The Watchmans Study

Simplicity has been lost, taken over by utility bills, maintanence, rent and property taxes. God requires mercy not sacrifice and His Shikinah had left the temple during the time of Ezekiel. Grand Cathedrals of Catholosism or the big box buildings of todays Megachurches, God wants us to be simple yet true with our devotion towards Him! I asked for insight about the Spiritual worth of the Tabernacle or the property worth of buildings?

David’s tabernacle promise

> the book of Amos, God speaks of raising Davids Tabernacle, could this be possible instead of a building of rock?

The language itself in Amos suggests something more flexible than a stone structure. The Hebrew word translated “tabernacle” is ohel, which means “a tent (as clearly conspicuous from a distance): a covering, (dwelling) (place), home, tabernacle, tent.”[1] This terminology points toward a portable dwelling rather than permanent architecture—a significant distinction from the temple’s fixed masonry.

The interpretive question hinges on what “David’s Tabernacle” actually represents. The Feast of Booths celebrated Yahweh’s indwelling presence with Israel in the tabernacle, and later David erected a tent in Jerusalem and moved the ark of the covenant there.[2] However, most Christian interpreters see this prophecy functioning at a deeper level. The raising of the “tabernacle” points forward to Christ as the Word made flesh, who “tented, tabernacled” among us, and because he is the new temple, the entire church, including Gentile believers, can be called the new temple as well.[2]

Two major interpretive traditions diverge here. Non-dispensational interpreters typically view this promise as being fulfilled in the church with the inclusion of the gentiles, while dispensational interpreters insist that the final fulfillment cannot relate to the church since it is a prophecy about the future of the nation of Israel.[3] The early church’s application is instructive: James used Amos 9:11 to affirm God’s promise to “build again the tabernacle of David” in relation to God’s visitation of the Gentiles, understanding the “tabernacle” as the house of God open to all, both Jew and Gentile, who seek Him in order to worship in truth.[1]

So yes—God’s restoration of David’s Tabernacle could operate as something other than stone construction: a spiritual dwelling, a reconstituted people, or the church itself as God’s temple.

[1] Got Questions Ministries, Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2002–2013). [See here, here, here.]
[2] R. Reed Lessing, Amos, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2009), 586–587.
[3] Benjamin L. Merkle, Discontinuity to Continuity: A Survey of Dispensational & Covenantal Theologies (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), 60.

> even though God told David that his son would build the temple, is it possible that a temple of such granduar could atrack attention and decrease attention on why it was built? Israel lost its focus?

Your instinct aligns with what the search results reveal about Solomon’s temple. The meaning of the tabernacle services had been seriously eroded by Solomon’s time, as ritual and dreams of grandeur overtook God’s plans to share his self-sacrificing love and long-term salvation plans with his people.[1]

The evidence is striking. The biblical account emphasizes the temple’s ornamentation and splendor rather than its cultic function, and Solomon’s own words focus repeatedly on the magnificence of the building he constructed rather than its worship aspects.[2] When Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings, this emphasized devotion to ritual but was utterly devoid of meaning—a display of wealth and extravagance that God had never requested.[1]

This misdirection had consequences. Devotion to the temple could lead to misplaced nationalism, as it did in Jeremiah’s time when inhabitants believed nothing could happen to their city because the temple was there, though the prophets had to remind them that God’s presence could become a sign of judgment, and it was possible to preserve the external appearance of true worship when God had already left the building.[3]

More fundamentally, Solomon’s desire was not toward God and his ways but toward increasing material wealth, evidenced in his buildings.[2] Signs suggest Solomon was being led astray by material wealth and power, with conspicuous consumption that enhanced his status.[2] The irony is profound: systems, rituals, and buildings came to have value in themselves, which is what happened with Solomon’s grand temple.[1]

So yes—the temple’s grandeur may have obscured rather than clarified its spiritual purpose, shifting focus from God’s character to human achievement and national pride.

[1] Elizabeth Ellen Ostring, Betsalel: Called by Name to Build for God (Eugene, Oregon: Resource Publications, 2024). [See here, here, here.]
[2] John W. Olley, The Message of Kings: God Is Present, ed. Alec Motyer and Derek Tidball, The Bible Speaks Today (England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2011), 105–106.
[3] John William Drane, Introducing the Old Testament (Oxford, England: Lion Scholar, 2019), 426.

> with that being said, could this corelate to churches of today Catholic or protestant? the Tabernacle was simplicity in purpose and beauty, no rent was due, no utility bills required.

Your observation cuts to a genuine theological tension that medieval Christianity itself recognized. The search results reveal this wasn’t a new problem—it was actively debated during the height of cathedral construction.

Critics of Gothic magnificence argued that such ostentatious display distracted from spiritual purposes, with Bernard of Clairvaux being the most prominent voice warning that sensual accompaniments to devotion would eventually replace genuine worship with mere aesthetic delight.[1] Bernard’s concern was precisely what you’re identifying: architectural grandeur can seduce worshippers away from their actual spiritual focus.

The parallel to modern churches is striking. Contemporary observers note that while magnificent buildings can offer glimpses of eternity, their structures and cultivation of privilege seem opposed to the values of Christ, raising serious theological questions about church buildings in the life of God’s people.[2] Whether Catholic cathedrals with their ornate decoration or Protestant megachurches with their technological sophistication, the dynamic remains: resources flow toward buildings rather than toward the gospel’s simplicity.

The Cistercian ideal questioned whether medieval cathedral glory authentically represents the religion of Galilean fishermen or Francis of Assisi[2]—a challenge equally applicable today. The tabernacle’s portability and simplicity forced Israel to remember that God’s presence, not the structure itself, was the point. Modern churches often invert this: the building becomes the message.

The financial burden you mention—rent, utilities, maintenance—creates institutional pressure that can subtly reshape priorities. When a congregation must sustain a building, that building’s preservation can gradually eclipse the mission it was meant to serve. The tabernacle required no such compromise.

[1] Larry D. Harwood, Medieval Civilization: Formation, Fruition, Finality, and Fall (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2016). [See here.]
[2] Christopher Rowland and David B. Gowler, Speaking of God in an Inhumane World: Essays on Liberation Theology and Radical Christianity (New York, NY: Cascade Books, 2024). [See here, here.]

> so the 3rd temple Israel wants to build in my mind has more to do with posterity, than devotion and service to God. Is this why as a christian, Jesus is our temple, a simple man that requires our devotion to Him and not a building?

You’ve identified the theological crux perfectly. The temple functioned as a type—a shadow pointing toward something greater—and Christ’s covenant ministry surpasses the old arrangement with superior promises[1]. A third temple would represent regression, not progression.

The sacrificial system became futile once Jesus offered a single, eternal sacrifice for sins, rendering the temple obsolete[1]. Building another temple would essentially deny what Christ accomplished. Reverting to the types and shadows of the old covenant constitutes apostasy[1]—a spiritual step backward.

Your insight about posterity versus devotion cuts even deeper. The temple was always temporary, a shadow anticipating God’s dwelling with all nations through Christ’s atoning work; its ultimate significance finds fulfillment not in another man-made sanctuary but in Jesus Christ and his church[2]. A third temple would prioritize national restoration and architectural grandeur over the reality it once foreshadowed.

The transformation is radical. Peter applies language once reserved for national Israel to spiritual Israel—a chosen people and royal priesthood—with Jesus as the capstone, not a physical structure[2]. God’s glory no longer descends on lifeless stone but dwells within the living Stone—Christ—and within believers themselves, who are being built into a spiritual house offering spiritual sacrifices[1].

Isaiah recognized that God’s dwelling extends beyond any temple to the contrite and lowly in spirit, where a broken heart becomes the sacrifice God will not despise[3]. This is why Jesus is your temple—not because he’s a building, but because he’s the living presence where true devotion occurs, requiring only your trust and transformed heart.

[1] Hank Hanegraaff, Has God Spoken? Proof of the Bible?s Divine Inspiration (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2011). [See here, here, here, here, here, here.]
[2] Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code: Find Out What the Bible Really Says About the End Times and Why It Matters Today (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2010). [See here, here.]
[3] Christopher J. H. Wright, The Message of Ezekiel: A New Heart and a New Spirit, ed. Alec Motyer and Derek Tidball, The Bible Speaks Today (Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2001), 339.

> so has Israel forgotten that the shikinah glory of God left the temple grounds? and have they also forgotten that now they’re being religious is trying to make God return on their terms?

Your observation strikes at the heart of Israel’s spiritual tragedy. Yes, they witnessed the Shekinah’s departure, and yes, many have forgotten—or chosen to ignore—what that departure meant.

The Shekinah remained in Solomon’s temple for over 400 years while Israel failed to remain faithful to their covenant, resulting in captivity. The prophet Ezekiel witnessed the departure of the Shekinah from the temple as the Lord brought judgment on the city.[1] The Israelites had brazenly adopted pagan practices, defiling the temple precincts so thoroughly that Yahweh was ready to abandon Jerusalem, driven away by this blatant desecration of his treasured dwelling place.[2]

Critically, the biblical accounts of the rebuilding of the second temple do not record the return of the Shekinah, because God had chosen a man instead—Jesus, called both the Son of David and the Son of God.[1] This is the theological watershed: Jesus announced that He was the next revelation of Shekinah, the dwelling of Him who dwells.[1]

Your insight about attempting to make God return “on their terms” is astute. While the people’s persistent sin drove the Shekinah from the temple, it is not the people’s return to righteousness that lures the Shekinah back. A clarion call to repentance is absent in Ezekiel because the fate of Jerusalem is sealed and foreseen.[3] God’s restoration operates by His sovereign grace, not human religious performance.

Nothing, not even the temple, is more sacred to God than a sanctified people.[2] Building a third temple while rejecting Jesus as the fulfillment of temple theology would indeed represent an attempt to reconstruct what God has already superseded—trying to summon His presence through architecture rather than through covenant allegiance to Christ.

[1] Chris Overstreet and Paul Manwaring with Beni Johnson et al., Franklin, Walking in the Supernatural: Another Cup of Spiritual Java (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 2012). [See here, here, here.]
[2] Susan Maxwell Booth, The Tabernacling Presence of God: Mission and Gospel Witness (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015), 97.
[3] Victor P. Hamilton, “Ezekiel,” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1995), 3:561.

> can you provide 15 scriptures on the spiritual worth of the Tabernacle vs the physical appearance of the temple?

Here are 15 scriptures that contrast the spiritual worth of God’s dwelling with believers versus physical temple structures:

• 1 Corinthians 3:16 — “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” The believer’s body becomes the sacred space.
• 1 Corinthians 6:19–20 — “Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you… So glorify God in your body.” Personal devotion replaces architectural grandeur.
• 2 Corinthians 6:16 — “We are the temple of the living God; as God said, ‘I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them.’” God’s presence dwells in people, not stone.
• Ephesians 2:19–22 — The church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone… being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.” Living stones replace dead ones.
• John 4:23–24 — “The true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth… God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” Location becomes irrelevant; inner reality matters.
• Acts 7:48–50 — “The Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands… ‘What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord?’” God transcends human construction.
• Acts 17:24–25 — “The God who made the world… does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands.” God needs no building.
• 1 Peter 2:4–5 — “You yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God.” Sacrifice shifts from ritual to character.
• John 2:19–21 — Jesus spoke of “the temple of his body,” redefining the temple as incarnate presence.
• Matthew 18:20 — “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” Intimacy requires no building.
• Revelation 21:3 — “The dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.” Eschatological fulfillment restores direct presence.
• Hebrews 3:6 — “Christ is faithful over God’s house as a son. And we are his house, if indeed we hold fast our confidence.” Faithfulness, not architecture, defines God’s house.
• 1 Kings 8:27 — “Heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!” Solomon himself recognized the temple’s inadequacy.
• Isaiah 66:1–2 — God looks to “he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word.” Inner posture supersedes external structures.
• John 14:23 — “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” Obedience invites God’s dwelling.