A: Dispensational premillennialists need a future "tribulation temple" so their idea of antichrist can take his seat (2 Thess. 2:4), place a statue for people to worship (Rev. 13:14–15), and proclaim himself to be god (2 Thess. 2:4). But what the dispensationalists really need is a verse that states that there will be another rebuilt temple since there’s already been one. Rebuilt-temple advocates Tommy Ice and Randall Price admit the following in their book Ready to Rebuild: "There are no Bible verses that say, ‘There is going to be a third temple’" (197–198). Having admitted this, they go on to claim "that there will be a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem at least by the midpoint of the seven-year tribulation period" (198). As we will see, the Bible says no such thing.

Does the Bible predict that a third temple will be built, one following Solomon’s temple and the post-exile temple that was still standing in Jesus’ day? Don Stewart and Chuck Missler write the following in their book The Coming Temple, "The crucial issue boils down to how we interpret prophecy. There are two basic ways to interpret Bible prophecy. Either you understand it literally or you do not. If a person rejects the literal interpretation then they [sic] are left to their own imagination as to what the Scripture means. . . . We believe it makes sense to understand the Scriptures as literally requiring the eventual construction and desecration of a Third Temple" (193). Notice that they do not say that the Scriptures say there will be another rebuilt temple but only that it is required. Another rebuilt temple is required only if you are a dispensationalist.

Stewart and Missler have made it very simple for us. If the Bible is interpreted literally, according to them, the need for a third temple should be explicitly stated. What biblical evidence do they offer to support their claim that "the Bible, in both testaments, speaks of a Temple that has yet to appear" (194)? From the OT they quote Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11 for support. Ice and Price find only one OT passage to establish their position (Dan. 9:27). The Book of Daniel was written after Solomon’s temple had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. (2 Kings 25:8–9; Dan. 1:1–2) and before the temple had been rebuilt by the returning exiles (Ezra 6:13–15). It was this post-exile rebuilt temple that was desecrated by the pig-sacrificing Antiochus Epiphanes around 170 B.C. After a period of misuse and disuse, the temple was in need of repair. Herod the Great restored and enlarged this rebuilt second temple, a project that started around 20 B.C. and was completed just a few years before it was destroyed in A.D. 70. It was this same temple that Zacharias served in (Luke 1:9), that Jesus was taken to as an infant (2:27), that had been under construction forty-six years (John 2:20), that Jesus cleansed of the money changers (Matt. 21:12), that He predicted would be left desolate (Matt. 23:38; 24:2), and that was finally destroyed by Titus in A.D. 70.

Is there any indiction in these passages from Daniel that they skip over the temple that would be rebuilt, refurbished, enlarged, and still standing in Jesus’ day and refer to a future post-rapture great tribulation? Would Jews living in the first century had made the historical leap over the temple that was standing before them and suppose Jesus was describing yet another rebuilt temple? As Ice and Price admit, the Bible doesn’t say anything about another rebuilt temple. The passages from Daniel cited by Stewart, Missler, Ice, and Price can easily find their fulfillment in the rebuilt temple that was standing during the reign of Antiochus in the second century B.C. (Dan. 11:31; 12:11) and the second temple’s destruction in A.D. 70 (9:27).

What’s amazing is that Price and Ice, in their book Ready to Rebuild, find the fulfillment of Daniel 9:26 in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the dismantling of the rebuilt temple (Luke 21:6): "Jesus, seeing Himself as the Messiah, therefore saw the Romans as the people . . . who will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Knowing that He would soon be cut off (crucified), He likewise knew that the Temple’s destruction would soon occur" (68). In the span of two verses, they find two temples separated by 2000 years. As a careful reader will note, the word "sanctuary" (temple) that appears in Daniel 9:26 does not appear in 9:27. This means that Daniel 9:27 is describing events related to the same sanctuary of 9:26. For Ice and Price to find another rebuilt temple, Daniel 9:27 would have to say something like this: "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering in the new rebuilt sanctuary; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction of the second rebuilt sanctuary, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

Stewart, Missler, Ice, and Price claim to have incontrovertible biblical evidence for a rebuilt temple in three NT passages: Matthew 24:15, 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4, and Revelation 11:1–2. On Matthew 24:15, Stewart and Missler write: "Jesus spoke of this prophecy being still future to His time (Matthew 24:15)" (194). This is true. But the rebuilt temple was still standing when Jesus said that "the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet" would stand "in the holy place." Notice the audience context: "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet" (Matt. 24:15). When who sees it? When "you see it;" that is, when those in Jesus’ audience see it. Ice and Price never explain the audience reference "you." If Jesus had a distant future audience in view, He would have said "when they see the abomination of desolation." Here’s their interpretation of Matthew 24:15: "‘The holy place’ is a reference to the most sacred room within Israel’s Temple. What temple? The third Temple, since it is a future event" (199). There is no mention of a future rebuilt temple or even an implied reference. Jesus does not say, "When they see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet standing in the rebuilt holy place." The holy place, the sanctuary, was right before their eyes (Matt. 24:1–2).

Ice and Price argue that "the apostle Paul gives us perhaps the clearest passage relating to the third Temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4"(199). Since Paul wrote before the rebuilt temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, what is it in these verses that tells us that the temple in which the "man of lawlessness" takes his seat is "the third temple"? Paul does not describe "the temple" (lit. sanctuary) as a rebuilt temple. What would have led his audience to conclude that he was referring to, using Ice and Price’s words, "the future third Temple" (199) when the temple was still standing in Jerusalem? The "man of lawlessness" was being restrained "now," in their day (2:6, 7), and the Christians at Thessalonia knew the identity of the restrainer (2:6). For a verse-by-verse exposition of 2 Thessalonians 2, see Man of Lawlessness

Third-temple advocates find support for their position in Revelation 11:1–2. They begin by assuming that Revelation was written nearly three decades after the temple was destroyed. From this unproven assumption, they conclude that John must be measuring a rebuilt temple. The passage says nothing about a rebuilt temple. The words "shortly" and "near" (Rev. 1:1, 3) are used to describe the time when the events outlined in Revelation were to take place. These words are meaningless if the events have not taken place. The fact that John is told to "rise and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and those who worship in it" (11:1), is prima facie evidence that the temple was still standing when John received the revelation. How could John have measured a temple that did not exist in his day? Price and Ice insist that the temple that John is told to measure is the literal temple, not a "spiritual temple" (200). "For example, in Matthew 24 Jesus is speaking about a literal Temple, since in the context of the passage he is standing and looking directly at the second Temple" (200). The same was true of John. He was told to measure the literal Temple that still had worshipers in it. If the temple was no longer standing, then John was measuring a "spiritual temple."

The burden of proof is on rebuilt-temple advocates to come up with just one verse that unequivocally states that there will be a rebuilt temple. Since they admit that "There are no Bible verses that say, ‘There is going to be a third temple,’" we must conclude that dispensationalism’s preoccupation with a rebuilt temple is misguided.