The Reconstruction of the Edifice: A Glimpse at the Attempts of Christian and Jewish Fundamentalists to Reconstruct Their Figurative and Literal Temples.

The Reconstruction of the Edifice: A Glimpse at the Attempts of Christian and Jewish Fundamentalists to Reconstruct Their Figurative and Literal Temples.

 

            As a direct reaction to secularism and modernity within the world society, fundamentalist groups have implemented extreme movements to reintroduce religious principles into that same milieu.  Each particular fundamentalist enclave initiated a specific response to the paucity of religion and pervasive decadence of the secular world.  While some fundamentalist responses manifested outward militancy as well as internal communal dependency, many fundamentalist groups responded to secularism by enabling the return of a messiah, millennialism, or eschatology, by physically participating in the completion of these prophecies.  Thus, the Christian fundamentalist leader Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority as well as the Jewish fundamentalist group Gush Emunim both believed in physically participating in the pre-millennial and redemption process to further the coming of their appropriate messiah.

            This post investigates the active participation of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority coalition as well as Gush Emunim in the reintroduction and reconstruction of fundamental religious principles vis-à-vis the world milieu.  With the burgeoning secularism in the United States of America and the disregard for her American Foundation Myth, the Moral Majority attempted to reconstruct the “city upon a hill” as a figurative temple to persuade the American populace to emulate the morality of the past in which the United States of America was founded.  This resurgence of righteousness would once again demonstrate the Manifest Destiny of the United States and the importance of Christian values, which in turn would help initiate the rapture, the second coming of Jesus Christ, and the millennium. 

Also, Gush Emunim initially instituted support for the Political Zionist movement as a method in which the Jewish people could physically participate in the Redemption.  In addition, this support provoked a Religious Zionist movement which further propagated the active participation within the Redemption by instigating control and entry of the Temple Mount as well as the belief for the third, literal reconstruction of the Jewish Temple.  Moreover, leaders within Gush Emunim taught it was essential to actively participate in the Redemption, for the Redemption would enable the return of the Jewish messiah.  Hence, the attempt to reconstruct the figurative and literal sanctified edifices by the fundamentalist Christian and Jewish groups not only was an attempt to purify secularism with the reemergence of religious morality, but it was also an active participation in the endeavor to further invoke the end of days, Redemption, and the glorified return of each group’s particular messiah.  

                 

 

 

 

 

The Construction of the City on a Hill as the American Foundation Myth

 

           

With the establishment of colonies on the North American continent by pilgrims in the early years of the seventeenth century, a great myth proliferated concerning the consecration of the land by God for the cultivation of his people and the opportunity to worship Him freely.  This American Foundation Myth maintains a great sense of authenticity and conviction even today.   A myth is a particular dogma armored and protected by tenacious belief.  For it is not especially relevant if a myth is actually true, but rather, the relevance lies in the support by which the myth is believed in.  Thus, the authenticity of a myth rests specifically in the creeds of the people.[1]  Within the American Foundation Myth, the authenticity of being a nation founded and established by men who were inspired and led by the Manifest Destiny of God, retains significant relevance within the outlook of the American milieu today and throughout its history, as well as in regards to America’s role within the world as being a “city upon a hill” or even a New Jerusalem.  In other words, America is the paradigm society placed on a hill or mount as a beacon for those who are below and as a bridge to God above.

            As the Puritans arrived in the New World in 1630, Governor John Winthrop established the importance as well as the significance of the opportunity the Puritans divinely received in creating a Christian society where no previous Old World influence existed.  Winthrop believed that God permitted the discovery and settlement of the American continent to construct a supreme nation or paradigm for all other nations to emulate.  Consequently, a covenant was created between God and the people of the continent, so as long as the people of this specific covenant fulfilled God’s purpose, He would bless them with prosperity.[2]  So for Winthrop, America merited as the paradigm “city upon a hill” mentioned in the Holy Bible.

            Winthrop avidly portrayed this rhetoric in biblical sermons to his Puritan followers, exemplifying their flight from tyranny to God’s deliverance and bestowment of the Promised Land.  In the TANAKH, Isaiah articulates this tyranny and flight, “Bowing before you, shall come the children of those who tormented you; prostrate at the soles of your feet shall be those who reviled you; and you shall be called ‘City of the Lord, Zion of the Holy One of Israel.’”[3]  Winthrop further enveloped his pervasive rhetoric with biblical references that instituted America in being a beacon to the world and a bridge to God.  Psalms 2:1-6 reads,

 

Why do nations assemble and peoples plot vain things; kings of the earth take their stand, and regents intrigue together against the Lord and against His anointed?  ‘Let us break the cords of their yoke, shake off their ropes from us!’  He who is enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord mocks at them in anger, terrifying them in His rage, ‘But I have installed My king on Zion, My holy mountain!’[4]

 

            Finally, Winthrop correlated the dynamic role of this new society with Matthew’s rendition of the Sermon on the Mount which essentially coined the phrase in which Winthrop attributed to the Puritan society.  Jesus states,

Ye are the light of the world.  A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.  Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that ye are in the house.  Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your father which is in heaven.[5]                     

 

Accordingly with this Puritan rhetoric of the America Foundation Myth being specifically founded by God as the utopian paradigm set apart as the promised land, Winthrop constructed a figurative temple in which America stood forth as an unambiguous, sanctified site of ritual importance with moral obligations to exemplify obedience and righteousness.

            The American Foundation Myth, being the “city upon a hill,” greatly influenced the founding fathers as well as political rhetoric in both the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.  Even though the enlightenment ideas, which filtered in from Europe to the vigilant American revolutionaries, evolved the central religious implications of the American Foundation Myth, for the founding fathers still maintained an anchored link between the myth and God.  Instead of the American nation being a “New Jerusalem,” it became a new and free society.[6]  Also, the founding fathers disabled the connection between church and state, patterned after secular European ideas; yet, the religious ties were still evident when necessary, correlating the will of the newly formed American nation as being synonymous with the will of God.[7]  Thus, America still retained the outlook of being a “city upon a hill” and Winthrop’s rhetoric to justify certain domestic and foreign policies that may have been questionable in moral righteousness.

            For instance, as the “city upon a hill” expanded west with pioneer settlers, the Native Americans maintained the allocation of being savage and inferior products of the devil, so God granted the white Protestants the divine right to retain the land and expand the “city upon a hill.”[8]  In addition, since America enjoyed both beneficial geography and God’s divine will, America played a significant role in securing peace within a foreign perspective.  Thus America initiated foreign policy in the rescue and conversion efforts of the Cubans from the Spanish, diplomats from the Boxer rebellion in China, and the South Vietnamese from communism.[9]

            However with the affluence of intellectualism which proliferated movements such as nationalism, secularism, and Darwinism, America experienced a sense of adversity in regards to the decline of the moral implications associated with the American Foundation Myth and in being a “city upon a hill.”  In particular, Charles Darwin created a great upheaval in the institution of education with his theory of evolution and survival of the fittest.[10]  For Darwin challenged notions of divinity and advocated a sense of atheism.[11]  But, Darwinism was just another addition to the already prospering phenomena of secularism.

            After World War I, antiwar sentiments, coupled with growing secularism, grappled with the idea of the American Foundation Myth to justify America’s involvement in the war.[12]  Not only did these sentiments reflect ambivalence in regards to the American Foundation Myth being divinely instituted, it also brought rise to questions concerning America’s role in the world.[13]  Does America have the right to interfere in world affairs?  For if America was so divinely guided, why did God bestow a great depression on the American nation?  These were the questions posed after World War I which greatly advocated secularism within the United States.[14]

            In response to this rise of secularism and skepticism, specifically in regards to America’s divine foundation, the response was a polarized opposition with the organization of a Christian fundamentalist movement.  Sharon Georgianna writes, “The fundamentalist movement of the early twentieth century was structured and identified as a reaction to the neglected theological affirmations of the mainline Protestant churches.”[15]  The best example of this opposition was demonstrated in the Scopes trial.  Again as Georgianna states, “The Trial exemplified the polarization of Protestantism in the 1920’s and many saw the trial in terms of the fight between cognitive domains of authority: between skepticism and faith.”[16]  Consequently, the battle between skepticism and faith continued to create a dichotomy within the American society, but with World War II on the horizon, America once again retained the responsibility in being the “city upon a hill” in both rhetoric and action.

            Again America found itself in a battle between good and evil, with the armies of God battling the armies of Hitler or the Anti-Christ.[17]  Notwithstanding, America quickly remembered itself as a nation founded by God and righteousness, subsequently, it was America’s duty to emulate this to the world.  Since World War II was so decisively won by the Allied forces, most importantly the United States, the American society saw, not only a reconstruction of the American Foundation Myth, but  a reemergence of religious morality.[18]  These sentiments continued with the American involvements in Korea and Vietnam in regards to America’s role as a protector and proselytizer of righteousness and democracy in contrast to the ever so threatening, satanic communist movement.  Also, in the times of decline, such as the civil war and the depression, these times were a direct result of secularism or more specifically America’s abandonment of religion and righteousness.[19]

            Nevertheless, as America persisted to exaggerate involvement with the war in Vietnam, a growing element of apprehension stewed in the American milieu, especially following reports of United States government officials involved with collusive fallacies.  As a consequence, again the cycle revolved in favor of the growing element of secularism and vehement doubt of the American government and her role within the world.  Furthermore, the American society, as well as government leaders in general, began to more openly demonstrate an infestation of hedonism with the adoption of the right to be unmoral.  Abortion, pornography, and excluding prayer and the teaching of religion and God in schools, for the Christian Fundamentalists, demonstrated the evolution and adaptation of the individual’s civil liberties within America.[20]  The reaction of the fundamentalists, particularly Jerry Falwell and the coalition of the Moral Majority, attempted to actively influence politics to safeguard religion and moral obligations that come from being the “city upon a hill.”

            As in the Bible, Christian fundamentalist adopted the imminence of using extreme measures as Paul had done to reach the heathen Roman masses.[21]  One of the central figures who opposed the liberal government, liberal clergy, and secularism in general was Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority.  Initially, Falwell disagreed with the idea to politically influence the government, but since extreme measures deemed to be imperative, Falwell changed his ambitions.[22]  Thus Falwell participated in the formation of the Moral Majority in June of 1979 with the aims to curb all that they deemed the American people believed to be immoral.  Again as Georgianna states, “Though engagement in political activism has not been valued in the past, today it becomes apparently permissible for born-again fundamentalist to fight government policies which are perceived as immoral or against traditional values.”[23]  So, it was Falwell’s design to reemerge religion and morals into the political sphere of government.[24] 

Falwell also desired to promote morality and religion on a public level.  Thus in order to redeem America’s covenant to God as a “city upon a hill,” the Moral Majority supported the fundamental beliefs founded by the American Foundation Myth and opposed the decadence that became prevalent in society.  Falwell writes,

 

We are Americans who share moral convictions.  We are opposed to abortion, pornography, the drug epidemic, the breakdown of the traditional family, the establishment of homosexuality as an accepted alternate lifestyle, and other moral cancers that are causing our society to rot from within.  Moral Majority strongly supports a pluralistic America.  While we believe that this nation was founded upon the Judeo-Christian ethic by men and women who were strongly influenced by biblical moral principles, we are committed to the separation of church and state.[25]         

           

In his writings, Falwell supports that which the founding fathers instituted when forming the United States of America, namely the separation of church and state.  Falwell agrees that there is no need for a theocracy within the American government.  Albeit, he does establish that with the reemergence of morality within government, especially pertaining to its leaders, America may retain the essence of divine guidance.[26]

            Likewise, the creation of the Moral Majority and the reemergence of Christian fundamentalism within the influence of the political sphere in the 1980’s was an attempt to reconstruct the “city upon a hill.”[27]  For the American Foundation Myth still emanated influence within society and even though secularism diminished religious morality within America, there was still remnants of moral resolve that believed America still maintained the Manifest Destiny of God and exemplified a light for all others nations to see.  Since the idea or rhetoric of the “city upon a hill” implied that America stood as a beacon or light for all other nations to see, for Falwell, it was an essential tool in which to disseminate morality and religion to the world.

            This mission also played particular relevance with the rapture and second coming of Jesus Christ.  For the reconstruction of the “city upon a hill” underlined the establishment of a figurative temple, or a holy edifice to physically entice the Christian messiah, Jesus Christ, to return.  Falwell explains,

 

            If we are going to reach millions of Americans with the gospel, we must live the message we proclaim.  Personal integrity is a must in our own lives, in our families, in our churches, and in our communities.  As we stand for the truth, we must also show compassion for a lost world in need of our Savior.  Our mission is to see, not how many people we can hate, but how many we can love for Christ’s sake.  Further, we must extend our vision to evangelize the world.[28]

 

Hence, America has the opportunity to stand as a paradigm of correct worship as the “city upon a hill,” and not only influence itself, but also influence those who stand below the city and in the world.

Notwithstanding, it is also essential to note the possibility that the reconstruction of the “city upon a hill” may also exude a literal establishment of a transcendent edifice in reference to the rapture and salvation of the true believers.  John states in Revelations,

 

And I John saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for a husband.  And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.  And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away[29]              

 

Even though this scripture may be interpreted differently, such as describing the city of Enoch returning to the earth, for Falwell, it may also illustrate the descent of the true believers, after the rapture, back to the celestialized earth to live out the millennium in the presence of Christ.  In this scenario, the New Jerusalem is a physically constructed place, and if this interpretation is somewhat correct, it highlights the importance of the reconstruction of the “city upon a hill” as the New Jerusalem, for it being the literal kingdom in which will be inherited by the righteous.  Furthermore, the reconstruction of the “city upon a hill,” as the American Foundation Myth, played an essential role within Christian fundamentalism especially pertaining to Jerry Falwell as a Baptist minister and the coalition of the Moral Majority, since both their beliefs benefited from a figurative and literal reconstruction.

           

           

 

Zionism as a Tool of the Redemption and the Reconstruction of the Temple

 

           

After the destruction of the second Temple in the year 70 CE, the Jews suffered an immense Diaspora at the hands of the Romans, which dispersed the Jews all over the world.  Within Jewish theological considerations, this Diaspora inherited the idea of the Galut or exile from the Land of Israel.  The Galut explained the destruction of the Jew’s most holy edifice, as well as why God seemed to have abandoned His people.  For the Galut obviously punished the Jews for certain wickedness, or more specifically, a lack of remembering of God.

However the Galut was not the ultimate destiny for the Jews, within Jewish theology God would remember the Jews and redeem their monarchy as well as their sovereignty within the Land of Israel.  This redemption was known as the Geula and would come to pass by the hands of God, through his miracles, and through the Jewish Messiah.  In addition, the full redemption enabled the reconstruction of the third Jewish Temple, or literally, the most holy edifice.

               Notwithstanding, after the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the flourishing Political Zionist movement, many conservative Jews saw Political Zionism as taking the Geula out of the hands of God and establishing a state of Israel by the hands of men.  Yet some Jewish fundamentalists maintained that Political Zionism was in fact a tool God used to initiate the Geula.  One of the main proponents of Political Zionism was Rabbi Kook and his son Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook, who led the Jewish fundamentalist enclave of Gush Emunim and adamantly believed that Political Zionism was actually the hand of God initiating the Geula.  Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda proclaims,

 

            We are fortunate to have merited this, to be witnessing the word of Hashem [God] being realized in our time.  This is the way the Geula unfolds, a little at a time, and one must recognize and see the hand of Divine Providence in it.  The world has a Master.  The Creator of the Universe hasn’t abandoned us, and in the End of Days, our return to the Land is promised.  This is happening in our midst, through our actions, now.  The end of the Galut comes in this developmental way, bringing the beginnings of Geula.[30]

 

            In response to Political Zionism, Rabbi Kook preached that not only was the Geula in fact taking place in their day and age, but also required all Jews to return to Israel to specifically complete the prophecy and finalize the redemption to bring forth the messiah.  Albeit, this Zionists movement experienced adversity within the Orthodox Jewish communities and their desire to wait for the land to be prepared by the messiah.  Yet the Kooks explained that to stop the exile, all Jews would have to return to Israel.  For as Rabbi Kook taught, Am Kadosh [holy nation] and Eretz HaKadesh [holy land] were both sanctified and Jews should consider themselves in having the divine right to the land and nation of Israel.[31]

            With the horrid remains of the lingering destruction of the Holocaust, those same Orthodox Jews who opposed Political and Religious Zionism found difficulty in explaining the specific reasons and cause for such a tragedy.  The Orthodox Rabbis chose to attribute the Holocaust as a punishment for the secular trends inherited by Reformed Jews.[32]  Although Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda taught that just as “Hashem is One, the nation of Israel is one,” he maintained that the blame for the Holocaust did not rest on the Reformed Jews, it rested on the nation of Israel as a whole because they refused to participate in the Geula.[33]  In other words, the anti-Semitism that exhibited within the twentieth century directly resulted from the disobedience of the Jewish nation and was a method in which God would bring the Jews to the Land of Israel and initiate the coming of the messiah.[34]

            After World War II and the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, many Jews returned to Israel in regards to both aspects of Political and Religious Zionism.  Conversely, many Jews remained in the United States and Western Europe.  Once more, Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda proclaimed that many Jews “fell in love with Galut and refused to return to Israel,” yet the exile cannot last indefinitely, so God will sever those who refuse to actively participate in the redemption and the messianic process.  For everything including Zionism and the Holocaust was part of the redemption and that was why the state of Israel was established immediately after the end of World War II.  Additionally, it was God’s will to create the state of Israel, through the hands of men, just like it is the work of men that will also bring forth the redemption.[35]

            The redemption continued to manifest signs of divinity with the immediate success of the state of Israel.  Even when Arab nations united in confrontation against Israel in the Six Days War, Israel dominated and further annexed territories and ameliorated the resolve for the redemption.  However with the victory of Jerusalem following the Six Days War, the question arose concerning the status of a newly acquired benefit, the most holy Jewish site or the Temple Mount.  Chief Army Chaplain Shlomo Goren, who was greatly influenced by the Gush Emunim leader Rabbi Kook and was friends with Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda, reveled at the new opportunities enabled by the recapture of the Temple Mount.[36]  Goren significantly understood the implications of the recapture of the Temple Mount, especially in being a part of the worldwide process of the redemption.  Therefore, the Jews must have retained the Temple Mount to enable the future construction of the third Temple by the Jewish Messiah when the prophecy would be completed.[37]

            Nonetheless, even with the recapture of the temple mount, which Shalom Freedman describes as the “Heart of Jewish longing for 2,000 years was not the Western Wall, but the Beit HaMikdash on HarBayit, the Temple on the Temple Mount,” there was immediate controversy in regards to keeping the Temple Mount under Jewish sovereignty.[38]  Defense Minister Moshe Dayan believed the center of Jewish longing was not the Temple Mount, but rather the Western Wall.  Also, Dayan attempted to alter a permanent conflict with Islam by finally restoring Islamic control over the Temple Mount and al-Aqra Mosque.  As a student of the Kook Rabbis, Goren refused to give up any of the holy places because of the sanctity of the land, but Dayan maintained the appeasement of Islam was more important than the sanctity of the land when trying to avoid war.[39]

            With the abandonment of the Temple Mount and the attainment of the Western Wall, this confusion inspired further fundamentalist movements in Israel including the movements to establish both prayers on the Temple Mount as well as the reconstruction of the Temple.[40]  As Motti Inbari writes,

 

The underlying ideology of the Movement for the Establishment of the Temple is based on the perception that historical developments form part of a Divine plan for this world, with the objective of bringing redemption.  Redemption is interpreted as the establishment of an independent political entity that acts in accordance with Jewish law, reinstating the sacrifices on the Temple Mount and rebuilding the Temple.[41]

 

Since the redemption of the land began with the Jews physically participating in ending exile to begin the redemption process in regards to the proliferation of Zionism, a growing opinion to physically participate in establishing prayer on the Temple Mount as well as the construction of the third Temple deemed possible as well.  Even though Rabbi Tzvi Yehudah vehemently prohibited the idea of Jews entering the Temple Mount, after his death, Gush Emunim demonstrated a growing opinion to in fact permit entry into the Temple Mount to pray in accordance to halakhic restrictions.[42] 

Additionally, the movement for the reconstruction of the Temple on the Temple Mount also maintained steady growth particularly pertaining to ultra-Orthodox Jews and traditional sectors.[43]  The growth of these movements linked directly to the Oslo process and demonstrated the Jewish desire for redemption. Due to the loss of Jewish control over the Temple Mount following the Six Days War, many Jews feared the same ramifications of the Oslo process, thus changes in the Jewish religious law at the requests of Jewish fundamentalists groups, such as the Gush Emunim, were instigated to enable Jews to actively participate and aspire for the reconstruction of the literal Temple, as well as in the entry and worship on the Temple Mount.[44]  This change in tradition, showed the growing sentiment to complete the redemption and bring forth the Messiah.  Consequently, the contributions of Gush Emunim, in actively participating in the redemption, may cause these growing sentiments to one day actually attempt to reconstruct the Temple.

Due to the efforts of Jewish fundamentalists groups like Gush Emunim, religious movements like Religious Zionism, as well as the contemporary growing movements to reconstruct the Temple, maintained the essence and necessity of active participation by the Jews.  Therefore in other words, the process of redemption could be initiated by the active participation of Zionists and those who are willing to adapt and change halakhic in order to facilitate the coming of the Jewish Messiah, including the physical reconstruction of the Temple on the Temple Mount.

 

Jewish Zionism and Construction of the Third Temple as a Tool for the Millennium

 

           

It is interesting to note that the Political and Religious Zionists movements of the Jews, as well as the construction of the Jewish state of Israel and the reconstruction of the Jewish Temple maintains a strict relevance within Christian fundamentalism.  The Jews play an essential role in regards to the rapture, second coming of Jesus Christ, and the millennium; for within the “End of Days” scenario as well as the Battle of Armageddon, it is vital for the Jews to establish their nation and temple. 

            As a reaction to the growing secularism within the last dispensation of time, Christian fundamentalism maintained a heighten emphasis on their premillennial-dispensationalism, particularly in the destruction of evil.[45]  However, the role of the Jews within Christian dogma became an apparatus in ensuring the second coming.  The two most inherent elements of the role of the Jews within the second coming of Christ are the establishment of a Jewish state and the reconstruction of the Jewish Temple.  In hind site, Jews retained the special role as being the chosen descendants of Abraham and in bringing forth the return of the messiah.[46]

            As ideas of Political and Religious Zionism warranted an appeal to Jews in creating a nation state, Christian fundamentalists realized the support of these movements would benefit in completing the millennial prophecies.  Thus not only was the Balfour Declaration a means to undo the Sykes-Picot Agreement between the Anglo-Franco partisans, it also revealed and underline desire to further the second coming of Christ.  This support for the creation of the Jewish state as well as support for Zionism emanated from the deeply rooted “Gentile Zionism” which derived from the British evangelical revival of the eighteenth century.  In particular, Lloyd George of the English government ascribed to this belief and thus initiated Balfour to publish his declaration to Lord Rothschild on November 2^nd of 1917.[47]  After the Balfour Declaration, as previously mentioned, many Jews returned to Israel to establish their independent state and participate in the redemption.  This fulfilled the Christian fundamentalist prophecy in regards the restoration of the state of Israel.[48]

            Next the Jews need to reconstruct the Temple on the Temple Mount, this is essential for the second coming of the Christ.  As Hal Lindsey writes,

           

            There is only one place this Temple can be built, according to the Law of Moses.  This is upon Mount Moriah.  It is there that two previous temples were built…There is one major problem barring the construction of a third Temple.  That obstacle is the second holiest place of the Moslem Faith, the Dome of the Rock.  This is believed to be built squarely in the middle of the old temple site.  Obstacle or no obstacle, it is certain that the Temple will be rebuilt.  Prophecy demands it.[49]

 

With the construction of the Temple, the great destruction of the world will get so severe all true believers will be sucked into heaven within the rapture.  The Jews will be left to defend their nation and the earth in the Battle of Armageddon where Christ will return to save them.  After the second coming of Christ and the return of the believers, the Jews will finally accept Christ and again enjoy the blessings of their heritage.[50] 

            The role of the Jews thus continues to sustain as indispensable within the second coming of Jesus Christ.  This role retains great support by Christian fundamentalism regarding Jewish Zionism, as well as in the growing Movement to Reconstruct the Temple on the Temple Mount.  Yet it still remains to be seen if the third Temple can be constructed and the prophecy fulfilled.

            In the reaction to the rise of secularism and modernity principally within the twentieth century, Christian and Jewish fundamentalist groups found it was necessary to combat this pervasive and diminishing phenomenon with a counter-offensive reaction.  Hence, fundamentalist groups like Gush Emunim as well as leaders like the Jerry Falwell and the Kooks, initiated an active participation in the reconstruction of their figurative and literal edifices with the reemergence of the Puritan rhetoric of the “city upon a hill” and initiation of the redemption which would bring about the coming of the Jewish Messiah and construction of the third Temple.  This reaction manifested the active role in which needed to take place in order to help prophecy along.  Therefore, the Christian and Jewish fundamentalist believers were no longer just going to wait for the “End of Days,” in fact, they were going to participate in its completion.      

 

Bibliography

 

Bible.  The Holy Bible.  Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1979.

 

Cobb, Jr., William W.  The American Foundation Myth in Vietnam: Reigning Paradigms and Raining Bombs.  New York: University Press of America, 1998.

 

Falwell, Jerry.  “An Agenda for the 1980’s.”  In Class Essay.  NEJS 193b.  Brandeis University, Waltham, MA,  2008.

 

Freedman, Shalom.  Rabbi Shlomo Goren: Torah Sage and General.  Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 2006.

 

Georgianna, Sharon Linzey.  The Moral Majority and Fundamentalism: Plausibility and Dissonance.  Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1989.

 

Hawkins, Peter S.  “American Heritage,” One Nation Under God: Religion and American Culture.  New York: Routledge, 1999.

 

Inbari, Motti.  “The Oslo Accords and the Temple Mount: A Case Study-The Movement for the Establishment of the Temple.”  Hebrew Union College Annual 74, (2003), 279-323.

 

Karsh, Efraim and Inari Karsh.  Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1923.  Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.

 

Kook, Zevi [Tzvi] Yehuda.  Torat Eretz Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1991), 140.

 

Lindsey, Hal.  The Late Great Planet Earth.  Zondervan Books, 1970.

 

Meacham, Jon.  American Gospel: God, The Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation.  New York: Random House, 2007.

 

Rausch, David A.  Fundamentalist Evangelicals and Anti-Semitism.  Valley Forge: Trinity Press, 1993.

 

Rausch, David A.  Proto-Fundamentalism’s Attitudes Toward Zionism, 1878-1918.  Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1981.

 

Sutton, Matthew Avery.  Aimee Semple McPherson and the Resurrection of Christian America.  Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007.

 

TANAKH.  JPS Hebrew-English TANAKH.  Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2003.

 

---

[1] William W. Cobb, Jr., The American Foundation Myth in Vietnam: Reigning Paradigms and Raining Bombs, (New York: University Press of America, 1998), 2.

[2] Cobb, 4-5.

[3] Isaiah 60:14, JPS Hebrew-English TANAKH, (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2003), 986.

[4] Psalms 2:1-6, JPS Hebrew-English TANAKH, 1413-1414.

[5] St. Matthew 5:14-16, The Holy Bible, (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1979), 1193.

[6] Cobb, 6.

[7] Jon Meacham, American Gospel: God, The Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation, (New York: Random House, 2007), 4-5.

[8] Cobb, 12.

[9] Cobb, 12-13.

[10] Matthew Avery Sutton, Aimee Semple McPherson and the Resurrection of Christian America, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 237.

[11] Sutton, 237.

[12] Meacham, 17.

[13] Cobb, 23.

[14] Cobb, 22-23.

[15] Sharon Linzey Georgianna, The Moral Majority and Fundamentalism: Plausibility and Dissonance, (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1989), 1.

[16] Georgianna, 12.

[17] Sutton, 259.

[18] Sutton, 266.

[19] Cobb, 24-25.

[20] Georgianna, 25.

[21] David A. Rausch, Fundamentalist Evangelicals and Anti-Semitism, (Valley Forge: Trinity Press, 1993), 13.

[22] Meacham, 208-210.

[23] Georgianna, 24-26.

[24] Peter S. Hawkins, “American Heritage,” One Nation Under God: Religion and American Culture, (New York: Routledge, 1999), 258.

[25] Jerry Falwell, “An Agenda for the 1980’s,” 113.

[26] Falwell, 116.

[27] Falwell, 121.

[28] Falwell, 121.

[29] Revelations 21:2-4, The Holy Bible, 1587.

[30] Zevi Yehuda Kook, Torat Eretz Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1991), 140.

[31] Kook, 185.

[32] Kook, 260.

[33] Kook, 260.

[34] Sutton, 248-249.

[35] Kook, 272.

[36] Shalom Freedman, Rabbi Shlomo Goren: Torah Sage and General, (Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 2006), 25 and 60.

[37] Freedman, 64.

[38] Freedman, 69.

[39] Freedman, 70-71.

[40] Motti Inbari, “The Oslo Accords and the Temple Mount: A Case Study-The Movement for the Establishment of the Temple,” Hebrew Union College Annual 74, (2003), 279-323.

[41] Inbari, 41.

[42] Inbari, 43 and 44.

[43] Inbari, 44.

[44] Inbari, 45.

[45] Georgianna, 3.

[46] David A. Rausch, Proto-Fundamentalism’s Attitudes Toward Zionism, 1878-1918, (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1981), 72 and 75.

[47] Efraim Karsh and Inari Karsh, Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1923, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), 252-254.

[48] Rausch, Proto-Fundamentalism, 83.

[49] Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth, (Zondervan Books), 1970.

[50] Rausch, Proto-Fundamentalism, 74.