What was in the Holy of Holies in the Second Temple?
A really fine single-malt.
From what I recall, traditionally nothing
That’s not to say that something wasn’t placed there later, to be removed by the Templars and eventually ending up in my basement behind the water heater, but that’s a different story.
Yes, when the Romans took Jerusalem the Emperor Titus satisfied his curiosity by entering the innermost sanctum of the Temple, the Holy of Holies. He found it completely empty.
Didn’t the ark end up in Ethiopia?
Is there a reason (other than the lose of the Ark) there wasn’t a throne for Yahweh?
I heard that same story about Pompey the Great, when he passed through Jerusalem, between 65 and 62 AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompey_the_Great#The_Campaign_against_the_Pirates_.E2.80.94_Pompey_in_the_East
Painting by Fouquet: “Pompey in the Temple of Jerusalem”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pompée_dans_le_Temple_de_Jérusalem.jpg
Isn’t in some warehouse gathering dust?
Yep, my memory at fault here, I should have checked first. Pompey’s the guy.
Pompey and Titus is not an either-or question. Both of them violated the inner sanctum upon the victory of their troops.
Because the rules of Temple construction do not allow for an “ark cover” without the ark itself…and the ark itself is only valid as a sacred instrument if it contains the Sinai tablets. That is to say, it has to be the original or nothing.
There is an entire religious sect in Ethiopia devoted to the Ark and some do think it resides in a small temple there, but no one has been allowed in to find out that I am aware of.
I think it’s in Area 51 next to the alien spacecraft from Roswell and kitty-corner to my dignity, which has been missing for quite some time now. 
So why rebuild the Temple?
I did remember correctly!
Thanks, Tom.
Jebus:
Because the other types of service could still be performed in the absence of the ark. An incomplete ark was not allowed, but a Temple absent one was.
I guess what I really meant was why rebuild the Holy of Holies? Why have the head priest still go in there once a year if there was nothing in the room? Would God still dwell in the Holy of Holies without the throne?
Almost certainly not. The Coptic Church made scads of copies of the Ark and other such items. The one that everyone talks about is just suffiecntly ancient so that no one remembers it’s a copy. The Ark was either melted down, or more likely hidden in the hills and not ever found. If the latter, when it is found, it will cause quite a ruckus.
Jebus:
Having a “holy of holies” chamber is part of the basic construction requirements of the Temple even if the Ark wasn’t there. The existence of the room indicated that there was a level of holiness beyond that which the outer holy chamber and its vessels belonged to. The space on which the Ark once rested has an inherent holiness even in the absence of the Ark itself.
But would God still dwell there with the Ark and throne?
“with” should be “without”
At last report, it’s in some GSA long-term storage facility – unindexed, of course. (Unless some time traveler Got There First.)
It was a very ancient tradition in the Levant / Fertile Crescent for a temple to contain a Holy area inside the temple, and a Holy of Holies area inside that. Compare the topological layout of the Temple in Jerusalem with that of the later Parthenon in Athens, and quite possibly the temple at Luxor, Egypt.