Ezekiel Temple vision, Ezekiel 40-48, a millennial temple?

[valiant]

Ezekiel's Temple existed in Ezekiel's day. Just as the armies of Heaven surrounded Elijah and only he saw them, so Ezekiel's Temple came down on a mountain outside Jerusalem and only he saw it. Would anyone build a Temple on a mountain outside Jerusalem? The point was that God had deserted the Jerusalem Temple but was among the remnant of His people in a heavenly Temple.

Note that there is no command that the Temple be rebuilt. Only the altar was to be built from which the Temple could be serviced. And it was built by the returnees from Babylon and used for offerings years before they rebuilt the Temple.

 

[PlainWord]

Ezekiel 40-48 describes the future heavenly Jerusalem which comes down from heaven. The "temple" as used in Ezek 40-48 isn't a temple, the word used literally means "house." This isn't anything built by man. To prove I'm right, look at the size of this place. Its massive. The below depicts the size of this "temple" compared to the previous 2 literal temples:



Now look at the names of the gates:

[SUP]31 [/SUP](the gates of the city shall be named after the tribes of Israel), the three gates northward: one gate for Reuben, one gate for Judah, and one gate for Levi... ETC.

Now compare to Rev 21:

[SUP]12 [/SUP]Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel...

The first and only time the gates of Jerusalem were named after the 12 tribes is when the new heaven (New Jerusalem) descends down from heaven.

Both John and Ezekiel were taken to a "high mountain" and shown the same city. The highest mountain in Israel is Mt. Hermon which is 9,232 feet. Mt. Hermon is near the boarder with Lebanon, north of the Sea of Galilee too far to see present Jerusalem. So, we are not talking about a literal mountain here.

Compare:

Rev 21: [SUP]10 [/SUP]And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God...

Ezek 40: [SUP]2 [/SUP]In the visions of God He took me into the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain; on it toward the south was something like the structure of a city.

In both cases, John and Ezekiel were taken in spirit. They are shown a future city. The context of both proves they are shown the same city meaning the time frame is the same. They are shown the new heaven which will come down to earth.

As for the animal sacrifices, Peter gives us some prospective in 1 Peter 2:

[SUP]5 [/SUP]you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. [SUP]9 [/SUP]But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light...

We have NT teaching of "spiritual sacrifices" and we have NT teaching of a "Spiritual House" of which we are part both contained in the above passage from Peter. In the final eternal state we will be worshiping God and He will dwell with us.

The below is a really cool drawing that I found. I don't know who drew it but remember when the Children of Israel were in the wilderness living in tents? They were aligned about the tabernacle in the shape of a cross. Thus, Ezekiel's temple is laid out the same way which I find both fitting and a blessing.

 

[JimmieD]

Ezekiel 40-48 describes the future heavenly Jerusalem which comes down from heaven. The "temple" as used in Ezek 40-48 isn't a temple, the word used literally means "house." This isn't anything built by man. To prove I'm right, look at the size of this place. Its massive. The below depicts the size of this "temple" compared to the previous 2 literal temples:

View attachment 124494

There is one thing worth noting about the size of the Temple in Ezekiel.

42:15 Now when he had finished measuring the interior of the temple, he led me out by the gate which faces east and measured all around. 42:16 He measured the east side with the measuring stick as 875 feet by the measuring stick. 42:17 He measured the north side as 875 feet by the measuring stick. 42:18 He measured the south side as 875 feet by the measuring stick. 42:19 He turned to the west side and measured 875 feet by the measuring stick. 42:20 He measured it on all four sides. It had a wall around it, 875 feet long and 875 feet wide, to separate the holy and common places.

Literally, it reads "500 reeds." It's interesting here because everywhere else in Ezekiel's measurements he measures it in "cubits." Both a cubit and a reed are well known measurements in the ancient world. 1 Cubit = 1.5 ft. But 1 Babylonian Reed = 9.9 ft.

Most translators think Ezekiel meant to say the measurements of the outer walls were "500 cubits" which works out to about 875 ft. as is found in some translations. But when Ezekiel says the temple is "500 reeds" the literal measurement of a reed would mean his temple was about 5,000 ft by 5,000 ft!! Or very roughly, 1 mile by 1 mile wide!! It's basically as big as the old city itself.

So the interesting question is, is this a scribal mistake of later times? Did Ezekiel really write or intend "500 cubits" that was somehow later copied or understood as "500 reeds," or did Ezekiel intentionally write "500 reeds" and intend his temple to be roughly the size of the entire city?

I tend to think he intentionally wrote "500 reeds" and that his temple was as big as the city.