While some may interpret the contents and conclusions of this article as anti-Semitic, this could not be further from the truth. Yahweh’s Restoration Ministry supports the nation of Israel and believes that the entire nation of Israel, including the traditional Temple Mount area, forthrightly belongs to the Jewish people. This article is only interested in the truth and how the facts impact Yahweh’s prophetic Word.
In this second installment on Discovering the Real Temple Mount we will focus on several critical aspects providing important clues as to where the temple originally stood, including biblical prophecies and historical accounts of the destruction of Herod’s temple and Jerusalem. We will also examine evidence for Fortress Antonia and the Roman Tenth Legion. However, before we begin our expedition of truth, here is a summary from part one:
- The ancient City of David, today a national archaeology site, is located south of the traditional Temple Mount and is synonymous with Zion, 2Samuel 5:7; 1Chronicles 11:5; Psalm 76:2.
- Solomon expanded the ancient City of David by filling in the Millo and connecting the City of David with the Ophel, the biblical location for the temple, 1Kings 11:27. The Ophel, Mount Zion, and Mount Moriah are all synonymous, 2Chronicles 3:1.
- Solomon’s Temple was built over the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, 1Chronicles 21:15-30. A threshing floor requires a flat and hard surface. The rock underneath the Dome of the Rock does not meet these requirements and therefore likely not the location of Ornan’s threshing floor.
- During the 7th Century CE, 70 Jewish families from Tiberius relocated to Jerusalem and requested to be near the Pool of Siloam and the Temple.
- The Gihon Spring is the only natural spring and major water source in Jerusalem. It’s located within the City of David, a third of a mile from the traditional Temple Mount.
- According to Aristeas (Alexandrian Jew, 2nd / 3rd century BCE) and Tacitus (Roman historian, 2nd Century CE) there was a spring-like reservoir gushing from the Temple precincts.
For additional information on the above summary, see part one of this article.
Not One Stone
Let’s begin our journey by considering one of the most important prophecies Yahshua the Messiah gave in the New Testament. “And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! And Yahshua answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down,” Mark 13:1-2.
Mark 13, along with Matthew 24 and Luke 21, is known as the Olivet Prophecy. This passage begins with the disciples complimenting the stones of the temple. In response to this admiration, Yahshua responded by saying that these great buildings would be torn down with not one stone remaining.
It’s important to realize that Yahshua used the word “buildings.” Many who believe that the temple was located on the traditional Temple Mount will contend that Yahshua was referring only to the inner sanctuary and not to the entire temple complex. They do this to explain the remaining western wall, also known as the Wailing Wall.
This wall is the holiest site in Judaism. It’s believed that this wall was part of the outer western wall of Herod’s Temple. As a side note, there’s debate as to whether this wall was even built by Herod. Eli Shukron, an archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Authority, found a coin at the base of the Wailing Wall dating back to around 18 CE, 20 years after King Herold. Based on this, this wall was likely not built by King Herold, but by Agrippa II, Herold’s great-grandson.
Returning to the topic at hand, when Yahshua gave this prophecy, Mark 13 records that He and the disciples were on the Mount of Olives looking back to the temple. From this location, He would have viewed not only the inner sanctuary of the temple, but the entire temple precincts. With this in mind, along with the fact that He uses the word “buildings,” it seems unlikely that he was only referring to the inner sanctuary. It is far more probable that He was referring to the entire temple platform.
If He was referring to entire precincts, this would have most certainly included the outer western wall. And remember, He stated that not one stone would remain upon another. Based on this prophecy and the known facts, how is it possible that the Wailing Wall remains today? There is no good explanation. Either Yahshua exaggerated or the Temple Mount is not the location of the ancient temple and this wall belongs to something else entirely.
Antiquity Supports Destruction
In addition to Yahshua’s prophecy, there is also evidence from antiquity to the destruction of the temple. Both Jewish and Christian sources confirm similar ruin to the temple. In fact, not only do they validate what Yahshua stated, but do so in a manner that verifies it was not only the inner sanctuary, but the entire platform, including the outer walls.
One of the most well-known accounts is from Flavius Josephus. Josephus lived between 37 and 100 CE and is one of the most renowned scholars and historians of the first century. He lived before and after the temple was destroyed. Therefore, this man provides invaluable firsthand testimony of this destruction.
Josephus in War of the Jews recounts, “I cannot but wish that we had all died before we had seen that holy city demolished by the hands of our enemies, or the foundations of our Holy Temple dug up, after so profane a manner” (Bk. VII, ch.8).
The reference to “profane” here verifies that the Romans had no reverence for the temple. Even more importantly, Josephus states the foundation stones themselves were dug up and removed. Based on this, it’s hard to believe that Rome would have allowed the foundation stones of the current Temple Mount and the Wailing Wall to remain.
Evidence for the destruction of the entire temple platform is also found from Epiphanius of Salamis, a fourth century bishop in Cyprus. In his work, On Weights and Measures, he testifies to this destruction. “It was the second year of his reign when he [Hadrian] went up to Jerusalem, the famous and much-praised city which had been destroyed by Titus the son of Vespasian. He found it utterly destroyed and God’s Holy Temple a ruin, there being nothing where the city had stood but a few dwellings and one small church,” pp. 17-18.
Epiphanius records the eyewitness account of Emperor Hadrian. He states that Hadrian visited Jerusalem two years into his reign, approximately 119 CE. When he arrived, he was amazed at the devastation the city suffered under the Roman General Titus.
He confirms that the temple was in ruin and that Jerusalem was utterly destroyed. Except for a few buildings and a small church, nothing remained. Considering this, is it reasonable to believe that Titus would have allowed the foundations of the temple mount along with a large portion of the western wall to remain? This is highly unlikely.
Another man who provides insight into the temple’s destruction is Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius lived during the fourth century and was a historian, scholar, and bishop of Caesarea Maritima. He is one of the most well-known historians of the early church.
In his work, Proof of the Gospel, he states the following: “Mount Sion was burned and left utterly desolate, and the Mount of the House of God became as a grove of the wood. If our own observation has any value, we have seen in our own time Sion once so famous ploughed with yokes of oxen by the Romans and utterly devastated, and Jerusalem as the oracle says, deserted like a lodge” (Bk. VI, ch.13, sect. 273).
Eusebius states that Yahweh’s House, referring to the temple, had become as a grove of woods, i.e., empty or without presence. He goes on to lament how such a place could have been so devastated that it was reduced to a plot of farmland where the oxen ploughed.
Considering this description from Eusebius, is it realistic to believe that the foundation stones along with the western wall of the current Temple Mount was intact after the invasion of the Roman army? As we saw from Josephus and Epiphanius, such a conclusion is nearly impossible to draw.
Later in this same work, Proof of the Gospel, Eusebius states, “The hill called Sion and Jerusalem, the buildings there, the Temple, the Holy of Holies, the Altar, and whatever else there was dedicated to the glory of God, [has] been utterly removed or shaken, in fulfillment of the Word” (Bk. VIII, ch.3, sect. 405).
Eusebius states here that the temple was “utterly removed or shaken.” And as we see here, he was referring to the Temple, the Holy of holies, and all that was considered holy. It’s probably safe to assume that Eusebius was referring to more than the inner sanctuary. He was referring to the entire temple complex, including the outer walls.
There’s one more account from Eusebius that we will consider. In Proof of the Gospel he astoundingly states that, “Their ancient holy place, at any rate, and their Temple are to this day as much destroyed as Sodom” (Bk. V, ch.23, sect. 250).
Eusebius compares the destruction of the temple to the devastation that Sodom suffered in the Old Testament. During our last trip to Israel we had the chance to visit what many believe is the ancient city of Gomorrah. As we know, Gomorrah suffered the same fate as Sodom. As you can see in the above image of Gomorrah, nothing remains of this ancient city. What was once a bustling city has been reduced to rubble. Except for ash and a few remaining sulfur balls, Gomorrah today is a wasteland.
Assuming that Eusebius was not exaggerating, is it possible that the Roman army left the foundation of the temple and Wailing Wall unscathed? Doubtful.
Jerusalem Itself Razed
In addition to the temple, Yahshua also prophesied a similar fate for the city of Jerusalem. “As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, ‘If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace-but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another,’ Luke 19:41-44, NIV.
Historically, Yahshua’s prophecy here of Jerusalem’s destruction was fulfilled by Titus and the Roman army. It’s amazing how history validates the Bible. Archaeology and scholarship have overwhelmingly confirmed the accuracy of the Bible.
Similar to what Yahshua said about the temple, He says here regarding Jerusalem. He verifies that not one stone would be left upon another. And as we know through antiquity, Jerusalem’s destruction was so great that the city was hardly identifiable.
For instance, according to Josephus in Wars of the Jews, “And truly, the very view itself was a melancholy thing; for those places which were adorned with trees and pleasant gardens, were now become desolate country every way, and its trees were all cut down. Nor could any foreigner that had formerly seen Judaea and the most beautiful suburbs of the city, and now saw it as a desert, but lament and mourn sadly at so great a change. For the war had laid all signs of beauty quite waste. Nor if anyone that had known the place before, had come on a sudden to it now, would he have known it again” (Bk. VI. ch.1).
According to Josephus, after Rome’s destruction of the city of Jerusalem it was unrecognizable. This once grand city had been reduced to rubble. He describes the city as “desolate.” Astonishingly, he goes on to say that even those who were familiar with the city would not have known it after Rome’s destruction.
Knowing that the temple was the central focus of Jerusalem, how is it possible to reconcile this description with the remaining foundation of the traditional Temple Mount and the western wall? Considering that these objects would have been well known and easily identifiable, how is it possible that even those who were familiar with the city before would not have recognized it afterward? Assuming Josephus is not exaggerating, such a conclusion is improbable.
Josephus also describes this destruction in book VVI, chapter 7, “As he came to Jerusalem in his progress, and compared the melancholy condition he saw it then in, with the ancient glory of the city with the greatness of its present ruins (as well as its ancient splendor). He could not but pity the destruction of the city … Yet there was no small quantity of the riches that had been in that city still found among the ruins, a great deal of which the Romans dug up; but the greatest part was discovered by those who were captives, and so they [the Romans] carried it away; I mean the gold and the silver, and the rest of that most precious furniture which the Jews had, and which the owners had treasured up under ground against the uncertainties of war.”
Not only was the city of Jerusalem completely destroyed, but much of the city was dug up. After Jerusalem fell to the Romans, the army began looking for valuables, including gold and silver. To hide many of these valuables, many Jews buried them. So not only was the city completely demolished, but they excavated the very foundation stones, including within the temple precincts, looking for plunder.
This confirms Yahshua’s prophecy that not one stone would remain, including the foundation stones. Based on this, it’s hard to fathom how anything substantial would have remained within the city or temple platform, especially considering the ornateness of the temple. It’s likely that the temple was ground zero for many of these Romans who desecrated the holy place for personal gain.
In addition to the Jewish historian Josephus, we also find evidence for Jerusalem’s destruction from the early church. Gregory of Nyssa, a fourth century bishop and Nicene Father, also gives an account of Jerusalem’s desolation, “Up to the time of the manifestation of Christ the royal palaces in Jerusalem were in all their splendor: there was their far-famed Temple, … [but now] no traces even of their Temple can be recognized, and their splendid city has been left in ruins, so that there remains to the Jews nothing of the ancient institutions; while by the command of those who rule over them the very ground of Jerusalem which they so venerated is forbidden to them,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, p. 940.
As Josephus before him, Gregory of Nyssa confirms that the temple was unrecognizable and the city was in ruins. He stated that there were no traces of the temple. We know that the Temple Mount foundation along with the Wailing Wall existed during the fourth century. How is it possible that such prominent landmarks were missed? How is it possible that no traces of the temple remained if large portions of the foundation and walls of the temple remained? The logical answer is, what we call the Temple Mount today is not the location of the temple.
The Remaining Monument
We find a clue as to what the Temple Mount was from Josephus in Wars of the Jews. He states, “And where is now that great city, the metropolis of the Jewish nation, which was fortified by so many walls round about, which had so many fortresses and large towers to defend it, which could hardly contain the instruments prepared for the war, and which had so many ten thousands of men to fight for it? Where is this city that was believed to have God himself inhabiting therein? It is now demolished to the very foundations, and hath nothing left but that monument of it preserved, I mean the camp of those that hath destroyed it” (Bk. 7, ch.8).
Josephus here paints a dreadful picture of the ancient city of Jerusalem. He describes how the once crown jewel of the Jewish nation had been reduced to its very foundation and how only one monument remained, i.e., the camp.
What camp is Josephus referring to? From a historical standpoint, the only possible answer is Fortress Antonia. This was the Roman camp or fort that existed during the time of the Messiah and after the destruction of Jerusalem. So according to Josephus, the only substantial structure that remained after Rome’s demolition of Jerusalem was this Roman fort. Everything else within the city was demolished.
Based on this, where do you suppose Fortress Antonia was located? The only plausible answer is the traditional Temple Mount, where the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock are located. Again, Josephus confirms that the only remaining structure was the Roman fort and there is only one major structure that still exists today within the city of Jerusalem from that time period and that is the Temple Mount platform. This means that the current Temple Mount along with the Wailing Wall was not part of the temple, but of Fortress Antonia.
Now before we go any further with Fortress Antonia, let’s first review the Roman Tenth Legion.
Rome’s Tenth Legion Stationed There
From newhistorian.com we learn about the location and history of this important military power: “Bricks from the bathhouse were stamped with the name of the Tenth Roman Legion, which was part of the takeover of Jewish Yerushalayim. Its soldiers were garrisoned there until 300 CE. The Tenth Roman Legion (Legio X Fretensis) was created by Augustus Caesar between 41 and 40 BCE, specifically to fight in the civil war which marked the beginning of the end of the Republic of Rome. The tenth legion existed until at least the 410’s,” “Reminders of the Tenth Roman Legion Unearthed in Jerusalem.”
One of the most important facts we see here is that the Roman Tenth Legion was an actual legion, coming from the Latin Legio. We’ll see later why this is important. We also find here that the 10th Legion was established by Augustus Caesar between 41 and 40 BCE in response to the civil war within Rome. This source also verifiers that the Tenth Legion was stationed in Jerusalem until about 300 CE and existed until the 410s. So long after Jerusalem had been destroyed by the Romans, the Tenth Legion remained there for nearly 200 years.
A Legion Is Like a City
Now what do we know historically about the actual size of a legion and a legionary camp? French author, Yann Le Bohec, verifies the number and complexity of a typical Roman camp: “With almost 5000 men, a legionary camp was the equivalent of a town. Consequently everything that was essential for the daily life of such a community — hospital, stores, workshops, baths, as well as public lavatories — was to be found,” The Imperial Roman Army, p. 160.
Le Bohec verifies that a Roman legion consisted of about 5,000 men. Keep in mind that this doesn’t include the support staff. According to some, support staff would have added several thousand more. We also see here that a legionary camp would have been equivalent to an average town, including various stores, workshops, baths, and many other conveniences.
As a secondary witness to the number of a legion, the Cyclopedia of Biblical Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature states, “The legion appears to have originally contained about 3000 men, and to have risen gradually to twice that number, or even more. In and about the time of Christ it seems to have consisted of 6000 men, and this was exclusive of horsemen, who usually formed an additional body amounting to one tenth of the infantry,” Vol. V, “Legion,” p. 329.
Based on this and the previous reference, a Roman legion consisted of about 5,000-6,000 horsemen. Again, support staff would have likely added many more. In all, a typical Roman legion could have had as high as 10,000 people.
Now why is this number important? It verifies that the current model of Fortress Antonia as shown by scholarship could not be right. As seen in the model of Fortress Antonia as displayed at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem (see image on pg. ?), it would be impossible to fit more than a few hundred troops.
So how does scholarship explain this discrepancy? Many claim that the Roman Tenth Legion was not a legion, but a cohort, containing about 600 men. There are two issues with this: (1) the Tenth Legion was not a cohort, but a legion, coming from the Latin Legio X Fretensis, meaning, “Tenth legion of the Strait.” And number two, a typical legionary camp or fortress was the size of a city. Therefore, based on this evidence, the traditional model at the Israel Museum is likely incorrect.
Besides the inaccuracies we have already seen, Josephus, an eyewitness to this Roman fortress, provides several important facts that modern scholarships seems to overlook.
First, here’s what Josephus states in Antiquities of the Jews, “Now on the north side [of the temple] was built a citadel, whose walls were square, and strong, and of extraordinary firmness. This citadel was built by the Kings of the Asamonean race, who were also High Priests, before Herod; and they called it the tower…But for the tower itself, when Herod the King of the Jews had fortified it more firmly than before, in order to secure and guard the temple, he gratified Antonius; who was his friend, and the Roman ruler; and then gave it the name of the tower of Antonia” (Bk. XV, ch.11).
Josephus further provides somewhat of a lengthy but crucial description of Fortress Antonia in War of the Jews: “Now as to the tower of Antonia, it was situated at the corner of two cloisters of the court of the Temple; of that on the west, and that on the north. It was erected upon a rock of fifty cubits in height, and was on a great precipice. It was the work of King Herod, wherein he demonstrated his natural magnanimity. In the first place, the rock itself was covered over with smooth pieces of stone, from its foundation, both for ornament, and that any one who would either try to get up or to go down it might not be able to hold his feet upon it. Next to this, and before you come to the edifice of the tower itself, there was a wall three cubits high; but within that wall all the space of the tower of Antonia itself was built upon, to the height of forty cubits. The inward parts had the largeness and form of a palace it being parted into all kinds of rooms and other conveniences, such as courts, and places for bathing, and broad spaces for camps; insomuch that, by having all conveniences that cities wanted, it might seem to be composed of several cities. By its magnificence it seemed a palace. And as the entire structure resembled that of a tower, it contained also four other distinct towers at its four corners; whereof the others were but fifty cubits high; whereas that which lay upon the southeast corner was seventy cubits high, that from thence the whole Temple might be viewed, but on the corner where it joined to the two cloisters of the Temple, it had passages down to them both, through which the guard (for there always lay in this tower a Roman legion) went several ways among the cloisters, with their arms, on the Jewish festivals, in order to watch the people, that they might not there attempt to make any innovations; for the Temple was a fortress that guarded the city, as was the tower of Antonia a guard to the Temple, and in that tower were the guards of those three. There was also a peculiar fortress belonging to the upper city, which was Herod’s palace, but for the hill Bezetha, it was divided from the tower Antonia, as we have already told you, and as that hill on which the tower of Antonia stood was the highest of these three, so did it adjoin to the new city, and was the only place that hindered the sight of the Temple on the north.” (Bk. 5, ch.8).
We learn a great deal of information from these two accounts from Josephus. As a help to provide the information succinctly, below is a summary highlighting the major or crucial points:
- Fortress Antonia was originally a fortress built by the Hasmoneans, i.e., Maccabees.
- Herold further fortified the fortress to protect the temple and gave it the name “Fortress Antonia” in honor of Mark Anthony.
- The temple and Fort Antonia were connected by two cloisters, i.e., covered bridges, (Wars VI, 2, 144 confirms this distance at 600 feet).
- A typical Roman fortress contained all kinds of conveniences (e.g. courts, places for bathing, and broad spaces for camps), similar to an actual city.
- Fortress Antonia had four distinct towers at its four corners measuring 50 cubits (75 feet), except for the southeast corner, which measured 70 cubits (105 feet) high, from which the temple could be viewed.
- Fortress Antonia housed the Tenth Roman Legion, approximately 6,000 horsemen.
- As the temple was to guard Jerusalem, Fortress Antonia was to guard the temple.
- Fortress Antonia was located on the highest of the three hills.
- From the north, Fortress Antonia obscured or blocked the view of the temple.
There are several points here that are inconsistent with the model at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.
Missing Connectors and Hills
Josephus mentions two covered bridges that connected the temple and Fortress Antonia. No such bridges exist in the model at the Israel Museum. Also, the description of the fort resembling a city and housing a 6,000-man army does not fit the current model, as it is far too small. We also find inconsistencies with the towers. The towers depicted on the model have four equal length towers, while Josephus clearly states that the tower overlooking the temple was 25 additional cubits. He also stated that the fort obscured or blocked the view of the temple coming from the north. This is certainly not depicted by the model. Another major problem between the model and Josephus’ account is the fact that the fortress was on the third highest hill.
These last two points are critically important to understand, as again neither one is depicted by the model at the Israel Museum. However, if the temple was within the City of David on the Ophel and Fortress Antonia on the Temple Mount or the Haram esh-Sharif, everything falls into place. When you survey the City of David, the Ophel, and the Temple Mount area, the Temple Mount area is on the third highest hill and also obscures the Ophel and the City of David coming from the north.
Roman Fortresses Built Alike
Another indication for the traditional Temple Mount being the location of Fortress Antonia is the fact that it shares similar dimensions with other legionary camps. The Temple Mount platform is 36 acres in size with the eastern wall measuring 1,541 feet, the southern wall measuring 918 feet, the western wall measuring 1,601 feet, and the northern wall measuring 1,033 feet. While the Temple Mount resembles a rectangle, it is in fact a trapezoid.
This shape is again similar to other Roman forts. For example, there is a Roman fortress in Caerleon, Wales, dating to 75 CE. It measures a total of 50 acres. It is believed that this particular fort housed the Second Roman Legion, approximately 5,500 men.
There is another example in Neuss, Germany, dating to 80 CE. The size is 59 acres and possibly housed the Nineteenth Roman Legion. There are remains of a Roman fort from Haltern, Germany, with a total size of 85 acres. It’s thought this fort housed two Roman legions.
As can be seen here, the size and shape of these Roman fortresses strongly resemble the area known as the Temple Mount. Could this only be coincidence? It is highly doubtful. It is far more likely that these similarities offer additional evidence for the Temple Mount platform being the location of Fortress Antonia. One fact is for certain: the model at the Israel Museum does not fit the description from Josephus or what archaeology confirms regarding a Roman fort or legionary camp.
The Paul Dilemma
A final piece of evidence for the Temple Mount being the location of Fortress Antonia comes from the 23rd chapter of Acts. “The dispute became so violent that the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them. He ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force and bring him into the barracks…Then he called two of his centurions and ordered them, ‘Get ready a detachment of two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen to go to Caesarea at nine tonight,’” vv. 10, 23, NIV.
Due to a dispute caused partially by Paul, the Romans were forced to fetch Paul from the temple to the barracks, i.e., Fortress Antonia. Notice that the men who retrieved Paul came DOWN from the barracks to the temple. This shows that the Roman fortress was of a higher elevation than the temple and verifies Josephus’ account that Fortress Antonia was on the highest of the three hills.
We also see here that Rome provided two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen to escort Paul from Jerusalem to Caesarea, a total of 470 men. Again, some theorize that the Tenth Legion was not a legion, but a cohort. In other words, they claim that instead of 6,000 men, Fortress Antonia housed only 600 men.
Knowing that Rome provided Paul with 470 men, is it reasonable to assume that the Roman Tenth Legion consisted of only a cohort? If true, this means that they gave 78% of their military force to escort one man and leaving only 22% to guard the entire city of Jerusalem. This is highly improbable! However, assuming that the Tenth Roman Legion was an actual legion consisted of 6,000 men, 470 men is possible, especially knowing that Paul was a Roman citizen.
While this theory is not salvational, it is a belief that may hold a crucial key to future prophecy. The Bible is clear that a third temple will be rebuilt before Yahshua’s coming.
Yahshua in Matthew 24:15 states, “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:).” The phrase “holy place” is an allusion to the Holy of Holies within the temple.
Paul also describes a temple in 2Thessalonians 2:3-4: “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called Elohim, or that is worshipped; so that he as Elohim sitteth in the temple of Elohim, shewing himself that he is Elohim.” Paul clearly states here that the son of perdition or Anti-messiah will sit in a temple exalting himself as elohim or as a god to be worshiped.
As a final reference, John of Patmos in Revelation 11:1-2 records, “And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of Elohim, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.” John not only confirms here a temple, but also describes the outer court.
Based on this and the two previous accounts, there is little doubt that a third temple will be rebuilt prior to the return of Yahshua the Messiah. Assuming that the temple was originally located within the City of David, as indicated by the evidence, and Jewish scholarship accepted this conclusion, this could radically change and impact future prophecy.
We hope you enjoyed the teaching: Discovering the Real Temple Mount, Pt. 2
Also, check out part 1 of the series Discovering the Real Temple Mount , Pt. 1
Be sure to check out our YouTube channel for many other interesting videos!