Theological Foundations© With W. Robert Cook, Th.D Part Seven: Eschatology Chapter: 53 The Messianic Kingdom The Relationship of the Messianic Kingdom to Other Forms of the Kingdom of God The Millennial Reign of Christ

 

Return to Syllabus

BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D

---

Hail to the Lord's Anointed,

Great David's greater Son!

Hail, in the time appointed,

His reign on earth begun!

He comes to break oppression,

To let the captive free,

To take away transgression,

And rule in equity.

 

 

James Montgomery (1771-1854)

---

 

One of the major strands of biblical revelation, and thus one of the grand themes of theological formulation, is that of the kingdom of God. Of particular concern at this point are the future manifestations of the kingdom. Among other things, God has purposed to extend the sphere of his sovereignty throughout the earth in tangible, overt form. This will involve the reign of God's Anointed over mankind in theocratic form as covenant promise and prophetic utterance are fulfilled. Yet, as important as it is, the messianic form of the kingdom of God is only a step, and that of interim duration, on the way to the final and ultimate manifestation of God's kingdom.

I.                              The Relationship of the Messianic Kingdom to Other Forms of the Kingdom of God

A.      Forms of the Kingdom

1.       Old Testament—theocratic form

God's intent for Israel was for a pure theocracy wherein he himself would rule as king. Due to their willfulness he allowed this to be modified to a monarchy (see Exod. 19:6; Deut. 17:14-20; 1 Sam. 8:4-18; 10:17-25; 13:13-14).

2.       Inter-advent—mystery form

Since Israel rejected the theocracy, and since the glory of the monarchy not only faded but led to the nation's undoing, God sent his anointed Son with an offer of the kingdom. With the rejection of Messiah-King the mystery form of the kingdom was inaugurated (see chapter 51) (Matt. 13:1- 52). Today, between the first and second comings of Christ, it is being manifested in non-theocratic form (that is, in a covert form without the external political trappings of the manifest forms of the kingdom). Its corporate manifestation is the church (1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 1:5; 1 Tim. 1:17) and its personal manifestation is the regenerate individual (John 3:3, 5).

3.       Millennial—theocratic form

There will yet be a theocratic (messianic) form of the kingdom as the Lord fulfills his covenant promises to Israel (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Ps. 89:30-37; Isa. 9:6-7; Luke 1:32-33; Acts 1:6; Rev. 11:15) and his prophetic utterances regarding the gentile nations (Isa. 2:1-4; 11:4-5, 10; Matt. 25:31-34; Rev. 19:15-16). If the language of these passages is taken in a straightforward way this will be within the sphere of earth history (see e.g., Amos 9:13-15) and will last for 1000 years (Rev. 20:4).

4.          Eternal—theocratic form

When the first-earth-oriented aspects of the kingdom promises are fulfilled the present order will yield to a new one (Rev. 21:1). The final universal form of the kingdom will then supplant all others and God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:24-28; Rev. 22:3-5).

B.      Continuity/Discontinuity with Other Forms

The messianic form of the kingdom should not be viewed as free-standing and unrelated to the other forms of God's Kingdom.

1.          Relationship to preceding forms

The messianic kingdom must not be equated with the nation Israel past or future, but it will see her exalted among the nations (Isa. 2:1-3; 11:10-12) as the covenant with Abraham, elaborated to David and climaxed in David's greater son (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Luke 1:32-33), is fulfilled. Further, wrapped up with God's promises to Israel regarding her national future are messianic promises as well (Isa. 61:1-11; see also references to "the Messiah," tou Christou, in Revelation 11:15; 20:4, 6). In that day Yahweh's anointed will not only bring good news to the afflicted, healing to the broken hearted and freedom to the imprisoned (as he did during his earthly ministry, Luke 4:18-19); but he will also replace mourning with gladness, will rebuild destroyed physical, social and spiritual structures, and he will restore political prominence and covenant privilege.

 

Although it is often overlooked, implicit in God's covenant promises to Israel are prophetic assurances regarding the gentiles. This is already anticipated in the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:3, "all families of the earth"); is later developed in Isaiah's prophecies regarding the last days (Isa. 2:1-4; 11:4-5, 10; "nation will not lift up sword against nation"); is set forth by our Lord (Matt. 25: 31-34, "the kingdom prepared for you"); and will reach its fulfillment upon the return of Christ when he rules the nations as King of kings (Rev. 19:15-16).

 

Neither should the messianic kingdom be equated with the church or with God's reign over the individual believer's life.

 

In that day the king himself will be in residence, whereas today he reigns through the indwelling Holy Spirit. There is continuity in that it is the same king and an aspect of his kingdom that is in view. There is discontinuity in that this current aspect of the kingdom involves his sovereignty over the spirits of men as they yield to the suffering Savior; whereas, in the messianic form of the kingdom men will bow to the king in his majesty (whether they are internally submissive or not).

2.       Relationship to the following form

As suggested above, the messianic form of the kingdom has roots in the past, specifically in the covenant made with Abraham, but it also leads forward to the consummation of all things in the eternal form of the kingdom of God. The thousand year reign is something of a preparatory stage one of the two-stage future manifestation of the kingdom. Just as there are transitions from one form of the kingdom to another at other points in the unfolding of God's plan (see chapter 52, for example), so there will be at this point as well. This transition will see the final defeat of Satan, the final judgment of the lost, and the supplanting of the present heaven and earth by a new heaven and earth (see chapter 54), but the continuity of the bliss of the saints will continue without interruption.

 

Several passages (in which may be seen the phenomenon of "prophetic perspective") seem to support such a continuity. For example, Isaiah seems to combine the conditions of the new earth and the millennial earth into one description in Isaiah 65:17-25. Verses 17-19 seem to parallel the description John gives of the new heavens, new earth, and new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:1-4) while verses 20-25 seem more descriptive of the mil1ennia1 earth as described earlier by Isaiah himself (cf. v. 25 with 11:6-9). John in Revelation 20-22 establishes the historical order of millennial earth followed by new earth and Isaiah anticipates the close relationship of the two.

 

Other passages which seem to support the same thing are: Daniel 2:44, which speaks of a kingdom related to this earth, as are the other kingdoms in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, but which will "never be destroyed"; Daniel 7:14, 18, 27, which seem to speak of Messiah's kingdom as beginning with sovereignty over all the people's of earth yet extended with "everlasting dominion" that will "not be destroyed"; Luke 1:32-33, wherein the angel declares to Mary that Jesus (who was so named because when he came the first time he world "save His people from their sins," Matt. 1:21) would be given David's throne (cf. 2 Sam. 7:16; Ps. 89:3-4) from which he will exercise messianic (i.e., millennial) rule over Israel "forever" which "kingdom will have no end"; Revelation 11:15, which indicates that the kingdom of the world will become the kingdom of the Lord's Messiah and when he assumes this kingdom he will continue to reign "forever and ever."

 

After noting this emphasis there may be a temptation to blur any distinctions all together and thus to equate the messianic and eternal forms of the kingdom with one another. John helps us to avoid that error as he brings us to the climax of the Apocalypse by noting that during the messianic form of the kingdom certain saints will reign with Christ for one thousand years (Rev. 20:4,6) while in the eternal form of the kingdom all of God's bond-servants will "reign forever and ever" (Rev. 22: 3-5).

II.                          The Millennial Reign of Christ

A.      The Nature of the Millennial Reign

An attempt has been made throughout the preceding material to demonstrate that premillennial thinking regarding the messianic kingdom does not rest solely or even primarily upon an interpretation of the early verses of Revelation 20. We would agree with Henry when he says that

 

the case for a millennial kingdom rests on three arguments: 1) the Old Testament prophets speak so emphatically of a corning universal age of earthly peace and justice that to transfer this vision wholly to a transcendent superterrestial kingdom is unjustifiable; 2) because the historical fall of Adam involves all human history in its consequences, it requires an historical redemption that extends far as the curse is found' to complete Christ's victory over sin; 3) the most natural interpretation of Revelation seems to suggest an earthly millennial reign of Christ prior to the inauguration of God's eternal Kingdom. [1]

 

Erickson, in summarizing his discussion of various millennial views and opting for premillennialism, notes that this interpretation is not limited to one passage (Rev. 20) only as is often charged. He writes,

 

"Intimations of it are found in a number of places. For example, Paul writes, 'For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his corning those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the Kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every rule and every authority and power’ (1 Cor. 15:22-24). Paul uses the adverbs epeita (v. 23) and eita (v. 24), which indicate temporal sequence. He could have used the adverb tote to indicate concurrent events, but he did not do so. It appears that just as the first corning and the resurrection of Christ were distinct events separated by time, so will there be an interval between the second corning and the end. [2]

 

Erickson continues by pointing out that

 

we should also observe that while the two resurrections are spoken of explicitly only in Revelation 20, there are other passages which hint at either a resurrection of a select group (Luke 14:14; 20:35; 1 Cor. 15:23; Phil. 3:11; 1 Thess. 4:16) or a resurrection in two stages (Dan~ 12:2; John 5:29). In Philippians 3:11, for example, Paul speaks of his hope of attaining 'the resurrection from the dead.' Literally, the phrase reads 'the out-resurrection out from among the dead ones' (tēn exanastasin tēn ek nekrōn). Note in particular the prefixed preposition and the plural. These texts fit well with the concept of two resurrections. [3]

 

At this point, this form of God's kingdom program is referred to as millennial simply because certain chronological items are to be considered, which items help distinguish this form of the kingdom from other forms.

 

One form of amillennialism is represented by Berkouwer when he comments that Revelation 20 is "not a narrative account of a future earthly reign of peace at all, but is the apocalyptic unveiling of the reality of salvation in Christ as a backdrop to the reality of the suffering and martyrdom that still continue as long as the dominion of Christ remains hidden." [4]  Another approach to amillennialism, ably represented by Anthony Hoekema, interprets Revelation 20:1-3 as a synopsis of this present age on earth and verses 4-6 as a synopsis of the same period in heaven. [5] He reaches this interpretation on the basis of his understanding of the literary structure of the Apocalypse; by viewing the figure 1000 as purely symbolic; and by attributing somewhat unusual meanings to "came to life" and "resurrection" in verses 4 to 6.

1.          The length of the millennial reign

It is argued by many, on the basis of the frequent use of symbolism in the Apocalypse and through an appeal to biblical numerics that the references to a thousand years in Revelation 20:1-7 are not to be taken literally…"Since the number ten signifies completeness, and since a thousand is ten to the third power, we may think of the expression 'a thousand years' as standing for a complete period, a very long period of indeterminate length." [6]

 

The fact, however, that the thousand year figure is repeated five times in the space of six verses (Rev. 20:2-7) strongly suggests a plain literal sense should be given to it. Furthermore, it does make perfectly good sense when taken this way.

 

The only compelling reason that is advanced for making the thousand years figurative is so as to relate them to the present age which is of unnoted length in Scripture. To do this textually it must be argued that the entire book of Revelation is built around a concept that Hoekema [7] calls progressive parallelism.

 

“According to this view, the book of Revelation consists of seven sections which run parallel to each other, each of which depicts the church and the world from the time of Christ’s first coming to the time of his second coming.” [8] Following this line of interpretation Revelation 20-22 constitutes the seventh section and Revelation 20:1 begins the story anew with the beginning of this age.

 

Thus the binding of Satan is related to the finished work of Christ at the cross while the reign of those who come to life is related to the present bliss of the righteous dead in heaven. [9]

 

The grammatical structure of Revelation 19:11 ff. (note the repetition of kai eidon ("and I saw") in 19:11, 17; 20:1, 4, 11; 21:1), however, seems to unfold a series of interrelated visions which move progressively forward without retrogression or reiteration.

 

If this be true, the sequence is inescapably: second coming, judgment of the armies, judgment of the beast and false prophet in the lake of fire, confinement of Satan in the abyss for 1000 years, and then the reign for 1000 years of those who participate in the first resurrection.

 

Perhaps the least significant aspect of this form of the kingdom of God is that it is a millennium in duration. What is important is that it is of a set length with identifiable characteristics and that it will issue in a final form of the kingdom far grander and of endless duration. [10]

2.       The location of the millennial reign

It is frequently pointed out by the amillennialist that there is no reference to either Israel or the earth in Revelation 20:4-6. This is intended to demonstrate that it is not an earthly millennial reign over the nation of Israel that is being described. By the same line of argumentation the amillennial viewpoint may be negated too, since 20:1-3 makes no reference to the earth, to the death of Christ, or to the church and 20:4-6 makes no reference to heaven.

 

This does not seem, however, to be an appropriate way to negate either view. Certainly, a passage may refer to an event or period of time without giving all or any of the previously given details. It may, rather, be providing new information as is the case here. John is given the hitherto undisclosed truth regarding the duration of the messianic kingdom. That it will be on the earth is verified by the Old Testament promises (see above, chapter 50, in the discussion of the Abrahamic Covenant) and by John himself in Revelation 5:10. Both 5:10 and 20:6 use the same imagery to describe these priestly rulers, with one passage giving the place ("they will reign upon the earth") and the other the duration.

3.       The moral setting of the millennial reign

Several incidents, all relating to judgment of one form or another, provide the moral setting for the millennium. Rebellious Jews (those who refuse to receive Messiah when he returns in glory) will be judged (Ezek. 20:33-39; Zech. 13:8-9); godless gentiles (who identify themselves by refusal to give aid to beleaguered Jews during the tribulation period) will be judged (Matt. 25:31-46); the kings of earth and their armies will be slain (Rev. 17:9-14; 19:17-18,21); the beast and false prophet will be thrown alive into the lake of fire (Rev. 19:19-20; 20:10); and Satan is bound in the abyss for 1000 years (Rev. 20:1-3). This now provides as nearly an idyllic earthly setting from a moral standpoint as can be attained short of a complete replacement of one order with another as is true of the next and final stage of the kingdom (Rev. 21:1-7).

B.      Governmental Conditions of the Millennial Reign

One of the historical objections to the idea of a literal, earthly millennium to arise is that it is somehow "unspiritual" if construed as having political form among unglorified people with actual ethnic groupings. This line of thinking may be answered in several ways. First of all, biblical teaching nowhere supports the kind of thinking that leads to identification of matter and evil or spirit and good. Such dualism is rooted in pagan thought. Secondly, God himself is both the creator of matter and the author of the promises to be fulfilled during the messianic kingdom period. Again, if a future millennium is out of order for such reasons, how can we justify God leaving the church in this earthly scene?

1.          The governed

At least two groups of citizens are identified as unglorified inhabitants of the millennium, with a third significant sub-group found within those two. As set forth in earlier discussion, Israel will occupy her land, which land will apparently be the seat of millennial rule (Isa. 2:1-4). This same passage as well as others (e.g., Matt. 25:31-34) also gives a prominent place to the gentiles during that period.

 

While these national differences are noted by Scripture, that seems to be the extent of the difference. That is, no spiritual or other superiority should be extrapolated from this fact. There is no basis for teaching that the believers' basic unity with one another is abrogated during this time. The saints of the messianic kingdom are not rightly designated as "church" but neither are they to be denied full rights as the people of God. The only difference in the gospel message at that time will be that the one who died, was buried, arose, and ascended has now returned to earth as king.

 

The sub-group alluded to above is introduced in Revelation 20:8-9. They are those who give outward submission to the king but continue as rebels at heart, having been born during the millennial reign but not regenerated. When the occasion is provided them, upon Satan's release from the abyss, they will openly rally to his cause.

2.       The governors

Jesus Christ will reign as King of kings (Rev. 19:16; 20:4, 6; Isa. 9:6-7; 11:1-5a; Zech. 14:9; Matt. 19:28; Luke 1:32; 22:29-30).

 

David will apparently function as Messiah's agent over Israel (Ezek. 34:23-24; 37:24-25).

 

These passages place David in the end times as "shepherd," "prince" and "king" over God's covenant people Israel. If taken in their plain literal (normal, natural) sense we must assume that this refers to David risen from the dead.

 

The twelve apostles will judge in Israel (Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:29-30).

 

Saints of the first resurrection will reign with Christ (Rev. 20:6; cf., 5:9-10).

 

Several things should be noted about those whom the Lord will use to administer the messianic kingdom under his direction: they are all redeemed by his blood (Rev. 5:9-10); they are all resurrected and thus glorified (Rev. 20:6); they are an international and cosmopolitan group (Rev. 5:9-10); and they are from every period of history as those who participate in the first resurrection (Rev. 20:6).

3.       The governmental form

It will be a theocracy (Zech. 14: 9) and even though it will be centered in Jerusalem, it will extend in authority throughout the earth (Mic. 4:1-2; Dan. 7:13-14, 27). It will be administered with perfect equity (Isa. 11:3-5) and all open sin will be dealt with in summary fashion (Isa. 11:4; Rev. 19:15).

C.      Social, Economic and Physical Conditions of the Millennial Reign

There will be peace and prosperity throughout the earth (Isa. 2:4; 65:21-23; Amos 9:13-15; cf., Isa. 9:4-7). The curse will be partially removed leading to docility in the animal kingdom, increased fruitfulness in the earth, and health and longevity among mankind (Isa. 11:6-9; 35:1-10; 65:20).   

D.     Spiritual Conditions of the Millennial Reign

The very fact that Jesus Christ, the righteous Son of God, will rule the earth suggests that his reign will have significantly spiritual dimensions. Isaiah declares that the Spirit of Yahweh will rest upon him so that all he does may be construed as a spiritual act (Isa. 11:1-2). The earth will be filled with the knowledge of Yahweh (Isa. 11:9; Jer. 31:33-34) and all will give at least feigned worship to Messiah (Isa. 66:23).

 

Likewise, since Messiah's administrative personnel will all be redeemed and glorified; their function will also have spiritual impact. One of their functions is as "priests of God and of Christ" (Rev. 20:6, cf., 5:10) which suggests some worship-oriented duties.

 

One of the problems facing the dispensational premillennialist is the interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48. This data is usually placed under a discussion of spiritual conditions during the messianic kingdom. [11] The questions raised by this extended passage are of no small moment theologically and hermeneutically. Is this to be taken in a plain-literal sense? That is, will there indeed be at some future day a temple built in Jerusalem with these exact dimensions? Will there be actual blood sacrifices offered therein? Does this, whatever it is, relate to the millennial period or to some other time?

 

Recognizing that whatever interpretation is suggested will have problems, the following is offered for consideration:

 

                     i.            During the seventieth week of Daniel Israel will apparently be allowed to rebuild a temple in which her worship forms will be reinstituted (Dan. 9:27).

 

                   ii.            This privilege will be subsequently abrogated (Matt. 24:15; 2 Thess. 2:4; cf., Dan. 12:11).

 

                  iii.            It is not likely that this is parallel with Ezekiel 40-48 since that passage pictures a situation sanctioned of God (Ezek. 43:1-5).

 

                 iv.            Although this is usually associated by dispensationalists with the millennial period there seems to be little in the text that requires this. Most dispensational writers simply assume that this relates to the millennium.

 

Apparently, this is based on a process of elimination as earlier temples and the old covenant worship system are ruled out as not fitting the description. [12]  McClain, on the other hand, does refer to Ezekiel 43:1-7 where the “glory” of God is described as reentering the edifice. The Lord then declares that he will locate his throne in the temple. [13]

 

                   v.            If a plain-literal sense of the passage be required, on is faced with the apparently insurmountable problem of a sacrificial system established by God in a retrogressive sense. It seems to be an implicit, if not explicit, denial of the finished work of Messiah.

 

In an attempt to avoid this problem it is taught that the sacrifices are to be viewed as memorials rather than as propitiatory. This has several problems. Whitcomb [14] is an example of a dispensationalist who questions such an approach.

 

Such a suggestion, while plausible, has no textual basis. McClain [15] appeals to Hebrews 10:1-3 where the Old Testament sacrifices were said to be "a reminder of sins." This, however, relates to the past not the future.

 

Such a suggestion overlooks the fact that participants in the new covenant (which, as demonstrated earlier, includes both Jews and gentiles) have a memorial of our Lord's death in the Lord's Supper. This was purposefully designed to be non-sacrificial and non-bloody whereas these so-called memorials are both sacrificial and bloody.

 

Both Walvoord [16] and Dwight Pentecost [17] appeal to the reasonableness of a future memorial on the basis of the present one in the form of the Lord's Supper. This, however, overlooks one other very significant fact.

 

Not only is the Lord's Supper non-sacrificial and non-bloody, it is also temporary ("until he comes"). No memorial will be needed any longer when the slain and resurrected Lamb of God is present and reigning.

 

Such a suggestion, even though insisting that it is for Israel alone, overlooks the glaring fact that the scriptures strongly proscribe Jewish believers regarding any return to the old covenant and its accompanying sacrifices (Heb. 8-10).

 

(It should be noted that while Whitcomb also objects to the memorial view he rejects this point as a basis for argument. He rather insists that after Christ returns "animal sacrifices within a New Covenant structure... will constitute a gigantic step forward for Israel, not a reversion to 'weak and beggarly elements' (Gal. 4:9) ..." [18]

 

This remarkable claim is based upon his conviction that the use of animal sacrifices in the millennium will not involve the reinstitution of the Mosaic economy (p. 212). He states,

 

The reappearance of some aspects of the Mosaic ritual during the millennium will not necessarily ... be a contradiction to the dynamics of the New Covenant. This seems to harmonize with Jesus' statement in the upper room: 'I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say unto you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God’ (Luke 22:15-16). [19]

 

He seems to assume that the Lord is inferring that the Passover lamb will be sacrificed again in that day rather than understanding this as an emphatic way of saying, I will never eat it again.

 

It would seem, furthermore, that the Passover has been fulfilled already in this present manifestation of the Kingdom of God in light of 1 Corinthians 5:7-8.

 

Whitcomb's argument seems to be that since the worship system of the New Covenant may be shown to be distinct in some ways from the old Mosaic covenant, and since the future will thus not be a return to the Old Covenant, and since regenerate millennial Jews will have the benefit of the completed revelation of the New Testament, the offering of some sacrifices will not be a betrayal of the finished work of Christ because they will know better. [20]

 

His summary statement is, "Millennial sacrifices will not simply memorialize Christ's redemption but will primarily function in restoring theocratic harmony." [21]

 

They will provide temporary, ceremonial (not salvatory) forgiveness within Israel in the millennial time. [22] Given the hermeneutical presuppositions with which most dispensationalists work, and in light of the more consistent application of those presuppositions which he demonstrates, his view seems more plausible than the usual "memorial" view.)

                    

In answer to the seeming incongruence between future blood sacrifices and the finished work of Christ it is said that even in the Old Testament animal sacrifices were not propitiatory. This was true in the ultimate (eternal) sense (Heb. 10:4) but not in the intermediate (temporal) sense (Heb. 9:13).

 

Also, this fails to deal with the fact that the Hebrew word used in Ezekiel 45:15,17,20 (translated "make atonement" in NASB) is the same as that used in the Pentateuch (see Lev. 6:30; 8:15; 16:6, 11, 24, 30, 32-34; Num. 5:8; 15:28; 29:5). Whatever it meant in the latter is apparently intended in the former. In some sense the offering of these sacrifices will lead to acceptance by Yahweh (Ezek. 43:27).

 

Commenting on Hebrews 9:13, F. F. Bruce says, "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." [23]

 

Charles Ryrie states, "Unquestionably the Old Testament does ascribe efficacy to the sacrifices. Again and again the Scriptures declare that when the sacrifices were offered according to the law 'it shall be accepted for him to make an atonement for him' (Lev. 1:4; 4:20-31; 16:20-22)…. The bringing of sacrifices restored the offender to his forfeited position as a Jewish worshipper and restored his theocratic relationship." [24]

 

Whitcomb seems to be within the evidence when he writes, "The Scriptures tell us that something really did happen to the Israelite offeror when he came to the right altar with the appropriate sacrifice. ... What happened was temporal, finite, external, and legal—not eternal, infinite, internal, and soteriological.

 

Nevertheless, what happened was personally and immediately significant, not simply symbolic and/or prophetic. When an Israelite 'unwittingly failed' to observe a particular ordinance of the Mosaic Law,... he was actually 'forgiven' through an 'atonement' (a ritual cleansing; cf. Heb. 9:10, 13) made by the priest (Num. 15:25-26)." [25]

 

It is further argued that several other passages in the Old Testament describe the observation of Jewish ritual in the millennial period, including the offering of sacrifices (e.g., Isa. 56:7; 66:20-23; Jer. 33:18; Zech. 14:16-21). It should not be overlooked that Zechariah 14:16-21 involved gentiles in this Jewish ritual, specifically the festival of Succoth. It is more remarkable that gentiles would be expected to observe, as a memorial of Christ's death, the Jewish celebration of reminder of their wilderness journey from Egypt (cf. Lev. 23:34-44).

 

Such an approach seems to imply that faithfulness to a "literal" hermeneutic requires a plain-literal sense for each of these passages and rules out a figurative-literal option. It further seems to disallow the importance of history and culture in reaching the meaning of a text.

 

While acknowledging the "memorial" view as one solution to this problem, the New Scofield Reference Bible (which is perhaps the most influential promoter of dispensational thinking) note on Ezekiel 43:19 suggests that another possible answer is that "the reference 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 the worship of redeemed Israel, in her own land and in the millennial temple, using terms with which the Jews were familiar in Ezekiel's day." [26] 

 

As so stated, this provides a helpful insight but the wording gives up too much if one is desirous of maintaining the control provided by a grammatical-historical-cultural (i.e., a literal) hermeneutic. The carelessness of this statement does not pass Hoekema's notice as, in commenting on it, he points out,

 

These words convey a far-reaching concession on the part of dispensationalists.

 

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. [27]

 

The statements are to be taken literally, with benefit of grammar, history, and culture, but in figurative-literal mode.

 

                 vi.          By way of summary:

 

Ezekiel 40-48 and the other passages in the Old Testament which describe an apparent temple and sacrificial system in the future are to be interpreted in light of the understanding that Ezekiel's readers would have had. Since their worship, prior to captivity, had centered in temple and sacrifice, the only meaningful way for Ezekiel to describe their future worship was in similar terms.

 

The temple must be taken literally as representative of the place of their future worship and the sacrifices must be taken literally as representative of the acts of their future worship.

 

As Fausset writes, "perhaps, as some think the beau-ideal of a sacred commonwealth is given according to the then-existing pattern of temple-services, which would be the imagery most familiar to the prophet and his hearers at the time." [28]

 

Buswell, who holds that significant portions of Ezekiel 40-48 refer to the new heavens and the new earth rather than to the millennium, suggests a similar interpretation.

 

It seems to me quite consistent to understand that Ezekiel, prophesying of the new heavens and the new earth, but prophesying at a time when the appropriate form of worship was the Levitical ritual, should have been given his vision in terms of that ritual, highly magnified and highly glorified. It would seem to me quite consistent to understand that just as the Passover and the sin offering are fulfilled in the Atonement, so Ezekiel’s predictions of a glorious temple with all of its ordinances will be fulfilled in the new heavens and the new earth in terms of the immediate presence of Christ, and the perfect communion and felicity of Christ with the redeemed. In the New Jerusalem, John saw no temple, not because there was none in the spiritual significance of the word, but because, as he says, 'The Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it' (Revelation 21:22). [29]

 

If the temple and sacrifices, so understood, do relate to the millennial period, they must extend on into the eternal state. The declaration to Ezekiel is that "I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever" (43:7).

 

It may be that this apocalyptic vision of Ezekiel's is parallel to that of John in Revelation 21:1-22:5.

 

While it is recognized that there are a number of differences (as well as similarities) between the two visions, if the Ezekiel material is understood as a figurative-literal presentation, the differences may not be that significant. Or, it may be, as Ralph Alexander suggests, that the similarity of the visions is because of common truths, which apply on the one hand to the millennial period and on the other to the New Jerusalem (Ezekiel, pp. 130-32).

 

At any rate, it does seem that the temple and sacrifices relate to the future earth (partially renewed during millennial times and fully renewed in the new earth) and the worship of God as an integral part of the life of the saints at that time.