2 Crônicas 3

2 Crônicas 3

2 Chronicles Commentaries SECOND CHRONICLES The Kingdom of Israel From Splendor to Disaster Splendor Disaster King Solomon of Judah 2 Chronicles 1-9 Successive Kings of Judah 2Chr 10-36 Kingdom United Kingdom Divided 2Chr 10:1-19 Rulers of the Southern Kingdom of Judah After the Split The Exile of Judah 2Chr 36:17-23 Inaugural 2Chr 1:1-17 Solomon's Temple 2Chr 2:1-7:22 Solomon's Glory 2Chr 8:1-9:31 Building of the Temple Decline & Destruction of the Temple Temple Destroyed ~40 Years ~393 Years Chart from Jensen's Survey of the OT - used by permission Click Chart from Charles Swindoll TIMELINE OF THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL, KINGS & CHRONICLES 1107 1011 971 931 853 722 586 1Samuel 2 Samuel 1Kings 1Kings 2 Kings 31 1-4 5-10 11-20 21-24 1-11 12-22 1-17 18-25 1 Chronicles 10 1Chr 11-19 1Chr 20-29 2 Chronicles 1-9 2 Chronicles 10-20 2 Chronicles 21-36 Legend: B.C. dates at top of timeline are approximate. Note that 931BC marks the division of the Kingdom into Southern Tribes (Judah and Benjamin) and Ten Northern Tribes. To avoid confusion be aware that after the division of the Kingdom in 931BC, the Southern Kingdom is most often designated in Scripture as "Judah" and the Northern Kingdom as "Israel." Finally, note that 1 Chronicles 1-9 is not identified on the timeline because these chapters are records of genealogy. NOTE: THESE COMMENTS ARE OFFERED IN AN "AS IS" FORMAT - IF I HAVE TIME IN THE FUTURE, THEY WILL BE UPDATED. CLICK 2 CHRONICLES COMMENTARIES FOR MULTIPLE SERMONS AND COMMENTARIES 2 Chronicles 3:1 Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the LORD had appeared to his father David, at the place that David had prepared on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. A.M. 2993, B.C. 1011, An, Ex, Is, 480 Solomon (KJV): 1Ki 6:1-14 in mount Moriah (KJV): Ge 22:2,14 where the Lord appeared unto David (KJV): or, which was seen of David Ornan (KJV): 2Sa 24:18-25, Araunah, 1Ch 21:18 22:1 See BELOW FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR 1-2 CHRONICLES - adapted from Paul Apple's Bible Outlines Map of Jerusalem in 1925, showing the location of Mount Moriah according to Jewish sources (CLICK TO ENLARGE) INTRODUCTION - Raymond Dillard: In light of the dominant role the temple plays in the Chronicler’s history the most striking feature of his account of the building of the temple is its brevity: forty-six verses in Kings (1 Kgs 6:1–38; 7:15–22) compared to seventeen in Chronicles. Much of the extensive detail regarding the architecture of the temple is omitted (2 Ch 6:4–19, 22, 26, 29–38; 7:15, 17b–20, 22), along with the description of Solomon’s palace (2Ch 7:1–12). The Chronicler adds only a few details not found in the parallel text (2Ch 3:1, 6, 8b–9, 14). At the very least the author is depending on the reader’s knowledge of the account in Kings, for without that information his description of the temple is relatively opaque. John Olley - David and Solomon’s preparations had reached their end; next, “Solomon began to build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem.” The account of preparation subsequent to God’s first announcement (1 Chron. 17:3–15) has been extensive (14 chapters), but the actual details of the buildings and its furnishings are given briefly. The Chronicler’s account (2 Chron. 3:1–5:1) is only half the length of that in 1 Kings 6:1–38; 7:13–51—and this includes places where he expands on that content. He focuses on details that are pertinent to the second temple and his hearers’ context. Geoffrey Kirkland: Consider how the Chronicler acts as a sort of TOUR GUIDE to lead us (in 2 Chronicles 3)! - he starts with the PORCH (2Ch 3:3-4) o then the interior room - “the holy place” (2Ch 3:5-7)  then the Holiest of all, the Most Holy Place (2Ch 3:8-13)  then the VEIL of separation (2Ch 3:14) o then the PILLARS on the outside of symbolic praise (2Ch 3:15-17) Mark Boda: Chapters 3 and 4 were compiled as a continuous section, as indicated by the regular use of the verb wayya’as (“and he made/did”) in 2Ch 3:8, 10, 14, 15, 16; 4:1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 18, 19. This becomes a “Leitmotif, lending the pericope a touch of uniformity” (Japhet 1993:563; cf. Williamson 1982:208). The section begins with a summary note (2Ch 3:1-2), a structuring signal that matches others found throughout the Chronicler’s account of the Temple building (2Ch 1:1; 2:1; 3:1-2; 5:1; 7:11; 8:1, 16). It then presents the building account in two parts: first, the construction of the building structures (2Ch 3:3-17) and, second, the fashioning of the furnishings and utensils within those structures (2Ch 4:1-22). Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the LORD had appeared to his father David, at the place that David had prepared on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. Moriah, which the father of the faithful renamed "Yahweh-Yireh" Rose Guide to the Temple (see first chapter of this beautiful resource) - The Site for the First Temple - The general identification of the place for the sanctuary in the Promised Land was given in the time of Abraham and Isaac with the erection of an altar and God's provision of a substitutionary sacrifice (Genesis 22:2, 13-14). This place was Mount Moriah in Jerusalem. God identified this chosen site more particularly in the time of King David as the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite (1 Chronicles 21:18-20). David purchased this site and built and altar, consecrating the site as the place for the future sanctuary. The identification of this site was made certain by connecting all of these previous revelations in the statement of 2 Chronicles 3:1: "Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the Lord had appeared to his father David, at the place that David had prepared, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite." Bob Utley on where the LORD had appeared to his father David - This event is recorded in 1 Chronicles 18. David is connected to the temple in several ways. He wanted to build the temple ‒ 2 Samuel 7. He designed the overall plan. He gathered the materials (using Hiram) He was directed by YHWH where to build it. Ornan the Jebusite In 2 Sam. 24:16 he is called "Araunah the Jebusite." However, in 1 Chr. 21:15,18-27,28, he goes by "Ornan". (See also Who was Araunah the Jebusite? | GotQuestions.org) August Konkel: Two designations are brought together: the threshing floor of Araunah, where the plague was stopped, and Mount Moriah, where Abraham offered Isaac to God (Gen 22:2). Frederick Mabie: Moreover, the location of Mount Moriah connects with God’s provision of a substitutionary sacrifice for Abraham (Ge 22), after which the area was called the “mountain of the LORD” (Ge 22:14). The location at the threshing floor of Ornan (“Araunah” in 2Sa 24:18) the Jebusite adds a further level of significance to the site of the Jerusalem temple. This location hearkens back to David and reminds the reader that the chosen place for the temple connects with both divine grace (following David’s sin) and a divine encounter (via the angel of Yahweh). All told, careful narrative attention connects the temple location to Abraham, Moses, and David. R D Patterson - Basically the tabernacle was a miškān (“dwelling place”). This obviously does not mean that God depends on man to put a roof over his head. What it does mean is that God condescends to identify himself with his people, a graciously intimate association in which God makes it possible for men to approach him. This latter aspect is emphasized in the second appellation—ʾōhel mōʿēḏ (“Tent of Meeting”). God has made provision for a meeting between God and man. This coming together is clearly seen as taking place by God’s appointment, at the place and time of his designation, and in a manner prescribed by him. It is the one place where formal approach to God is to be made. A third designation—ʾōhel hāʿēdûṯ (“tent of the testimony”)—is an ever-present testimony to the covenant God had made with his people. It reminded them of the privileges and promises as well as their responsibilities relating to that covenant. The fourth frequently found name is the miqdāš (“sanctuary,” “Holy Place”). This points to the majesty and the separateness of God as contrasted to the sinfulness and unworthiness of man. It is to be remembered that, though God is indeed gracious, it is not a light thing to come into his presence. It can only be possible by the God-appointed means of sacrifice and cleansing, and that with a sincere heart, not carelessly or frivolously. The general symbolism of the temple as the place that God indwells is continued in the church age in the temple that is the individual believer’s body and in the temple that is the corporate body of believers, the church. (The Expositor's Bible Commentary - Abridged Edition: Old) Yes Solomon built, but we must always remember the dual dynamic of God's Provision and Man's Responsibility as clearly shown in Psalm 127+ (notice who wrote this psalm!!! I think he knew this dual dynamic from experience!) THOUGHT- What "edifice" (your job, your ministry, your marriage, etc) are you "building" in reliance on your strength and not on the Lord's? Now ponder the 2 conclusions recorded by Solomon in Psalm 127:1+. (A Song of Ascents, of Solomon.) Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman keeps awake in vain. (See "Paradoxical Principle of 100% Dependent and 100% Responsible") RON DANIEL: Location - The Lord's appearance to David should be fresh in your mind from 1Chronicles 21. David had bought the site of the threshing floor belonging to Ornan the Jebusite, built an altar, and sacrificed to the Lord. The Lord had then put an end to the judgment He was executing against Israel. David then and there had decided, 1Chr. 22:1 ..."This is the house of the LORD God, and this is the altar of burnt offering for Israel." THE TEMPLE MOUNT THE TEMPLE MOUNT Isn’t it interesting that in our own day, one of the most significant controversies occupying the nations is that of jurisdiction over the Temple Mount in Jerusalem? What an incredible coincidence that what should be an inconsequential and forgotten piece of real-estate associated with a religion of antiquity today causes great perplexity among both religious peoples and secular skeptics the world over! Yet those who study the Bible know from the Master of history that what we witness today concerning the controversy over the Temple Mount is but a precursor to a subsequent day when the city of Jerusalem will become the major concern of all nations as they oppose what God has declared in the pages of Scripture (Zec. 12:2-3). Truly “the nations rage and the people plot a vain thing!” (Ps. 2:1)As of A.D. 2003, the two most dominant features visible upon the Temple Mount are the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. But this is from man’s point of view. God recognizes neither of these structures as His Temple. Yet the piece of real-estate occupied by these buildings has great biblical significance, for it is Mount Moriah. The importance of Mount Moriah is established by a number of key historical events which have taken place there:14 Abraham Offers Isaac - It was here where Abraham’s faith was tested when God instructed him to offer up his son Isaac in sacrifice (Gen. 22). See Abraham Offers Isaac. Site of Solomon’s Temple - In 990 B.C., King David was instructed by God to erect an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite which occupied this site. David purchased the land which later became the site of Solomon’s Temple (2Sa. 24:18-25; 1Chr. 21:18-26; 2Chr. 3:1). The Crucifixion of Jesus - On the very mountain where Abraham was asked to sacrifice his “only son” (Gen. 22:2, 12), God sacrificed His only Son.15 For Islam, only the first of these events is significant.16 Even then, Islam claims that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was offered up by Abraham (see Dome of the Rock). Although ample evidence exists that Islam recognized the Temple Mount to have been the historic site of Solomon’s Temple in the past, more recently it has served Islamic political interests for some to deny any previous historical Jewish presence on the Temple Mount. For Judaism, only the first two events are of significance, since Judaism rejects the idea that Israel crucified her Messiah, God in the flesh. All three events are of great significance to Christians, for they evidence the consistent purpose of God in their shared location: Therefore [the sacrifice of Isaac took] place nowhere else than on “Moriah,” the mount where “God is seen” (Gen. 22:14), where later the Temple stood (2Chr. 3:1), where upon the altar of burnt offering all the sacrifices which pointed to Christ would be brought, and where in the death hour on Golgotha the veil between the holy and all-holy places would be rent (Mark 15:38).17 Abraham Offers Isaac It was upon Mount Moriah where Abraham was told to offer Isaac: “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you” (Gen. 22:2). What transpired upon this mountain, as recorded in Genesis 22, is a foundational event, both for Judaism and Christianity. To those who are familiar with the Torah, the opening instruction given to Abraham is shocking! For the Torah—the very Word of God—specifically indicates God’s opposition to child sacrifice (Dt 12:31; 18:10). Yet here, the Almighty Himself instructs Abraham to offer child sacrifice! Why would God give such instructions if it were not meant as an exclamation mark commenting upon the very event itself?Although Judaism sees the purpose merely as a point of testing of Abraham’s faith, Christianity understands the full typological significance of what took place—as a sign post pointing to the most significant event in all history: when another Father would offer His “only Son” upon the same mountain. The offering of Isaac is a carefully constructed divine pattern which pointed to the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross many years later. That this is true can be seen from the numerous typological correlations between this event and the crucifixion. (For more discussion including table showing how the offering of Isaac points to the Crucifixion of Jesus CLICK HERE.) Now the God-given instruction to sacrifice Isaac, in violation of what would later be codified in the Law of Moses, can be understood—God had no intention of actually allowing Isaac to die. Instead, He intended to test Abraham’s faith and demonstrate prophetically His intention to offer His own Son, Jesus Christ, on the same mountain hundreds of years later (Ps. 22; Isa. 53). Sadly, the same words that Jesus spoke to the religious leaders of His day can still be said to Judaism which rejects Messiah Jesus: “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me” (John 5:39).18 In the hundreds of years which would separate Abraham’s offering of Isaac on Mount Moriah from God’s offering of Jesus, the ritual slaughter of countless animals within the Tabernacle in the Wilderness, Solomon’s Temple, and the Second Temple all pointed forward to this ultimate offering of Jesus on the cross. Both Solomon’s Temple and the Second Temple were specifically placed on Mount Moriah to show their connection with the ultimate sacrifice of God’s Lamb.Thus, the Temple Mount is not just a random piece of real-estate contested by some confused religious fanatics. It is a specific location where God Himself ordained that Abraham should act out the event pointing to the crucifixion and the place where the intervening Temples stood. It is at this precise location where both the Tribulation Temple and the Millennial Temple will be built. Dome of the Rock In our day, the most striking presence upon the Temple Mount is the Islamic Dome of the Rock. The Dome of the Rock is not God’s Temple—at least not the God of the Bible. This can be readily seen even by a cursory comparison of the God defined by the Qur’an with the God of the Bible. According to the Qur’an: No Crucifixion - Jesus was not crucified, but only appeared to be (Surah 3:54-55; 4:157-158; 5:117, 120). God Has No Son - Jesus is not the Son of God (Surah 2:116; 5:72; 4:171; 6:101; 10:68; 19:35 cf. Ps. 2:7, 12; 110:1; Pr. 30:4; Jer. 3:19; Dan. 3:25; 7:13). No Trinity - The Trinity is denied (Surah 3:64; 4:116, 171; 5:27; 9:30-31).55 Redemption Unnecessary - The Fall in the Garden of Eden resulted in no need of a Savior (Surah 7:20-25).56 Salvation by Works - Salvation is by works, not faith (Surah 23:102-103; 39:61 cf. Gen. 15:6). Jerusalem Not Mentioned - Jerusalem is never mentioned by name in the Qur’an, but over 800 times in the Bible, the city where God put His name (1Ki 11:36; 2Chr. 33:4, 7; Dan. 9:19). Mohammed Greater Than Jesus - Although Jesus was born of a virgin (Surah 3:45-47; 19:19-21; 21:91), sinless (Surah 19:18), and performed miracles (Surah 3:49; 5:110; 19:29), Mohammed, who was born by a normal pregnancy, who sinned (Surah 40:55; 41:19; 48:1-2), and who performed no miracles is said to be superior to Jesus. If the Qur’an is God’s Word, then the Bible cannot be. If the Bible is God’s Word, then the Qur’an cannot be. They disagree on numerous fundamental issues, not to mention many additional details where the Qur’an not only contradicts the NT (which Islam maintains is corrupted), but also the OT.57 Since the Qur’an describes a god which differs in fundamentals from the God of the Bible, but claims to be inerrant (Surah 4:82), then the inescapable conclusion is that the god of Islam cannot be the God of the Bible: While Islam today has much in common with Christianity on the essential attributes of God, there is wide divergence on His moral and relational attributes. Muslims and Christians may speak of the same subject, the true God, but they have different concepts of Him. . . . Jews have an incomplete picture of God’s nature (their view being confined to the Old Testament only), Muslims have an inaccurate picture of His nature (based on the Qur’an and the Hadith), and only Christians have the complete and accurate view of His nature (based on the Bible). For here lies the big impasse: Allah/God could not have been the source of both the Bible and the Qur’an since they have contradictory messages on the most fundamental issues, especially on the nature of God. From a Christian perspective God is the author of the Bible only. But from a Muslim perspective God is the author of both the Bible and the Qur’an, except that the present Bible is a corrupted version of the original one. . . . It is here that the issue of the nature of God comes into focus. Though Muslims and Christians may believe in the same God as subject, the nature of God as conceived by Islam is not at all identical to the nature of God within the Judeo-Christian faith.58 Therefore, the Dome of the Rock is not the temple of the God of the Bible.According to tradition, the altar which Abraham constructed upon which to offer Isaac (Gen. 22:9) stood upon a particular rock on the mount, the Stone of Binding: In the Midrashim it is written that the Rock is the Even Akkidah, the ‘Stone of Binding’ and marks the place where Abraham bound his son Isaac and laid him on an altar, but that the Holy of Holies was built over the place where the ram was caught in the thicket, a short distance away. Tradition further contends that the Rock is not only the place where the offering of Isaac was attempted, but that it was also the threshing floor of Arunah the Jebusite which King David purchased and upon which he pitched the Tabernacle.59 It is this “Rock” which is referred to in the name Dome of the Rock, although Islam distorts the OT teaching by claiming that Abraham offered Ishmael rather than Isaac. Interestingly, the passage within the Qur’an which describes the offering never mentions Ishmael by name, associating Isaac’s name more closely with the account.60In A.D. 638, the Muslims invaded Israel and Jerusalem which had previously been under the control of Byzantine Christians. Caliph Omar caused a mosque to be built on what was considered to be the ancient site of the Temple of David. He is said to have set an example of reverence by personally clearing away some of the garbage which had been discarded upon the Rock marking the location of the Temple on the Mount. In 691 the Umayyad Caliph ’Abd al-Malik built a wooden cupola over the Rock that Caliph Omar had cleared, giving it the misnomer, “the mosque of Omar,” or as it is properly known, the Dome of the Rock (Arabic, Qubbet es-Sakhra). In a further show of conquest over the Christians, Caliph Omar later built a wooden mosque on the compound over the foundations of an early Christian church. This mosque, known as the Al-Aqsa Mosque, was completed in A.D. 715 and has been rebuilt many times since. Today this mosque is regarded as the third holiest place in Islam (after Mecca and Medina), but it is the Dome of the Rock which is considered the crown of the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount).61 Originally, Islam had little use for Jerusalem: Today the Muslims call Jerusalem Al-Quds (‘the Holy’); however, the earliest Arab name for the city was Iliyia, derived from the Roman renaming of the city as Aelia (Capitolina). In the Islamic period, the name was Bayt al Maqdis from the Hebrew Beit Hamiqdash (‘the Holy House,’ i.e., the Temple), revealing the city’s Israelite origin. Only later was the name changed to Al-Quds.62 But over time, it was asserted that the destination of Mohammed’s journey described in the Qur’an (Surah 17:1) was Jerusalem, the “Farthest Mosque”:63 Glory to (Allah) who did take His Servant for a journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did Bless—in order that We Might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things). (Surah 17:1) [emphasis added]64 It was only after centuries—and most likely to justify the continued Muslim presence in Jerusalem—that the stories of Jerusalem being the place of Mohammed’s night journey and his final ascension (supposedly at the time of Byzantine Christian rule when the Rock was under a dung heap!) were invented. . . this is obvious from the fact that the name of Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Qur’an. . . . While some Muslim authorities have argued that there is a reference to Jerusalem in the night journey of Mohammed when the account says that he went to Al-Aqsa, the name of the mosque which today is built south of the Dome of the Rock, the word Al-Aqsa simply means “far corner”—a term originally applied to the east corner of Mecca, not Jerusalem.65 The current status of the Temple Mount is that it is effectively owned by Israel, but jurisdiction is completely in the hands of the Muslims. Even though Israel took back the Temple Mount in the Six-Day War of 1967, by a strange turn of events (God is sovereign, remember?), within ten days the Jews gave up control of the very site of their historic Temples:66 Rabbi Shlomo Goren, the chief rabbi of the Israeli Defense Forces . . . recounts the events of that day: “In the midst of deliberations, in both governmental and religious frameworks, about renewing Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount and building a permanent synagogue on the open southern plain, the Minister of Defense told me, to my great surprise, that he decided to pass the auspices and responsibilities for all arrangements on the Temple Mount to the Islamic Wakf. He ordered me to take the Torah study center of the Military Rabbinate down from the Temple Mount and to remove all officers of the Temple Mount. From then on, according to him, the Military Rabbinate has no responsibility for the arrangements there, and I should stop organizing Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount. I accepted the order with anger and pain, and I told the Minister of Defense that this is likely to bring about a third destruction, since the key to our sovereignty over Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is the Temple Mount.”67 Previously, Islam recognized the Temple Mount as the location of the Jewish Temple,68 it has more recently become politically expedient to deny the Jewish history which transpired at the location.69Controversy continues to rage as to whose site it should be and whether Jews should have access to the site for religious purposes. Even the Jewish rabbis disagree about allowing Jews upon the Temple Mount due to fear that they would accidentally defile the Holy places out of ignorance and lack of preparation: Does Halakhah [Jewish law] permit Jews to enter the Temple Mount? The Bible specifically forbids those who are ritually impure - as we are today - from entering the inner areas of the Holy Temple. However, many hareidi and religious-Zionist rabbis say that after immersion in a mikveh [ritual bath] and taking other precautions, one may enter the other areas of the Temple Mount. Rabbi Yehuda Edri, of the Movement to Establish the Temple, a principal and educational supervisor for ten years in the hareidi Shas Party’s El HaMa’yan educational system, spoke about this with Yosef Zalmanson today. “Several of our great sages of the Rishonim period,” he said, “such as Maimonides and Ishtori HaParchi, actually set foot on the Temple Mount. In addition, Rabbi Akiva Eiger [d. 1837] tried to find out if the Turks would allow Jews to bring the Passover offering... Over the centuries, the Jews simply got used to not frequenting the Temple Mount because the Moslems allowed neither Christians nor Jews to do so.” Rabbi Edri said that even now, “not one religious authority forbids entry into the Temple Mount per se. It is only that because the sin of entering the Holy of Holies is so grave, they are afraid that Jews who either don’t know or don’t care will also ascend to the Temple Mount and will enter the wrong places. But this does not affect Jews who do know and who are careful.” He agreed that these rulings, ironically, prevent only knowledgeable Jews from entering, while having no influence on those whose entry they wish to stop. 70 The Yesha Rabbis Council issued a Halakhic ruling today not only permitting Jews to ascend to the Temple Mount, but even mandating it, contingent upon proper precautions. Excerpts from the announcement of the ruling: “...One of the rabbis commented that by refraining from ascending, we are thereby declaring to the world as if we, G-d forbid, have no part in the Mountain of G-d - and we thus strengthen the Arabs’ feeling that the Temple Mount is theirs. The public is not aware that many rabbis are of the opinion that we currently have the information necessary to enable one to ascend without transgressing, and that therefore those who permit it are not being ‘lenient’ and are not disputing those who came before them - but are rather clearly relying on that which is now known. We therefore call on every rabbi who [agrees with this] to actually visit the Temple Mount, and to guide his congregants in doing so according to Halakhah [Jewish law]. It is a disgrace for us that the Arabs - ‘who say let us seize for ourselves the pastures of G-d’ [Psalms 88] - ascend to the site by the tens of thousands, while barely any Jews do so... All those who continue to feel that it is forbidden did not check the matter sufficiently, and forbade it only because of uncertainty [as to the permitted locations] - but this doubt has been cleared up, and it can be clearly delineated where on the Mount we are permitted to walk. It is our tradition that ‘we do not add decrees.’ In order to forbid something, the Sanhedrin, or all the generation’s Torah leaders, would have to convene and make this decision - but that has not occurred, and therefore the Law remains as it was, namely, permitting ascent to the Temple Mount, as Maimonides himself did and as the Meiri testified that it is a ‘common-place custom’ to do so. Even a prophet cannot uproot a commandment except as a temporary measure. Those who wish to be extra careful [should know that] their stringency is leading to a leniency, in that many people who would be happy to follow the Halakhah actually transgress it out of ignorance - simply because the proper laws are not publicized. The Yesha Rabbis’ announcement, which quotes Maimonides’ ruling [Bait HaMikdash 3,4], states that one who ascends to the Mount while adhering to three conditions - immersion in a mikveh; keeping the laws of Awe of the Temple (no leather shoes, etc.); and knowledge of the precise permitted areas - is fulfilling a ‘great mitzvah [Torah commandment].’ ” 71 For additional information on Islam from a Christian perspective, see: Caner, Ergun Mehmet and Caner, Unveiling Islam.72 Geisler, Norman L., and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam.73 Price, Randall, Unholy War.74 Temple-Related Websites The following Temple-related websites contain additional material concerning the history of the Temple and especially modern issues related to the possible establishment of a future Jewish Temple upon Mount Moriah. Associates for Scripture Knowledge, [http://askelm.com/temple/t001211.htm] Chronology of the Temple Mount, [http://www.ldolphin.org/chron.html] Jerusalem Model, [http://www.inisrael.com/holyland/model.html] Jewish Virtual Library, [http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/geo/Mount.html] List of Bible Archaeology Websites, [http://www.spiritandtruth.org/sites/sites.htm#archaeology] List of Bible History Websites, [http://www.spiritandtruth.org/sites/sites.htm#history] List of Temple Mount Websites, [http://www.spiritandtruth.org/sites/sites.htm#temple_mount] Noble Sanctuary, [http://www.noblesanctuary.com] Ritmeyer Archaeological Design, [http://www.templemountonline.com] Solomon’s Temple, [http://www.solomonstemple.com] Temple Institute, [http://www.templeinstitute.org] Temple Mount Archaeological Destruction, [http://www.har-habayt.org] Temple Mount UST Project, [http://www.ust.ucla.edu/ustweb/Projects/israel.htm] TempleMount.Org, [http://www.templemount.org] Walking in Their Sandals, [http://www.ancientsandals.com/overviews/temple.htm] World of the Bible, [http://www.worldofthebible.com] G Campbell