We conclude, from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, considering Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D.’s article titled, “Lingering Idolatry in the Temple of God,” AskELM (as in Ask Ernest L. Martin about whom I previously wrote Nightmare on AskElm Street – angelic “Sons of God”?), September 1, 2000 AD which contains some interesting point, some thought provoking speculations and some very serious errors.
Ernest L. Martin has been driving at the Ark, Temple, etc. as important features of eschatology and elucidates, “There are people today who are still enamored with this Ark of the Covenant (and its two Cherubs named Moloch and Chiun). Without doubt, if the Ark could be once again discovered, they would readily place the two Cherubs right back in any newly built Temple in Jerusalem.”
He then hearkens back to his mistaken reading of the 2 Maccabees text by noting that “Jeremiah saw the idolatry that had developed over the two Cherubs so he (under inspiration of God, in my view)…hid it away” with Martin now claiming that this portion of the apocryphal text is inspired (or just Jeremiah’s supposed actions).
Next, Martin attempts to prove that the Cherub named Moloch turns out to be Satan (as Satan is not an Angel but a Cherub as per Ezekiel 28:14). He then asserts that “The other Cherub was named Chiun (represented by the planet Saturn with the Sabbath being his day of consecration for worshipping him). But the Sabbath was made by God for His people to rest, and it was not made for Chiun (Saturn).”
He then, even more speculatively, generically asserts that “The early Israelites took the command of God to make the images of the Cherubim and place them in the Holy of Holies as an example given by God to worship those Cherubim (named Moloch and Chiun). This was one of the commands that God gave to the Israelites in the time of Moses that WAS NOT GOOD for the Israelites because it led them into idolatry…” (emphasis added). He is simply making empty assertions at this point in 1) claiming to know how the early Israelites took the command, 2) claiming that they thought that giving them an example to worship those Cherubim, 3) claiming that this was one of God’s NOT GOOD commands and that 4) this, God’s commands, led the Israelites into idolatry.
He concludes by speculating about eschatology as Revelation 11 notes that “that there will once more be an image of a wild beast” which he takes to be an image of a Cherub, “probably in the form of Moloch the King” which “will again be placed in a Temple…one or both of the Cherubim will be replaced in a new Temple…” and Martin, faultily, concludes that “God was honest in His statement in Ezekiel that His commands ‘were not good.’”
Based on a tremendous number of misunderstandings, reading into text and generalizing assertions of conclusions, Ernest Martin writes, “If anyone wants to replace the Ark of the Covenant back into a renewed Temple, what he or she will be doing is placing the Image of the Beast mentioned in Revelation 13 back into the Holy of Holies.”
He then falls back into a grave(n image) mistake of his in stating, “God said that command to put those images in the Temple, contrary to the Second Command of the Ten Commandments” thus, God contradicts Himself, in Martin’s mistaken view and, again, claims to know that this was one of the commands “God gave that ‘were not good.’” Sadly, Ernest Martin takes his errors to new heights in stating:
…when one reflects upon the teaching of the Second Commandment of the Ten Commandments (and applies what the words state explicitly and without preconceived notions), it could be argued that even the building of a Temple is prohibited in the strict sense of the word. This is because the Temple represents an image or similitude of the House of God in which God resides in heaven.
Do we not read in the Second Commandment that Israelites should not make an image of ANYTHING in heaven (or in earth or under the earth, Exodus 20:4)? That is right! Even the building of a physical Temple on earth is getting close to breaking the Second Commandment.
He specifically states that explicit reflection on the second commandment “it could be argued that…a Temple is prohibited in the strict sense of the word” but backs off from that which “could be argued” by stating that it is only “getting close to breaking” the commandment. As I have noted again and again, of course “That is” most certainly not “right!” that we read in the second commandment that Israelites should not make an image of ANYTHING in heaven, etc. because the commandment states no such isolated, fragmented, partial thing but states that it should not be done for the purposes of idolatry.
Interestingly, Ernest Martin admits:
…it must be realized that God did in fact order Moses to construct the Tabernacle and later God told David to have the Temple built by Solomon. Yes, indeed, but still we are later told that God does NOT dwell in Temples made with human hands in an actual sense (Acts 7:48).
No, God cannot be contained by any image or physical thing and Martin has been driving at the good point that “Whatever the case, we Christians do not need a physical Temple in any manner whatever.” This is true but then why not simply state it without discrediting himself so often along the way? He could have simply quoted John 4 wherein a Samaritan woman states to Jesus, “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship” to which Jesus replies:
Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Overall, Ernest L. Martin’s article “Lingering Idolatry in the Temple of God” is a great example of how someone can come to faulty conclusions by piling up one error upon another. Martin does this to the point that he ends up with one erroneous view becoming the lens via which he interprets text, is lead to further error and this turns into a vicious cycle.