#1 Future Temple Debate

     I have realized that as the uneasiness of the world has become a draw on our attention, our hopes as Christians has become a reliance on the future hope and relationship we have in Jesus Christ. For some this takes on the form of looking to the future in an attempt to discover the unvealing of events that culminate in the coming of Jesus. Many signs are sought in the biblical text to try to grapple with an understanding of when and what these events will look like. One such subject is the debate over whether a physical future temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem. According to the interpretation of many scholars and teachers, this stems from passages in Matthew 24:15, 2 Thessalonians 2:4, and Revelation 11:1-2. These passages are posed as a future prophetic event of the rebuilt temple and something that must occur before the coming of Christ. If this view is correct, what do we do with biblical passages that contradict this interpretation? How does it affect our lives (those of us who study the Scriptures)? What are the consequences of our final conclusion on this subject?

The Alternate Views

    One view understands that Jesus, Paul, and John all address the event of a coming restored temple. In Matt. 24:15 we read about a day future to Jesus that the abomination of desolation would be "standing in the holy place" (i.e. the Jerusalem temple), in 2 Thess. 2 we are introduced to a man of lawlessness who would "be revealed" (so then, not yet revealed at the time of Paul's writing) and "take his seat in the temple of God", and in Rev. 11:1-2 we read about John measuring a temple that was to be trampled by the gentiles (indicating an earthly location) and due to Revelation being of prophetic nature it must also be assumed that this speaks of a yet unbuilt temple in Jerusalem.

    The alternate view finds the future view problematic. This is due in part to the fact that the reason for a temple is to offer sacrifices, namely, animal sacrifices according to the Law of Moses (i.e. The Torah). This view finds that the New Testament is contrary to this idea of restored animal sacrifices and that Jesus has finished these things through His death on the cross and destruction of the last standing temple in Jerusalem (in 70 AD). This view interprets Hebrews 10:18 as one instance that declares an end to temple ritual. It states, "Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin." (NASB) Another snippet text from this view comes in Acts 7:48 where Stephen, the first martyr of Christianity, is giving his defense and includes a seeminly offensive statement to the Jewish high priest stating, "the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands" thereby implying that the temple in Jerusalem is unnecessary. And the last text I will include in this view comes from our Lord's own teaching in John 4:21 where He is speaking to the Samaritan woman and says "an hour is coming when neither in this mountain (Gerizim, the mountain that Samaritans worshipped on), nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father." It would seem, from this statement, that physical location of worship would soon lose the meaning it once had. 

Emphasizing the Problem

    So again, the main discrepancy between these two views is the issue of animal sacrifices being offered in Jerusalem. The future view holds that regardless of whether some Scriptures seem to remove any thought of ceremonial temple ritual, the Scripture is clear that there will in fact be a future temple with a full restoring of animal sacrifices. This future rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem is also one of many signs that will herald the Antichrist and therefore the coming of Christ to destroy him. The alternate view says that animal sacrifices are unnecessary and have come to an end and therefore the usefulness of a physical building in Jerusalem is opposed to the teaching of Christ and the New Testament. In the end, these two sides have become increasingly debated and accusatory toward the opposing view, even claiming apostacy of the opposing view (i.e. turning away from Christ). 

A Return Stirs Up the Debate

    Prior to the nation of Israel being established in May of 1948 this subject was not debated much since there was not a strong Jewish or Christian presence in the promised land of Israel. Yet, upon the arrival of many Jewish immigrants into the land, the notion of a future temple began to swirl. These sentiments were normal to Jews and would soon become increasingly acceptable and normal to Christians. Jewish liturgical prayers had incited God's hand to restore and rebuild the temple on a daily basis prior to the arrival of these immigrants. These prayers were recited daily: 

"Be favorable, HaShem, our God, toward your people Israel and Your temple. The fire-offerings of Israel and their prayer accept with love and favor, and may the service of Your people Israel always be favorable to You."

With the return of Jews to the land of Israel it would seem that Jewish prayers were now answered. The next step was to construct a house for God. As of today, there are a few institutes that are preparing priests, fashioning temple vessels, and pleading for donations to the reconstruction and effecting of a future temple and its rituals. What could all this mean?

The Debate Gets Heated

    Interesting, how modern day events can sway our interpretation of Scripture! The two views regarding a future temple have dug their heels in and increased the attention on what this all could mean for Christianity and Judaism and even the world. The future view acknowledges the increased attention to this debate, as Dr. Randall Price (holder of the future view) puts it, 

"I have also had to deal with critical reactions from Jewish-Christians, some of whom have fervently warned me that a Third Temple is against the gospel because it will be built by unbelieving Jews who will reinstate the sacrificial system in rejection of Messiah's finished atonement."

Edmund P. Clowney sees the future temple view as an attack on Christ's finished work, stating, 

"Jesus Christ is the only Mediator, His blood the final sacrifice. There can be no going back. If there is a way back to the ceremonial law, to the types and shadows of what has now become the bondage of legalism, then Paul labored and ran in vain--more than that, Christ died in vain."

Archibald Hughes affirmed that "to restore these things today (i.e. Temple system)...would be apostasy."

Still, the revamped future view holds out that a restoring of the temple could not have more support and belief than it does right now, in light of the establishment of the Jewish nation and Scripture. Thomas Ice puts it this way,

"Many people, Jews and non-Jews alike, believe that the leaders of the movement to build the Temple are pursuing an unrealistic hope. Yet these leaders, like those who dreamed of Israel's return to its land, believe that God will one day bring it to pass because the Bible declares it will be so."

Future temple proponent, John Schmitt, also finds his support of a future temple, stating, 

"Is it heretical to believe that a Temple and sacrifices will once again exist?...Ezekiel himself believed it was a reality and the future home of Messiah. Then, it becomes not heresy to believe that a Temple and sacrifices will exist; rather, it is almost a heresy to not believe this, especially because it is a part of God's infallible word. The burden on us is to determine how it fits---not its reality.

So then, while I have only introduced the subject and its debate, and while I will slowly go through much more of this debate in later blogs, I would like to know what other lenses our fellow Christians have on this subject. Also, I would like to ask the same questions I included in my introduction to this blog: what do we do with biblical passages that contradict on this subject? How does it affect our lives (those of us who study the Scriptures)? What are the consequences of our final conclusion on this subject?