SYMBOLISM OF THE TEMPLE
Some might wonder why God would tear down a system and building that He had otherwise established. Indeed it does seem like a contradiction unless you understand two facts:

The truth is that the first temple was King David’s idea and King Solomon only carried out his father’s wishes. God was never really in favor of the temple, but He did not stop it from being built. The building of the first temple is a good example of God giving his people the desires of their heart — even though those desires are not consistent with his will. David and his son Solomon, however, wanted a physical building, while God wanted a spiritual building (i.e. people) as the depository for the Ark of the Covenant. Nevertheless, God gave David and Solomon what they wanted even though it was not what God wanted.

STUDY TIP: To learn more about the temple and buildings of worship, read Tabernacles, Temples, Altars, High Places and Pilgrimages.

Jews, but not only Jews, might argue that this was a system that God had established. This is only partly true. The true parts are that God chose the Levites to be priests in the Tabernacle of Moses, that He commanded the terms of the sacrificial rituals conducted by the priests, and that he allowed the Temple to be built even though it was not his idea. It is false, however, to say that God established the temple.

The temple, in fact was King David’s idea — not God’s idea. The real story is told in 1 Chronicles 17. 

One part that the Jews got wrong was that they, like David, thought that God was referring to a physical house. In the  1 Chronicles 17 story, God never uses the word “temple”. He only uses the word “house” to describe what David’s son would build. The Bible often uses the concept of “house” to symbolize people, whether as individuals or families. It is this interpretation of house that must be applied in 1 Chronicles 17.

Another aspect of this story that the Jews got wrong was that Solomon would be the one to build it. Solomon means peace. Therefore, the Son of David who would build the house of the Lord should be understood to be the Messiah, not Solomon the man. And the house that the Messiah would build is not a physical house but a spiritual house (i.e. God’s people).

All Jews, it seems, going back as far as David have been very short-sighted regarding their interpretations regarding the temple and sacrificial services. They got the physical/natural part right, but seem to have totally missed the symbolism of what God said and what God wanted. As a result, they have focused exclusively on natural sacrifices and the natural temple. They have missed the spiritual aspect of the building (house) and the spiritual sacrifices that God expects to happen within the house (i.e. people). Christians have done no better on this account.

It is also wrong for Jews to say that the temple was God’s idea. And it is wrong for Christians to extend that argument to conclude that church buildings are also God’s idea. None of it was God’s idea. It was David’s idea and it has been the driving paradigm of religion for both Jews and Christians ever since.

Just because God allowed it to be built does not mean that God was in favor of it. God knew that all this temple business would happen, but He let it happen anyway to teach us about what happens when religious people take charge of material objects (i.e. temple) to which spiritual values have been assigned. What happens is that they will first make a shrine and then an  empty ritual, and a business of it. What results from this process is a bunch of nice looking buildings that are spiritually empty. Jesus had this reality in mind when he ravaged the money-changers in the temple and when he prophesied to the Samaritan woman about the future of the temple and when he prophesied about its destruction.

When talking about the temple’s destruction, Jesus was also talking about more than the physical temple and his own death and ultimate resurrection. His concern was not ultimately focused on the physical temple. Rather, He was concerned with the abominations that went on inside the physical temple. That was the domain of the Pharisees and temple leaders whom Jesus chastised so often. In other words, He was talking about destroying the entire religious system represented by the temple. It was, as he said to the money changers, a place of business in which everyone participated. It was a system that is totally opposite what God had in mind: house of prayer. It became a place of business (merchandise) instead a place of prayer (spirit).

To get the full essence of this contrast, it is critical to recognize that God was not talking about a physical house in Isaiah 56:7 (the scripture Jesus quotes during the temple incident). God often uses the term “house” to refer to people singularly or as a community. Since God never told David, or Solomon, to build a natural building for Him, His reference to a “house of prayer” is not to a physical house but to a spiritual house (i.e. people).

The main problem for the temple leaders was that they failed to understand that God is more concerned with matters of the spirit than He is with natural things. Being ignorant, therefore, they put all their focus on natural things. No doubt they sincerely believed that they were doing what God wanted because God had instituted the sacrificial system, the priesthood, and the temple. Their sincerity, howeve, did not override the truth about what God wanted.

But, while temple leaders were very familiar with all books of the Law and King David and his Psalms, they had failed to understand and apply what David said in Psalm 51:16-17 regarding what God really wants (i.e. broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart). They thought that religion was all about the temple and the sacrifices and associated religious activities. Jesus saw it all differently (i.e. it is all about your heart), and He was intent on destroying the existing religious system (i.e. destroying the temple) and raising up Himself and establishing a new, correct, spiritual system that is totally spiritual (i.e. prayer). Jesus summarized those differences eloquently in Matthew 15:1-6 where He made the distinction between tradition (man’s way) and God’s commandments (the spiritual way).

To put it all in perspective, the temple represented a worldly religion of which the Pharisees, Scribes, Sanhedrin, Sadducees and priests were in charge and for which they were paid in worldly currency (money, status, power, etc.). The Godly system does not have any physical components but is totally spiritual. That makes sense for a God that is spirit and for a people that is created in God’s image, but it makes no sense for people who are focused on the flesh and the world.

Or, to put it all in the simplest way possible, religious leaders down through the ages have been concerned with religious form embodied in religious rules, and missed the essence of spiritual function embodied in spiritual laws.  God, however, is concerned with the heart and what comes out of it (Matthew 12:34-40). He recognizes when there is a big disconnect between religious form and spiritual reality (i.e. what is in a person’s heart).

Some, especially Jews, but not only Jews, might argue that this was a system that God had established when He commanded that sacrifices be made in the temple built by Solomon. That would be a faulty argument if it focuses on natural sacrifices instead of spiritual sacrifices, which is all God ever really wanted. It is also wrong to say that the temple was God’s idea. It was not God’s idea. It was, as we said above, David’s idea. Just because God allowed it to be built does not mean that God was in favor of it. God knew that all this temple business would happen, but He let it happen anyway to teach us about what happens when religious people take charge of material objects (i.e. temple) to which spiritual value is assigned. What happens is that they will make a business of it. And when it becomes a business, the spiritual value is lost.