The last field trip in connection with my prophets' class was a visit to the Temple Mount on November 18. Among other things, I wanted to show the students the three leading candidates for the location of the first and second temples (Solomon's and Herod's), and to relive some important moments in the lives of Jeremiah and Ezekiel that either took place there or were the setting for some of their prophecies.
The reader may be surprised that the question of location even arises. Isn't the splendid building called the Dome of the Rock (Qubbat As-Sahkra in Arabic), the crown jewel of Islamic architecture, standing on the site of the first and second temples? In my opinion, yes. But, perhaps not surprisingly, there is considerable scholarly debate about the precise location of both sanctuaries.
Let's review the possibilities. In the slide below we see an aerial view of the Temple Mount or Haram esh-Sharif ("Noble Sanctuary") as muslims call it. This esplanade of some 35 acres owes its present shape and dimensions to Herod the Great who in B.C. 19 began a massive rebuilding project on the Second Temple. What is today called the Western Wall where Jews offer prayers is really part of the Herodian retaining wall that supported the enlarged area of the temple courtyards on top of ancient Mount Moriah. Yes, this is probably the mountain on which Abram was prepared to sacrifice his only son, Isaac (Genesis 22; 2 Chronicles 3:1). Both Jewish and Islamic tradition affirm this identification, although the Samaritans dissented and insisted it was on Mount Gerizim. Jesus had little patience with this deviant view (John 4:22)!
The next three slides visually illustrate the remarkable expansion of the original Solomonic Temple platform and courtyards. These slides are taken from Leen Ritmeyer's excellent website (http://www.ritmeyer.com) 1. Solomon had to build retaining walls for the First Temple because the summit of Mount Moriah provided insufficient space for the temple complex. 2. The Second Temple of Zerubabbel (dedicated in 517 B.C.) was refurbished and the courtyards surrounding it were enlarged in the second and first centuries B.C. by the Hasmoneans (better known as the Maccabees). In order to accommodate the enlarged area, the Hasmoneans extended the platform to the south as can be seen. This also allowed for the building of a fortress, the Akra, that served to protect the temple on the south. It also enabled the Seleucids (Hellenistic kings reigning in Syria) to police and control the large crowds of Jews who flooded the area during the festivals. 3. But as the third slide shows, Herod the Great expanded the temple platform to its largest extent by building retaining walls further to the north, south and west. This basic configuration has endured to this day through the vicissitudes of destruction by the Romans in A.D. 70, the neglect and paganization of the site during the late Roman and early Byzantine eras, the Islamic conquest, the Crusader Kingdom, the reconquest by the Muslims, and finally the finishing touches by the Ottoman Turks beginning in the 16th century. Add to that the many refurbishings and repairs necessitated by the wear and tear of time and you end up with a very complex site spanning nearly three millennia!
The next slide is marked by three letters. These letters are placed at the approximate location of the three leading candidates. Letter C is called the southern location and is approximately where the Islamic al-Kas fountain is located. This fountain, dating from the Ayyubid period is the largest of the fountains on the Haram. Muslims ritually wash here before entering either the Al-Aksa mosque to the south (A.D. 701) or the Qubbat As-Sahkra, the shrine that in later Islamic tradition marks the place where Muhammad ascended to heaven (A.D. 691). An Israeli architect, Tuvia Sagiv, champions this location. Letter B is the traditional site, the Dome of the Rock, also called the central location. This view holds that beneath its splendid dome where the bedrock of Mount Moriah rises above the floor level, either the Holy of Holies or the great bronze altar once stood. This is the majority view and is ably argued by Dan Bahat, an Israeli archaeologist, and Leen Ritmyer, a draftsman who has worked with leading Israeli archaeologists such as Benjamin Mazar, Yigal Shiloh, Ronny Reich, among others. Letter A is placed right next to a small Islamic dome called Qubbat Al-Arwa (Dome of the Spirits) or Qubbat Al-Louwa (Dome of the Tablets). This location is backed by another Israeli, Asher Kaufman, a physicist who has studied the problem for years. These are the primary contenders. Let's examine briefly their arguments.
Location C, the fountain of al-Kas, shown in the slide below, has in its favor the fact that it seems to answer several problems that arise with the traditional view. For example, how does one account for the fact that an aqueduct (remains of which may still be seen today) bringing water from south of Bethlehem (the so-called Pools of Solomon) to the Temple Mount appears to be about 20 meters too low in elevation if the tradition site of the temple is assumed. On the other hand, the fountain of al-Kas would nicely accommodate the existing level of the aqueduct. As you can see from the slide, al-Kas is some 20 meters lower in elevation than the Qubbat as-Sahkra, or Dome of the Rock.
Another argument for location C is that Josephus tells us a northern hill called Bizitha (probably to be identified with Gordon's Calvary just beside the Garden Tomb) blocked the view of the Temple from the north. Actually, the Temple could have been seen from as far north as Ramallah, assuming the traditional location of the Temple. If, however, one moves it to location C, a view from the north would indeed be obstructed.
Another argument for location C is that Josephus tells us a northern hill called Bizitha (probably to be identified with Gordon's Calvary just beside the Garden Tomb) blocked the view of the Temple from the north. Actually, the Temple could have been seen from as far north as Ramallah, assuming the traditional location of the Temple. If, however, one moves it to location C, a view from the north would indeed be obstructed.
There are also some sophisticated radar imaging studies that suggest underground structures to the south of the present Dome of the Rock. These are assumed by Sagiv to be related to the First and Second Temples.
In my opinion, each of these objections may be adequately answered by the traditional view. Rather than bore the reader with more detail than already given (!), I'll just refer the reader to an excellent website by Lambert Dolphin and Michael Kollen that covers all these arguments and you can decide for yourself (http://www.templemount.org/). But just one brief comment on the supposed problem of the elevation of the aqueduct. The Romans were skilled engineers and quite often, in a closed siphon system, lifted water up inclines so long as the initial starting point was higher than its ending point. Herod the Great incorporated the best of Roman technology in his masterpiece.
Let's jump to location A, the northern option as seen in the slide below. Kaufman has several arguments in support of his theory. First, and most obviously, he is right to point out that the Eastern or Golden Gate does not align nicely with the present Dome of the Rock, the latter being well south of the gate entrance. This assumes, of course, that the eastern gate complex was there during the First and Second Temple periods. In fact, there is some evidence that they were, but that doesn't require that the eastern gate be symmetrically aligned with the mikdash (the sanctuary). Kaufman also suggests that the Arabic names for this small unimposing dome recalls the fact that either the Spirit of God (al-Arwa means the wind or spirit of God) resided there or the Ten Commandments (al-Louwa means tablets) were inshrined there in the Ark of the Covenant. This linguistic argument is fanciful and not very convincing in my opinion. Other architectural features that Kaufman calls attention to are just as easily accounted for by the traditional view as his northern view. A major objection to the northern view is reconciling this location with the clear literary and archaeological evidence for the position of the Tower of Antonia. The northern option simply doesn't allow enough space for this imposing structure within the topographic confines of the Temple Mount.
The central view has the weight of historical tradition and some interesting architectural features in its favor. Shown below is the extraordinary Islamic shrine built by Abd al-Malik in A.D. 691 and which according to tradition was the location of the First and Second Temples. Historically, it hardly seems likely that the actual location was ever forgotten. Added to this is the fact that the Romans deliberately built a pagan shrine over the site after the destruction of A.D. 70 in order to defile it and discourage Jews from any efforts to rebuild. This in itself simply served to mark where the temple itself once stood! Beyond this Leen Ritmeyer has convincingly shown that the Mishnah's description of the sacred enclosure as a 500 cubit square can be nicely correlated with the existing platform and various architectural features that define this area. Most notable is a portion of a stairway on the northwest corner of the present Islamic platform that would have been the western side of the sacred enclosure. Once again, more detailed arguments may be found in Ritmeyer and his wonderful web site.
All things considered, the traditional site is still the most likely candidate. The rock scarp exposed beneath its dome may well have been where the Holy of Holies was once located. Seen below is a fish-eye lens view looking down from the dome to the floor of the Dome of the Rock. Notice the indentations on the rock surface. Ritmeyer notes that these conform to the dimensions of the Ark of the Covenant! If so, you may be looking at the exact location. Truly amazing!
Unfortunately, certainty is not possible. For one thing, archaeological excavations are not even remotely possible to determine which site is actually the authentic one. Excavation by Israeli archaelogists is strictly forbidden by the Waqf (the Islamic religious trust that overseers the Haram). On the other hand, in contravention of International Law, they have themselves engaged in massive building operations, such as the construction of a new mosque in the area known at Solomon's Stables, and have systematically removed or destroyed any visible evidence of the First and Second Temple periods. That there were such remains has been dramatically demonstrated by Gabriel Barkay, an Israeli archaeologist who has sifted the piles of rubble removed from the Temple Mount and dumped in the Kidron Valley by the Waqf workmen. The official position of the Waqf is that there never was a Jewish temple on the site! It is and always shall be an Islamic holy site. In this case, Middle Eastern politics and religion dictate what is historically possible!
In reality of course, the First and Second Temples stood somewhere on the Haram esh-Sharif or Har Habayt (Mountain of the House, i.e., Temple). Here Jeremiah stood at the entrance to the sacred enclosure and preached his famous Temple Sermon (Jeremiah 7, 26). Nearby, perhaps somewhere beneath the present Temple Mount platform, Jeremiah was incarcerated in a muddy cistern (Jeremiah 38:6). There are in fact a number of underground cisterns beneath the platform which have been investigated and measured by Captain Charles Warren back in the 19th century. His amazingly accurate plans may be consulted today be those interested. Below is a slide showing the locations of these cisterns.
Here too, Ezekiel, in a remarkable visionary experience, toured the temple courts and sanctuary and saw the abominations being perpetrated by apostate Jews (Ezekiel 8-11). In connection with this experience, Ezekiel also witnessed the symbolic departure of the glory of God from the Holy of Holies, exiting out the eastern gate and heading toward the eastern desert in the direction of Babylon (not too far from present day Baghdad). This was an ominous sign of the impending judgment that befell the First Temple in 586 B.C. Much to his surprise, Ezekiel saw the glory of God at the Chebar canal not far from Babylon (Ezekiel 1). The message was unmistakable: the sovereign God is not limited by geography. He is with his faithful people wherever they are, even in an alien, pagan land!
That brings me to my concluding point. Where is the Temple of God located today? The Christian answer is unmistakably clear: The individual body of believers and believers viewed corporately as the body of Christ constitute the new Temple of God (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:15-20; 1 Peter 2:4-10). The Holy Spirit indwells each and every genuine Christian. Redemptive history has come near its apex. The Triune God actually takes up residence in the Holy of Holies, the heart of every child of God. This presence is a source of inexpressible joy and unshakable hope. The next great moment of redemptive history, the grand finale, features a face to face encounter with the true and living God (Revelation 21:3). This last encounter fuflills what Ezekiel the prophet saw in symbolic form: the return of the glory of God (Ezekiel 43).
That brings me to my concluding point. Where is the Temple of God located today? The Christian answer is unmistakably clear: The individual body of believers and believers viewed corporately as the body of Christ constitute the new Temple of God (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:15-20; 1 Peter 2:4-10). The Holy Spirit indwells each and every genuine Christian. Redemptive history has come near its apex. The Triune God actually takes up residence in the Holy of Holies, the heart of every child of God. This presence is a source of inexpressible joy and unshakable hope. The next great moment of redemptive history, the grand finale, features a face to face encounter with the true and living God (Revelation 21:3). This last encounter fuflills what Ezekiel the prophet saw in symbolic form: the return of the glory of God (Ezekiel 43).
I return to my starting point in this blog. It would appear that the exact, geographical locations of biblical sites are not of highest importance. What is of utmost importance, however, is the question of spiritual location. If one is not part of the body of Christ and thus indwelt by the Triune God, one's spiritual location is a matter of urgent concern. By no means do you want to miss out living in the New Jerusalem. In this case, location is everything!
