A Third Jewish Temple was built in the 7th Century

I have been looking into theories about reconstructing the history of the 7th Century and the origins of Islam.  I however do believe the traditional Biography of Muhammad is fairly grounded in real history, unlike Jay Smith.

And the thesis I shall provide here doesn't even matter much to if the early Arab Empire was already distinctly "Muslim" or not, my theories on that I get into elsewhere.  This is just specifically about what they did on The Temple Mount.

The current Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque were both originally built by Abd al-Malik the third Umayyad Caliph between 690 and 705 AD, that's pretty indisputably agreed on by everyone.  The question of whether or not the Arabs built some kind of earlier Mosque on the Temple Mount is difficult to answer since everything written on the subject from the Muslim POV is centuries later, including that account of Umar and Sophronius which many Gihon Spring Temple location supporters misunderstand.

There are however some contemporary 7th Century Christian sources, and one Jewish source.  Here is a link quoting a number of them gathered together by Hoyland in 1997.

http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html [Update: https://web.archive.org/web/20210211093519/http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html]

There are Four primarily I want to quote, but first let me provide some context.

Byzantine Christians of Late Antiquity, and probably all the other mainstream types of Christians who existed at that time, on the subject of the possibly of a Third Jewish Temple being built had the exact opposite opinion of modern Dispensationalist Evangelicals.  They not only weren't expecting it but they believed God would never allow it.  So if they saw it happening they would have to either deny it, or interpret it as inherently negative.  Like how today many Anti-Semitic Post Tribbers pretty much believe the Third Temple itself will be the Abomination of Desolation.

Meanwhile I have on my other Blog documented that the Quran is actually a Zionist book, it affirms Israel's right to the Promised Land and expects their return.  The parts that seem Anti-Semitic exist in the context of the Arabs' conflict with Jews living in Arabia.  I believe Muhammad probably never intended his united Arab state to expand west of the Jordan River (or East/North of the Euphrates for that matter).  None the less when Umar did conquer Judea, even under the most traditional view of what happened he allowed The Jews to live in Jerusalem again after 500 years of Rome (both Pagan and Christian) banning them from the city.

Also on the use of the word "Mosque" in these passages, if that even is an accurate translation.  It should be remembered that in the Quran itself the word Mosque does not mean the specific type of Muslim worship building we're used to today, but rather just means a Sacred site.  The most popular interpretation of the Night Journey Sura is that the "Farthest Mosque" is the site of the Temple in Jerusalem even though no building of any kind stood there at the time.

So let's start with the witness of Sophronius the Patriarch of Jerusalem who died in 638 AD.

[In a work originally composed by John Moschus (d. 619), but expanded by Sophronius (d. ca. 639), actually found only in an addition of the Georgian translation, the following entry appears, concerning a construction dated by tradition at 638, i.e., soon after the capture of Jerusalem ca. 637. It appears in a portion concerning Sophronius as recounted on the authority of his contemporary, the archdeacon Theodore, and may have been written down ca. 670.]

the godless Saracens entered the holy city of Christ our Lord, Jerusalem, with the permission of God and in punishment for our negligence, which is considerable, and immediately proceeded in haste to the place which is called the Capitol. They took with them men, some by force, others by their own will, in order to clean that place and to build that cursed thing, intended for their prayer and which they call a mosque (midzgitha). (Pratum spirituale, 100-102 [p. 63])

I notice how hostile the Christians are to their Arab conquerors seems to depend on their sect of Christianity, the "Nestorians" like Ishoyahb and John bar Pankaye got along with them just fine.  At any rate this reference doesn't tell us much about what's being built, but by "the Capitol" he almsot certainly means the City's highest peak, The Temple Mount, after all Hadrian's Temple bult there was called the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.

The second reference shall be the Coptic Apocalypse of Pseudo-Shenute from about 644 AD.

The Persians . . . will go down to Egypt and much killing will accompany them. They shall seize the wealth of the Egyptians and sell their children for gold, so harsh is the persecution and oppression of the Persians. Many masters will become slaves and many slaves masters. Woe to Egypt on account of the Persians. Many masters will become slaves and many slaves masters. Woe to Egypt on account of the Persians, for they will take the church vessels and drink wine from them before the altar without fear or anxiety. They will rape the women before their husbands. There shall be great distress and anguish, and of those that survive a third will die of grief and misery.

Then after a while the Persians will depart from Egypt and there shall arise the Deceiver, who will enter upon the king of the Romans and will be entrusted by him with headship of both the military commanders and the bishops. He shall enter Egypt and undertake many tasks; he shall take possession of Egypt and its provinces, and build ditches and forts, and order that the walls of the towns in the deserts and wastelands be [re-]built. He shall destroy the East and the West, then he shall combat the pastor, the archbishop in Alexandria entrusted with the Christians resident in the land of Egypt. They will expel him and he will flee southwards until he arrives, sad and dispirited, at your monastery. And when he comes here, I shall return him and place him on his seat once more.

After that shall arise the sons of Ishmael and the sons of Esau, who hound the Christians, and the rest of them will be concerned to prevail over and rule all the world and to [re-]build the Temple that is in Jerusalem. When that happens, know that the end of times approaches and is near. The Jews will expect the Deceiver and will be ahead of the [other] peoples when he comes. When you see the [abomination of] desolation of which the prophet Daniel spoke standing in the holy place, [know that] they are those who deny the pains which I received upon the cross and who move freely about my church, fearing nothing at all. (Ps.-Shenute, Vision, 340-41 [pp. 280-281])

Since the King of the Romans here is certainly Heraclius, my first instinct was that the "Deceiver" being referred to was Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople being condemned for the Monothelite controversy, but the Coptic perspective made me doubt that.  Since the author would have considered Benjamin I the legitimate Bishop of Alexandria this Deceiver could fit Cyrus of Alexandria who was indeed given both Ecclesiastical and Military authority in Egypt.  John of Niku was another Egyptian of the period who tied his hostility towards Cyrus into how he talked about the Arab conquest.

The last detail of that account could sound like it's saying the Arabs of this time already said Jesus didn't die on The Cross.  But in the context of how Divine Impassability was what largely drove Nestorius to develop his view of the Incarnation, this could make sense to me as a criticism of Nestorianism.  Just as Ishoyahb III saying "those who say that God, Lord of all, suffered and died" is a Nestorian criticism of Cyrilian Christianity and not opposition to the doctrine of the Crucifixion or Incarnation.  

Arculf a pilgrim from the 670s.

In that famous place where once stood the magnificently constructed Temple, near the eastern wall, the Saracens now frequent a rectangular house of prayer which they have built in a crude manner, constructing it from raised planks and large beams over some remains of ruins. This house can, as it is said, accomodate at least 3000 people. (Adomnan, De locis sanctis 1.1.14.186 [p. 221])

However the most crucial witness to my theory is the Jewish one, Simon bar Yohai in the 680s.

The second king who arises from Ishmael will be a lover of Israel. He restores their breaches and the breaches of the Temple. He hews Mount Moriah, makes it level and builds a mosque (hishtahawaya) there on the Temple rock, as it is said: "Your nest is set in the rock." (Simon ben Yohai, Secrets, 79 [p. 311])

Not only did some Christians see this as a rebuilding of the Temple from a hostile POV, but Jews also celebrated it as a rebuilding of The Temple.  Meanwhile the Rectangular shape shows this was being built more like Solomon's Temple then like the Octagonal Dome we see there now.

This witness has actually effected my opinion on the Dome of the Rock being the Temple Site.  Having a Jewish pre Dome of the Rock witness to The Temple being on a Rock really lessens how unlikely I found that possibility previously.

Still technically it is the Al Aqsa Mosque that is in it's name claiming to be the "Farthest Mosque" of the Night Journey.  And the Crusaders called that Mosque the Temple of Solomon and the Dome of the Rock the Temple of The Lord.

However archeologically we know that where the Al Aqsa Mosque is was Herod's southern expansion of The Temple complex, the Royal Stoa, so the least likely place on the Mount for the The Temple itself to have been.

There is a lot of Misinformation related to the Archaeological facts about The Temple Mount

I finally started to just read some stuff from those who defend the official mainstream position.  And the people wanting to remove The Temple from the Mount altogether are misrepresenting a lot of facts especially in regards to the Antonia Fortress.

Wherever Antonia was it certainly wasn't the entirety of the Temple Mount.  And it probably may not have been where Jesus was tried before Pilate, and there are etymological issues with identifying the Gabbatha of John 19 with a Rock like the Dome of The Rock's.

One thing I've been noticing for awhile in those supporting the Gihon Spring or Nea Church location flat out ignore Hadrian's Temple to Jupiter when discussing the history since they want to claim nothing else was ever built on the same site.  We know even from a secular pagan gentile source that Hadrain did that, Cassius Dio.  And Jerome says the Statue of Hadrian standing over the Holy of Holies was still there in his day. Jerome identifies it with the Abomination of Desolation of Matthew 24 but still clearly had a Futurist understanding of Revelation.  For that eschatologically influenced reason he might be off on it being exactly where the Holy of Holies was, many think Antiochus's AoD was in the Holy of Holies when in fact 1 Maccabees says it was on the Brazen Altar.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the Baalbek Temple built by the same architect so closely resembles the basic lay out of The Temple Mount, with the Hexagonal Court being what become the Dome of The Rock and the Temple proper being the Al Aqsa Mosque.  Though the Southern Conjecture/Al-Kas fountain view proponents of whom I have been one in the past are perhaps assuming too much about the location of the Equestrian Statue being the same.

I'd like to see the primary sources on Byzantine Jerusalem's Church of Holy Wisdom discussed by someone without an agenda.  How true is it that it stood where the Dome of the Rock is now and that it was identified with a location relating to the trial(s) of Jesus?

Those who believe the Temple was where the Dome currently is say that spot was identified as such by Muslims right from the time of Umar.  For one the oldest Muslin worship site on the Mount is the Al Aqsa Mosque, the current silver domed building is slightly younger then the Dome of the Rock but it was still where Muslims prayed first.  And even then many scholars now think even that oldest primitive Al Aqsa Mousge doesn't go back to Umar but was founded by Muawiyah.

There is no real detailed contemporary account of what Umar did in Jerusalem.  The account typically used by Gihon Spring proponents is a 14th Century account.  Given my personal theories about the early history of Islam(that it was really just an Ishmaelite form of Christianity originally), I suspect Umar never intended any Mosque to be built in Jerusalem as he wanted it to remain a city for the previous People of The Book and if he prayed anywhere it was only the location just a little east of the Holy Sepulcher.  He captured the city because of his alliance with the Jews and Miaphysite Christians who'd been persecuted by Heraclius.  The Qurran does teach that the Land of Israel belongs to the Children of Israel.

Likewise when the Crusaders controlled Jerusalem they called the Al Aqsa Mosque the Temple of Solomon and the Dome of The Rock the Temple of The Lord, The Lord in Christianity is Jesus meaning that name implies a New testament significance.

I'm going to Copy/Paste from The Bordeaus Pilgram (333 AD) via this website.
http://andrewjacobs.org/translations/bordeaux.html

There are in Jerusalem two big pools to the side of the Temple, that is, one to the right, another to the left, which Solomon made, but inside the cite there are two twin pools with five porches, which are called Bethsaida.

There those who have been sick for many years have been healed.

These pools have water which becomes scarlet when disturbed.

There is a crypt there where Solomon tortured demons.

There is the corner of the highest tower, where the Lord went up and he said to the one who was tempting him, and the Lord said to him: Do not tempt the Lord your God, but him only should you serve (Matt 4:7, 10).

There is the cornerstone about which it was said: stone, which the builders reproved, this has been made the head stone (Matt 21:42).

And under the pinnacle of the tower there are many chambers, where Solomon had his palace.

There is also the chamber in which he sat and wrote about wisdom; but the chamber itself has a single stone for its roof.

There are also very great pools of water underground and a great pool built with work.

And in that building where the Temple was, which Solomon built, in the marble before the altar is the blood of Zechariah which you would say was shed today; indeed, there appear to be traces of the soldier's boots, who killed him, throughout the area, such that you would think they had been pressed in wax.

There are two status of Hadrian; not far from the statues is a pierced stone to the Jews comes every year and they anoint it and they lament with a groan and they tear their garments and then they withdraw.

There is the house of Hezekiah, King of Judah.

I have come to believe all of this section is about stuff on The Temple Mount.  After this he heads south out of what was then the city proper where he observed the Pool of Siloam then goes to the Western hill which was considered to be Zion at that time.

The use of the name "Bethsadia" is confusing because the New Testament and Josephus use that of a place not anywhere near Jerusalem.

There are at least two probably three different stones refereed to here. However people confident The Dome is the site of The Temple seem to treat all three as the same and as being the titular Rock under that Dome.  I have my doubts any of them really match that Rock but the best bet is that the modern "Well of Souls" is what this Pilgrim identified as the chamber where Solomon wrote "the book of Wisdom" (whether that is the apocryphal text or they meant Proverbs I won't venture to guess).  This association could explain why a Church built there later was called Holy Wisdom, but again I need an unbiased way to analyze the more obscure primary sources on that Church.

When the Pilgrim says "and in that building where" he's clearly moved to a more specific location and so the stone that will be mentioned last can't be identified with the two prior stones.  Those two stones are explicitly not in The Temple proper.

Identifying the Dome of The Rock as the Temple's Location depends on the "pierced stone" the Jews came to anoint every year (we know elsewhere that day was the 9th of Av, not Yom Kippur as one article I read criticizing Cornuke assumed).  This stone was (believed to be) either a Cornerstone of The Temple or one which was supposed to be where The Ark rested and so probably only slightly larger then The Ark itself, something more like the Stone around which The Church of the Seat of Mary was constructed.  But on second thought this Stone is not actually likely to be where the Holy of Holies was since The Jews have always been adamant about not risking accidentally walking over it.

So yes, I still consider the Dome itself the least likely of spots on The Mount to place The Temple.  I have become more open to the Dome of The Tablets view because that places it directly due west of the Golden Gate.  However the narrative thrust of the Pilgrim's description could be seen as moving southward and thus placing The Temple south of the presumed Chamber that Solomon wrote the Book of Wisdom in.

I am far from making up my mind on this issue.  I'm still attracted to the Nea Church being the site of at least one of The Temples, or maybe David's Tabernacle.

Update: An article called The Byzantine Presence on The Temple Mount arguing for the Gihon Spring view is very misinformed and since fact checking it's claims I now doubt that Saint Sophia/Holy Wisdom was on the Temple Mount.

It once accuses a Wilson of wrongly conflating the Church of the Blessed Mary with the Nea Church of the Theotokos.  However it is in fact well known that both those names were used for the same Church.  Cyril of Scythoplis account of the Church's origin makes clear that Sabas's request was just of a Church for Saint Mary.  It was Justinian who took the prerogative of using the title Theotokos because of his agenda of trying to unify the Chalcedonian and Miaphysite churches while scapegoating the Nestorians.  Both this source and Procopius only refer to Justinian building one Marian Church, and none of this article's sources are aware of the Theotokos Church if they were indeed different.

The Saint Sophia Church is clearly near by and so I'm now thinking was maybe where the Armenian Church of the Archangels is with it's presumed trial location changing.  Carefully reading that article's own sources the "Stone" venerated here that Jesus stood on is clearly a smaller portable "stone" not something like what the Dome is built over.

I personally think the tradition of sealing off the East Gate began in the Byzantine era by Christians who felt it was time to fulfill Ezekiel 46:1 since Jesus had already entered at his Triumphal entry.

Was the Second Temple even built on the same location as The First?

As I've repeatedly engaged in the ongoing debate of where The Temple was located, usually favoring the Southern Conjecture.  This question has been in my mind, and I think I even alluded to it on this Blog before, but I've held off on going too deep into that issue.

The Book of Ezra's account of the Second Temple's construction never named Mt Moriah, or refereed to a threshing floor, nor said anything else to indicate they made sure it was the right spot. In fact the only books of The Bible they seem to have consulted were The Torah.  And it had been over 50 years.  Ezra also seems to imply they didn't even know the proper Hebrew language anymore.

And since The Tabernacle had been set up at multiple locations before The Temple, Yahuah may have not cared if it was built on the same spot anyway. 

When Zerubabel's Temple was completed, it's said that the older generation wept because of how unlike the original Temple it was.  This is generally taken to just mean it was inferior in terms of size or magnificence.  But perhaps there is something deeper.

In my investigation into if The Tabernacle and perhaps also Solomon's Temple had a Dome design rather then the Box shape Josephus describes Herod's Temple having.  It has been suggested that perhaps this mourning was partly because the new Temple had the wrong shape and wasn't a Dome.  Perhaps the second Temple's construction was intentionally or subconsciously influenced by Pagan Temples like the one at Ain Dara, since they had spent so much time in exile among Pagans.

But perhaps they were also mourning it being built at the wrong location.  Maybe those two things correlate, if the Temple's shape was changed because it was built on a squared rather then circular foundation?

Solomon also built a magnificent Palace complex for himself, that took nearly twice as long to build as The Temple did.  1 Kings 7:1-12 focuses on this.  What if the site of Solomon's Palace was where the Second Temple was built by mistake?  They assumed the largest ruin in the city was where The Temple was?

The Second Temple I still believe was about where the Al-Kas fountain is, or maybe I could accept the Al Aqsa Mosque view.  But the Dome of The Rock was the Antonia Fortress, of that I'm certain.

Now when I first came to consider this I was working under an assumption many people have that Solomon's Palace was right by The Temple.  Josephus seems to have thought it was to The South of The Temple.  So that had me considering it being where the Al Aqsa Mosque was, and Solomon's Temple at the Al-Kas Fountain.   I'd also thought of looking typologically at Ezekiel's Temple, how the Nasi's house is just west of the Holy of Holies.  But Solomon's palace complex was larger and more complex then that one.

I notice however that Pharaoh's Daughter was moved to her house in II Chronicles 8:11 specifically to keep her at a distance from any place the Ark of the Covenant had been housed.  So now I'm thinking perhaps Solomon's Temple was not in any place we're used to looking for it.  This also refutes a suggestion I've seen that it's a misunderstanding Solomon built a house for himself and that 1 Kings 7 is just elaborating on The Temple complex, since 1 Kings 7 also clearly places the house for Pharaoh's Daughter here.

II Chronicles 3:1 is another important verse for refuting the Temple was in the City of David view.  And perhaps working against it being in Jerusalem proper of David's time at all.

In this verse Mt Moriah is considered part of Jerusalem at this time.  But it's clearly identified as the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, also known as Araunah in II Samuel 24.  Verse 23 of that chapter calls Araunah a King in the Hebrew, Wikipedia accuses English translations of obscuring this fact, but I feel it's implied well enough in the KJV reading.

Both the Samuel and Chronicles accounts of the Plague and buying the Threshing floor clearly place it outside Jerusalem at that time.  David's purchase expanded what was considered part of Jerusalem, but when The Angel of Yahuah held off there, it's presented as approaching but not yet reaching Jerusalem.

Now my past assumptions about what Mount is Mt Moriah would say this must have been north of Jebus.  But the Plague had already afflicted Israel "from Dan to Beersheba" so both to the north and south.  So actually it may have approached from a different direction.  Since the hills east of Jerusalem are where Solomon placed his Idols in 1 Kings 11 (The Mount of Olives), I feel like deducing this was approaching from the West.

I have since taking the Augustus view of Daniel 11:36-45, concluded that the Appeden of Daniel 11:45 is the Antonia fortress.  Appeden is a Persian term that means "Audience Hall", and I've seen people describe one of the buildings mentioned in 1 Kings 7 as part of Solomon's palace as an Audience Hall.  So what if the Antonia Fortress was built over Solomon's Temple?  Maybe Solomon's Judgment Seat in 1 Kings 7:7 is about where Pilate's judgment seat was when he sentenced Jesus?  Which would thus mean it included the Dome of The Rock, but maybe covered the entire Temple Mount.

So, if I'm going to look West for Solomon's Temple, where should we begin?

I decided to look at Maps of modern Jerusalem.

http://www.generationword.com/jerusalem101-photos/2010/jerusalem-map-for-site-location-1500.gif
 http://c8.alamy.com/comp/DRHJ2F/the-plan-of-jerusalem-town-map-layout-DRHJ2F.jpg

South of the Temple Mount is a Circle that is basically what Tradition now calls the City of David, where Bob Cornuke thinks The Temple was.  I have argued the City of David is Bethlehem but do think that site was the Core of the Jebus David originally captured.  David had palaces in both cities.  And I place neither Temple in either.

Wikipedia acknowledges three traditional candidates for the Hill that is Mt Zion.  I think Zion is none of those but in Bethlehem.

The one within the supposed "City of David" is what Bob Cornuke thinks The Temple was built on.  The second is simply applying the term to the main Temple Mount, the traditional Mt Moriah.

The third, the Western hill, which is South of the Armenian Quarter. is a site Christian Tradition has called Mt Zion, and that has it's own claimed site for King David's Tomb (in the same compound as the traditional site of the Upper Room of the Last Supper and Pentecost), but that Jewish tradition knows most certainly was not Zion and probably not part of David's Jerusalem at all. 

Justinian built an important Church on this "Zion", the Nea Ekklesia of The Theotokos, which Porcopius describes in a way that is designed to parallel the account of Solomon's Temple.  It was originally thought to be where the Al Aqsa Mosque is, but we now know it was on the Western Hill.

Earlier was built there the Church of the Holy Apostles (not to be confused with many more famous churches of that name) and the Hagia Sion which is now the Abbey of the Dormition.

Perhaps the Western Hill is the real Mount Moriah and one of these Churches was built where Solomon's Temple was? Since I firmly believe Solomon's Temple would not have been built on the full top of the Hill, I think the Nea possibly fits best.

So, I hope that was enlightening.  This is mostly speculative so I can't be sure of anything yet.

Update October 15th: And the day after posting this, I found that at least someone before me has argued the Nea Ekklesia is where Solomon's Temple was.   Their reasons for coming to this conclusion may be different from mine, I haven't read all of what they've argued yet.  (They mistakenly think The Mercy Seat was a Throne like many.)  They seem to believe the Second Temple was also at this site, which I'm open to.
https://haheykal.wordpress.com/.

I was also off a little on where I thought the Nea was.  It's more where the Jewish and Armenian Quarter meet, between the Zion and Dung gates, and includes the HaTkuma Garden.  This blog places the Holy of Holies under the current Deir al Zeitune Armenian Church, which is an interesting coincidence given it's a Church with a Dome.  According to tradition that Church was the house of High Priest Ananias, which could easily have been near The Temple.  Perhaps High Priests often lived just west of the Holy of Holies to try and fit the imagery of Ezekiel's Temple.

But again, given the starting premise of this post, it could be Ananias house was built over where Solomon's Temple was.

Update October 23rd 2017:

On a website about this Church, it says the Church's traditions also linked it to  2 Samuel 24:16-17 and I Chronicles 21:15-16, which is about the Threshing Floor of Ornan. Seemingly not noticing that that is the site of Solomon's Temple.

The Armenians' traditions also associate Queen Helena and King Abgar with founding the Church at this location, figures who've interested me for a few reasons.  And the Armenian traditional history of the site seems to skip the period when Justinian's Nea Ekklesia would have been here.

I also found a YouTube Video on the Theory.

The Olive Tree associated with this site is also interesting, when you study references to Olive Trees in The Bible. Both literally and symbolically.

Update March 25th 2018: Based on this recent post of mine, I've now sorta switched. I think the Nea Eklessia was where the Second Temple was, and maybe Bob Cornuke's location was Solomon's Temple he's just wrong on how he makes much of that argument.

I don't think there will be a Millennial Temple building.

I know my fellow Pre-Millennial Futurists are very afraid of any interpretation of Scripture that can be viewed as less then Literal.  I have more and more come to feel "Literal" is not the right word, what I say is that I take The Bible seriously.

What I want to discus here is that denying that the Old Testament Prophecies of a future Temple might very well be fulfilled by the New Testament Doctrine of The Church as The Temple of God, demeans the importance of that NT Doctrine in ways that I feel damage our Understanding of God's Word more then any allegorical interpretation of Scripture ever could.

And I don't view it as merely symbolic, as of Pentecost The Church is absolutely the literal definition of what a Temple is, in both Pagan and Judeo-Christian thought a Temple is what houses the Divine.  It is only what sounds like the description of a building and sacrifices that is interpreted as symbolic here.

And this Doctrine isn't limited to Paul, which I mention not just because of the Anti-Paul people out there, but because a Doctrine needs more then one witness.  It's in Revelation, both in the message to the church at Philadelphia and in the description of New Jerusalem (The 12 Apostles as Pillars is referencing Paul's own terminology in Ephesians 2 and Galatians).  And if you don't think Paul wrote Hebrews, Hebrews alludes to it.  Jesus teaches in John 4 that a time will come when God no longer dwells in a Temple building.  And it's implied that's what Stephen was stoned for teaching in Acts 6-7.  And it's in 1 Peter 2:4-5.

I've seen people say that Paul teaches the doctrine in the sense of an Individual Believer's Body being God's Temple only once so we can't build Doctrine on that (in 1 Corinthians in chapter 3 and 6).  However Peter refers to his Body as The Tabernacle in 1 Peter 1:13-14.  That is a second Witness more so then another reference from Paul would be.

Meanwhile in John's Gospel Chapter 2, we see Jesus refer to His Body as "This Temple".  That means that the doctrine of The Church as the Temple of God is inherently related to The Church as The Body of Christ.

And I've already talked about how The Body of Christ and Bride of Christ doctrine are related because of when Jesus says a Husband and Wife become one Flesh, and how Eve was made from Adam's flesh.  And the same passages of Revelation I alluded to above also reference the Bride of Christ doctrine.

And plenty of Prophecies about either The Millennium or New Jerusalem lack any reference to a Temple.  The Christian Doctrine of The Millennium is dependent on Revelation 20 and 1 Corinthians 15, neither mentions a Temple building.  Ezekiel 37 I view as about The Millennium and it mentions no Temple building, Paul quotes Ezekiel 37 when building his Church as the Temple doctrine in 2 Corinthians 6:16.  Even Zechariah 14 while talking about the Feast of Tabernacles being observed doesn't mention a Temple, Torah observant Christians observe that Feast without needing a Temple.

Isaiah 65 and 66 are viewed as about The Millennium by many but the New Heaven and New Earth by me.  Either way he makes clear there will be no Sacrifices.

Ezekiel 40-49 is the only presumed Prophecy of The Millennium that in detail describes a Temple Building and Sacrifices being carried out, there is no second Witness, other passages you can take as referring to a Temple in The Millennium lack details.  Yet the part on Yahuah-Shammah is clearly among what Revelation is drawing on in it's account of New Jerusalem, where all Christians agree the only Temple is The Church.

And when The Holy Days are discussed in Ezekiel 45, First Fruits, Pentecost, Yom Teruah and Yom Kippur are left out.  Those happen to be the Holy Days most dependent on the Temple rituals.

And so here I point back to my past discussions on Ezekiel's Temple.  [Update: I now have this improved discussion of the topic.  Which was in turn a follow up to this revisiting.]

So now you may ask, what about the "Third Temple" as in a Temple The Antichrist will desecrate?

Historicism is predicated on saying The Temple Paul refers to in II Thessalonians 2 is the same one he means in the Corinthian Epistles and Ephesians 2.  My issue there is mainly that Paul clearly means something unmistakable.  Even so the idea that the literal and symbolic meaning could both be true is possible, I have for many reasons become convinced The Antichrist will be within The Church.  But the issues with saying The Pope fulfilled this already are endless.

I firmly believe the Eschatological portions of the Thessalonian Epistles were Paul's commentary on the Olivite Discourses.  Jesus didn't use the word Temple there, but in both Matthew and Mark there is no denying he is using geographical terms.

Mark 13's Abomination of Desolation reference has often been interpreted to imply the location of The Temple but not necessary require the building itself to still be standing.  Which is why many have seen Hadrian's Temple built after the Bar Kokhba Revolt as fulfilling this.

However most of my fellow Futurists feel Matthew 24 saying "in" and "Holy Place" means inside a Temple building.  But in fact the Greek terminology there can refer to an outside as well as inside sacred location, the word for "in" is sometimes also translated "on".

The only reference to an Earthly Temple building in Revelation is at the start of Revelation 11.  In that case I recently read someone arguing that what the Greek Text actually says is that in 42 months Jerusalem will be trodden under foot of the Gentiles for an indeterminate amount of time.  I have shown that Luke 21 begins that time frame when The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

This person was a Futurist in their overall view of Revelation.  But argued this passage is about the time John received the Revelation being 42 months before September of 70 AD when Titus fully secured control of the City.  However this was an Anti-Paul website that teaches a lot of bad doctrine.

What's most important is that I have come to an understanding of the Image of The Beast that says the final Abomination of Desolation won't happen till after The Beast's mortal wound is healed.  Which in turn can't happen till after the Abyss has been unlocked is Revelation 9.  And that is why the Historicist view of II Thessalonians fails.

At the same time, I am now open to a Pre-Millenial Futurist view that does not require any future Temple Building.

But also, since I now think The Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple were originally Domes.  And the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque are both Domed buildings.  Is it possible one of them could be considered close enough?  (Perhaps likewise with the Christian Churches in Jerusalem that are Domed.)  The issue of where the Holy Place was in relation to those buildings I've discussed in the past and will again.

Long time readers of this Blog may recall that there not being enough time to rebuild The Temple was why I abandoned my 2018-2025 70th Week model (that came from the Suleiman the Magnificent theory).  Am I now willing to revive that?  Maybe, but I don't want to definitively predict anything.

I'm not saying for sure there will be no Third Temple.  But I'm saying i don't think it's quite as required as it used to be.

Solomon's Temple was NOT in the City of David.

If you think it was, I suggest you read 1 Kings 8:1, the account of The Ark being placed in The Temple.

"Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of Yahuah out of the city of David, which is Zion."

And also 2 Chronicles 5:2

"Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of Yahuah out of the city of David, which is Zion."

David's Tabernacle was not on the same land as Solomon's Temple, that's where these "The Temple wasn't on The Temple Mount" people are confused.

The land that Solomon built The Temple on, David purchased after the whole Census and Plague episode recorded in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21, (and referenced again in 2 Chronicles 3:1).  So it can't possibly be the same spot near the Gihon Spring where David placed The Ark when he began his reign in Jerusalem.

In 2 Samuel 24:23, though English translations sometimes obscure this, Araunah (Ornan in Chronicles) is called a King.  He was the King of a separate Kingdom, so the land he owned was clearly not within The City of David.

There are also many reasons why you wouldn't put a threshing floor anywhere near a spring.

Now I don't know if the Second Temple was on the same spot as the first.  But I believe the evidence places the Second Temple's Holy of Holies about where the Al-Kas Fountain currently is, and that the Antonia Fortress was where the Dome of The Rock is.

Prophetic verses get used to back up saying there is a spring or river under The Temple.  Ezekiel 40-48's Temple will be no where near the same spot as Solomon's, it's miles north of Jerusalem, I've argued about where Beth-El was. And by then events like the 7th Bowl of Wrath will have totally changed the geography of the region.

In both Poetic and Prophetic books Zion gets used poetically, it doesn't always mean it's strict Geographical definition it has in the two verses that started this post.

More on The Southern Conjecture

I want to clarify that my support for the Southern Conjecture view is independent of how it may or may not tie into Eschatology.  I'm not even confident anymore the Third Temple will be built on the same place (Revelation 11 is the only reason I'm certain it's in Jerusalem and not somewhere else like Shiloh, Shechem or Bethel where Ezekiel's Temple will be).  If it is built on a High Place like where the Dome of The Rock now is that'll just be further proof The Temple the Man of Sin will violate was never truly of God.

My views on End Times Prophecy have shifted since I made the first Southern Conjecture related post on this blog.  For one that was originally devised when I was much more convinced then I have been recently of the Mahdi=Antichrist view.  But even more recently I've perhaps become less hostile to it as my fondness for Chris White's view has waned.

But more importantly I brought Daniel 11:36-45 into it a great deal.  I now no longer view that as End Times.

I do state during that Daniel 11 study that I think the Appeden refers to the Antonia Fortress. Which I view as having been where the Dome of The Rock is now.  Reasons for that are argued for by other Southern Conjecture supporters here.  The Antonia fortress was the seat of Roman Government within Jerusalem.

Josephus Antiquities of The Jews Book 12 Chapter 5 clearly describes there being a hill overlooking The Temple, and on that hill Antiochus Epiphanies built a fortification.

Between the Antonia Fortress and the Dome of The Rock it was Hadrian's Temple Complex.  Looking at the pictures of how they line up, I'm not an expert on Roman Temples but it looks like the Jupiter Temple proper was where the Al Aqsa Mosque is, I'm not sure what that circular area over the Rock would be.  If anyone would like to explain it to me feel free to leave a comment.

I don't know what was there if anything before the Antonia Fortress.  I must correct my past statements about wherever Solomon placed his Idols to Chemosh and Moloch.  Apparently that was probably the Mount of Olives.

I also want to reiterate my view that the Giihon Spring site being advocated now by Bob Conruke was where the Tabernacle of David stood.  The site of Solomon's Temple David didn't buy till after the Census and the Plague and Absolam's death.  The Ark remained in the Tabernacle of David all through the construction of Solomon's Temple.

Suleiman and the 70 Weeks of Daniel

I've argued on this Blog for why I believe the first 69 weeks of Daniel 9 were fulfilled from 454 BC-30 AD.  I decided later in response to those who are Futurists yet view the 70th Week as fulfilled, to investigate the possibility of the 70th week being fulfilled from 30-37 AD.  And then I came to the conclusion that the 70th Week is a Prophecy with a dual Fulfillment.

I eventually decided to contemplate in my mind the possibility of the first 69 weeks having a second fulfillment also.  This would require another decree to rebuild Jerusalem.  It need not seem identical to the one by Artaxerxes or any other Persian ruler.  It matters only that it fit what Daniel 9 says of it.  Interestingly Daniel 9's description of the Decree says nothing about Israelites returning to Jerusalem at this time, or anything about The Temple.  Only the City being restored and rebuilt with a specific emphasis on The Walls.

I decided to look at Wikipedia's Timeline of Jerusalem and saw that 1535-1538 AD Suleiman The Magnificent had Jerusalem rebuilt including The Walls which had been in ruin since at least 135 AD. Also The Dome of The Rock was renovated then.  These restored Walls are the Walls that stand to this day.  The story goes that he gave a decree to rebuild the Walls that was prompted by a divinely inspired dream he had.  Whatever prompted the Decree, we have archaeological evidence of it.

Building inscription commemorating the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem 

Jerusalem 

Ottoman period, 1535–1538 

Stone 

Israel Antiquities Authority 

Accession number: IAA 1942-265 

The Ottoman Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent ordered the construction of new buildings in Jerusalem and the renovation of existing ones. Among his most notable projects were the renovation of the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount and the rebuilding of the Jerusalem city walls. The walls, reminiscent of those surrounding Istanbul, are the ones that still surround Jerusalem’s Old City today. This building inscription commemorates their renewal.

“Has decreed the construction of the wall he who has protected the home of Islam with his might and main and wiped out the tyranny of idols with his power and strength, he whom alone God has enabled to enslave the necks of kings in countries (far and wide) and deservedly acquire the throne of the Caliphate, the Sultan son of the Sultan son of the Sultan son of the Sultan, Suleyman.”

Digital presentation of this object was made possible by: The Ridgefield Foundation, New York, in memory of Henry J. and Erna D. Leir

I've already addressed the usual argument against Date Setting.  

Problem is we don't know exactly when this "decree" was, it was in the range of 1535-1538 AD.  In my view in order for it to fit perfectly it needs to have been made in Nisan.  

I did some searching and found that others had noticed this possibility before me.  A lot of them however seem to incorporate mistakes about the 70 Weeks Prophecy I addressed in my earliest posts on it.

I saw on one website someone arguing that only this Decree could fit Daniel 9 and not any of the Persian ones.  They base it on seeing Daniel 9:25 as saying that the Wall must continually stand at least during the entirety of the 62 weeks.  The Walls built during Persian times were breached at least once before the earliest possible date one could give for the 62 weeks ending (106 BC and that requires a few assumptions I view as wrong, I as you know see them as ending in 30 AD), by Antiochus Epiphanes forces, Josephus Antiquities of The Jews Book 12 Chapter 5 does say he destroyed the walls.  Suleiman's Walls meanwhile have stood without interruption unto this very day.

The problem with that argument is that it removes the first Advent of Christ from the 70 Weeks.  Also Gabriel was clearly promising something in the near future, something at least some of Daniel's original readers would live to see.  What's said about the Walls standing has room for interpretation, Antiochus did not completely destroy them like the Romans did in 70 and 135 AD. 

It is a common feature of Double Fulfillment Prophecies that certain key details are not fulfilled in their truest sense till the second fulfillment, that's largely why we know it needs a second.  In the case of the 70 weeks we tend to see the 70th alone as what needs something yet future to be fulfilled.

But given what I argued already about my view of the 70th Week, the implication that perhaps the Walls could be torn down or breached when the Eschatological 70th Week starts is pretty provocative.  Since I am expecting the Nisan that starts The Week to include an Islamic conquest of Jerusalem in response to The Temple being rebuilt.  And a Decoy Antichrist will kill the true Antichrist who will be heralded as Messiah Ben-Joseph.

Most people believe if Jerusalem is conquered by a foreign enemy during the 70th Week it's at the midway point, at the same time as the Abomination of Desolation.  And I have other reasons for thinking an End Times deception could involve making people think the beginning of The Week was it's middle.  It was I think in Nisan that the Walls of Jericho fell.

If this theory is true, I think some discovery will be made before the 70th Week begins that will clarify exactly when Suleiman made his decree.  And if it was in Nisan on either the Rabbinic Hebrew, Kariete Hebrew or Samaritan Hebrew calendar, then I will start feeling this hypothesis is very possible.

The margin of error currently gives us Nisan of 2018-2021 for the start of the 70th week.  Tishri of 2021-2024 for the Midway Point, when I place The Rapture/Second Coming, and when we all place the Abomination of Desolation.  And Nisan of 2025-2028 for the end of the 70th Week.

People have independently of this seen reasons to look to that range for the end times.  Some of those I might get into in future posts.  I've offered two possible 70th Week theories on this blog before, neither of which are compatible with this.  I'm trying to consider many possibilities.

Update: It seems the 1535-1538 range is really the time the walls were under construction, though other construction in Jerusalem continued for awhile after, 1541 for the Golden Gate, and then additional renovations after the 1546 Earthquake.  Which means the Decree could have likely been Nisan 1535 placing the 70th week as 2018-2025, with the Seventh Trumpet sounding on the First of Tishri in 2021, marking the Mid-Way Point.

I've come to view the 7 and 62 weeks distinction as that the 7 weeks is how long the construction went on.  I know of no documentation that anything was exactly finished in 1584, but it's possible, that's 38 years after the earthquake.

Also a correction on something I said above, it was April 1st 1969 not 68 reconstruction in the Old City was allowed.  I've seen one website suggest that the second fulfillment perhaps switched the order of the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks.  I think that's torturing the text a bit, but that it is a full jubilee from then to Nisan 2018 is interesting.

Update May 2017:   If you want to learn more about Suleiman himself in an easy and fun way, I recommend watching Extra History: Suleiman The Magnificent.

I still support the Southern Conjecture

I have a post where I originally explained my support for the Southern Conjecture/Al-Kas Fountain view.  And then another one where I deal with one particular objection to it's Escatological significance.

Latter I did a post in response to some new information I learned where I considered changing to the Gihon Spring view of The Temple's location.  That post was made and revised as my mind was being pretty chaotic on the subject and it still seemed clear I wasn't really gonna do that.  All the reasons for  rejecting that view I hold now are explained there, or in links provided there.

So I am just making this post to clarify.  I believe the Temple was where the Al-Kas fountain is.  But the Gihon Spring is interesting and I think probably the Location of the Tabernacle of David.

The Impossibility of something happening is the least valid argument against a Prophetic interpretation.

Now what I mean here is impossible, or implausible, in secular terms.  That it could happen based on our observable contemporary situation. If you think it's impossible for a Biblical reason that's different.

Chris White is someone I discovered only a few months ago. I find many of his arguments good, they've helped me make new insights. Ironically, how well he argues for his Pre-Wrath position makes me more secure in my Mid-Trib position.

I like his approach even when expressing views I disagree with. But one annoyance I have with hearing him argue against certain popular views on Bible Prophecy is how much time he devotes to saying something couldn't happen, or is highly improbable to happen.

Sometimes he does this arguing against views I also don't agree with. Like viewing The Pope as The Antichrist or The False Prophet. The former I consider completely invalid, the latter highly unlikely.   I'm against using that argument even in those cases, I want to be consistent.

He also uses it when arguing against the view that the Southern Conjecture/Al-Kas Fountain view of The Temple's location is correct, and that the Third Temple will be rebuilt with both the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of The Rock still standing.

He claims that even if neither the Mosque or the Dome would have to be damaged, that Muslims still could never accept having a Temple where animal sacrifices are going on exist even within the vicinity of those sites. So the only way for The Temple to be rebuild is for Muslims to completely lose the ability to have any say in the matter.  [Update: turns out he was wrong on ANimal Sacrifice in Islam]

Well the problem is for most of the Church Age (around 500 A.D. to WWI) even the basics of the End Time scenario seemed impossible to ever happen. It seemed impossible Israel would ever be given their land back, much less rebuild The Temple. That's why the mainstream approach all through those periods was to allegorize everything, even the most basic stuff.  It was only after the Protestant reformaiton that any dissenters insisting Israel will be established began to emerge.  But they were the minority even among Protestants.

And even without considering for the Supernatural, in Geo-politics things that seemed impossible have happened many times. The United States of America has a Black President right now, only 10 years ago that still seemed an impossibility.

I'd say it's an inherent sign of a lack of Faith if the only Prophetic predictions you think are valid are the ones that are plausible. Indeed every Prophecy for which both the foretelling and fulfillment is recorded in Scripture seemed laughably unlikely to the Kings the Prophets gave them to.

So I don't care how impossible some think it is that any Muslims would accept the arrangement of The Temple being rebuilt between the Mosque and the Dome. I believe that's the picture The Bible paints. No it's not clearly laid out in one single passage, but neither is The Trinity, or Israel fleeing to Edom. It fits various Biblical clues all put together like a perfect puzzle, and all the other explanations of each of those verses fails in my view.

So therefore I have faith that it WILL happen, no matter how Impossible it is. If things happen differently that won't phase me because it doesn't effect the Gospel. I'm Dogmatic on only the most indisputable things, like that The Temple must be rebuild, and the Abomination of Desolation will happen. But of all the conjectural views of Bible Prophecy I have, this is the one I view as the most solid.

No matter what Antichrist theory turns out to be true, this scenario I think this is compatible.  In terms of Chris White's False Christ claiming to be messiah Ben-Joseph theory.  There is no reason to rule out such a figure trying to to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict peacefully before he's forced to wage war on them.

As far as why it's implausible to Christ White. Well I don't necessarily think all Muslims will accept it, I think there will still be lots of Middle East tension during this time. All The Willful King's Wars recorded in Daniel 11:40-45 I think will likely happen while the Third Temple is standing and it's sacrifices being carried out during the first half of the 70th Week.

But it's the Jordanian Hashamite dynasty who actually controls the Mount, and their pretty moderate right now. Their very cooperative with the U.N.. and the Club of Rome. And the West constantly forces things on the Muslim world they should know better then to think they'd be OK with.

Frankly the greater obstacle to me is getting the leading Jews in Israel to accept that the official view of where The Temple stood is wrong. To me the official view is Biblically impossible for many (non eschatological) reasons. But none the less all the Rabbis in Israel are emotionally married to it.

The Dome of The Rock and the Southern Conjecture

I favor the Southern conjecture of The Temple’s location. Threshing floors were never on mountain tops for one thing, and God commanded Israel NOT to build altars on High Places as the pagans did.

Hadrian had a huge Temple complex to Jupiter built over the entire modern Temple Mount site. Ancient sources say he had a huge Equestrian Statue of himself built over where the Holy of Holies had been. The same Architect built another Temple to Jupiter at Baalbek using the same design. That complex still exists, and a diagram of it fits over the Temple Mount area in Jerusalem perfectly, putting the Equestrian stature where the Al-Kas fountain is, not over either Mosque.
Temple Mount Southern Conjecture Pictures

So I think the future peace plan will have the Al-Kas fountain moved and have The Temple rebuilt between the two Mosques. This fits Revelation 11’s model of the outer court given to the Gentiles perfectly.

Also when Daniel 11:45 says “And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain;” I don’t think this is the Abomination of Desolation yet, because his “death” that leads to his counterfeit resurrection happens next “yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.”

The word translated “palace” here is only ever used in Scripture this one time, ‘appeden (ap-peh’-den); Noun, Strong #: 643. Upon further study it’s actually a Persian loan word (Daniel by this time had no doubt picked up a lot of Persian in the third year of Cyrus), from apadana which means “audience hall”.

That is not an accurate description of The Holy Place of the Jewish Temple, which is confined and not public. When The Abomination of Desolation happens the whole world will be be able to see because the Man of Sin will brings news media with him, but it’s design is not to be an “audience hall”. And I don’t think Daniel would have used a gentile non Hebrew word to describe The Temple, this is clearly a Gentile place of worship.

I think he’ll actually place a Throne of sorts on the Rock venerated under the Dome of The Rock. The Dome of The Rock isn't like most Mosques, in fact I’m not sure it’s really considered one at all. In-spite of them usually not allowing cameras in it’s a much more open public area, it could easily serve as an “audience hall”.

I will share some facts I considered interesting back when I learned toward the Mahdi view.  There is no doubt much I always disagreed with here, but it says the entire design of the Dome of The Rock was about it’s Prophetic significance to Muslims.

  http://www.academia.edu/913208/The_Meaning_of_the_Dome_of_the_Rock-published_The_Islamic_Quarterly_Fall_1999
the Muslim Dome of the Rock commemorated an event (rather a connected series of events)which was (and still is) future—the Resurrection, Judgment, and final rule of God upon earth. This is why the Dome of the Rock remains a mystery from the art historical point of reference—commemoration looks to the past—but here, in the first great structure of Islam, the commemoration is eschatological and thus points to the future.-
Muslims also believe, according to the Encyclopaedia of Islam and other sources, that prior to the occurrence of the Resurrection and the Last Judgment,
Mekkah’s
black stone will come to the holy city of Jerusalem, as a bride to her husband, to perform a circumambulation around the Rock which the Dome covers. Then the angel of death,
Israfil
, will blow his trumpet—the last trumpet—and this will initiate the resurrection day.
[Busse, Sanctity, 468, n.141]
This Qur’anic statement is inexplicable if early Islam is to be understood in the same way as modern Islam is comprehended in its separation or distinction from the former faiths. However, if we accept the eschatological solution to the mystery of the origin of the Dome of the Rock, this Qur’anic statement becomes comprehensible.
The eschatological associations, which the Dome of the Rock possesses, are enunciated even in its inscriptions. For example, the inscription on the northeast outer ambulatory states,
To Him belongs dominion and to Him belongs praise. He gives life and He makes to die; He is powerful over all things.
[conflation of Qur’an 64:1 and 57:2]
Muhammad is God’s messenger, may God bless him and accept his intercession on the day of resurrection for his community.[Encyclopaedia of Islam, 267][emphasis mine]-
The Umayyards created a suitable covering over this Rock upon which the Judgment of the World would commence, and surrounded it with the crowns of those who must present themselves before God after the Resurrection. [See Figure 4,page 15]

I obviously don’t expect much of this to be literally fulfilled, and they don’t directly mention the Mahdi. But the key is it’s association with the Resurrection. While for Christians the Resurrection began with Jesus, for Muslims it will begin when Isa resurrects the Mahdi. So it’s easy to speculate that the Mahdi will reign from here publicly for a bit, be assassinated here, and his body entombed here until his counterfeit resurrection.

I think this significance for the Dome of the Rock could also tie into Isaiah 14’s talk of the Abominable Branch being cast out of his sepulcher/buryingplace/grave.  And Daniel 9:27’s talk of the desolating abomination spreading from a Wing of The Temple, which some have already seen linked to the Outer Court reference of Revelation 11.

I do believe the Beast’s receiving his Mortal Wound must be very Public, as Public as JFK’s assassination if the whole world can wonder at it’s healing without doubt it was purely supernatural. And so must it’s healing. So an “Audience Hall” is a fitting location.

I of course am no longer as sold on the Mahdi Antichrist theory, I was for awhile (when I wrote the first draft of this).  But it can work with other theories too.  Since it was built non Muslims have used The Dome of The Rock when they controlled the area.  Like the Knights Templars.

I've studied Chris White's False Christ theory, it's compelling though certain details I can't accept.  I could see a Jewish Leader, or Ally claiming to be messiah Ben-Joseph also making a makeshift "Audience Hall" out of it after retaking control of the Temple Mount.  But I suspect this is a change in control of the site that would happen after The Temple was already built.