Why Are Dispensationalists Obsessed With Building a Third Temple?

Why? Quite simply because they think the end of the world can't come without it. But more importantly, they think that the supposedly prophetic inevitability of a third temple will come right before or right after their being raptured up to heaven before a final tribulation on earth, which they will of course avoid. There's a problem with all of this, however. There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament that talks about "rebuilding the temple." Nothing. Where there is talk of rebuilding the temple in the Old Testament, it is referring to the second Temple of the post-exilic period. Where the brick and stone temple of Jerusalem is referred to literally in the New Testament it is always in the context of judgement and its pending destruction. Thus, the main section of the Olivet Discourse of Mark 13 and its synoptic parallels were first and foremost not checklists for some far distant generation in the "end-times," but served primarily as an apocalyptic judgement text regarding Jerusalem and the temple.

The context seems clear enough, especially in Matthew. Jesus' mourns over Jerusalem then leaves the temple courts and predicts destruction upon the land. The disciples ask two questions, the first of which being, "When will these things happen." Jesus then proceeds to give them an answer and says very clearly "This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." Various attempts to get around the force of that statement have been incredibly unconvincing. Jesus is clearly talking about events that have immediate relevance for his contemporaries. Thus, the emphasis on the Temple here and elsewhere is one of judgement. This doesn't mean there isn't contemporary meaning and significance for today in this section of the Olivet Discourse, but it probably does not carry with it the assumptions that dispensationalists make.

One of the most important verses for third temple advocates and dispensationalists in general is Dan. 9:27. According to dispensationalists this verse is totally disconnected from the verses that precede it and refer to a time when the final antichrist figure makes and breaks a covenant with the nation of Israel and unleashes the Great Tribulation. But to make this work, you have to insert a 2000+ year imaginary gap between verses 26 and 27. But there are plenty of problems with the standard view of Dan. 9:27. Let's take a look at some of them.

According to the Dispensational View:

a. Verses 24-26 describe the coming of Jesus (The “Anointed One”) 483 years after the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Jesus is the one “cut off” in verse 26, referring to his crucifixion.

b. The “people of the ruler” in vs. 26 are referring to those who came and destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70AD. However, the Ruler (Antichrist) himself did not make an appearance then and doesn’t until the indefinite future, whenever verse 27 begins.

c. There is a massive gap of time between verses 26 and 27. God’s “prophetic time clock” has stopped now that we are in the “church age.”

d. Verse 27 describes a future antichrist who will come on the world stage (soon!). The covenant is a covenant of the antichrist. The “many” whom he makes the covenant with are the Jewish people of modern Israel, which he will later break.

e. By this time vs. 27 happens there will be a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem with resumed animal sacrifices. In the middle of the last “week” (seven year period) the antichrist will desecrate the Temple, break his covenant with the Jewish people, and thus will begin the “Great Tribulation” which they correspond with Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 6-19.

The problems with this above interpretation are many:

1. For one thing, there is nothing in this text which suggests a massive 2000+ year gap between verses 26 and 27. A natural and “literal” reading of the text would see verse 27 connected to verse 26 and talking about the same related events.

2. It assumes a two separate people of God theology—Israel and the Church—whereas this idea is foreign to the New Testament. Instead Romans 9-11 and elsewhere suggests that there is one people of God—Jew and Gentile with a common faith in Christ. This faith is founded in the original branch of the Israelites, but a true Israelite is a spiritual one, not just the natural ethnic one (Romans 2:28-29, 9:6-8). Thus, newly grafted in Gentiles are not to be arrogant about their faith. They too can be broken off from the branch because of unbelief, just as unbelieving Jews were. Where Paul does see ethnic Israel being regrafted into the branch is only because of faith in Christ (See Romans 11 for Paul’s future hope for revival amongst ethnic Israel). Therefore, there is one people of God—Jew and Gentile who are brought together in Christ. Thus, there’s no reason to assume God has separate “time-clocks” and prophetic programs for each group as is assumed in the dispensational view of Dan. 9:24-27 and elsewhere.

3. The idea that “the people of the ruler” came in 70AD but the ruler himself comes not for another couple thousand years is awkward and forced.

4. Does the “He” in vs. 27 really refer to a future Antichrist? The “he” could be referring to the Anointed One of vs. 26. Also, if “the ruler” in vs. 27 is the same person as in vs. 26, then the ruler and the Anointed One is the same person. Hence the “people of the ruler” could be Christ’s agents of judgment against Jerusalem. If “the ruler who will come” in vs. 26 is a separate entity, then “the people of the ruler” then it would be seen as Titus’ army laying siege to Jerusalem.

5. Where do we get “He will confirm a covenant with many” to equal “a covenant with the modern nation of Israel”? How is “Israel” the most natural reading of “many”?

6. Who exactly puts an end to sacrifice and offering? According to Hebrews 10, it is Christ Himself. Also, see the New Testament for Christ giving his life for “many” (Matt. 20:28; cf. Matt. 26:28, Mark 10:45, 14:24).

6. The dispensational view assumes a future rebuilt temple for this to work. But when this prophecy was given it was directed towards rebuilding Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile—see vs. 25—which of course involved the rebuilding of the Temple (See books of Ezra and Nehemiah). Thus, we already have a rebuilt temple to direct this prophecy too. This also assumes that a further future rebuilt Temple (from our vantage point) is what is in view in Matthew 24, 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 11, which is probably not the case in any of those citations as well.

7. Projecting Daniel 9:27 into the indefinite future reads in all sorts of other assumptions. It assumes that this is describing “The Tribulation,” and that this corresponds with the various events described in Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 6-19.

8. The dispensational view contains massive political and theological implications as well. If this interpretation is correct, then a third Rebuilt Temple needs to be constructed with revived Mosaic sacrifices, a theology foreign to the New Testament. If the book of Hebrews and elsewhere says those sacrifices were insufficient for sin and just a shadow of things to come, in what sense would this future temple be “God’s Temple”?

9. Also, those who want to rebuild the temple insist it must be built where the Al-aqsa mosque currently stands which is the third “holiest” site in Islam. If this mosque was destroyed to build a Jewish temple it would almost certainly bring with it an all out regional and religious war and utter chaos to the region and possibly the world. However, would probably excite many dispensationalists since it fits their popular doom and gloom outlook for world events.

Another issue here is that we can't even be certain that Christ is indeed the anointed one of the passage. Anointed One is capitalized in certain translations because the translators are assuming Christ is in view here (and that may indeed be the case). But the problem lies in deciding where to put a comma in the English translation of this text. Does the anointed one come after the "seven sevens" (49 years) or after both the "seven sevens and sixty-two sevens" (483 years). The RSV and several other translations render the verse as having the anointed one come after the 49 years, not after 483 years. This would make the anointed one Cyrus, Joshua, Zerrubbabel or other figures in the OT text referred to as "anointed ones." Thus, the Hebrew is not clear (the original language doesn't even have our modern punctuation!) and the numbers are probably symbolic anyway since trying to fit them into a neat and literal time frame for any of the interpretations ultimately doesn't work. This passage was traditionally seen as having Antiochus Epiphanes IV in mind as well as events of the Maccabean period. I Maccabees directly refers to Antiochus as the "abomination of desolations." Whatever the case, Jesus clearly reworks the prophecy to refer to destruction of the Jerusalem Temple by the Romans. Therefore, in the case of Dan. 9:24-27, whether intertestamental or first century events are in view, either seems a more plausible interpretation than the modern dispensational one which requires all sorts of interpretive gymnastics.

This being the case, why on earth put so much stock in theories based only on a couple of questionable verses? Especially considering the load of theological and political implications many Christians carry with them because of their view of this one single verse!