Ezekiel's Temple

[MichaelBurke]

Can't find it now, but I was reading a post about something called "The Patristic Commentary." It appearently included both Old and New Testaments, and reminded me of questions I've always had concerning Ezekiel's Temple.

Aside from the Mellennial Temple/Memorial sacrifice theory (which requires a pre-mil interpretation of scripture), I'm aware of two other interpreations.

1.) The Spirtual Temple: All the details (i.e. the exact demensions of the rooms, etc.) somehow picture the New Testament Church.

2.) The Contingent Temple: The details were meant to be taken literally by Ezekiel's contemporaries, and the Temple discribed would have been built if they had wholly turned to God and followed the blueprint at that time (but God knew they wouldn't, just as He knew they wouldn't keep the moral blueprint given at Sinai.) This interpretation draws support from the words "if" and "may" in Ezekiel 43:10-11.

Concerning the first interpretation, I'd like to know if any of the Fathers elaborated on how the various details picture the Church.

Concerning the second interpretation (which actually makes more sense to me), I'd like to know if any of the Fathers expressed this view. I've only seen it expressed in modern commentaries (and only rarely.)

All replies appreciated.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Unfortunately I can't remember the church father's opinions off hand but I think I'll check on this tomorrow. Thomas Oden edited a series of commentaries that just link verses to relevant passages in the EFCs- really quite a resource.

As for me, I'm happy with either interpretation, but I somehow think the contingency interpretation is truer to the text.

 

[Ben12]

Can't find it now, but I was reading a post about something called "The Patristic Commentary." It appearently included both Old and New Testaments, and reminded me of questions I've always had concerning Ezekiel's Temple.

Aside from the Mellennial Temple/Memorial sacrifice theory (which requires a pre-mil interpretation of scripture), I'm aware of two other interpreations.

1.) The Spirtual Temple: All the details (i.e. the exact demensions of the rooms, etc.) somehow picture the New Testament Church.

2.) The Contingent Temple: The details were meant to be taken literally by Ezekiel's contemporaries, and the Temple discribed would have been built if they had wholly turned to God and followed the blueprint at that time (but God knew they wouldn't, just as He knew they wouldn't keep the moral blueprint given at Sinai.) This interpretation draws support from the words "if" and "may" in Ezekiel 43:10-11.

Concerning the first interpretation, I'd like to know if any of the Fathers elaborated on how the various details picture the Church.

Concerning the second interpretation (which actually makes more sense to me), I'd like to know if any of the Fathers expressed this view. I've only seen it expressed in modern commentaries (and only rarely.)

All replies appreciated.

What about The Tabernacle of David in Acts 15:14? To me that I find most important; and I see no way to explain it but as a OT reality revealed as a symbolism.

 

[Ben12]

Temple not built with hands

1 Corinthians 3
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?​

1 Corinthians 6
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?​

Revelation 11
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.​

Hebrews 9
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;​

Hebrews 9
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:​

2 Corinthians 5
1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.​

Acts 15:14
Declares that he will return again and restore the Tabernacle of David and then he will save the remainder of mankind​

​

There are a number of examples thought out the OT that I believe point the Temple with in us.

 

[MichaelBurke]

...somehow think the contingency interpretation is truer to the text.

I agree.

Unfortunately I can't remember the church father's opinions off hand but I think I'll check on this tomorrow.

I don't have the resources to check myself, but I'd apreciate any information you could provide. I'm not wedded to a pre-mil interpretation, but the idea that Ezekiel's Temple (discribed as it is in such intricate physical detail) was somehow intended to picture the spiritual Temple of the Church, seems to do violence to the text.

The Church is a spiritual Temple, but that doesn't make it Ezekiel's Temple, and the demensions given don't match the Tabernacle in the wilderness, Solomon's Temple, or the second Temple.

Did any Church Fathers hold to the contingency theory?

Did any of those holding to the spiritual interpretation go into any details (such as how the windows, the galleries, and the rooms for the priests picture the Church) ?

If you check on this, and you find anything interesting, please let me know.

 

[Ben12]

Israel’s annual cycle of Feasts constitutes a type and pattern of great and momentous spiritual events, it is vitally important that we should understand their meaning. The Scriptures reveal the fact that there were three annual festival seasons in Israel’s worship. Other days were added in later years to commemorate certain events, but according to the original Levitical pattern there were three occasions during the year when all Israel was called upon to observe a national religious festival. And inasmuch as the Church of Christ is the true spiritual Israel and what happened to natural Israel constituted merely a type and shadow of what should happen to spiritual Israel--we can derive great spiritual benefit and comfort by studying the types in the Old Testament, and then discovering by wherein they apply to us on a higher and vaster spiritual plane. For the scriptures make it very clear that "all these things happened unto them for ensamples (as a figure, or type): and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." (1Cor. 10:11).

And not only so. For we have abundant evidence from the New Testament to establish the fact that two of the three annual Feasts of Israel’s worship have already been fulfilled in Christ and His Church: fulfilled, moreover, in a way so manifestly clear from the Scriptures. When we can actually look into the New Testament and see the manner in which two of the three Feasts have already been gloriously fulfilled, what great consolation and comfort it is for the saints who are looking forward to the fulfillment of the last Feast, the Feast of Tabernacles.

Take the Tabernacle of David; here was a small tent where the Ark of God was brought to Mount Zion/Sion; how many times is this name mentioned in the NT. Zion was mentioned 152 times in OT; where Sion was mention 7 times in NT; I do not understand why they changed the spelling. Sure this was David’s home Solomon etc; but is also a symbolism.

Zion was the natural home of King David who is a type of Christ in Natural Jerusalem. Mt Zion was the head of natural Kingdom; just as Spiritual Mt Zion is the Spiritual high place of Christ in the book of Revelation. David did not need to go to a priest; let alone a high priest to visit the Ark (or the glory of God) it was in a tent or tabernacle on his back porch at Mt Zion. This is a beautiful type which tells us myriads of what God is tying to tell us in the Spirit of the Word.

David was king; He was God’s anointed King; not like Saul who was also anointed by God; but chosen by the people; like many ministries in the church (little c) realm today. David was one of those special people God called, anointed and was one after God’s own heart. David lived in Jerusalem and Mount Zion (Sion); That is where the earthly anointed King lived and all His court; what a wonderful type of the ruler ship of the spiritual Mount Zion.

When David brought the Ark back to Mount Zion he wore an linen ephod, (In other word’s a priestly garment) David also offered burnt offerings to God as the High priest would on the Feast of Tabernacles. There was no high Priest, there was no Feast of Tabernacles once a year; but David was an example of both King and Priest in that the Ark was not at Shiloh but Zion. No outer court, no holy place, no Levitical order. It is no wonder the Bible is full of pages written by David because of the influence of God’s Ark at Zion.

2 Samuel 6:​

14And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod.​

17And they brought in the ark of the LORD, and set it in his place, in the midst of the tabernacle that David had pitched for it: and David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD​

​

There is so much more on this subject; using all the different examples and Temples/Tabernacles that point to the reality of God’s Spiritual Church today.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I don't have the resources to check myself, but I'd apreciate any information you could provide. I'm not wedded to a pre-mil interpretation, but the idea that Ezekiel's Temple (discribed as it is in such intricate physical detail) was somehow intended to picture the spiritual Temple of the Church, seems to do violence to the text.

The Church is a spiritual Temple, but that doesn't make it Ezekiel's Temple, and the demensions given don't match the Tabernacle in the wilderness, Solomon's Temple, or the second Temple.

Did any Church Fathers hold to the contingency theory?

Did any of those holding to the spiritual interpretation go into any details (such as how the windows, the galleries, and the rooms for the priests picture the Church) ?

If you check on this, and you find anything interesting, please let me know.

Unfortunately, I have just discovered that my school library doesn't havent Tom Oden's early church fathers commentary for Ezekiel.

But to my knowledge, none of them held to the contingency theory. They were generally into the 'senses' of Scripture and interpreting Old Testament promises in light of the church.

And I'm no dispensationalist (I interpret many promises in light of the church), and far be it for me of all people to dispute the holy fathers, but I think Ezekiel's prophecies of the temple, given the level of detail in the text, are to be interpreted realistically, but as contingent upon Israel's repentance. Since that repentance didn't come and Israel was only taken out of exile by the unilateral action of Jesus Christ (and since, then, such repentance can never happen since the exile is officially over and the end has come in Jesus Christ), those offers are of mostly historical interest.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

I've run across various names vary for the different types of interpretation of Ezek 40-48 in commentaries. And while these may overlap a little, I think they cover the basic views:
1) Contingency or ideal or "unfulfilled ideal" view - the building of the temple was contingent on something that the exiles/returned exiles were supposed to perform, but did not.
2) Historical or fulfillment view - this is the identification of the second temple with Ezekiel's temple.
3) Symbolic or encouragement view - Chapters 40-48 are centered on encouraging the exiles and/or readers in a symbolic sense.
4) Apocalyptic view - Chapters 40-48 are a picture of 1) God's people in the age/time of the Messiah, or 2) of heaven.
5) Typical view - Chapters 40-48 are symbolic of the Church.
6) Literal or kingdom view - Chapters 40-48 are interpreted literally belonging to a future kingdom.

As far as I know, the early church fathers interpreted Ezekiel 40-48 as either symbolic of the Church or of a picture of heaven. I think the contingent view is a much more recent view. Most of the non-literal detailed interpretations of Ezek 40-48 tend to be allegorical. For example, some have applied Ezekiel 44:1-3 (the shut gate) to the Virgin Mary. For (possibly) more detailed comments, you might want to check Origen, Ephraim the Syrian, Theodoret of Cyprus, Gregory the Great and Jerome.


LDG

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

1) Contingency or ideal or "unfulfilled ideal" view - the building of the temple was contingent on something that the exiles/returned exiles were supposed to perform, but did not.
2) Historical or fulfillment view - this is the identification of the second temple with Ezekiel's temple.
3) Symbolic or encouragement view - Chapters 40-48 are centered on encouraging the exiles and/or readers in a symbolic sense.
4) Apocalyptic view - Chapters 40-48 are a picture of 1) God's people in the age/time of the Messiah, or 2) of heaven.
5) Typical view - Chapters 40-48 are symbolic of the Church.
6) Literal or kingdom view - Chapters 40-48 are interpreted literally belonging to a future kingdom.

I like this list more.

As for me, I'd find 2 (historic) inappropriate given what we know about the second temple, and 6 (dispensationalist) inappropriate because, well, it's dispensationalist.

Although I'd personally go with contingency (1) or heavenly (4-ii) views, I'd find the rest acceptable (if problematic).

 

[Ben-Menashe]

2.) The Contingent Temple: The details were meant to be taken literally by Ezekiel's contemporaries, and the Temple discribed would have been built if they had wholly turned to God and followed the blueprint at that time (but God knew they wouldn't, just as He knew they wouldn't keep the moral blueprint given at Sinai.) This interpretation draws support from the words "if" and "may" in Ezekiel 43:10-11.

Temple could not be built then. Ancient technology is not allowed to build a house exactly according to the prophecy of Ezekiel

A detailed commentary on the prophecy of Ezekiel, the Temple is on the site:
ht_tp: / / ezekiel-temple.narod.ru /
Please forgive me, I understand very little in English. I translate in Google. We live in Russia in the Caucasus.

 

[ebedmelech]

Can't find it now, but I was reading a post about something called "The Patristic Commentary." It appearently included both Old and New Testaments, and reminded me of questions I've always had concerning Ezekiel's Temple.

Aside from the Mellennial Temple/Memorial sacrifice theory (which requires a pre-mil interpretation of scripture), I'm aware of two other interpreations.

1.) The Spirtual Temple: All the details (i.e. the exact demensions of the rooms, etc.) somehow picture the New Testament Church.

2.) The Contingent Temple: The details were meant to be taken literally by Ezekiel's contemporaries, and the Temple discribed would have been built if they had wholly turned to God and followed the blueprint at that time (but God knew they wouldn't, just as He knew they wouldn't keep the moral blueprint given at Sinai.) This interpretation draws support from the words "if" and "may" in Ezekiel 43:10-11.

Concerning the first interpretation, I'd like to know if any of the Fathers elaborated on how the various details picture the Church.

Concerning the second interpretation (which actually makes more sense to me), I'd like to know if any of the Fathers expressed this view. I've only seen it expressed in modern commentaries (and only rarely.)

All replies appreciated.

You make very good points!

However, I would like to add the Ezekiel's vision is repeated to John in Revelation 21.

Compare these two passages:

Rev 21:10-17:
10And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God. Her brilliance was like a very costly stone, as a stone of crystal-clear jasper.
12 It had a great and high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.
13 There were three gates on the east and three gates on the north and three gates on the south and three gates on the west.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
15 The one who spoke with me had a gold measuring rod to measure the city, and its gates and its wall.
16 The city is laid out as a square, and its length is as great as the width; and he measured the city with the rod, fifteen hundred miles; its length and width and height are equal.
17 And he measured its wall, seventy-two yards, according to human measurements, which are also angelic measurements.

Ezekiel 40:2-9
2 In the visions of God He brought me into the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain, and on it to the south there was a structure like a city.
3 So He brought me there; and behold, there was a man whose appearance was like the appearance of bronze, with a line of flax and a measuring rod in his hand; and he was standing in the gateway.
4 The man said to me, “Son of man, see with your eyes, hear with your ears, and give attention to all that I am going to show you; for you have been brought here in order to show it to you. Declare to the house of Israel all that you see.”
5 And behold, there was a wall on the outside of the temple all around, and in the man’s hand was a measuring rod of six cubits, each of which was a cubit and a handbreadth. So he measured the thickness of the wall, one rod; and the height, one rod.
6 Then he went to the gate which faced east, went up its steps and measured the threshold of the gate, one rod in width; and the other threshold was one rod in width.
7 The guardroom was one rod long and one rod wide; and there were five cubits between the guardrooms. And the threshold of the gate by the porch of the gate facing inward was one rod.
8 Then he measured the porch of the gate facing inward, one rod.
9 He measured the porch of the gate, eight cubits; and its side pillars, two cubits. And the porch of the gate was faced inward.

I have studied this and it's very striking. Here are the differences. As Ezekiel is escorted through his vision he sees the temple, which is in his vision. John gives a bit more detail as to the city gates in his passage

However in Revelation 11 John also see the "heavenly temple". He mentions it in Rev 11:19:
19 And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm.

Now John mentions this temple a few times after chapter 11...but it disappears in Rev 21...and John tells us why in verse 22:
22 I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

John and Ezekiel saw the same thing except once God "makes all things new" (Rev 21:5) there will be no more temple!

Consider that.