According to dispensationalism the Temple and sacrificial system will be re-instituted in the future millennial kingdom (though they see this ministry as only memorial). Charles Ryrie writes: “The temple is yet to be built and the sacrificial system reestablished during the millennium.” This is based on dispensationalism’s understanding of Ezekiel 40 and following.
But the New Testament teaches the temple being built is spiritual. Thus, dispensationalism involves a serious retrogression in the flow of redemptive history and the outworking of salvation.
1 Corinthians 3:16 reads: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God?” 1 Corinthians 6:19 asks: “Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost?” 2 Corinthians 6:16 concurs: “Ye are the temple of the living God.”
Paul speaks of this age-long building of this temple in Ephesians 2:21-22: It “groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord” for we “are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” Each of us is a living stone, for 1 Peter 2:5 teaches: “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house.”
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
I would absolutely agree that the New Testament teaches that believers are individually the temple of the Holy Spirit and that we are collectively being built up as a spiritual house. You could also add that believers are the body of Christ.
From there I would diverge with the comparison between believers and the temple described in Ezekiel. In fact, when talking about that Ezekiel’s temple, as to whether it is spiritual or physical, I think it is important to look at the rest of the book because since the temple is the most important aspect of the city and land it is mentioned first. If you look at the boundaries of the land listed in 47:15-20, the Lord describes the land as being located in parts of modern day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Israel. Basically summed up in the Promised Land. Another objection I’ve heard is that the city described in 48:30-25 is the same one found in Rev. 21:10-27. Not quite. While their are some similarities, the measurements are different with Ezekiel’s city being much smaller and easily fitting into the portion of the Land allotted to the Lord and the prince.
Given the specifics of the description, such that it describes a literal land which we can put down on a map and the architectural type plans of the temple, I would say that this temple must be taken not a the spiritual body of believers talked about by Paul, but as a physical building.
The idea of another temple with animal sacrifices is difficult to comprehend because we believe as Hebrews says, “And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” But based upon the conclusion that Ezekiel is describing a literal land, city, and temple there must be a way to reconcile Hebrews and Ezekiel. And we’ve got to look on the bright side, even if we can’t reconcile them God won’t have any problem doing it.
So guys,
What is the point of all that detailed specifics that cover the remainder of the book, nearly 8 chapters worth? There are precise, blue prints. I have yet to read any credible response from any amillennialist who wishes to allegorize the chapters that offers a satisfying explanation.
Fred
Fred: in order to understand Ezekiel and his Temple, we would want to look at the role of the Temple in Israel, and how that functions in the New Testament. We think that, in so doing, we will understand better the passage in its context—both literary and historical. Not enough space for a detailed study like that here, I’m afraid. And that’s the unfairness of the pre-mill charge: that you demand detailed exegesis in a forum where the one-liner reigns supreme.
But if you’re suggesting that these are blueprints for a Temple then I can point out a few things briefly. Firstly, Ezekiel 40 to the end isn’t quite presented as a prophecy in the mould of, say, Isaiah, or even Ezekiel 39 and earlier. It’s a vision, in which Ezekiel is shown around a glorious Temple and has aspects of its function described to him. He’s not told “Son of man, go and prophesy…” as in the preceding chapters. He’s told “watch, record, and tell Israel what you see”. That’s a subtly different command, and we need to hear that distinction.
Secondly, the proportions of the Temple are so huge that it can’t possibly be literal. I’m indebted to Matthew Henry (who in turn cites Lightfoot) for that gem. He specifically says “these things cannot be literally, but must [be] spiritually, understood.”
Thirdly, in the passage there is to be found that wonderful sequence about the coming glory, the acceptable sacrifice, the unique prince and the faithful priesthood (ch. 43–44). All of those point forward explicitly to Jesus.
Fourthly, compare Ezekiel 47 and Revelation 22, particularly verses 12 and 2 respectively. John is saying there, “You know that stuff Ezekiel saw? Well, let me tell you what it’s all about.” And, surprisingly enough, it’s all about Jesus!
Hampton and Fred, you both raise some good points. I would like to throw out some other observations and questions for your consideration.
When covenant theologians point out that the land promises were declared to be fulfilled in Joshua 21 the answer I have head back is that since they didn’t occupy the full extent of the land as alloted by God, then the land promise wasn’t really fulfilled. I don’t care for that explanation since it doesn’t adequately account for the fact that, regardless of the land occupied, the promises were declared to be fulfilled. None the less, if this fulfillment can be done away with, then what will the allotment look like in the millennial kingdom seeing as how two different allotments are described (the second is described in Eze 47).
Looking at Eze 47, there are some additional descriptions that make it difficult to take literally.
1) There is a river flowing out from the temple. This is exceedingly strange. Are we to believe that the temple is actually the source of a massive river? Where does all the water come from? Now consider 1Co 6:19 “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?” with Joh 7:38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’”
2) This temple which flows out of the temple and then out of the gate is nearly a mile (.85 mi) wide before Ezekiel is even up to his waist. Assuming som degree of symetry, this would make the river 1.7 miles at a minimum. How would this work architectually? It does not seem possible with the dimensions given earlier.
3) This river brings life wherever it goes. It seems strange to me that the intent of these descriptions is to inform us of the new hyrdological impact on the ecosystem. Surely there is something more here than the mere improvement of conditions for aquatic life. There seems to be more to this river of life which flows from the temple of God.
All of this strongly suggests that there is something more in view in this vision than just a physical temple.
I would admit that there are some strange descriptions described in this part of Ezekiel. However, large scale buildings and a river that produces wonderful ecological effects does not seem to indicate that what is described would be non-literal. It would be just as easy to dismiss the miracles in the New and Old Testament as not having literally happened.
That beings said, I find Brett’s post about these things being pictures of something else as entirely plausible. Jesus Himself indicated that at least one prophecy in Scripture (abomination of desolation) had two fulfillments (Anitochus Epiphanes and a future one). Why not apply that same type of dual fulfillment to this description. Perhaps a literal prediction of a temple as well as a spiritual picture of a believer. Hebrews does talk of the early tabernacle being a shadow of a heavenly tabernacle.
Sorry if I haven’t been as clear or Scripturally supportive as I should have been. It’s a little late here.
Oh yeah, Phil, you pointed out the similarities between Ezekiel 47:12 and Rev. 22:2. I think the differences are important also. In Ezekiel the water comes out of the temple. It comes out of God’s throne in Revelation.
Hampton, the Temple in the Old Testament was thought of as God’s throne-room on earth. There’s good evidence for this in 2 Sam. 7, as well as the fact that the same word is often used for “house” as in “the house of the LORD” and “Nebuchadnezzar carried off the gold and silver to his house”. So what you see as a difference, I see as a clarification—Ezekiel sees the river leaving the throne-room of God, but John’s vision goes “behind the curtain” as it were to see the river flowing from the very throne of God and of the Lamb.
“However, large scale buildings and a river that produces wonderful ecological effects does not seem to indicate that what is described would be non-literal. It would be just as easy to dismiss the miracles in the New and Old Testament as not having literally happened.”
I will grant that none of it is impossible, that is why I approached it the way I did. None of it is impossible, but it is a strange and strained interpretation. That is why I don’t think the dispensational hermeneutic of “literal whenever possible” is a good aproach. If that were the case, then everything would be literal since nothing is impossible with God. But it simply won’t do to interpret Isa 55:12 in a literal sense where the mountains develop a larynx, lungs, and vocal chords and literally begin to sing; or the limbs of the trees actually developing the musculature and skeletal system necessary to clap their hands. Nor wil it do to interpret Eze 17:24 as the trees actually developing cognizance. With these interpretations we may note that since none of this has yet happened, then it must await a literal fulfillment (probable during the millennium where all strange unfulfilled literal prophecy is placed).
BTW I am not suggesting that you believe any of this, or that you even suscribe to the hermeneutic I am describing. I am only mentioning these things to illustrate that the proper hermeneutic is not literal whenever possible, but literal whenever appropriate. Poetry is a literary genre where one regularly finds figures of speech, whether they be metephores, similies, idioms, or any other figure. Another genre where one would expect to find a good deal of symbolic, typilogical or figurative language is in prophetic or apocalyptic literature.
Thus, and firstly, when we encounter descriptions and events in a genre where figures are normative, and if these descriptions seem strange whn interpreted literally, then we have strong evidence that it should be interpreted figuratively.
Secondly, when we find strong parallels between this passage (which we already susspect is figurative) to NT passages, then the case for a figurative interpretation increases.
Thirdly, and related to the second, when the NT parallels would not make much sense without the OT type, then the strength of a typological or firuarative interpretation is strengthened even further. For instance, if Jesus were declared to be the caterpillar of God, that would not make any sence to us. So also when He is declared to be the lamb of God, that would make no more sense than the catapillar of God were it not for the OT type which foreshadowed Christ and His work. In a similar vein, the temple imagry has significance because of the OT types.
Fourthly, when the literal interpretation causes insurmountable problems with other parts of scripture (Col 2:16-17; Heb 8-10), then the case for a typological or figurative interpretation is strengthened even further. This is especially so when the text condtradicted is not a point made in passing, but is actually delt with extendedly (as it is in Heb). In fact, one of the main points of the entire book of Hebrews is that a return to the types and shadows, a return to priests and temples and sacrifices is a denail that the substance has come.
Fifthly and finally, if an interpretation can be given which will make sense of all of the details and seemingly literal aspects of this passage without at the same time falling prey to all of the problems listed above regarding an excessiv;y literal interpretation, then there seems to be no reason why we should not accept it. Along those lines, I believe that you have already hit on part of that interpretation. It is possible that there was both a literal and a figurative interpretation to this passage. A type and an antitype. At the same time there is also a conditional aspect to this passage.
“As for you, son of man, describe to the house of Israel the temple, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and they shall measure the plan. 11 And if they are ashamed of all that they have done…”
t doesn’t seem that this literal temple was an uncondiional promise.
“But as we see in Ezra-Nehemiah (e.g. Ezra 10), the people didn’t repent and obey. As a result, the rebuilt temple did not compare to the glory of the first (Ezra 3:11-13; Hag. 2:2). Even so, as Haggai 2 indicates, even after the temple was rebuilt, God still offered to increase its glory if only his people would be faithful to him. But again, they failed to be faithful, so that the restoration attempt never flourished.”1
This type/antitype interpretation allows for the seemingly literal aspects of the passage to be taken as such while also interpreting the seemingly figurative aspects to be taken as such. This, along with the conditional clause and the historical fact of unrepentance accounts for why the temple was never built according to specification and also aviods the expectation of a future temple which would contradict other parts of scripture.
That would be my take on it anyhow. Sorry for the length, it is just so hard to be concise about such issues.
1 Ra McLaughlin, “Ezekiel and the Temple,” available from http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99766.qna/category/ot/page/questions/site/iiim, accessed 1/5/07.
Speaking of Ezekiel, lets consider Acts 1. In volume one of Luke’s two volume work, The Gospel according to Luke, he told the story of all that Jesus began to do and to teach. Now in volume two, the Acts of the Apostles, Luke is going to tell the story of what the risen, living, reigning Christ continues to do and teach through his Spirit and his witnesses.
To prepare the apostles to be his instruments he does four things:
(1) He gives them a Spirit authenticated commandment (v. 2);
(2) He verifies his resurrection from the dead by appearing to them for 40 days (v. 3);
(3) He teaches them about the kingdom of God (v. 3);
(4) He promises to baptize them with the Holy Spirit (vv. 4-5).
Now when the apostles hear the promise of the baptism with the Holy Spirit they ask in verse 6, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”
• In other words they knew that the Old Testament promise of the outpouring of God’s Spirit was a promise for the last days when God would establish his kingdom on the earth and restore his people.
• For example, in Ezekiel 39 God says, “I will restore the fortunes of Jacob, and have mercy on the whole house of Israel . . . I will not hide my face any more from them, when I pour out my Spirit upon the house of Israel, says the Lord God” (vv. 25, 29).
• So when Jesus says that the long awaited outpouring of the Spirit—the baptism with the Holy Spirit—is just a few days a way, they would naturally ask for a clarification: “Do you mean the end is that close? The final kingdom is about to be established in just a matter of weeks or months?”
This was not a foolish question, even though verse 3 says that Jesus had been with them for 40 days talking about the kingdom of God. Because, you remember, back in Luke 22:29-30, at the last supper Jesus had said, “As my Father assigned a kingdom to me, so I assign to you, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
• In other words Jesus had told them that the kingdom would be restored to Israel—they themselves would sit on thrones as rulers along with the Son of Man over a renewed and believing Israel.
• And they knew from the Old Testament (Ezek. 39:29; Is. 32:15; 44:3-5; Joel 2:28ff. Zech. 12:10) that this restoration was going to be the result of a great outpouring of God’s Spirit. So it is not a foolish question to ask, “Do you mean the restoration is in this time—in our lifetime, or even in the next few months?”
Since the question is not foolish, Jesus does not rebuke them, nor does he correct their theology — because they were not wrong. Dr. MacArthur believes that they were wrong.
Actually, Jesus was teaching that the kingdom was now coming, but the just wanted to know if the kingdom was about to be completed. Now that is the question that Jesus answered by saying, “It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority.”
o In other words, don’t assume that the long-awaited outpouring of the Spirit will immediately bring in full and completed kingdom.
o God has appointed the times and the seasons for all things, and they are kept in the secret of his own wisdom.
o Such things are not for us to know.
o They would not be good for us to know—anymore than knowing the time of our own death would be good for us.
o They would be harmful, in fact.
But then Jesus goes on to tell them what the baptism with the Spirit will mean for them.
• It does not mean immediate restoration of Israel; it does not mean the immediate, full establishment of the kingdom.
BUT –notice this strong word at the beginning of verse 8—BUT, here’s what it does mean: “You shall receive power”—in other words, even though I may seem to have popped your balloon in saying it doesn’t mean the end is tomorrow, even though you may think I have taken the wind out of your sails, hear me! Hear me!
• Though the baptism with the Spirit doesn’t mean that, BUT . . . it does mean this: “You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth.”
• He is not promising them that END of all things was about to happen — BUT he was promising power that would last upon them to the end of the earth!
Jason &/or others who can help clarify,
Correct me if I’m incorrectly reading what you wrote. Jesus answer to the disciples question about the restoration of the kingdom does seem to imply a partial yes and a partial no. The yes is what you’ve described in the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit, the new covenant talked about in Jeremiah and Joel. I take the partial no answer from your statement, “It does not mean immediate restoration of Israel; it does not mean the immediate, full establishment of the kingdom.” Are you implying or do you feel that the text (Acts and/or other parts of the Bible) imply that there will be that “full establishment of the kingdom” on earth?
Thanks.
What Jesus is saying is that the Kingdom is here, in the New Covenant — fulfilling all the prophesies about the restoration of the kingdom. The Apostles wanted to know if the coming of the Holy Spirit meant the consummation of the kingdom. To that, Christ said that the time of the consummation was not for us to know. The consummation will be when the Lord returns. The kingdom will be complete, all the elect will be saved, all Israel will be saved, all His enemies will be His footstool, the Great Commission will be completed — the day Christ returns!
Thus we pray, “Thy Kingdom Come.” We are living in the kingdom, Christ IS king of kings, the strong man has been bound so to not deceive the nations that we may make disciples of all nations. And the consummation of the kingdom will be the day the King returns to judge the living and the dead.
The Kingdom has come and is coming to completion as the Church fulfills her duty. The kingdom will continue to come till the end when Christ returns.
And by the way, the Book of Revelation which is filled with much beautiful symbolic language as has been noted, also speaks of the New Jerusalem, the holy city. And it gives us the proper interpretation of this symbolism.
Notice in Revelation 21:2 the new Jerusalem is “prepared as a bride.”
Then in Revelation 21:9 the angel says that he wants to show John the “Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” And in verse 10 he showed him the new Jerusalem.
Thus the new Jerusalem is a symbolic reference to the Bride which is a symbolic reference to the Church which is all the redeemed of all the ages. The “gates” are the twelve tribes of Israel and the “foundations” are the apostles.
And verse 22 says there is “no temple in the city for its temple is the Lord God.”
So the true literal interpretation leads one away from Pre-mil/Dispy interpretations.