EZEKIEL’S TEMPLE: ESCHATOLOGICAL BLUEPRINT OR SOMETHING ELSE?
Dr. Michael Heiser
OBST 592-B01 FALL
October 9, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………………….1
THE GLORY HAS DEPARTED…………………………………………………………………….2
SON OF MAN GO AND PROPHESY…………………………………………………………….3
YOU WILL BE MY PEOPLE, I WILL BE YOUR GOD……………………………………6
WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD……………………………………………………..12
THE RIVER OF LIFE……………………………………………………………………………………16
THE GLORY HAS DEPARTED
Throughout Israel’s history, there had been definitive signs of Yahweh’s presence: the selective call of Abram, the sojourn in and exodus from Egypt, the giving of a particular law for a particular people, the messianic promise and covenant through David, and the constant warnings of justice and hope of restoration through the prophets. Clearly, Yahweh has placed his own special imprint on the Jewish people; a people whom he purposed to be a blessing to the nations (Gen. 12:2-3) and the means by which to the nations the holiness of Yahweh would be displayed (Ex. 19:6). Everything that Yahweh did through Israel, he did not just for their benefit, but for the benefit of all the nations. As Yahweh proclaims in Malachi 3:10, ” My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations.”
When Babylon destroyed the city of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, it appeared to all come to an end. The Temple, the symbol of Yahweh’s presence in Israel, was laid waste and its treasures looted. The Davidic line ended with the puppet king Zedekiah, but had been in decline ever since the days of king Ahaz. Israel (and Judah) had a history of rebellion and unfaithfulness; the prophet Hosea’s marriage displayed both God’s disdain for Israel’s idolatry and love for his chosen people. Again and again, Israel and Judah showed their discontent with Yahweh and Yahweh would always rescue them and take them back. But this time, this time it seemed like Yahweh had finally left them to fend for themselves. The prophets had repeatedly warned that it was coming, but they were ignored or killed; finally the day of Yahweh’s vengeance had arrived.
An understanding of the final Temple Vision of Ezekiel 40-44 requires an understanding of Ezekiel’s times and person, the arguments for a literal or non-literal interpretation, and how the vision fits in with the progressive revelation and eschatology of the New Testament. From this, it is the view of the writer that there are aspects of both literal and non-literal eschatology involved in the vision.
SON OF MAN GO AND PROPHESY
Walther Eichrodt writes, “Two spheres intersect in the person of Ezekiel, the life of the priest and that of the prophet, so his life is filled with strain and tension between the tradition he inherited and the demands of his call to be a prophet,” he continues, “This receptive side of his nature fertilized his poetic gift and gives us, in addition to his prose speeches, a wealth of short enigmatic and allegorical poems, long-drawn-out parables and stirring death laments, so excellent that little can be found in the Old Testament to rival them.” This special intersection of priest-prophet that met in Ezekiel would strongly influence the way that God would reveal the eschatological vision of Ezekiel 40-48.
Christopher Wright comments, “But as a prophet [contra being a priest] he was called to identify with the voices of those who had dared to call in question this whole massive edifice of theology, tradition and ritual,” he continues, “Such was the enmity between the priestly establishment and prophets of that calibre [referring to Jeremiah], that on one occasion a senior priest…had Jeremiah beaten and put in stocks.” So, when one sees Ezekiel as a combination of priest-prophet like Jeremiah, one understands the strain that is placed upon Ezekiel when confronting the idolatry and unfaithfulness in Israel without the support of the religious establishment.
This particular vision of Ezekiel comes after the fall of Jerusalem, when the hour is dark and seems like all hope for Israel is lost. Even though the priesthood had been corrupted and the religious establishment was untrustworthy, Ezekiel still had the strong, passionate desire to see the true worship of Yahweh restored. Soares writes, “to the priest-prophet, who had seen Solomonic temple, no Messianic future could be conceived without a real sanctuary. The vision of the temple is the promise to the Jews that they shall yet rebuild the house of the Lord.” Thus, whatever vision that Yahweh gives to Ezekiel will likely involve Ezekiel’s own dual nature and indeed, one sees this in the alternating condemnation of the religious establishment and the hope of restoration being found in that same establishment.
Daniel Block concurs, “Ezekiel’s salvation oracles have looked forward to the day when the twelve tribes of Israel would be regathered and returned to their hereditary homeland, the Davidic dynasty would be restored, Yahweh’s covenant of peace with Israel would be renewed, and he would establish his permanent residence in their midst.” Ezekiel’s final vision would definitively involve a restoration of everything that made Israel such a blessed and holy nation; whether or not the presentation was supposed to be taken completely literal or is something more mystical with a more theological significance has yet to be determined.
However, it does make sense that Yahweh would use images in the vision, that Ezekiel would be able to identify. What purpose would it serve to leave Ezekiel shocked and confused; Yahweh is not involved in confusion even though his truth is sometimes beyond complete understanding. Thus, for Yahweh to reveal the future restoration of Israel in semi-Mosaic terms would not only be appropriate but also advantageous when Ezekiel is communicating his message to demoralized exiles who need hope in the midst of the pagan and sometimes hostile Babylon. “Ezekiel encouraged the Jewish captives through six night messages of hope. In these he informed them that the Messiah would restore them to their Promised Land in the future and become a true shepherd to them,” writes Ralph Alexander and that, “They would be cleansed and all their covenants would be fulfilled. Even in the end times, after the land prospers and Israel dwells securely in it, some will try to take the Promised Land away from Israel and profane the Lord’s name; but the Lord will not permit it.”
It is highly conceivable and probable that the vision given to Ezekiel could have aspects of both literal eschatology and of spiritual representation. The problem comes when one tries to distinguish which is which, as Randall Price observes,
As demonstrated by the many commentaries adopting the symbolic view, the diversity in interpretation reveals that no shared interpretation is possible. The lack of interpretive clues in these chapters results in the many details in the text being assigned arbitrary meanings or ignored as irrelevant or meaningless by the symbolic school.
The same criticism is leveled at the literal school by appealing to genre, L. John McGregor writes, “It is important to remember that these chapters represent a vision. This oracle was not purely a revelation of teaching that was new, nor was it a prediction of events that were to come…the vision itself shades from the descriptive to the prescriptive to the symbolic to the apocalyptic.” It is evident that whether one takes a literal or symbolic view, one is left with questions about one’s interpretation. It may seem the literal view has the upper hand, but when you focus on the genre and themes of the book, the need for a literal interpretation seems much less necessary. However, if one embraces the symbolic, what do these symbols mean and how can one be sure without some exegetical help? As will be demonstrated, both the literal and the symbolic interpretations run into issues when one tries to define what the vision means.
YOU WILL BE MY PEOPLE, I WILL BE YOUR GOD
Price gives five reasons why Ezekiel’s Temple Vision must be considered literal eschatology: 1) the literary unity of the book, 2) the context of the Temple’s restoration, 3) the specific description of the Temple building, 4) to harmonize it with other Old Testament prophecy, and 5) the theological resolution of progressive revelation.  Speaking of Patrick Fairbairn, Clive Thomson writes, “For he dismissed the literal interpretation of such a temple in the millennial reign of our Lord as unworthy of any consideration, although it is the only interpretation for which the language reasonably permits,” he goes on to say, “Those who believe that Israel as nation has been repudiated by God and has been replaced by the church, are faced with the problem of explaining not only the many detailed prophecies of Israel’s future…but also explicit statements in the New Testament.” Alexander gives his belief in the need for a three-fold eschatological fulfillment, “When God originally created Israel, three elements were essential to her existence: a people, a government, and a homeland. When God reestablishes Israel as a nation in the messianic kingdom, these same three elements must exist.”
To examine these arguments exhaustively is beyond the scope of this treatise, however some observations and questions should be proposed to those who would propose a literal view just as would be proposed to the symbolic view. Dealing with Dr. Price first, each observation needs to be put up to considerable scrutiny.
His first claim is that the unity of book requires a literal fulfillment. Indeed, if one studies the book of Ezekiel one does see a transition from Yahweh’s ichabod in Ezekiel 8-11 and his returning kabod in Ezekiel 40-48. There is no argument concerning the intentional literary progression that Ezekiel uses, but does this have to mean a literal fulfillment? Kirsten Nielsen sees it as just a literary technique harkening back to Genesis, “Thus the structure of the book supports my thesis of a literary strategy which has the book begin with a disorientation but end with a reorientation. In so doing it achieves the clarity which makes it easy to find one’s bearings in the world, and this is a simplicity which is reminiscent of the creation narrative.” Even though one might disagree with the conclusion (or whether or not it is the primary one), it is an alternative to simply forcing a literal point of view that takes the unity of the book into account.
His second claim is that the context of the Temple’s restoration requires a literal viewpoint. He writes, “Understanding the nature of the promised restoration in Ezekiel 37 to be eschatological, the exilic community surely must have understood the nature of Ezekiel’s Temple in chapters 40-48 to be the same. For this reason, the rebuilding of the Second Temple did not attempt to implement the architectural design or priestly instructions since they were reserved for the eschatological age.” However, Bruce Waltke disagrees, “In its canonical context, this idealized, visionary temple symbolizes the spiritual temple that begins with Christ’s body and is now being built up as a spiritual temple in his church.” In other words, while Price is looking at an immediate context that he sees as historical, Waltke is looking at Ezekiel’s place in the canon of progressive revelation.
His third claim is that the Temple’s dimensions require that it be considered a literal construction,
These verses declare that those Jews who will live in the time of the final restoration (when the prophecy will be fulfilled) are to build the Temple according to Ezekiel’s instructions. Later in this context (43:13-27) when the same kind of architectural measurements as given for the Temple are given for the altar, it is stated that “these are the statutes for the altar on the day it is built …” (verse 18). Literary consistency (as well as logic) demands that if the altar of the Temple is to be built, then so must the Temple itself.
So, based on this viewpoint there seems to be a command to build this Temple. While this argument seems quite cogent, Daniel Block offers an alternative,
Furthermore, contrary to popular opinion, the description of the temple is not presented as a blueprint for some future building to be constructed with human hands. Nowhere is anyone commanded to build it. The man with the measuring line takes Ezekiel on a tour of an existing structure already made. Indeed, were it not for the present literary location of the temple vision, it is doubtful that the eschatological interpretation would ever have arisen.
How can there be such divergent viewpoints about something that is supposed to be self-evident? Perhaps, the need for a literal construction and the command to build it are not as clear as Price would believe.
His fourth and fifth claim revolve around the witness of the prophets and the fulfillment of progressive revelation. The prophets (especially the major ones) do witness to some sort of restoration of Israel; it can be argued that these prophets argue for national restoration. However, prophets were oftentimes limited in their understanding of future events and it was highly unlikely that God would have revealed all of the details of the New Covenant to the prophets (though many prophets did prophesy concerning its coming; e.g. Joel 2:28-32, Mal. 4:1-6). As for progressive revelation, how does one see progress eschatology when Stephen spoke in Acts 7:48 that, “However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands.” Stephen is referring to I Kings 8:27-28 which say, “But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!” and to II Chronicles 2:6 which says, “But who is able to build a temple for him, since the heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain him? Who then am I to build a temple for him, except as a place to burn sacrifices before him?”  It seems that Stephen is arguing against a reliance on any sort of temple to be the focal point of God’s presence; in fact, if there is no longer a need for sacrifice, why then would one have a temple?
Thomson’s argument revolves around the language being the most appropriate, the future prophecies concerning Israel, and passages such as Romans 9-11 in the New Testament. As to the language, the whole book is in the context of a vision and visions do not seem to take on exactly literal dimensions (though they do tend to be used by God to communicate some sort of reality or future event; e.g. Joseph’s dreams, Elisha’s vision of the chariots of fire, etc.). Thus, it is quite reasonable to see this as another realistic but yet not necessarily literal vision. It has already been discussed how prophets were limited to their own context and understanding of progressive revelation and thus God could have communicated to them in terms they would understand to symbolize something far greater than they could comprehend. As to Romans 9-11, it is impossible to exegete the text in this treatise, but the emphasis on Israel’s national restoration in a eschatological sense does not seem to be in view. John Piper in a sermon entitled, “The (Jewish) Root Supports You Through Your Faith Alone,” said the following, “To get the whole picture we need to remember that the breaking off of Jewish branches resulted in the grafting in of Gentile branches. This is the great mystery revealed in Romans 11. Gentiles become part of the true Israel. The wild olive branches get grafted into the natural, cultivated olive tree.” What Romans 11 is likely to talking about is the restoration of all believing Israel, as Paul writes in Romans 2:28-29, ” A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.“
Alexander’s argument for people, government, land is a valid argument but maybe not for the reasons he expects. While one could see the need to see eschatological fulfillment in these; one can also see these various aspects fulfilled in the church. The church could be seen as the eschatological people of God (I Pet. 2:5), the government being the rule of Jesus Christ (Col. 1:15-20), and the land could be seen as the heavenly (realized) city and country pictured in Hebrews 11:10, 15-16. The world, the whole earth will soon be full of the glory and dominion of the Lord according to Habakkuk 2:14; could this not be fulfilled in the church being extensions of Christ’s authority throughout the world?
To be fair though, those who hold to a view other than an literal eschatological view cannot seem to agree on what it means; if anything, the literal camp has unity on their side. Mark Rooker confirms, “While the figurative approach has some strong arguments in its favor, the literal approach has the advantage of taking the vision of Ezekiel 40-48 at face value, similar to the Jewish approach.” John Taylor’s criticism is equally valid, “But it is overstating the case to refer Ezekiel’s vision directly to a Christian ‘fulfillment,’ without seeing that it has a real context for the readers of his own day, and this original context must be the prime concern of the Old Testament exegete.” But perhaps Wright is correct when he states, “The New Testament goes further, however, in using temple imagery not merely of Jesus himself, but also of the people who are ‘in’ him. This too ties in with Ezekiel’s vision, which was never merely a matter of the restoration of a physical building, but always to and essentially included the restoration of the people of God.”
WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD
At the same time, Taylor is also critical of the literal eschatological view,
If it follows from this that Old Testament festivals, blood sacrifices, priesthood and worship at a temple are to be reintroduced, after the New Testament revelation of Christ and his finished, fulfilling work, it shows how completely this view misinterprets the significance of Christ’s salvation and how it casts doubt on the consistency of God’s dealings with mankind.
Scholars like Walther Eichrodt are so disillusioned by the inconsistency and strangeness of the Ezekiel 40-48 that he writes, “The interpretation will have to show whether any of these various explanations is capable of accounting for this picture of salvation as a whole; or whether they are all upset by the basic contradictions in the way in which it is constituted, so that it is an illusion to think of its having any unity as a whole.” While one should be strongly cautioned and discouraged from taking this position and dismissing Ezekiel, there is some legitimate concern over how Ezekiel’s Temple meshes with New Testament revelation, especially when it concerns the reinstitution of Old Covenant sacrifices.
What are these sacrifices and what are their function? This is where the literal eschatological camp begins to show cracks in its solidarity. Some want to say the sacrifices are a memorial, others a cleansing ritual, others that literal sacrifices won’t occur, and some radical dispensationalist even insist on a return to a Old Covenant relationship. Perhaps Anthony Hoekema is right when he levels this criticism of those who want to avoid literal sacrifices, ” If the sacrifices are not to be taken literally, why should we take the temple literally? It would seem that the dispensational principle of the literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecy is here abandoned, and that a crucial foundation stone for the entire dispensational system has here been set aside!” Block totally dismisses the notion of sacrifices altogether,
Interpreted in light of the sacrifice of Christ, Christians may rejoice because: (a) have a mediator superior in quality and effectiveness than Moses and Ezekiel; (b)they have a permanent high priest who has direct access to the heavenly throne of God and who offers intercession on their behalf; (c) the blood of a perfectly unblemished sacrifice has purchased favor with God, and eliminated the need for any further sacrifices.
To be fair to the literal eschatological camp, the non-literal camp (especially the Reformed part) has a history of both assimilating the Old Testament too much into the New Testament church (e.g. state church) and simply dismissing Jewish influence and future fulfillment as even worth consideration (post-millennialism and amillennialism). There are various ways proposed to solve the sacrificial problem; even though they are listed above, it is worth considering each option.
Thomson is a main proponent of the memorial view of the sacrifices, he writes, “These sacrifices will be a memorial of the love and grace which provided a Savior at infinite cost, just as the Lord’s Supper is also a memorial ’till he come.'” John Walvoord agrees, “It is evident from the Scripture that Christ actively rules, requires the nations of the world to conform to His rule, and observe the religious rites which characterize the millennial kingdom.” However, another literal futurist, Jerry Hullinger, reveals the weakness of this view,
On the surface this solution seems to solve the problem. However, a number of objections can be raised against it. First, Ezekiel nowhere stated or even hinted at the idea that these sacrifices will be memorial in nature. Second, Ezekiel specifically wrote that these offerings will make atonement (45:15, 17, 20). The word for “atonement” in Ezekiel is the same as the word used in Leviticus. Third, the parallel between sacrifices and the Lord’s Supper intimates that animal sacrifices had no efficacy whatsoever.
Hullinger offers his own view of the sacrifices; for him it is matter of understanding the Hebrew word, “kipper” meaning atonement. He begins to discuss the many differences in opinion concerning the meaning of the word: the Aramaic root meaning, “to cover,” the Aramaic root meaning, “to propitiate”, and the Akkadian root meaning, “to clean or to purge.” He comes down on the side of the Akkadian and reconciles Ezekiel 40-48 and Hebrews 9:9-14 in this manner,
Hebrews 9:10 and 13 state that the Levitical offerings were related to “food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body,” and the sprinkling of blood so as to sanctify and purify the flesh. Animal sacrifices were efficacious in removing ceremonial uncleanness. While Christ is superior, the fact should not be lost that animal sacrifices did in the earthly sphere cleanse the flesh and remove outward defilement.
It is interesting to attest that animal sacrifices were indeed efficacious in the Old Testament era, especially when they are often described as just symbols or anticipatory icons. That is exactly how Steven Tuell sees Ezekiel’s Temple, “Here, Zion functions in manner very much like the icon in Eastern Orthodoxy…in ancient Israel the temple itself appears understood as a means of experiencing God.” Though perhaps being anachronistic, Tuell reveals the level of significance most interpreters put on the Old Testament religious system.
The final understanding of the reinstitution of sacrifices is a complete dismissal of literal sacrifice while accepting a literal temple. Dr. Gary Yates, on his blog “Tohu Vobahu,” advocates this view; he writes,
One can see a future temple in Jerusalem in the millennial kingdom without there necessarily being animal sacrifices as in the OT era. The people of Ezekiel’s day could not imagine proper worship of God without sacrifices, but a return to animal sacrifice in the millennial kingdom would represent a strange salvation-historical regression in light of the perfection and finality of Christ’s sacrifice for sin (cf. Heb 9:11-15, 23-28; 10:5-14).
This explanation could very well be true, but it is open to attack from critics like Hoekema, who call their bluff on being arbitrary with interpretation. Luckily, Whitcomb comes to the rescue of his comrades, “Hoekema’s objection is well taken. However, he assumes, along with many nondispensational theologians, that animal sacrifices in the millennium would involve a reinstitution of the Mosaic economy, just as if Christ had never died.” He also quotes F.F. Bruce, who will have the last word on the subject:
the blood of slaughtered animals under the old order did possess a certain efficacy, but it was an outward efficacy for the removal of ceremonial pollution. . . . They could restore [the worshipper] to formal communion with God and with his fellow-worshippers. . . . Just how the blood of sacrificed animals or the ashes of a red heifer effected a ceremonial cleansing our author does not explain; it was sufficient for him, and no doubt for his readers, that the Old Testament ascribed this efficacy to them.
THE RIVER OF LIFE
It is easy to get caught up in the differences between Ezekiel and the New Testament. However, there is a common feature: the River of Life that brings healing to all of the nations. The writer chooses to close with this image because so many times one has to decide to accept one or the other, or one just throws their hands up in disgust (like Eichrodt) and declare the matter contradictory and irreconcilable. If the reader hoped to settle the issue with this paper, then the reader will only be left with a little more information but still little hope of ever being one hundred percent confident in the interpretation.
The writer proposes a different solution: let the text speak for itself and simply try to gain insight from the main themes. The eschatological future of Israel (or lack thereof) will probably never be witnessed or experienced by those who are living today. Therefore, if one truly wishes to gain something from the Temple Vision of Ezekiel, it is likely to be found in the main theological themes. With the reader’s permission, I would like to close with a few of those themes.
The first is that God would not forsake Israel forever; his wrath was but for a night and his mercy and compassion would be kindled in the morning. In the beginning of Ezekiel’s visions God is pictured as leaving the temple desolate; the glory had truly departed and Israel, now vulnerable, would be punished bitterly. Yet, the closing chapters of Ezekiel’s prophecy show that God has not forgotten his people and that he would return and dwell in their midst once again. Likewise, Christ was judged on man’s behalf; the night of God’s wrath fell on him, so that man would experience a morning saturated with his mercies. Christ promises to never leave nor forsake his people; Jews and Gentiles called out from the darkness and into marvelous light.
Second, if Ezekiel is indeed acting as a second Moses, then it makes sense that there would be a focus on the holiness of God. All of the temple sacrifices and rituals point to the fact that man is sinful and needs blood to cleanse him from his sins and restore fellowship with God. For Christians it is good reminder that God is not just love, but he is also holy; he is holy-love. Mankind needed more than the blood of bulls and goats; man needed the active intervention of God on man’s behalf to cleanse not just outwardly but inwardly; this is found in the Passover Lamb, Jesus Christ.
Finally, there is a glorious day on the horizon when God will return to his world. The song, “This is My Father’s World,” always stirs the heart of the writer when it seems as if sin and death will have the last word. Mankind may think they can disregard the love and holiness of God, but one day Christ will return and claim what is his and then every single knee will bow and every mouth will proclaim him Lord. It is important for believers now to honor Christ as Lord and to continue to pray and prepared for the full culmination of the kingdom at the end this age.
So, is the prophecy of Ezekiel’s temple to be taken literally or figuratively? The writer’s answer is, “yes.” There are certainly themes and eschatological promises that cannot be overlooked and that one must see in the context of how Ezekiel’s audience would have seen it. However, it is a mistake to think that one has the market on the interpretation of what these things mean. While the non-literal camp puts forward a lot of spurious and unjustifiable interpretations (at least from the text and context itself), the literal camp is equally divided on what the meaning of the sacrifices would be. It may be beneficial for both sides to dialogue more on each other’s discrepancies and maybe the conclusion will be reached that there simply is no way to understand the eschatological future of the passage. However, there is a way to draw insight and inspiration from the main themes of the passage that do not require that understanding.
Alexander, Ralph H. in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel). Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.
Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.
Bruce, F.F. Epistle to the Hebrews (New International Commentary On the New Testament). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964.
Eichrodt, Walther. Ezekiel. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1970.
Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.
Hullinger, Jerry. “The Problem of Animal Sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48.” Bibliotheca Sacra 152, no. 607 (1995): 279-89.
McGregor, L. John. in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. 4th ed. Downers Grove, Ill., USA: IVP Academic, 1994.
Nielsen, Kirsten. “Ezekiel’s Visionary Call as Prologue: From Complexity and Changeability to Order and Stability?” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33, no. 1 (2008): 99-114.
Piper, John. “The (Jewish) Root Supports You through Your Faith Alone.” DesiringGod Ministries. http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/the-jewish-root-supports-you-through-your-faith-alone (accessed October 9, 2011).
Price, Randall. “Ezekiel’s Prophecy of the Temple.” Word of the Bible. http://www.worldofthebible.com/Bible%20Studies/Ezekiel%27s%20Prophecy%20of%20the%20Temple.pdf (accessed October 9, 2011).
Rooker, Mark. Holman Old Testament Commentary – Ezekiel. Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2006.
Soares, Theo. “Ezekiel’s Temple.” The Biblical World 14, no. 2 (1899): 93-103.
Taylor, John B. Ezekiel: an Introduction and Commentary. Nottingham, England.: IVP Academic, 2009.
Thomson, Clive. “The Necessity of Blood Sacrifices in Ezekiel’s Temple.” Bibliotheca Sacra 123, no. 491 (1966): 237-48.
Tuell, Steven. “Ezekiel 40-42 as Verbal Icon.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58, no. 4 (1996): 649-64.
Waltke, Bruce K. with Charles Yu. An Old Testament Theology: an Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2007.
Walvoord, John F. Israel in Prophecy. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974.
Whitcomb, John. “Christ’s Atonement and Sacrifices in Israel.” PreTrib Research Center. http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Whitcomb-Ezekiel40thru48andMi.pdf (accessed October 9, 2011).
 Malachi 3:10 NIV.
 Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1970), 22-23.
 Christopher J.H. Wright, The Message of Ezekiel: a New Heart and a New Spirit (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2001), 26.
 Theo Soares, “Ezekiel’s Temple,” The Biblical World 14, no. 2 (1899): 93.
 Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 505.
 Ralph Alexander in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel) (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 943.
 Randall Price, “Ezekiel’s Prophecy of the Temple,” Word of the Bible, http://www.worldofthebible.com/Bible%20Studies/Ezekiel%27s%20Prophecy%20of%20the%20Temple.pdf (accessed October 9, 2011), 5.
 L. John McGregor, in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, Ill., USA: IVP Academic, 1994), 742.
 Price, 6-12.
 Clive Thomson, “The Necessity of Blood Sacrifices in Ezekiel’s Temple,” Bibliotheca Sacra 123, no. 491 (1966): 237.
 Alexander, 952.
 Kirsten Nielsen, “Ezekiel’s Visionary Call as Prologue: From Complexity and Changeability to Order and Stability?” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33, no. 1 (2008): 112.
 Price, 8.
 Bruce K. Waltke with Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: an Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2007), 844.
 Price, 8.
 Block, 505.
 Acts 7:48 NIV.
 I Kings 8:27-28 NIV.
 II Chronicles 2:6 NIV.
 John Piper, “The (Jewish) Root Supports You through Your Faith Alone,” DesiringGod Ministries, http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/the-jewish-root-supports-you-through-your-faith-alone (accessed October 9, 2011).
 Romans 2:28-29 NIV.
 Mark Rooker, Holman Old Testament Commentary – Ezekiel (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2006), 317.
 John B. Taylor, Ezekiel: an Introduction and Commentary (Nottingham, England.: IVP Academic, 2009), 246.
 Wright, 342.
 Taylor, 247.
 Eichrodt, 531.
 Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 204.
 Block, 613.
 Thomson, 239.
 John F Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy., Reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 124.
 Jerry Hullinger, “The Problem of Animal Sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48,” Bibliotheca Sacra 152, no. 607 (1995): 280.
 Ibid., 282-283.
 Ibid., 288.
 Steven Tuell, “Ezekiel 40-42 as Verbal Icon,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58, no. 4 (1996): 661.
 Gary Yates, “Future Temple and Future Kingdom,” tohu vabohu, entry posted December 4, 2009, http://garyeyates.blogspot.com/2009/12/future-temple-and-future-kingdom.html (accessed October 9, 2011).
 John Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Sacrifices in Israel,” PreTrib Research Center, http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Whitcomb-Ezekiel40thru48andMi.pdf (accessed October 9, 2011).
 F.F. Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews (New International Commentary On the New Testament) (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), 201, 204.