Allow me a rant: The Bible, read as a narrative, tells a story or highlights a theme of God's presence and temple. What stays constant is God's abiding desire to bless his people with his presence. From the garden of Eden to new creation, that is the ultimate blessing – to be with Jesus! What changes through Biblical revelation is the temple. It is this progression that leads us into the new heavens and new earth where God is the temple. However, certain theological movements seek and desire to return to former adaptions and previous versions of the temple, at the same time ignoring that something better than Solomon's temple has come (cf. Matt. 12:42). Why teach a theology that emphasizes a literal temple in the future when the story of Scripture details that metamorphosis away from a building and towards a person and then a people??? Let me demonstrate: The garden of Eden, while it was a paradise, was described in terms of a primordial temple. Adam and Eve were told to take care of the garden in the same way priests were told to take care of the temple (compare Gen. 2:15 w/ ???). When Adam fails to remove evil from the garden and away from God's presence as a priest, he and Eve are replaced by 2 cherubim who take up the role of guarding God's presence. Sin is pictured as being moved eastward away from God's presence in Genesis. Thus Solomon's temple was stationed in such a way that the entrance was from the east and going westward. Solomon's temple also had garden like stylings and architecture. God's presence is then localized in the ark of the covenant (again w/ 2 cherubim symbolically guarding his presence). That was put into the tabernacle, a mobile temple. Eventually, Solomon built a house for God to dwell in, full on with furniture and all. Again, there was 2 cherubim guarding God's presence in the most holy place where the ark was located. Israel's punishment for disobeying God was always removal from the land and thus presence of God. This is a repeat of Adam and Eve. Sadly yet eventually, Ezekiel 18 describes the presence of God leaving Israel. Thus the inter-testamental period was about the Messiah to restore that covenant presence. Jesus comes as "God with us" (in Matt. 1 and leaves with "behold I am with you always"). He is said to become flesh and "tabernacle" with us (Jn. 1:14). He referred to himself as the new temple in Jn 2:20-22. He even speaks of the fact that there will be a time when temple worship would be obsolete (Jn 4:21). Jesus becomes the temple as his presence is with mankind yet again! In the church, the temple adapts again into the people of God as the church assumes the role of God's presence and temple. The church corporately (1 Cor. 3:16-17; Eph. 1:19-23) and Christians individually (2 Cor. 6:19) are both said to be the temple of God having the Holy Spirit residing in us with his covenant presence as in the OT. Eventually, Jesus will return, God's kingdom will be consummated, new creation will be achieved, and Rev. 21:22 says that there is no longer a temple because God and Jesus are the temple. This was prefaced w/ Rev. 21:3ff where God's presence is with humanity and covenantal language is used to describe that blessing. This implies that God's presence fills the earth as originally intended back in Gen. 1-2 thus fulfilling the original plan for creation all along. If this is correct, then why in the world would God revert back to an older form of the temple as the over-literal dispensationalists argue??? Why go back to something that is not as good? Even Haggai says that the future temple (i.e. Jesus) will be more glorious than Solomon's temple. That is affirmed as I pointed out above. Matthew alluded to that theme in Haggai 2:9. To revert back to a brick and mortar temple is regression not progression. That is counter-productive to the mission of God as well as contrary to the unfolding narrative of Scripture.