The end of Ezekiel

[Guest]

The understanding I have of the book of Ezekiel leaves much to be desired, particularly toward the end of the book - chapters 40 onward (the details that describe the temple). Recently I've listened to various fellows who tend to present a somewhat dogmatic position regarding these passages about the temple. Though many of these people appear sincere to me, I sense that something isn't properly plumb in their understanding of the blueprint - usually their vision seems to be stunted by an unwavering preoccupation with physical things - such as national Israel, ritual observances, Jewish bloodlines, etc. At best, these are all shadows of the Kingdom - the way I read. I'd be grateful for assistance in understanding how these passages might be properly understood in light of the rest of scripture..?

With Respect,
SD

[Guest]

Hi SD,
The last nine chapters of Ezekiel are among the most difficult of the passages in the prophets to understand and apply. This section gives a very detailed description of a temple, its priestly functions and ministry—for detail, rivaling the descriptions of the tabernacle, in Exodus. The problem is that it was written after Solomon’s temple was destroyed, and before another was erected in its place. One would expect that it is a future temple to replace that of Solomon that we have here described. However, when Zerubbabel’s temple was built, it was far inferior to the one described in these chapters. Even with Herod’s later improvements (we are told) Zerubbabel’s temple never attained to the splendor of this one in Ezekiel. Zerubbabel’s temple was destroyed in 70 AD and none has stood in that place ever since. Thus, Ezekiel’s temple has never yet been built.

Simplest approach (and the one most often encountered) is the Premillennial, Dispensational interpretation. This view anticipates a literal temple being built to these specifications, and functioning as a center for worship during the millennium, after Christ’s return. “The Prince” throughout the passage is often said to be Christ Himself. I say, this is the simplest approach, because it permits a future literal fulfillment (this is always easier than the difficult work of interpreting symbols). However, it is fraught with difficulties.

First, because this view demands a return to the Levitical order of priesthood. This, the writer of Hebrews has assured us, has been replaced by that of Melchisedek—represented by Christ as the High Priest. The Melchisedek priesthood is not simply an additional priestly order that can co-exist alongside the Aaronic priesthood. The coming of the new priesthood has annulled the first (Heb.7:18), and its presence testifies to a change in the entire law of which it was a part (Heb.7:12). Furthermore, the Melchisedek priesthood of Christ is held by Him in perpetuity (Heb.5:6/7:24). Since the two priesthoods are mutually exclusive, and cannot exist together, there can never be another priest of the Levitical order so long as Christ retains His office…which is forever.

The second problem is that the passage, taken literally of the future, would require a return to the use of animal sacrifices. Once again, the writer of Hebrews has told us that the atoning sacrifice of Christ has rendered all such bloody offerings obsolete (Heb.9:9/10:9-10, 12, 14, 18).

Dispensationalists know, of course, that there will never again be any need for animal sacrifices to atone for sin, but they suggest that sacrifices in the millennial temple (i.e., that of Ezekiel 40-48) will be only for “a memorial” of the sacrifice of Christ. “As the sacrifices looked forward to Christ in Old Testament times,” we are often told, “so they will look back on Christ’s atonement in the millennium.” This is certainly an inadequate solution, however, since:

1. The sacrificial system was never pleasing to God (Psalm 40:6/ 51:16/ Heb.10:6). It was a necessary expedient before Christ came, but would hardly be necessary for God to reinstate, against His preferences, after Christ’s atoning work is completed;

2. There is already such a memorial that Christ has ordained in the communion supper. If this will not be adequate without animal sacrifices in the future, how can it be adequate now?

3. Ezekiel does not allow this Dispensational interpretation, for he specifically says that the offerings of his temple will be to “make atonement for the house of Israel” (45:17).

There are a number of other features of the time of Ezekiel’s temple that can not apply to the alleged millennium after Christ’s return:

1) Circumcision is required in Ezekiel 44:9, though it has been abolished in the New Covenant (will all of Paul’s Gentile converts in Galatia have to get circumcised after all?).

2) Marriage and child-bearing are a part of Ezekiel’s scenario (44:22/47:22), but if this were after the return of Christ, it is also after the resurrection of the dead—in which Christ has told us there will be no marriage (Matt.22:30).

3) “The prince” cannot be Christ in Ezekiel’s vision (and none but Christ could bear that title after His return), because the “prince” must offer a bull as a sin offering “for himself” (45:22). What could be more repulsive to New Testament thinking than the suggestion that Christ must atone for His own sins with the blood of a bull!

It is obvious that the scenario presented in Ezekiel could only apply literally to a time prior to the death of Christ, or else figuratively to something that has come to be since His death. In fact, both may be intended.

As for the literal interpretation, it is possible that this temple was the temple that would have been built by Zerubbabel and the returning Jewish exiles in 520 BC—would have, that is, if there had been a more thorough repentance on the part of the Jews in exile. This is strongly suggested in Ezekiel 43:10f—

“Son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed…and IF THEY ARE ASHAMED OF ALL THAT THEY HAVE DONE, make known to them the design of the temple and its arrangement…”

Therefore, it may be that God gave this description to Ezekiel as an incentive to the exiles to return to the Lord with their whole hearts—something that few of them did. Therefore, it may serve as a monument to what the Jews missed out on by their lack of complete repentance…It is "the temple that might have been," but never shall be.

As for the figurative aspect, it is likely that this temple, like the tabernacle before it, was intended to convey spiritual truths (Heb.8:5). I would expect these spiritual truths to apply to the Church, which has been, ever since Christ’s ascension, “the temple of God” (1 Cor.3:16/ 2 Cor.6:16/ Eph.2:20-22/ 1 Pet.2:5). As for the specific application of the symbols—now THAT is the difficult part! I may be forgiven if I opt out of such an exposition, in the words of the writer of Hebrews: “Of these things we cannot now speak in detail” (Heb.9:5).

[Guest]

Thanks Steve,
Certainly the above discourse you offered on the temple resonates with me as being the most sound, gospel compatible commentary I've come across on the subject. Thanks for your time...

-SD

p.s. Presumably your audio teachings through the book of Ezekiel would provide yet more exhaustive treatment - does it seem likely that they might soon be accessed via the web?

[Guest]

Hi SD,
Yes, my audio teaching on Ezekiel has one 90-minute message on this topic. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of time to add new mp3 files to our site, because the files are being made from tapes by a busy working dad, who volunteers in his "spare" time to manage our website and do these other chores.

We have all of the teachings already translated into mp3 files from the tapes, but they were made at too large a sample rate to fit them all on our site, so this brother is taking each one and resampling to a less ambitious rate. He has told me that he has the 95-lecture "Life of Christ" series nearly ready to upload. I will see if I can get him to do Ezekiel next.

[Guest]

Hi Steve,

I would like to add my vote for Ezekiel too! And I am also eagerly waiting to listen to the Life of Christ series.

Many thanks to you for your teaching. And thanks also to your friend who helps in converting your lectures to MP3 and loading them up to the website. God bless you.

[Guest]

You also have my vote for Ezekiel. I would really like to hear that.

[Guest]

I was browsing through some of the old threads and happened upon this one.

Well, hmm. I'm not really happy myself with any of the given explanations - either the Temple being explained in dispensational, post-resurrection terms, in terms of what "might have been, or simply in symbolic terms.

Although this is but a partial attempt to deal with the Ezekiel Temple conundrum, has anyone ever considered the following:

1. When Christ returns, He'll sit on a "throne" which is somehow different than the throne upon which He's sitting now, in heaven. (Mat. 25:31)

2. According to Isaiah 9:6-7 (KJV), the Messiah will rule upon the throne of His father David.

3. That being the case, is it possible for the Temple to be built immediately prior to Christ's return and for a prince of the house of David to be the one referred to in Ezekiel 40-48, who will turn over the throne of David to Christ at His return?

Now, this doesn't answer the questions of animal sacrifices, circumcision, or other related issues, but to me it's an interesting scenario to consider.

Damon

[Guest]

Damon,

I think it is certainly possible that a temple like Ezekiel's could be built in the future, but I don't think it likely that this is what Ezekiel is predicting. That the Jews might indeed build a new temple seem very plausible...perhaps even likely. It would not be the first time they thumbed their noses at God's New Covenant. But their building such a temple would not tell us anything about the meaning of the prophetic scriptures, or whether God approves of the project or not. These questions would have to be answered by appeal to the teachings of Christ and the apostles (at least this is where the Christians would derive their views).

I confess that I find nothing in any bibical passage linking a rebuilt temple with the Messiah sitting on David's throne. There is very little to go on in the Old Testament (and nothing in the New) to suggest that there will be a Jewish temple rebuilt in Jerusalem's future. The only passages that I have ever heard used to suggest this are Ezekiel 40-48 and Zechariah 14 (Some may also use Daniel 11:31, failing to recognise the fulfillment of this prediction by Antiochus IV, in 168 BC). Though I see these passages differently, it is an entirely separate matter whether any of these passages mention the throne of David or the Messiah. I do not think that they do.

That Jesus may chose to sit on a throne (and even to call it "David's throne") after He returns can not be ruled-out, since He, as sovereign Lord, may do whatever He chooses to do. However, I believe that the specific passages in the Old Testament about the Messiah's sitting on David's throne were interpreted by the apostles as being already fulfilled in Christ's ascension to the right hand of God (Acts 2:29-36/ 13:32-34), which, if true, leaves us no reason to look for a future fulfillment of the same predictions.

The promise made to David about this matter (2 Samuel 7:12) specified that the Messiah would be established on David's throne while David slept with his fathers (that is, while David was dead in the grave). This could hardly be fulfilled after the second coming, because that event will involve the resurrection of the dead (including David), and David will, therefore, no longer be "sleeping with his fathers" at that point. We are left to look for the fulfillment of the promise about "David's throne" sometime after David's death, but prior to his rising from the dead. It is not surprising that the apostles took the promise to be fulfilled in their own time.

[Guest]

Umm...out of curiosity, how do you know that 2 Samuel 7:12 refers to Jesus? I can see 2 Samuel 7:13 referring to Him in type, but the next two verses clearly don't. Rather, they refer to Solomon and the Davidic kings who followed him. So since the whole context doesn't clearly point to Jesus, how can you be sure that 2 Samuel 7:12 does?

Damon

[Guest]

I believe that the whole section (vv.12-14, at least) applies to both Solomon (the type) and to Christ (the antitype), for two reasons: 1) Hebrews 1:5 applies the prediction to Christ; and 2) this is the passage from which the entire concept of the Messiah sitting on David's throne arose, which is, of course, repeated in both the Psalms and the prophets.