It's not necessarily true that a new Temple must be rebuilt in Israel before the Abomination can take place. The very scripture in Daniel which associates the Abomination with the Temple site suggests this to be unnecessary. That scripture, according to the English version in the margin of my Hebrew interlinear, reads like this:

"And in the middle of the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease, and on a corner, desolating abominations, even until the end"(9:27).

There you have it. The "abominations" will be caused "on a corner" (Hebrew word, KANAPH). On a corner of what? The text does not enlarge any further. We are left to figure it out. Why has God done this?

What's the difference whether the abomination is in the center of the temple, or on one corner or another, or to the east side versus the west side? I don't see any reason to be so specific, unless the temple isn't there when the anti-Christ arrives to it.

Some English Bibles have translated "corner" as an aspect of the Temple or altar. The NIV translators thought to use, "on a wing of the temple." That seems acceptable, but the translators of the King James Version were so unsure of the purpose in Daniel's use of "kanaph" that they translated the word, "overspreading." I don't understand how that translation could be plausible unless the wings of a flying creature is in view. But how does one get to a bird or something similar from a word that doesn't remotely mean an animal in any way?

Other translators: "on the wing of abominations shall come/be one who makes desolate" (e.g. RSV, NASB, NKJV). It sounds like a flying dragon. But this translation is like a knucklehead, or something seeking to cover-up the reality.

The thrust of the text is to expose a desolator applying something abominable to a section of something...not to the whole thing, just a portion. Jesus helps us somewhat to identify this "wing" or "corner" by telling us that the Abomination will be applied to "the holy place" (Matthew 24:15). Do you see anything there that denies the existence of a temple in the last days? I do. Why doesn't he say, "temple"? Why "holy place" instead?

The phrase used by Jesus has been taken to mean the very sacred "Holy Place" within the Temple building. I totally understand how one could assume such a thing. It makes perfect sense, unless the temple isn't there. And so consider the same phrase, "holy place," used also in Acts 6:13, where it is a general reference to the temple and yet not to the Holy Place within the temple building:

"This man [Stephen] does not cease speaking words against this holy place and the Law, for we have heard him saying that Jesus the Nazarene will destroy this place..."

The Holy Place and the Most Holy Place are referred to in the book of Hebrews, but instead of using "holy place" or "most holy place," the writer calls them the "Holy" and "Holy of Holies" (9:2-3). And while the writer of Hebrews capitalizes these terms for the purpose of indicating God's sacred rooms within the Temple building, the "holy place" in the Acts quote above is not capitalized.

The writer of Hebrews makes it very evident that the capitalized Holy is not identical to the non-capitalized "holy" that the same book uses to refer to the sanctuary as a whole:

"So then, the first [covenant] had ordinances of service and an earthly holy..." (Hebrews 9:1).

Both the King James and the NIV render the "holy" here as "sanctuary," not as the "Holy Place." It is only two verses later that we find the capitalized terms, "Holy" and "Holy of Holies," and the writer goes on to show that these sacred rooms were in the "holy," thus distinguishing the "holy (place)" from the "Holy (Place)." Never does the writer of Hebrews, nor any other New-Testament writer, use "holy place" to indicate the Holy (Place). In light of that, consider now the "holy place" of Acts 21:28:

Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; he even brought Greeks into the temple to thus profane this holy place."

Sounds like the anti-Christ, but it is just the apostle Paul, who was being accused of profaning the "temple," which we can see has the alternative name of, "holy place." Because the Greek word for "temple" here is hieron, which can depict the temple grounds in general -- the courtyard or the building -- the "holy place" should be viewed likewise.

Clearly, Paul was not bringing Greeks into the Temple building, and especially not into the Holy (Place), was he? No, but he was merely bringing them into the Temple grounds. And I say all this to show that the "holy place" used by Jesus in Matthew 24:15 can be referring to the Temple grounds in general.

Therefore, we need to deal with the question of whether the abominations will be applied to an edge/corner of the temple building, or to an edge/corner of the temple grounds. The word in question in the Daniel prophecy is "kanaph." Strong's Concordance suggests that, in relation to anything having four sides, such as the rectangular holy site, "kanaph" can represent "a quarter" in conjunction with "extremity" or "edge," so as to denote a "quarter edge" or a "quarter extremity." While the English section of my Hebrew interlinear has attempted to bring out this quarter aspect by translating "kanaph" as "corner," the Hebrew word could just as well refer to one of four sides, whereby the NIV's use of "wing" becomes very suitable.

As a matter of fact, the Biblical phrase, "the four kanaphs of the earth," does not sit well as "the four corners of the earth," and does much better as "the four ends of the earth." The Bible does not speak of the four ends of the Earth from the standpoint of an astronaut in space, but from the standpoint of a person standing on the ground: i.e. north, east, south and west.

Still, the use of such a term to denote the temple is unusual in the first place. Why didn't Daniel just say "temple" if that is what God intended? But then, only God knew in Daniel's day that the Jewish holy place would, in the last days, be a small section of one western wall, called the Wailing Wall. There you have a new theory that nobody has heard before, as far as I know: the abomination is predicted by Daniel to be at the Western/Wailing Wall.

This Western Wall was one of four, not of the temple building, but of the very outer walls which surrounded the entire temple site, outer courts and all. Therefore, it may be hasty to translate kanaph as an edge/wing of the Temple altar, as does the NIV. As kanaph is defined as "an edge" or "extremity" in Strong's concordance, the Wailing-Wall sanctuary on the extreme western edge/wing befits the word very well.

Daniel does not, as all others prophets do not, tell us that the temple building will be trampled by the anti-Christ's invaders. Consider Daniel 8:11, where, instead of the temple building being stipulated as the brunt of the anti-Christ's actions, "the place of His sanctuary was cast down." Why does the prophecy use "the place" instead of "the temple"?

Verse 26 of Daniel 9 tells of the destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70 AD, and it is just in verse 27 that we read about the abominations being set up on the "extremity." Notice how there is nothing said about the reconstruction of the building between its verse-26 destruction and the verse-27 abominations. Therefore, it becomes obvious why "an edge" is used since only one edge of the site was left standing by the Romans.

Long after the Romans, some Jews requested from the Turks a small area on the western wall's exterior face (120 square yards) for worship purposes, and when they began to wail loudly there for the re-establishment of Israel's long-gone glory, the sanctuary was dubbed, "the wailing wall." We must entertain the idea, then, that the anti-Christ may apply the abomination on or near this piece of the western wall, which, as far as the modern Jews are concerned, is the Jewish sanctuary. A sanctuary may certainly exist apart from a building, and it would be hard to convince a religious Jew that the mere grounds of the Wailing Wall area is not a sanctuary, or that the prayers and petitions offered on its patio are not "sacrifices and offerings" to God. Can some small-animal sacrifices start up there soon?

When we turn to Revelation, we see that it's not the temple building, but only the outer court, which is given to the Gentiles for trampling:

"Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and the ones worshipping in it. And throw outside the outside court of the temple, and you may not measure it, because it will be given to the nations, and the holy city they will trample forty two months" (11:2).

I am not imagining things, for this verse tells me that the outer court alone will be given for trampling, which now belongs to the Muslims. This outer court is not the grounds outside of the Western Wall, which ground belongs to Israeli's, but the inside the Western Wall. How can enemy soldiers trample the outer court...and the entire city...while not trampling the building? Wouldn't the building be the greatest prize of all to the anti-Israeli invaders; wouldn't they abuse it far more than the mere patio? The only way that the invaders can avoid trampling the building is if it isn't there.

My Greek interlinear words it like this: "And the court outside of the temple cast outside,"" where both uses of "outside" are the same Greek word, "exothen" (# 1855). It sounds as though John is being asked to toss the outer court outside, and that can land it on the make-shift Jewish sanctuary at the bottom of the Western Wall.

Because this idea of throwing the outer court outside is difficult, Bible translations instead use "exclude" and "leave out." In the roughly 30 KJV uses of "leave," none but in this case do we find that the Greek word is "ekbale" (Strong's # 1544). Ekbale is used in Revelation when the beast is CAST into the Lake of Fire. In other words, the term is not to be translated, "exclude," or "leave out," but as "throw."

Ekbale is also used for casting out demons and for casting money-changers from the Temple. Again, we can't translate that Greek word as "exclude" or "leave out." Therefore, I'd suggest we re-visit this Revelation quote on the outer court, and re-think what it could mean.

How could John throw an outer court outside, and outside of what was he to throw it? The temple that John was seeing was not literal, but of a vision, where symbolism can predominate so that the tossing can be an indication of the court's release from God's jurisdiction, or umbrella of protection.

Directly adjacent to what is now the Wailing Wall section of Herod's Temple (the Temple of Jesus' day) was the outer court called, "the Court of the Gentiles." It is this court which, in the Revelation vision, we see given to the Gentiles for trampling. Some could say that the trampling has been on-going since the Dome of the Rock was built, but I think this trampling refers better to the 42 months.

Many Christians have allowed themselves to believe that peace between the anti-Christ and Israel must occur in the first half of the Week for the express purpose of spurring a new Jewish temple built beside the Dome of the Rock. Good luck with that.

MISSING: TEMPLE ACTIVITY

Things not mentioned in end-time prophecy are temple furniture, feasts, gatherings, temple construction, and temple destruction. Isn't this curious too? We see an "extremity," a "holy place," an "outer court," and a "place of the sanctuary," but never do we see anything that would indicate solid temple activity as in days of old. We see that typical temple activity (animal slaughter) is definitely associated with the future temple revealed in Ezekiel, but nothing as vivid or concrete as the Ezekiel picture is ever painted in any prophecy concerning the tribulation.

We find the invasion and defeat of Jerusalem specified in various ways, with wreckage to its houses, its inhabitants, and even to its city walls, but not a similar word about the temple building. We find many references to Israel's rulers, businessmen, soldiers, workers, woman, (false) prophets, and, yes, even to its priests, but we would think that, if the end-time priests were to resurrect the sacrificial system of Moses, prophecy would have made clear mention of it. The few cases where "priests" are mentioned in regards to the last days would not necessarily prove that animal sacrifices will be offered.

In Daniel, there is allusion to sacrifices in relation to the anti-Christ's invasion, but there is a peculiarity surrounding these texts as well. For example, in one place it says, "and the regular was taken away by him [Anti-Christ], and the place of His sanctuary was cast down" (8:11). The regular what? My Hebrew interlinear, as well as most English versions, suggest the regular sacrifice. But if so, why does Daniel not say so in that clear way? Why does he leave out the word "sacrifice" or "offering"?

In the next verse, it again uses the same peculiarity: "And a host [holy people] was given [over] with the regular because of transgression." In the verse after that, it doesn't get any better: "Until when is the vision, the regular, and the desolating transgression, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled?" The same undefined "regular" occurs twice more in chapter twelve. So what does it mean? Why has God left out the word "sacrifice" or "offering."

Aside from Daniel, the term, "regular," is used sparingly in the Old Testament in comparison to the many instances of animal sacrifices. And where it is used, it doesn't occur alone as in Daniel, but includes an activity. For example, in the case of Numbers 29:6, "regular" ("daily" KJV) is followed by "food offering" to specify a "regular food offering." In Leviticus, a "regular food offering" is again used. I must assume that for this reason did the English translators of Daniel add "sacrifice" or "offering" after that book's five instances of "regular."

But again, these five stand tall in the Old Testament in their peculiarity; there's just a "regular" blank, possibly suggesting a different sort of regular offering than those associated with a bloody alter. That the Jews continually offer prayers, worship and praise at the Wailing Wall sanctuary permits this alternative possibility. And more so because God has said that he recognizes and desires the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and the sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart, more than He does animal sacrifices.

Indeed, the animal sacrifices were intended to induce a contrite heart prior to welling it up with thanksgiving. Psalm 51:16-17 defines "sacrifice" as something which does not include animals, but as the higher form of sacrifice which animal slaughter merely facilitated:

"For You do not desire (animal) sacrifice, or I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise."

The Hebrew term, "sacrifices," used in "the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit," is the very same word used to denote animal sacrifices throughout the Old Testament, even though it refers here to spiritual offerings alone. By the time of the New Testament, this higher definition was common knowledge. The writer of Hebrews, while discussing and discounting the importance of Mosaic animal sacrifices, wrote:

Through [Christ], therefore, let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God always" (13:15).

The Greek word used above is the same Greek word used typically for "animal sacrifice." In Revelation 5:8 and 8:4, and along the same lines, the "smoke of the incense" from the "altar" (the altar is where animals are sacrificed) represents not animal flesh burning over a fire, but the "prayers of the saints." Therefore, the "incense" identifies with the Old-Testament's "pleasing aroma" which animal sacrifices were to God...not the smell of roasting meat, but the aroma of human spirits offered up in conjunction with the roasting meat.

Even if the "regular blank," as well as the one usage of "sacrifices and offerings" in Daniel (9:27), turned out to be animal sacrifices, it would not prove that a temple building must be rebuilt, for it is possible for animals to be sacrificed at the Wailing Wall.

ENTER PAUL

Concerning Paul's reference to a "temple of God" (2 Thessalonians 2:4), in which the anti-Christ will sit, there is the possibility that while he (and the other apostles) envisioned an anti-Christ entering a Jewish Temple to proclaim his god-hood, that it will turn out to be the Dome of the Rock on the Jewish holy site instead. God may have permitted it with Paul's words, though I'll admit I'm not very keen on this view.

Paul knew Daniel 11:36, where it tells us that the anti-Christ "shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, and speak marvelous things against the God of gods." But Paul probably knew the words of Jesus -- now in Matthew 24, and perhaps recorded by Luke from which Paul had personal access -- which placed the anti-Christ in the "holy place."

Daniel does not mention a temple building in relation to the self-exaltation and blasphemies of the anti-Christ. Note that in the book of Revelation, where we see the anti-Christ mouthing blasphemous words (13), he is not pictured in a temple building. Nor do we see a building in Daniel 7:25 where he is once again shown mouthing-off against God, nor in 8:25 where he sets himself up to be as great as Christ. Paul is alone in all the Bible in the revelation of the anti-Christ "in the temple of God, showing himself that he is [a] god..."

And so the story in circulation from the apostles may have been that the anti-Christ was to come to the temple building to fulfill Daniel's prophecies. After all, it was still standing in those days. In like manner, Paul had believed quite logically the same thing.

The Greek word for "temple" (supposedly) used in Thessalonians is "naos," which specifically refers to the building itself. But perhaps "hieron" was used initially, indicating instead the temple site in general. This latter alternative is often used to denote the outer courtyard alone, as in, "Go stand in the temple and speak all these words of life to the people" (Acts 5:20), or, Jesus entered into the temple and cast out all those selling and buying in the temple" (Matt. 21:12).

The possibility is that "hieron" was used initially by Paul, whereas later copies changed it to "naos."

Perhaps a compromise is in order. It may turn out that the building's construction is started in the near future, but not completed due to Arab opposition. In defiance, the Jews might begin to institute animal sacrifices at the Western Wall. The anti-Christ could then sit in the unfinished Temple (shell) to make his infamous proclamation, but eradicate the animal "sacrifices and offerings" at the Western Wall while there applying the abomination/revolt that leads to the desolation of the city.

As of September, 2024, there are only two (out of five) red heifers, shipped from Texas to Israel, that still qualify for purifying priestly instruments for animal sacrifices. At any moment, one of the two could be slaughtered. Then what?

While an incomplete Temple building can explain the absence in prophecy of great-tribulation Temple furniture, walls, rooms for priests, feasts, gatherings, etc., it does not explain to my satisfaction how the building could escape trampling, even complete wreckage, but not appearing in prophecy.

Perhaps I should have given the reason for this chapter at the beginning, as the reader may not see the importance of this seemingly insignificant debate. The significance is huge. Many believers will not bother to take tribulation preparation seriously until they see the Temple construction under way, if they feel that the anti-Christ must enter a Temple building. Most are teaching that the anti-Christ cannot come to his Appointed mission until the building is fully operational. Atheist global politics is such that it would urge all Israeli leaders not to allow such a thing.

Within weeks or days of the abomination, this new-building teaching may yet be proclaimed. Can you imagine all the miserable implications for the Church if these writers are wrong?

There is mention of an "altar" of God in Joel 1:13, as well as "priests." And this text involves a prophecy of the end-time great tribulation of Israel. However, God is addressing the Jews of Joel's day...urging them to repent while at the same time pointing out the devastation of the last days. In that case, could it not be the priests and altar in the days of Joel that are being indicated rather than in the last days?

Yes, when God says, "Gird up and lament, priests. Howl, ministers of the altar..." He is referring to the ancient situation. In the first 11 verses of chapter 2, the Day of the LORD is portrayed, but verse 12 says, "Yet even NOW, turn to Me..." God is going back and forth, as he often does in prophecy, from present to future to present. When He says (a few verses later), "Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, gather the elders...Let the priests, ministers of YHWH, weep between the porch and the altar...", God is not referring to the end-time priests, porch and altar.

And if these texts in Joel are not end-time references to a temple, then I don't think there is one text in all the Bible possessing language which would reveal end-time temple activity.

---