Ezekiel’s Temple not a Millennial Temple (3)
In this study of Ezekiel’s temple it has
already been suggested:
- that it was not intended as a temple for the age to come,
but
- for erection in Jerusalem when Israel returned from
Babylon.
It is now possible to go a step further and show
that there are indications that...
- the Jews themselves so
understood it and endeavored to follow the prophet’s
instructions.
But first it is desirable to emphasize how much
Israel were in need of a new religious code. With the destruction of Jerusalem
by Nebuchadnezzar, they lost not only their temple but also everything
associated with it. The ark of the covenant was gone. There was therefore no
mercy seat, and therefore no Day of Atonement was possible. The holy fire, which
had been unquenched since God signified His good pleasure by accepting
Solomon’s sacrifices (2 Chr. 7:1), was now gone out. So the offering of
true burnt offerings was likewise out of question. Neither had they a
high-priest with Urim and Thummim who could give a divine judgment in time of
perplexity. Indeed all the indications were that God had altogether abolished
the system of worship which had been given hundreds of years earlier for the
guidance and help of His people: “He hath violently taken away his
tabernacle... he hath destroyed his place of assembly: the Lord hath caused the
sabbaths and solemn feasts to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the
indignation of his anger the king and the priest. The Lord hath cast off his
altar, he hath abhorred his sanctuary... the king and her princes are among the
Gentiles: the law is no more” (Lam. 2: 6,7,9).
So unless God gave His nation a new start, Israel
returned from captivity would be a people spiritually adrift.
Evidently, then, Ezekiel 40-48 was designed to
show the Jews how they were to worship and serve God when their seventy years of
exile were expired — what kind of temple they were to fashion; the
character of their priesthood; their offerings and their feasts; the due status
of priest and prince; the re-allocation of the Land to the tribes; and
especially, they were to be inspired with the possibilities of Jerusalem as a
center for worship, not only for Israel but also for the strangers in the Land,
and — more than that — as a source of spiritual blessings radiating
to all the nations of the world.
The phraseology of the prophecy plainly suggests
this kind of aim and intention: “Declare all that thou seest to the house
of Israel....Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with
thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house
of the Lord, and all the laws thereof....And thou shalt say to the rebellious,
even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God, O ye house of Israel, let
it suffice you of all your abominations....Show the house to the house of
Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities....And if they be ashamed
of all that they have done, show them the form of the house....that they may
keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them”
(40:4 and 44:5 and 43:10,11).
The reason why this new house of God should be
revealed to Ezekiel in particular is now evident. All through the captivity the
godly amongst the exiles would be able to pore over it and by it would nurture
their faith in the promised restoration. By its guidance, plans would be drawn
up and details worked out for the renewal of divine worship and praise in
Jerusalem. What an in-spiration it would be to them during the long years
“by the waters of Babylon”!
And yet there would also be the sad recognition
that even when re-established on mount Zion, the service of Jehovah in such a
temple could never again be considered adequate. For Ezekiel’s vision had
no mention of a Day of Atonement, it gave no hint of a golden candlestick or
table of shewbread before the Lord, neither was there a hint of the lavish use
of gold and silver which had contributed so much to the splendor of
Solomon’s temple; and the high-priestly garments for glory and for beauty
were lost; and the genealogies of the priests had gone up in the flames of
Nebuchadnezzar’s holocaust.
Splendid and holy as their new temple was to be,
its limitations only emphasized in their minds the abiding need for a new and
better order, with a Messiah who would be both Prince and Priest ministering a
Sacrifice which would be all-sufficient, and not merely temporary and
typical.
The hints in Ezra and Nehemiah which connect
their new temple with that described by Ezekiel are interesting and instructive.
In Ezra 6:3 the details of the decree of Cyrus
include the actual dimensions as given by Ezekiel — central sanctuary 60
cubits long and 60 cubits high. These are the identical measurements which are
to be deduced from Eze. 41:2,4.
Further, Ezra records that when the temple was
finished, “they builded and finished it according to the commandment of
the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, etc.”
(6:14).
If it be asked what command of God is referred to
here, there is none to which reference can be made except Ezekiel 40-48. Unless
some divine instruction which is not included in the Scriptures be presupposed,
there seems to be no evading the conclusion that Ezra’s temple was
regarded as being an attempt to fulfill the prophecy of
Ezekiel.
It is useful also to recall that Ezekiel’s
scheme required that Jerusalem be developed as a sanctuary area one mile square
— approximately the size of the ancient city. There was to be no
rebuilding of the business or residential area of the city, but instead Ezekiel
planned another city called Jehovah-Shammah south of Jerusalem.
In harmony with this scheme there are certain
remarkable features about the record in Nehemiah. when the temple was erected,
apparently no town buildings were constructed in the vicinity. The grant of
timber from the king’s forest was “for the gates of the palace
(temple) which appertained to the House, and for the wall of the city, and for
the house that I (Nehemiah) shall enter into” (2:8). There is no mention
of ordinary civilian dwellings.
The decree of Artaxerxes similarly emphasized:
“Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven (in Ezekiel 40-48?), let it
be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven; for why should there be
wrath against the realm of the king and his sons?” (Ezra
7:23).
Apparently at this time other cities were being
or had already been built, but not so the civilian part of Jerusalem (Neh. 11:
20). This is a very extraordinary and significant fact. It is almost as though
after World War II all the cities of England were speedily and completely
restored whilst all that was done in London was the patching up of St.
Paul’s. Such would have been a fair parallel to the unique state of
affairs existing in Judea at this time. Can anything be found to explain it
except the highly probable idea that these returned captives were seeking to
pattern their development of the Land on Ezekiel’s
instructions.
Similarly, as Ezekiel had planned for the
Levitical ministers to have cities to dwell in in the immediate vicinity of
Jerusalem (Ezek. 45:5 Septuagint), so under Nehemiah “the singers builded
themselves villages round about Jerusalem” (Neh. 12:29). Yet “the
city was large and great: but the people were few therein, and the houses were
not builded” (7:4). Indeed, the few who were now dwelling in the city did
so “that in the night they may be a guard unto us, and may labor in the
day” (4:22).
If Ezekiel’s prophecy be not the
explanation of this remarkable state of affairs, then what is?
In harmony with all this is the record of the
consecration of the wall of Jerusalem when it was completed. This was done (Neh.
12: 27-43) as a great religious celebration. The degree of holy joy implied in
this part of the narrative suggests that the people saw this not just as the
renewal of the walls of their ancient city, the pride of all their history, but
the first stage towards accomplishing that which Ezekiel had foretold - a frame
of a city a mile square which was to be all temple.
But the people of Israel were unable to carry the
project through to its culmination. Their own efforts were halfhearted. They
were hindered and discouraged by enemies without and the beginnings of a renewed
apostasy within. Thus, bit by bit, they lost their early idealism, and though
the temple was built — probably, so far as one can tell, on the pattern of
that planned by Ezekiel — it never achieved that which was intended for
it. The Glory of the God of Israel did not return unto it, and Ezekiel’s
great ideal still goes unrealized until the day when the new Jerusalem descends
from God out of heaven; and then it will find expression, not in reeds of wall
and cubits of altar but in the spiritual realities which those solid facts were
intended to teach.
Ezekiel’s Temple intended for the Return
from Babylon, not for the Millennium
- 13 years between ch. 39 and ch. 40 (see
32:1)
- The land smaller than Genesis 15:18
(47:20).
- In Ezekiel, Jerusalem not to be built except as
an enormous temple. Instead, a completely new city on the site of Bethlehem.
Contrast Zech. 8: 4,5, etc.
- The Prince is not a High
Priest: 45:8,9,16,22; 46:18. He has wife and family: 46:16,17. He might die:
46:17,18. Warning against oppression: 45:8; 46:18. Goes no further than the
court of the priests: 46:2. Offers sacrifice for sin: 45:22;
46:10-12.
- No uncircumcised person: 44:9. What of Gentile
saints?
- Temple for Jews only:
43:10,11.
- Levites (priests?) degraded because of sins of
their fathers: 44:10,11; contrast 18:2.
- East gate shut
six days in seven: 46:1. Contrast Isa. 60:1.
- Warnings
against fraud: 45:9-12.
- Dan (48:1,32) omitted in Rev.
7.
- Israel back from Babylon needed a new code. They had
no ark, no mercy seat (therefore no Day of Atonement), no holy fire (therefore
no sacrifice). Lam. 2:6-9. This is a new revelation for them (emphasized by
40:4; 44:5; 43:10,11).
- Back from Babylon, they followed
Ezekiel very largely. Ezra 6:3 is dimensions of 41: 2-4. Ezra 6:14 — what
commandment of God, if not Ezekiel? Ezra 7: 23 — temple erected, but no
town buildings. Other cities built but no dwelling in Jerusalem. Singers not in
Jerusalem; compare Neh. 12:29; 11:38 with Ezek. 45:5; 48:13. The only reason for
dwelling in Jerusalem, to be a guard: Neh. 4:22; contrast 7:4. The wall
consecrated with sacrifices: Neh. 12: 27-43. Zechariah 8:4 probably implies no
civilian dwelling in Jerusalem in his day. All 12 tribes returned: Ezek. 47:13,
etc. Cp. Neh. 7:73; Ezra 8:24,25; 2:70.
- What about
47:1-12? This must be symbolic.
- Gentiles already in the
land given “equal”
inheritance.
Typist’s note: This work is, on the
internal evidence, not complete. But it is all that is available. (This will
probably also explain the outline form of the final
section.)