If the Temple in Jerusalem still stood now?


#1

If the Temple had never been destroyed (in the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD) what might have become of it? Had it stood, in all of its glory, throughout the centuries, worn only from weather and age, what purpose might it have served now? Would it still be a place of worship for modern day Jews or Muslims? Or would it be another site, where tourists could be guided all throughout the different courts and porches? Or possibly neither of these, and kept as a sacred relic?


#2

It normally would have been a place of official public worship for Jews and perhaps the Jewish priesthood would have still existed.
…However, the Temple site is in a Moslem area. I don’t know what they would have done with it–perhaps that would have depended on the Koran.
It would have not been simply a tourist site, anymore than the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where Christ was buried and rose from the dead, has became one.


#3

In my opinion, if the war between the Romans and Jews would not have happened, the Temple not being destroyed, I do not believe the Christian church would have survived.

(Mat 24:21 DRB) For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be.

(Mat 24:22 DRB) And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened.


#4

First, this is a very hypothetical question, as our Lord predicted that the Temple would be destroyed.

Second, the question you did not ask, is whether the Jews might rebuild the Temple? I heard Rabbi David Wolpe (see his website) say that one day the Temple might and should be re-built and animal sacrifices offered there again, in accordance with the scriptures. I don’t know if he was simply speculating or if he was serious.

The lack of a Temple required a re-invention of Judaism by the rabbis in years following the destruction of the second Temple. In this reinvention, prayers became the substitute for animal sacrifice. This was not a leap of insight, because the same problem confronted the Jews in the Babylonian exile, where it is also thought that the ideas of a rabbinic Judaism and of synagogue worship were necessitated.

It is also a problem of who the Temple priests would be, because “Jews” descend from the tribe of Judah, and it was the tribe of Levi who were the temple caretakers (exodus) and priests (Deuteronomy). The lineage of Aaron, and therefore the genuine Aaronic priesthood has been lost, as far as we can tell.

This is strictly my opinion here: Judaism had sort of a built-in self-destructiveness, because it would be impossible for all Jews around the world to obey the commands to go to the Temple three times a year. What I’m saying is that Judaism in terms of Biblical cultic observances is dead. It doesn’t happen and hasn’t happened for centuries. But, it has been fulfilled in Christ.


#5

AFAIK many Jews do hope that the Temple will be rebuilt eventually (Orthodox Jews even pray for it: “May it be your will, O my God and God of my fathers, that the Temple be rebuilt speedily in our days …”), they just differ on whether it’d be rebuilt by divine providence - by God’s messenger, the messiah, when he comes - or whether Jews should take the initiative to rebuild the Temple themselves.

It is also a problem of who the Temple priests would be, because “Jews” descend from the tribe of Judah, and it was the tribe of Levi who were the temple caretakers (exodus) and priests (Deuteronomy). The lineage of Aaron, and therefore the genuine Aaronic priesthood has been lost, as far as we can tell.

No, survived.kohanim


#6

It would have made a magnificent museum, dedicated to the glory of God. Unfortunately, people would have returned to temple rituals, instead of recognizing Christs final sacrifice for sin. Therefore it had to go. (sad :frowning: )


#7

The pre-Christian world would still pretty much exist. However, too late for that now. As to rebuilding the temple, disturbing the Al Aqsa mosque would ignite yet another war. However, that might also better-define and re-constitute Israel - which some evangelicals are trying to do anyway.


#8

No, the Roman Emperor Hadrian (117 – 138 AD) would turn it into a temple for Jupiter.


#9

I doubt it would have lasted that long.

There was pretty much a continual state of rebellion in Judea against Rome. Destroying the temple and scattering the population as more “enough is enough” than an incident in its own right.

It would be more than 300 years until the empire was subject to serious military incursion from the outside. Barring an end to the regular and ongoing insurrection (inconceivable with the character of the nation at the time), a carthaginian solution was not a matter of “if”, but “when”.

Any notion of the temple surviving would need to involve a notion of how Israel either managed to defeat the greatest military power in the world and an experienced army many times the size of that which it could raise (let alone arm), or somehow allied with some hypothetical power that could stalemate Rome. (OK, maybe finding and using the Ark of the Covenant? At which point the only prudent thing to do would be take control of the empire . . . kind of like when the US had to go back to Europe the second time in as may generations . . . )

AMDG

hawk


#10

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.