Let’s briefly talk about the third temple of Jerusalem and find a Biblical basis for it.
But first, let me state this.
Most visitors who read this article will probably already believe in the coming of a third temple.
Therefore, I’ll only ask one thing from all visitors: Please be open to alternative views about this subject, namely, that the Bible does not speak about a third temple.
Let’s let Scripture be our ultimate source for all beliefs.
But we can’t simply say, “Scripture is our standard!” We have to expound those scriptures and make sure they’re really talking about what we say they are talking about.
This will not be an in-depth study because there are simply too many questions that need to be answered.
Instead, I will give you a brief overview of the belief concerning the reconstruction of a third temple and present another view.
An Overview of the Belief Which Says That a Third Temple of Jerusalem Must Be Built
Futurism is the belief that Christ will return to earth in the future and establish an earthly kingdom for 1000 years.
Before this happens, many advocates of futurism say that a third temple will be built in Jerusalem.
They believe that the Bible teaches that this is simply another critical step in the timeline of prophetic events.
The flow of the logic for a belief in a coming third temple looks like this:
Christ has to come back in the future
But before he does, the Antichrist has to reign on the earth for a bit
This Antichrist is supposed to reign and sit in a temple in Jerusalem
However, there is no temple in Jerusalem right now.
Therefore, obviously, before these events can take place, a third temple needs to be built
It is a “third” temple because Solomon constructed the first one (1 Kings 5).
Then, the Babylonians destroyed it, and the Israelites were taken into captivity for 70 years (2 Kings 25:9).
When the Israelites returned to their land, they rebuilt the temple, which would be the second one (Ezra 3).
The second temple existed all the way into Jesus’ time. It faced persecution and underwent additions, but lasted until AD 70. Jesus died and was resurrected around AD 30.
The Bible prophesied that this second temple would also be destroyed similarly to the first one (Luke 21 and many others).
History tells us that Rome destroyed the second temple in AD 70, many Jews were killed and dispersed, and their whole city, temple, religion, and system were gone.
Israel didn’t even become a nation again until 1948!
Now, here we are in the 21st century. Many believe that a third temple will soon be built, adding another crucial prophecy to a string of events that, as they say, must take place before Jesus comes back.
Why is there a belief that a third temple will be constructed?
Scriptures That Are Used to Teach That a Third Temple Will Be Constructed
It’s essential to make a note about the belief in a third temple. Look at what Tommy Ice, a massive advocate of futurism and a prophetic third temple, says about the subject:
“There are no Bible verses that say, “There is going to be a third Temple.” Rather the fact that there will be a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem at least by the midpoint of the seven-year tribulation period is supported by at least four scriptural references.”
Tommy Ice and Randall Price, Ready to Rebuild (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1992), 197-198.
He says there are no scriptures that clearly say there will be a third temple, but there are scriptures that “support” it.
This means that futurists deduce this idea from four specific scriptures, although they don’t clearly state the belief.
I’m not totally against this method of arriving at biblical conclusions. After all, the Bible is not super clear on many things.
Sometimes, you do have to logically conclude something from scripture, although the scripture does not explicitly state it.
You can arrive at conclusions by gathering a few scriptures that seem to “indirectly” imply something and build a case for that belief. This is true.
However, it first has to be 100% established that these scriptures are, in fact, about a third temple.
If the scriptures we’re using are talking about the first or second temple, then we can’t use them as proof for a third temple, right?
I’ve discovered that many futurists start by saying, “There’s going to be a third temple.” They then spend most of their time discussing current events in Israel and how they believe they revolve around the end times.
They then quickly show a scripture that mentions a prophetic event involving a “temple” and say, “You see? This third temple is in the Bible!”
I’m suggesting that futurists should instead flip this method around. Start by showing the scriptures first, and spend most of the precious time you have expounding them rather than on current events in the news.
Last, state your belief: “There is going to be a third temple,” or, “A third temple has nothing to do with Biblical prophecy.”
So, let’s briefly discuss these scriptures. Are they talking about a third temple in our future?
Scripture #1
Daniel 9:27
And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”
I’m sure you’re thinking, “What?!” Or, “Where does that scripture even mention a “temple?”
Many are trying to understand the end times, and they’re faced with complex scriptures that elicit dozens of differing opinions.
But that’s why I initially said you must be open to alternative views. Don’t just accept the widespread view that this scripture somehow talks about a third temple or a future end-time event.
Some futurists say about this scripture:
“Daniel 9:27 says, “And he [Antichrist] will make a firm covenant with the many [the nation of Israel] for one week [seven years], but in the middle of the week [three-and-a-half years] he [Antichrist] will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations [the Altar in the Temple] will come one [Antichrist] who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one [Antichrist] who makes desolate.” This passage predicts a future time period of seven years, during which the “Beast,” or Antichrist, defiles Israel’s Temple by an evil act at the three-and-a-half-year point. In order for this to happen, there must be a Temple in Jerusalem. Therefore, we can conclude from this future event that the third Temple must be built and functioning by this time.”
Ice and Price, Ready to Rebuild, 198.
As you can see, futurists interpret this scripture as describing a future Antichrist who will rule the world.
Immediately at the second word of the prophecy (“he”), we’re already throwing it all into our future.
If this verse is talking about a future-coming Antichrist and an “abomination” that he will perform upon the “Altar in the Temple,” then yes, a third temple will need to be constructed for this prophecy to come to pass.
But have we established that the “he” here is the Antichrist? No, we just stated it.
Again, there is an alternative view. In fact, the above futuristic view of Daniel 9:27 did not exist until after the early 1800s.
Before that, everyone seemed to believe this verse was about Jesus!
I’ve looked at many views from different scholars before the early 1800s, and all of them believed that the “he” here who would “make a strong covenant” (better translation: “Confirm a covenant”) is Jesus, not a future-coming Antichrist.
Albert Barnes, for example:
“The more correct interpretation, therefore, is to refer it to the Messiah, who is the principal subject of the prophecy… to exert such an influence as would tend to establish a covenant between the people and God. The effect of his work during that one week would be to secure their adhesion to the “true religion;” to confirm to them the Divine promises, and to establish the principles of that religion which would lead them to God.”
Albert Barnes, Notes on Daniel. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/bnb/daniel-9.html.
In other words, when Jesus walked the earth, he “confirmed a covenant with the many.” He was bringing the New Covenant to the world.
Matthew 26:27-28
27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
So, if Daniel 9:27 is about what Jesus did and not what the Antichrist will do, then it happened in the past, and there is no reason to speculate about a third temple in the future.
First, figure out who the “he” is in Daniel 9:27 and expound the scripture. I do that here, beginning at minute 10:00.
Daniel 9:27 does not discuss a future-coming third temple or the Antichrist. It is about Jesus bringing the New Covenant and ending the old one, and it’s about the destruction of Jerusalem and the SECOND temple in AD 70.
Scripture #2
Matthew 24:15-16
15 “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
Futurists say:
“Matthew 24:15 portrays ‘the abomination of desolation,’ when the Antichrist desecrates the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem… Obviously it has to be rebuilt in order to be desecrated.”
Tim LaHaye, How to Study Bible Prophecy for Yourself (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1999), 110.
He’s saying that the “abomination of desolation” is “when the Antichrist desecrates the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.”
Again, that places it all in the future. But let’s first establish 100% that this is what Jesus is talking about.
What if that’s not what the abomination of desolation is?
What if that’s not what this verse is about? What if this entire prophecy in Matthew 24 is something that happened in the past?
The alternative view is that in Matthew 24, Christ is also prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70
He just got done telling them that all the stones from their temple (the second one in their day) would be thrown down. (Matt. 24:2)
The disciples then ask him when this would happen (verse 3).
Jesus responds, “When you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place,” then flee to the mountains.
I dive deeper into the meaning of the “abomination of desolation” in the holy place here:
But to keep it short, Luke gives the same account of this prophecy and explains it more plainly:
Luke 21:20-21
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains…
The “abomination of desolation” could also be interpreted as “The abomination that makes desolate.”
I think the abomination of desolation scripture of Matthew 24:15-16 is talking about nothing more than the arrival of the Roman army to destroy the city, which happened in AD 70.
As you can see, the citizens and believers of Christ were warned to flee to the mountains when they saw this.
Eusebius, an important early church father and Jewish historian who lived between 260-339, says that they did:
“The people of the Church in Jerusalem were commanded by an oracle given by revelation before the war to those in the city who were worthy of it to depart and dwell in one of the cities of Perea which they called Pella. To it those who believed on Christ traveled from Jerusalem, so that when holy men had altogether deserted the royal capital of the Jews and the whole land of Judaea.”
Eusebius, Church History 3, 5, 3, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_to_Pella.
Also, Epiphanius (310–403), another church father:
“From there it took its beginning after the exodus from Jerusalem when all the disciples went to live in Pella because Christ had told them to leave Jerusalem and to go away since it would undergo a siege. Because of this advice they lived in Perea after having moved to that place, as I said.”
Epiphanius, Panarion 29,7,7-8, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_to_Pella.
Matthew 24:15-16 is not about a future-coming Antichrist setting up some type of blasphemous statue in a rebuilt third temple.
It is about the destruction of their SECOND temple in AD 70.
Scripture #3
2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 NIV
1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
Apparently, some of the Thessalonians in Paul’s day had thought the day of the Lord had already come.
People would write letters to, speak to, and even prophesy to the Thessalonians, falsely telling them that this day had begun.
But Paul says this day would not come until the “man of lawlessness” is revealed.
This man would set himself up (Greek - καθίσαι - “sit down”) in the temple.
Many believe that this “man of lawlessness” is the future-coming Antichrist and that the “day of the Lord” refers to the return of Christ in the last days.
Therefore, if this Antichrist is going to sit in God’s temple, and if there is no temple right now because it was destroyed in AD 70, it follows that a third temple has to be rebuilt.
The alternative view is that the “day of the Lord” refers to the judgment and destruction that he would bring upon the unbelieving Jews and their temple in AD 70.
Why would the Thessalonians have thought that the day had come if the day of the Lord is a time when stars will fall, the world will begin to fall apart, and Jesus will literally descend from the clouds with every eye seeing him?
Furthermore, why would they think the day of the Lord had come if no one, not even Paul, had been raptured yet?
They did not experience these things, so it’s possible that the “day of the Lord” could mean something else.
Also, we shouldn’t just automatically believe that the “man of lawlessness” is a future-coming Antichrist. We need to find out who he is.
If the Thessalonians “knew what was holding him back” (2 Thess. 2:6), then it’s possible that the man of lawlessness was a man living in their time that they were aware of.
Scripture #4
Revelation 11:1-2
1 Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, “Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, 2 but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months.
Some would say that since the book of Revelation is about the future end of the world, then this “temple” would be the third temple to be built later.
The alternative view is that the book of Revelation is about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
In this case, the “temple” that John is referring to is the second temple, not a future third.
Revelation is poetic, apocalyptic literature written to prophesy the fall of Jerusalem and their temple.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Revelation was written a few short years before AD 70, which would account for statements like:
Revelation 1:1 - The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place.
Revelation 1:3 - Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy… for the time is near.
So, if you believe that Revelation is about the future end of the world, then of course the verses are talking about a third temple.
But if you don’t believe this, then the verses are just talking about the temple that stood in their day that they all knew, and that would fall very soon.
Conclusion
The main goal of this study was just to make you aware of alternative views about the end times. Study them for yourself.
Don’t get so caught up in any “third temple” and “red heifer” ideas you hear about in Christian news.
Kommentare