Introduction

The temple vision in Ezekiel 40-48 has been the object of controversy for different interpretations for centuries. There is often a split between Dispensational and Reformed views on whether or not to take the prophecy as instructions for a future, physical temple or a spiritual metaphor for Christ and His Church. In this short paper, we will consider three writers from church history and their metaphorical interpretations of the temple vision. By doing this, we will see the dangers of analogous interpretations but we will also see the great value and truth in analogous interpretation done right.

Origen’s Interpretation of the Closed Gate

The first view we will consider is that of Origen of Alexandria. Origen was born toward the end of the second century at the time of the early church and is considered to be one of the greatest of the Church Fathers. He is also often known for his overuse of analogy when interpreting the Scriptures, which to his credit was typical of the time he was in. Because of some of his outlandish views, many Reformed scholars will be hesitant to accept much of what he says at face value. However, scholars will also agree that Origen can be helpful at times and must not be completely discarded.

Nonetheless, Origen does speak to a portion of the temple vision in his Homilies on Ezekiel. In this work, he focuses on the closed gate in Ezekiel 44 which says that God led Ezekiel

“back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east. And it was shut. And the Lord said to me, ‘This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it. Therefore it shall remain shut. Only the prince may sit in it to eat bread before the Lord,’” (Ez. 44:1-3). 

Origen sees this gate as a metaphor for the closing off of the mysteries of God to the world. He says specifically that “everything that is more mysterious is closed, and what is more manifest is opened and is not closed.”¹ He also relates this closed gate to the sealed scrolls in Revelation 5 which can only be opened by Jesus Christ. Origen sees Christ as the prince that “may sit in it to eat bread before the Lord,” (Ez. 44:3). In this way, Origen interprets this passage as referring to Christ’s revealing of the mysteries of God in the New Testament through His work and the work of His apostles after Him. He goes on to say that the “Lord God of Israel alone enters and leaves through [the gate]” and that He leaves so that “he might be known.”² Bringing all of this together, Origen is saying that the mysteries of the Old Testament, especially the Gospel, were veiled to the people of Israel. While God did progressively reveal key factors of these mysteries to Israel over time, it was not until Jesus that these mysteries were made known. It is almost as if Jesus is the key that unlocked this gate but also the God who enters in and out of it. 

Overall, Origen’s teachings that Christ reveals the mysteries of God are true. However, it may be questioned if this is the purpose of Ezekiel 44:1-3. Origen’s interpretation may be overdone, as with much of the analogous interpretations of the early church. It seems the main point of the passage is that Christ has unique access to the holiness of Yahweh in that He is both the holy prince and God Himself, highlighting Christ’s role as Prophet, Priest, and King. Maybe Yahweh did have the revealing of mysteries of God in mind, however, it seems this may be reading something true into a passage that does not state it.

MATTHEW HENRY’S INTERPRETATION OF THE STRUCTURE

Matthew Henry, born in 1662, makes a strong connection between Ezekiel’s temple vision and the Church of the New Testament Gospel. Henry sees the extremely detailed dimensions and instructions for the temple as not representative of a blueprint for Israel to literally build a new temple but as symbolic of the Church of God. For example, when speaking of chapter forty, Henry sees even the stairs as metaphorical for the church, saying “That he went up to it by stairs (v. 6), for the gospel-church was exalted above that of the Old Testament” This interpretation alone shows the extreme allegory in which Henry at times sees the temple vision. Henry goes on to describe the temple doors in chapter forty-one as wide as  “the whole breadth of the tabernacle of Moses” suggesting that the great width of these doors shows a greater access to God’s presence.  This is certainly an interesting thought and may hold some ground, but it is debatable whether or not that’s what was meant by these dimensions. However, while allegorical interpretations like that of the stairs or the doors may not be exactly accurate, Henry’s view that the temple represents Christ and the Church is very helpful.  

Henry is quick to show that this intense description shows the holiness of God’s presence. Because God is holy, His dwelling place is holy and must be treated with the utmost of reverence. As Henry sees Christ and His church as the end to which this vision is a metaphor for, it can be said that Christ and His church must be regarded with as much reverence as that of the temple.

Matthew Henry’s Interpretation of the Structure

Matthew Henry, born in 1662, makes a strong connection between Ezekiel’s temple vision and the Church of the New Testament Gospel. Henry sees the extremely detailed dimensions and instructions for the temple as not representative of a blueprint for Israel to literally build a new temple but as symbolic of the Church of God. For example, when speaking of chapter forty, Henry sees even the stairs as metaphorical for the church, saying “That he went up to it by stairs (v. 6), for the gospel-church was exalted above that of the Old Testament”³ This interpretation alone shows the extreme allegory in which Henry at times sees the temple vision. Henry goes on to describe the temple doors in chapter forty-one as wide as  “the whole breadth of the tabernacle of Moses” suggesting that the great width of these doors shows a greater access to God’s presence.⁴  This is certainly an interesting thought and may hold some ground, but it is debatable whether or not that’s what was meant by these dimensions. However, while allegorical interpretations like that of the stairs or the doors may not be exactly accurate, Henry’s view that the temple represents Christ and the Church is very helpful.  

Henry is quick to show that this intense description shows the holiness of God’s presence. Because God is holy, His dwelling place is holy and must be treated with the utmost of reverence. As Henry sees Christ and His church as the end to which this vision is a metaphor for, it can be said that Christ and His church must be regarded with as much reverence as that of the temple.

G.K. Beal’s Interpretation of the Sacrifices

G.K. Beale, born in 1949, sees this vision as a metaphorical, redemptive-historical prophecy of Christ and the church, much like Henry and Origen. However, in my opinion, his interpretation is by far the most balanced of the three we are considering and lends to a fairly sound interpretation of Ezekiel’s temple vision. As such, his view which will be discussed briefly can be taken as representative of the view I currently hold of the temple vision.

Beale sees the temples in Ezekiel and Revelation 11 as an image of the “whole covenant community forming a spiritual temple in which God’s presence dwells.”⁵ Interestingly enough, He sees the measuring mentioned in Ezekiel as God protecting His people “against the harm and contamination of unclean and deceptive people.”⁶ This is a very interesting thought as one of the main themes of Ezekiel is God not allowing His people to become like the nations. Because of this context of Ezekiel, for the time being, I am persuaded by this argument. 

Not unlike Henry, Beale also sees the sacrificial imagery in the vision as a reference to Christ’s work in His life, death, and resurrection. Again, Beale does not see the detailed explanations of the sacrifices as “physically literal but interpreted in the light of Hebrews 10:1–12.”⁷ He explains that “Christ’s work is now the dominant interpretative lens through which to understand Old Testament expectations.”⁸ This hermeneutical principle is key for reading the Old Testament and I believe that Beale does a fantastic job of doing this. As such, Christ’s death is seen as the final, complete sacrifice giving entrance into the presence of God for His church. Beale also interestingly relates the altar to the lives of believers. Beale sees their sacrifices of suffering on the altar of the gospel as the “way God’s people now worship in the community.” Thus the fulfillment of these temple sacrifices is found both in the sacrificial death of Christ and the sacrificial living of His church.

Conclusion

Overall, Origen, Henry, and Beale all make good cases for viewing the temple vision in Ezekiel metaphorically for Christ and His church. While Origen and Henry at times may go too far in their analogous interpretation, their teachings are certainly helpful for understanding the fulfillment of the prophecies of God. However, Beale’s interpretation seems to be the most well-rounded and grounded, showing that the temple’s structural and sacrificial fulfillment truly is found in Christ as His people. This makes the vision less about the physical measurements of a building, but spiritual dimensions of the people of God. In this way, I think it is helpful for the Christians to read the temple vision in Ezekiel with Christ and themselves in mind. 

1.  Origen, Thomas P. Scheck, and Jerome, Origen: Homilies 1-14 on Ezekiel, Ancient Christian writers no. 62 (New York: Newman Press, 2010), 167.
   ↩︎
2.  Origen, Scheck, and Jerome, Origen, 168. ↩︎
3.  Matthew Henry, Commentary on Ezekiel, n.d. ↩︎
4.  Henry, Commentary on Ezekiel. ↩︎
5.  Gregory K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, New Studies in Biblical Theology 17 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 354. ↩︎
6.  Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 352. ↩︎
7.  Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 353. ↩︎
8.  Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 353. ↩︎