Thursday, June 26, 2008

A rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem?

Every now and again I get a visit from my father-in-law (God bless him) who is what could be termed an evangelical fundamentalist. Like many evangelicals, one of his big sticking points concerns the political nation of Israel, which he believes to be of some salvific or prophetic significance in God's plan. For him, the secular state of Israel has all of the same divine perogatives (and the same mission) that Old Testament Israel had after possessing the Promised Land. You could call him a Zionist, even more of a Zionist than many Zionist Jews, because he attaches much theological importance to the current presence of Jews in Israel. A particular element of this evangelical Zionism is the belief that (a) the Jerusalem Temple will be rebuilt, and that (b) this is a good and worthy thing and Christians ought to support Jews in their efforts to rebuild a Temple.

This brings up a wide range of issues that cannot all be dealt with here. How are Christians to relate to the modern state of Israel? Will there be a rebuilt Temple? If so, should the effort be lauded or denounced? Is there any further "prophetic" or salvific role for the people of Israel in the Church age?

Let's look just as this issue of a rebuilt Temple. First of all, if you don't believe me that many evangelicals are actively seeking to fund the rebuilding of the Temple, check out this article on the connection between evangelicalism and radical Zionism. But we ought to ask ourselves: will there be a rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem? Evangelicals base this belief largely on some prophecies in Ezekiel 40-47 in which a new Temple is described to the prophet. Evangelicals (mainly dispensationalists) have argued that this prophecy refers to a literal third Temple to be built at the end of time, which will be defiled by the Antichrist.

Two things are worth pointing out: the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have always viewed this prophecy as relating to the Church, just as the heavenly city with twelve gates mentioned in Revelation describes not a literal city to be built, but the Bride of Christ. This is a no brainer, but then again, Protestant dispensationalists are not known for accepting typological intepretations of Scripture, especially ones that glorify the Church. Second, we ought to realize that not even the rabbis who lived in New Testament times and read Ezekiel in its original language understood this Temple in a literal sense. Even they realized it was not a literal Temple.

Some Fathers, like Chrysostom and Jerome, agreed and asserted that there would be no rebuilt Temple.

But, there is no doctrinal reason why there could not be a Third Temple. A symbolic interpretation does not rule out a literal fulfillment. Some of the Church Fathers believed that the Jews would one day rebuild their temple. However, Catholic Tradition has always identified a rebuilt temple as a sign of antichrist. Hippolytus, writing in 200 and drawing on earlier commentary from St. Irenaeus, wrote:

"The Savior rose up and showed His holy flesh like a temple, and he [the Antichrist] will raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem " (On the Antichrist, 6)

Origen also (Contra Celsus, 6:46) is of the opinion that the Antichrist would raise a stone temple for the purpose of claiming divine worship.

Look at this extended quotation from Cyril of Jerusalem, who believes that the Antichrist rebuild the Temple for the purpose of convincing the Jews that he is the Messiah:

"And again he says, Who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God, or that is worshipped; (against every God; Antichrist forsooth will abhor the idols,) so that he seats himself in the temple of God . What temple then? He means, the Temple of the Jews which has been destroyed. For God forbid that it should be the one in which we are! Why say we this? That we may not be supposed to favour ourselves. For if he comes to the Jews as Christ, and desires to be worshipped by the Jews, he will make great account of the Temple, that he may more completely beguile them; making it supposed that he is the man of the race of David, who shall build up the Temple which was erected by Solomon . And Antichrist will come at the time when there shall not be left one stone upon another in the Temple of the Jews, according to the doom pronounced by our Saviour ; for when, either decay of time, or demolition ensuing on pretence of new buildings, or from any other causes, shall have overthrown all the stones, I mean not merely of the outer circuit, but of the inner shrine also, where the Cherubim were, then shall he come with all signs and lying wonders, exalting himself against all idols; at first indeed making a pretence of benevolence, but afterwards displaying his relentless temper, and that chiefly against the Saints of God. For he says, I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints ; and again elsewhere, there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation upon earth, even to that same time . Dreadful is that beast, a mighty dragon, unconquerable by man, ready to devour; concerning whom though we have more things to speak out of the divine Scriptures, yet we will content ourselves at present with thus much, in order to keep within compass" (Catechetical Lectures, 15:15).
St. John Damascene says that the Antichrist will come a deify himself in a Jewish temple, and that this temple will have nothing to do with the true faith: "not our temple, but the old Jewish temple . For he will come not to us but to the Jews: not for Christ or the things of Christ: wherefore he is called Antichrist" (De Fide Orth. 4:26).

Furthermore, we ought to recall the famous passage from Ammianus Marcellinus (a pagan historian) who recouted the attempt of Julian the Apostate to rebuild the temple. The work had to be abandoned after a few attempts due to flames that miraculously shot out from under the stones of the ruined temple and burned the workers.

Well, of course none of this has any merit with dispensationalists, who frequently "dispense" with the Fathers as if their opinions were no weightier than any other shmuck. Nevertheless, it is good to know what the Fathers taught on this matter of the Antichrist and the rebuilt temple, which is very obscure and confusing to many Catholics. There will probably be no rebuilt temple, andif there is, it is a sign of Antichrist. How can it be otherwise? For a rebuilt temple means a resumption of sacrifices, which means that the blood of the Son of God was insufficient, and that goats and bulls are needed instead. Don't get sucked into this dispensationalist-evangelical agenda about supporting the rebuilding of a new temple. It's blasphemous and redundant, period.


Jeffrey Pinyan said...

If the world (and even members of the Church) have trouble accepting the unbloody re-presentation of the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary at every Mass... imagine how the world (and some Jews!) would react to the resumption of animal sacrifices daily in the Temple!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the source on that story regarding Julain the Apostate. I'd been wondering about that lately.

Kent said...

Catholics need to open up the Bible. Daniel said it would occur and so did Jesus Christ when it comes to the Third Temple being rebuilt.

Boniface said...


Please elaborate where Jesus said there would be a rebuilt physical temple in Jerusalem.

jayzl said...

Kent, Jesus already fulfilled those prophecies by His bodily resurrection. Any other earthly Jewish temple with animal offerings would mean an attempt to undermine the sacrifice of the Cross.

Hitler Christ said...

Preterists have argued that this prophecy (Ezekiel 40-47) refers to Hanukkah (/ˈhɑːnəkə/ HAH-nə-kə; Hebrew: חֲנֻכָּה khanuká, Tiberian: khanuká, usually spelled חנוכה, pronounced [χanuˈka] in Modern Hebrew, [ˈχanukə] or [ˈχanikə] in Yiddish; a transliteration also romanized as Chanukah or Ḥanukah) is a Jewish holiday commemorating the rededication of the Holy Temple (the Second Temple) in Jerusalem at the time of the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid Empire. Hanukkah is observed for eight nights and days, starting on the 25th day of Kislev according to the Hebrew calendar, which may occur at any time from late November to late December in the Gregorian calendar. It is also known as the Festival of Lights and the Feast of Dedication.

Judah Maccabee (or Judas Maccabeus, also spelled Machabeus, or Maccabaeus, Hebrew: יהודה המכבי,[1] Yehudah ha-Makabi) was a Jewish priest (kohen) and a son of the priest Mattathias. He led the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid Empire (167–160 BCE).

The Jewish feast of Hanukkah ("Dedication") commemorates the restoration of Jewish worship at the temple in Jerusalem in 164 BCE, after Judah Maccabee removed the Hellenistic statuary.

The revolt involved many battles, in which the Maccabean forces gained notoriety among the Seleucid army for their use of guerrilla tactics. After the victory, the Maccabees entered Jerusalem in triumph and ritually cleansed the Temple, reestablishing traditional Jewish worship there and installing Jonathan Maccabee as high priest. A large Seleucid army was sent to quash the revolt, but returned to Syria on the death of Antiochus IV. Its commander Lysias, preoccupied with internal Seleucid affairs, agreed to a political compromise that restored religious freedom.

The Jewish festival of Hanukkah celebrates the re-dedication of the Temple following Judah Maccabee's victory over the Seleucids. According to Rabbinic tradition, the victorious Maccabees could only find a small jug of oil that had remained uncontaminated by virtue of a seal, and although it only contained enough oil to sustain the Menorah for one day, it miraculously lasted for eight days, by which time further oil could be procured.

The Temple is the church. Christ is the High Priest.

Boniface said...

Preterism - at least strict Preterism - is absurd.

I agree that the Church is the Temple of Ezekiel's vision; there is no way this refers to the cleansing of the Temple during the time of the Maccabees.

Stephan said...

I think Christians gloss over this whole vision too quickly, comfortable that it even fits with a metaphorical church. What do you do with the fact that Ch 45 and 46 mention that sin offerings will be offered to atone for the people and be accepted by God, and that the "Prince" will even offer *his own* sin sacrifice? What about how Ch 44 says "No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary"? How can you say that this "circumcision of flesh" is a metaphor for circumcision of the heart, when the prophet explicitly separates the two? These are just some obvious examples of how I don't see this fitting the Christian picture at all.

Anonymous said...

Stepan, from Ch. 45, about the Levites:
"2 Because they ministered to them before their idols and became a stumbling block of iniquity to the house of Israel, therefore I have sworn concerning them, declares the Lord God, and they shall bear their punishment. 13 They shall not come near to me, to serve me as priest, nor come near any of my holy things and the things that are most holy, but they shall bear their shame and the abominations that they have committed."

Of course, lots of the verses and chapters around Ezekiel's Messianic predictions are full of Jewish proscriptions for temple worship, offerings and what not, that sound more like policy rather than prophecy. Those sections also do not negate the other prophecies concerning the fulfillment of the Law, which speak of the lack of need for further offerings ("the lamb will walk with the lion"), as well as the raising up of the name of the Lord "for all peoples", thus canceling the circumcision requirement.

Obviously this blog can explain it much better. Thank God I could find it. Thanks and blessings to the author, interceded through the saints, praise be to Our Lord.

Anonymous said...

Also Stepan, in the line preceding the condemnation of the uncircumcised in heart and flesh, Ezekiel talks about sacrifices being offered in food, blood, and fat - I assume all sacrifices ever made in these 5000 years of Jewish history are meant to include the 3 substances always, by your reasoning?
Or, maybe easier, is to accept that the condemnation refers to those uncircumcised simultaneously in BOTH aspects, while not speaking of those only uncircumcised in the heart OR those only uncircumcised in the body.