Chuck Missler: The Temple - Bob Cornuke

What if everything we thought we knew about the Temple Mount is wrong? In this eye-opening discussion, Chuck Missler and Bob Cornuke explore groundbreaking research that challenges long-held traditions about the location of Solomon’s and Herod’s temples. Drawing from archaeological findings and biblical evidence, Cornuke presents a compelling case that the true site of the Jewish Temple may not be where most have believed for centuries. This thought-provoking study could reshape both political and religious perspectives in profound ways.

The Temple - Bob Cornuke

Could history be so stunningly wrong that the temples built by King Solomon and King Herod were never on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem? Jews and Christians alike believe—without any doubt—that these temples were located on the Temple Mount. For hundreds of years, hidden away in the Temple’s Holy of Holies, rested the Ark of the Covenant. For Jews, the Temple Mount is the most holy place on earth. A billion Muslims hold this to be the most holy place as well, believing it to be where Muhammad ascended into heaven from the area of the Dome of the Rock.

This presents a huge problem for several faiths that all clash at “ground zero,” at a place in Jerusalem that we know as the Temple Mount. It should be no surprise that this is the most volatile piece of real estate, where more blood has been spilled over the last three thousand years than any other place on earth. Many believe this will be the site of World War Three. But what if the Temple Mount is not the true location of the temples? Will tradition even allow a closer look? Do we find anywhere in the Bible, ancient history, or physical evidence that the temples were located somewhere else?

“On the other side of this wall stood the First Temple and the Second Temple. They were destroyed, and the Third Temple—when the Messiah comes—will come here, on the other side of the wall. And we’re told that God’s revealed presence never left these stones from the time of the Temple till now. And that’s what we feel when we come here—God’s revealed presence. This is the holiest place that we have right now. The Third Temple is going to come right here.”
—Interviewer: “So without a doubt, you believe?”
—Response: “There’s no doubt. There’s no doubt.”

Although most people today are convinced that the temples were located on the Temple Mount, that wasn’t the case sixteen hundred years ago.

“If I told you that in the fourth century there were four places that rabbis were suggesting for the Temple—four different locations—would you believe me?”
—Response: “No, I wouldn’t. Our tradition is that authoritative tradition wins out, and we go with what we have. We don’t do our own thing; we don’t try to make our own assumptions. We have what we have. If we don’t have what our parents and rabbis gave us, then we have nothing. Before somebody can come along and change what’s already been established, they’re going to have to be greater than the ones who established it.”

Challenging a long-held tradition is not easy, but it’s mandatory in our quest to find the truth. Having a tradition challenged is never comfortable—and yet it’s essential if we’re going to really get at the truth: what really happened and what is really going to happen.

“You are Jew?”
“No.”
“I have no time to lose with you, okay.” [laughs]

Could it even be possible that the greatest archaeological mistake of all time has occurred—locating the temples of Herod and Solomon on the Temple Mount? And if so, where is the true location of the Temple today? The prophetic implications are absolutely astounding, and the political repercussions could alter the entire complexion of the Middle East.

Hi, my name is Bob Cornuke, and we’re in Old Jerusalem. I’m about to take you on an expedition like you’ve never been on before. We’re going to look for the lost location of Solomon’s and Herod’s temples. I believe that archaeology has really missed this one. I think history is stunningly wrong in saying that the Temple Mount is where Herod’s and Solomon’s temples were located. So we’re going to take out the Bible and use it as a roadmap and a compass to solve this most ancient mystery.

Around 957 BC, God had King Solomon build the Temple for worship, sacrifice, and to house the Ark of the Covenant. This magnificent facility stood until 586 BC, when the Babylonians destroyed it and took the Israelites captive. Around 515 BC, Zerubbabel and other Israelite exiles returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple on top of the demolished First Temple. This Second Temple wasn’t as spectacular as Solomon’s, but it served its purpose until 20 BC, when King Herod initiated a significant renovation and expansion project. This is the Temple that stood in Jesus’ day—where He taught on several occasions and confronted the money changers.

In AD 70, four years after the Jews rebelled against the Roman Empire, military commander Titus and the Roman army utterly destroyed the Temple. Today, many Jews and Christians are anticipating the day when a Third Temple will be rebuilt, as foretold in the book of Ezekiel. Tradition says it needs to be rebuilt on the same spot where Solomon’s and Herod’s temples stood. Will that be the Muslim-controlled Temple Mount—or is it somewhere else? This makes the search for the Temple’s actual location that much more imperative.

Biblical explorer Bob Cornuke has spent the past few decades searching for the real Mount Sinai, the Ark of the Covenant, Noah’s Ark, and the apostle Paul’s shipwreck in Malta. His search for the location of Solomon’s and Herod’s temples really began several years ago when he was reading Matthew 24.

The Bible tells us in Matthew 24 that Jesus, speaking to His disciples while walking away from the Temple and looking back at it, said: “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; everyone will be thrown down.” Not one stone—total annihilation. That’s what we hear from history: the Temple was totally destroyed.

“The hill called Zion at Jerusalem, the building there, that is to say the Temple, has been utterly removed or shaken. It was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation that there was nothing left to make those that came there believe it had ever been inhabited.”

But if Herod’s Temple was utterly removed, how can the Western Wall exist today? Either Jesus was inaccurate in Matthew 24, or perhaps the Western Wall wasn’t part of the Temple at all.

About 63 BC, the Romans took this city. General Pompey had the gates opened to him, and from that point on the Romans controlled Jerusalem for over three hundred years. The big question is: where did they stay? No one has ever found one brick that they know is from the Roman fortress. I believe it’s because it has been on the Temple Mount—that was the Roman fortress. If you look at it today, it’s in the same dimensions as many Roman fortresses. So where did the Romans stay? They stayed on the Temple Mount.

Locating the Roman fort on the Temple Mount explains how the Temple could be utterly destroyed yet still have remains existing to this day—the Western Wall. Instead of being the remains of Herod’s Temple, the Western Wall may actually be a part of the Roman fort.

Eleazar ben Yair, the commander of the Israelites taking refuge at Masada, said: “Jerusalem is now demolished to the very foundations and has nothing left but that monument of it preserved; I mean the camp of those Romans that destroyed it, which still dwells upon its ruins.”

The traditional view places the Roman fort—called the Tower of Antonia—at the northwest corner of the Temple Mount. This three-acre plot supposedly housed the entire Tenth Roman Legion. But how large was a legion? History tells us a legion is approximately six thousand soldiers; with support personnel, it could reach as high as ten thousand people.

If I were incoming to the Tenth Heavy Roman Legion sent to Jerusalem to keep the peace, I would have occupied the high ground. I would have put my soldiers on the Temple Mount. As I look at the little building called Fort Antonia today, it’s almost laughable to believe that six thousand soldiers and some four thousand camp followers occupied that tiny structure. Would Rome—the proud rulers of Europe and the Middle East—be content to locate their fort as an appendage to the Jewish Temple? Or would they be more likely to commandeer the entire Temple Mount to build the regional military headquarters?

Again, we turn to the historian Josephus:

“Now as to the Tower of Antonia, it might seem to be composed of several cities; for if we go up to this Tower of Antonia, we gain the city, since we shall then be upon the top of the hill.”

The only location that is on top of a hill and large enough to house ten thousand soldiers and support staff is the thirty-six-acre Temple Mount.

In AD 333, the so-called Bordeaux Pilgrim traveled to Jerusalem and described what he found.

“I’m in a high tower, about a hundred feet high, right next to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and it’s a fascinating place. From this position, the Bordeaux Pilgrim said he looked due east and all he could see was a long wall of a Roman fort.” When I look due east from here, all I see is the long wall of the Temple Mount. So I think the Bordeaux Pilgrim was describing the Roman fort from this spot. In fact, that’s pretty conclusive: what he was looking at was the Temple Mount complex—which I believe was a Roman fortress that housed the Tenth Roman Legion.

So if historical evidence places the Roman fort on the Temple Mount, why do the majority believe this is where the Temple was located? When the Temple was destroyed by Titus in AD 70, it was, as some accounts suggest, “like a field with blowing grass—you wouldn’t even know it was there.” After the Jews were barred for so long, it became hard to determine where the Temple had been. This spot became the place that everybody settled on. In fact, in the fourth century there were many proposals as people tried to figure out where the Temple had really stood; people were not sure.

One important event that promoted the idea of the Temple Mount being the Temple’s location was the crusader invasion of Jerusalem. In 1099, thousands of crusaders conquered the Temple Mount complex. When they went on top of it, there was great carnage—many Jews and Muslims were killed. They climbed up on the dome—it wasn’t gold then—ripped off the crescent moon, replaced it with a cross, and called it Templum Domini, which means “Temple of God.” That, I think, started a tradition.

Seventy years after the crusaders conquered Jerusalem—and eleven hundred years after Herod’s Temple was destroyed—a Jew from Spain named Benjamin of Tudela visited Jerusalem and wrote that the Temple Mount was the location of the former temples. His emphatic statements seemed to seal the tradition, and from that point on it has been virtually unchallenged.

“Well, I believe that this is not the place of Solomon’s and Herod’s temples, but that it’s actually in the City of David, a few thousand feet south of here. We’re going to the City of David right now to see if that is the true place where God tells us these temples were located.”

The City of David is a twelve-acre plot of land just south of the Temple Mount.

“We’re here in the City of David. Back in the 1800s, this was identified as the City of David with the discovery of the Gihon Spring and Hezekiah’s Tunnel. When King David arrived in Jerusalem, the City of David was inhabited by the Jebusites. David’s men captured their fortress, and 2 Samuel 5:9 says, ‘So David lived in the fortress and called it the City of David.’ Then in 2 Samuel 24:18, after David conquered the Jebusite city—which is right under the City of David—he was required by the Lord to purchase the threshing floor from Ornan the Jebusite. In 2 Chronicles 3:1 we see that Solomon began to build the house of the Lord by the threshing floor purchased from Ornan the Jebusite.”

Solomon’s Temple was in the City of David—the Jebusite fortress. It’s hard to argue with 2 Chronicles 3:1 if we take the Bible at face value.

The City of David is also referred to as Zion. Second Samuel 5:7 says, “David captured the fortress of Zion—that is, the City of David.” Eusebius, a third-century historian and curator of the library in Caesarea, wrote that the Temple was in Zion:

“The hill called Zion at Jerusalem—the building there, that is to say, the Temple. King David took the Zion by custom and changed its name to the City of David. So the Mount of Zion is the City of David.”

We’re standing in the area of the City of David. Here’s an archaeological site, and there’s the south wall of the traditional Temple Mount. In photos from the 1930s, this area shows terraced farms; you can even see people tilling the ground. The Bible says in Micah 3:12, “Zion shall be plowed like a field; Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins; and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.” If that were really the Temple up there, Micah says there should be a plowed field. There never was. But this area was. So we can be assured that the City of David matches what the prophet and the Bible say—and history.

Of course, any theory has critics—especially a “Temple-in-the-City-of-David” theory. People say, “Wait, the Temple in the City of David, the stronghold of Zion?” Then they cite a verse they believe proves otherwise: “Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes…to bring up the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord from the City of David, which is Zion.” (1 Kings 8; cf. 2 Chronicles 5) They assume it was brought up to the Temple Mount. But the Bible doesn’t say where it was taken in that phrase—only that it was placed into the Holy of Holies under the wings of the cherubim. There was a huge festival with all the priests of Israel; they slaughtered so many animals the number couldn’t be counted. The City of David is only twelve acres—very small. That large public ceremony wouldn’t have been inside that tiny area. The procession could have gone out to a broader area and then returned—bringing the Ark into the Temple located in the City of David.

A little-known historical account describes two covered bridges or colonnades that spanned about six hundred feet between Fort Antonia to the north and Herod’s Temple to the south. Josephus describes them:

“Now as to the Tower of Antonia, it was situated at the corner of two colonnades of the court of the Temple—of that on the west and that on the north…”

He describes Antonia as a guard to the Temple, located on a higher hill, hindering the Temple’s north side. These descriptions confirm that the fort was on the higher Temple Mount, while the Temple was six hundred feet to the south at a lower elevation.

There’s also a story in the Book of Acts that supports this. It describes the time the Roman commander quickly deployed troops from the fort down to the Temple to rescue the apostle Paul from a riotous situation: “At once the commander took along some soldiers and centurions and ran down to them…” (Acts 21:32). Later, “Paul, standing on the stairs, spoke to them…” (v. 40)—the stairs leading back up to the Fortress Antonia.

Another clue to the Temple’s location is the Gihon Spring. This fresh-water source is mentioned in 1 Kings 1:38, where Solomon was brought to the Gihon to be anointed as king. Fresh running water was necessary for worship and to perform animal sacrifices. First Kings 8:62 tells us that on the day of the Temple dedication, Solomon offered fellowship offerings to the Lord: twenty-two thousand cattle and one hundred twenty thousand sheep and goats. Cleaning up after that many sacrifices would require a huge amount of running water. Roman historian Tacitus tells us the Temple contained an inexhaustible spring.

You have to have running spring water to wash and purify the priests before they go into the Temple to worship. Here we have clear, clean running water coming from the Gihon Spring, traveling through Hezekiah’s Tunnel to a pool. Before the priests entered either Solomon’s or Herod’s Temple, they needed to be bathed in spring water. The only spring water in all Jerusalem is right here—the Gihon Spring. There is absolutely no spring water on the Temple Mount. There’s no way they would wash themselves at the Gihon Spring and then walk a quarter to a half mile to the Temple Mount before being considered purified.

Tradition—when valued higher than evidence—can be a stumbling block to finding the truth. But tradition can also provide valuable clues when accompanied by scriptural, historical, or physical evidence. Local traditions need to be considered in our search for the Temple’s location.

“I’ve been a tour guide here for more than thirteen years. There are some amazing things we’re discovering to the south of the Temple Mount area—where we believe we’ve found Solomon’s Temple—near the City of David. All my life, we’ve known the Temple is in this area. Nobody says the Temple is under the mosque; nobody says it’s here in the corner; nobody says it’s there. But those who understand these things say the Temple is in the City of David.”

“So, you’re saying the Bible is telling you—and archaeologists are telling you?”
“The Bible says this is the place—the City of David. The Bible says it. But if I speak, nobody will hear. Others—nobody will hear. It’s something political.”

Beyond politics and tradition, is there any archaeological data to support the idea of the Temple being in the City of David?

A couple of years ago, I toured the City of David, an underground labyrinth of tunnels and caves. Many stones are believed to be from the time of Abraham, the Jebusite fortress, and other things mentioned in the Bible. As I walked, I saw a flicker of light far up a shaft where men were working. I heard metal on metal. I later found out that area could be part of Solomon’s Temple—and we’re going there. It started for me right up there, through that shaft where I saw that light two years ago.

This area was excavated recently by Eli Shukron, director of archaeology in the City of David. I think he stumbled across an area within the structure of Solomon’s Temple.

“This is from the First Temple period—even before that. We’re going back to the Middle Bronze Period, before King David—about eight hundred years before David, around the time of Abraham and Melchizedek. We used this place as a worship area, and it was still used until the end of this era—around the late eighth to early seventh century BC. This is the only place we know in the City of David where we can say there was worship—with a standing stone—and sacrifice. All around you is a place for worship, for praying, for sacrifice; a place where people connect with their God.”

We’re in an incredible archaeological site. Right below my feet is an olive press—you can see where the wood beam went, used to grind the olives. Oil was very important for anointing someone going into the Temple. Close by—within thirty feet—is the Gihon Spring. You needed that rushing water to anoint and cleanse the priests before they went into the Temple. We also read in Scripture that Solomon was brought on a mule to the Gihon Spring and anointed with oil when he was crowned king—right here.

Amazingly, archaeologists have uncovered an area dated to the First Temple period. It has channels where the blood ran. They would kill the animals, and the blood would go through here. We can see where the animals were tied—holes where rings went through to tether the animals. Archaeologists found piles of bones throughout—evidence of animal sacrifices—and unique grooves in the ground believed to have held wooden or metal stands.

This ancient sanctuary, stretching beyond what you see here, looks like part of Solomon’s Temple complex itself: blood channels, the olive press, tie-offs in the stone, and it’s only yards from the Gihon Spring—perfect for the water needs of continual sacrifices.

Is this Solomon’s Temple? I don’t know. Is it Herod’s? I don’t know. But according to a top Israeli archaeologist, it is a temple. He isn’t ready to say it was Solomon’s or Herod’s, but it’s a temple in the same place 2 Chronicles 3:1 says Solomon built the Temple to the Lord—in the City of David, near the Gihon Spring.

Could it be that this ancient sanctuary is what remains of Solomon’s Temple? Herod’s Temple—built above Solomon’s—was completely destroyed in AD 70, but these remains, covered over by the Babylonians in 586 BC, fit perfectly with 2 Chronicles 3:1.

This is mind-blowing. These rocks around us suggest this is the exact place of Solomon’s Temple. Everything points here—and nowhere else. It’s not on the Temple Mount; it’s in the City of David by the Gihon Spring, gurgling just a few feet away from where I’m standing.

We must tread carefully—it’s emotional, and we’re dealing with deeply held beliefs. We need compassion—but also a healthy re-examination of our scholarship. Sometimes the biggest challenge isn’t finding new evidence; it’s setting aside presuppositions so they don’t block discovery. The case for the Temple being in the City of David has merit—though it raises many questions. The Scriptures say the Temple was in the City of David and had to be near the Gihon Spring. There’s no spring on the Temple Mount. I’ve become convinced the Temple was not on the Temple Mount; it was in the City of David.

If the Temple was in the City of David, what are the implications today? Many Christians say, “If the Temple is ever going to be rebuilt, it has to be rebuilt where the Dome of the Rock is.” Wouldn’t that spark World War Three? But if the real Temple was in the City of David—significantly to the south of the Dome of the Rock and outside the current city walls—then the Temple could be rebuilt in the City of David without touching the Dome of the Rock. The political implications are obvious.

Luke 8:17 says, “For nothing is hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing concealed that will not be made known and come to light.” Could the Temple be one of those things—hidden, to be revealed; concealed, to come to light? If we’re ever going to find the Temple, we need to use the Bible. The Bible tells me the Temple has to be in the City of David, in the stronghold of Zion. The alluring pull of oral traditions needs to be ignored. We’ll find the truth in the Word of God—not in human guesses, but in what God is telling us.