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.

The Vicar of Christ

The title "Vicar of Christ" as a title for the Bishop of Rome aka The Pope is a major factor in Papal Antichrist arguments, both among Historicists and Futurists who want to make a Papal Antichrist view work within Futurism.  The title in the various ways it's been translated implies being a mortal representative of Christ who has all of Christ's authority.

One Biblical pillar of the argument is viewing the Temple that Paul refers to in II Thessalonians 2 as being The Church not a Temple Building, and thus the true "Abomination of Desolation" is a Mortal Human within the Church claiming the authority of Christ.  That is an issue I've discussed a lot in the past and may discus more in the future.

The other is interpreting the term "Antichrist" in John's Epistles as meaning "in place of Christ" rather then "opposed to Christ", thus suggesting "Vicar of Christ" can be viewed as a direct Latin translation of that term.  My looking in the Strongs Concordance at other Biblical Greek words with the anti- preffix shows that it seems to be used with both meanings.  But the context of what John was saying about "Antichrists" and the "spirit of Antichrist" supports the "opposed to Christ" meaning.  Everything John says to define what makes one "an Antichrist" is about what they say Jesus is not rather then what they say they are.

I'm a Futurist who has been trying to be very open minded to forms of Historicism, but all while trying to make it less dependent on specifically the Papal view of The Antichrist.  So what I want to explore here is how the Pope's claimed authority is not the only "Vicar of Christ" heresy within the Church.

The kernel of truth in the Vicar of Christ doctrine is that spiritually Jesus has given some of His Authority to All Believers.  What I consider inherently dangerously heretical (whether or not it's relevant to Bible Prophecy) are two sometimes overlapping extensions of that.
1.  Any individual or group or office within the Church claiming Christ like Authority even over other believers, that's the Doctrine of the Nicolatians.
2.  Using this Authority to justify setting up any kind of Christian Theocracy, Christians seeking to rule over non-believers when Christ's Earthly Kingdom has not yet been inaugurated.

To an extent the Vicar of Christ idea is what justifies all ecclesiastical hierarchy, even Independent Baptists talk about the local Pastor as being an "Under Shepherd".

However the "Divine Right of Kings" doctrine is also based on claiming Kings are Earthly Vicars of Christ.  But contrary to popular opinion forms of that idea predated the Protestant Reformation.  The Biblical basis for the Medieval "Royal Touch" idea was Mark 16, again claiming specifically for the King something every Believer is theoretically capable of.

It used to be for the Eastern Orthodox Church the Eastern Roman Emperor (Byzantine Emperor in many modern history books) was their Vicar of Christ, that's discussed right on the Wikipedia page.  This YouTube Video about Greek Orthodoxy reveals how even today they have the Emperor enthroned within their Churches.  This is really creepy when you remember that claiming Caesar as their King was what those who called for Christ's Crucifixion did.  In the sense that I view the Orthodox Church as Pergamon in Revelation 2-7, that Throne is Satan's Seat.

Even in the Old Testament human kings are viewed as mortals usurping authority that belongs to God, YHWH said through Samuel that Israel was rejecting Him as King when they asked for a Human King like the heathens had.  Some Biblical Kings wound up being decent leaders, but the overall meta-narrative is still Anti-Monarchy.  I personally believe that especially in The Torah "Moloch" should always be translated "King" and "Milcom" should read "Kings", the passages condemning their worship are actually condemning the worship of Human Kings.  This also comes up in Ezekiel 28 and Acts 12 which I've argued elsewhere may be key to understanding what the Abomination of Desolation is.  There is also an anti Monarchy theme to the story of Gideon and his sons.

Some Preterists (and secular scholars) think the Temple Paul was talking about in II Thessalonians 2 was a Temple of the Imperial Cult that existed in the city.  Not every city had any particular Imperial Cult presence (in Asia the two Churches with specific references to Martyrdom in Revelation 2-3 were the two Imperial Cult centers of the Province), archaeologically we know Thessaloniki was an Imperial Cult center, so that could be relevant.  

Galerius the chief architect of the greatest Roman persecution the Church faced, built a Rotunda in Thessaloniki that scholars are still unsure what it was for, the popular theory it was intended to be his Mausoleum though he wound up being buried in Serbia.  At first glance that theory would seem to conflict with a Christ usurper within the Church theory.  But in the future the Roman Emperors did transition from claiming to be Pagan gods to claiming to be the Vicar of the Christian God.  It is connected to the Arch of Galerius which like other Triumphal Arches has imagery that basically Deifies the Emperor for whom it is named.

What's fascinatingly coincidental is how Thessalonica played an important role in that transition.  The Edict that made Christianity the state religion of the Empire is known as the Edict of Thessalonica because that's where it was issued, in fact Theodosius I was also Baptized in Thessalonica by it's local Bishop.  And he turned Galerius's unused Rotunda into a a Church.

Christian Emperors were having Messianic Mojo applied to them even before then however, just look at how Eusebius talked about Constantine.

I made a post focused on the reign of Justinian arguing for the Eastern Roman Empire being The Little Horn of Daniel 7.

One thing kind of well known about the Roman Empire is that all through Antiquity it never officially admitted to being a Monarchy, they adamantly denied that the Emperors were Kings and never formally called them Rex in Latin or Basileus in Greek.  Now it's popular to rather dismissively mock that, but I want to say as an American that I feel it's hypocritical to say obviously the Caesars were Kings but United States Presidents are not.  There were limits on the Emperor's authority, they did often have to fight with the Senate.  Their near Monarchical power came from combining offices that were usually separate under the old Republic.  Princeps is literally the Latin word that President comes from (same with Premier and Prime).  Imperator basically means "Commander in Chief of the military", and the President's Veto power gives him the power of a Tribune of the Plebs.  The only meaningful difference is the U.S. President doesn't serve for life, but they would have if Alexander Hamilton had his way.

What's not so well known is that at a certain point this denial of Kingship stopped.  Emperor Heraclius (who possibly descended from the Armenian Arascid Dynasty and thus the Seleucids) abandoned the title Imperator and took the title Basileus in September of 629 AD, he also took the Persian title "King of Kings".  So he can very literally be called the Eight King of Rome.

Leaving aside the symbolic political significance that had for Rome and looking at the above theological significance in light of what I've talked about in this post.  He was not the first Christian to formally hold a title of Kingship, but none before him ruled a Kingdom nearly as large as his, and none before him ruled Jerusalem or the land of the Seven Churches that Revelation was written to, or Thessalonica.

On December 12th 627 AD Heraclius was wounded in battle at Nineveh but didn't die and then destroyed another important Persian capital. He also made a Covenant with the Jews that he broke in the Spring of 630 AD.

And like Justinian his relationship with the Miaphysite churches was complex.

When Constantinople fell in 1453 AD they had three claimed Emperors in Exile and then a number of states started claiming to be successor states to Constantinople.  The one that's relevant to this discussion of the Eastern Empire however is Russia's Claim, the theological position the Emperor had in the Eastern Orthodox Church wound up being inherited by the Tsars.  Meaning the Orthodox Church didn't cease to have an Emperor serving as their Vicar of Christ till the deaths of Tsar Nicolas II and his family in July of 1918.

I've said before I don't like the logic of the Day=Year theory.  But I shall briefly play Devil's Advocate for it's potential applicability here.  On the Biblical Hebrew Calendar the year that Heraclius proclaimed himself Basileus started in March or April of 629.  If we viewed that as the first year of a calendar, it's 1290th year would have been Spring 1918- March 1919, the year that Tsar Nicolas II died.

The Wikipedia Page for 647 refers to certain events that happened to the Byzantine Empire as "fatally" wounding it.  The actions of Constans II in 658 to early 659 could be viewed as the healing of that "fatal" wound.  1260 years from then takes us to the same time period just discussed, the end and aftermath of WWI.  Tsarist Russia wasn't the only Byzantine successor state to end (or change it's form of government) then, that was also when the Ottoman Empire ceased.  It also ended two successions of Western Emperors in Austria and Germany.

Putin has not formally claimed this aspect of the Tsar's old authority yet.  But his relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church suggests he may want to.