On the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple

Gods Holy Mountain

There is an interesting dynamic that takes place when you listen to many of the comments made by Christians who identify themselves as Zionists, or supporters of Israel and the Jewish people, when signs of a rebuilt Jewish Temple are discussed. Quite frequently, their comments are overly negative. Because there is the Scripturally-based expectation that sometime after the Temple is rebuilt, the Antichrist will desecrate it, the Temple itself, or any plans to built it, are often thus treated as evil. But think about the logic here. The Antichrist will invade the land of Israel, but this doesn’t mean that we treat the State of Israel as evil. If the State of Israel didn’t exist, the Antichrist wouldn’t be able to invade it. Yet we support Israel. As we should. Yet many of these Christians who support the Jewish State will actually condemn the notion of a rebuilt Temple. Why a distinction between the resettling of the land and any effort to rebuild a Temple? Biblically, the Jewish people are commanded to faithfully steward the land until Messiah comes. Christians who understand the Scriptures support them in their efforts to do such. Likewise, the Jewish people are also commanded to offer sacrifices on the Temple Mount, so do I believe that we should support their efforts to do so. Simply because the Antichrist will in the future, for a brief time enter, violate and “trample” the Temple, this does not thus make the Temple, or the idea of a Temple, evil. Others will argue that any sacrifice at all is an abomination in light of the once-and-for-all sacrifice made by Jesus. While I would agree that it is only the blood of the Messiah shed on the cross that can truly atone for sins, this does not mean that any sacrifice made is thus an abomination. Far from it. After the cross, Paul and the early believers continued to participate in the various Temple rituals (Acts 21:24-26). And during the millennium, it is clear that some sacrifices will take place (Ezekiel 40-47). I’m quite sure these very brief comments will stir up a bit of controversy and will likely be misread by some, but essentially, my point is simply that so long as Christians continue to make clear the Cross of Jesus the Messiah as the only source of atonement and salvation, simple support for efforts to rebuild a Temple are far preferable to the finger pointing often cast toward the Jews as soon as the issue of a future Temple is discussed. In any case, an interesting article was featured today in The Times of Israel:

Jordanian minister accuses Israel of planning to erect the third Temple

  • William Struse
    Posted at 03:03h, 04 January

    Thanks for the article Joel,

    It brings to mind the words of Jeremiah concerning the Ark of the Covenant at a yet future date.

    William Struse

    Jeremiah 3:14-18 14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith YHWH; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: 15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding. 16 And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith YHWH, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more. 17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of YHWH; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of YHWH, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart. 18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.

  • Marcus Van Every
    Posted at 04:04h, 04 January

    Though I haven’t personally met anyone who expresses negative emotions toward the rebuilding of the third temple for the reasons you stated above, unfortunately it does not surprise me that many well-meaning followers of Christ feel that way. As a student of eschatology, I actually refer to the rebuilding of the temple as one of the most significant fulfillments of the last days and distinct markers of the great tribulation (Mt 24:15-22, 2 Thess 2:4). For me, the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem is just one step closer we are to our Blessed Hope, the glorious appearing of our God Jesus Christ! Let the beast have his day in temple. The True King of kings will come in blazing fire to destroy him with the power of His word, and then Christ will reign forever and ever, eventually regenerating the entire creation where there will be no more need for a temple in His holy city, because the Scripture is clear, “And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb” (Rev 21:22).

  • Chip Cloutier
    Posted at 15:26h, 04 January

    IMHO the temple has already been built. IT is the dome of the rock from where the islamic antichrist will rule.

  • Adam N.
    Posted at 16:08h, 04 January

    Yeah, all I see in the rebuilding of a Jewish Temple is a sign pointing to the 2nd Coming. I also believe that anything that the Jewish people do to get themselves closer to God is a step in the right direction as it is a step closer to them having a revelation of Jesus as the Messiah and true Heir to David’s Throne. Christians should support the rebuilding of a Jewish Temple…

  • David W. Lincoln
    Posted at 17:17h, 04 January

    Whether the temple is rebuilt, or not, you will find prayers for the Mahdi, taking place in churches.

    Roman Catholic Pope Paul VI, referred to smoke in the altar, and when this is combined with prayers for Nasrallah in churches, during the last incursion into Lebanon by Israel, to send Hezbollah, or Hamas, a message – does the actual building have to be built for it to be desecrated.

    As you know, Joel, Orthodox (at least, those in Slavic lands), have two words for church. One is Khram, and the other is Tserkva. Even though both are translated into “Church”, there are distinctions between the two.

  • Arley Steinhour
    Posted at 19:26h, 04 January

    Since the first five comments say what I would say, just: ‘Kaching’ and ‘Ring,’ me up as a ‘Me – Too.’ Thanks Joel; May Blessings shine on your pathway.

  • Kohl abramsen
    Posted at 20:19h, 04 January

    I disagree with you on this one dear brother, i don’t think we as christians should support a rebuilding of a third temple, rather we should be supporting the spread of the gospel of jesus christ amongst the jews. supporting a jewish temple just reinforces that judaism is right and jesus was wrong. jesus is the temple brother, john says as much, and we cannot point to the disciples participating in temple practices to justify as such. the temple existed then as long God allowed and until the moment he abolished it himself through judgement in 70 a.d. . we know that the jewish christians themselves under the leadership of none other than simon cleophas left jerusalem and the temple behind for Pella. the apostles continued worship at the temple was like david faithfully serving saul even though he was anointed as king he waited to reign until after God brought judgement on saul. but after the judgement david took to the throne, he didn’t install one of sauls sons in his place. the temple functions and the mosaic law have been fulfilled in the new covenant, the very covenant that we should be presenting to the jewish people. brother , i love the jewish nation, i believe they have a right to exist and defend themselves, they are loved by God just as all people are, and we should do everything we can that they might accept the gospel. this includes standing up against the anti-semitic attitude that prevails against them, but this shouldn’t include supporting steps like building a temple that lead them away from worshipping their true king jesus. if there is a third temple built it is phony, and the man of sin sitting in it will prove as such. if any temple should be built it should be built by jesus christ in the millennium.

  • Kurt J.
    Posted at 21:38h, 04 January

    While I agree with your thesis and support the temple reconstruction in theory, I don’t think there’s evidence in prophetic Scriptures that sacrifices need to occur prior to the 2nd Coming.

  • Joel
    Posted at 23:00h, 04 January


    The abomination that causes desolations and the ceasing of offerings is a central theme of the Antichrist’s ministry. It is explicitly mentioned four times in Daniel. Jesus, of course then places this event in the future:

    It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low. Daniel 8:11

    He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.” Daniel 9:27

    “His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. Daniel 11:31

    Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand. “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days. Daniel 12:10-12

  • Joel
    Posted at 23:04h, 04 January

    There is also an essential point here for those who claim that Christians should never support the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple, or the offerings that will take place there. Consider this fact:

    The ceasing of offerings are consistently referred to as an abomination. If they themselves were previously abominable, as so many Christians claim, then their ceasing would be a good thing. But the Scriptures refer to their ceasing as an abomination. Of course, some will say that “the abomination” is primarily the act of the AC setting himself up in the Temple. But if the Temple were an abomination prior to the Antichrist injecting himself, then his injection would not be an abomination. Instead, the Scriptures say that he will “desecrate” the Temple (Daniel 11:31). How can one desecrate something that is an abomination? One can only desecrate something sacred.

    Likewise, according to Paul, the Antichrist sets himself up in “God’s Temple”:

    He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. —2 Thessalonians 2:4

    How can something which is an abomination or evil be referred to as “God’s”?


  • Kohl abramsen
    Posted at 00:14h, 05 January

    2Thess 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself against every SO-CALLED god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

    just because something is “called” God’s doesn’t mean it is God’s

  • Joel
    Posted at 02:20h, 05 January

    You seem to be confusing two things. The Temple is God’s, but that should not be equated with other pagan gods, who are only so-called gods. Paul is referencing Daniel 11: 36-39.


  • Giles
    Posted at 05:26h, 05 January

    I think the analogy of David and Saul is a bit of a stretch if I’m honest. i dont think that anything temple is bad, as long as it does not replace salvation through faith in Jesus. in zech 14.16, it says that Jesus reinstates the feast of tabernacles, as well as giving punishments for nations who dont bother with it.

    You also mentioned jesus abolishing judaism – i dont think this is correct. Jesus came to fulfill judaism, not abolish it. (“Christian”, if you remember, is a name dubbed by nonbelievers which we adopted). Suppose the Jews had en mass believed Jesus is their Messiah when He was here the first time instead of calling for his crucifixion – what would you have called them?

    (just typed all that one handed while rovcking a bavy to sleep at 5am….im so awesome)

  • Jason Brown
    Posted at 05:48h, 05 January

    Joel, good article in which I do agree. The only thing I find a little confusing is that you don’t seem to use the same logic which you have employed here consistently. I agree that the desecration of the temple must take place so there is no use in fighting it or taking it out on Israel. Whether it is rebuilt with great intentions or with bad it still fulfills prophecy and that is a good thing ultimately. However, I have all of your videos and have noticed some things you have said at the conclusion of some of them that I find hard to understand. It seems that when it comes to some prophecies being fulfilled you have actually said we should pray against them in some way and have used the argument that we “shouldn’t go down without a fight”. If the rebuilding of the temple and it’s subsequent desecration are a done deal because of God’s prophecies, then would you use the same argument of praying against it happening? I mean no disrespect, I love you and the work you are doing. I just don’t understand the logic. Forgive me if I have misrepresented or misunderstood you in any way. I am praying for brothers and sisters in Christ who are suffering for His name, but I can’t see the point in praying that something that has been shown in prophecy to happen should be prayed or “fought” against. Let God’s will be done.
    God bless, Jason

  • Rodney Thompson
    Posted at 11:08h, 05 January

    Bless you as you encourage the Body of Christ. The last part of this article mentions how the Jews are prevented from worshipping from the Temple Mount. Pre-tribs claim the restrainer is the Holy Spirit, but I have yet to find anywhere in scripture (OT and NT) that identifies who the restrainer is (other than the one NT description that Paul describes to the Thess.). Of course I am post-trib, but have you found anywhere the restrainer is mentioned or described?

  • Joel
    Posted at 11:53h, 05 January


    We should fight against something if it is bad. Such as a nation being conquered or falling etc.


  • Joel
    Posted at 11:54h, 05 January

    Hey Rodney,

    As far as who the restrainer is, there are so many opinions. For me, its one of those, we’ll find out when we get there sort of things. Hope you are doing well bro,

    Bless you!

  • Kohl abramsen
    Posted at 13:37h, 05 January

    no confusion here, the expresion “called God” shows paul’s natural caution as a christian since the designation included the true God as well as heathen divinties. my point remains, calling the the temple “of God” is mere novelty, because it is clear from the NT that the church, and jesus have taken the place of the temple. 1 cor 3:17 anyone?just because it is called God’s house doesn’t mean it is one. the descration of the man of sin still applies because he not embodies and anti-christian but anti-thiestic revolt.he will seek to abolish all forms of worship by seeking to replace them, even if they are false.by the way i never said jesus abolished anything, rather he fulfilled it. jesus said there was coming a time when men would no longer worship at jerusalem. why? because the father was seeking after a more pure worship that would be brought through the new covenant and his spirit so why would sacrifices now be bad? because it would be regressing to an imperfect covenant, it would be saying that jesus sacrifice wasn’t enough. i don’t see how you can justify making sacrifices when the ultimate sacrifice has come.so here is a question if a temple is rebuilt and you are able to make sacrifices, will any of you do so?

  • Giles
    Posted at 15:33h, 05 January

    The antichrist wont rule over the entire earth – as is pointed out in the books, he will be fighting til the end – the king of the south, then ‘rumours from the north and east’, etc….meaning there will be some nations which do not fall under his control. So that gives us leeway to pray for your own nation, dont go down without a fight, etc…provided you are not living in e.g Saudi or Syria – in that case no prayers will change what is decreed for those nations. Just like the Temple – its decreed it will happen.

  • Jason Brown
    Posted at 17:24h, 05 January


    You said, “We should fight against something if it is bad. Such as a nation being conquered or falling etc.”

    Should Israel have prayed against Babylon taking them over and carrying them into captivity when God said it was going to happen no matter what? I don’t think we should pray geopolitical prayers as if to change God’s mind. We should pray that His will be done and we should pray for individuals that their faith doesn’t fail and that God’s will concerning them be done. We should help them via financial and mission support and pray for the children. But I don’t think it is acceptable to pray that biblical prophetic events be altered away from what God has already determined will happen. It will only cause people to become more politically involved and possibly responsible to a certain extent for the corrupt governments actions that are opposed to God. I look at Daniel and I see him finding in the scriptures in Jeremiah that they would be in captivity for 70 years. He did not pray for God to alter it or change it. He repented on his behalf and on his people’s behalf. That is where prayers should be directed, in the area of repentance and support for the helpless, not upon altering the geopolitical scale.

    God bless, Jason

  • Joel
    Posted at 18:24h, 05 January

    God told Moses that he was going to destroy the whole people of Israel and rebuild a new nation through Moses. But Moses interceded and God changed His mind.

  • David W. Lincoln
    Posted at 18:34h, 05 January

    Seeing that the Christians on the Old Calendar see tomorrow (as I write this) as the Sunday before Christmas, I thought you would like to see one of the OT readings for Great Compline:

    With that as the standard, anything that falls short of it results in desolation.

    Are we agreed on that, everyone?

  • Jason Brown
    Posted at 19:24h, 05 January

    This is not a correct comparison concerning Moses for several reasons.

    1. God did not change His plans about Israel. His plan could still be maintained through Moses because he was a descendant of Abraham to whom the promises were made.

    2. God had no intentions of completely destroying Israel as you assert because Moses was one of the people and he would have been spared. God’s plan called for a remnant as it did throughout Israel’s history and that is what He used.

    3. We are not in the place of Moses. God isn’t making an offer with us to take the place of a disobedient nation filled with evildoers by virtue of our bloodline through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

    4. God never offered to change His plans, only the allowable means by which He would fulfill it. In this case, the allowable means was through Moses since He was from Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.

    To use this as an argument for political activism on any level is a pretty weak argument IMO. As a Christian, where do you draw the line? Do you run for office? Join the military? Trying to thwart the plan and prophecy God has laid out will be unfruitful and I would beware of supporting political figures who are highly trained in the art of deception.

    God bless, Jason

  • chris
    Posted at 20:06h, 05 January

    Paul writes concerning the future temple and it’s desecration in 2nd Thessalonians: “Who opposeth and exalthet himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”
    In the verse above the temple is clearly described as ‘THE TEMPLE OF GOD’, and furthermore that temple is also described as a place where God ‘SITTETH’.
    There is no denying that the future temple is good and also that the Dome of the Rock in it’s present state is not the temple IMO.

  • Joel
    Posted at 21:09h, 05 January


    You’ve misunderstand my point. A great danger with regard to Biblical prophecy is falling into an abandonment mentality. Many Christians believe that the entire world is going to hell in a hand basket, and believe that they should simply sit back and allow it to happen. What if William Wilberforce didn’t attempt to fight against slavery because he didn’t think slavery would ever be abolished? We are called to work and even fight for what is right always. God is never pleased with a passive fatalistic approach to evil.

    Beyond this, many think they know what prophecy says will happen, but do not.

    Beyond this, you have completely misread the episode with Moses. Based on the Scripture, God indeed changed his stated plans because of Moses intercession. Its a perfect example.


  • Jason Brown
    Posted at 22:25h, 05 January


    Thank you for addressing my questions. I believe we will have to agree to disagree on this. You see the dangers of apathy and a fatalistic approach towards evil while I see the dangers of political involvement in geopolitics. I think we agree on the need for prayer and support for people who are hurting and suffering at the hands of evil men. I don’t think that is a give up mentality, but a realistic and compassionate approach. God bless you,


  • Perry Brown
    Posted at 22:28h, 05 January

    Revelation 11:1-2 “And there was given me a reed like unto a rod; and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is outside the temple, leave out, and measure it not, for it is given unto the Gentiles; and the Holy City shall they tread under foot for forty and two months.”

    The request that John received to measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worshiped within, is the same for the last generation. We are also to measure the temple and the altar and those who are worshiping, in the sense of evaluation, not to just write-off what is happening with the temple, but to apply effort to understand, in light of prophetic scripture, what is the purpose for this temple and the sacrifices that will be offered within. We cannot just write it off and say this is of no importance.

    Of course, the once and for all Sacrifice has been offered on the cross for all atonement and redemption purposes. The sacrifices that will be offered by Jews in the Tribulation period as soon as the temple will be built, ill not have no redemption purpose. We all know that.

    But remember that all Israel will be saved (come under Jesus’s redemptive work on the cross) only when the fullness of the gentiles have come in, and this has not happened yet. Until then Israel is still in blindness. Meaning that they have not yet recognized the atonement provided by Yeshua. They are still under the Mosaic covenant that requires animal sacrifices for atonement, even though, in God’s view point, it has no worth, whatsoever, on a redemptive standpoint.

    We, as the Church, while understanding that the future sacrifices and temple have no purpose for God’s redemptive purpose, should support the idea of the building of the third temple in Jerusalem, at least from the prophetic significance of the events that will take place in the near future. What does this support mean in a practical way? I do not know yet. When the time comes, for sure we will know how to relate to the issue.



  • Barnabas
    Posted at 22:37h, 05 January

    Most prewrath believers would probably see Michael as the Restrainer. This could find support in Daniel 12, where he stands, which is a verb that could actually be rendered standing still. This is interesting when you consider the other activity concerning Michael and the other events which take place precisely at the midpoint of the 70th Week.

    I would point you to a scholarly article by Colin Nicholl on this question. Nicholl is one of the leading authorities on the Thessalonian letters, and if I’m not mistaken he is the author of the NICNT volume on 2 Thessalonians:


  • Joel
    Posted at 23:10h, 05 January

    Jason and Perry both,

    Well said.


  • Bman
    Posted at 02:38h, 07 January

    Joel, great topics as always! As a Catholic I believe there is in fact already a daily sacrifice happening currently throughout the world, that is, the Eucharist. This is the daily re-presentation of the singular sacrifice of Jesus offered in the mass. I think it’s possible that Daniel was referring to this sacrifice as alluded to in Malachi. The Antichrist would seek to put an end to the Eucharistic sacrifice, as the ultimate anti-Islamic expression of faith and belief in the Son of God. This would be in accordance with the Mahdi’s mandate to “break the cross.” However, I do think it’s possible the Temple could be rebuilt as well, so perhaps both things are true. Antichrist could seat himself in the third Temple, proclaiming himself God, and demanding the end of all other religious worship and sacrifice (ie, Christian and Jewish).

  • Joel
    Posted at 05:25h, 07 January


    Okay Mr. Hahn. 🙂

    As much as I do value the historical emphasis on communion, I think it is exegetically better to see it as literally referring to the Temple etc. This also was the view of all of the earliest fathers who commented on these issues.


  • david alan cobb
    Posted at 13:26h, 07 January

    Psalm 56:12 “I must perform my vows to you, O God; I WILL RENDER THANK OFFERINGS TO YOU.” (ESV). This may not be the solution to the debate above; however, I know those who make it to the kingdom of Christ and see the splendor and majesty of Christ’s kingdom will certainly be thankful throughout all eternity.
    Blessings to those who agree and those who disagree also!

  • Frank
    Posted at 19:10h, 09 January


    I am curious as to your response to David Lincoln and Daniel 2:31-45?
    My understanding has always been that the Globe will fall under ‘the spell’ if you will, and rule of the Antichrist.

    Are there other scriptures to support that he won’t? Just curious, I am definitely fascinated with your work!
    God’s Blessing to you!

  • David Roberts
    Posted at 11:13h, 10 January

    I couldn’t agree more Joel.
    The temple that Yeshua and his disciples worshipped in was authorised by a pagan king – Cyrus and the Romans even put an eagle on it, yet Yeshua called it “My Father’s house.”
    And the NT Church was daily in the temple participating in the worship there.
    In order for the AntiChrist to desecrate the temple, there has to be some real holiness there or it wouldn’t mean anything. If you went to a rubbish dump and took a leak, no one would say you desecrating the rubbish dump, but if you went into a holy place and did that, they probably would, but logic aside, the Bible quite clearly, categorically calls the future (pre-return of Yeshua) temple, “The temple of…”
    Who? Whose temple? The AntiChrist? No, it calls it: “The temple of GOD”
    Not Satan’s, not the AntiChrist’s, but God’s own temple. Satan will desecrate God’s temple, not Satan’s temple. I realise I’m repeating myself, but some people need to think about this very carefully. Right now “Christians” are calling for boycotting and divesting from Israel, because they don’t see God’s hand involved with the return of the Jews back to the land of promise which God promised them, and I believe this same thing will happen when the temple is eventually rebuilt. People will not see God’s hand in it and call it a Satanic temple. Now, what was the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? When the Holy Spirit was working through Christ, yet the religious people said that it was Beelzebub, because they failed to see God’s hand. I dread that the very same thing will happen when God allows the Jews to rebuild the temple, just like He did, through the pagan king Cyrus the great! Think about that!

  • Aaron Livingston
    Posted at 12:21h, 12 January

    if you oppose the temple being built, you are fundamentally saying you want to stop Gods prophetic clock, it has to happen whether we like it or not, because it is prophecy. Judaism was cut out of christianity long ago with pagan phylosophies infiltrating the church. Judaism has been apart of Christianity ever eince Yeshua was born. He himself said “I did NOT COME TO DO AWAY WITH THE LAW, But Fulfill (Make a better understanding) Through ME”. Yes we dont support the temple in the eyes of Orthodoxy and what its used for in the tribulation. But support it in a view that Gods prophetic clock just passed that particular mark, and then its the exciting wait of the Messiah. They are ready, all thats left is the Anti-Messiah to turn up, a few more prophecies be fulfilled and the Treaty, and also the point where they dcide to start building.

  • kohl
    Posted at 09:51h, 13 January

    So we should support something simply because it has prophetic signifgance… i can think of about 20 ways that could go very bad… hebrews 8:13

  • Joel
    Posted at 11:46h, 13 January

    I would certainly argue that we do not support something simply because it is prophetic. We support that which is good. And even things which are prophesied, if bad, we resist.

  • david alan cobb
    Posted at 00:11h, 14 January

    I recently saw a program on Jerusalem/Israel and as it went into the different religions in Jerusalem: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam they said Islamic eschatology included bringing the Kaaba which is in Mecca to Jerusalem. Joel, could this be the incident that would bring about the “abomination that makes desolate?” Possibly the placing of this object “on a wing of the Temple?”

  • Joel
    Posted at 00:13h, 14 January

    I’d have to look into that. It seems to be an obscure reference. But I will have to look into that further.

  • Tim Warner
    Posted at 04:01h, 14 January

    Thanks for the article, Joel. I agree with you. I think a significant obstacle to the correct understand of the end-times Temple, and its role in Israel’s repentance, is the “dispensational” misinterpretation of Daniel’s 70-week prophecy.

    The “covenant” that will be renewed (lit- “strengthened”) for one “week” is the Mosaic Covenant that was made obsolete by the coming of the New Covenant. It is not some kind of peace accord established by the Antichrist. It is a renewal of the Law of Moses for national Israel, not so they can be saved eternally through it (the Law does not bring life — Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:21). But the Law ALONE provides the mechanism for national repentance, and God’s promise of national restoration (Deut. 30). This is why the Old Testament ends with a prophecy of the coming of Elijah just before the Day of the Lord, and the command to Israel, “Remember the Law of Moses, My servant, Which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, With the statutes and judgments.” (Mal. 4:4).

    In Rev. 11, the rebuilt Temple and those worshiping there before the altar (of sacrifice) are associated with the ministry of the 2 prophets, one of whom is “Elijah.” The worship in the rebuilt Temple at the direction of Elijah is not only prophetic fulfillment, it is necessary as a precursor to Israel’s final deliverance, and bringing them from their current state of unbelief to a place where God will redeem them. Thus, those who love Israel ought to be excited about the fulfillment of God’s plan for their national repentance followed by national restoration.

    The Temple in this case is not for Christians to worship, but for Israel as a collective people to cast themselves on the mercy of God. According to Deut. 30, He WILL respond with their eventual deliverance (after their faith is put to the test in the final 3.5 years).


  • David Roberts
    Posted at 11:54h, 16 January

    Tim Warner, have you read the book of Acts? The animal slaughtering Jerusalem Church of the Apostles of the Lord who were all zealous of the Law and the customs would disagree with you. This is a classic case of how false orthopraxy and event eschatology. Because people don’t realise that the Torah won’t pass away until heaven and earth pass away, they end up with faulty eschatology.

  • David Roberts
    Posted at 12:04h, 16 January

    There was a typo in the last post. Someone came to the door and I rushed the message. It should have said:
    This is a classic case of how false orthopraxy can effect eschatology.

    One further thing, when someone sees their Christ when reading about the Anti-Christ, that raises serious questions to me about whether that person is following the true Christ. My Christ is the one who upholds the Mosaic Law until heaven and earth pass away, who will establish it in the Millennium and rule the nations with a rod of iron, then all nations will stream towards Jerusalem and participate in animal sacrifice under Yeshua’s direction and it will be a pleasing aroma to the Lord.

  • Kohl
    Posted at 13:13h, 16 January

    david roberts said “In order for the AntiChrist to desecrate the temple, there has to be some real holiness there or it wouldn’t mean anything. If you went to a rubbish dump and took a leak, no one would say you desecrating the rubbish dump, but if you went into a holy place and did that, they probably would, but logic aside”
    then how did josiah defile (Tame’) topheth, and the false altar at bethel?
    2Kgs 23:10 And he defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Molech.
    2Kgs 23:16 And as Josiah turned, he saw the tombs there on the mount. And he sent and took the bones out of the tombs and burned them on the altar and defiled it, according to the word of the LORD that the man of God proclaimed, who had predicted these things.
    what is so hard to understand about nominal holiness? objects may be pereceived as holy, and not really be so, yet if they are perceived as such then they mayb defiled. that is the point of the anti-christ, he exalts himself above all that is called -God, whether it be actual or not. finally, i want to say that it saddens me that there are those who actually believe you can affirm jesus as the only way to salvation, yet encourage the jews to sacrifice in the temple that is useless. there is no way to hold the two in tandem. if circumcision is the first sign of the old covenat, and maybe called the least, and paul says that if you be circumcised christ shall profit you nothing, then how much more would looking too or supporting sacrifices in a temple make christ of none effect.you say we don’t support if for the same reasons, we don’t view it as orthodoxy does, well how do you think they view it.” oh look the nasrim are supporting the temple! see they know that yeshua was wrong!”” look he prophesied this temple would be destroyed, not one stone left unturned, but look we have rebuilt her!!” face/palm we have a new covenant!

  • David Roberts
    Posted at 10:07h, 17 January


    The answer to your question is obvious. Josiah didn’t defile the true and living God’s temple, but the topheth that belonged to who? The Lord? No, Molech. Are you telling me that when the Bible talks about the AntiChrist defiling the temple of God, it’s actually the temple of Molech that the AntiChrist desecrates? But there’s no logic there, because you always defile your enemies God, not your own God. The AntiChrist wouldn’t insult himself, but it would insult the true and living God, the same is true with the temple of God. If it was the temple of the AntiChrist, he would never desecrate it, because that would dishonour him.

    >what is so hard to understand about nominal holiness? objects may be pereceived as holy, and not really be so, yet if they are perceived as such then they mayb defiled.

    That’s only true when it comes to how pagans view the temples of their gods has being holy, from their perspective, but only the temple of the true and living God is truly to be honoured and respected.

    >Finally, i want to say that it saddens me that there are those who actually believe you can affirm jesus as the only way to salvation, yet encourage the jews to sacrifice in the temple that is useless.

    Would you say that it is useless for the Jews to come back to the land without faith in Christ?

    >There is no way to hold the two in tandem.

    The Jerusalem Church held both in tandem, and they walked with Yeshua during his entire ministry and didn’t just have the Gospels in English, but really knew where he stood of issues, and just as Yeshua was daily in the temple, participating in the sacrifices, so too was the Jerusalem Church many many years after the day of Pentecost. The Apostle Keifa (Peter) said that lawless men (who don’t believe and affirm the Old Covenant as still binding) twist Paul’s writings to their own destruction as they do the rest of the scriptures.

    >look he prophesied this temple would be destroyed, not one stone left unturned, but look we have rebuilt her!!

    So you understand that Yeshua prophesies that the temple would never be rebuilt? Then according to you Yeshua is a false prophet because the prophet Ezekiel said there would be a millennial temple, so obviously not one stone can be left unturned indefinitely.

    The point is that if you went back in a time machine to the year 39AD and visited the Jerusalem Church. You would see them eating kosher, keeping the Sabbath, prostrating down at the temple every day, watching them binding their tefillin on their foreheads and arms, and see them participating in Nazarite vows which include animal sacrifice. The faith of the Apostles is nothing like Protestant Christianity. It’s Jewish. Really Jewish.

    People think they understand Paul’s writings, but even Paul took Nazarite vows, and stopped preaching the gospel, so he could go back to Jerusalem for the three pilgrimages required by the Torah for every male Jew – Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. Paul wrote what he wrote for a specific target audience. If he was writing to 21st century American Christians, he would write something very different.

  • Kohl
    Posted at 14:15h, 17 January

    Heb 8:13 ​When He [Yeshua] mentioned the New Covenant, He was ‘declaring’ that the first one was obsolete and about to be repealed, and what was obsolete and failing will soon disappear.
    Heb 12:22 ​The Heavenly Realm But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living Aloha, to the Jerusalem that’s in the Heavenly realm, to the assembly of tens of thousands of spirit Messengers,
    the economy of moses and the economy of christ overlapped for a time , but when the temple was destroyed in 70 ad it was closed. we need not assume that if the jews attempt to revive the mosaic economy that we must pay obesciance to it.

  • Kohl
    Posted at 14:16h, 17 January

    and i believe ezekiel was being non-literal just saying

  • David Roberts
    Posted at 11:18h, 18 January


    Notice Hebrews 8:13 says, “Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” It doesn’t say ‘what is already obsolete and already old has already vanished away’, but speaks of a time in the future when it will vanish away.
    From the perspective of eternity, it is already like it has passed away, yet the whole council of the Scriptures is crystal-clear and empathic that the Torah will remain valid and enforced until the end of Christ’s rule at the end of the millennium when heaven and earth pass away.

    >The economy of moses and the economy of christ overlapped for a time , but when the temple was destroyed in 70 ad it was closed.

    There is no scripture that says that, and scripture in hundreds of verses that speak against what you’re teaching.

    >we need not assume that if the jews attempt to revive the mosaic economy that we must pay obesciance to it.

    It won’t be the Jews doing their own thing, but fulfilling what God has specifically commanded them to do! What you call “The Jews attempt,” is really the work of God!

    And we must pay obeisance to God and His business.

    >and i believe ezekiel was being non-literal just saying

    Of course you don’t believe in the plain meaning of what Ezekiel wrote. If you did, you’d have to change your beliefs. As long as you’re prepared to say what you’ve been saying to the Jewish King of Israel when he returns and take whatever his response is, ok. I won’t try and change your mind, you don’t have to answer to me, but the Jew Yeshua.

  • David Roberts
    Posted at 11:30h, 18 January

    And this message isn’t direct specifically at Kohl, but anyone reading.
    I just want to repeat. Without orthopraxi, one will have a false eschatology, but with a correct eschatology, one will change their practice to match their eschatology.

    I have known people who started keeping the Sabbath because the prophets are very clear that in the Millennium all Believers will do so, but if you reject Orthopraxy and desecrate the Sabbath, then you will marginalise, ignore and spiritualise away the verses that talk about that coming reality in the future, and pretend they don’t exist, because the instant you see where we’re going, you’ll have to choose, ok. How do I want to adjust my life according to this knowledge. If Yeshua is pro-sacrifices, pro-Sabbath, pro-new moons, not just for the Old Testament times, but for the Millennium, and the Jerusalem Church continued to do these things decades after Yeshua died on the cross, then what does that say about how I should live me life? If you pretend the Bible’s eschatology will not happen, then you can just say, oh those Jews in Jerusalem, the ones that spent years of their lives with the Lord, and knew him intimately, the ones that raised the dead, and were truly filled with the Holy Spirit and true prophesy, oh those Jews, they didn’t get it like we do. We understand the Apostle Paul so much better than they did. I’ve known Pastors to speak exactly like that, speaking evil of those whom Yeshua deliberately left in charge of His Church, which is to bring Yeshua’s judgement into question. These are the ones who sit on twelve thrones before the LORD God Almighty and the Lamb in heaven, yet anomians think they understand better than they do. Once the Torah Kingdom is established, there’s going to be utter shock for many Romanised Christians.

  • Joel
    Posted at 20:51h, 18 January

    The truth is almost directly in between the positions of Kohl and David Roberts.

  • Kohl
    Posted at 23:12h, 18 January

    this is my last comment on this as well, this is a difficult format to express ones views without being misunderstood by the other,i want to say in defense of myself and other who hold similiar views as mine, is don’t assume that we don’t take into account the historical/cultural context in which the new testament was written. i enjoy reading the targums,rashi,i have a copy of the socinio chumash that i consult.i’m not an antinominist, i believe there is a law of the kingdom, that we as christians must follow, and much of it is simpy the old covevant law reapplied, expanded for the new covenant. i just don’t believe in confusing culture with theology, i take issue with any interpretation that regulates me to a 2nd rate christian status because i don’t wear tefilim or have a mezzuot on my door.

  • Joel
    Posted at 23:33h, 18 January

    Or more importantly, that you are actually in sin if you don’t wear the tefillin, etc. Sadly, there are many who would go this far.

  • David Roberts
    Posted at 03:23h, 19 January

    Just for the record, I don’t hold that it is a sin for a babe in Christ not to wear tefillin. But I do believe for natural branches raised up in the law since childhood, to abandon the commandments when coming to “a christ” who changes set times and set laws (who is not the Christ of the Bible) is sin. And I believe it would have been a historical reality that pagan Gentiles joining the Jerusalem Church would have become more and more like the natural branches over time, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and by the hearing the law every Sabbath day. So there’s grace, but grace for growing in the ways of God which includes obedience to God’s law. Grace for staying stagnant with respect to God’s commandments, is not Biblical grace. Anyway, I only talked about this issue, because those who close their eyes to the Law, have a massive blind spot when it comes where the Law meets eschatology.

    If one rejects the Torah, one will reject what the Bible has to say about the future temple before the return of Christ, the temple of Ezekiel which Yeshua will offer sacrifices in, all these Scriptural verses and realities will be sidelined and spiritualised away because of what’s blindness to the Law. That’s my main point. And it will ultimately mean people fighting against the will of God, just like Christians fight against the modern state of Israel calling for divestment and to boycott all Israeli products, etc. If the third temple is the will of almighty God, and because people are blind to the Law they will reject the will of almighty God, I fear for their souls!

  • Joel
    Posted at 11:46h, 19 January


    There are few interpretations of the conclusions of the Jerusalem Counsel of Acts 15. What was required of Gentile converts? Some see the requirements as (1) Torah now. Some see (2) Torah never. Some see (3) Torah eventually. Some see (4) Torah if they choose. You seem to hold to Torah eventually. I hold to Torah if they chose, with freedom. I believe “Torah eventually” is impossible to argue in light of the resounding conclusion as “no” specifically as it related to “the Law of Moses”, as well as the many other passages throughout the New Testament that speak to this issue. Unlike those who hold to “Torah eventually” and see the four issues as merely an introduction to Torah observance that would steadily be increased, I see the four issues as related to renouncing any participation in the Roman pagan cult rituals, common among the gentiles of the time through the Empire.

    The problem with your comments is that you see either full acceptance of Torah or complete rejection as the only options. Thus “if one rejects Torah, they will reject” Ezekiel’s sacrifices etc. But this is only partially true. Those in your position are also hard pressed to acknowledge that the sacrifices and even feasts that take place during the millennium have changed. There must be room for allowing for a continuance of sacrifices and feasts, while also allowing for the reality that that the Old is fading away.

    Your general point is well taken. Those who hold to an extreme replacement theology cannot reconcile sacrifices etc in the future, nor would they have any room for a Temple in Jerusalem. However, when Messiah comes, He will teach us all His ways. Until then, many committed Christians do make sincere efforts to serve Him with clean consciences according to the Scriptures. In your zeal to help others, just be careful not to pass judgment over them regarding a feast day or sabbath, as this also is commanded against.


  • David Roberts
    Posted at 03:55h, 20 January

    I just want to say I really appreciate your response, and the spirit with which you wrote it. And yes, you’re right that I was ignoring the reality of the group of (4). Mainly, because I never come across it. The vast majority of the Believers I know either fall into (1), (2), or (3), though very rarely I’ve heard (4) articulated. One of (4)’s favourite verses is about one acknowledging a day, and one not, and how both are brothers and how we are not to judge each other, because the Lord Yeshua will judge us all on that great and awesome day, so I appreciate you drawing my attention to that fact. Yes, what you say is absolutely true, group (4) will have no problem with Torah observance Eliyahu and Moshe… unless, Eliyahu and Moshe turn out not to be (4) themselves.

    >I believe “Torah eventually” is impossible to argue in light of the resounding conclusion as “no” specifically as it related to “the Law of Moses.”

    If Acts 15 was the only passage, I would hear you, because there is that emphasis in the passage, but I see that emphasis as a response to the Pharisees who wanted to turn the Gentiles into Pharisees, which the answer was absolutely no. The other thing (4) ignore, at least in my honest opinion, is the tense of “turning to God.” It wasn’t talking about Gentiles who were strong mature Believers, but babes in Christ, so I see the “No” as specifically referring to those who are “turning”, not those who have “turned,” and have been taught in the ways of God for many years.

    If you take someone with gender confusion, who’s had a really screwed up life, the last thing they need is a lot of Pharisaic rules, but to learn sexual purity and know there new identity in Christ and learn to abide in the Love of God and the Peace of God. Once there’s a strong foundation, then when they come on the Sabbath day to hear the Law, and see the Apostles keeping the commandments, they can incorporate more of God’s instructions into their lives, but in that early stage, it’s very important not to put a stumbling block in front of them, but let them get sorted out with God. At least, that’s how I see it.

    Anyway, thanks for your response. And though I will not put myself in Christ’s chair, I do worry for those who will resist the work of God and might end up blaspheming the Holy Spirit in the future. I mean, I’ve heard (2) enjoy talking about how Pharisees were so blind for saying that Yeshua cast out demons by Baʿal Zəvûv, and how they didn’t know Eschatology properly, but I’m afraid that those who boast against the natural branches will have the very same response as the Pharisees had to Yeshua, to Eliyah and Moshe when they come.

    That they will see these two holy prophets of God as being false prophets and doing signs and wonders by the power of Satan, which will be blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because Eliyah and Moshe won’t match their denominations position on the Law. Do you think that is a stretch? If Eliyah and Moshe put on tefillin every day and teach believers in Israel to keep the Law, don’t you think some Christians will call them false prophets? Thus fulfilling what the Apostle Paul said about God cutting them off for boasting against the natural branches. What do you think?

    Peace bro, be well.

  • Nick
    Posted at 13:29h, 20 January

    I do think that the relationship between God and all people is so different because of the saving work of Christ that the comparison between our day and Cyrus’s day is inapt. When Cyrus and other Gentiles lent their aid to the cause of the Temple and made pronouncements honoring the God of Israel, the way into the holiest through Messiah Jesus was not yet made known. The difference between those sacrifices and the sacrifice of Christ (and what they cleanse) is, as we know, the difference between the patterns of the things in the heavens and the heavenly things themselves.

    Yes, there may be some Christians who sincerely seek to give honor to the Lord through the Third Temple, fully understanding its limitations. However, to aid unbelieving Jews in building it and worshiping there will necessarily point them towards Temple sacrifices as their atonement. At the very least, condoning it is a statement that we don’t keenly feel the need to announce the New Covenant as the means God has appointed to approach Him.

    It’s also worth noting that, spiritually, Jerusalem is described as “Sodom and Egypt” until the time Christ returns.

    As for the two witnesses, we simply don’t know how they will express their “Jewishness.” There is certainly precedent for prophets ignoring (or contravening) Torah at the behest of the Holy Spirit for the greater purposes of the Lord. That may bother many Christians, but Elijah himself offered sacrifice outside of the established Torah order on Mount Carmel and obviously God accepted same.

  • David Roberts
    Posted at 03:21h, 21 January

    When you say, “There is certainly precedent for prophets ignoring (or contravening) Torah at the behest of the Holy Spirit for the greater purposes of the Lord.”

    I would agree that they could and would temporarily suspend commandments, but they never permanently abolished or abrogated them. So if they will suspend certain commandments that should be expected, as long as their general emphasis was calling Israel back to obedience to the Law which is לעלם, till the end of the world/age. It’s important to remember that the Law calls Israel to accept the prophet like Moses as the Lord said, “whomever will not hear My (YHWH) words, which He (the Messiah) speaks in My name, I will require it of him,” but if the Law is not valid, why should they listen to the prophet like Moses?

    It’s important to remember that the temple complimented the sacrifice of Christ, and wasn’t standing at enmity with it.

    Acts 13:39 says, “by Him (Christ) everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses,” which obviously means that the Law could justify you for some things, but not everything, hence the necessity of the sacrifice of Christ.

    Also Hebrews 9:13-14 says,
    “For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

    So the NT Church had both, by going to the temple their flesh was purified by the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, but their conscience was cleansed from dead works to serve the living God by the blood of Christ.

    It’s not a case of either or, but both and.
    The Jerusalem Church accepted the sacrifice of Christ, AND continued to participate in the daily Temple sacrifices, as this is one part of New Testament faith.

    Now I understand the objection of unbelieving Jews going to the temple without faith in Messiah, but what about believing Jews like the Jerusalem Church? If it was good and right, to continue in the temple service decades after the day of Pentecost, and they did this, not by blindness, but by true faith in God by the direction of the Holy Spirit – remembering that these Apostles were hand picked by the Lord, sit before him on thrones in heaven, and could raise the dead, and could prophesy to leave Jerusalem before destruction came, shouldn’t their precedent be continued when the temple is rebuilt? Unless we think we know better than the Jerusalem Church, which I say is pure arrogance. We should imitate them, as they imitated Christ.

  • David Roberts
    Posted at 09:56h, 21 January

    Since the elections are so close, I’d like to point out that the Jewish Home party only has 3 seats in the Knesset, but according to various polls they’ll have about 14 seats after the elections – that’s a massive change to the political climate in Israel. One thing they’re for is passing reforms, including new Basic Laws, which will allow the Holy Temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem. They also stand for defending the land where Abraham built his four altars, the land that God promised Abraham, especially, Judea and Samaria. Part of why the Israelis are supporting the Jewish Home, I bet, is because of Obama and Morsy.
    So all this talk about the temple, isn’t so hypothetical, but is approaching us in the near future – I say within the next decade.

  • Nick
    Posted at 04:25h, 22 January


    Again, no matter what arguments we put forward, if we assist unbelieving Jews in building the Temple, we are undercutting the necessity for them to look to the Brazen Serpent.

    I can’t agree with your logic… you’re saying that if the Law is abrogated we can’t follow Jesus because it’s the Law that tells us to do so? This needs no refuting, but the Promise of a Redeemer goes back to Genesis 3 and was in God’s Mind from the foundation of the world.

    No, the Temple did not stand in enmity to Christ but it would require those with the faith of Christ to even rightly understand it once Jesus had come. Isn’t this the point of the Letter to the Hebrews?

    The sanctifying of the flesh of course refers to ceremonial purifications and so forth. I won’t elaborate on the distinctions, but obviously, that same passage shows us that the sacrifice of Christ cleanses the heart.

    You say,

    The Jerusalem Church accepted the sacrifice of Christ, AND continued to participate in the daily Temple sacrifices, as this is one part of New Testament faith.

    If this is one part of New Testament faith, then no Jew has been saved since 70 A.D.!

    You may be worried about inhibiting the expression of the faith of a Messianic believer, but I fear for the Jewish people who (like Orthodox Jewish men pathetically slaughtering a chicken and declaring it to be their atonement) can only be hardened in their unbelief by seeing that edifice arise. Because it speaks to them that YHWH has accepted them without any reference to Messiah.

  • Joel
    Posted at 11:12h, 22 January


    I’m just popping in here, having not really read through the comments in full. I would disagree that merely supporting (as opposed to opposing) Jews in their efforts to rebuild, we are by necessity, undercutting the necessity for them to look upon Christ. We live in a time when its almost impossible to imagine the Temple functioning in full swing, after the cross. Bu we must remember that for well over 30+ years, this is how the Apostles lived. They met together regularly in the Temple, which infers to me that they participated in the Temple system. Were they by necessity undercutting the need for Jews to look upon Christ? One might even argue that if a Temple were rebuilt, it would be the obligation of orthodox Messianic Jews in particular to become involved so as to to bring a witness of Christ to the Temple. Abandonment is often the vacuum that allows the heterodox or unorthodox to come in and bring their witness. And I have no question, they will be there. So one could equally argue that avoiding or abandoning the Temple system would be to leave it without a proper witness. In fact, a big part of the Witness of believers if a Temple were to be rebuilt, would be to point out that according to the Law, according to the Scripture, the Temple system has never been able to bring atonement. Mind you, there are many forms of sacrifice and atonement is merely one of many.

    One of the reason I bought this up is because in imagining the reality of a Temple someday being build, I also recognize the theological crisis it will bring among believers. I just figured I would begin the discussion a bit early.

    And for clarity, I do not think that Gentiles would ever have any obligation to participate in the Temple system. Messianic Jewish leadership, on the other hand would have to wrestle through these things much more seriously.

    Here’s an article worth pondering, somewhat related, but not entirely

    Appreciate you Nick.


  • David Roberts
    Posted at 11:59h, 22 January

    @Joel, one question.

    What do you make of Acts 2:8,10?
    “And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? … both Jews and proselytes

    Do you hold to the position that Gentiles who had fully converted to Judaism and been going to the temple for years, then came to faith in Messiah, suddenly stopped going to the temple?

  • David Roberts
    Posted at 12:28h, 22 January


    “If we assist unbelieving Jews… we are undercutting the necessity for them to look to the Brazen Serpent.”

    The historic approach of Christians has been to persecute Jews into accepting Christ. Just read Dr. Brown’s book – our hands are stained with blood.

    Do you believe assisting the modern state of Israel while still in unbelief is “undercutting the necessity for them to look to the Brazen Serpent?”

    Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps if the Jewish people experience more support and true unconditional love for them, like the Father has for them, that perhaps they’d see there’s something more to our faith than they might have first considered?

    Another thing is that the Bible commandments us to “be blameless.”
    Even if the Law was abolished (which it isn’t), there is precedent for doing it anyway. I’ll give you two examples:
    Yeshua still paid the temple tax, even though he specifically told his disciples that he didn’t need to pay it, but what did he say?
    “But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.” Matthew 17:27
    And don’t forget his baptism, unless you’re going to tell me that Yeshua had some sin that he needed to be baptised, but he did it anyway. Why? To fulfill ALL righteousness. Even the Apostle Paul said,
    “We are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of man.” 2 Corinthians 8:21

    “You’re saying that if the Law is abrogated we can’t follow Jesus?”
    I’m saying the New Testament wasn’t written in a vacuum, but the Tanakh was the only Bible New Covenant Believers had, and to rip out it’s validity, is to rip out the foundation of the NT which is built on top of it, much like you can’t believe in evolution and truly accept the Bible on a plain and simple meaning – what the author intended – level.

    “but it would require those with the faith of Christ to even rightly understand it once Jesus had come. Isn’t this the point of the Letter to the Hebrews?”
    I noticed you didn’t come out and say anything, but hinted instead. What are you saying?

    “If this is one part of New Testament faith, then no Jew has been saved since 70 A.D.!”

    Why? I would also say that the Ark of the Covenant is part of our faith too, but the Ark of the Covenant wasn’t in the second temple, does that mean Yeshua and the Apostles should have rejected it? There are some Christians that live in areas where water is scarce, so they can not be baptised in running water, but only have a cup poured on them, are you going to say they’re not saved because they weren’t fully submerged into running water? I think God is bigger than that, but that doesn’t mean that when you have the Ark of the Covenant, when you have a river to baptise in, when you have x, y, z, that you don’t make the most of them.

    “But I fear for the Jewish people … can only be hardened in their unbelief by seeing that edifice arise.”

    The temple will teach them the need for what? BLOOD sacrifice and atonement. Most Jews today think it’s all about pray, but the temple will force them to come to terms with their need for blood. And I currently understand (though I could be missing something) that Eliyahu and Moshe will come 3½ years after the temple is built, and then to everyone’s horror the AntiChrist will halt the sacrifices, where’s there atonement then? Then Eliyahu and Moshe can teach them about how Yeshua is their sacrifice.

    “Because it speaks to them that YHWH has accepted them without any reference to Messiah.”
    Can you not get over them being in unbelief for now?
    I’ll tell you this. Whether or not you like their attitudes and thought processes, the temple will go ahead anyway. The only question is how many Believers will get involved, but Yeshua preached and taught in the temple all the time. So did the Apostles. What a terrible testimony it will be to the Jewish people for the Christians who have always persecuted them and hated everything Jewish, to bad mouth the miracle of the rebuilding of the temple, which could never happen without the permission of Almighty God. Believers going to the temple will be us shining our light before others, that they may see our good deeds and glorify our Father in heaven.

  • Joel
    Posted at 13:53h, 22 January


    A proselyte was someone in the process of converting to Judaism. During this process, they would have behaved as any other Jew. However, Acts 15, much of Galatians, Romans 14, and several other passages are clear that the Holy Spirit did not see conversion to Judaism as necessary for Gentiles to enter into relationship with the God of Israel. Today far too many Gentiles who believe that observing Torah to the letter is obligatory for all believers, including Gentiles, certainly fall into the Galatian error of Torah-dolatry and risk losing their salvation entirely. If they wish to convert to Judaism, not as a mean of obligatory obedience, but a a means of walking out the unique Jewish expression of bearing witness to the world, may certainly do so, but should do so fully.


  • David Roberts
    Posted at 02:33h, 23 January

    >A proselyte was someone in the process of converting to Judaism.
    That depends if you go by Karaite Judaism or Rabbinic Judaism, in Karaite Judaism it means what you said, in Rabbinic Judaism, it means someone who is not physically Jewish, but has entered into the Jewish nation and is a Jew by choice, as opposed to someone born into it, at least that’s what גר צדק means.

    During this process, they would have behaved as any other Jew. However, Acts 15, much of Galatians, Romans 14, and several other passages are clear that the Holy Spirit did not see conversion to Judaism as necessary for Gentiles to enter into relationship with the God of Israel.

    I would say that it’s important to note that these communities were not living in the Holy Land. I would say that the Gentiles living in Jerusalem and Judea would have a much higher ratio of embracing the lifestyle of the Apostles and the tens of thousands of Jewish Believers who were all zealous for the Torah. Otherwise they’d stick out like a sore thumb, and it would subtract from their sense of brotherhood and being of one spirit.

    >Today far too many Gentiles who believe that observing Torah to the letter is obligatory for all believers, including Gentiles…

    Just for the record, I don’t hold to a works based salvation, but I do believe the fruit of NT faith is growing in holiness, which includes the commandments of the Torah. Some are further down the road than others, but the important thing is that we’re all moving towards the goal – becoming more Christlike and living as he lived.

    One of my favourite Messianic quotes is this.
    Messiah is our example, NOT our excuse.

    >If they wish to convert to Judaism, not as a mean of obligatory obedience, but a a means of walking out the unique Jewish expression of bearing witness to the world, may certainly do so, but should do so fully.

    When the descendants of the Jerusalem Church were still alive and thriving, that would have been possible, but history seems to indicate that the Catholics and Muslims carried out genocide against them. The Catholics killed as many of them that would not desecrate the Sabbath and eat swine’s flesh – that’s a documented historical fact, and the Muslims, well, you know why the Muslims would have killed them.

    So now it’s like being in exile on Tatooine after the Sith Lord wiped out the Jedi council and took over the Empire.

    p.s. Do you know the Shi’a source that Isa will come several years after the Mahdi?

  • Joel
    Posted at 12:22h, 23 January

    “I do believe the fruit of NT faith is growing in holiness, which includes the commandments of the Torah.”

    This simply is not Scriptural. And the error is in the fact that you are confusing a few categories. Converts to Christianity and Proselytes are two very different things. The letter of Torah was given to Jews, not Gentiles. If you are a Gentile, then nowhere does NT faith expect you to observe the outward letter of Torah. Only the spirit of Torah which is summarized in loving God and neighbor. When you do these things you fulfill Torah.

    “Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.” —Romans 13:8

    “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” —Romans 13:10

    For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” —Galatians 5:14

    I have many very sincere and quite zealous friends who I love, who in an effort to argue that Torah observance is expected of all Christians, or all believers, must twist Acts 15 and too many other portions of Scripture. If one equates holiness with the wearing of tzittzit, eating kosher, and celebrating the feast days, etc., then one’s notion of holiness is simply not Scriptural. I have no problem with those who do these things because they desire to. But once it is treated as something that is required or is equated with holiness versus unholiness, it has become Torah-dolatry, plain and simple. This is why the exegesis and interpretation of books like Galatians and passages such as Acts 15, by some teachers within the Hebrew Roots movement is so strained and requires such magnificent hermeneutical backflips. It is also why some have tried to argue that the entirety of the Greek NT manuscripts which we have today are unrelaible and need to be reverse engineered into a “Hebraic mindset”. etc. The Word of God simply does not support their view, and so they must find a way to change it, not much unlike the Jehovah’s Witnesses of the past. And sadly, as it is well known, why so many within the Hebrew Roots movement have actually gone so far as to reject Paul or leave the faith altogether and convert to some form of Judaism. Why is this such a problem in the Hebrew Roots Torah-observant world? There simply must be room for an acknowledgement that the Apostles and Jesus were in fact zealous for Torah because they were Jews, but an equal acknowledgment must be made that Gentiles were never expected to become Jews or observe the letter of Torah in order to be in relationship with God.

    But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.” (convert to Judaism and become Torah observant)… After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. “And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” Acts 15:5-9

    Not sure of the Shia source…

  • Nick
    Posted at 16:41h, 23 January


    I concur wholeheartedly with your thoughtful and important comments above. I see this mentality at work frequently. The laudable desire to honor the natural branches or the root becomes something else entirely. These things convince me that many of the church’s enemies at the end of the age will be her original ones, among them being Judaizers. Galatians 6:12 comes to mind:

    It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.

    We must safeguard our hearts and recognize the point at which a desire to give due honor (and make amends for Christian anti-Semitism) becomes something else, which is honoring the flesh.

    I note in this connection that the nascent Sanhedrin has done something interesting which can further this apostasy, which is to create the new monotheistic religion (no mean feat) of Noahidism.

    Rather than reject Paul, we do well to heed his words in Romans 3:21 that God has now revealed to us a righteousness without law (which doesn’t mean without the Torah but means without reference to matters of obedience or disobedience). Significantly, Paul says that this righteousness is witnessed to by the law and the prophets. This, the Torah itself, in Paul’s teaching, contemplates its own futility as a system which can order Man’s relationship to God in a way that pleases God.

    Such thoughts are why Paul must ultimately be jettisoned outright for Judaizers to succeed.

  • Joel
    Posted at 20:07h, 23 January

    Yes, all old heresies seem to be resurfacing once again in these last days. Gnosticism on one hand and Judaizing on the other. Both reject the power of the cross for opposite reasons.

  • David Roberts
    Posted at 05:39h, 27 January

    “Torah was given to Jews, not Gentiles.”

    The Torah was given to the Jews (i.e. tribe of Judah), along with all the other tribes, and all the Gentiles who left Egypt with the children of Israel. Now if you were to say, that was just an exception, the Torah explicitly teaches against that when it says, “All of you stand today before the Lord your God…the Geir (those grafted in from the nations) … that you may enter into covenant… I make this covenant and this oath, not with you alone, but… also with him who is not here with us today.” Deuteronomy 29

    So if the Law was only given to the Jews, to the exclusion of the nations, then Rehab from Jericho and Ruth the Moabite would have never been permitted to join God’s nation, covenant and laws.

    “Nowhere does NT”

    There is this hermeneutic which is frequently cited whenever Christians want to dismiss the Law, which is:
    Any valid commandments are explicitly repeated in the NT, so it doesn’t matter how clearly God stresses them in the Hebrew Scriptures, if it’s not in the NT, it counts for nothing. What is really convenient is that whenever it suits them, they’ll borrow freely from the Tanakh, so long as it isn’t something that doesn’t make sense to their intellect.
    e.g. Tithes is not clearly taught in the NT, yet pastors quote from Malachi 3:10 to support spiritually tithing to the Church, yet the context is talking about tithing to the holy temple in Jerusalem, which is another kind of replacement theology, by replacing the sons of Aaron with the Church. If you told this hermeneutic to the Jerusalem Church, they’d look at you like you were from another planet. Another example is the silence of the NT against bestiality, yet again, this hermeneutic of a repetition in the NT being requirement for a commandment being valid is ignored, while they borrow from the Law of Moses, which clearly teaches against it. I don’t think most people are aware of how inconsistent they’re being, but from a hermeneutic perspective, they’re clearly being duplicitous. Why is it that this trump card is only selectively applied when the topic of the Law is brought up?
    And if throwing out the Tanakh wasn’t bad enough, many teachers say that what Yeshua taught, was to those ‘under the old covenant’, and so is not valid for the NT Church, which in effect means that we only let Acts thru Revelation speak to us, though most people will focus in on Paul’s letters.
    Just for the record, are you saying that concerning the Gentiles that the Torah is not “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work,” just the NT?

    “The letter of Torah… Only the spirit of Torah…”

    Surely you know that the spirit of the Torah is Jewish expression for interpreting the Torah correctly, while reading the Torah according to the letter is to misinterpret its intent?

    “Which is summarized in loving God and neighbor. When you do these things you fulfill Torah.”

    Yes, we fulfil the Torah when we love God and our neighbour the way the Bible tells us to, and how does the Bible tells us to love? We “love him by keeping his commandments.”
    Deuteronomy 7:9, 11:22, Nehemiah 1:5, Daniel 9:4, Joshua 22:5, John 14:15, 21, 15:10, 1 John 5:2-3, 2 John 1:6

    Yeshua said, “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments (loving God and neighbour),” but that doesn’t mean we should embrace love in isolation to the Law and the prophets, it doesn’t mean that we should consider love to be all that matters – the Gay Churches use the same argument, they say that sense we’re no longer under the law and love is all that matters, therefore, as long as Gays love each other, they’re doing nothing wrong, but the love that the Bible talks about is a specific kind of love as defined by God, throughout the entire Bible, including the Tanakh.

    And it’s important to say that the tens of thousands of Jewish believers all exclusively zealous for the Torah in Acts 21 would have had no problem with the statement that love is the fulfilment of the Law, but they would understand that completely differently to how protestants understand the statement.

    “twist Acts 15”

    If Acts 15 turns the entire Hebrew Bible on its head, then it’s not scripture, so I seek to reconcile Acts 15 with the Tanakh like the noble Bereans did, to see if those things were so. It’s also worth pointing out that lawless men twisted Paul as they did the rest of the scriptures. It wasn’t lawful men that twisted it, but men working without the law.

    “If one equates holiness with the wearing of tzittzit, eating kosher, and celebrating the feast days, etc., then one’s notion of holiness is simply not Scriptural.”

    The whole chapter of Leviticus 11 is about eating kosher and how does it finish?
    “You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps; nor shall you make yourselves unclean with them, lest you be defiled by them. For I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves, and you shall be holy; for I am holy. Neither shall you defile yourselves with any creeping thing that creeps on the earth. For I am the Lord who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

    Numbers 15:37–40 says this, “The LORD said to Moses, Speak to the people of Israel, and tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations… to be holy ones to your God.”
    As for the feast days, I can’t immediately think of a verse, but two out of three shows what truly is scriptural.

    “I have no problem with those who do these things because they desire to.”

    You realise that’s the same attitude some worldly people have towards Christians. If you want to go to Church, fine. Each to their own, just don’t tell me how to live my life.

    I just want to say that this is not an argument of Scripture, but over the lens, the glasses, the hermenutics, the presuppositions, grid and framework one approaches the Bible with. I say that protestants are using Roman glasses, left over baggage from the Catholic Church, and that we need to approach the Bible with the perspective of those in Acts 21, who asked Paul to carry out animal sacrifice.

    It’s important to remember that you eternal state and position in the kingdom of God is dependent on how many commandments you kept in your life and how many others you were able to teach to keep the commandments too, at least that’s what the Lord Yeshua said, when he said, “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments (of the Law or the Prophets v17), and teaches men so (which is 99.9% of Christianity), shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them (the commandments of the Law and the Prophets), he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness (in context – righteous by keeping the Law’s and prophets’ commandments) exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (who were hypocrites and forsook the greater commandments, only keeping the lesser commandments, by Yeshua said to do both, not leaving any undone), you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

  • Joel
    Posted at 10:36h, 27 January


    The gentiles who left Egypt with the Hebrews had joined themselves to the Hebrews. Once again, you are essentially trying to make a Proselyte and a convert to Christianity the same thing. Acts 15 doesn’t turn the whole Bible on its head, but it was a shock to the Jews of the time. But you are admitting that it is in conflict with your position. Again, once one goes down this road of demanding Torah obedience for Gentiles, its not long until they simply cut Paul, or all of the NT, right out of their Bible. Again, if one chooses to eat kosher and wear tzit-tzit, etc., that is their choice, but to demand that others do so is demand the exact thing that the Holy Spirit and the Apostles did not demand. In my opinion, those in this position are in great danger of falling from grace, the very warning Paul made throughout Galatians.

  • David Roberts
    Posted at 13:54h, 27 January

    I just saw a statement of a friend’s friend, on his facebook page.
    I’m sharing it because the timing and relevance.
    He made this statement regarding the pre-second coming of Moses and Elijah:

    “They will not teach others to ‘do’ the law because they full well know that ‘doing’ the law is not an ability of anyone. And if they thought so then they would be blaspheming the Holy Spirit.”

    So while I may be wrong about some things, I want to state the difference between myself and people who feel like me vs people who think like the man I just quoted.

    If Elijah and Moses told me to adjust my theology, my actions, my attitudes, I will listen to them. I will humble myself and follow their instructions, even if it doesn’t matter sense to me, or I don’t like it. But that other group will be busy calling them false prophets, ignoring them, and blaspheming the Holy Spirit working through them.

    You said,

    “However, when Messiah comes, He will teach us all His ways.”

    And that’s absolutely true, but we won’t have to wait that long, that we will be able to learn from Moses and Elijah before the Lord returns. That’s the whole point. To prepare the way and the Believers for the Lord when he comes back in glory and brings fire on the land. And when the Lord does come and bring Judgement day with him. Those who spent 3½ years with them changing their mindsets, hearts, attitudes, worldview, thinking, actions, will be ready to lift up their heads and be at the Lord’s right hand, while the others will be on the left, with the Lord telling them, I never knew you. So while I might be wrong about some things, granted, at least I’ll be willing to accept correction from them.

    How many Believers will be so willing to completely give themselves over like that? To be completely loyal and humble that way?

  • David Roberts
    Posted at 13:57h, 27 January

    For the record, I’m not saying you won’t listen to them Joel. I think you’re smart enough to know when these two men bring fire down from heaven and cause thousands of Jews to become Believers, then even if they understand the NT differently to you when it comes to the Law, they’ll still be the real deal, but I wish other Christians would have that awareness that you do.

  • Joel
    Posted at 21:03h, 27 January


    Two points; If anyone comes preaching another Gospel, an angel or otherwise, the BIble says that they accursed. On the other hand, if two men arrive, whom I am convinced are the two witnesses and call on me to adjust my thinking, I’ll be happy to do so. As for what other will do, I cannot say, but ultimately, its not my job to judge mens hearts. I just want to stay humble before him myself.


  • Alecz
    Posted at 21:44h, 03 February

    Remember what we’re asking for… In the day that the walls ( temple) are to be built, in those days will the decry be far removed. Also even during war will the temple be being built. World war 3 starts on the same day that the temple will be started. The temple committee even states at the end of their document that the new world order is keeping the temple from being started.

  • Alecz
    Posted at 22:11h, 03 February

    The two candlesticks before God or the two witnesses are Elijah and Enoch. Not Moses. In genesis it says that Enoch went to live with God and was no longer on the earth as God took him because he loved him so. If Elijah and Enoch were the only two ever taken by God. Does it not seem logical that the only two that can return are the only two taken. Moses is sleeping and was not taken by God. Other than Jesus and the two witnesses, none have gone to heaven. Jesus said where I go you cannot follow.
    Is it not written in Malachi that God sends one last prophet. Behold I send you Elijah before the day of doom.
    Is it not also written that the great Nile river is dried up before the temple is to be built, the dry bed becoming a highway for Gods people to bring their offerings to the temple.
    Five cities also break from Egypt to join Israel and Syria as one country.
    Isaiah 19.
    Hosea 4:3 is where we are now in Mathew 24 during the age of sorrows

    And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 KJV)

  • Morpheus
    Posted at 14:29h, 26 February

    the temple will not come till begin of millenium (people believe not because of wrong greek traduction) , see strong words

    in other words, the antichrist will sit exactly in the santuary of the mosque dom of the rock wich is written “Allah has no son, no god but Allah…”



    PS/ see video, 2 witnesses Revelation and islam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF-wab7w-fY

  • morpheus
    Posted at 03:14h, 03 March

    After the persecution of jews by muslims during the invasion in israel (Apoc 11)


    God himself will destroy the mosque of temple mount (earthquake)


    then at the end of the war, the third temple will be build (NOT BEFORE, problmes of greek traduction)


  • Alecz
    Posted at 09:26h, 07 March

    Morpheus. I guess you will have to wait until the two witnesses to return before you will listen to reason. I pray that you survive world war 3 and that you find that only through his son Jesus Christ will you ever find the way to God.

  • morpheus
    Posted at 01:12h, 08 March


    what is your problem with my hypothesis ? i hope some argument, not just a small comment like this…

  • Randal Tucker
    Posted at 02:46h, 23 March

    What is the argument against accepting that the “withholder” or “restrainer” in Thess. is not the Body of Christ/Church? I dont think that the Holy Spirit is to be removed because it is by Gods Spirit that anyone is drawn to him and evidently people will , indeed , be drawn to God during all times. The phraseology of the scripture lends itself to cause me to think that , in a pre Trib action, the Church will be transposed/translated at this time and thus remove the hindrance to the advance of the cause of the AntiChrist. Thank you

  • Randal Tucker
    Posted at 02:51h, 23 March

    I add to Alecz comments on Elijah and Enoch being the 2 witnesses: It is written that it is appointed unto man , once to die. If this is so, and these 2 Prophets have not experienced this in their lives, as Moses has, would it not seem that they would return to fulfill this requirement?

  • fab
    Posted at 04:08h, 19 June

    I recomand you this book “Islam in Bible Prophecy”


  • Joseph
    Posted at 13:58h, 28 September

    Joel, have you debated this before with other people? I would like to hear how you reason for a future temple more thoroughly. This topic is not only contentious but is connected to much or even all of the prophecies concerning Israel today. It is one of the ways that Israel will be truly recognized as God’s people, as it is written in Ezek. 37:28 “And the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever.” How could one understand a more thorough explanation of this topic?

Post A Comment