Temple Mount Wars

Guest

Temple Mount Wars

Israel - Middle East
Friday, March 21, 2014
Alf Cengia

It is fascinating to me that a city which was founded way back in 3000 B.C. still demands the attention of the world in 2014 A.D. Of course, I'm talking about Jerusalem. Or as some would have it, Al-Quds.

Somewhere around 520 B.C. onwards, the prophet Zechariah wrote of that city:

Quote :: And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it. (Zec 12:3 NKJV)

Even before then (circa 627-585 B.C.) the prophet Jeremiah wrote:

Quote :: I will deliver them [Israel] to trouble into all the kingdoms of the earth, for their harm, to be a reproach and a byword, a taunt and a curse, in all places where I shall drive them. (Jer 24:9)

Isn't that what we see occurring today, and have seen in history? They were either pretty good guessers or they were prophets of God.

Another option is that they were prophets of God but zealous fundamentalists misinterpret what they really meant. For example: when God said that if the sun, moon and stars disappeared Israel would cease to be a nation before Him forever (Jer 31:31-37); He didn't really mean what we think He said.

In that view Israel is now the church; hence His word has been fulfilled. The change in identity was a minor detail that Jeremiah (and God) left out when addressing Israel and the house of Judah. Mind you, the cursing for disobedience is still valid for ethnic Israel - not the church.

The same rationalizing process occurs with Jerusalem and a future Jewish Temple as discussed in texts such as the Olivet Discourse and II Thessalonians 2:1-8.
Imagery and deeper-meaning are invoked to de-emphasize or spiritualize the importance of physical Jerusalem and the Temple.

Such a narrative argues that Jerusalem is Heavenly Jerusalem only, while the true Templemay only be found within the believer. These views are voiced in Walker's Jesus and the Holy City. Walker informs his readers that:

Quote :: "...Jerusalem has lost whatever theological status it previously possessed. The way the Old Testament ascribes to Jerusalem a special, central and sacred status within the on-going purposes of God is not reaffirmed by the New Testament writers. Instead they see God’s purposes as having moved forward into a new era in which the previous emphasis on the city (as well as on the Land and the Temple) is no longer appropriate."

Yet it is erroneous to insist that physical Jerusalem's future holy status needs to be reaffirmed in the NT to remain viable. This scriptural revisionist position ignores OT affirmations to the contrary (Psalm 137:5-6; Zec 2:7-13 etc).

Despite all this allegorizing away of the physical aspect of prophetic Scriptures, the Temple Mount and Jerusalem defiantly remain explosive points of contention today. A new book on the Middle East conflict by Terry James (which I haven't yet read) is fittingly titled Cauldron, as an allusion to this escalating conflict.

For many centuries, neither Jerusalem nor the Temple mount figured prominently in the Islamic world. In fact when Sultan el Kamil yielded Jerusalem to the "holy" Roman Emperor Frederick II in 1249, he stated that: “I have ceded nothing but churches and houses in ruins.”

When Israel successfully defended itself during the Six-Day-War and subsequently regained Jerusalem, those "ruins" were still extant. The Dome of the Rock and the Temple Mount was in a bad state of disrepair. Tiles were missing from the roof of the Dome and weeds were growing all over the court yard. Photos of that era bring to mind a forgotten ghost town.

We should recall that, for the previous nineteen years, King Hussein of Jordan held control of the area and had allowed the Temple Mount to stagnate. No sooner than Israel recaptured the Old City the Islamic world suddenly refocused its attention on the Temple Mount.

In The Fight for Jerusalem (page 11) Dore Gold wrote that Yasser Arafat's intifada entailed a strategy to delegitimize the Israeli claim to both the Holy City and the Temple Mount. He initiated this on the ninth day of the Camp David Summit. Arafat asserted that:

Quote :: "There is nothing here [i.e., no trace of a temple on the Temple Mount]...Solomon's Temple was not in Jerusalem, but Nablus."

Gold noted that the statement had shocked an incredulous Clinton who, in turn, responded that, "Not only the Jews but I, too, believe that under the surface there are remains of Solomon's temple." Two years later, Arafat changed his story by stating that, "historically, the Temple was not in Palestine [at all]."

That change in excluding the Temple from all Palestine should serve as a lesson to all Peace Process junkies. It set the stage for Arafat's successor, Abbas (Abu Mazen).

Abbas took up the baton and ran with it. He declared that the Jews, "...claim that 2,000 years ago they had a temple. [But] I challenge the claim that this is so."

As of writing, the Temple Mount conflict is slowly bubbling in the "Cauldron." The Jewish expectation and desire for a temple is slowly but surely gaining traction, even though it seems to have generally remained under the radar.

But it hasn't escaped Palestinian Islamic Jihad chief, Ramadan Shalah's notice.

Shalah addressed a clerical conference in Tehran and lamented that when Israel conquered the "Al-Aqsa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif", they chanted, “Jerusalem of gold. Jerusalem of bronze. Jerusalem of light.” Shalah added that:

Quote :: “Every Israeli child and every accursed Israeli soldier says this song in their heart.”

Not only does the Palestinian Authority want to eradicate all traces of Jewish heritage from the Mount, but they want to prevent all Jews from ever setting foot on it. This formed the basis of a complaint by the P.A. to the United Nations and which was backed by the Arab League:

Quote :: "The Palestinian official insisted that such action [access to Jews] would violate all international laws and norms, and would destabilize the region." (Emphasis mine)

Jewish presence on the Mount is regarded as aggression, as was the case recently when a Jordanian minister protested the attendance of an Israeli minister. The Jordanian complained that:

Quote :: “These Israeli practices and violations, allowing extremist settlers to violate the sanctity of Al Aqsa Mosque under the protection of the Israeli police and army, will ignite violence and religious extremism in the region.”

Meanwhile activists like Moshe Feiglin are pushing for Israel to exercise more sovereigntyover the Temple Mount. Most notably, Rabbi Meir Mazuz recently concluded that it was now legal for a Jew to go up to the Mount.

According to the Jewish Press:

Quote :: "Rabbi Mazuz’s stature in the Sefardi Haredi community might usher in a new era in mainstream religious Jewish approach to the Temple Mount."

While many theologians have discarded biblical significances to Jerusalem and a new Jewish temple, Muslims and an ever-growing number of Jews didn't get the memorandum. But there is a third party that has had a continuing vested interest in the area, and that is the Vatican.

Giulio Meotti has noted the Catholic Church's keen interest in Jerusalem. In 2011 he wrote that, "The Vatican is now reiterating demands for control of religious sites in Jerusalem." In 2013 he also wrote:

Quote :: "An historic agreement has been drafted between Israel and the Vatican. The Israeli authorities have granted the Pope an official seat in the room where the Last Supper is believed to have taken place, on Mount Zion in Jerusalem, and where David and Solomon, Jewish kings of Judea, are considered by some researchers, to also be buried."

The Vatican understands that historical Christian sites are endangered under any Islamist regime. In contrast, it can trust Israel. How will they play this out if they ever obtain a truly powerful voice?

We have an angry Putin running riot and unchecked, coinciding with a simmering Middle East "Cauldron" (thank you Terry James). What happens when all this finally spews over? And it will.

Now factor in the possibility of a new Roman Emperor - a modern Caesar - coming onto the scene to reunite and strengthen a weakened Europe.

Now that would make things more than interesting.