Faith & Writing
Faith · Eschatology

Is a Third Temple Coming?

Why the New Testament and the early church expected no rebuilt temple

A central plank of the Left Behind end-times script is a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, complete with reinstated animal sacrifices, which the antichrist will one day defile. Whole ministries watch the Temple Mount for it. But the New Testament and the early church point the other way entirely: Christ is the final temple and the final sacrifice, the believer and the church are now the temple, and the last book of the Bible says the City to come has no temple at all. A third temple with bleeding altars is not the climax of the gospel. It is a step backward from it.

What the dispensational view expects

Stated fairly: dispensationalism reads Ezekiel's vision of a temple (Ezekiel 40-48) as a literal future building, and so expects a third temple constructed in Jerusalem, where the antichrist will set himself up, and where, in the millennial kingdom, the Levitical animal sacrifices will be carried out again. It is woven all through the popular charts and novels. The question is simply whether that is where Scripture is heading.

Jesus is the temple

When Jesus was asked for a sign, He pointed to Himself: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up… but he spake of the temple of his body" (John 2:19-21). The temple was always a meeting place between God and man, and that meeting place is now a Person. The shadow has met its substance.

The believer and the church are the temple

And through Him, God now dwells not in a building but in His people. Paul says it plainly and repeatedly: "ye are the temple of God… the Spirit of God dwelleth in you" (1 Corinthians 3:16); "your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost" (1 Corinthians 6:19); "ye are the temple of the living God" (2 Corinthians 6:16). The church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets… an holy temple in the Lord… an habitation of God through the Spirit" (Ephesians 2:19-22), a house of "lively stones" (1 Peter 2:5). To go back to a stone building would be to trade the reality for the shadow again.

The sacrifices are finished, for good

This is the sharpest problem with a future sacrificial temple, and it is fatal. The book of Hebrews exists largely to say the animal sacrifices are over because Christ's was final:

Hebrews 10:11-18 · KJV

…this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God… For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified… Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

The old covenant and its sacrifices are "ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13); Christ offered Himself "once for all" (Hebrews 9:25-26). To reinstate animal sacrifices in a future temple, even "memorial" ones, would say the cross was not actually final, and Hebrews calls treating the blood of the covenant as common a trampling of "the Son of God" (Hebrews 10:29). You cannot rebuild the altar without unsaying "It is finished."

The "memorial sacrifice" escape hatch

Aware of this, some dispensationalists reply that the millennial temple's sacrifices will be merely "memorial," looking back to the cross the way communion does, rather than making atonement. Said gently, it does not hold, for three reasons. First, Hebrews does not say "no more atoning offering"; it says flatly "there is no more offering for sin" (Hebrews 10:18), and calls the entire sacrificial system obsolete and "ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13). Reviving it for any purpose walks the new covenant backward. Second, the memorial Christ actually appointed is bread and wine, "this do in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19), not bulls and goats; to reinstate animal blood as a memorial is to reach back behind the Lord's own Supper for the shadow He replaced. Third, and decisively, the very passage the millennial temple is built on says the opposite of "memorial": Ezekiel's sacrifices are explicitly "to make reconciliation" and "a sin offering" (Ezekiel 45:15-17), atoning language, not remembrance. The escape hatch contradicts both Hebrews and the text it is trying to rescue.

The end has no temple

And here is the clincher, from the Bible's own climax. When John sees the New Jerusalem, the one thing conspicuously missing is the very thing the charts are waiting to rebuild:

Revelation 21:22 · KJV

And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

The story does not end with a rebuilt sanctuary; it ends with God Himself as the temple, dwelling directly with His people. A future physical temple points in exactly the opposite direction from where Scripture is going.

What the early church believed

The earliest Christians did not wait for a third temple. Jesus had foretold the existing one's total destruction, "there shall not be left here one stone upon another" (Matthew 24:2), and when it fell in AD 70 the church read it as final judgment on the old order, not an intermission. The Epistle of Barnabas (around the turn of the second century) argues the point directly: the Jews erred in putting their hope in the building, the temple was thrown down, and the true temple is now the believer, in whom God dwells. Justin Martyr and the other fathers likewise treated the temple's age as finished and the church as its fulfillment; no early voice looked for a third temple to be built. For the historic church there simply is no third temple on the horizon, because the temple already found its meaning and its end in Christ.

What history actually did

History has cooperated with the New Testament here. Jesus foretold the temple's total ruin, "they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another" (Luke 19:43-44; Matthew 24:2), and in AD 70 the Roman general Titus leveled it, exactly so. It has not been rebuilt in the nearly two thousand years since. The one serious attempt is itself a striking footnote: around AD 363 the emperor Julian, who had renounced Christianity and wanted to disprove Jesus's prophecy, ordered the temple rebuilt, and the project collapsed amid fire and explosions bursting from the foundations, an event recorded not only by Christians but by the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus, who lived at the time. Since AD 691 the Dome of the Rock has stood on the site. Twenty centuries of history have left the temple exactly where Jesus and the apostles said it would be: finished.

Why it matters

The third-temple expectation runs the gospel backward, from the once-for-all sacrifice to repeated animal blood, from God-dwelling-in-His-people to a building made with hands, from "It is finished" to "let us start the offerings again." It also fuels a politics of literal temple-rebuilding and endless prophecy-watching. The New Testament's direction is the opposite, and it is forward: Christ the temple, His people the temple, and a City where no temple is needed because God is there in full (see What the Cross Did and Dispensationalism).

Where this lands

The temple's whole story was always an arrow pointing at Christ. He is the meeting place of God and man; His people are now God's dwelling; and the end of the Book is not a reopened sacrificial system but God living among His people with no temple at all, because the Lord and the Lamb are the temple. There is no third temple coming, because the true one already came, and He is not made of stone.

Study the passages

Read them in context. Links go to BibleHub.

Related: Eschatology and Dispensationalism, Tested by the Text.

Scripture from the King James Version, linked to BibleHub. On the early church: the Epistle of Barnabas 16 (the believer as the true temple); the universal reading of AD 70 as the end of the temple order; Hebrews on the finished sacrifice. The literal future-temple expectation belongs to dispensationalism (Ezekiel 40-48 read as a future building). On the history: the temple's fall to Titus in AD 70, the emperor Julian's failed rebuilding attempt (c. AD 363, recorded by the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus), and the Dome of the Rock on the site since AD 691.