Will Israel and Saudi Arabia soon conclude a historic peace treaty that will seal the current status quo on the Temple Mount and allow the Jews to build a third temple?

READING TIME: 16 MINUTES

Sukkot, the last significant autumn festival of the Hebrew calendar, began last Friday and ends today. The Jerusalem Post reported on October 3rd how about a thousand Levites performed a religious ritual near the Temple Mount, where they blew trumpets and sang psalms in the tradition of the Levites during the eras of the First and Second Temples. Although this event has been held for the second consecutive year, such a ritual has not been seen since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. Herzl Ben Ari, CEO of the Jerusalem Old City Jewish Quarter Reconstruction and Development Company, commented on Monday’s event as follows: “This was a powerful event that opened our hearts, reminding us of our deep yearning for ancient days. It’s an occasion we may not have witnessed since the Temple’s destruction.”

LISTEN TO THE ARTICLE:

Content

The positive reaction to the ritual received from the authorities points to a significant shift that has taken place in the general atmosphere of Israel in recent years. The longing of Israel’s Jews for their ancient roots and the Third Temple is no longer just a radical obsession of some religious extremists, as it was 10 or 20 years ago. Today, a growing number of Israel’s nationalist right, who voted for Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister for a third time in last year’s parliamentary elections, supports the dismantling of the failed status quo on the Temple Mount and full Jewish control over their holiest site. This change in public opinion is now evident in several columns in The Jerusalem Post.

Temple Mount – The Symbol of Israel’s National Existence

Despite the Israeli government’s strict restrictions on Jewish visits to the holy mountain, last year over 51,000 Jews visited the Temple Mount, which is the highest number ever since the days of the Second Temple. The question of Jewish sovereignty over the Temple Mount is no longer a matter discussed only at gatherings of Orthodox Jewish extremists or on end-time forums of American Christian evangelicals. Today, a growing number of secular Jews in Israel and government officials like Itamar Ben Gvir also support the dismantling of the status quo on the Temple Mount because they see it as the most important symbol of Israel’s national existence and a historical reminder of the country’s ancient biblical origins, which its Arab adversaries have sought to deny for decades.

During the diaspora, it was customary for Jews to pray towards Jerusalem and the Temple Mount as a reminder of the destroyed temple and the promised land from which God had expelled the Jews due to their sins, but to which He also promised to gather them back at the end of times through Hebrew prophets. The name of the Israeli national ideology, Zionism, is derived from Mount Zion, which originally referred to the Temple Mount, the holiest place for Jews on Earth. Therefore, Palestinian Arab propaganda, which has used the much more questionable connection of Islam to the Temple Mount as a justification for their decades-long violence against Jews, has fueled an increasing number of secular Jews to support the complete takeover of the Temple Mount from the Islamic Waqf, controlled by the Jordanian king. Interestingly, Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Quran, and its only reference to “al-Aqsa” or the “farthest mosque” is believed by historians to refer to a mosque in the village of Juarana in Saudi Arabia, located about 30 km northeast of Mecca.

The Coming Temple

Temple Mount has been under the de facto control of Israel since the Six-Day War in 1967. However, de jure, its administration still belongs to Jordan, and for this reason, the Israeli government has had to adhere to strict restrictions imposed by the Waqf, which prohibit Jewish or Christian prayer on the Temple Mount, as well as the display of Israeli national symbols such as the Israeli flag. If someone violates these restrictions, the Israeli police usually detain their own citizens for doing so. As long as the status quo that has been in place since 1967 remains, we will not see the construction of the third temple by the Jewish people.

Once Israeli Jews have full citizenship rights to pray aloud, blow the shofar, sing Hatikvah, or display national symbols on the Temple Mount, they will have equal rights to build a third temple there, next to the Dome of the Rock or the Al-Aqsa Mosque (there is indeed enough space on the site for even a cathedral). Biblical prophecies make it clear that before the public return of Jesus to the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, there will be a third temple, as the following passages indicate:

Forces from him [the Antichrist] will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation. – Daniel 11:31

No one is to deceive you in any way! For it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 2. Thessalonians 2:3-4

Why can Christians support the third temple?

Our early church fathers soon after the destruction of the second temple taught that the Antichrist would build a third temple in Jerusalem and declare himself as God. However, it’s important to note that the mentioned Bible verses and similar ones do not actually state that the Antichrist himself would be the one to order the construction of the third temple. On the contrary, he will defile it and persecute the Jews in Jerusalem. Paul also does not refer to the third temple as the “temple of Antichrist” but as the “temple of God.” In order for the Antichrist to defile or desecrate the temple, the temple itself must be holy to the God of Israel. That is why Daniel calls it a “sanctuary” that will be cleansed at the end of the 2300-day desecration (Dan. 8:14).

Prophet Isaiah also mentions a temple in Jerusalem that will stand during the messianic era of global peace and abundance when “all the nations will stream to it. And many peoples will come and say, ‘Come, let’s go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; so that He may teach us about His ways,
and that we may walk in His paths.’ For the law will go out from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He will judge between the nations, and will mediate for many peoples; and they will beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning knives. Nation will not lift up a sword against nation, and never again will they learn war.” (Isa. 2:3-4). Therefore, my view is that while Christians should not support the reinstatement of Old Testament sacrificial practices as it goes against the central teaching of the New Testament that Jesus Christ made the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law unnecessary through His death on the cross of Calvary, we can support the temple itself as a foreshadowing and precursor of the coming temple where our Lord Jesus Christ will appear in His glory during the thousand-year reign of peace to establish justice among the nations.

Furthermore, if Christians do not support the rights of the Jews to control their holiest site and the establishment of their temple, then we are siding with the Antichrist who will defile the Jewish temple, attack the Jews in Jerusalem, and allow half of the holy city to be trampled by the Gentiles (Zech. 14:2, Dan. 8:11-14, 11:31, Matt. 24:15, Rev. 11:2). Therefore, it is misleading to refer to the third temple as the “temple of Antichrist” as if the Antichrist is a friend of the Jews and their temple. Yes, he may pretend to be a friend of the Jews at first (as Charles has done), but ultimately he will reveal his true colors. So, just as the Persian pagan king Cyrus the Great, referred to as the “anointed one” in Isaiah’s prophecies (Isa. 44:28), ordered the construction of the second temple of Jerusalem in 537 BC, it is possible that the erection of the third temple will be in the same way authorized by a pagan leader who is friendly to the Jews now.

Who is today’s Cyrus the Great?

It could be, for example, President Donald Trump, whom Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has often compared to Persian King Cyrus, if he is re-elected for a second term in next year’s presidential elections. It is also possible that the temple would be built even before Trump’s possible return to the presidency, and that instead of Trump, this “modern-day Cyrus the Great” would be Saudi Arabia’s 38-year-old Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, or more familiarly known as MBS. Both Netanyahu and MBS have indicated in light of recent interviews on Fox News that Israel and Saudi Arabia are approaching a historic peace agreement as an extension of the Abrahamic Accords signed between Israel, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates with strong cooperation from the Trump administration.

While Netanyahu has credited President Trump (and his Jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner) for the success of the peace agreement, in his own memoir and in several interviews, Netanyahu has said that the idea was more of his own than Trump’s idea and even Trump initially tried to sell him the old failed peace model in which Israel is pressured to give up “land for peace” and negotiate with the Palestinians who are not even willing to recognize the right of the Jewish state to exist and condemn terrorism against Israeli Jews. Netanyahu’s own idea, on the other hand, was completely opposite: “It is better to negotiate with 99% to eventually bring the remaining 1% on the table than to negotiate with 1% to try to bring the remaining 99%” on the table. Here, 99% refers to the majority of Arab countries, while 1% represents the Palestinians.

Peace Through Strength versus Peace Through Appeasement

Netanyahu’s pursuit of peace is also based on the classic foreign policy principle of Reagan and Trump: peace through strength. The idea behind it is simple: your enemies will not fear or respect you as long as you are weak or show weakness, and they will continue to engage in war, terror, or violence to coerce you or corner you into accepting their terms for peace, after which they can start a new war to extract further concessions from you. However, if you are strong enough to wield military force or use its psychological deterrence against your adversaries, they will eventually realize that fighting against you is utterly futile or too great a risk. Even a school bully preys on the weakness of their victim and only ceases their bullying once they start to fear them. This foreign policy approach is the reason why Gorbachev initiated peace talks with Reagan and Kim Jong-un engaged with Trump.

On the contrary, appeasement policies led to the second world war, as Neville Chamberlain continued to appease Hitler’s aggression. Netanyahu has stated on multiple occasions that he transformed Israel from a semi-socialist state of the 1990s into a bastion of free-market capitalism, making it one of the world’s strongest economic and military powers despite its small size (approximately 7% of Finland’s land area) and a population of fewer than 10 million people. Netanyahu’s economic policies also turned Israel into a global center for technological innovation. In fact, The Economist reported in 2010 that “Israel has more high-tech start-ups and a larger venture capital industry per capita than any other country in the world.”

Thanks to Netanyahu’s policies, the Arab countries surrounding Israel began to increasingly respect it, despite their historical enmity. Countries like Saudi Arabia also realized that majority Sunni Arab nations and Israel share a common enemy in the Shiite-led theocratic Iran, and that only Israel would be a reliable ally against Iran’s aggression as the US government’s stance toward Iran remains unreliable and unpredictable, changing with each new administration. In other words, Netanyahu once again proved that the real peace can only be achieved through strength. When you are strong, your enemies will respect you and see cooperation as an opportunity to further mutual national interests.

Peace cannot be achieved by appeasing your enemies. Israel already made that mistake during the governments of Rabin, Peres, Barak, and Sharon when it caved in to international pressure and relinquished the territories it had occupied during the Six-Day War, returning them to the Arabs. As Rabin, Peres, and Barak negotiated with Yasser Arafat under the Oslo peace agreements in the 1990s, their gesture of territorial concessions was met with the launch of the Second Intifada, a violent Palestinian uprising and wave of terrorism at the turn of the millennium. Simultaneously, terrorists also attacked the Twin Towers in New York City. When Ariel Sharon’s government withdrew from Gaza in 2005, the Palestinians expressed their gratitude by electing Hamas into power, which began launching thousands of rockets at Israeli cities, although Israel successfully intercepts most of them with its Iron Dome missile defense system.

Netanyahu’s roadmap to peace took a different approach. Instead of yielding to the pressure of the nations and sacrificing Israel’s security for the sake of a deceptive “peace,” he stood unwaveringly as the guardian of his own people’s interests, resisting the seductive songs of a cheap and treacherous peace that his predecessors had succumbed to. True peace cannot be built on compromises and continual retreat, especially when your enemy has shown their unwillingness for peace after repeated sincere attempts. By standing unwavering as the guardian of Israel’s national security and elevating a nation of less than 10 million people to become a global leader in economy, military, and technology, Benjamin Netanyahu has compelled the surrounding Arab countries – once its greatest enemies – to shake hands with him and normalize their relations with the Jewish state.

By negotiating first with the “99%”, Netanyahu’s goal is to eventually bring in that “1%” as well. Although the Palestinians currently oppose the peace negotiations between Israel and Saudi Arabia (as they have opposed almost all peace initiatives since the establishment of Israel), eventually they will have to backtrack on their own demands because they no longer have the support of the wider Arab world or major powers. The only reason Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas, who recently claimed that Hitler was not an anti-Semite and hinted that the Holocaust was a justified genocide, can still demand a Jew-free Palestinian state with a shared city of Jerusalem is because he has the support of many major powers and respected international institutions for such anti-Semitic demands.

Unlike 30 years ago with the Oslo agreements, Israel can now negotiate from a position of strength. In other words, Palestinians and their Arab allies need a peace agreement with Israel more today than Israel needs a peace agreement with Arabs. The whole world is beginning to wake up to the reality that the over 30-year-old “peace process” has not brought peace to the Middle East, and the situation will continue the same way for the next 30 years unless visionary leaders like Netanyahu or MBS change the course of history soon and offer us new effective solutions. But if Bibi and MBS manage to forge some kind of agreement – Netanjahu said in his speech at the UN that this could happen within the next few months – would it continue with the same old peace plan for the Israel-Palestine conflict, which has repeatedly reached a deadlock, or would it offer a radically new vision for achieving peace in the Middle East?

Saudi Arabia’s access to the Temple Mount

The old two-state peace model is already familiar to all of us. Israel would withdraw from Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank, and would also hand over East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian State. Most likely, Saudi Arabia has not completely let go of the two-state peace plan. However, the hottest issue in the Israel-Palestine conflict at the moment is undoubtedly the status of the Temple Mount. The January visit to the Temple Mount by Itamar Ben-Gvir, the National Security Minister of Netanyahu’s government, made international headlines and became the topic of an emergency session at the UN Security Council. Ben-Gvir has publicly demanded the termination of the status quo on the Temple Mount. Netanyahu himself is well aware that a growing number of Knesset members, members of his own government, and his political supporters and conservative voters find the current status quo on the Temple Mount unsustainable. It is like a ticking time bomb that is about to explode in his hands. Israel National News reported on October 1st.

MKs demand: Government must change current policy on Temple Mount. MKs from the right-wing parties appeal to PM and National Security Minister: ‘A reality that cannot exist in a Jewish state.’ MKs from Religious Zionist and Likud parties addressed a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir, Police Commissioner Kobi Shabtai and National Security Committee Chairman Zvika Fogel, demanding to change the policy against Jews who ascend the Temple Mount.

In their letter, these Knesset members stated the following: “Last week, the entire nation of Israel, and us among them, was shocked to discover a new reality in country where Jews praying in the center of the first Hebrew city – Tel Aviv – were beaten and humiliated, while the Israeli police stood by. At the same time, the police use harsh violence against Jews on the Temple Mount, the source of our identity and the purpose of our national existence. This reality, after two thousand years of exile, cannot be tolerated in a Jewish state. We ask for this to be clarified as soon as possible and, if necessary, to convene a meeting of the National Security Committee to discuss the issue.”

Transferring the protection of Temple Mount and its two mosques from the Jordanian king’s authority under the Saudi Arabian kingdom has already been speculated as one of the most significant changes to the current status quo of Temple Mount in the upcoming peace agreement. Consequently, the Saudi royal family would also gain control over the third holiest mosque for Muslims, as they already control Mecca and Medina, the two holiest pilgrimage sites for Muslims. Many reporters in the Israeli press, like Mordechai Kedar in his opinion article for The Jerusalem Post, have expressed skepticism towards the reasonableness of these plans. Kedar argues that transferring the protection rights of Temple Mount from the Jordanian king to Saudi Arabia would only worsen the situation from the perspective of Jews and could even jeopardize Jewish security.

Prime Minister Netanyahu should be well aware of the heated debate currently taking place in Israel. So I ask: would he, as an experienced statesman and skilled negotiator, grant the Saudi Crown Prince the same authority over Israel’s holiest mountain that Jordan has held for the past 56 years? Among today’s conservative Jews, that 56-year old error is already considered one of Israel’s most foolish and fateful foreign policy missteps, when Moshe Dayan, the one-eyed military leader who occupied the Temple Mount, ceded it back to Arabs in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. So would “King Bibi,” as his supporters sometimes admiringly call him, make the same foolish mistake now, when he has a unique opportunity to negotiate a more favorable solution for the Jews regarding the status of the Temple Mount?

The shared Temple Mount and the “Three Musketeers” of the Middle East

What if the Temple Mount was divided into separate zones controlled by Jews and Muslims? Or what if MBS made the Temple Mount “no one’s land,” internationally owned, where all monotheistic religions have equal religious freedom to worship their own God publicly without fear of violence. Saudi Arabia has long been known as a very conservative Wahhabi Islamic country (an ideology that fuels Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism), with suspected connections to al-Qaeda and the hijackers of the September 11 attacks, and which Hillary Clinton accused of providing “clandestine logistical and financial support” to the barbaric terrorist organization ISIS in 2014, according to leaked WikiLeaks cables.

Although Donald Trump made a lot of noise about this during the 2016 presidential elections, he also made his first foreign trip as President to Saudi Arabia and brokered a $350 billion arms deal with the Kingdom. At the time, the press reported – although it went unnoticed by even many of Trump’s MAGA supporters – that the terms of the agreement included a pledge to stop funding terrorists and their ideology. It is precisely for this reason that the ISIS caliphate collapsed by 100% within the next couple of years. For the same reason, MBS ousted Saudi Arabia’s previous crown prince, initiated purges of influential Saudi aristocrats, and started openly criticizing the country’s previously state-supported Wahhabi ideology. MBS referred to President Trump at that time as the “right person at the right time,” and Trump, in turn, said he had “great confidence” in MBS as he began the process of purging the country of influential figures who supported terrorists.

It is no coincidence that under MBS’s leadership, Saudi Arabia, whose crown princes used to complain to Prince Charles about the “American Jewish lobby” driving US presidential support for Israel, began to warm its relations with Israel, its historic enemy. US also strengthened its alliance with Israel under Trump’s administration and recognized Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. However, under Saudi Arabia’s previous approach, they would likely have pressured the United States and used their traditional “oil weapon” to coerce President Trump to backtrack from his promise to recognize Jerusalem, as all previous presidents had done. But by making the United States an energy-independent nation for the first time since 1957, Trump’s administration was no longer at the mercy of the traditionally anti-Semitic and anti-American oil tycoons of the Persian Gulf. In the Jom Kippur War fought 50 years ago, Saudis and other OPEC countries raised oil prices by 70 percent, causing a energy crisis in Europe that led them to abandon their support for Israel. Saudis have used their monopoly on oil trade as leverage in international politics on other occasions as well. However, the gradual shift towards alternative energy sources such as natural gas, nuclear power, and renewables has gradually reduced the influence of OPEC countries in international politics.

Afterwords

Overall, President Trump, Muhammed bin Salman, and Benjamin Netanyahu have been the three most significant historical figures whose leadership has drastically changed Middle East relations, and whose geopolitical maneuvering may now lead to some sort of upheaval regarding the administration of the Temple Mount, which in turn could make it easier for Jews to build the Third Temple. However, if the upcoming agreement does not include any favorable resolution for the Jews regarding the control of the Temple Mount, then it would be a very foolish mistake on Netanyahu’s part, which will eventually backfire on him.

I predicted in my first book, which I finished in December 2014, in my the prophetic time calculation of Daniel’s 12th chapter, that January 2023 would potentially be a significant time for Israel, Jerusalem, and its Temple Mount. I have reiterated this prediction over the years in various blog posts. This prophecy is also mentioned in the concluding remarks of my English book, which was completed in March 2022. Around that time (January 2023), the newly elected Israeli Minister of Security, Itamar Ben Gvir, made a highly controversial visit to the Temple Mount as a diplomatic gesture indicating that Israel no longer recognizes Jordanian authority over the site. Was Ben Gvir’s visit merely a preparation for a much more permanent shift that will be seen in the emerging peace agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia? If the terms of the peace agreement continue to impose restrictions on Jewish prayer on their holiest mountain, it will likely lead to the downfall of Netanyahu’s government. I do not believe Bibi would be willing to risk such an outcome.

Benjamin Netanyahu delivered an excellent speech at the United Nations in September, where he referred to artificial intelligence in biblical terms, saying that it could either be a curse or a blessing for humanity, depending on how we choose to use it. He mentioned that it has the potential to bring about the promised era of abundance, prosperity, and peace on earth, as foretold by the Hebrew prophets. In my recent blog post, I discussed how this is not just some “devilish” transhumanist ideology of techno-utopists, as even the Christian founders of the scientific revolution in the 1500-1600s made references to the eschatological role of science and technology using similar biblical terminology, deeply rooted in the Bible and Judeo-Christian faith.

Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s recent interview on Fox where he confirmed an upcoming peace agreement with Israel.

In an interview with the Christian TBN channel, the Israeli Prime Minister acknowledges the significant role of Christian Zionists in the birth of Jewish Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel, as well as the prophecies of the biblical prophets regarding the return of the Jewish people to their ancestral land in the end times. When the Israeli Prime Minister refers to the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible and those that are currently being coming to true regarding the future of humanity, perhaps it is time for us to take the biblical prophecies more seriously.

An interesting conversation between tech genius Elon Musk and Jewish leaders regarding anti-Semitism, Musk’s recent feud with left-wing Jewish organization ADL, and various other topics. The discussion reveals that Musk holds a sympathetic view towards Jews and the State of Israel and condemns all forms of anti-Semitism, whether it stems from far-right or far-left circles. During the conversation, they also discuss the Creator of the universe and the often lesser-known influence of Judeo-Christian beliefs behind the scientific and technological revolution in the West, as well as the ideas of America’s founding fathers. In the early part of the discussion, Ari Lamn speaks about how the biblical creation story encourages us to create new things, whether they be technological innovations or artistic and literary works, because we have been created in the image of the creative Creator God, entrusted with the exploration of the universe and the discovery and invention of new things. Elon Musk, who is not religious himself, says it resonates with technologists like himself. Another Jewish participant also mentions Elon Musk’s potential impact on warming relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, as his investments in green energy and his electric car company, Tesla, have prompted the Saudis to reconsider their oil-based foreign and domestic policies.