ for its liberation.

The work of Christ is finished… the work of the ekklesia is not finished. My belief in the ‘end’ means I have to examine other beliefs too. Yes from the obvious of ‘do we go to heaven when we die?’ to ‘is the centre about a narrow view of salvation or is it about cosmic transformation?’ The latter gets my vote. If so it calls for a major shift in how we understand the ekklesia, discussions on deconstruction move into a whole different arena. To be clear ‘church’ takes many forms, not simply as we have it with diverse manifestations and denominations, but it serves in many ways – not surprisingly as the heart of it consists of those who have found personal reconciliation to the God of all creation. Training, healing, restorative, catalysing koinonia… but also as the channel through which the transformation of all things touches our world – yes the door through which the qualities of the new age enter this age. For that to take place there has to be a deconstruction of our theology and an impact on our practices.

The so-called ‘new church movement’ is what shaped my thinking, a restorationist movement that was shaped by a belief that there needed to be a partnership with God so that the church could be restored and as a result the ‘world’ would be impacted (‘want to join’ is probably what it really meant). I am sure there is some of that that still influences me, but I have made a shift from ‘restoring the church’ to a restoration of the world as the desire of heaven, and I am agnostic as to what we will see happen, but remain adamant that we are here to pray, and act in ways that the focus of a new world might become visible among us. That has to include the big ones of a new economy that does not reward those who comply (‘buy and sell’) but who are working in a way that humanises one and all; it includes that of creation care; it includes the smallest act that faintly mirrors the age when there will be no more tears.

Maybe Jesus returns and there is a millennial age when a model of true governance takes place (I really don’t go there, but accept that there is a historic pre-millennial view that has been around for centuries, nothing like the pre-millennial view of the ‘left behind’ hijackers of the term)… Maybe a lot of things… but my hope, which might be my belief, is that we are given a whole lot of more time to get out of our narrow mindedness and into the big mindedness of God and give our best shot (and a very small one that will be) at contributing toward the restoration of all things, with at the heart of it showing at some small way tiny elements of the coming age.

Practically, for scripture is very practical, if we have any sense of the time we live in, we have something around 15(with a very small ‘+’) years… could we see something happen that means we will not need to be baled out? I hope so, hence I know that we have entered through the door of the great unravelling.

[I am continuing – too slowly for my liking to write on eschatology… the next pdf I will get out will be on the direction of movement – hence a quick rebuttal of ‘the rapture’, a brief look at the history of Dispensationalism, and the final part will be on the consistent end of renewal being when the ‘trees clap their hands.]

Well out of order person (to come?)

I am currently seeking to slowly (and I mean way slow) put together material on eschatology, a) insisting that a) no one agrees with me, b) stating that I am agnostic on certain aspects, c) holding to a considerable amount is past (both in terms of the first Easter Events and also the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD), and d) that all eschatology is deeply practical asking us to respond to the question ‘in the light of this how am I to live?’.

An area where I am agnostic is over a future ‘one-world-leader’ known as ‘the antichrist’. I observed something quite amusing the other day while perusing what is on YouTube that might interest me – videos on a certain former president of the USA as being ordained and anointed from on high (God looking down in 1946 and seeing this child as the one of destiny to save the nation) and videos presenting evidence why he is the antichrist that has been prophesied!! To save time I will give you my discernment – neither of the above. The fascination with the antichrist is of course something that has been around for a long period of time, with so many people put forward as ‘definitely the one – we need not look for another’.

To get to a fixed view on the antichrist one has to fit together Scriptures that are then claimed to speak of the same person although they use different language. In this post I am simply going to pick up on Paul’s language in 2 Thessalonians concerning the ‘man of lawlessness’. I cover this with some extra detail in an extended pdf article: Second Horizon.pdf.

I will simply pick up on what I consider is a translation error in this post, the part related to the text that I have emboldened below – see what you think.

Let no one deceive you in any way, for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction.  He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God. Do you not remember that I told you these things when I was still with you? And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed when his time comes. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of his mouth, annihilating him by the manifestation of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned (2 Thess. 2:3-12).

First the reference is future – future for the readers, but now past for us. Future for the readers – into the ‘second horizon’ of the fall of Jerusalem and what Jesus termed the ‘abomination that causes desolation’, something that the ‘pagan’ Romans effected with their pollution of the Temple.

As for the translation bit – virtually every version has two ‘comings’ (parousia – often referring to the ‘second coming’ of Jesus, the word meaning presence or arrival and in the Roman context of the arrival of the emperor or imperial presence). By making it two ‘parousias’ it pushes the event to the future – our future.

A little bit of Greek in vv. 8,9, jump over and refer back:

ὃν ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἀνελεῖ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ καὶ καταργήσει τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, οὗ ἐστιν ἡ παρουσία κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Σατανᾶ ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει καὶ σημείοις καὶ τέρασιν ψεύδους

Parousia occurs twice (παρουσία), the first one is often translated as being the parousia of Jesus who destroys ‘antichrist’ with the manifestation of his (Jesus’) coming, and the second one translated concerning the ‘coming’ (παρουσία) of antichrist who comes with the work of Satan….

However, and there is a HUGE however, the second parousia if translated ‘normally’ qualifies and describes the first parousia (supposedly the coming of Jesus…!!!!) so we would read the manifestation of his coming (τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ), which is the coming according to the works of Satan (οὗ ἐστιν ἡ παρουσία κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Σατανᾶ)!! Hardly a reference to the coming of Jesus. No, no and no! The manifestation of the ‘man of lawlessness’ is that which comes according to the working of Satan

What we have is one coming – the coming of ‘the man of lawlessness’ who Jesus will destroy in the time or context of the manifestation of his parousia in the temple, that parousia that was in accordance to the working of Satan.

All the above a little technical, but I am pretty convinced about this being the only valid way to translate this section, and the change being only made because of a prevailing concept that this is future for us. Another example of assuming Scripture is somehow written to us. It was written in early 50s and fulfilled in their lifetime.

Whatever we make of a future one-world-ruler I do not believe at any level this passage can be pulled in to defend that view. Paul lived in the time of ‘the one world ruler’, Caesar in Rome who claimed to be ‘king of kings’… that rule manifested in 70AD with the desolation brought to the Temple. All indicating Caesar’s conquest according to what was visible, indeed a decade after the conquest an arch is erected in Rome to mark the deification of Titus (who conquered Jerusalem) and to mark the conquest over the Temple. The end of an era… and for those with eyes to see the breath of Jesus marked the end of that era and the continuance of another era, the one who is the ‘king of kings’.

I find so much eschatology twists Scripture to fit a system, but that is not my main objection (for I could be guilty of the same) but that it leaves us with speculation always looking to the immediate future with it always remaining future. I think – even if I am wrong with this passage – better that we seek to align with the breath of Jesus in a way that my breath also seeks to annul everything that opposes God and exalts itself. Otherwise I too might be deluded – even if I can prove I know the truth!

A video on the ‘Second Horizon’

I recorded an interview that Steve Watters did with me a few days back and it is now uploaded to YouTube. I have also an expanded written piece (10000 words) that go with it. The pdf article is in more detail, the video picks up why I believe Matt. 24 (maybe famous for such statements as ‘wars and rumours of wars’) is not written addressing our future but the future of those who were the immediate recipients of the words of Jesus. He made it clear that all the signs he gave would be fulfilled within the lifetime of ‘this generation’. In the pdf I also give my take on Paul’s rather cryptic reference to ‘the man of lawlessness’, again a fulfilment in the period 66-70AD seems to fit this best. The pdf is found here – read or download:

Eschatology: The Second Horizon

I will set some dates soon when for those interested I will give a short reflection on the material related to Matt. 24 and then – well who knows where the discussion will go – hopefully not to ‘wars and rumours of wars’!!!

At last!!

I have today completed and uploaded the next pdf on Eschatology. It focuses on the ‘second horizon’, the fall and destruction of the city of Jerusalem and Temple in AD70. I do not believe there is any justification in trying to make the words of Jesus in Matt. 24 / Mark 13 / Luke 21 fit in to some future time (as related to us) but that he spoke to the future of the disciples who were hearing his words, and he makes this clear with all the signs he gave would be fulfilled in the generation alive at the time. I end with Paul’s words in 2 Thessalonians on ‘the man of lawlessness’ with the suggestion that the time frame he is looking to is the same one that Jesus gave. The first horizon was deeply unexpected as it was initiated by the death of Messiah. They could not imagine that could take place; the second horizon was to occur over the 40 years following.

Click to download / read (pdf format).

Eschatology: The Second Horizon.

I plan next week to record a YouTube video to accompany the pdf. The video will be simpler with a more of an overview, the pdf digs deeper.

If you wish to find other pdf’s and the one that precedes this volume go to:

Extended Articles

Where to (or) what shapes?

I enjoyed the first Zoom on eschatology – and if I enjoyed it that surely is all that counts? I think though those who came also enjoyed it. It will be repeated in just over two weeks’ time: Oct. 10th, 7:30pm UK time – I will post details here nearer the time. I think the next two will cover the context for Jesus’ prophetic words (Matt. 24; Luke 21; Mark 13) and some of Paul’s material in Thessalonians being that of the intense time of 66-70AD (I use ‘AD’ as opposed to ‘CE’ though in other contexts I would be more comfortable using that abbreviation). And so much more to cover but to give some idea of where I plan to go after that is into a ‘so what?’ set of notes / videos.

Eschatology is intensely practical. It calls for a ‘how then do we live?’ I do not have time for the ‘this is what is going to happen – and it is really bad… so distance yourself now and bunker down’. I do not deny things could get really bad, extremely tough, I simply do not see how we can let the Bible speak for itself and say ‘all this was prophesied’. That will all wait for videos down the road – the ‘yes there could be a one-world ruler’ but this is not what is prophesied. There could also be some very different and wonderful futures – not prophesied also.

But… a much more practical ‘so what?’ relates to how we live. I understand the pull towards holding fast to Judeo-Christian values – but how do we arrive at those so-called values. Old Testament laws can be clearly used to lead us to hold that maximising profits is NOT a Judeo-Christian value (and I suggest also where the ‘bottom-line’ as profit not being a Judeo-Christian value either)… such laws can help us establish a good and healthy shape. We can add to that New Testament material and end with a ‘biblical’ view on…

However, eschatology calls to a deeper level. If there is ‘new creation’ that is our context (now) we have to be shaped by that, in other words we have to be shaped by what is to come, and that includes what is not to come!

Here comes the wonderful tension of the overlapping of two ‘creations’ (I think it is better to use the ‘creation’ word rather than the ‘world’ word at this point). We do not deny this current fallen creation as a context where we live while embracing that it alone cannot shape us. Indeed it does not shape us, new creation shapes us; this creation modifies the shape. I don’t fully know where this takes us, but I consider that we might arrive at a ‘Judeo-Christian’ view of marriage from wrestling with Scriptures, but the new creation does not have marriage within it. Judeo-Christian values takes us so far, or perhaps better stated set us on a trajectory, but where is the trajectory headed?

New creation: no money (and I presume no trade nor trade agreements); no gender, class and other category divisions; no ‘temple’ in the city… healing for the nations, no untameable source for disruption (no sea). New creation. Many areas to explore.

Over-realized eschatology can lead to many problems and beyond problems to ‘sin’. But sight of ‘new creation’ takes us beyond legislation that calls for abolition of slavery, but whole new working environments, distribution of resources, Jubilee-esque responses.

‘How then should we live?’ becomes the question. I might not believe what ‘popularised’ eschatology gives us on the tribulation, the antiChrist, the one-world government. I might be wrong – though if I am wrong there are degrees of ‘wrongness’!!! Right or wrong I suspect the final exam paper I will sit will be something along the lines of one important question:

Given your context, Martin, how then did you live; how did sight of new creation manifest in and through your life and how did it affect those around you? (Sub question – how do you think it affected your neighbours, J & E, and their two sons? Answer carefully as I also have an exam paper for them with one question on it – how did Martin’s life affect you and your values and approach to living within creation?)

Very practical – always eschatology is practical. I will wait in vain (maybe for 1000 years?) for the exam question of ‘outline what you believed, Mr. Scott?’

Zoom discussion: Eschatology an Introduction

Tuesday 12th September, 19:30 UK time (will be repeated on 10th October, 19:30 UK time) I will host a Zoom meeting which will focus on An Introduction to Eschatology. I will present for 15 minutes, then with questions, feedback (oh and pushback!!) I think we will have a very positive time. This session will certainly not answer all the questions but will give us some foundations that might discourage us from simply trying to find all the answers to the future (not the nature of prophecy nor the centre of eschatology). You are not required to agree with my stance to attend and neither is it required that you agree with me at the end of the session!! I expect we will be together for 90 minutes.

The Zoom link is:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/5728039267?pwd=NEozVVM0Z1NJSDFKKzNwdG9KUDc5dz09

Prior to the evening it will help if you either watch the four videos that I have posted (see previous posts) or read the pdf notes:

Eschatology: An Introduction

Eschatology: Introduction Video 2

The second of four videos that will give an introduction as to what foundations I consider are essential to grasp biblical eschatology.

I plan scheduling two Zoom presentations – 15 minutes presentation on the salient points and then open discussion. Dates still to be set. All are welcome – either watch all four videos and / or read the pdf that are the (expanded) notes for this series.

The pdf is found here:
Eschatology Introduction.pdf

Perspectives