There are many Christians today who think that the Bible
prophesies the existence of another literal, physical temple in Jerusalem
In fact, these ideas are completely misguided. Those who think there has to be another literal
temple are making a serious mistake. And
anyone who encourages the building of one is actually working against the
purposes of God.
There are a number of points to consider here:
The church and the
individual Christian as temples
In the New Testament we find the word ‘temple’ being used to refer
the universal church (2 Corinthians 6:16 ; Ephesians 2:20 -21), to a local church (1 Corinthians 3:16 ), and to the body of every individual Christian (1
Corinthians 6:19 ).
The context of each of these passages shows that this metaphor is used
because God lives inside believers.
Under the Old Covenant, the Jerusalem 8:27 ; 2 Chronicles 6:18 ; Acts 7:47 -50. Nevertheless,
the temple was regarded as God’s symbolic dwelling place on earth.
However, under the New Covenant in Christ’s blood, a monumental
change has occurred. The place where God
now dwells is in His Christian people! He
actually lives inside us by His Spirit!
If God wanted there to be another literal temple in Jerusalem
The temple and
sacrifice
It is important to recognise that the offering of sacrifices was right
at the heart of what the two previous Jerusalem Jerusalem
However, the book of Hebrews teaches us clearly that when Jesus
died on the cross, He established the New Covenant, which superseded the Old Covenant
with its sacrifices; see especially 8:1-10:18.
All the sacrifices of the Old, Mosaic Covenant are therefore now
redundant.
It is sometimes argued that Acts 21:17 -26 shows that a
future temple, where sacrifices are offered, would not contradict the Christian
faith. In this passage Luke tells us that
on one occasion when Paul was in Jerusalem
If some Jewish believers offered sacrifices on this occasion, so
the argument goes, then why could other Jewish believers not do something
similar in the future?
This, however, is a very weak argument. It is true that while the first century
temple was still standing, it seems to have been appropriate for Jewish
Christians to offer some symbolic sacrifices there. However, after the death and resurrection of
Jesus, none of these sacrifices was really necessary.
Offering them was useful for Jewish Christians to deflect the
hostility of non-Christian Jews. This
can be seen in the passage in Acts. And
it was useful too for showing these Jews in a practical way that when Jews
became Christians they did not have to leave their Jewish heritage behind.
But no sacrifice during the first decades of the church was
necessary in itself. And, even though
symbolic sacrifices had their place while the temple still existed, it is
another thing entirely to think that God actually wants another temple to be built
where unnecessary sacrifices can be offered.
He surely doesn’t.
The tearing of the
temple curtain
Three of the Gospels tell us that when Jesus was crucified, the
curtain of the temple was torn in two (Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38 ; Luke 23:45 ). And each of these Gospels clearly implies
that it was God, or possibly an angel under His direction, who did the tearing.
There is debate about the precise significance of what the tearing
of the curtain signifies. There may well
be more than one aspect to it.
Nevertheless, a torn curtain means that the temple is not fit for
purpose. And if God acted to make it
unfit at exactly the time Jesus was on the cross, part of the meaning seems to
be that His death served to make the temple obsolete.
Again, the fact that early Jewish Christians offered some symbolic
sacrifices at the temple doesn’t contradict this. The death of Jesus was the end of an era as
far as the Jerusalem
No prophecy of another
literal temple
Importantly, the Bible never teaches clearly that there will be another
temple in Jerusalem
In what follows I will list the most relevant of these texts,
commenting on them briefly. My aim will
be to stress one key thing, which is that none of these passages has to be
interpreted to be referring to a literal temple at a time later than the first
century AD. They can all be interpreted
in other ways.
(1) In Ezekiel 40-47 there is an extended description of a temple
that the prophet sees in a vision. Because
there are some differences between this temple and the second literal temple
(which lasted from the late 6th century BC to 70 AD), many claim that Ezekiel’s
temple is a literal temple which has yet to be built.
We must recognise clearly, however, that Ezekiel specifically
refers to sacrifices being offered at this temple. See, for example, 43:18-27; 45:13-25; 46:4-7. But, as I have already noted, all the Old
Covenant sacrifices were superseded when Christ established the New Covenant. And it is completely implausible to think
that God wants a new temple to be built where unnecessary sacrifices will be
offered.
Most importantly, sacrifices for sins are offered at Ezekiel’s
temple. See, for example, 40:39; 42:13;
43:19; 44:27. But the book of Hebrews
tells us plainly that Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice dealt with sin
permanently, making sin sacrifices at the literal temple redundant.
We should therefore be in no doubt that Ezekiel 40-47 is not
referring to a literal temple that will be built in Jerusalem
(2) Matthew 24:15 prophesies the existence of a ‘desolating
sacrilege, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy
place’.
It is true that ‘the holy place’ here very probably refers to a
literal Jerusalem
Even if there is a secondary level of reference to a later time,
given the flexibility of Jewish prophetic language, this later temple could be
a figurative, non-literal one of some sort.
(3) The verses that Matthew 24:15 refers to are Daniel 9:27; 11:31 and 12:11 . The same conclusions apply to the Daniel
passages themselves as apply to Matthew’s use of Daniel: there is no clear
reason for thinking that a literal temple at a time later than the first
century AD is in view.
(4) 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 tells us of a ‘man of sin’ who ‘sits in
the temple of God
Even if, as seems likely, this refers to an event that takes place
later than the first century, it is important to understand that prophetic
language is often highly symbolic. It is
by no means necessary to understand the temple here literally.
I know that I have dealt with these passages very briefly. However, all I have been trying to do is show
that none of them clearly refers to a literal temple at a time later than the
first century AD.
Given that these texts can all be interpreted to be referring to
something other than a future literal temple, and given the huge weight of evidence
against the existence of a future literal temple that comes from the things I
discussed earlier in the article, it makes perfect sense to conclude that none
of these passages refers to a literal Jerusalem temple that exists after the
first century AD.
Summing up
All things considered, then, we should firmly reject the idea that
God wants there to be another literal temple in Jerusalem
Furthermore, it seems equally implausible that there has to be a
literal temple that exists as some kind of evil thing that is opposed to God. Nothing in the Bible remotely suggests that
anything of this sort has to be built.
It is not impossible that at some point in the future the Israelis
might choose to build a temple. But if
they do, they will surely not be doing the will of God or fulfilling biblical
prophecy.
Those Christians who are actively encouraging the building of a
temple in Jerusalem
Jews need Jesus for
salvation
Some of those who are trying to get a temple built in Jerusalem
The New Testament makes it abundantly clear, however, that those
who reject Jesus as Messiah, whether they are Jews or Gentiles, will not be
saved.
In John 3:18, for example, Jesus teaches the Jew Nicodemus:
‘The person who believes in Him [Jesus] is not judged. But the person who does not believe has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.’
This is clear that failing to believe in Jesus involves judgment,
and this judgment surely involves missing out on salvation from sin.
Similarly, in John 8:24 Jesus, speaking to
Jews, says:
‘. . . unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.’
This verse is very clear that Jews who do not believe in Jesus
will not be saved.
Again, in John 14:6 Jesus teaches:
‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’
This implies that Jews who do not believe in Jesus will not be
saved.
And in Romans 1:16 Paul tells the church
in Rome
‘I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek’.
This quite strongly suggests that we can expect Jews and Greeks
who do not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ not to receive salvation.
There are many other biblical passages which teach that if Jews reject
Jesus, they will not be saved from their sins.
These include John 1:11 -12; 12:46 ; 15:6; 20:31 ; Romans 3:21-23;
9:1-11:32.
Like Gentiles, Jewish people today desperately need to hear and
believe the message that Jesus is the Messiah and the Saviour of the world. Encouraging them to build a temple in Jerusalem
In fact, I think Christians who are doing this remind us of Paul’s
letter to the Galatians, where we hear of false teachers who were telling new (Gentile)
Christians that it was God’s will for them to keep the Law of Moses. These teachers were insisting on the
performance of things that God had superseded in Christ.
In response, Paul wishes a curse on them (1:8) and describes them
as ‘false brothers’ (2:4). He also says
that those who have been seduced by this false teaching have become estranged
from Christ and have fallen away from grace (5:4). These are all very strong words, and we
should note them carefully.
See also:
