EZEKIEL 40-48

I am probably not alone in wondering why God put these nine chapters in the Bible. And after consulting a number of scholarly sources on this subject, I am still not sure. Let me start out by looking at how this extended passage fits into the overall Book of Ezekiel.

In an earlier post (“The Book of Ezekiel: Introduction to the Literary Structure”) I offered the following symmetrical outline which may serve as a useful travel map to follow the intricate pathway followed in these extended vision. Also, many good commentaries and study Bibles will even contain a building plan of the temple described here.

Figure 1: The Structure of Ezekiel 40-48

1. The city of God and its entrances (40:1-16)

2. Temple area survey (40:17-42:20)

a. Outer court (40:17-27)

b. Inner court (40:28-47)

c. Vestibule, nave and inner room (40:48-41:4)

d. Overall temple area (41:5-15a)

c'. Vestibule, nave and inner room (41:15b-26)

b'. Inner court (42:1-14)

a'. Outer court (42:15-20)

3. God's glory; priestly ordinances (ch. 43)

3'. God's glory; priestly ordinances (44:1-27)

2'. Land survey (44:28-48:29)

a. Allotment of land (44:28-45:8)

b. Honest government for the people (45:9-12)

c. Offerings/feasts (45:13-25)

d. Prince's offerings (46:1-18)

c'. Preparation of offerings (46:19-24)

b'. Restored fertility to the land (47:1-12)

a'. Allotment of land (47:13-48:29)

1'. The city of God and its exits (48:30-35)

Although the overall organization of the Book of Ezekiel is rather complex compared to most other books in the Bible, below is my best guess as to how it is structured.

Figure 2: The Structure of the Book of Ezekiel

Section A (1-3)

DIVISION I                                         Section B (4-7)

Section C (8-11)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DIVISION II                           Section D (12-24)

                                                                                    Section E (25-32)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section F (33-37)

DIVISION III                                     Section G (38-39)

                                                Section H (40-48)

Note that the final section has its closest parallel with chapters 8-11. Both units begin with the phrase “the hand of the LORD came upon me” used to introduce what Ezekiel calls “divine visions.” Sections C and H also share a common framework in which the prophet is transported to a different site in order to view something. There is a secondary heavenly personage in addition to Yahweh who interacts with the prophet in both these sections. Also, as Mason notes, “The final section of the book echoes the vision of the defiling of the temple in Ezekiel 8-11.” However, there is a complete contrast between the polluted temple of chs. 8-11 and the perfect temple in chs. 40-48. Therefore, God's action in removing his presence from the people in chs. 10-11 will be reversed in the future, as promised in chs. 43-44.

The next closest literary unit according to Figure 2 consists of chapters 33-37. Thus, Jensen notes that the temple on a high mountain “is the polar opposite of the valley of dry bones (Ezek 37:1-14) in Ezekiel's theological geography.”

John Walvoord conveniently summarizes five different approaches to understanding this vision:

    1. It was intended to give the specifications for building Solomon's temple.

    2. It laid out the details for those returning from the Exile to rebuild the Jerusalem temple.

    3. This was an ideal which the returning pilgrims should have observed but did not.

    4. It is a type fulfilled by the church in the present age.

    5. It describes the temple which will exist during the millennial period.

This last explanation is that expressed by dispensationalists such as Walvoord. He states, “Premillennialism instead of denying the spiritual character of the millennium affirms the high standard of spiritual life which in many respects is far above any previous dispensation.” That may, in fact, be the belief of all premillennialists, but many of them would certainly draw the line at defining that period in the same detailed manner as dispensational premillennialists do, with its resumption of animal sacrifices in the temple.

Some additional comments on the above options are as follows:

    Approach #1: If this view is correct, then why didn't Solomon utilize that blueprint at all? Cook apparently feels that this section of Ezekiel was actually written after Solomon's time and the blueprint was based loosely on the temple of that time “although the plan is more detailed than that given in I Kings 6 and II Chronicles 3.”

    Approach #3: I am not exactly sure who expresses the idealist view in the particular way that Walvoord defines it above. It appears to be more of a straw man he erects in order to knock it down. So without agreeing with Walvoord that the returning exiles should have observed this ideal, here is how some scholars weigh in on this view:

Chisholm says that “Ezekiel's vision is contextualized for his sixth-century B.C. audience. He describes the reconciliation of God and his people in terms that would be meaningful to this audience...a rebuilt temple, reinstitution of the sacrificial system, the renewal of the Davidic dynasty, and the return and reunification of the twelve exiled tribes.” He concludes that “we should probably view it as idealized to some extent and look for an essential, rather than an exact fulfillment of many of its features.” Thus, his view includes features of both approaches 3 and 5, an historical premillennial position.

In a somewhat similar manner, Cook says, “This section of Ezekiel does not prophesy a literal future for the Temple; rather, it offers a Temple plan as an embodiment of the community's values.”

    Approach #4: Bullock offers in favor of this possibility the fact that Jesus described his resurrection in terms of the temple (John 2:18-22) and also there are parallels between Ezekiel 40-48 and the New Jerusalem portrayed in Revelation 20-21, especially 21:22. (more on the latter below)  Martin Luther stated that the new temple pictures the kingdom of Christ surviving on the earth until its final day.

Duguid notes that the early Puritan commentator Greenhill “confessed that he found much of the detail about the temple in chapters 40-48 virtually incomprehensible, but asserted nonetheless that the overall message of this portion is a depiction of the Christian church and its worship under the figures and types of the old covenant.”

Block says, “Ezekiel's final vision presents a lofty spiritual ideal: Where God is, there is Zion. Where God is, there is order and the fulfillment of all his promises. Furthermore, where the presence of God is recognized, there is purity and holiness. Ezekiel hereby lays the foundation for the Pauline spiritualization of the temple.”

    Approach #5: Despite what Walvoord claims, Bullock says that this approach fails to take into account spiritual implications of the text and the way OT prophecies are almost always explained in the NT. Chisholm calls it the “hyper-literalist” view. And of course, it is hard to swallow any interpretation that predicts such a giant step backward theologically from the fulfillment found in the NT revelations and treats the whole New Testament era as “a mere parenthesis” in God's plan for the ethnic Jews, however one could define that group today.

Another problem with this view is pointed out by Bruce: “...some of the ritual prescriptions for the age of restoration in Ezekiel's vision (chs. 40-48) were inconsistent with those laid down in the Pentateuch, and no harmonization seems possible.” This is despite the fact that the rabbi Hananiah (ca. AD 70-100) is said to have labored nightly on the problem burning 300 jars of oil until he had found a way to eliminate the discrepancies. Unfortunately, we do not have the results of his labors today.

    Approach #6: Bullock adds the apocalyptic view to the five described above. He explains that it is related to but goes beyond Approach #4 in terms of breaking out beyond the bounds of OT theology of the times. As Bullock says, “Further, some future realities transcend the ability of human language to describe them, so the familiar and fundamental realities of Israel's life become the basis for representing the indescribable.” Ellison agrees that one must “recognize the essentially eschatological character of these chapters. In the symbolism of exact conformity to divine plan and law we are shown God's people ultimately conforming perfectly to His purposes.” “The vision merges mythic space with historical geography and then situates the prophet in this transformed space.” (Odell)  F.F. Bruce: “...a purified people implies a purified land, and this is the subject of Ezekiel's last vision. Within the holy land lies the holy city, and alongside the holy city, but separate from it, stands the new temple, the holiest place of all...”

As an apt conclusion to this continuing debate, Cook summarizes the situation: “Though it has never been actually built, Ezekiel's 'literary temple' has proved more enduring than the physical temples of both his predecessors and his successors.”

One way in which his “literary temple” has survived is in its complete and final reincarnation in the glorious vision of Revelation 21-22. Here are some of the correspondences between the two visions:

    In the same way that the picture of the New Jerusalem concluding John's Revelation follows right after the Gog prophecy of Revelation 20:7-10, the Gog oracle of Ezekiel 38-39 directly precedes the temple vision that concludes that book.

    1. In both books, the author is transported to a high mountain.

    2. Both visions describe a new world with Jerusalem at its center.

    3. God dwells in the midst of his people in both passages and blesses them.

    4. The glory of God is said to be in each city.

    5. A heavenly being measures the dimensions of the cities.

    6. The city plans of each include high walls and twelve gates, on for each tribe

   7.  In both visions, a stream issues from the temple and becomes a river for the land. Trees grow on each side of this river and the leaves are for healing.

It appears obvious from these strong similarities that God revealed to Ezekiel a vision of the final days portrayed in terms that would be understood by a Jewish audience of the times. However, John's vision, as similar as it may be, is subtly changed so as to reflect the further NT perspective on that future reality. And since they both are describing the same events, it is the New Heaven and Earth being portrayed in both, not some intermediate 1,000-year period.

Jacques Ellul begins to explain some crucial differences between the two pictures as follows:

“These two apocalyptic visions were on the same subject, but were seen and understood differently. Ezekiel announces that he sees a city (ch. 40), but it is never again mentioned...until the final lines of Chapter 48.” “...his emphasis is clearly on the sanctuary...God's dwelling place. But in John's vision everything is centered in the city. He says nothing of the Temple. On the contrary it is strongly emphasized that there is no Temple.” “...there is no contradiction between these two visions. They are coherent. What is important is the statement of God's total and exclusive presence – first his presence in the Temple, and then, when the messianic conception had developed, in the entire city.”

Secondly, although the gates of the city in Ezekiel and Revelation have the names of the Twelve Tribes of Israel inscribed on them, the foundation stones of the latter vision also include the names of the Twelve Apostles.

Block enumerates additional ways in which Ezekiel's vision differs from the picture of the New Jerusalem: the city is unnamed, it is square rather than cubical, and it is only constructed of stones.

The Messiah is not even mentioned as being present in Ezekiel's vision while He, with the Father, forms the center point of John's New Jerusalem. There is a mysterious person called the Prince in the former vision who acts as a wealthy patron to the people in providing most of the animal offerings needed for the constant sacrifices required in the temple. He is even given his own plot of land outside the city. In order to salvage a strictly literal fulfillment of the OT prophecies of an eternal Davidic kingdom, Walvoord explains that the Prince is in fact the resurrected King David, although Ezekiel does not mention him doing any ruling at all.

Other details in Ezekiel's vision, if treated quite literally as do the dispensational premillennialists, are totally inconsistent with NT teachings given to both Jews and Gentiles, and represent a huge step backward from the New Covenant perspective as if Christ had not at all died for their sins. That is not at all unexpected considering the dispensationalist insistence that the NT era that we live in is only a temporary blip in God's more important plan for the ethnic Jews which will be resumed in the 1,000-year period yet in the future. Some of these inconsistencies include:

    Various gates in the Ezekiel temple complex are shut periodically to restrict access to all but the Zadokite priesthood to the Holy of Holies containing God's presence (Ezekiel 42:14; 44:2; 46:1). This is in marked contrast to NT teachings which say that Christ has broken down any barriers between man and God, and believers now have free access to Him and constitute a Holy Priesthood. Also note that in John's vision, the gates to the city are never shut. A literal fulfillment of Ezekiel's vision would require the presence of Jews whose DNA proves that they were descendents of Zadok. Actually, with all the intermarriage carried out over the centuries, there is a good chance that most men of Jewish heritage probably have at least a little Zadokite in them.

    Special precautions must be taken by the priests regarding their change of clothing after sacrificial offering and the route that the offerings are to take through the temple complex in order to prevent God's holiness from being communicated to the people (Ezekiel 44:19; 46:20). However, the very purpose of Christ's sacrifice was to allow all believers to become sanctified, i.e. holy.

    Whereas Christ conclusively broke down the barrier separating Jew from Gentile for all time, it is said that access to Ezekiel's temple is banned to non-Jews (Ezekiel 44:6-9) or at least restricted to what was called the Court of the Gentiles in the temple of Jesus' day (Ezekiel 42:20).

    Observation of all the Jewish festivals, new moons and sabbaths is to be carried out (Ezekiel 45:17) despite the fact that Paul bawls out those believers who insist that those very same events be observed. Paul's comment is that they are only shadows of what has come already in Christ (Colossians 2:16-17).

    As mentioned earlier, one of the most serious barriers to taking Ezekiel's vision as a literal description of what will and should happen in the future is the resumption of animal sacrifices in the temple. Walvoord and other dispensationalist feel that they can easily deal with that problem by merely stating that these sacrifices will only be carried out as a memorial commemorating what Christ has already accomplished on the cross. In other words, it is like a communion service, just a bit bloodier. Fortunately, there will apparently be no natural death of animals during the millennial period, according to a literal interpretation of Isaiah's prophecy, and so there will be lots of animals available to dispose of by other means.

Enough sarcasm! Getting back to Walvoord's explanation for the reason for sacrifices, it really doesn't hold water when you look at the references to animal sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48, if taken literally as the dispensationalist say they do. Rather than being an elaborate communion service to remind the people of Christ's past sacrifice on their behalf, here is what we find:

    Sacrifices are made on behalf of the people (44:11), specifically for the house of Israel only (45:17).

    They are offered directly to God, not a reminder to ourselves (44:15).

    And they are necessary in order to atone for sins (45:20).

Since the New Jerusalem has the Lamb himself in its midst, there is obviously no additional reminder of his sacrifice needed for us.

In conclusion, there is a somewhat complex relationship between the two visions, both coming from God. The many similarities indicate that the same basic situation is being described in both, but the pertinent differences demonstrate, as elsewhere when considering NT fulfillment of OT prophecies, that the Jews of the Old Covenant were only given a mere hint of the reality more fully revealed to the inspired writers of the New Testament. And the true reality will only be glimpsed by us at the Last Days.