A major obstacle to many
expositors in their interpretation of Ezekiel 40–48 is the detailed description
of a sacrificial system like the Mosaic system. A reenactment of the Mosaic
sacrificial procedure in the Millennium would seem to contradict the New Testament
teaching of Christ’s death as a finished and complete work (Heb 7:17; 9:12,
25–28), as well as bring about a retrogression in God’s salvation program.
Several factors must be observed
in response to this objection to a normal literal interpretation of the texts
involved. First, Old Testament sacrifices never
were efficacious (cf. Heb 10:3–4), neither in the Old Testament nor in the New
Testament. The individual in Old Testament times was saved by faith in the
finished work of the Messiah (Christ), which was to be accomplished in the
future, but was portrayed in the Old Testament sacrifices and feasts, just as
one today is saved by faith in the finished work of Christ that has been
fulfilled historically on the cross. The Old Testament believer looked forward
in faith; the New Testament saint looks back in faith. The object of faith for everyone is Christ, the Messiah. The
sacrificial system of the Mosaic covenant pictorialized the work of Christ in
order that the Israelite might understand what the Messiah would accomplish on
man’s behalf. But a sin offering, or a Day of Atonement, never provided eternal
effectual salvation for anyone.
Second, the millennial
sacrificial system is mentioned not only in Ezekiel, but also in Isaiah
(56:5–7; 60:7, 13; 66:20–23), Jeremiah (33:15–22), and Zechariah (14:16–21).
Third, there is no retrogression
in God’s program. The barrier between Jews and Gentiles, which was removed by
Christ, according to Ephesians 2:14–16, will not be reerected because of the
millennial worship procedures. A full-blown Mosaic system is not reinstated in
the place of the new covenant in the Millennium. Instead, the millennial
worship appears to be pictorial lessons to everyone in the Millennium, just as
it should be to us today (Ro 15:4; 1 Co 10:1–12). They are to remind us (and
those in the Millennium) of the work which Christ performed for us and the life
which we are to live. They are commemorative in the same manner as the Lord’s
table (cf. 1 Co 11:23–26).
Fourth, the sacrificial system
described in Ezekiel is similar, though not identical, to the Mosaic system.
Not all Old Testament feasts and pieces of Temple furniture are included. One
may say that this is an argument from silence, but the omission of such
elements as the Ark of the Covenant, the feast of Pentecost, and the Day of
Atonement are not insignificant in comparing the two systems. Details differ as
to the number and kinds of animals sacrificed (e.g., no lamb is offered in the
Passover in the Millennium; more bullocks and rams are offered in the
millennial feast of unleavened bread than in the Mosaic system, etc.). The
priestly ministry in the millennial worship is conducted by the sons of Zadok
(cf. Eze 40:46; 43:19; 44:15). Finally, there is no high priest in the
Millennium. Instead, the prince acts as both ruler and priest, a representative
of the people as was the high priest in the Mosaic pattern.
These and other distinctions
between the Mosaic and millennial programs are sufficient to repudiate any
wedding of the two worship systems. Thus, a new worship program is instituted
for the Millennium. Though it is similar to the Mosaic system and is primarily
enacted for the culmination of God’s purposes with His people Israel, the
millennial worship program is distinct and unique, a pictorial ritual for all
participants in the Millennium.
Fifth, the total argument of the
book of Ezekiel must not be forgotten as one approaches these last chapters. It
is imperative to remember that Ezekiel began this book by displaying the glory
of God which Israel had defied and polluted by her abominable practices of
disobedience to His holy Law, the Mosaic covenant. Ezekiel, the priest,
emphasized the importance of properly following the regulations of the Law in
every area. Israel failed miserably in this respect. As a result, the glory of
God departed from Israel, from her Temple and her holy city, Jerusalem (Eze
8:3; 10:19; 11:23). When Yahweh has cleansed Israel and restored her to the
land and to her promised blessings, Israel will worship Yahweh correctly in a
commmerative way according to the new worship program. All the covenants are
fulfilled in the Millennium (cf. Eze 37:23–26). It should not be surprising,
therefore, to see commemorative elements similar to the Mosaic system in
millennial worship (cf. Jer 31:33).
The last major interpretive issue
concerns the apocalyptic nature of these nine chapters. Apocalyptic is a term which has been tossed to and fro by scholars
to mean a variety of different things, basically anything visionary, symbolic,
and futuristic. Such a loose definition is certainly out of order, especially
in light of research which demonstrates that the term properly refers to a type
of literature (see definition given under the discussion of Eze 37:1–14). All
characteristics of this literary genre are present in Ezekiel 40–48: (1) the
passage was written under exilic conditions; (2) it is prophetic literature;
(3) the theological thrust is eschatological; (4) the passage concerns a vision
(40:2) and symbolism is present (chap. 43); and (5) there is a divine guide and
interpreter (cf. 40:3). The setting of the vision (with the date, situation,
and recipient) is found in 40:1–4, while the content of the vision itself is
revealed in the remainder of these chapters. The interpretation is intermixed
with the vision scenes.
The recognition that these nine
chapters encompass a single apocalyptic vision is significant: (1) It
demonstrates that this is a separate section of Ezekiel and an entity in and of
itself. It is not a continuation of the previous chapters and their argument,
but it begins a new discussion, though not totally unrelated to the rest of the
development of the book. (2) It helps the interpreter to know how to properly
interpret these chapters. (Ralph Alexander, Ezekiel [Everyman’s Bible Commentary; Chicago Ill.: Moody Press,
1976), 132-34)
