Thursday, March 15, 2012

What does Ezekiel's temple mean?

To my knowledge, Ralph Alexander’s commentary in the revised EBC series (bound with Michael Brown’s new commentary on Jeremiah) is currently the standard dispensational commentary on Ezekiel. I’m going to quote from and comment on his arguments for the dispensational interpretation of the temple.

Geographical changes will be necessary prior to the fulfillment of chs. 45,47-48; therefore, one should not look to past or present fulfillments of these chapters but to the future, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Jeremiah ~ Ezekiel (Zondervan, rev. ed., 210), 7:868.

This assumes that because it can’t be literally fulfilled under past or present conditions, fulfillment awaits a future time when topographical changes will take place.

i) Of course, that’s not something which Alexander is getting from the text of Ezekiel. The text itself says nothing about God changing the topography of Jerusalem.

ii) Moreover, we could just as well (or better) draw the converse conclusion: since, by his own admission, it can’t be literally fulfilled as is, it was never meant to be taken literally.

The apocalyptic genre incorporates symbols and figures that are normally interpreted by a divine interpreter. Otherwise the text should be understood normally as the actual events of the vision that they were observed (868).

But “actual” events within a visionary narrative aren’t ipso facto identical with actual events outside the visionary narrative. What Alexander himself calls a "dream vision format" (651).

Likewise, visionary revelation is inherently abnormal. It induces an altered state of consciousness to reveal things which aren’t normally accessible or normally presentable.

To interpret these chapters in any other manner contradicts the divine interpretive guide in the vision. This guide warns Ezekiel that he is to write down all them minute details concerning the plan for the temple and its regulations so that these details might be considered carefully and followed in every aspect (40:4; 43:10-11; 44:5; cf. Ezk 25:9; 1Ch 28:19). Thus, a figurative symbolic approach does not adequately treat the issues of Ezekiel 40-48 (869).

i) Other issues aside, Alexander is illicitly converting imperatives into indicatives. But even if we think God is commanding the Jews to build a temple according to these specifications, you can’t infer indicatives from imperatives-for sinners frequently disobey divine commands. The OT is replete with broken laws.

Even if (arguendo) God ordered the Jews to build this temple, a command is not a prediction. What if the Jews failed to comply? After all, weren’t the Jews covenant-breakers? That’s why they were exiled in the first place. And they later rejected their Messiah. 

ii) In context, the command isn’t addressed to endtime Jews. Rather, it’s addressed to Ezekiel’s contemporaries. Ezekiel is told in the vision that when he snaps out of his trance (or awakens from his dream), he’s supposed to write down what he heard and saw in the vision and relay that information to his fellow captives. 

iii) The exilic Jews are to meditate on the significance of the visionary depiction. That’s perfectly consistent with a symbolic vision.

For instance, in Ezk 36, Ezekiel uses the imagery of ceremonial cleaning as a metaphor for spiritual cleansing. Then there’s the figurative imagery in Ezk 37.

Alexander himself speaks of “picture-lessons” (876). But picture-lessons can just as well be picturesque metaphors.

iv) Alexander admits that “Floor plans are revealed. Any superstructure must be conjectured” (879). But how can Jews follow the details in every aspect when key details are missing? That’s not a realistic blueprint. 

A sudden reversion to some historical period, immediately following the captivity or during the time of Herod’s temple, seems out of place, as does an idealistic or symbolic temple (869).

Seems “out of place” in hindsight, but not from the perspective of the Babylonian captives.

It is first necessary to understand the prophetic perspective of the OT prophets. We must see the prophetic message from their viewpoint initially, not from our contemporary perspective in the light of the NT (869).

Let’s see if Alexander is faithful to that principle.

The OT prophets tended not to make distinctions within the period of discipline and judgment; rather, they portrayed near and far aspects of this time in the same passage. The discipline would begin with the Babylonian captivity and continue till the end of time. Some distinctions were observed, but chronological relations were seldom delineated.
Likewise, the prophets did not make distinctions between the millennium and the eternal state when describing the period of messianic blessing. Further distinctions are primarily the result of progressive revelation disclosed in the NT, especially Revelation, though some distinctions are implied in the OT prophets (e.g. Da 9-12).
Ezekiel, like his contemporizes, intermixes these various elements in his prophecies of judgment and the future kingdom. Undoubtedly this contributes to the difficulty in distinguishing the millennium and the eternal state in these chapters…One must look to the NT for any further clues for delineation whenever such are given (870).

i) Notice that Alexander is using the NT as an interpretive tool to interpolate distinctions that he can’t find in the text of Ezk 40-48. He’s assuming–indeed, stipulating–the presence of chronological ellipses in Ezekiel’s vision. But the vision itself doesn’t have those breaks or dislocations. 

That’s not a face-value, plain-sense reading of the text. And if he can use the NT as an interpretive tool, why can’t amillennial interpreters like Gregory Beale, Iain Duguid, and O. P. Robertson?

ii) He’s assuming at the outset that there is a distinction between the millennium and the eternal state, then superimposing that extraneous framework onto the text. But that’s retrojective. That’s not beginning with the OT text.

Both writers receive apocalyptic visions on a high mountain with an interpreting messenger present and holding a measuring rod to measure various structures (Eze 40:2-5; Rev 21:2,10,15). Both visions portray waters flowing forth toward the east, with trees alongside and leaves for healing (Eze 47:1-7,12; Rev 22:1-2). The names of Israel’s twelve tribes are written on the city’s twelve gates in both visions (Eze 48:31-34; Rev 21:12), and three gates each are found on the east, south, north, and western sides of the city respectively (Eze 48:30-34; Rev 21:13).
In addition, however, there are equally clear dissimilarities between the two passages…It seems, therefore, that Ezekiel 40-48 may be primarily describing the millennial temple… (871).

If the two visions are so closely parallel, yet different in some details, isn’t an obvious explanation for their complex interrelationship the fact that we’re dealing with variations on a common underlying metaphor? A type/token relation?

Ezekiel and John are combining and recombining archetypal motifs involving sacred space (e.g. the temple, Eden, Jerusalem). John is creatively adapting Ezekiel. Because symbolism isn’t literally descriptive, it can be reimagined in various ways. 

2 comments:

  1. Maybe this will help you.

    From: http://stempublishing.com/authors/kelly/1Oldtest/EZEKIEL.html#a40

    It is well known that some consider that the vision applies to the church that now is. Those who think so should on their own showing find it easy to explain its figures and symbols, for such writers generally assume that we cannot have an accurate understanding of a prophecy till it be accomplished, and certainly the church has been in existence for more than 1800 years. On this score therefore they ought to have the amplest materials for illustration. But these are the very persons who find insuperable difficulty in interpreting the prophecy. Nor need we wonder; for the whole thought is a mistake.


    Scarcely better is the very large class of divines who have striven hard to appropriate the vision to the Jews who returned from the Babylonish captivity, for the facts then realized stand immeasurably below this prophetic pledge. The inevitable result therefore of such applications as of this and the preceding schools is to lower the character of the divine word.* For to speak plainly there is more contrast than analogy between the glowing promises of the prophet and the very small instalment that was paid under Zerubbabel as recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah. It is not only then that both these interpretations fail to meet the prophecy, but that they do not fail to depreciate scripture itself. For if the prophets be thus hyperbolical and untrustworthy, what is to save the Gospels and the Epistles any more than the Law and the Psalms? The tendency of both schools is unwittingly but none the less really to undermine inspiration.
    * Listen to the words of one who did not always seem an enemy - "All the fulfilment is past, and nothing more is expected. The Jews returned to their country and rebuilt their temple. If their restoration took place in a different manner from what the prophet projected [for God is in none of these thoughts], and the circumstances attending it were a poor counterpart of his imaginings, if the reality were but a dwarfish fulfilment of the prophecy, the event shows the imperfection of Ezekiel's foreshadowing." (Davidson's "Introduction to the Old Testament," iii. 156) It shows, as I should say, the folly of such an interpretation. Is Dr. D. a prophet to say that the vision is not to be fulfilled in the future? Let him beware of the character and doom of a false prophet. God is not mocked, though it be the day of grace and patience with man on the earth.


    Beyond a doubt, the main stumbling-block in this section to most Christians is the plain prediction of sacrifices, feasts, and other ordinances according to the Levitical law. These, they conceive, must be explained (that is, are really to be explained away), so as not to clash with the Epistle to the Hebrews. But the argument assumes that there can be no change of dispensation — that, because we are Christians, those whom the prophecy contemplates must be in the same relationship. This however is nothing but error. For the Epistle referred to looks at believers since redemption while Christ is on high till He comes again in glory; the prophecy of Ezekiel, on the contrary, is occupied with the earthly people and supposes the glory of Jehovah dwelling once again in the land of Canaan. The truth is that to bless Israel as such and the Gentiles only mediately and subordinately to the Jews, as this prophecy and almost all others suppose and definitely declare, is a state of things in distinct contrast with Christianity, where there is neither Jew; nor Gentile but all are one in Christ Jesus. Hence the whole ground and position here are quite different from what we see in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I didn't know I needed help.

    In any case, the copy/post block quote doesn't interact with the specifics of my post, which, in turn, was pegged to the specifics of Ralph Alexander's exposition.

    ReplyDelete