There isn't a Third Temple. At least not yet. But many Jews and Christian Zionists are clamouring to built it on the Temple Mount where there now stands the Muslim Dome of the Rock. Several ultra-orthodox groups in Israel have already begun making preparations for a restored priesthood to serve in the yet-to-be built Third Temple. As far back as 1998, an advertisement appeared in Ha'aretz, a popular Israeli newspaper, with this request:
Children wanted for future Temple service. Ultra-orthodox Jewish sect is searching for parents willing to hand over newborn sons to be raised in isolation and purity in preparation for the rebuilding of the biblical temple in Jerusalem. Only members of the Jewish priestly caste, the Kohanim, need apply.1
It should come as no surprise that Jews, and especially Orthodox Jews, should wish to rebuild the temple their ancestors lost some 2000 years ago. But what is a Christian to make of this? As noted above, many Christians, and especially North Americans of Dispensationalist and Zionist persuasions, are already more than aboard; in fact, many of them are buying the Orthodox Jews the vehicles they want and volunteering to drive for them as well. Whatever we may think of them we still need to understand the place of the temple in this.
It is not a point I have come across in any of my reading so far,2 but it dawned on me one night in my studies recently that there is in fact no theological necessity for a physical temple in either the Old Testament or in Judaism. A number of observations establish this.
First, modern Jews have lived, as of 2020, 50 years short of two millennia without the temple. If a temple was a theological necessity, Judaism would have gone out of existence a long time ago. Just as a computer ceases to be a computer in any meaningful sense of the word if its CPU is removed, so a thing ceases to be if and when what is a necessary part of its significance has gone missing. Yet Judaism thrives among the Jews. Taking Judaism to include the faith of the Old Testament saints as well, Judaism has not have the temple for far longer than the time it did. According to 1 Ki 6:1, Solomon began building the temple in "the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign," and took twenty years (1 Ki 9:10); this brings us to about 946 BC. The temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586/6, its rebuilding completed in 515. It was destroyed again in 70 AD. In the nearly 3500 years that Israel has been in existence, the temple was there less than 1000 years. This suggests that we have allowed ourselves to be mistake the visibility of the temple in Israel history for its necessity to all that Israel means.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the physical temple was never a theological necessity in the Old Testament. As part of the process of establishing His covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai, God appointed for the tabernacle to be built and specific instructions for its construction were given (Exo 25). The idea of the temple, on the other hand, was a human initiative. One day, after David had built himself a palace, he felt bad that here he was enjoying the comfort of a palace of cedar while God still dwelt in a tabernacle of curtains and rods. He announced to Nathan the prophet his desire to build the Lord a temple. Nathan approved, but during the night the Lord came to him with a word for the young king (2 Sam 7:5-16, NIV):3
Go and tell my servant David,'This is what the Lord says: Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in? I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, "Why have you not built me a house of cedar?"'
"Now then, tell my servant David,'This is what the Lord Almighty says: I took you from the pasture and from following the flock to be ruler over my people Israel. I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you. Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men of the earth. And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people shall not oppress them any more, as they did at the beginning and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies. "'The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall endure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.'"
The first thing that strikes us in this passage is the Lord's near indifference both to the temple itself and to David's plan to build one. Absent is any excitement and gladness in the divine voice that at last one of His worshippers should notice the relative neglect of the divine dwelling place and the quick approval of the worshipper and his thought of the project. Even if Yahweh's response could not be said to be outright rejection—it would be postponed—it is clearly muted. Striking also is the introductory question: "Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in?" (v5). What is the significance of this question? (The parallel account in 1 Chron 17:4-17 has a direct statement instead; "You are not the one to build me a house to dwell in" instead of a question.)4 The first impression is that it is a mild rebuke for David's audacity in thinking that he would be the (fit?) king to build Yahweh's house. If so why? What lies behind this rebuke? No where about here do we find an answer, if indeed it was a rebuke. What is notable in the rest of Nathan's report to David is concerned entirely with what Yahweh could and would do for David and with what David could do for God.
David, in fact, never gave up thinking about building the temple. For a long while we hear nothing of it as we plod through the thick jungle with sordid sex, murder, and internecine fight for power until Solomon had finally come out as the proclaimed successor. In a gathering his council with him and his son, we finally hear in a rather long passage what had gone on in David's mind all these long years (1 Chron 28:2-21):5
King David rose to his feet and said: "Listen to me, my brothers and my people. I had it in my heart to build a house as a place of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord, for the footstool of our God, and I made plans to build it. 3But God said to me,'You are not to build a house for my Name, because you are a warrior and have shed blood.' 3But God said to me,'You are not to build a house for my Name, because you are a warrior and have shed blood.'
4"Yet the Lord, the God of Israel, chose me from my whole family to be king over Israel for ever. He chose Judah as leader, and from the house of Judah he chose my family, and from my father's sons he was pleased to make me king over all Israel. "5Of all my sons—and the Lord has given me many—he has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel. 6He said to me, 'Solomon your son is the one who will build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father. 7I will establish his kingdom for ever if he is unswerving in carrying out my commands and laws, as is being done at this time.'
8"So now I charge you in the sight of all Israel and of the assembly of the Lord, and in the hearing of our God: Be careful to follow all the commands of the Lord your God, that you may possess this good land and pass it on as an inheritance to your descendants for ever.
9"And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the Lord searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you for ever. 10Consider now, for the Lord has chosen you to build a temple as a sanctuary. Be strong and do the work."
11Then David gave his son Solomon the plans for the portico of the temple, its buildings, its storerooms, its upper parts, its inner rooms and the place of atonement. 12He gave him the plans of all that the Spirit had put in his mind for the courts of the temple of the Lord and all the surrounding rooms, for the treasuries of the temple of God and for the treasuries for the dedicated things. 13He gave him instructions for the divisions of the priests and Levites, and for all the work of serving in the temple of the Lord, as well as for all the articles to be used in its service. 14He designated the weight of gold for all the gold articles to be used in various kinds of service, and the weight of silver for all the silver articles to be used in various kinds of service: 15the weight of gold for the gold lampstands and their lamps, with the weight for each lampstand and its lamps; and the weight of silver for each silver lampstand and its lamps, according to the use of each lampstand; 16the weight of gold for each table for consecrated bread; the weight of silver for the silver tables; 17the weight of pure gold for the forks, sprinkling bowls and pitchers; the weight of gold for each gold dish; the weight of silver for each silver dish; 18and the weight of the refined gold for the altar of incense. He also gave him the plan for the chariot, that is, the cherubim of gold that spread their wings and shelter the ark of the covenant of the Lord.
19"All this," David said, "I have in writing from the hand of the Lord upon me, and he gave me understanding in all the details of the plan."
20David also said to Solomon his son, "Be strong and courageous, and do the work. Do not be afraid or discouraged, for the Lord God, my God, is with you. He will not fail you or forsake you until all the work for the service of the temple of the Lord is finished. 21The divisions of the priests and Levites are ready for all the work on the temple of God, and every willing man skilled in any craft will help you in all the work. The officials and all the people will obey your every command."
First notice that v3 repeats the statement of its earlier account (17:4) instead of the question in the parallel account in 2 Sam 7:5, but it also adds the vital piece of information we need to understand the thrust of the question in 2 Sam. Putting these pieces together we may reconstruct a "fuller" version of 2 Sam 7:5 as something along this line: "Go and tell my servant David, 'This is what the Lord says: Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in seeing that you are a man of violent warrior who have shed blood?'" If our reconstruction is correct, then our initial impression that the question was a rebuke is also affirmed. Given the violence he had been subject to, he had initiated, participated in and perpetuated, it is arrogance indeed that he should even think of such a thing. The temple, should it ever be built, would have to be left to a man of peace, in fact, a man chosen to be "my son" (v6). Yahweh would never entertain the idea of a violent means to a glorifying end seems to be the plain implication here.
Second, notice that the plan for the temple was entirely what David would have it, the layout of the storerooms to the divisions of the priests and Levites to the weight of the gold for this and that article to be used in the temple. God had asked David if he was the man to build Him a house and David had acknowledged that he was not. It is clear from the above account that he had, as the expression goes, kept the word of the prohibition but not its spirit. It is true that twice in the passage above there are words that hint at the possibility that David had been guided by God in all these plans. Let us look at them in more details.
The first hint appears at v12: "He gave [Solomon] the plans of all that the Spirit had put in his mind for the courts . . . " (NIV, NKJ). We recognized these words as the report of the Chronicler, not David's, and are, therefore, divinely revealed and authoritative. A quick comparison of the various English translations, however, will reveal that this is not likely the case. The word ru'ach does appear in the Hebrew text but the word is used in such a way that it implies nothing more than one's thoughts and is, therefore, more accurately translated as we find in the RSV, NASB, NRS, ESV along the line "and the plans for all that he [i.e., David] had in mind." Even the good old KJV does not capitalize the "spirit" to suggest that any thing divine was involved.
The second hint comes in v19: "All this," David said, "I have in writing from the hand of the Lord upon me, and he gave me understanding in all the details of the plan." Here it is David who claims that his plans are divinely inspired. He obviously has a strong interest in impressing on those present who would carry out its execution that this was the case. But is it likely that, having said that David was not the man to build the temple, God would then go on to let David to—de facto—begin the building process by inspiring him with the plans and the detailed instructions for all the items? From all that we know about Yahweh, is He the kind of God who would keep the letter of the prohibition He had himself proclaimed so strongly through Nathan but go light on its spirit?
Many studying about the temple for the first time are often surprised when they discover that the ground plan for the Jerusalem temple is essentially those of temples everywhere in the Levant. They expect to find a temple uniquely different because it was Yahweh's temple. Instead they discover that if you have seen the plan for David's/Solomon's temple, you have seen the plans for all the others and vice versa. Any differences are found in the details not the ground plan. And, now that we have read the the relevant passages more carefully, we can begin to see why. The structural requirements of a huge (compared to their times) building like a temple is such that one cannot be very innovative given the state of their technology. Once a workable plan is discovered, little gets change for a long while. David could not wander very far in his creativity, whatever claims he may make about having it "in writing from the hand of the Lord."
But the artificiality—i.e., it being an object of mere human creativity—is nowhere more clearly obvious than when we compare the differences in the account of the construction and dedication of the tabernacle and that of the temple. Both accounts take up large chunks of the biblical texts; the tabernacle in Exo 25:1-31:11 and 35:4-40:38, the temple, as noted above, in 1 Ki 5:1-66//2 Chron 2:1-7:10. The latter accounts are full of human activities and Solomon's speeches. He appoints Hiram to bring the cedar from Lebanon, sents Huram from Tyre to make this, and everywhere in the texts "Solomon made" this, "he laid" that, and "he overlaid," "he carved," "he panelled," "he covered," "he partitioned," "he prepared," "he covered," and then "he made," and "he made" more. No one in Scriptures was ever so busy as Solomon was in these chapters. God had no part in it, except to appear once to Solomon to say, "As for this temple you are building, if you follow my decrees, carry out my regulations and keep all my commands and obey them, I will fulfil through you the promise I gave to David your father. And I will live among the Israelites and will not abandon my people Israel" (1 Ki 6:11-13), three short verses in all these chapters). Even here He did not seem very interested in the temple, saying nothing specific about it once He had "introduced" the subject. It is almost to say, "Don't get carried away with it. Obedience is what pleases me, not the temple." When we turn to Exodus, we find that the verb "make" appears just as busily. The difference is that it comes as Yahweh's instructions to Moses about what was to be done. It was Yahweh who dictated the dimensions and weight of this and that, and "chosen Bezalel . . . and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge . . . I have appointed Oholiab . . . to help him" (31:1-6). When it came to the doing, it was always "they made" this, "they also made" that—a community project inspired and instructed by Yahweh, not a one-man show.
We may round off what we have studied so far by saying this: Yahweh did condescend to occupy the temple; "the priests could not perform their service because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled his temple" (1 Ki 8:11; 2 Chron 5:14) as it did the tabernacle, without fanfare or speech in either case. And the prophets unanimously preached that the temple was the house of the Lord. And yet Yahweh attitude towards it always remain indifferent. Ezekiel, e.g., saw in his vision that, once polluted and the people turned disobedient as it was, the glory of Yahweh did not hesitate to leave depart it, nor did Yahweh spare it from being razed by the Babylonians. If the idolatry of the nation in the time of Jeremiah provided a reasonable cause for its demise, what we may ask was the reasonable cause for it destruction under the Romans at a time when concern for the law, as represented by the hold of Pharisaism, ran so high in the nation? Yet "not one stone sill bd left on another." All these, we suggest, affirm our early assertion that there no theological necessity for the temple. If it was there, fine, God would use it. If it wasn't, it did not matter. God was found in the temple to begin with, and more powerfully than anyone else Daniel and Ezekiel demonstrate that the temple was never necessary for a robust life with God or for access to Him—the sacrifices no longer made notwithstanding; the Mosaic law did not come to an end. And the last two thousand years affirm this. This brings us to another question.
Modern orthodox Jews are adamant—especially adamant are groups like the Gush Emunim and the Temple Mount Faithful—that the Third Temple should be rebuild on the Temple Mount, even if it means—and almost everyone is certain that it will be so—a war probably unlike anything we have seen before. The Dome of the Rock on the Mount is Islam's second holiest site after the Ka'aba in Mecca.
If there is no theological necessity for the temple why are Dispensationalist and Zionist Christians so enthusiastic about helping right-wing Jews build the Third Temple? Before we look at this, let us turn to see what
Low Chai Hok
©Alberith, 2020