Why Ezekiel's Temple Must Be Interpreted Spiritually

By way of a small detour from my 'Jacked Up' series, I thought it apropos to address a side issue that has arisen from my last post in the series. At least one of you remains unconvinced that there can be no future restoration of the Levitical cultus, with its attendant sacrifices, dietary regulations, feast days and moons, etc., whether pre or post second advent. What follows, therefore, is a more detailed explanation of why we believe that Ezekiel's temple (described in chs. 40-48) cannot be a literal structure, but must be understood typologically, spiritually, and symbolically. To that end, Dean Davis renders sterling service yet again. Reproduced here with the kind permission of the author, and very lightly edited for continuity and amended for factual accuracy (see my note 3 below) and a few typos.  

"The prevailing view has been that it presents in grand outline the good in store for God’s people during the times of the Gospel; that it is a vision of spiritual realities pictorially presented … thus expressing under well-known (OT) symbols certain fundamental and eternal ideas with regard to the true worship of God." ¹

The Case for Figurative Interpretation

To begin with, this is a vision, a medium of revelation that, in both Old and New Testament times, is uniformly couched in symbols (Daniel 2, 4, 7, 8, Zech. 1-6, Rev. 4-22). The fact that the returning exiles of Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s day—and also the Jews of Herod’s day—never attempted to erect Ezekiel’s temple, or to re-apportion the land along the lines mentioned in his prophecy, may well indicate that some leaders regarded the vision as “mysterious” and symbolic. Certainly all agreed that it would be folly to undertake any such project in their own strength; that instead they must wait for the Messiah to come, who would explain to them all things (John 4:25, NIV). Secondly, both the contents of the vision and its role as the capstone of Ezekiel’s Oracles of Good News clearly identify the subject matter as the everlasting World to Come. But for those steeped in NT eschatology, this means that the prophet must be giving us a “covenantally conditioned” revelation of the new heavens and the new earth (2 Peter 3:13, Rev. 21:1f). If so, the vision cannot be fulfilled in a temporary millennial era; nor can it be fulfilled literally, since the NT depicts the World to Come in vastly differently terms.

This brings us to our third point, namely, that the worship here envisioned is—covenantally speaking—neither fish nor foul. That is, it is governed neither by the Law of Moses (as other OTKP’s say it will be, Isaiah 2:3, Micah 4:21), nor by the Law of Christ contained in the NT (1 Cor. 9:21). Yes, there are certain similarities with the Mosaic Law: A temple, an altar, various offerings, feast days, new moons, Sabbaths, etc. Yet there are also dramatic differences, in the form of both changes and deletions. For example, much of the tabernacle furniture is gone (e.g., the Ark, the Golden Candlestick, the Table of Showbread, etc.). There is no High Priest or Day of Atonement. Most of the Levites have been barred from their traditional privileges. While the faithful sons of Zadok do indeed continue to serve at the altar and in the Holy Place, even they cannot enter the Holy of Holies. The boundaries of the land are redrawn, the tribal allotments are radically restructured, and the City of God receives a new name, etc.

Such discrepancies vis-à-vis the Law of Moses were deeply troubling to subsequent Jewish leaders, who in time refused even to read Ezekiel 40-48 in public, for fear of confusing the people. However, had they understood the typological character of OT revelation, they would have realized that Ezekiel—and indeed Moses himself—was speaking “mystically” of the things of Christ and the Covenant to come (2 Cor. 3:12-18). Fourthly, there are a number of phenomena within the vision itself that clearly indicate the prophet was speaking symbolically. This is particularly true of 47:1-12, where we read of a River that will flow from beneath the Temple threshold and south of the altar; a river that not only grows without the help of tributaries, but also brings healing to whatever it touches, as do the mysterious trees situated on either side of its banks. Yes, it is indeed true that other parts of the vision lend themselves to a more literal interpretation. However, as soon as we read this portion, we immediately begin to wonder if both it and the vision as a whole are not meant symbolically. 

Finally, and most importantly, we have the positive testimony of the NT. As we have seen, because of its teaching on the progress of Salvation History, the finality of the New Covenant in Christ, and the obsolescence of all the OT institutions that temporarily pictured that Covenant in type and shadow, the majority opinion of the Church down through the ages has been that we must indeed interpret this text figuratively. And indeed, the NT explicitly encourages us to do so, referring at least six times to this vision in the portion of the Revelation devoted to describing the experience of the Church in the new heavens and the new earth (Rev. 21:10, 11, 12, 27, 22:1, 2). The implications of this could hardly be clearer: Ezekiel’s vision does not pertain to the thousand year reign of Christ (Rev. 20), but rather to the new World that Christ will create after “the thousand years,” after the Last Battle, and at his Parousia (Ezek. 38-39, Rev. 21-22). This, by the way, was the conclusion of the great German commentator, C. F. Keil. Summarizing his interpretation of Ezekiel’s vision, Biederwolf writes:

"The vision of Ezekiel he understands not as depicting the rise and development of the new Kingdom of God (i.e., the Church of Christ), but—since Ezekiel sees the temple as a finished building—(as) the Kingdom of God established by Christ in its perfect form. It is the Old Testament outline of the New Testament picture of the heavenly Jerusalem of the New Earth, as set forth in Rev. 21-22. It is the Father’s house of many mansions, heaven itself, the city of God coming down from heaven upon the New Earth, built of gold, precious stones and pearls, and illumined with the light of the glory of the Lord, all of which takes place after the final judgment has been consummated." ²

Premillennarian Dissension
Despite the historic consensus in favor of a figurative, New Covenant interpretation of this text, many modern evangelicals dissent. They include such notable premillennarians as D. Brown, A. Bonar, A. Gaebelein, A. Saphir, C. Scofield, C. Feinberg, D. Pentecost, M. Unger, J. Walvoord, C. Ryrie, and J. McArthur.³ Though differences exist among them, all would agree with Gaebelein when he writes: 

"The true interpretation is the literal one, which looks upon these chapters as a prophecy yet unfulfilled and to be fulfilled when Israel has been restored by the Shepherd and when His glory is once more manifested in the midst of His people. This great building seen in his prophetic vision will then come into existence and will be accomplished." ⁴  

Merrill Unger is equally dogmatic, asserting, 

“Ezekiel’s temple is a literal future sanctuary to be constructed in Palestine as outlined during the Millennium.” ⁵

Walvoord, likewise assuming that literalism is the only lawful approach to OT Kingdom Prophecy, goes so far as to say, 

“The only (view) which provides any intelligent explanation of this portion of Scripture is that which assigns Ezekiel’s temple to the future millennial period.” ⁶

We have already seen, however, that there are a great many reasons for believing that it is, in fact, the literalism of the premillennarians that is unlawful; that Ezekiel himself, the whole edifice of NT eschatology, and a great many texts found in the Revelation, all concur in urging upon us a figurative, New Covenant interpretation of this “mysterious” vision. I need not, then, devote a great deal of time to a critique of the premillennial view. Nevertheless, because this particular OT Kingdom Prophecy looms so large in the premillennarian canon, we will do well to spotlight some of the major problems incurred by going down this interpretive road.

Premillennarian Problems
First, the passage gives no indication whatsoever that the conditions described herein will last only for a thousand years. To the contrary, God explicitly states that this Temple will remain the seat of his throne and the footstool of his feet forever (43:7). It is in this Temple, this Land, and this City that he will dwell among his people forever (43:9). But even if God had not so spoken (both here and in Ezekiel 37:24-28), who can read the text as a whole without concluding that it is indeed designed to encourage God’s people with a vision of the eternal World to Come: a world from which all foreign enemies have been disbarred; a world in which God himself permanently dwells among them; and a world into which he continually sends healing waters so as to effect and maintain the ultimate restoration all things?

Secondly, on the assumption that our text does indeed speak of the World to Come, a literal interpretation requires us to believe that sin and death will endure forever (42:13,19, 44:27, 43:18, 27, 44:25, 45:15). Yet the NT assures us that in the new heavens and the new earth, they shall be utterly swallowed up in victory (1 Cor. 15:20-28, 50-58, Rev. 21:4). A covenantal and typological interpretation of Ezekiel is the only way of escape.

Thirdly, even if we dodged these reasonable conclusions by allowing that the vision describes a temporary, millennial phase of the Kingdom, the literal method of interpretation would still require us to affirm that in the Millennium God will once again command his Jewish priests to offer animal sacrifices in order to make atonement for sin(s) (43:26, 45:17, 45:20). This is, of course, scandalous to a mind saturated in NT truth. Every student of Christ and the apostles understands that OT animal sacrifices had no intrinsic redemptive power, but were instead mere types and shadows of the one true sacrifice for sin: Christ crucified (John 1:29, 36, Mt. 20:28, Heb. 10:1-18). Indeed, in order to underscore the omni-sufficiency of this sacrifice, the writer to the Hebrews asserts on at least four separate occasions that it was a “once and for all” sacrifice; that it was offered once for all God’s people (whether OT saints or New), once for all their sins (past, present, and future), and therefore once for all time (Heb. 7:27, 9:12, 26, 10:12). 

And there is more. In order to highlight still further the absolute finality and eternal efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice for sin, the same writer repeatedly associates it with his heavenly priesthood. Having died, risen, and ascended into the Holiest of All (i.e., heaven), our Great High Priest and Sacrifice now appears in the presence of God the Father for us, and he will do so forever, pleading the legal merits of his righteous life and atoning death on behalf of his own (Heb. 7:11-28, 9:24). Just as the OT foretold, Christ is an eternal High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4, Heb. 7:1f). Is it, then, even possible, let alone tolerable, to think that God will once again ordain a thousand year regime of animal sacrifices—Mosaic or otherwise—in a future millennium? “Yes,” say the premillennarians, “it is, since those sacrifices will serve Israel and the nations as a temporary memorial of Christ’s sacrifice, in much the same way that the Lord’s Supper has served the Church as a temporary memorial of his death on our behalf.” 

But for many reasons, this “solution” is deeply problematic. First, the text itself says nothing whatsoever about temporary memorial sacrifices. Secondly, why would Israel even need a memorial, when, according to the usual premillennial scenario, the glorified Christ himself will be present before their very eyes, ruling in their very midst? Thirdly, while the NT does indeed represent the Lord’s Supper as a memorial (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-25), it ascribes to the Supper no power to atone for sin. But in Ezekiel’s vision, God explicitly states that these sacrifices do atone, both for sinful objects and sinful persons (43:26, 45:17, 45:20). This in turn raises the question of how millennial Jews will be justified. Will it be by simple faith in the finished work of Christ, as the premillennarians insist, or will it be by faith in the efficacy of animal sacrifices, as the text itself asserts?

But again, the weightiest objection to the idea of future animal sacrifices is found in the positive teaching of the NT, where we learn that Christ, having fulfilled the typology of animal sacrifices by his atoning death, made those sacrifices obsolete, with the result that they have forever passed away (Heb. 8:13, 10:12). Would God break his own Word by ordaining a needlessly painful thousand year return to the weak, beggarly, and useless elements of the OT service of worship (Psalm 145:9, Prov. 12:10, Gal. 4:8-11, Heb. 7:18)? Perish the thought! 

Conclusion
For all these reasons, we conclude that the premillennial interpretation of Ezekiel’s vision of Israel’s life and worship in the World to Come is impossible. Having ruled out the premillennial approach, it appears that there is only one route left open to us: We must apply the New Covenant hermeneutic so as to uncover the NT truth embedded in OT language and imagery. In other words, we must adopt an amillennial interpretation.

Notes
1. The Millennium Bible, p197.
2. Ibid., p200.
3. MY NOTE: In his list of illustrious names associated with the millenarian cause, our author includes G Campbell Morgan, one of the most distinguished Christian teachers of his time. While it is true that Morgan held such views in his early life, he later renounced them as untenable. Like so many before him and since, he came to realize that when the canons of NT hermeneutics are permitted to illuminate the OT Kingdom prophecies, a literalistic interpretation is no longer possible. Ironically, this change of heart came about mainly through the agency of Philip Mauro, who was himself an ardent Dispensationalist who also later came to see the error of his ways and wrote extensively in defence of the Amillennial/ Finalist interpretation of prophecy. It should come as no great surprise that former advocates of chiliasm [especially in its more extreme forms] often number among its most effective critics - not forgetting the author himself. Under the circumstances, therefore, I thought it only fair to the memory of Morgan to remove his name from the company in which he was mistakenly placed by our author, but from which he dissociated himself in his later life.
4. Cited in Pentecost, J. D., Things to Come (Dunham, 1958), p. 514.
5. Ibid., p. 514.
6. Walvoord, J., The Millennial Kingdom (Dunham, 1959), p. 310.

Dean Davis
The High King Of Heaven pp325-331

 

 

 

Tweet