I am a big believer in the utility of Ezekiel’s Temple vision in Ezekiel 40-48 for dealing with those brethren who want to disbelieve what the Bible says while claiming to believe it. I especially like to call out those who will not be honest enough just to state the obvious truth that they spiritualize the text (as in they claim a concrete depiction of a named entity should be thought of as a spiritual picture of a different concrete entity). In Ezekiel 40ff. you cannot use the “Apocalyptic” card. Therefore, those who cannot bring themselves to believe that Ezekiel is really referring to an actual physical Temple, whether they be dispensational or covenant theologians, should be pinned down on these chapters and asked to explain a). what they are supposed to really mean; b). what sort of hermeneutical practice is involved, and c). why on earth did God not simply say what He meant?
Surely these are good questions?
I tried in vain to deal with a gainsayer on these specific issues but to no avail. He was more interested in telling me what it didn’t mean than what it did. See:
I had earlier written on Ezekiel’s Temple:
Now Fred Butler is doing an in-depth study on these chapters which is going to be worth watching. You can read his first installment here:
For those of you who have thought that God doesn’t really expect you to study this protracted description (because, after all, it’s symbolic of something or other), here’s a great chance to correct the deficiency.