Hi job8,
Based on that definition, then I would be comfortable with anyone saying that I am a dispensationalist. I believe that all Scripture, including prophecy is real, literal, historical and factual. However, as to what you claim that dispensationalists recognize, I'm not so much in agreement with that. So, am I or am I not a dispensationalist. I do agree that the Scriptures are true, literal, historical and factual, but when I read them as such I'm not necessarily convicted on some of the things that you believe the true, literal, historical and factual Scriptures reveal. One question that comes to my mind in the passage of Ezekiel that you posted is that it is a conditional command. God tells Ezekiel to describe the temple to the people of Israel that they may be ashamed of their sin. He then tells him that 'if' they do become ashamed of their sin, 'then' he is to make known to them the requirements for building the structure. As far as I can recall, Israel never did this.
If Ezekiel did as the Lord told him, and waited for them to be ashamed of their sin, I don't believe the Scriptures recount that there ever was any godly shame in Israel. Now, you may well say, "Well, that's because it foretells of a future Israel, but that doesn't seem to be what God is telling Ezekiel. My understanding is that He was telling Ezekiel in the 6th or 7th century BC, when he was a prophet in Israel, to do that then. Ezekiel was a prophet who lived in the days of Babylon going out and destroying the city of Jerusalem and laying siege against its inhabitants. Thus he says that this vision was like the one in which God came to destroy the city. Now God is telling him to tell the people about this new temple and 'if' they are ashamed of their sin, then give them the plans to build the temple and the gates. I rather imagine that it never got that far and it doesn't give a clue that 'if' they weren't ashamed of their sin, then He would have the temple built at a later time.
However, we do know that a later temple was built and if it wasn't built to these specifications then God wouldn't be beholden to be there always with Israel as He says He will be if the temple that He describes is built. Lastly, we do know that the 'prince' did visit the temple. There are several accounts of Jesus being in the temple. Did he enter through the proper gate? Or, because it wasn't the temple that God had commanded to be built, if Israel became ashamed of their sin, did it matter?
So, I'm not completely convicted that this tells of some future temple to be built many centuries later at the return of Jesus as much as it is the command for a particular temple to be built when Israel returned to its land, but because of its continued unfaithfulness to God, wasn't ever built in that prescribed manner. There is even some evidence that a very, very large portion of the Israelites never returned to Israel even when they were released from their captivity in Babylon. We do know that Nehemiah did and with a fairly large number that took on the job of rebuilding Jerusalem and then later the temple, but I have seen some historical accounts that, of the overall number of Israelites who had lived in Israel and Jerusalem before the Babylonian conquest, most did not return. This alone would have been evidence to God that they were still not ashamed of their sin and desirous to be in their land with Him.
All of the major prophets were fairly contemporaries of each other. Ezekiel, Isaiah and Jeremiah all lived within 100 years or so of each other. It is claimed that Ezekiel lived from 622-570 BC. Isaiah lived 740-681 BC. He was the first of the major prophets we find in the Scriptures. Jeremiah lived app. 650-570. Daniel, while in captivity in Babylon, mentions having gained understanding about the length of time of their exile from the writings of Jeremiah.
So, again, I'm not convicted that Ezekiel was writing of some long future temple.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
