ANALYSIS—Does The Temple Really Have To Be Rebuilt For Bible Prophecy To Be
Fulfilled?
by Lawrence J. Joyce, WebToday Editor

Part 2: A common belief among Evangelical Christians is that the Jews have to rebuild their temple in order for Bible prophecy to be fulfilled. But a closer examination of the Scriptures suggests that perhaps this is not necessarily the case.

The prophecies in question are: 1.) The Antichrist or his False Prophet setting up the Antichrist’s image in the temple; 2.) The Abomination of Desolation taking place; and 3.) The Antichrist setting himself up as God in the “temple” of God.

As to the first prophecy, it is a myth. The Bible simply does not say that the image of the Beast is set up in the temple, or indeed in any other specific location. (Rev. 13:15). (Nor does the Bible say that there were three wise men, for that matter. It simply says that there were wise men with three gifts. See, Matt 2:1-16.)

As to the Abomination of Desolation, the only thing needed for that prophecy to be fulfilled is the existence of the Holy of Holies. (Matt. 24: 15-22; Dan. 9:27 and 12:11). But the Holy of Holies can exist as it did prior to the construction of the first temple: in the Tabernacle. Many Orthodox Jews today believe that only Messiah can rebuild the temple. Perhaps they are right after all. And many Christians who follow Bible prophecy have noted that the progression of events in the Middle East right now seems out of sync with the idea of rebuilding the temple, which could take many years to finish. Also, rebuilding the temple could be violently explosive in the Middle East right now, whereas erecting a temporary structure, the Tabernacle, would not be nearly so. And erecting the Tabernacle on the site of the ancient temples could be a convenient compromise among Orthodox Jews who wish to rebuild the temple and those who insist that they do not do so.

The third prophecy—found in II Thess. 2:4, concerning the “son of perdition” setting himself up as God in the “temple” of God—seems to be the major obstacle to a Tabernacle theory of end-times prophecy. Yet looks, especially first looks, can be deceiving.

The New Testament uses two Greek words for “temple”: hieron, which refers to the temple grounds and building, and naos, which refers to the sanctuary. Hieron is used 71 times in the New Testament. Naos is used 44 times therein. II Thess. 2:4 uses the word naos. (All uses of the word “temple” in Revelation use the word naos.)

The uses of these two words illustrates their different meanings. For instance, when the Word says that Satan brought Jesus up to the roof of the temple, it uses hieron. (Luke 4:9). Likewise, when it says Jesus taught in the temple (Luke 20:1), or states that He was on Solomon’s porch (John 10:23), it uses hieron. The same holds true when it says Peter and John went to the temple to pray. (Acts 3:1). But when it quotes Jesus as saying that upon the religious rulers who opposed Him would come the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, “… whom ye slew between the temple and the altar,” it uses the word naos for “temple”, denoting the sanctuary itself. (Matt. 23:35). Indeed, it would not make sense to use hieron, the word for the temple building, in that context, for the altar itself was actually inside the temple building.

Likewise, when Jesus told his opponents that if they destroyed “this temple” he would raise it back up in three days (John 2:19), the word naos is used. The same applies to the references to the veil in the temple being torn when Jesus died. (Matt.27:51, Mark 15:38, and Luke 23:45). Similarly, when Paul tells the Corinthians that they are the temple of the Holy Spirit, the word naos is used. (I Cor. 3:16-17; II Cor. 6:16). The same is true when he tells the Ephesians that we are being built as a holy temple unto the Lord. (Eph. 2:21). Thus, the word naos can refer to things either physical or spiritual in nature; but it always refers, in any case, to some form of sanctuary, and is not the word used to specify the temple building and grounds generally. The word hieron is reserved for that.

Particularly noteworthy in this context is the wording of the travails mentioned in Daniel in and around the time of the Abomination of Desolation. There the prophet speaks of desecration and resanctification taking place in the “sanctuary”, using two Hebrew words for sanctuary (miqdash and qodesh), but not one of the Hebrew words for “temple”—bavith or heykal. (Dan. 8:11, 8:13-14, 9:17, 9:26, and 11:31). Significantly, Daniel himself uses a Chaldean version of heykal when relating the story of how Belshazzar took the golden and silver vessels from Solomon’s temple to drink from at his feast for his pagan gods. (Dan. 5: 2-3). So it is not as if Daniel would not have used a specific word for the temple building itself when the time came to do so.

Given the usage of hieron and naos in the Scripture, then, we must recognize that the statement in II Thess. 2:4 need not mean the temple building. The word naos consistently refers to the sanctuary itself—the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies—either in a physical or a spiritual context. The writings in Daniel likewise resonate with this meaning of the word naos. And the sanctuary, we must remember, can be present in the Tabernacle every bit as much as in the temple building.

Read Temple, part one

You may email Lawrence Joyce at: germwarfarebook@aol.com

SITE OF SOLOMON’S TEMPLE QUESTIONED
New Study Places It Off Temple Mount

By WebToday Editor Lawrence J. Joyce

( March 13, 2002)– The focus of tension in Israel concerns sovereignty over Mount Moriah, which Jews call the “Temple Mount” and which Moslems call “al-Haram al-Sharif” (the “Noble Sanctuary”). Most Jews believe this was the site of their ancient temples (i.e., Solomon’s Temple and Herod’s Temple). But two of the holiest mosques in Islam are now located there. The present uprising stems from the conflict over who should control this land. But if a new analysis is correct, the temples were not there, and the two religions would not have to compete for the same ground.

Mount Moriah is in East Jerusalem, which was not originally part of Israel. Israel occupied it during the Six-Day War of 1967. Israel now claims sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, including Mount Moriah.

To the Moslems, this is intolerable. The current uprising, in fact, started when Ariel Sharon decided to test whether Jews were free to visit their holiest site when he walked up to Mount Moriah. Arab Moslems, fearing this was meant to proclaim sovereignty over their holy sites, and mindful of some plans to tear down their mosques to build a new temple, stormed the compound. This riot touched off the fighting which has been seen since that day.

The temples were the site of the Holy of Holies, where God would come down on the Day of Atonement to forgive the sins of the people. Only the High Priest was allowed inside the Holy of Holies, and only on that day. The Holy of Holies of Solomon’s Temple was, in fact, the site of the fabled Ark of the Covenant, a gold-covered chest which contained the actual original stone tablets of the Ten Commandments placed there by Moses himself, and over which two golden angels spread their wings to form the Mercy Seat, the actual site of God’s presence. Various persons claim that the Ark still exists and will be soon brought to light. (See, e.g., http://www.anchorstone.com/wyatt/arkofcovenant.html).

Evangelical Christians also pay close attention to this subject. Jesus said that the seven-year long Great Tribulation which immediately precedes his Second Coming will commence immediately following the horrible desecration of the Holy of Holies spoken of by the prophet Daniel. (Dan. 9:27 and 12:11). And the Apostle Paul wrote that the Antichrist will set himself up as being God in the Sanctuary (Temple) of God. (II Thess. 2: 4).

The precise location of the ancient temples is not known for certain, howev er. But the Moslems furiously oppose any archeological excavation to find their foundations.

A new study, however, places the site of the temples on the hill immediately to the south known as Mount Ophel (http://www.biblediscoveries.com/templesite.html). The originator of this hypothesis, Dr. T.V. Oommen, bases his conclusion on certain points: First, he says ancient sources reveal that Solomon’s Temple was above a spring known as Gihon, which is near Mount Ophel, not Mount Moriah.

Second, ancient historian Josephus Flavius said the view of Herod’s Temple was obscured from the north. Most of Mount Moriah is highly elevated. Mount Ophel is shorter. One author who does believe the temples were on Mount Moriah says this would at least preclude the temples from being at the traditionally-held sites. (http://www.templemount.org/theories.html). He also notes that Jewish priests complained that Romans soldiers could observe them performing their daily duties. If the temple had been on the traditional sites, the Romans would have to have been in a tower 75 feet high.

Dr. Oommen also points out that the tradition that Mount Moriah is the site of the temples is based on the hearsay account of a Spanish Jewish scholar who visited Jerusalem in 1169 A.D. Significantly, one of his Jewish contemporaries, Maimonides, insisted that Mount Moriah was not the site. And the belief that the Western (“Wailing”) Wall is the last remaining structure of the old temples is based on a conclusion drawn only 400 years ago.

If rabbis concur that Mount Ophel is the true site of Solomon’s Temple, this could remove at least one otherwise insurmountable obstacle to producing a peace accord. Also, evangelical Christians, who constitute the plurality voting block in America, would gladly—even eagerly—accept a U.S.-brokered political deal in the Mideast which allows for the construction of a new temple.

A resolution of the conflict in Israel would seem to defy even the wisdom of Solomon. But let us keep in mind the words of his father, King David: “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem; they shall prosper that love thee.” (Ps. 122: 6; KJV).

Analysis of why Temple doesn’t necessarily even have to be rebuilt

You may email Lawrence Joyce at: germwarfarebook@aol.com