#10 Ezekiel's Temple (Part 4): The Dimensions and Fixtures - Matching the Design of the Second Temple

On the list of key points that are disputed within Ezekiel's temple is the dimensions. The reason dimensions are so important to prophecies concerning the temple is the fact that there are no other blueprints for a supposed future temple other than what is found in Ezekiel 40-48. I will also touch on various temple articles in this post as I feel that they are important to the design and description of Ezekiel's vision and give a more full picture of what time this temple prophecy must have been built and fulfilled. Remember, whether an individual places this prophecy in the future or in the past will determine the fulfillment of all the other subject matters found in Ezekiel's vision and then they must be fit into an end-times scenario. Most crucial of these subject matters is the return of the animal sacrifices which ultimately betray the work of Jesus' death and resurrection (Heb. 10:18). Still, there is much growing contention from Christian communities that this passage in Ezekiel 40-48, with its temple and sacrifices, is still future. Some so-called Torah-observant groups see the return of the sacrificial system as a means to signify that we should still keep the Torah (Law of Moses) exactly how it is written in Exodus 12-Deuteronomy 34. The argument from Ezekiel 40-48, for a future temple, simply says that Ezekiel's temple is in the future because the measurements do not match any previous temples, and especially not the meager attempt made by those exiles that built the second temple. Dr. Carl Laney and John Schmitt, when referring to the measurements of Ezekiel's Temple, put it this way in their book The Messiah's Coming Temple, 

"This future temple [the one found in Ezekiel] will be grander than Solomon's Temple or Herod's Temple and will become more significant than any previous Temple." (pg.17)

Charles Dyer emphasizes this same belief in his commentary on Ezekiel's temple stating,

"The remnant that returned to Israel after the Exile [in Babylon] did not follow Ezekiel's specifications." 

Highlighting some of the confusion on the measurements that surround this temple, Thomas Coke writes in his commentary how he opts for Ezekiel's temple to be metaphor and not even literal, 

"Some make the measures of Ezekiel's temple and other things foretold so large, that the meaning cannot be literal; but I have not yet seen sufficient authority for this. Or if the measures were much larger than Solomon's temple, or that it was possible the temple should be, it might mean, not that no literal temple was intended, but that it should be a very large and spacious one, as certain numbers are put for uncertain, and hyperbolical ones for real ones."

Yet, is there any real merit to this? I have found none but I do understand the confusion on the dimensions found in Ezekiel. Let's go through some glaring examples of just how closely Ezekiel's temple lines up with the temple of the ancient past.

Comparing Apples to Apples

According to Coke, Schmitt, Laney, and Dyer what most people assume about this temple is that it is just so impressive (monetarily) and so massive that nothing has ever been compared to it in structure. But a more careful reading of the text simply proves otherwise. Laney and Schmitt admit that that there are not very many details from the second temple to compare to Ezekiel's temple. I would argue that with what little we do have we must begin our comparison there. The few instructions we are given in the Bible or outside the Bible as to the size of the second temple make the description of the second temple markedly similar to the design found in Ezekiel. Scripture only points to two verses (Ezra 6:3-4) that come in a memorandum through the king of Persia, Cyrus, and explicitly give us measurements of the second temple. These verses are of great value to the interpretation of Ezekiel's prophecy when comparing the dimensions. First, the highest height is 60 cubits in both Ezekiel's temple (Ezek. 40:14) and the second temple (Ezra 6:3). And the measurement of the inner temple, when the holy place and the holy of holies is added together, is 60 cubits long in each (cp. Ezek. 41:2b,4; Ezra 6:3). Also, both have three stories (cp. Ezek. 41:6, Ezra 6:4). One question worth pondering is how did king Cyrus know to give these same measurements unless he had a blueprint first? (I will get to this in a moment). Continuing these measurements, when compared to Solomon's temple, the highest height, stood at a colossal 120 cubits high (2 Chron. 3:4) and Herod's remodel of the second temple stood at 80 cubits high (Josephus Wars 5.5.4) both of these two temples dwarfing Ezekiel's temple in height and thereby eliminating each from the possibility of being what Ezekiel was shown. Ultimately, by simple examination of this set of measurements, we are faced with the reality that Ezekiel's temple is not much more massive and impressive than anything ever built but actually quite short and, in fact, matches the shortest temple building in Jerusalem's history, that which was built by the exiles that returned from Babylon in 536 BC. 

Who is king Cyrus?

It should be asked, how is it that the foreign king of Persia, Cyrus, could accurately designate the same measurements to the second temple and just so happen to have them be exactly the same as the ones found in Ezekiel? (cp. Ezra 6:3-4)  Cyrus was the Persian king that took control of the Babylonian empire and allowed the Israelites to be free to go home to Jerusalem and rebuilt their temple in about the year 536 BC (Ezra 1:1-4). He did this by God's stirring of his spirit (Ezra 1:1), the same spirit that God stirred up in the hearts of the faithful that would return from the Babylonian captivity and rebuild the temple (Ezra 1:5). Cyrus was not just the random king to be leading at the time, he was chosen much earlier (possibly 150 years earlier) by God to build the temple. God speaks this through the prophet Isaiah, stating,

"Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the One who formed you from the womb, I, the Lord, am the maker of all things...confirming the word of His servant, and performing the purpose of His messengers...It is I who says of Cyrus, he is My shepherd! And he will perform all My desire. And to say of Jerusalem, she will be built, and of the temple, your foundation will be laid." (Isa. 44:24-28)

 

The Move of the Spirit in Scripture

If we believe what the Scripture says, then the Spirit of God moved Cyrus, and a little while later, Darius, to decree the temple's rebuilding (cf. Ezra 1:1, 6:22). It only makes sense for the Spirit to do so in line with what the prophets had spoken previously by God's own mouth. Both Isaiah and Ezekiel had given their prophecies concerning the temple prior to Cyrus' arrival as the king of the known world. So then, why would the exiles build anything different than what their prophets had told them if they were being moved by God also? Does God's Spirit work against itself? I think not. If Cyrus is to "perform all God's desire" would Ezekiel or the exiles from Babylon then deviate from the Spirit of God and still be considered righteous in their attempts? No. What is of particular interest is the fact that Cyrus' short decree regarding the dimensions of the temple matches Ezekiel's temple measurements perfectly and without difficulty. Here is the short text from the Bible that recounts the only dimensions we have for the second temple,

"Then King Darius issued a decree, and search was made in the archives, where the treasures were stored in Babylon. And in Ecbatana in the fortress, which is in the province of Media, a scroll was found and there was written in it as follows: 'Memorandum--In the first year of King Cyrus, Cyrus the king issued a decree: The house of God in Jerusalem, let the temple, the place where sacrifices are offered, be rebuilt and let its foundations be retained, its height being 60 cubits and its width 60 cubits." (Ezra 6:3-4)

So then, if both the height and width (or length rather) are equal in Ezekiel's temple and the second temple which the exiles built, this is in line with the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel prior to their time as well as the spirit moving in the concurrent prophets of the exiles' time, Haggai and Zechariah, 

"And the elders of the Jews were successful in building through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. They finished building according to the command of the God of Israel and the decree of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia." (Ezra 6:14)

It is clear that the Scripture teaches us that God's Spirit is what moves a prophet to speak (2 Pet. 1:20-21).  If the exiles did not build what Isaiah foretold would occur under Cyrus, and what was told to be designed according to the words of Ezekiel was not what the exiles built, then there would be no reason to announce the success of the building of the second temple according to Haggai and Zechariah because this would proclaim that there were two different spirits at work; one from Isaiah and Ezekiel and a different one through Haggai and Zechariah which guided the exiles to build something that God did not intend previously through Cyrus king of Persia. But the Scripture is quite clear that what the exiles from Babylon began building in 536 BC was indeed what God wanted and He even called it "My house" (Hag. 1:9) and "the house of the Lord" (Hag. 1:2, 14, Zech. 6:12) and that it was built according to the Spirit of God, thereby proving Zechariah to be a true prophet as well,

"This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel saying, 'Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit', says the Lord of hosts. What are you, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you will become a plain; and he will bring forth the top stone with shouts of 'Grace, grace to it!'...The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house, and his hands will finish it. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent me (i.e. Zechariah the prophet) to you." (Zech. 4:6,7,9)

To put it in different terms, if the exiles built something different than what Ezekiel had previously laid out then they either did not believe him to be a prophet or else they were disobedient in their attempts. I could hardly imagine that they would undertake such a great work as the construction of a temple for the God of the universe only to have it be found sinfully different than what He said would be the design. The truth is that they were not rebellious or disobedient and that is why the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah are all included in our Bibles today! 

Some Further Comparisons: Ezekiel's Temple is Not More Glorious than Solomon's; Ezekiel's Temple is the Second Temple

    Remember that the future temple belief is that Ezekiel's temple is so much more glorious than any other temple in history and that is why it is yet to be fulfilled. Yet, we can take note of some other lesser glorious features regarding Ezekiel's temple, and by lesser glorious we are speaking of monetary value and sacredness. Let's compare Ezekiel's temple to previous temples of Jerusalem. The fact is that the most prized artifact of the temple, the Ark of the Covenant, is not mentioned anywhere in Ezekiel's description. The Ark of the Covenant was said to be the very name of God and the place where He would be enthroned (2 Sam. 6:2). Unlike Solomon's temple and the tabernacle of Moses, which both had previously housed this most important relic, Ezekiel's temple is shown to be less in grandeur than both of these without the valued and sacred Ark of the Covenant. What is more suggestive is that the second temple aligns with Ezekiel's temple in this feature and it too did not have the Ark of the Covenant just as Jeremiah prophesied would be the case, that it would never be made again (Jer. 3:16) following the attack and destruction of Solomon's first temple in 586 BC. 

Additional costly and sacred implements that found their place in the tabernacle of Moses and the first temple of Solomon but did not find their place in Ezekiel's temple vision include: the bronzed laver, the lampstand (Menorah), the golden altar of incense, the veil between the holy place and the most holy place, and the Urim and Thummim by which priests apparently cast lots. Also, by comparison, Solomon's temple had two pure bronze pillars that measured nearly 27 feet tall (aka Boaz and Yachin, 18 cubits; 1 Kings 7:15-22) whereas Ezekiel's temple only has 7.5 foot pillars (5 cubits; Ezek. 40:48). All of these missing or less costly articles from the temple of Ezekiel certainly must have presumed a less beautiful and less glorious temple than that of Solomon's first temple. It simply cannot be stated that Ezekiel's temple is more grand and glorious than all other temple prior in history as Laney and Schmitt purpose, yet this is what many have confessed. Still, the lack in Ezekiel's temple does not end here and the lack proves further that the identity of Ezekiel's temple was in fact the second temple.

The Altar of Burnt Offerings (Azurah)

Most indicative of a past fulfillment of Ezekiel's temple is the size and value of the altar of animal sacrifice. In 1 Kings 6:31-35 we are told that the altar for offerings in Solomon's first temple was completely "overlaid with gold" yet Ezekiel's temple is simply made "of wood" (Ezek 41:22-26). This same altar of sacrifice is larger in Solomon's temple than it was in Ezekiel. Solomon's temple measures at 20 by 20 cubits (2 Chron. 4:1) whereas Ezekiel's is smaller at 15 by 15 cubits (Ezek. 43:15-17) and according to Josephus was the size of the altar of the second temple (Wars 5.5.6), another striking similarity between the second temple and Ezekiel's vision. 

Laney and Schmitt state that the supposed future temple of Ezekiel is to "be the future center for world government." (pg. 17) It should thereby be noted that if Ezekiel's temple is supposed to accommodate a larger number of sacrifices in the future, due to the dramatic increase in world population since the days of previous temples, that a larger altar for those sacrifices would be of utmost necessity. Yet, opposing this future view is the size of the altar in Ezekiel, which is not larger than Solomon's first temple but rather smaller, thereby indicating a smaller number of sacrifices and smaller number of 'sacrificers' that would present their offerings. Not exactly a center for world government. Additionally, the demonstration that Solomon's temple altar was not even large enough to host the sacrifices offered in Solomon's day (1 Kings 8:64, 2 Chron. 7:7) should warrant a larger scale altar if the nations are to come up to sacrifice at this altar in the future (Zech. 14:14). One must wonder at the size of this altar in Ezekiel, if this is the centerpiece for the temple worship, why is it so small in Ezekiel? The square footage of Ezekiel's altar is only 56% the size of Solomon's previously built altar and would be even less than this if the surrounding base and foundation were removed from its calculation (only 49 %). This element of dimensions cannot be overlooked. It does not picture a world-center but rather a localized-center of worship. The altar size of Ezekiel's temple would be a critical fail at festivals and high days (Ezek. 46:9-11) if the entire world was supposed to make this trek to offer their animal sacrifices.

Rabbi Leibel Reznick, author of Mystery of Bar Kochba, believed that an attempt had been made to rebuild a temple during the days of a false Messiah named Shimon Bar Kochba in the 2nd century AD. In his attempt to prove this, he unearthed the dimensions of a raised platform known as the Azurah (Altar of burnt offerings; Ezek. 43:14-20) which he measured to be the exact dimensions that are found in Ezekiel. He equated his findings to be an attempt made by Jews in the second century AD to rebuild the temple under a false Messiah, Bar Kochba, but this is entirely unfounded and unhistorical. It is therefore much more likely that this finding applied to the second temple and therefore identifies the Azurah of Ezekiel's temple as one in the same with the Azurah in the second temple. Even if one could not agree that this was part of the second temple, it must be agreed upon that another dimension of Ezekiel's temple is a construct of a time in the past, not future.

The Size of Jerusalem in Ezekiel the Same as the Second Temple

We are told in Ezek. 48:16-17 that the city, with its bordering open spaces, in which Ezekiel's temple was to be enclosed was to be 5,000 by 5,000 cubits (20,000 cubits round about). The landscape during the previous days of Solomon's first temple did not expand to this distance and is one reason that many have suggested that Ezekiel's temple is therefore much greater than Solomon's and that the second temple also must not have stretched this far. But this is not accurate. According to Josephus, we are told that Alexander the Great measured the size of Jerusalem to be about 50 furlongs in circumference (22,000 cubits, Ag. Apion 1.22; see also Aristeas "40 furlongs though some conjecture" 17,600 cubits; m. Sotah 5:3 '2,000 cubits on each side from the city'). This is an amazing similarity between Ezekiel's dimensions and what the exiles must have seen. Alexander lived from 356 BC to 323 BC and would only have seen the second temple very close to its form the way the exiles did. This, then, perfectly fits together the dimensions of Ezekiel's temple and the second temple boundaries of Jerusalem and is another significant factor in identifying the second temple as a fulfillment of Ezekiel's vision based on dimensions.

The Only Controversial Dimension and Controversial Passage (Ezek. 42:16-20) - measuring in cubits or reeds?

After all the comparisons we have made regarding what can be found in Scripture, or in history, or in archaeology, there is really only one written passage that future temple supporters use to bolster their claim that Ezekiel's temple is much larger than all other temples in Jerusalem, that is Ezekiel 42:16-20. We find this debate even more developed in Jewish beliefs. Chabad, a strict form of modern Judaism, cites their remarks concerning Ezekiel's temple. They state,

"The Third Temple will be many times larger than the previous two Temples. For example, the area set aside for the Second Temple complex, or what is known as the Temple Mount, was 500 by 500 cubits... In the Third Temple, it will be 3,000 by 3,000 cubits—i.e., it will be 36 times larger, or 9,000,000 square cubits (approx. 22,325,625 square feet or 512.5 acres; cf. Ezek. 42:20)!" (chabad.org, 4 Unique Characteristics of the Third Temple)

This comment on the passage from Ezekiel 42 measures the outer walls of the holy portion of the temple courts and separates between the holiness of the temple and the commonness of outside life (Ezek. 42:20). The more full passage of Ezekiel 42:16-20 does indeed use "reeds" (1 reed = about 10.5 feet) in the text suggesting a much larger than life measurement of the "holy portion" (3,000 x 3,000 cubits; or about 5,000 x 5,000 ft.). Yet, many translators, both Christian and Jewish, have found this translation to be obscure and not fitting to the measurements of the context of other passages in Scripture and the immediate context of Ezekiel. Ezekiel 43:12 stipulates that this 500 x 500 allotment will sit within the "entire boundary at the head of the mountain", something that could never be meted out atop "the head" of any mountain in Israel. Translators have purposed differently for the unit of measurement in this passage to be "cubits according to the reed" (about 19-21 inches per cubit; 1/6 of a "reed") rather than "reeds", but the question is why? When there is no mention of cubits in the Hebrew text??? To understand their conclusion, we will need to first take note of these translations of Ezek. 42:16-17,

"He measured the east side with the measuring reed, five hundred cubits by the measuring reed." (RSV)

"He measured the east side with the measuring reed, 500 cubits by the measuring reed all around. He measured the north side, 500 cubits by the measuring reed all around." (ESV)

 "He measured the east side with a measuring rod; it was 875 feet (equivalent to 500 cubits) by the measuring rod (reed)." (CSB)

"And he stood behind the gate that looks to the east and measured five hundred by the measuring reed, and he turned toward the north and measure the part facing the north, 500 cubits with the measuring reed." (Septuagint, Greek Version)

Aside from Christian and Greek Bible translations, even the prized Jewish Publication Society's (JPS) translation avoids the literal rendering of the Hebrew and assumes that the measurement is in cubits, it translates it this way,

"And he measured off the entire area. He measured the east side with the measuring rod, 500 [cubits] - in rods, by the measuring rod...Thus he measured it on the gour sides; it had a wall completely surrounding it, 500 [cubits] long on each side... (JPS, Ezek. 42:16,20) 

Note that these translations do not remove the use of the word "reed" from the text but impute the implied unit of measurement, cubits, into the text as the entirety of the passage concerning Ezekiel's temple purposes. The rendering of cubits (about 19-21 inches per cubit) rather than the use of reeds (about 10 feet per reed) in these translations is due to the fact that aside from the outer wall, all other features of Ezekiel's temple are measured in cubits and the reed is only used as a measuring stick, as a yard stick is still used to measure feet. We find a clear example of this in Ezek. 40:8-9 which states,

"Then he measured the porch of the gate from the house (i.e. temple), one reed. And he measure the porch of the gate, eight cubits..." 

The question should be asked, how does Ezekiel come to measure eight cubits here when the reed is said to be six cubits and a handbreadth in the verses just previous? Why does is not say one and a third reeds is the measurement of the porch of the gate? Also, why does the measurement of the gate seem to change from 6 cubits (one reed) to eight cubits in the very next verse? It should begin to come clear that Ezekiel doesn't intend to measure anything in this temple vision in number of reeds but only in cubits. This is also demonstrated in Ezek. 41:8 where the use of the reed is employed but the final measurement is in cubits (6 cubits). Similarly, this is how the Elephantine papyri implies the use of the reed, still like our yardstick stating, 

"half of the large room and its chamber was: from above to below, 11 cubits by the measuring reed; in width, cubits from east to west, 7 cubits and 1 handbreadth by the measuring reed" (Papyrus B38)

Notice, here, that the reed is measuring device but the measurements of 11 cubits and 7 cubits is the resulting measurement with that same device. And, Revelation 21:16-17 sees the use of the reed the same way to measure both stadia (Greek measurement) and cubits (Hebrew measurement),

"and he measured the city with the reed, 12,000 stadia...and he measured its wall, 144 cubits..."

Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls utilizes this same method similar to our yardstick when comparing the use of a reed, in the New Jerusalem text we read:

"He measured the middle street in the middle of the city. Its width was thirteen reeds and one cubit, that is ninety-two cubits." (4Q554 Frag. 2 Col. 2 line 21-22)

Again, the final measurement is in cubits, not reeds even though the reed is incorporated into the text as a measuring tool that had units of measurement, cubits, marked out incrementally on it. Additionally, it is interesting that the Gemara Tractate Eruvin 58a makes it clear that only the gates of Ezekiel's temple were measured using the reed as the unit of measurement while the rest of Ezekiel's temple was to be measured in cubits stating, "But isn't it written, 'And in the man's hand was a measuring reed'? That refers only to measuring the gates." This statement implies that from a Jewish interpretation of Ezekiel's temple that the whole rest of the temple passage in Ezek. 40-48 (aside from the gates in chapter 40) is only measured in cubits not reeds. This would also address our quandary of why there is a discrepancy between translators over Ezek. 42:16-20.

Ezekiel 45:2 - a clarifying parallel passage

Repeating the original question, if reeds are clearly used in the text and there is no mention of cubits, why do many translations use cubits? The answer can be found by closely examining the parallel passage of Ezek. 45:2. Ezek. 45:2 measures this same area of land as 42:16-20, our text under consideration. Yet, most translators understand that cubits is the units of measurement here and even contradict there previous translation of Ezek. 42:16-20. Of the most common Bible translations, only the New King James Version (NKJV) still utilizes reeds in 45:1-7 to keep the effect of a colossal sized holy portion in Ezek. 42:16-20 (yet without consideration for the extended context. This is not an accurate translation here). Furthermore, while the NASB translates 42:16-20 with reeds, it openly cross-references 45:2 as the same measurement and instead has inserted cubits in 45:2 because the surrounding context requires it. The Hebrew in 45:2 does not state any units of measurement in regards to this portion of land. It is the surrounding context of Ezek. 45 that requires the use of cubits to measure this "holy portion. The use of a cubit as the unit of measurement is about 1/6 the size of that of the reed. When cubits are applied to these two passages (Ezek. 42:16-20 and 45:2) it suggests that the outer walls fits nicely within the temple boundaries of the ancient past and, more specifically, the second temple, thus the reason for many translators using the smaller measurement of cubits in Ezek. 42:16-20 rather than the larger reeds. Alternatively, if the reed is used as the unit of measurement here in both of these passages then it forces an unworkable boundary line for the surrounding land distributions, nearly eliminating the Prince's portion mentioned in Ezek. 45:7 and 48:21-22. Here are some images that make this more clear,

 

The corresponding passage in Ezekiel 45:2 does not give us any unit of measurement. In the Hebrew, it simply states "Out of this there shall be for the holy place a square round about 500 by 500..." At first glance, this passage could still have either reeds or cubits used for its measurement. The clarity of this passage is that the unit of measurement must be consistent, in both the verse before and after 45:2. This is the surrounding context and the determining factor in being consistent in the interpretation. The understanding of what unit of measurement to use in this passage is that 45:1-7, the surrounding context, must require cubits as their unit of measurement and therefore 45:2 must also use cubits.  In other words, if the surrounding context of Ezek. 45 must use cubits as the unit of measurement then so too should 45:2, and by further logic 42:16-20 should also be understood as using cubits because both are measuring the same thing. 

The Importance of the Surrounding Context of Ezek. 45:1-7 - Being Consistent

Follow this line of reasoning for the moment, in Ezekiel 45:1-7 we read that the square surrounding the holy city Jerusalem is allotted a priestly portion of 25,000 by 10,000 (with no unit of measurement) and is placed precisely in the middle of the prince's portion of 25,000 by 10,000 (with no unit of measurement) split evenly on both sides of the priest's portion. In addition to this, the holy portion (including the allotment for the priests and the prince) includes an area for the Levites, and an additional area for the city squares. All in total, the distance of this holy portion (25,000 x 25,000; cf. 48:20), which includes our verses under consideration (45:2, 42:16-20), if measured in reeds, would go far beyond the borders of Israel which are marked out clearly for us in the context of Ezek. 47:17-20. Additionally, a measurement in reeds defies the warning to the prince not to obtain too much land but rather give it to the tribes (Ezek. 45:8-9). A measurement in reeds would mean that the prince would own roughly 14.3% of the entire nation all to himself. Yet, if cubits are used there is no problem fitting these measurements into the entire rest of the context of Ezekiel's temple and land distributions, thereby making the case that the second temple was actually the fulfillment of this vision, according to the dimensions. We are to be certain that the surrounding context of Ezekiel 45:1-7 necessitates the use of cubits as the unit of measurement and by implication so must Ezek. 45:2 and 42:16-20. This is the reason many translations took the liberty to translate the measurements in Ezekiel 42:16-20 as "500 cubits, according to the reed" rather than just "500 reeds". It is interesting that nearly all Bible translations which use reeds as a unit of measurement in 42:16-20 are forced to change this unit of measurement in 45:2 to cubits because they know that it will not fit within the boundaries given by Ezekiel nor a consistent interpretation of Scripture. As Thomas Ice and Randall Price note that this holy portion fits nicely on the temple mount if measured in cubits, 

"Orthodox Judaism had maintained that the Temple Mount is off-limits to everyone, Jew and non-Jew, because of its sanctity. But as the Society for the Preparation of the Temple points out, based on Ezekiel's measurements, this restriction applies only to a Temple precinct 500 cubits by 500 cubits, and since the Temple Mount platform is about four times that size, it is possible to visit the Temple Mount without trespassing on the Holy of Holies and violation of rabbinical law."

So then, if translators waver on the unit of measurement and authorities require cubits and if all of the surrounding context of Ezek. 45:1-7 must use cubits, then Ezek. 42:16-20 must also use cubits.

The Talmud Speaks  

As we would expect in the Talmud and other Jewish sources, there are notions of rebuilding the third temple in the future but they are scant and entirely lack any context. One such passage is found in tractate Nazir 32b which alludes to the building of a future temple based on the statement made by Jeremiah in Jer. 7:4 which quotes Jeremiah three times saying "the Temple of the Lord". Problematic to this interpretation is that Jeremiah is rebuking the people of his own generation and it only applied to that temple which was standing before them (ie. Solomon's Temple). 

What is more pertinent to a discussion on the measurements of Ezekiel's temple and the timing of its fulfillment is the repeated statements from the Babylonian Talmud that give contextual clues. Jewish author Tova Ganzel states regarding Talmudic references to Ezekiel's temple measurements,

"It sometimes appears that the authors of the Mishnah (Talmudic Law) believed that the temple plan described in Ezekiel had already been realized in the Second Temple. For example, the Mishnah quotes Ezekiel's descriptions of doorways, wickets, and the altar (Middot 4:1-2, 3:1) as referring to the past tense." (Ezekiel: From Destruction to Restoration, pg. 472)

Without negating context, let's take a look at the references from the Talmud that give the student an idea of when Ezekiel's temple is. We will not spend time on ambiguous passages that are not clearly indicating either a past or a future timing of Ezekiel's temple fulfillment, such as is found in tractate Eruvin 2a which is more concerned with how sanctity differs as one moves in and around the temple. Instead, I will highlight those passages that indicate some sort of past or future dating or timing. I will comment on these passages to center the reader on the pertinent information in the text. Here is our first passage:

"For we have learned in the Mishnah: All the walls which were there were high, except the eastern wall [of the temple mount] [cf. Ezek. 40:5]" (b. Yoma 16a)

This passage of the Mishnah is surrounded by a conversation regarding the Second Temple, it identifies the measurement of the eastern wall of the Second Temple to be the same as the one found in Ezek. 40:5. Additionally, if one wanted to argue against the context of the conversation, they would still need to examine the tenses of this statement which says "the walls which were there were high". Thus, this indicates a past construction of the walls. 

In the Talmud we read that there was much confusion on the exact dimensions of Solomon's, Zerubbabel's (2nd Temple), and Herod's additions to that 2nd Temple. Still, we do have preserved some dimensions that tell us that the measurements which Ezekiel used had been followed in past construction. In Ezek. 41:13 we are told that the temple precinct (with its separate area, building, and walls) was to measure 100 cubits x 100 cubits. According to the Talmud, this was larger than Solomon's temple area and yet it matches what was seen during the days of Herod's temple and probably matches what was seen in the second temple. It states,

"We have learned in the Mishnah: And the sanctuary [including the porch and the holy of holies] was a hundred cubits by a hundred cubits..." (b. Yoma 52a)

The fact that dimensions found in Yoma 52a match a past structure adds further insight into correlating the data of Ezekiel's temple to the 2nd temple.  Moving on,

"The table of the sanctuary was exceptional, since the All-Merciful classified it as wood; 'The altar was of wood, three cubits high, and the length was two cubits, and the corners and the length and walls were of wood, and he said to me, this is the table that is before the Lord' (Ezek. 41:22). This verse comments with the altar and ends up with the table! Both R. Yohanan and R. Eleazar said, 'When the house of the sanctuary stood, the altar atoned for a person, but now that the house of the sanctuary no longer is standing, a person's table atones for him.'" (b. Hagigah 27a)

Here, the passage speaks of an altar that atoned (in the past) for a person. The altar being referred to is the one found conspicuously in Ezek. 41:22. The commentary from two rabbis who both lived shortly after the destruction of Herod's temple also share these sentiments and speak of a temple which once stood and apparently housed the altar spoken of in Ezek. 41. On to the next,

"Said R. Abbahu, 'What is the scriptural basis for the position of Rabbi? It is written, "And the altar shall be four cubits, and from the altar upward there shall be four horns" [Ezek. 43:15].' But was the altar only four cubits in size?" (b. Zebahim 53a)

We find here a reference to the height of the altar which is considered to be in the past and built according to the dimensions found in Ezek. 43:15. While the questioning against this view is given in the statement "it was much larger than that", it should be understood that Ezekiel envisioned five components that made up the total height of the altar somewhere around 15 cubits high when the horns of the altar were added to the height (cf. Josephus Wars 5.5.6; Ezek. 43:13-17). What is spoken of here in this Talmudic discussion is only speaking of one segment of that whole (see picture below), the altar hearth, did stand at only 4 cubits according to the dimensions given in Ezekiel 43:15 and was constructed, apparently, prior to the time of this discussion. Thus, the Second Temple is what is being indicated as the fulfillment of Ezekiel's vision. 

Following this dissection of the measurements of the altar, we come to a comment in the Mishnah that clearly identifies the altar of Ezekiel to be that of the Second Temple built by the exiles from Babylon. It shares this,

"But when the men of the Exile came up, they added four cubits at the south and four cubits at the west, in the shape of a gamma, [since it is said, 'And the altar hearth shall be twelve cubits long by 12 cubits broad, square' (Ezek. 43:16)" (b. Zebahim 61b) 

While this conversation in the Mishnah becomes more and more convoluted with questions and suggestions, it is clear that Ezekiel's construct was a thing of the past.

Interestingly, in trying to decipher which elements of the temple were measured by the ordinary cubit and which were measured by a longer "royal cubit" the Talmud voices their opinions based on Ezek. 43:13. Their comments are preserved this way,

"R. Meir says, 'All the cubit [measures] were middle sized, except for the golden altar and the horns and the circuit and the base [of the altar].' R. Judah says,'The cubit of building was six handbreadths and of utensils five.' Said R. Yohanan, 'Both of them interpret the same verse of Scripture: "And these are the measures of the altar by cubits - the cubit is a cubit and a handbreath (Ezek. 43:13)." (b. Menachot 97a)

This may seem obscure but the tenses of when and where this longer/shorter cubit was to be understood is in the past tense (see highlighted above). These men viewed that the cubit measurement had come from a past construction from which they drew their comments, that source is Ezekiel and thereby implies that Ezekiel's construction had already been implemented prior to the time of the writing of the Talmud.

In the continued discussion of Ezek. 43:13, the redactors of the Talmud make the comparison of their most recent temple built by Herod and situate Ezekiel's measurements within that temple, stating,

"The courtyard [of the Temple, from the Israelite courtyard onward] in all was one hundred eighty-seven cubits in length by one hundred thirty-five in breadth. From east to west [the length] was one hundred eighty-seven: the area trodden by Israelites, eleven cubits, the area trodden by priests, eleven cubits, the altar, thirty-two, the area between the porch and the altar, twenty two cubits, the sanctuary, a hundred cubits, and eleven cubits behind the place of the Mercy Seat [M. Mid. 5:1]. So you must conclude as follows: [Therefore this is how the passage has to be interpreted:] “The bottom shall be a cubit, and a cubit the breadth, and the border thereof by the edge thereof round about a span, and this shall be the base of the altar” (Ez. 43:13)" (b. Menachot 97b)

The connection of past tenses ("was"; referring to either the 2nd Temple or Herod's Temple) to the interpretation of Ezek. 43:13 ("So you must conclude as follows") clearly indicates that the measurement of Ezek. 43:13 was used in the past temple. 

A subject of concern for many living shortly after the destruction of the Temple was how does one atone for sin when there is no longer a Temple in place? The Talmud presents this topic and attaches a support for atonement without a Temple by practicing table fellowship. In the midst of that discussion, a reference is made to a time when the Temple once stood and the altar of Ezekiel's temple used to atone for sin but that now, after the destruction of that altar, table fellowship would atone. It states,

"For it is written, “The altar of wood three cubits high … and he said to me, This is the table that is before the Lord” (Ez. 41:22). The verse begins by referring to the altar and concludes by referring to a table. Both R. Yohanan and R. Eleazar say, “So long as the house of the sanctuary stood, the altar atoned for Israel. Now a person’s table atones for him.” (b. Berachot 55a)

What is poignant for our search is the fact that the altar mentioned in this text is one from the past and furthermore it is specifically identified as the altar belonging to the temple of Ezekiel. Even though the practice of table fellowship making atonement is not what Ezekiel was getting at, it cannot be mistaken that the Talmudists reference Ezekiel's altar as one from the past. 

Weights and Measures

In determining the correct measurement for the 'mina' in Ezek. 45:12 we are confronted with a difficult interpretation of the equivalency of the shekel to the mina. This passage reads,

"And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, twenty-five shekels, and fifteen shekels shall be your mina."

The writers of the Talmud sought to align themselves with just such a mandate and but question what was to be followed prior to their day about the equivalency of the mina to the shekel. We read,

"Rather, said R. Hisda, “Samuel identified a verse of Scripture and interpreted it, ‘And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs, twenty sheqels, twenty-five sheqels, ten and five sheqels shall be your mina’ (Ez. 45:12). Now was the mina to be two hundred forty denars?" (b. Menahot 77a; also b. Bekhorot 5a-b)

It is interesting that even the Talmudic conversation refers to a time prior to their day in which would have beheld the true equivalence of the shekel to the mina. The use of the past tense ("was", above in bold) should imply to us that these measurements of the shekel and mina had better clarity in the past. In short, the fact is that minas have fallen out of use today (and have not been used in over a millennia) is another proof to connect Ezekiel's temple to the past. And we should note that the wrangling over Ezek. 45:12 by the ancient Talmudic writers to apply it to their current situation points us in the direction of a past law regarding weights and measures, not a future one. This supplies yet another evidence that Ezekiel's Temple was built in the past. 

A Comparison of Jeremiah's "Forever" Temple

According to the future temple view, Ezekiel's temple is to exist "forever" (see Ezek. 43:7) and they also advocate this temple to be so much larger than any other temple built in times past. But this does not take into consideration that Jeremiah also speaks of a temple existing "forever" but gives the exact boundaries of that temple identical to the boundaries that are recorded in Nehemiah as pertaining to the second temple which was built by the exiles who returned from Babylon. If both the temple mentioned in Ezekiel and the one mentioned in Jeremiah are said to last "forever" then should we not understand them to be the same structure??? Let us compare what Jeremiah 31:38-40 states are the boundaries of this "forever" temple and see how they match up with Nehemiah's second temple construction,

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when the city will be rebuilt for the Lord from the Tower of Hananel, the Corner Gate. The measuring line will go out farther straight ahead, to the hill Gareb; then it will turn to Goah. And the entire valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the brook Kidron to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the Lord; it will not be uprooted or overthrown anymore forever.”

Three key landmarks are mentioned as boundaries in Jeremiah's "forever" temple: (1) Tower of Hananel, (2) Brook Kidron, and (3) Horse Gate. Each of these boundaries are part of the construction of the city walls which the returning exiles rebuilt under Nehemiah; 

Tower of Hananel - Neh. 3:1 - "Then Eliashib the high priest arose with his brothers the priests...they consecrated the wall to the Tower of the Hundred and the Tower of Hananel."

Corner Gate - 2 Chron. 26:9 - "Moreover, Uzziah built towers in Jerusalem at the Corner Gate and at the Valley Gate and at the corner buttress and fortified them."

Brook Kidron - Neh. 2:15 - "Then I went up in the night by the brook Kidron, and viewed the wall, and turned back, and entered by the gate of the valley, and so returned."

Horse Gate - Neh. 3:28 - "Above the Horse Gate the priests carried out repairs, each in front of his house."

It is clear than when Nehemiah built the walls of the city, he followed the measurements of a temple proclaimed by prophets before him. Jeremiah and Ezekiel did not speak of different temples and Nehemiah did not construct anything differently than what they had foretold. Therefore, if Ezekiel and Jeremiah both speak of this latter-day temple as existing "forever" and Jeremiah gave exact landmarks for the dimensions of that temple to be within the confines of the second temple which Nehemiah followed in constructing the walls of the second temple, then we must also believe that Ezekiel's temple is not larger than temples built in the past but rather an exact match to the second temple. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, this leaves no room to believe that Ezekiel's temple or its surrounding walls and gates is something larger than what has ever been built in Jerusalem. It should be understood that the dimensions speak to the effect that Ezekiel's dimensions fit the second temple and its surroundings like a glove. As those from the Dead Sea Scrolls community saw the second temple, they believed fully that it was built to the specifications of Ezekiel's dimensions,

"And although they had wallowed in the sin of humanity and in impure ways and said, "Surely this is our business," God in His mysterious ways atoned for their iniquity and forgave their transgression. So He built for them a faithful house in Israel...as God promised them by Ezekiel."

The reason this topic regarding dimensions is so vital is that Ezekiel's temple is the only blueprint that can be found within Scripture from which future generations could possibly draw up a design to build a temple. If this blueprint has already come to be designed and built, there are no future dimensions for a temple and the claim by some that a return to animal sacrifices and the fullness of the Law of Moses (Torah) is on the horizon is simply not true. The end of the ancient sacrificial system has already come and therefore nearly 40% of the Torah is found wanting. As our Lord and Savior put it when speaking to the Samaritan woman, "an hour is coming when neither in this mountain (Mt. Gerizim), nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father." So then, how and why Christians are now allowing this heinous doctrine into their teachings and beliefs is to diminish Jesus' human sacrifice and atonement for our sins which the animal sacrifices only foreshadowed. To believe that there is a need for such things as animal sacrifices and therefore a full return to Torah today, after we have gone through nearly 2,000 years of history without them, is a spirit of religion and not the relationship with Christ that we are called to through His atoning work. This spirit of religion is  "Judaizing" in its modern form, a subtle but impacting return to Judaism and the denial of Christ. How long must humanity go on without a temple and the fullness of the Torah before we understand that they will never again return? Please feel free to leave any comments or questions here. If you are looking for additional information, please visit my YouTube channel Temple Truth. Thank you and God bless!

What's Up Next...

Regarding Ezekiel's temple, we have covered the effects of the role of Ezekiel, the ending of the Levitical priesthood, and the dimensions. All of these things eliminate the possibility of Ezekiel's temple being anticipated in the future and even shut the door on this debate altogether. Still, other subject matters must be addressed to make this passage of Ezekiel 40-48 understandable and fulfilled. Up next, we will examine the so-called "eternal" Presence of God in the second temple, the faithfulness of God in an unbelieving atmosphere, and how this points us once again back to Christ Jesus our Lord.