We continue our discussion of hermeneutics. We are trying to establish whether there is, or is not, such a thing as a specific and unique New Covenant Theology (here after “NCT”) hermeneutic. All agree that it is not possible to believe both Covenant Theology and NCT. The basic presuppositions of those two systems are totally antithetical. The question we have been trying to answer is whether the same thing is true of Dispensational Theology and NCT. Is it possible to biblically hold to Dispensationalism and NCT at the same time, or are Dispensationalism and NCT, like Covenant Theology and NCT, antithetical? At the moment, there are people who call themselves New Covenant theologians and also embrace some form of Dispensationalism. Some of the regular contributors to Sound of Grace hold to some form of Dispensationalism. Are these people inconsistent, or do they have a biblical warrant for their convictions?

One of the basic presuppositions of NCT is our insistence that the New Testament must interpret the Old Testament. The question we want to look at in this chapter is central to our overall discussion. “How do the New Testament writers interpret the kingdom promises of the Old Testament?” Do the New Testament writers give a literal, or “natural,” meaning to the kingdom promises in the Old Testament, or do they spiritualize those prophecies? In previous chapters, we have seen that both Abraham and David clearly spiritualized the kingdom promises made to them. Is this the normal method used by the NT writers, or are these examples exceptions? Is a “literal” interpretation the method used? We will look at how several other Old Testament kingdom passages are interpreted in the New Testament. 

As I mentioned in the last chapter, it seems to me that the basic presupposition of Dispensationalism cannot be reconciled with the basic presupposition of NCT. Dispensationalism is based on applying the “literal, grammatical, historical methodology” of interpretation to all of Scripture. NCT uses this method to interpret history and normal narrative but not symbolic (apocryphal) sections (see our last chapter).

We will first look at the passage describing the temple in Ezekiel 40-48. John Whitcomb has a clear and concise chapter defending the historical and classical Dispensational interpretation of this passage (google “The Millennial Temple of Ezekiel 40-48.”). He sees this passage as a “continental divide” between amillennialists and premillennialists. All Dispensationalists do not agree with Whitcomb, especially modern Dispensationalists.

The last nine chapters of Ezekiel serve almost as a test case for God’s people. In the words of Charles Lee Feinberg, a great Old Testament scholar of the 20th century, “Along with certain other key passages of the Old Testament, like Isaiah 7:14 and 52:13-53:12 and portions of Daniel, the concluding chapters of Ezekiel form a kind of continental divide in the area of biblical interpretation. It is one of the areas where the literal interpretation of the Bible and the spiritualizing or allegorizing method diverge widely. Here amillennialists and premillennialists are poles apart. When thirty-nine chapters of Ezekiel can be treated detailedly and seriously as well as literally, there is no valid reason a priori for treating this large division of the book in an entirely different manner” (The Prophecy of Ezekiel. [Chicago: Moody Press, 1967], p. 233, quoted by Whitcomb).

Whitcomb then proceeds to give seven arguments to support his position and answers three major objections. Here is his first argument. 

A careful reading of Ezekiel 40-42 gives one the clear impression of a future literal temple for Israel because of the immense number of details concerning its dimensions, its parts, and its contents (see Erich Sauer, From Eternity To Eternity, chapter 34). Surely, if so much space in the Holy Scriptures is given to a detailed description of this temple, we are safe in assuming that it will be as literal as the tabernacle and the temple of Solomon. Ibid

I agree there is a definite “literal ring” to the many clear and specific measurements of the temple and courts described in Ezekiel 40-48. I will go further and agree that if all we had on the subject of a future temple was Ezekiel 40-48, we would accept the Dispensational view. The readers to whom Ezekiel wrote would have every reason to take everything in chapters 40-48, along with everything else in the book, literally. However, the problems that a literal interpretation of the passage presents, when compared with the New Testament Scriptures, dulls this argument. Whitcomb admits there are problems and tries to answer them. The first objection he discusses is from J. Sidlow Baxter, a widely known exponent of Dispensationalism.

The area of the temple courts (500 x 500 “reeds,” or about one square mile) would be larger than the entire ancient walled city of Jerusalem, and the holy portion for priests and Levites (20,000 x 25,000 reeds, or about 40 x 50 miles) would cover an area six times the size of greater London today and could not possibly be placed within present-day Palestine, that is between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea (Ezek. 47:18), to say nothing of the “portion of the prince” on either side of this area (45:7, 47:21). The millennial Jerusalem would be about 40 miles in circumference and thus ten times the circumference of the ancient city (J. Sidlow Baxter, Explore the Book, IV, 32, quoted by Whitcomb).

Whitcomb answers this objection this way:

Israel will have the only sanctuary and priesthood in the world during the millennial age, so the temple courts and sacred area will need to be greatly enlarged to accommodate the vast number of worshippers and the priests who will serve them (Isa. 2:3, 60:14, 61:6, Zech. 8:20-23). Various Old Testament prophecies speak of great geological changes that will occur in Palestine at the time of Christ’s second coming, so it is not impossible to imagine a 2,500 square mile area for the temple and city fitted into a reshaped and enlarged land. See Isaiah 26:15, 33:17, 54:2, and especially Zechariah 14:4-10 (Whitcomb).

The Scofield Bible has a side-bar at 40:3 titled “Difficulties of Interpretation.” Scofield gives five different explanations. The one he accepts is number 5.

The last nine chapters of Ezekiel have posed numerous problems for expositors.

(1) Some feel these chapters describe the Solomanic temple before the destruction in 586 B.C. 

(2) Some hold it is a description of the restoration temple completed in the sixth century…

(3) Others maintain that the chapters portray an ideal temple never realized… 

(4) Still another view is the claim that the picture is one of the church and its blessings in this age…

(5) The preferable interpretation is that Ezekiel gives a picture of the millennial temple. Judging from the broad context of the prophecy (the time subsequent to Israel’s regathering and conversion and the testimony of other Scripture (Isa. 66; Ezek. 6:14), this interpretation is in keeping with God’s prophetic program for the millennium.

The church is not in view here, but rather it is a prophecy for the consummation of Israel’s history on earth (Scofield Study System, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003, p. 1096).

Both Whitcomb and Scofield set forth the classic historical Dispensational view of Ezekiel 40-48. Also both acknowledge there are serious problems with their interpretation. The size of the temple and courts is not the only problem. God can, if he so chooses, build a temple complex that is 200 square miles, or six times the size of modern London in England, but it certainly is very unlikely. A more difficult problem is raised by the reinstitution of a priesthood that offers blood sacrifices. A literal interpretation of Ezekiel’s temple is essentially a return to Judaism. A return to Judaism raises the question: “What has Jesus Christ actually accomplished with his birth, life, death and resurrection?”

Both Scofield and Whitcomb acknowledge and make note of this problem, but Whitcomb insists on the consistent literal view. Scofield proceeds to cop out of a consistent application of the “good and necessary consequences” of Dispensationalism. In Ezekial 43:18-27, he acknowledges there is a serious problem. Here are the texts and the response of both Whitcomb and Scofield to the problem. These verses seem, on the surface, to be every bit as “literal” as those describing the measurements.

18 And he said unto me, Son of man, thus saith the Lord God; These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon. 19 And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord God, a young bullock for a sin offering. 20 And thou shalt take of the blood thereof, and put it on the four horns of it, and on the four corners of the settle, and upon the border round about: thus shalt thou cleanse and purge it. 21 Thou shalt take the bullock also of the sin offering, and he shall burn it in the appointed place of the house, without the sanctuary. 22 And on the second day thou shalt offer a kid of the goats without blemish for a sin offering; and they shall cleanse the altar, as they did cleanse it with the bullock. 23 When thou hast made an end of cleansing it, thou shalt offer a young bullock without blemish, and a ram out of the flock without blemish. 24 And thou shalt offer them before the Lord, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering unto the Lord. 25 Seven days shalt thou prepare every day a goat for a sin offering: they shall also prepare a young bullock, and a ram out of the flock, without blemish. 26 Seven days shall they purge the altar and purify it; and they shall consecrate themselves. 27 And when these days are expired, it shall be, that upon the eighth day, and so forward, the priests shall make your burnt offerings upon the altar, and your peace offerings; and I will accept you, saith the Lord God (Ezek. 43:18-27).

The Scofield Study System has a side-bar at Ezek. 43:29 titled “The Problem with Sacrifices.”

A problem is posed by this paragraph (vv. 19-27). Since the N.T. clearly teaches that animal sacrifices do not in themselves cleanse away sin (Heb.10:4) and that the one sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ that was made at Calvary completely provides for such expiation (compare Heb. 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10, 14), how can there be a fulfillment of such a prophecy? Two answers have been suggested:

(1) Such sacrifices, if actually offered, will be memorial in character. They will, according to this view, look back to our Lord’s work on the cross, as the offerings of the old covenant anticipated his sacrifice. They would, of course, have no expiatory value. And

(2) the references to sacrifices is not to be taken literally, in view of the putting away of such offerings, but is rather to be regarded as a presentation of redeemed Israel, in her own land and in the millennial temple, using the terms with which the Jews were familiar in Ezekiel’s day.

This is an amazing cop out. Scofield wants a literal temple and a literal priesthood, but the offerings of the priest are not literal. When push comes to shove with regard to the sacrificial system, Scofield is willing to deny his basic “literal” hermeneutic.

Whitcomb argues differently. He quotes the objection, “It is unthinkable that a system of animal sacrifices will be reinstituted after the one perfect sacrifice of Christ has been accomplished, especially in the light of Hebrews 7-10,” and he then proceeds to answer it:

Just because animal sacrifices and priests have no place in Christianity does not mean that they will have no place in Israel after the rapture of the church;^[1] for there is a clear distinction made throughout the Scriptures between Israel and the church.^[2] And just because God will have finished his work of sanctification in the church by the time of the rapture, is no warrant for assuming that he will have finished his work of instruction, testing, and sanctification of Israel. In fact, one of the main purposes of the thousand-year earthly kingdom of Christ will be to vindicate his chosen people Israel before the eyes of all nations (Isaiah 60, 61). It is obvious that the book of Hebrews was written to Christians, and we have no right to insist that Israelites during the millennium will also be Christians, without priests, without sacrifices, and without a temple.^[3] Saints like John the Baptist who died before Pentecost were not Christians (John 3:29, Matt. 11:11); and those who are saved following the rapture of the church will likewise be excluded from membership in the bride of Christ, though they will be “made perfect” like all the redeemed (Heb. 12:23) (Whitcomb).

Whitcomb is to be admired for his consistency. He consistently and logically applies the “literal, grammatical, historical methodology” of interpretation of classic historical Dispensationalism to Ezekiel 40-48, including the blood sacrifices. If that method of interpretation is biblical, then Whitcomb’s interpretation is correct.

All Dispensationalists, both today and in Whitcomb’s day, do not agree that Ezekiel 40-48 was to be understood literally. Whitcomb chides some of his contemporary Dispensationalists for their inconsistency in coping out on a literal interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48. He chides some of his contemporary Dispensationalists for saying the passage should be understood symbolically.

So widespread is this type of interpretation that even some prominent Dispensationalists have been influenced by it. Dr. J Sidlow Baxter, for example, tells us that “the main meanings of the striking symbols are clear… The various cube measurements symbolize their divine perfection. In the description of the sacrificial ritual we see the absolute purity of the final worship” (Explore the Book IV, 34, Academie Books, Grand Rapids, 1966). We shall leave it to the reader to decide, after studying Ezekiel 40-42 again, whether these are “clear” meanings of these “symbols.” We are also very disappointed to see that even Dr. Harry Ironside, whose prophetic insight was usually very clear, fell into the same spiritualizing tendency. Notice how he attempted to spiritualize the temple river of Ezekiel 47: “Ezekiel’s guide measured a thousand cubits, that is, fifteen hundred feet, and he caused the prophet to enter into the waters: they were up to his ankles. May this not suggest the very beginning of a life of fellowship with God? ‘If we live in the Spirit let us also walk in the Spirit’ (Gal. 5:25). The feet were in the river and the waters covered them, but the guide measured another thousand cubits and caused Ezekiel to pass through the waters, and they were up to his knees. Who will think it fanciful if we say that the waters up to the knees suggest praying in the Holy Spirit? But the guide measured another thousand and caused the prophet to pass through the waters, and now they were up to his loins, suggesting the complete control of every fleshly lust in the power of the Spirit of God. He measured another thousand, and that which had begun as a small stream was a river so that Ezekiel could not pass through, for the waters were risen, waters to swim in. Surely this is to live in the fullness of the Spirit to which every child of God should aspire” (Ezekiel the Prophet, pp. 327, 328, Loizeaux Brothers, 1949, quoted by Whitcomb).

A non-Dispensationalist can say what Baxter and Ironsides said, but a consistent Dispensationalist cannot believe the “literal, grammatical, historical methodology” of interpretation and say the same thing. I do not agree with Whitcomb, but I do agree that his view is the honest application of the “literal, grammatical, historical methodology” of interpretation.

When we apply the NCT principle of allowing the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament, Whitcomb’s view seems to lack biblical support. When we ask, “What does the New Testament say about the temple God would build, about the priests who would serve in that temple, and about the sacrifices they would offer,” not a single New Testament text literalizes the temple, the priesthood, or the sacrifices. Each of these three is spiritualized in the New Testament Scriptures. If the Old Testament prophecies are understood as interpreted and applied by the writers of the New Testament, the church is now God’s temple^[4] or dwelling place. All New Covenant believers are his priests^[5] and our sacrifices are spiritual.^[6] There is no room in the least for a temple made with brick and mortar, no room for a physical priestly order, and surely no room for a blood sacrifice intended to gain acceptance with God⎯and Ezekiel specifically notes that animal blood sacrifices would be the ground of acceptance with God.

The temple that God is building in his kingdom is not made out of bricks and mortar; it is made out of living stones. It is described in 1 Cor. 3 as a temple and in Hebrews 4 as God’s house. As the ultimate dwelling place of God, it can by no means be made to fit a literal interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48. 

The New Covenant priesthood is made up of every believer—not just the men from one Israelite tribe. God’s New Covenant priests do not offer bulls and goats; they offer “spiritual sacrifices” (I Peter 2:5). It is impossible to imagine a New Covenant priest being in a “different class” than any other believer. It is even more impossible to imagine a New Covenant priest shedding the blood of an animal as sin offering. We will say more about this when we look at other New Testament passages. 

For now, we must see that the New Covenant principle of allowing the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament will not allow a “literal, grammatical, historical methodology” of interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48. We must also see that it would seem that it is not possible to hold a “literal, grammatical, historical methodology” of interpretation of Scripture and not also believe that some time in the future there will be a 500 cubit square temple complex with Israelite priests offering burnt and sin offerings.

In our next chapter, we will look at how the New Testament writers interpret some additional Old Testament passages.

---