One of the interesting points that came up in today’s discussion in the Prophet’s class was the vision which Ezekiel saw of the glory or presence of God leaving the Temple in Ezekiel ch 10. The vision creates a problem as it can be seen as similar to the concept in Hinduism and other similar faiths where God is seen as residing in a physical space. In contrast the Jewish faith always saw God as beyond boundaries, and so the prophets proclaimed God’s judgement on the nations outside Israel as they saw as God ruling over the whole universe.
The Temple was where God met Israel, but was not the residence of Yahweh. So how do we interpret this vision of Ezekiel?
My preference is not to see the vision of Ch. 10 as depicting the departure of Yahweh from the Temple, but rather from Israel. So it is a vision of Yahweh breaking His relationship with Israel and departing, leaving Israel in exile.
The obvious difficulty with this is that Yahweh has promised in the various prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah of the restoration of Israel and so Yahweh had not departed from Israel!
My understanding is that the promises of restoration speak not only of the Israelites but also the Gentiles coming to the restored Israel and this refers to the Church and not the nation of Israel. So the Temple of Ezekiel 40-48 is the New Israel, the church, and the return of Yahweh to the Temple in chapter 43 is Yahweh establishing a new relationship with the new Israel, the Church.
Those who prefer to see Ezekiel 40-48 as a picture of the restoration of the nation of Israel at the time of Cyrus would find it difficult to explain why many of the promises were not fulfilled at that time. The same is true of the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah on the restoration of Israel as they were only partially fulfilled at the time of Cyrus. These promises are fulfilled only in Christ and so we need to see the restoration of Israel as the New Testament Church.
God was never seen as limited to the temple... but in I King 8 at the dedication of the temple, Solomon while acknowledging that the temple cannot contain God does ask that God answer prayers made in the temple and generally make the temple special. So God leaving the temple could just signify the breaking of that covenant isn't it?
ReplyDeleteGood perspective. If I understand you, the departure does not show God physically leaving the Temple, but leaving His promise to answer prayers made at the Temple. And the return of Ch 43? What do you think that signifies? I still prefer the idea of breaking with Israel and then making a new covenant with the Church.
ReplyDeleteI didn't get time to read much of Ezekiel this week.... but isn't the passage about the return in the context of the setting up of a new temple if the people repent etc? In which case it symbolises the setting up of a new covenant... which could be interpreted as the new covenant with the church i suppose....
ReplyDelete