What about ISRAEL? Global Jihad? Two Peoples of God? Replacement Theology? Rebuild the Temple?

So along with kind of this question because it kind of touches on eschatology is you know certain eschatology say or just Theologies in general say there's two people of God you got

Israel and the church now I'm not saying that the you know, these dispensational views or you know outside of Christianity I'm just saying like a lot of people are saying

God has a very distinct plan for Israel and will You know go to Romans Chapter 11 to you know in Ephesians 2 to say, you know, there's a hard distinction between the

Israel of God and kind of you know reformed theology says well then aren't you just replacing all of the the

Blessings and curses that were meant for Israel and now you're trying to replace a lot of those blessings with the church

So I didn't know if you wanted to offer some maybe Potential things to consider for those people that are pro -israel for these

Eschatological reasons. I didn't know if you wanted to weigh in on that one thing. I would say is that it's

Because I saw early on I mentioned you referred to the different millennial views

I mentioned that there's differences even within each of those camps so that there are different sorts of premillennialists.

You have the classical this Classical premillennialists like George Eldon Ladd Actually, I really enjoy a lot of his material even though I don't agree with all of his his views

But he's he's definitely a good representative of that position Believe it or not.

There are even people in the reformed camp that have been premillennial It hasn't been a strongly represented view but like Gordon Clark, for example was a no way.

Is that your point? Are you more of a until? Well, if you're talking about in terms of apologetics my my view is more

Vantillion. Yes. I like Clark though. I like a good bit, but I'm just saying that he was an oddball that he was he was reformed

He believed in premillennialism. So even though it's not well represented in the reformed camp.

There are reformed premillennialists But the reason

I bring this up now is because even within let's say The amillennial camp and the post -millennial camp while they would reject

Dispensationalism there has been a Strong contingent of people who do believe that God is going to bring

Jews in mass back to Christ The the distinction they would make is that this is not

In such a way as to reestablish Jewish hegemony They're not going to be in some privileged position over other

Christians There's not going to be some bifurcation where Jews are reigning on earth and Christians are reigning in heaven

All the Jewish distinctives will be taken out of it but the idea that God will return and bring

Jews and mass to himself has been a View held by a lot of people who are not premillennialist and Romans 11 would be one such text

Psalm 67 would be another text that people would point to because it talks about it's actually a beautiful text in many ways, but Psalm 67 it says

It's it's a prayer to God to shine with them. It's the people of Israel praying shine with us and then at the end it talks about how

God is going to bless them and through this all the nations are going to be blessed. And so some see that dovetailing quite nicely with Romans 11 where it talks about Jews being cut off because of unbelief has allowed for Gentiles to be grafted in and so if that resulted in What we would as Gentiles certainly want to celebrate right our inclusion in Christ.

Yes, then Paul reasons. What will their Grafting in again mean right if if they're being cut off meant riches for us

How much more will they're being regrafted in again? That's one way people have interpreted I realize that's not the only way but I'm just saying that What do you think about those views that say like the temple needs to be rebuilt for a lot of these things?

No, I would say no, so There's no indications in Scripture of a rebuilt temple.

So usually here's how this works for those that don't know the the idea it is that because people

Have pushed the Olivet discourse the whole of it not just the first part of it I mean not just the last part of it, but the whole of it into the future and they see

Jesus talking about the destruction of the temple and of his coming in judgment in relation to that temple

Because they pushed all that into the future Then it's assumed that since there's not one now there has to be a rebuilt temple

Right because John in the book of Revelation in Revelation 11 talks about the temple being measured right the temple in the courtyard and all

Well, there has to be a rebuilt temple what they're just completely overlooking is when all these things are written there was a temple and so instead of looking for a

Rebuilt temple that that needs to be built in order to fulfill these things Why don't you just see the temple that was already there and was destroyed as the fulfillment of what they were talking about, right?

So Again nobody should misunderstand this as saying that every text in the

Bible is talking about an event that occurred in 80 70 there are all sorts of things that still have to happen such as the return of Christ the

General resurrection the general judgment and the new heavens and new earth But that doesn't mean that there aren't things that already happened and that the

New Testament writers You know didn't spend a lot of time talking about that they did So Coming back to the oh, yeah, so the the temple that there's no indication in Scripture of the need for a rebuilt temple

The the whole temple system pointed to Christ The the book of Hebrews is making the point not to go back to these things

Because in Christ we have the reality to which they all pointed Right, really the

New Testament as a whole is about this and so in a sense to miss This is to miss the whole point

John's Gospels especially keen on this John in the beginning in the prologue says

The law was given through Moses and I love the grammar here It's passive.

The law was given through Moses. So Moses was just the instrument He's a passive vehicle for the law.

The law actually comes from God, right? But it was given through Moses, but then it says grace and truth were realized by Jesus Christ here

There's a stark contrast Whereas Moses was simply an instrument Christ is the very one by whom grace and truth are realized

Okay, so unlike Moses, he's not merely a passive instrument. He's the active agent bringing about grace and truth now the point of the contrast there is not

Between falsehood and truth right when Jesus says or John says grace and truth were realized by Jesus Christ He doesn't mean the law was false and Jesus is the is true.

It's a contrast between types and shadows between a Shadow and the reality.

This is the sense in which The truth is being used here so As you move through John's gospel this issue crops up again and again in in verse 14

It says the word became flesh and tabernacled among us. That's an echo of Exodus. It's identifying

Christ as the true Right count is the true presence of God among us what the temple

Stood for but didn't fully realize again, it echoes Exodus when it says we beheld his glory the glory is of the only begotten of the

Father full of grace and truth when Moses constructed the tabernacle the glory of God came and dwelt in it and Then in John's gospel one passage after another underscores this idea in John 2

Jesus said destroy this temple and in three days I'll raise it up. So he identifies himself as The temple in John 4 the woman at the well is caught up with the temple and whether it should be in Jerusalem or in Samaria because there was a

Controversy between the Samaritans and the Jews and Jesus said, you know woman That's all irrelevant now

Right time is coming and now is when those who worship the Father will worship him in spirit and in truth

They noticed the the phraseology there. It's going right back to John 1 and It's saying that the shadows are no longer going to be relevant

The reality is now here and it has thrown all that other stuff out of gear so Again, this this sort of thing is is all over the

New Testament. The author of Hebrews is bringing it up Because he's writing towards the end of that generation and many

Christians are Wondering well what's going on here? We expected all this to be destroyed as Jesus said not one stone left here on top of another

But it's all continuing. It's it's continuing on as if nothing has happened. Nothing is fundamentally changed.

There's still a temple There's still a priesthood. There's still sacrifices and on top of it.

We're being persecuted so Maybe we were wrong Maybe we should go back to all this and the author of Hebrews is saying number one

Don't go back to this because Jesus is better Right. Jesus is the reality that it all pointed to Number two, he says it's all about to disappear

Right. It's on the verge of disappearing Read Hebrews 8 13.

I mean that for the audience. I'm sure you've read it I'm sure many in the audience have as well, but Hebrews 8 13 says that what has been rendered obsolete is about to disappear so it's already obsolete by virtue of Christ coming and Inaugurating the new covenant and it's about to disappear

Meaning 80 70 right so we do believe that 80 70 was a significant moment in redemptive history

And we do believe that there are things in scripture that speak to that event What we don't believe is that this is to be read

Into every text that talks about something future Right. So when it comes to the temple though, the basic point in answer your question is that there's

I don't know of any indication in the new testament that There is going to be a future rebuilt temple or that it's necessary to the eschatological scheme of things

Perfect. Thanks so much. I just wanted you to kind of address that because a lot of people are asking that question

Right now because of the things that israel is is currently under here's an interesting thing now.

I see somebody told me Um hervey said something so i'll come back to hervey in a second.

Um, here's something interesting so the new testament clearly speaks about The judgment that would come upon jerusalem, right read the parables leading up to the olivet discourse

Matthew 20 matthew 21 matthew 22. There's one parable after another that's told about jerusalem and her leaders and how it's going to be destroyed because they reject christ and we're going to reject those waves of Prophets that he was going to send to them as a sort of final warning to them

One of my favorite things by the way in josephus Is josephus who was an eyewitness to the events?

He mentions that when the first Boulder if you will of the catapult was was flung into the air and the watchman on the wall saw it

So they were they were white and they they had this sort of reflective Veneer on them that that caused the sun to Radiate off of them if you will they uh, they would mirror the sun

So as they're whirling through the air you get this picture of this resplendent object and it would make this hideous whistling noise

And by the way, these stones that were hurled by the catapults weighed about a hundred pounds and So think about it book of revelation talks about this unfaithful woman

An adulterous woman who's going to be stoned Right with hundred pound hailstones.

Well, josephus tells us there were these hundred pound stones being hurled at jerusalem When the watchman on the wall saw this happening

They immediately began to cry out as they saw this brilliant thing flying through the air

They said the sun is coming. The sun is coming. S -o -n They interpreted this as the coming of the sun

There would have been ringing in their ears People uh christians saying that that christ is going to come in judgment on jerusalem but uh

What's interesting is that the new testament although it speaks to this event? It never records it as something that happened so The question should become why why does the new testament never record this?

That the answer would be either because they were all the books of the new testament written before 80 70 or because What I don't know what the explanation would be for why they never mentioned it after 80 70 especially when you consider now, this isn't an argument from silence because in an argument from silence works when

We don't have good reason to think that somebody would speak to something. But how could a first century jew?

fail to mention jerusalem's destruction And especially the apostles who are claiming in jesus the fulfillment of these things how could they fail to mention?

by the way people Right, by the way judaizers There isn't a temple to go to there isn't a priesthood functioning right now, right?

That would have been the first thing out of their mouths and refuting the judaizers if these things And by the way,

I mean first of all Paul couldn't be writing after 80 70 because he died before 80 70

So every single one of paul's writings was before 80 70 Peter couldn't have been writing before 80 70 because peter died along with paul before 80 70 under nero

So here you have paul and peter's writings all being written before 80 70. What about james?

Well, james was one of the earliest to go. So james epistle had to be before 80 70. I could go on and on with this

But my point is that You you have

This Event predicted in the new testament. It's never mentioned as something that happened the apostles often mention things that were fulfilled

After jesus spoke them if they had occurred by the time when the apostles began to put paper to or pen to paper, right?

so when jesus and john 2 said Destroy this temple and in three days i'll raise it up. John goes on to say

That it came to the disciples remembrance After jesus was raised from the dead that he said these things and he was referring to the temple of his body

So whenever jesus said something that subsequently came to pass before the apostles wrote the apostles would draw attention to this

They never do that in the case of jesus predictions about jerusalem's destructions

All of this i'm saying points to a pre 80 70 date of composition for the new testament writings And this this point has been argued at great length by men such as a .t.

robertson numerous scholars have made this point but I bring this all up here because this was a major apologetic point for the early christians the early christians after 80 70 kept pointing to the fact that everything was destroyed as jesus said

And as would be expected if he fulfilled all these things and this was such an issue that when julian

Ascended the imperial throne okay, so under constantine christianity becomes a legal religion right constantine

Now makes christianity legal before it was a illegal religion you could you know

When it was thought to be part of judaism, it was considered legal because judaism was was a legal religion

But once it was distinguished from judaism after the destruction of the temple when it continued on It then became an illegal religion until the time of constantine so constantine makes it legal, but then after constantine other people come to power and Julian was an apostate.

He he was a christian, but he became an apostate And he didn't like how christians were able to point to jerusalem's destruction as a definitive

Proof of the truth of christianity and of the words of christ and so forth and so one of the things that he did was he

He began to finance the jews So that they could go back to israel and rebuild the temple

So julian the apostate wanted them to rebuild the temple and he even financed it now

People can take this for what it you know, however, they want but this is how it's recorded in the historical records

We're told that the jews went back to israel under julian and again to try and reconstruct the temple they were

Digging up the ground in preparation for laying the foundation and so forth But again, this is the historical accounts.

It says that when they tried to do so Subterranean vaults in the earth

As they as they uncovered them with their tools and so forth were suddenly ignited and fire shot up from the ground and Consumed the the jews that were trying to to do this.

And so eventually Because they had such a experience they abandoned the effort

Right. So this is this is attempt number one to rebuild the temple over there

Now I could go on through history and how this has happened one time after another but one thing that's true now is the uh that Islam has one of its structures there

Which stands as I like to call it a kind of divine corkscrew, right? It's as if you know, you've got this impediment to a temple and I know that people who believe there's going to be a rebuilt temple will say well, that's

That's yeah, it's an impediment that's going to be ultimately bulldozed over in a sense, but uh

They're going to build it. They built in the wrong place and they got to go somewhere else to build the temple Yeah, well one thing though and this is a question

I like to ask jewish people is when you look at the old testament and the first destruction of the temple you're

Number one the prophets announced that it would be destroyed before it happened. God doesn't do anything of any significant redemptives

You know import without announcing it through his servants the prophets so it was that's what amos says This was predicted by numerous prophets before it happened the first destruction

Secondly, the israelites were told why it would be destroyed so they weren't in the dark

Wondering why this was happening. They knew exactly why it was happening the prophets would tick off the number of things for which god was going to cause these things to happen number three

They were told when these things would be reversed So they were told when this would have its end and they would be able to rebuild the temple

So the reason for telling them ahead of time that it was going to happen was so they could make Preparations for it

Also, so they would know what they were to repent of how how are they supposed to return to the lord unless they know?

What they've done and what they're to repent of? Uh, but then third as I said, they they have this indication of when it's going to happen

So they had some concrete thing to hang their hat on some some event to look to for their hope

So so here's the question that I asked jewish people What uh, or it's really this series of questions

Where was the destruction of the second temple announced number two? What was the sin that precipitated its destruction number three?

Where is the indication prophetically of how long this thing was going to last? The fact of the matter is without the new testament you have no answer to those questions

Right. You don't know what the sin was. You don't know How long this was supposed to last?

and this is huge because again, this is just Unexpected given how god operates and has operated right in in uh in prior history and uh

When you look at what's interesting further is when you look at the talmud It it tells us that 40 years prior to jerusalem's destruction the destruction of the temple a number of strange events occurred

Okay, first of all, we're told that The sanhedrin could no longer meet in the chamber of hewn stone

Which was their normal Location of of deliberating which it was a area in the temple precincts

They could no longer meet there because the structure was considered unsafe because of an earthquake that had occurred 40 years prior to the temple's destruction

Now think about it an earthquake 40 years before the temple's destruction that rendered the structure unsafe

That made it such that the sanhedrin The the ruling body of the jews couldn't meet in their normal location to pass down judgment sounds kind of Interesting, right?

Yeah, it's almost as if There was something that happened 40 years prior that god was not pleased with and and kicked them out

Subsequent to that, right? so the The structure was unsafe because the lintel above the the temple was cracked.

Okay, so there was a fundamental Structural problem with the temple now the gospels

Record certain events as well. And some of those are also mentioned in jewish works but we're told in the gospels that The veil of the temple was torn into from top to bottom.

We're told that there was a great earthquake We're told you know, all sorts of things happened in conjunction with christ's death and his resurrection

But another thing we're told prior to the temple's destruction 40 years is that they couldn't keep the light going in the temple

They would light it but it would go out this is in contrast by the way to the

What happened under the maccabees where we're told that uh, even though he didn't have enough oil it remained lit longer than Uh, it would seem possible

Uh, so here you have the light they couldn't keep it going no matter how much oil they had then we're told that The scarlet cord that would hang in the holy of holies

It was supposed to turn white signifying that when the blood of atonement was brought in Signifying that god had received the sacrifice but 40 years prior to the temple's destruction.

It stopped turning white And so it was as if it was saying god is not accepting their sacrifices.

This is all in the talmud This is not christian propaganda christian apologetic. This is jewish material then a fourth thing it says is that When they would cast lots for the scapegoat, you know, which one was to be sacrificed and which one was to be sent into the wilderness

It says that the the The one that was for the lord would never come up again in the right hand.

So Whatever was going on when they would cast lots just like flipping a coin it would be

Right statistically 50 50. Sometimes it would come up heads sometimes tails 50 50 well in this case the lot would never come up in the right hand for the lord, so Christians use this as a powerful apologetic for christianity

There's nothing from a jewish perspective that can account for why the temple was destroyed when it's supposed to end

Uh, and and christians likewise have to deal with this if they're thinking of a rebuilt temple Where does it tell us when this temple is going to be rebuilt?

And under what conditions and so forth and and there's just nothing in the new testament that speaks to this Anthony anthony,