Sunday, November 25, 2018

Checking Politics at the Church House Door

Back in the summer, a survey released by Lifeway Research, which is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, indicated that the majority (57%) of Protestant churchgoers under age 50 prefer to attend church with those that agree with them politically. Given that wise pastors may have preferred to avoid any mention of partisan politics in the months leading up to the midterm elections, that survey may have been filed in a drawer somewhere. Now that this year's elections are in the rear view mirror, and normal people are not yet thinking about 2020, it may be a good time for pastors to pull that story out and reflect on the fact that it means that a large percentage of active church members are effectively denying an important element of the fruit of the gospel.

Of course, it is not news that most people attend church with others that tend to hold similar opinions, as most churches draw from communities that tend to be at least somewhat homogenous in terms of socio-economic status and mindset. However, to say that something tends to be the case is different from saying that it is the way that we prefer things to be.

In the New Testament, questions of political affiliation are not really addressed because it was not a matter of concern to the churches. However, unity in the midst of other social and ethnic questions was important, and the Apostle Paul in particular emphasized that whatever differences there may have been among church members were minimized by their common belief in and experience of Christ.

Thus, we find in his letter to the Ephesians an emphasis on the fact that God had created a single church composed of both Jews and Gentiles, meaning that long standing causes of separation between these groups had been obliterated by the cross of Christ. Instead of differences, they were united into one body, one temple, sharing one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. To separate over lesser matters was not to be considered given the momentous things that they now shared in common.

So, it is -- or should be -- with Christians who differ politically but who are together in Christ, united to him and to one another in faith. The Lutheran pastor Rod Rosenbladt has told a magnificent story about parishioners (one a veteran, the other an anti-war activist) during the Vietnam era who nearly came to blows in the parking lot of the church but who threw their arms around one another in Christian love having entered worship and come together to the Lord's table. This is as it should be. The Bible does not have enough clear information to bind our consciences on all matters of political philosophy and tactics, but it does tell us enough to unite us in Christian faith. Our differences should not have to be abandoned or papered over in order to recognize our common faith in Christ.

Paul warned the early Galatian Christians against heeding the teaching of those that would require them to be circumcised before being acknowledged as Christians. In our day, circumcision is not at issue, but one may wonder at some churches that seem to indicate that Republican (or Democratic, depending on the church) fidelity is an essential element to a sure testimony of Christian faith. Indeed, years ago when it became publicly known that a famous, politically liberal actress had been attending an evangelical congregation, I heard Christians wondering whether this would mean that she had experienced a political conversion, as well.

Of course, such thinking is all wrong. I have my own political opinions, and like everyone else I think that my own are more correct than those who disagree with me. My goal is that my political beliefs would be consistent with my Christian faith, but I recognize my own limitations in sorting that out and see that a fellow Christian may come to different views. Most importantly, conversion to faith in Christ doesn't require the seeker to accept Burke (or Rousseau) as his political philosopher. It is faith in Christ alone that saves.

It cannot be ignored that Christians have frequently failed abysmally at this. In the United States, the racial divide has been more unfortunate than the political one, and not a small number of churches that send money to Africa and other parts of the world for the conversion of people there have embarrassing racial restrictions as part of their own sordid congregational histories. Fortunately, a number of churches and denominations have publicly changed their views and repented in recent years, though it would be a mistake that this problem is now in our rear view mirrors.

Who should we prefer to attend church with? Christ is building his church out of every tongue and tribe and nation, and all who come our way to unite around God's word and sacrament should be welcome among his people.

Thursday, November 15, 2018

Wrapping up my Temple Project

Since August, I have slowly rolled out a series of posts developing the temple as a primary, central theme for understanding the story set forth in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. I enjoy these kinds of studies and have found that many Christians have not come across quite this sort of approach. Most Bible study groups or sermon series in the evangelical portion of American Christianity either are oriented toward study through Bible books or topical studies that focus more on systematizing the information rather than showing the progression of it over the course of the biblical story. It is common nowadays to focus more on contemporary problems rather than on biblical content for addressing them. While those approaches that address Scripture contextually are valid, I believe that what we have done in this study adds an additional dimension, particularly when the approach is framed with a Christ centered interpretive framework for developing the biblical drama.

To use a metaphor I first heard from Kim Riddlebarger, this approach to biblical doctrine can be a valuable way of providing the puzzle box lid to Christians. In theory, it is possible to put together a jigsaw puzzle after throwing away the box, but it is much more difficult to do it that way. Yet, that is comparable to what we often ask Christians to do. Having the picture on the box lid provides guidance as the person putting together the puzzle works over the various pieces and sections. It gives a coherent picture of the whole rather than just a bunch of parts. Most Christians would benefit from being able to understand the Bible in that way.

So, what does this say about the task of preaching? Would I argue that pulpit ministry should provide an expanded version of what we have done with this study, with additional consideration for application?

I would answer both yes and no.

First, I would say that a few years ago when I was not a pastor but was doing a bit of supply preaching, I greatly enjoyed preaching these sorts of sermons that presented the grand scope of the biblical story. As my enjoyment, of course, is not of paramount importance, I hope also that Christ was glorified and that God's people benefited. However, being a pastor is a different function from being someone that occasionally fills a pulpit. The pastor who stands before his congregation nearly every week must dig into the details of biblical texts and books, making sure to teach and apply more detailed material to the needs of a particular congregation. That being the case, I would suggest that a certain amount of teaching should take on the grand scope of the biblical story, even as the pastor digs into the details of what the Bible tells us about what we believe and how we live.

Having said that, even in doing the detailed work of pastoral preaching, it is important for the minister to keep the bigger biblical story in view. There are pastors that seem to understand expository preaching as something that focuses only on the immediate context, but surely that is deficient. Whatever text of Scripture a minister takes up, he should remain aware of where it fits into the overall scheme of the biblical story. The minister should also keep in mind that every single Sunday his task is to preach Christ. Every Sunday, without force or without it seeming as something tacked on at the end. Whatever the overall subject, Christ is to be preached every Sunday. To paraphrase something I read this week -- I can't remember where or I would credit the source -- if the minister preaches something that could have been done by a Jewish rabbi or a Muslim cleric or by Dr. Phil, he has not preached a Christian sermon. Whatever the minister's subject, it is set forth in the light of the person and work of Christ, by which we see all things. Doing this requires that the pastor understand the context and grammar of his actual passage, but it also requires understanding and appreciation of the overall biblical story and where the text fits into it.

It has been said that every important subject of the Bible finds its beginnings in the first three chapters of Genesis. We saw that with regard to our temple study, and there are many other key subjects that could be developed similarly. Of course, one begins with the big headings of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation, but under each of those topics there are subtopics which are hinted at in those opening chapters and then developed over the course of the biblical revelation. The pastor who would preach biblically to his people must understand that, and he should occasionally demonstrate it explicitly to help his congregants understand it. To let the Bible dictate our content should drive us to preach Christ.

For, look at the puzzle lid, and one may see a temple, but look more closely and you will see a cross and an empty tomb.

Monday, November 12, 2018

The Eternal Temple: the New Jerusalem

In Revelation 21, the Apostle John writes that he saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven." He then describes this holy city as a "bride adorned for her husband," terminology evoking thoughts of the church as the bride of Christ, and as "the dwelling place of God," words which make one think of a tabernacle or temple. Subsequently, in a passage beginning in verse 8 and extending through the first five verses of chapter 22, this temple will be described as both a massive structural temple and as a garden yielding fruit and through which flows the river of life. The reader may recall that Paul mixes imagery in the same way in I Corinthians 3. In all of this, we begin to see all of the Bible's temple imagery, from the beginning of Genesis through both the Old and New Testament come into focus. Given the powerful symbolism and typological fulfillment here, one hardly knows whether to cry or laugh when interpreters ignore it and seek out some sort of physicality for future fulfillment.

What, then, is it all about?

There are many descriptors of the new Jerusalem that claim our attention, but to see what we are being taught here, we should focus on the overall shape of the city: it is an enormous cube -- more than 1,300 miles each in length, width, and height. What is the significance of its shape as a cube? In the temple, the only portion of the structure that was a cube was the Holy of Holies, that inner sanctum of God's presence where only the high priest could enter once annually following very strict processes. No uncleanness could enter the Holy of Holies. Now, with the new Jerusalem, the entire city, the place where all of God's people dwell, is a Holy of Holies. How can that be? The redemptive work of Christ is complete, all of God's people have been washed by the blood of the Lamb, and all sin has been done away with. Now, the entire temple of God's presence is opened to all of Christ's redeemed. For those who know the weight of their sin and long to be released from its guilt, power, and presence, this is a breathtaking vision including all of God's people.

The temple is so huge because it encompasses a great company of people out of every corner of the earth. When God placed his first priest within the initial temple, he told him to "fill the earth," but Adam failed at that task, as did everyone else before Christ, the Second Adam, who succeeded where Adam failed, and who has extended his temple to the ends of the earth.

Because the last chapters of the Bible take us back to the first, it is not surprising that much of the imagery reappears. The tree of life, from which man lost access in Genesis 3, is seen again in Revelation 22. The Garden of Eden was characterized by its rivers of water (as was the giant temple envisioned in Ezekiel 47, and in Revelation 22 we find the River of the water of life flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb. Similarly, the Garden temple was associated with precious minerals, as were the tabernacle and Solomon's temple, and there is a similar focus regarding the holy city in Revelation 21. That the New Jerusalem represents the triumph of Christ in behalf of all of his people is seen by the fact that both the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 apostles are named on the structure.

Fans of the cinematic version of The Lord of the Rings trilogy will recall that the movies conclude where they began -- looking at the strange entrance of a hobbit hole. More remarkably, the apocalyptic vision of Revelation concludes by taking us back to the beginning. In Genesis, God had created a temple, and man had ruined it by his sin. In the person of God's Son, all things have been made new.

That, in a nutshell, is the story of the Bible.

Saturday, November 10, 2018

The Heavenly Temple

We have already said that Old Testament temple typology pointed to Jesus Christ and to his church as its antitypes. There is a third antitype found in the book of Hebrews, that of the heavenly temple. As stated before, the fact of multiple referents should not be regarded as contradictory. Rather, we should recognize that the shadows and types of the Old Testament are multifaceted, though they all ultimately point up to the person and work of Christ.

The Letter to the Hebrews has no stated author, and I can agree with Origen's sentiment that only God knows who wrote it. The general epistle is written to Jewish believers in Christ who seem to have been under some pressure to forsake Christianity and return to their pre-Christian Jewish faith. In response, the author points to the dangers of abandoning Christ, with an emphasis on the superiority of Christ to everything found in the Old Covenant. Thus, the Son of God was superior to all created beings, offered to us a greater salvation that was not known to the angels, was greater than Moses, offered a greater Sabbath rest, was a greater high priest after a superior order, offered a greater sacrifice, and spoke of a greater covenant that made the old one obsolete.

Having said that -- I just raced through Hebrews, so please pardon me if I left something out -- the writer also says that Christ ministers in our behalf in a greater tabernacle, described as "the true tent" (Heb. 8:2, referring to a tabernacle). Having described the work of the priests at the temple, the writer proceeds to say that those priests "serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, 'See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain'" (Heb. 85-6. This and all other quotes are taken from the ESV). Heb. 9:11 refers to this as a "greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), and Heb. 9:24 says that "Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf." The following verses emphasize that Christ is not offering sacrifices, as his once and for all offering of himself sufficed to put away sin. Rather, he is at this heavenly tabernacle before the throne of the Father mediating in our behalf.

All of this is an elaboration, in light of the Christ event, on the brief statement by God to Moses at Mount Sinai found in Exodus 25:40. In the midst of providing Moses instructions regarding the construction of the tabernacle and its furnishings, God says to Moses, "And see that you make them after the pattern for them, which is being shown you on the mountain." Thus, what Moses was to build was based on a heavenly "pattern" that he was shown.

I should note that this provides an understanding of the relationship between the earthly temples and tabernacle and various realities presented under the New Covenant that is consistent with the mode of interpretation that we have been using throughout the study. The tendency of many is to see physical structures as "the real ones," with any attempt to think of them as types or analogies  pointing to spiritual realities being dismissed as not taking the text seriously. However, the author of Hebrews clearly declares that the tabernacle -- and by inference in describing ongoing priestly functions, the temple -- was a physical copy of a heavenly reality that is the site of Christ's greater ministerial work. This is neither liberalism nor some form of Gnosticism pitting physical against spiritual truth; rather it is sound biblical exegesis affirming that God provided us with physical patterns pointing to profound truths regarding the person and work of Christ in our behalf. If such Christ centered, Christ honoring redemptively centered teaching of Scripture is called liberalism, may we have more of that kind of liberalism.

As of now, I intend two more posts in this study: the first looking at Revelation 21 and 22 and the other providing a post-mortem on how this should be -- and should not be -- reflected in the teaching of churches.

Tuesday, November 06, 2018

The Temple of Antichrist

Though the Apostle Paul had spent only a relatively brief period in Thessalonica before his de facto eviction by the civil authorities, he must have spent a fair amount of time talking about the return of Christ. This is not surprising, as suffering Christians find hope in the promise of the Lord's return, and the Thessalonians experienced persecution from the start. Nonetheless, the Thessalonians must have been confused about this teaching, as Paul spends much of I and II Thessalonians reiterating and correcting understanding of the second coming.

Thus, in II Thessalonians 2 Paul tells his readers that they should not be deceived by false teachers claiming that the day of the Lord had already come. This could not be true, because "the man of lawlessness," a phrase usually thought to refer to the Antichrist, has not arrived on the scene. Because Paul says that this figure "takes his seat in the temple," proclaiming himself to be God and receiving worship, some Christians argue that the passage requires a rebuilding of the Jewish temple in order for the Antichrist to conduct these blasphemous acts. While one might hesitate to be dogmatic about this, it seems to this writer to be an unlikely interpretation.

Perhaps I should start by providing my understanding of who the Antichrist is as presented in the Bible. I do regard this language as referring ultimately to an individual who will become known near the end of the age; however, the Bible also emphasizes that the spirit of anti-Christ can be found throughout the period between Christ's two advents. Thus, Paul says in our present passage that "the mystery of lawlessness is already at work," and in I John the Bible says that "many Antichrists have come" (2:18, ESV). Thus, while an end times Antichrist will prominently personify evil opposition to God, that person simply rolls up a set of characteristics seen throughout the age. As such, it is appropriate to differentiate between a persistent spirit of Antichrist and an end of the age personification of Antichrist.

Importantly, to speak of the spirit of Antichrist is not the same as decrying every form of evil: specific characteristics are associated with that evil, among them being explicit public opposition to God and harmful influence inside the church. Thus, when John writes about the many Antichrists he references in I John 2, he makes clear that their work is manifested in the departure of members who had been deceived from the church. That seems to be also what Paul has in mind in II Thessalonians 2: Antichrist had set himself up as an object of worship actually in the visible church.

Besides this contextual backdrop, there are other reasons for thinking that the reference to the "temple" in II Thessalonians 2 does not refer to a Jewish temple, but to the church. First, as we have concluded throughout this study, there does not seem to be any compelling reason outside of this passage for thinking that Solomon's temple will be rebuilt. More significantly, as we have seen from my two previous posts, Paul is in the habit of speaking of the temple in terms of the church. Those factors, combined with the emphasis to be found in this passage and in I John, seem to point toward an engagement of an influential figure of ghastly evil who manages to deceive even many within the visible body. Let those of us who think we stand take heed, lest we fall.

Without knowing who that man of sin will be at the end of the age, it is not hard to see precursors of his activity. Certainly, throughout history great evil has been done in the name of Christ's church. While we can say contra Christ's enemies that such is not the whole story, neither should we pretend that the devil has not done his work there. This is why Christians must compassionately, but clearly, point out and root out evil in the church.

Monday, November 05, 2018

The Expanding Temple

Ephesians is the most exuberant of Paul's letters. In it, he not only expresses the nature of individual salvation (Eph. 2:8-10), but he also describes the common experience of Jews and Gentiles in being saved out of sin (notice the interplay of the second and third person pronouns in 2:1-3) and united into one body.

That Gentiles would be united into one body (see 3:4, where Paul uses the body metaphor along with other descriptors) with Jews is considered by the Apostle to be remarkable, and he does not hold back his sense of exhilaration that God has given him a role in this. He says that God has privileged him by making known this "mystery" not previously revealed to prior generations, but now has been given to "the least of all the saints" by "the gift of God's grace" that in fact demonstrates "the manifold wisdom of God." Already in chapter 2 he has mixed multiple metaphors in describing what God is doing with Jews and Gentiles: union in a common body, sharing in a common inheritance, fellow citizens of one kingdom, members of a common family, and indwelt by the same Spirit. Along with these, Paul also says that Jew and Gentile have been united into a singular temple.

In fact, Paul uses temple imagery both with regard to what God has delivered the Gentiles from and what he has delivered them to. Thus, beginning with 2:11 Paul described the vast chasm that separated Gentiles not only from Jews but also from any eternal hope. Gentiles had been separated from Israel and the covenants of promise; they were "without hope and without God in the world." Thus, they were alienated from both God and from God's people. However, Paul writes, Christ had brought those who had been far off "near by the blood of Christ" so that now they were near both to Christ and to one another. In giving visible expression to this sudden change of spiritual position, Paul then writes that Christ "has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility...." (all quotations are from the ESV).

The "dividing wall" that Paul mentioned had explicit reference to a wall at that time still standing in Jerusalem. Herod's renovation of the temple included an outer court of the gentiles that non-Jews could enter, but signage on the "dividing wall" (to use Paul's phrase) warned Gentiles that to cross into the interior temple area would result in the death of the transgressor. Thus, in the temple of the time, a literal wall gave literal expression to the division between Jew and Gentile, and Paul declared that Christ by his death had broken down that wall so that in the church Jew and Gentile would be joined together.

In fact, Jew and Gentile were now joined together in a new temple of Christ, which is described beginning with 2:20. Christ himself is the cornerstone of the temple, which is built "on the foundation of the apostles and prophets." Paul stretches the building metaphor a bit, as he does not want to give the impression the temple is static, so he says that it "grows into a holy temple of the Lord .... a dwelling place for God by the Spirit."

The notion of a continually growing temple may seem strange until we remember that it is consistent with both the beginning and the end of the Bible. With regard to man's original temple home , God commissioned Adam to "fill the earth." In Revelation 21, the New Jerusalem is of massive size and, as with the temple Paul talks about here, is described as explicitly including both Jew and Gentile, the saints under the Old Covenant and under the New. As we will see in a future post, Revelation 21 expresses about the end times temple what Paul says in Ephesians 2 has begun. The temple is being enlarged because Christ has succeeded and his gospel is spreading through all of the earth.

God had given Adam the commission to fill the earth by expanding the Edenic temple. Adam failed. However, the second Adam, Christ Jesus, succeeded where Adam failed, and his temple is expanding to all languages and tribes and people and nations, making of them "a kingdom and priests to our God" (Rev. 5:9-10).

It is no wonder that Paul was exuberant. Indeed, all of God's people may bow to worship before our great Savior.

Sunday, November 04, 2018

The Church as Temple

The burden of this series of blog posts has been to demonstrate the centrality of the temple theme across all of Scripture from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. As a significant part of that development, it has been emphasized that Old Testament manifestations of this theme point typologically to Jesus Christ. With the next few posts, we will shift gears a bit to show a second area of fulfillment in the church of Jesus Christ.

To say that the temple points typologically to both Christ and his church may strike some readers at first blush as contradictory. Am I arguing for too much in applying temple typology to both? In response, I would suggest the following:

1. As we have seen, Old Testament typology is Christocentric and multifaceted. Thus, while this study has emphasized Christ as the fulfillment of the temple type, it has also been mentioned that he is the fulfillment of the priesthood (Hebrews in particular lays this out) and is, of course, the fulfillment of the sacrificial system administered by the priests. Thus, Christ is temple, priest, and sacrifice. This is not a contradiction; rather, it simply points to the way that all that preceded Christ points toward him.

2. That Old Testament temple typology pointing to Christ would also point to his church seems natural when one realizes the inseparable connection between Christ and his church. Western individualism has produced many great results, but it has led to unbiblical views of the church and has impoverished Christians thereby. I fear that we do not take nearly seriously enough the various metaphors used to describe the essential unity between Christ and his church: head and body, cornerstone and structure, bride and groom. Note that the connection between Christ and church is essential (not optional) with regard to each of these: a bride is not one by definition without a groom. A stone that is not part of an overall structure becomes nothing more than a cut rock. A body part severed from the body is something grotesque, and so is a Christian severed from the visible church and its Savior. American individualism has distorted this biblical understanding.

Thus, the church is described as a building filled with the presence of God (thus, a temple) -- in the next post we will look at Ephesians 2, which is my favorite amplification of this theme. Given that I want to keep this post short, we will look briefly at how this is developed in I Corinthians 3. The Corinthian church had fallen into various cliques, with different ones claiming allegiance to various leaders. In response, Paul points out that these leaders were not competitors for the affections of believers, but that each one had been used by God for the building up of the church. In making this argument, Paul begins by viewing the church as a garden: "I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.... For we are God's field, God's building" (I Cor. 3:6,9 ESV).

It is interesting to see what Paul did there: "God's field, God's building." Having used the garden theme, he shifts to a structural one. In the following verses, he turns to the structure: "... like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building on it." Interestingly, he refers to precious stones as a part of this structure.

Why does the mind of Paul move seamlessly from gardening to building? It is because he understands the Old Testament temples found from the Garden of Eden through the building of Solomon's temple and its successor, and he is connecting that flow of thought to the church. Nor is Paul isolated in this. Revelation 21 and 22 will describe the final temple in similar though more expansive terms: a structure constituted by precious stones that comes down from heaven in Revelation 21 and accompanied by an agrarian description at the opening of Revelation 22.

Returning to I Corinthians 4, Paul writes, "Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?" This is not about individuals; it is the church.

Saturday, November 03, 2018

The Doomed Temple

In an earlier post, I described how the early chapters in particular of Matthew's Gospel drew parallels between the life of Jesus and the history of Israel, making the point that Israel typologically represented Christ. Given that the primary theme of this series is the temple, I thought I would return to Matthew's Gospel to show what he records about this theme.

In Matthew 12:6, Jesus, speaking of himself, tells the Pharisees that "something greater than the temple is here." Understanding the grand significance of the temple in the history and worship of Israel, this is an audacious claim that could only be described as megalomania unless Jesus is, in fact, the Son of God. Certainly, no mere human or simple great teacher could make such a claim about himself.

However, we should turn to Matthew 21 to see the extraordinary teaching of Jesus regarding his authority over the temple and his coming as the true temple.

The chapter begins with Jesus triumphal entry into Jerusalem, which is followed by his going to the temple. Arriving there, he exercises authority over it by both cleansing it -- overturning the tables of the money changers, to whom he quotes scripture designating them as thieves -- and welcoming the blind and lame, to whom he brings healing. Thus, Jesus exercises the authority to determine both who is excluded and who is included in proper temple worship.

Following the cleansing of the temple, we find a hungry Jesus coming across a fig tree in early bloom that turns out to have no fruit. Discovering the lack of figs, Jesus pronounces a curse on the tree, which immediately begins to whither. Those who imagine that Jesus out of anger needlessly pronounced a curse on the tree miss the point of the story, which is subsequently amplified by Jesus in his conversation with the disciples the next day. The cursing of the fig tree occurred on the same day that Jesus cleansed the temple, pronouncing that those in it had reduced a "house of prayer" to a "den of thieves." The fig tree provided a physical picture of what the temple had become, a place of pretentious claims that provided no actual food.

Thus, when Peter expressed further surprise about the rapid withering of the fig tree, Jesus had more to say: "If you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea, it will happen.'"

This mountain. Which mountain? The temple mount.

Often we look at this passage and see it as teaching something about the power of prayer, which, of course, it does. But there is more here. The reference to "this mountain" as a matter of potential, even prayerful, destruction, shows a radical indifference to the relationship between the continuation of the temple and the true worship of God. A prayer, in faith, to cast the temple mount into the sea (presumably the Dead Sea) is something that could be answered affirmatively by God.

The chapter closes with the parable of the tenants, which is directed against the leaders of Israel, who had rejected the prophets and were now rejecting the son of the owner of the vineyard. Jesus again uses temple imagery, quoting from Psalm 118 that the rejected stone would become the cornerstone of a new temple. Jesus was applying this to himself.

Less than a week later, Jesus would be crucified through the efforts of these leaders and would be raised from the dead by the power of God. Having fulfilled all of the Scripture regarding the temple standing in Jerusalem, its priesthood, and its sacrifices, Jesus stood alone as the true temple, the true priest, and the once and all sacrifice for sin. Thus, the temple that would stand for another 35 years in Jerusalem, was obsolete. It was no longer a faithful temple offering required sacrifices. It was a pagan temple offering sacrifices that failed to acknowledge that Christ had made his once and for all sacrifice for sin.

The temple was doomed, a point that Jesus again made at the start of Matthew 24, and the Romans would execute that judgment a generation later.