Zev Porat

Friday, July 24, 2015

Does the antichrist require a LITERAL "rebuilt temple?"

 Exclusive for PNN

By Pastor Carl Gallups    
(This teaching is endorsed by Messianic Rabbi Zev Porat - a native born Hebrew language speaker)

I  have provided a quick WORD STUDY concerning the subject of the Antichrist "setting himself up in the temple" and whether or not this "temple" is a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem - or, perhaps, a metaphor for the "temple mount" (Dome of the Rock) or perhaps even the "church corrupted" (Vatican?) in the last days. There are other possibilities as well which may hold biblical validity.

I am not dogmatic about this subject either way. I am just taking an honest look at the several biblically allowed possibilities. There certainly could be a literal rebuilt temple in the last days before the return of Christ and occupied by the Antichrist. Alternatively, there is ample biblical evidence to support a metaphorical "temple" and not a literal rebuilt temple. Additionally, it could be that some type of sacrificial altar and a "holy place" are hastily built in order to resume "temple" worship. This structure could be as simple as something like the Wilderness Tabernacle.

We shall see!  These certainly are interesting and prophetic times!


The Word Study

There is not a single place in the entirety of the New Testament that speaks directly about the rebuilding of a "new literal temple complex in downtown Jerusalem on the temple mount" in the last days - not a single one. A bible reader has to "assume" or "read into" one or two scriptures (we will look at those in a moment) to even come close to this assumption. The rebuilding of a third and literal "rebuilt" temple would be a really big deal!

Why did Jesus not tell us about it? Why did Paul not tell us about it (he wrote more scripture than anyone)? Why did John (who wrote Revelation) not tell us about this - specifically and directly? By the way - When John wrote Revelation, there was not a temple in Jerusalem, it had been destroyed 20 years earlier! If a third one was going to be rebuilt as a sign of the last days - why did John not speak of this monumental "rebuilding" event somewhere in Revelation? Yet, one will not find a direct statement about the rebuilding of a Temple in the last days anywhere in the book of Revelation (or anywhere else). Why was that important information not given in Revelation prophecy? Why was it not given in any of the New Testament (or Old Testament) documents? This is indeed an important question. For those who insist that a third temple "has" to rebuilt, this is difficult question to answer.

One has to assume that Rev 11:1 or 2 Thessalonians 2:4 speaks of a "rebuilt temple" - but there is not a single mention in either of these references that this is "literally" what it is (see our study below of the very specific Greek word used in that passage).

Interestingly, the ONLY mention of a "new temple" or a "rebuilt temple" in the New Testament (or anywhere in the Bible) is when Paul speaks of the "new temple" that God is building (Ephesians, 1 and 2 Corinthians) - and that "new temple" Paul says - is the church! These are monumentally important considerations as we begin our study.


1. hierón  (STRONG'S 2411)  (Pronounced hee-er-on)

Hieron is used to denote the actual physical temple - the entire building complex itself.
(Every time it is used in scripture it is used this way.)

Definition: a temple, either the whole building, or specifically the outer courts, open to worshipers.


2. naós  (Or naon) (STRONG'S 3485) (naw-os)(naw-on)


1. A literal temple (HOWEVER - when used in the NT for the temple in Jerusalem, it always refers only to the holy place or the Holy of Holies - but not the entire structure of the temple complex. (See the excellent article excerpt at the end of this PNN article.)

FROM BIBLEHUB.COMhttp://biblehub.com/greek/3485.htm - NAOS
ναός, ναοῦ, (ναίω to dwell), the Sept. for הֵיכָל, used of the temple at Jerusalem, but only of the sacred edifice (or sanctuary) itself, consisting of the Holy place and the Holy of holies (in classical Greek used of the sanctuary or cell of a temple, where the image of the god was placed, called also δόμος, σηκός, which is to be distinguished from τό ἱερόν (heiron), the whole temple, the entire consecrated enclosure; this distinction is observed also in the Bible.
2. Any heathen temple or shrine
3. Metaphorically - the spiritual temple representing all Christians joined by Christ - The Church. (As it is prolifically used throughout the writings of Paul)

metaphorically, of a company of Christians, a Christian church, as dwelt in by the Spirit of God: 1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21; for the same reason, of the bodies of Christians, 1 Corinthians 6:19. of the body of Christ,

There is not a SINGLE place in scripture where this word is used to denote the entire literal and physical temple complex of God in Jerusalem (as specifically and clearly defined by the text in which the word is used).

II Thessalonians 2:4 is the only verse in the New Testament that seemingly and directly connects the antichrist with a "temple" of some short.

II Thessalonians 2:4
He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

However, this passage uses the Greek word naos instead of hieron ... giving it the  possibility of use #3 of naos - metaphorically - and possibly representing the church (or some apostate form thereof) in the last days. It could also refer to some type of "holy place" constructed for the resuming of "sacrifices." But, the choosing of this specific word more than likely indicates that the "temple" being spoken of is not a literal rebuilt temple complex such as was standing in Jesus' day. If this was the meaning of the passage, then hieron would have been used.

Every single use of the word "temple" in the book of Revelation uses the Greek word naos. And in each case (except perhaps Revelation 11:1 which we will examine later) he is speaking of the Temple in Heaven - not one on earth in Jerusalem!

This is VERY IMPORTANT, because whenever John talks of a literal temple building (throughout the Gospel of John for example) he uses the word hieron. Whenever he speaks of a symbolic temple he uses the word naos.  There are only two places in the entire Gospel of John where he uses naos:

First - here is an example where John uses hieron to denote the literal temple edifice in Jerusalem:

John 2:14
In the temple (hieron) courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.

BUT, JUST FIVE VERSES LATER: John uses the word "temple" again!

John 2:19
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple (naos - obviously SYMBOLIC), and I will raise it again in three days."


John 2:21
But the temple (naos) he had spoken of was his body.

These are the ONLY two places where John speaks of a "symbolic" temple in the Gospel of John (and he even tells us it is symbolic!) and these two times (only) he uses the word naos and not the word hieron (which always speaks of a literal temple building). This is a huge clue!

So - when John, the same writer of Revelation and of the Gospel of John, comes to the book of Revelation - what Greek word does he use in Revelation 11 (and EVERY other place in Revelation)? He uses the word naos! This is a huge consideration in getting a proper interpretation. John has already laid down for us his pattern of word usage. The pattern could not be any clearer.

Revelation 11:1
"I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, "Go and measure the temple (naos) of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there."

Why didn't John use the word hieron here?  He uses it everywhere else when he speaks of a literal temple...but he did not use it here! And this is especially important since he was told to measure the outer courts. Please remember that one of the definitions of heiron is literally - the outer courts of a literal temple where the worshipers gather!  But John did not use this word - he used the word naos - which can also mean a temple in the metaphorical - or symbolic sense.

Additionally - please remember this important fact - - when John wrote Revelation (in the 90s AD) there was no temple in Jerusalem. The Romans had already destroyed it. If Revelation 11 is speaking of a "rebuilt" and literal temple - why did John leave out this monumentally important fact? Surely he would have mentioned the miraculous "rebuilding" of a brand new and glorious temple in the last days - on the temple mount?  But there is no mention of this being a rebuilt temple - only the use of the Greek word naos - rather than hieron.


The word "temple" is used 15X in the book of Revelation. In EVERY instance (except for Rev. 11) it is used to speak of the "temple" in HEAVEN.  And  - every time the word "temple" is used, John uses the word naos. He purposely distinguishes between hieron (the literal temple in Jerusalem) and naos (a metaphorical temple, a reconstructed "holy place" structure only  - or - the temple in heaven).

In Revelation 11 it would have been so easy for John to use the word hieron if that temple were a literal and rebuilt temple complex in Jerusalem. That is the word John uses throughout the Gospel of John for the literal temple in Jerusalem. But, John purposely did not use this word in Revelation 11. There must be a very important reason for this.

Also, consider the fact that John was told to "measure the temple." But, there was no literal temple standing in Jerusalem when he was told to "measure" it. This is odd. Why would John be told to "measure" something that literally did not exist any longer? John was in God's Temple in heaven when he was given this command. If God was revealing to John that he was to measure a "rebuilt" temple - why in the world did John leave out this hugely important piece of information?

The preceding information is especially important in light of the fact that out of over 450 verses in the Bible mentioning the word "temple" there is not a single verse that clearly and specifically prophesies of a third temple being rebuilt. The passage in 2 Thessalonians only infers that this might be the case - but when considering the specific Greek word used in that one verse alone - it certainly is not a conclusive statement of a liter rebuilt third temple complex.

Jesus' ONLY statement making a connection with the antichrist and, perhaps, a "temple."

Matthew 24:15 (and Mark 13:14)
[Jesus said] "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel-- let the reader understand--

This is the only place where Jesus says something about the antichrist in a "holy place." In this passage the Greek words for holy + place - do not necessarily designate a literal rebuilt  temple. There is no Greek word for temple used in this verse. Of course, when Jesus spoke these words, the literal temple was still standing - along with the Holy Place (naos) of it. Yet Jesus does not use the word naos or hieron. What an interesting omission on Jesus' part.

Rather, Jesus said - the "holy place" would be defined by what one will read in Daniel. Jesus told the listeners to read Daniel's description of this matter with "understanding," indicating that there is a "mystery" involved in the interpretation of it.  So, let us examine what ALL the passages in Daniel, that speak of the Antichrist in a "holy place" or "sanctuary," have to say - in the original language in which Daniel was written. But before we go to Daniel there is one other  -


Compare Paul's use of the two words for "temple" in the book of Corinthians,
(and throughout every other letter he wrote in the New Testament).

1 Corinthians6:19

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own.  (This use is obviously metaphorical. The word naos is used.)

1 Corinthians 9:13

 Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?  (In the same book - the same author now uses a different Greek word [hieron] when speaking of the literal temple in Jerusalem)

Why is Paul using two different Greek words in the SAME book? Because the words have very different shades of meaning.

Don't forget, it was Paul who wrote 2 Thessalonians 2:4 - the ONLY verse in the entirety of the New Testament that directly connects the Antichrist with a "temple." And what word did Paul use to describe this "temple" in 2 Thessalonians?  He used the word naos. In fact - in EVERY instance in the New Testament where Paul speaks of the temple metaphorically as being the church (or the believer), instead of a literal temple in Jerusalem,  he uses the word naos. 

So, when he comes to 2 Thessalonians - he uses the word naos there as well. If Paul meant that the antichrist would sit in a "literal temple" why not use hieron - but instead he purposely chose naos. This is a huge indication as to what Paul might have meant.

Also consider: The entire book of Acts (written by the Greek expert - Luke) ALWAYS uses the Greek word hieron when speaking of the temple in Jerusalem or even a pagan temple. But he NEVER - in the entire book of Acts - uses the GK word naos to refer to the temple.

Of course - Luke never speaks of a spiritual or metaphorical temple in Acts ... so he uses heiron. However, both Paul and John do reference a spiritual temple - and every time they do - they use the word naos!  The same word used in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.


(Daniel is the only Old Testament book seemingly associating the antichrist with a "temple.")


1. Strongs # 1965 - heykal (An Aramaic word) 

This word means - a palace or TEMPLE - a literal building used for worship ...

(Example - Daniel 5:2 - "the temple in Jerusalem.")

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Definition - heykal
  1. palace, temple
    1. palace
    2. temple (in Jerusalem)
    3. temple (pagan)  In Ezra 5:14 - this word is used for the temple in Jerusalem as well as a pagan "temple" in Babylon.

2. Strong's # 4720  - miqdash

a sacred place, sanctuary (of any type)
Often used in the spiritual sense.

Uses of the word miqdash (as in Daniel 8 and 11) in the Old Testament:
holy (1x), holy place (2x), holy places (1x), places (1x), sacred part (1x), sanctuaries (5x), sanctuary (65x).


The book of Daniel uses this word (#1965 - Heykal) every time - EXCEPT for when the word "temple" is associated with the Antichrist!

This fact is a striking revelation. It seems there is a purposed use of another word for that particular designation alone.


There are only two places in the Old Testament that modern translations use the word "temple" in conjunction with the Antichrist.  Both are found in the book of Daniel. There are only four verses in Daniel that might imply that the Antichrist is in a "temple."  Let's examine those four verses:

Daniel 8:11
"It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low."

The word for sanctuary is miqdash - not necessarily speaking of a literal temple edifice.

Daniel 9:27
He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."  (NIV)

But the words "of the temple" is not in the original text ... this is why some translations have the word in [brackets]. The word was added by the translators as an "interpretation" or a "commentary." The original text only says, "and on a wing he will set up the abomination that causes desolation ..."  The translators "assumed" it meant a "wing of the temple."  They also "assumed" it meant a wing of a "literal temple in Jerusalem on the temple mount."  And from there, those who hold to a rebuilt temple in the last days have to "assume" that this is a literal, rebuilt and third temple in the last days. And they have to do this in spite of the fact that there is not a single treatise anywhere in the Bible that specifically tells of literal, rebuilt third temple in the last days as a definitive feature of prophecy. However, these are only assumptions and not direct renderings of the actual Hebrew text of the scriptures.

Daniel 11:31
"His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.  
(This is a verse Jesus referred us to in Matthew 24)

This translation for "temple" is STRONG'S 4720 (miqdash). The word is not a literal "temple" (as in an entire building such as the one in Jerusalem) although it is sometimes translated into English as the word temple. Rather, its true Hebrew meaning is simply a generic "sanctuary" or "holy place" of any kind or type. It can be used when speaking of the Lord's sanctuary, but his is not its most preventable use. Messianic Rabbi Zev Porat (messiahofisraelministries.org in Tel Aviv) says the word is most often used in the Hebrew in the strictly spiritual sense. Of course, it can also be used to speak of the sanctuary or holy place in the temple in Jerusalem - but it does not have to be used for that designation alone. This truly is an important consideration.


The Al-Aqsa Mosque is the first kiblah (direction that is prayed to) of Muslims and one of the three places of worship considered most sacred. In Aramaic, the Al-Aqsa Mosque is referred to as Beth Makdesha (Miqdash).   This is the same word (miqdash) used in Daniel 11 for where the antichrist will make a desecration!


The use of the Hebrew word miqdash in Daniel 11:31  is an important revelation. Because if in this verse it is meant to speak of a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem - then it is the ONLY verse in the entire Old Testament that uses this particular word to designate that fact. It appears highly unlikely that the "temple" spoken of in this verse is a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.

This important fact leaves the option open for a greater New Testament fulfillment in naos, or a metaphorical temple, rather than an actual "reconstructed temple" in Jerusalem.

Daniel 12:11
"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. (This is another verse Jesus referred us to in Matthew 24)

No literal temple building is mentioned in this verse - only some type of "sacrifice" that is occurring.

So we see that the Old Testament has not a single verse that uses the direct word "temple," as a literal temple building in Jerusalem, that connects specifically to the antichrist. It just is not there in the original languages.

And we also see that the New Testament only has ONE verse (2 Thessalonians 2:4) that appears to do so, yet the Greek word used in that verse specifically clearly and specifically allows for a metaphorical interpretation of the word.   It seems the total, biblical, linguistic picture might be a bit clearer now.


1. There is not a single verse of scripture that insists upon, nor prophesies, a rebuilt third temple in any direct fashion at all. There are only a couple of verses (out of many hundreds about the "temple") where one could infer that declaration - but from the study above - even those are not strong, rock-solid arguments.  The idea of a rebuilt third temple in Jerusalem is simply NOT a solidly biblical "declaration."

2. There is not a single Old Testament verse that directly ties the antichrist to a rebuilt literal third temple in Jerusalem. In its most literal statement form - it just is not there - as demonstrated above.

3. There is only ONE verse in the entire New Testament (and therefore in the entire Bible - out of over 450 verses about the temple) that is tied to the antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:4) perhaps being associated with a "temple." And in THAT verse - the Greek word naos is used for "temple".

It is undeniable that one of the interpretations of naos is metaphorically in reference to the "church" (or even a pagan temple) and not a "temple" in Jerusalem. So, even this one verse is not a dogmatic, categorical statement of a rebuilt third temple. This is why some prophecy experts speculate the "temple" of the antichrist could well be the Dome of the Rock - or even the Vatican (both would be considered a miqdash - or sanctuary equated with holiness. According to the specific Greek word used in this verse - these are very real possibilities.

4. There is not one verse in the entirety of the Bible that predicts a "red heifer" sacrifice for a third temple rebuilding ... not one. The only mention of a red heifer sacrifice is in the building of the first temple under Solomon (Numbers 19:1-22). After that we read of the second rebuilding of the temple of God under the Persians and the adding on to that temple project under Herod in the New Testament days - yet not a single mention is made of a red heifer sacrifice ceremony being performed, or being required, in either of those rebuilding projects ... not one.

5. On the other hand, there are a myriad of New Testament verses that directly speak of the "new temple" being the born again believer and being the redeemed Church, and that Jesus is the only sacrifice necessary for our purification in the last days (Heb. 9:13).  This fact is indisputable. These verses are dogmatic, direct, and to-the-point statements of theological fact.

6. It very well may be that the Jews will rebuild a third temple in hopes of encouraging the return of their messiah (not Jesus - they utterly reject Him!). They may even sacrifice a red heifer of "purification." Obviously, there will be some type of "daily sacrifice" in the very last days. However, as you have seen, these are not purely biblical concepts regarding the "need" for a third literal temple in Jerusalem, in which the antichrist would be seated, before the return of Christ.

7. This study has been read by a native born Israeli Hebrew, Zev Porat, who is a believer in Yeshua. He attests that this study and the Hebrew word meanings are accurate according to his understanding. He speaks, reads, and writes Hebrew as his first language.

Share this entire teaching in an interview/video format:



EVERY use of the word "temple" is examined in the New Testament!
The conclusions are amazing!  See for yourself:

Pastor Carl Gallups has examined EVERY use of the word “temple” in the ENTIRE New Testament – in the original Greek text.  Following are his startling conclusions:

Pastor Carl says:
There are two Greek words that are translated as "temple" in the New Testament - hieron and naos.

When a word study of the uses of hieron and naos is conducted upon the ENTIRE New Testament - some striking observations are made.

THE FACTS concerning word usage of hieron and naos in the New Testament are as follows:

Hieron is used to indicate a literal temple – 77 times
(This is its only use)

Naos is used to indicate a literal temple (but ONLY a portion thereof - like the Holy Place) only 10 times (Greek experts and classical bible scholars and commentators tell us that this word - naos - is never used in the NT for the entire, literal, Jewish temple complex in Jerusalem - NEVER.)
Naos is used to indicate a metaphorical “temple” or the temple of God in Heaven – 31 times

Paul NEVER uses naos for a literal temple (unless you say he did, one time only, at 2 Thess. 2:4)

John NEVER uses naos for a literal temple (unless you say he did, one time only, at Rev. 11:1)

Following is a BOOK BY BOOK review of the word uses of “temple” in the New Testament:


The overwhelming use of a Greek word for the literal temple edifice in Jerusalem is hieron.

Every single time the word hieron is used in the New Testament  - it is used to indicate the literal physical temple building in Jerusalem - or either a literal temple building of a pagan religion.  Hieron is never used in a metaphorical or symbolic sense.

This word is used from Matthew to Acts - approximately 77 times. (I say "approximately" only because some English translations insert the word temple when that word does not actually appear in the Greek text.)

However, the word naos is used from Matthew to Acts – but it is used only 16 times.

Six of those sixteen times naos is used in the STRICTLY metaphorical context as defined by the text itself.

The other 10 times (therefore the total usage of naos in a non-metaphorical sense in the N.T.), naos is used to indicate the literal temple - but most often - only a portion thereof (as in the courts, or the holy place, etc.).


Paul uses the word naos 10 times.

The first 9 times he uses it (I Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians), he uses it in a STRICTLY metaphorical sense to indicate the CHURCH.

The 10th and LAST time he uses it, is in 2 Thessalonians.   Why would he then use it here (only) to mean a “literal” temple? This reasoning does not make contextual sense at all.

Prior to its use here - he never once used the word to mean the literal, physical building in Jerusalem.


1 TIMOTHY to JUDE - the word temple is never used at all.


In the book of Revelation - the word for temple is ALWAYS naos - and it ALWAYS indicates the TEMPLE OF GOD IN HEAVEN!  (Except, perhaps, for Rev. 11:1).

Yet John wrote Revelation. And in the Gospel of John, which he also wrote - he only uses the word naos twice, and in both times it is used in the strict metaphorical sense.

Since, prior to Revelation 11, John ONLY used the word naos in a strict metaphorical sense - or for the temple of God in Heaven - why would we assume that John would suddenly, and only ONCE, use the word naos to indicate a literal temple building in Jerusalem?  This reasoning does not make contextual sense at all.

When Naos Is Used For The Literal Temple

Copied directly from the article at this website:

Hieron refers to the whole sacred enclosure, the temenos including the outer courts, porches, porticoes, and other related buildings. Naos refers to the temple itself, the proper habitation of God (Acts 7:48; 17:24; 1 Cor. 6:19), the oikos [G3624] tou Theou (house of God), the heart and center of the whole. Hagiasma is used to refer to the Holy Place and to the Holy of Holies (1 Macc. 1:37; 3:45; cf. vv. 37-42). This distinction between hieron and naos is found in secular Greek references to heathen temples and in sacred Greek references to the temple of the true God.

When referring to the temple in Jerusalem, Josephus, Philo, the Septuagint, and the New Testament always distinguish hieron from naos. Often the distinction is explicit. After describing the building of the naos by Solomon, for example, Josephus wrote: "Outside the temple [naou] he constructed a sacred enclosure [hieron] in the form of a square." In another passage where Josephus describes how the Samaritans sought permission from the Jews to help rebuild God's house, he used the phrase "to join in the building of the temple [naon]." Although the Samaritans' request was denied (see Ezra 4:2), they were permitted to "come into the sacred enclosure [hieron] to worship God," something forbidden under the penalty of death to mere Gentiles, who were not to pass beyond their own exterior court.

The distinction between hieron and naos helps us better understand several New Testament passages. When Zacharias entered into "the temple of the Lord" to burn incense, the people who awaited his return and who stood "outside" (Luke 1:10) also were in the temple the hieron though Zacharias alone entered the naos, the "temple" in its narrower sense. We often read of Christ teaching "in the temple" (Matt. 26:55; Luke 21:37; John 8:20), and we might wonder how long conversations could have been maintained there without interrupting the service of God. But this "temple" is always the hieron, the porches and porticoes of the temple that were intended for such purposes. Christ never entered the naos during his earthly ministry, since that right was reserved for the priests. Jesus drove the money-changers and the buyers and sellers with their sheep and oxen from the hieron, not from the naos. Even those profane men had not dared to establish themselves in the temple in its strictest sense (Matt. 21:12; John 2:14).

Keeping in mind the distinction between hieron and naos helps us understand how the prophet Zacharias could be slain "between the temple and the altar" (Matt. 23:35). Here the word translated "temple" is naos, which helps to answer the questions: "Was not the altar in the temple? And if so, how could any locality be described as between the two?" The brazen altar alluded to in Matthew 23:35 was located in the hieron, not in the naos. It was situated "in the court of the house of the Lord," where the sacred historian (2 Chron. 24:21) lays the scene of this murder, not in the naos.

Finally, Judas vividly portrayed his defiance and despair by entering into the naos itself (Matt. 27:5) which was reserved for the priests alone and casting down before the priests the accursed blood money


A Third Temple and a Pre-trib Rapture?

Pastor Carl Gallups explains:

"Isn't it interesting that the ONLY clear and direct mention of a "third temple" actually being built (using that actual word!) - in the ENTIRETY of the scriptures  - is the "temple" of the New Testament church - made up of Jew and Gentile under the blood of Jesus."

"Every time the word "temple" is used in this context - Paul uses the Greek word "naos."  Naos is the word used to speak of the literal Holy of Holies, or the Holy Place in the literal temple - but the vast majority of the time it is used in the New Testament, it is used metaphorically to indicate the church  - or the temple of God in heaven (John uses the word in Revelation in this manner ... every time)! Naos is the only word Paul ever uses for "temple." Interestingly, "naos" is NEVER used to speak of the literal, physical and entire Temple complex in Jerusalem - NEVER in the entire New Testament."

Ephesians 2:19-22
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household,
20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple (naos) in the Lord.
22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple (naos) and that God's Spirit lives in you?
17 If anyone destroys God's temple (naos), God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple (naos).

1 Corinthians 6:19-20
19 Do you not know that your body is a temple (naos) of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;
20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20
19 Do you not know that your body is a temple (naos) of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;
20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

2 Corinthians 6:16
16 What agreement is there between the temple (naos) of God and idols? For we are the temple (naos) of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."

So - EVERY time Paul uses the word naos - he uses it to speak of the naos of the blood bought church (Jew and Gentile).  He also calls it the "temple of the Holy Spirit" and "the temple of God." So when we get to 2 Thessalonians - why would we "assume" Paul means ANYTHING differently? Why would we assume he means a literal physical temple complex in Jerusalem when he NEVER before uses the word in that manner?


II Thessalonians 2:3-4
3 Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple (naos), proclaiming himself to be God.

Pastor Gallups concludes, "How much clearer could the context of this teaching be?"

Gallups continued, "Interestingly, this same passage in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 also declares  "that day" (referring to "our being gathered to Him" in the first few verses of chapter 2 - clear rapture language) will NOT happen until the antichrist makes his appearance - and that we should NOT LET ANYONE DECEIVE us regarding this assertion."

"Furthermore," Pastor Gallups says, "In Luke 17 Jesus clearly gave us the pattern for the last days. He said it would be JUST LIKE the days of Noah and the days of Lot. And what were these days "like?" Well...fortunately we have the scriptural accounts to give us the direct answer and clear pattern. Both Noah and Lot (and their families), lived in and THROUGH the days of Great Tribulation for their times. Wickedness closed in on them from every side. But...just before the Wrath of God came down upon them and destroyed the unbelieving world - God "raptured" out His people!  He took Noah "up" in the ark and He took Lot "up and out" through the sending of His angels."

"There is the pattern: God's people living in the time of Great Tribulation as protected witnesses, the soon coming Wrath of God proclaimed, the "rapture," then the final Wrath of God poured out. The scripture and the words of Jesus could be no plainer. There is no "pre-trib" rapture. I will stick with what Jesus and Paul said about these things. The teachings of Darby and Scofield do not interest me in the least - not when the Word of God and the words of Jesus are so clear."

Red Heifers and a Third Temple?


  1. Revelation 11 is conspicuously absent from the discussion. I think it would be difficult to argue that Revelation 11 is 1) not about a literal temple and 2) does not concern the End Times.

    For nearly 1,900 years, since about 70 AD, many of our prophetic interpretations took it for granted that where the words "Israel" or "Judah" or other references to the Jewish people as a national, political entity show up in prophecy, it was to be understood metaphorically as a reference to the Church. Then, suddenly, in 1948, a more literal reading became much more likely.

    I suspect something similar will happen regarding the temple.

    1. We have now included a complete study of the Revelation 11 use of the word. Hope this helps you in your quest for truth. God bless.

  2. Actually, it is not "conspicuously absent from the discussion." It is mentioned (indirectly) in this line:

    Every single use of the word "temple" in the book of Revelation uses the Greek word naos.

    Carl simply did not go into a deeper discussion of that particular verse. But HERE is the truth of the matter.

    Whenever John talks of a literal temple building (in the Gospel of John for example) he uses the word heiron. Whenever he speaks of a symbolic temple he uses the word naon. For example:

    John 2:14
    In the temple (heiron) courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.


    John 2:19
    Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple (naon - obviously SYMBOLIC), and I will raise it again in three days."

    He uses naon EVERY SINGLE TIME in the Gospel of John when he wants to talk of a symbolic temple and NOT the LITERAL temple building.

    So - when John, the same writer of Revelation and of the Gospel of John, comes to the book of Revelation - what Greek word does he use in Revelation 11 (and EVERY other place in Revelation?) He uses the word naon! This is a huge consideration in getting a proper interpretation.

    Also note that in Revelation 11 John is told to note the number of "true worshipers" in the "temple." Well... Jews reject Jesus as Messiah. So - if there is a rebuilt Jewish temple in the last days - there would be no "true worshipers there! BUT - if he is talking symbolically of the true New Testament temple (the church) then he would definitely use the word naon - which he did!

    Hope this helps. God Bless.

  3. Take this further. In this verse look at the Greek word translated "that is worshipped". Notice the seb root in it. Now look up all the other verses in the New Testament that show words containing this root. Examine carefully the context in which they are found, and then let the Holy Spirit show you, that Sabbath has been nearly entirely suppressed throughout the English translations of the New Testament. Note also how closely this subject is paired with that of "the wrath of Elohim". This should convince any honest seeker that the "man of sin, son of perdition" in context, in 2 Thess 2 is the RESTRAINER in religion, and it is TRUTH that has been restrained.