This is just a thought to be tested: not a conclusion.
Moses & David were both shown the pattern of the tabernacle/temple in a vision by the Spirit - but when the tabernacle & temple were built, they didn't both look exactly the same as the other.
Assuming Moses and David were both shown the same pattern (which admittedly may or may not have been the case), it could mean that what was shown in vision-form may or may not necessarily have been exactly what a tabernacle or temple should look like after one was actually built.
So, Ezekiel's vision of a temple may or may not have meant that a temple, after it was built, could only look one way.
After all, Ezekiel only described his vision - unlike Moses and David who didn't describe their vision but rather, beyond that, they gave plain instructions about how the tabernacle or temple should be built. Moses even gave those instructions in straight prose. Moses was given those building-instructions by God, in addition to just being shown a vision. Then he gave those instructions to the people. But he didn't tell them all about the vision he'd seen. Ezekiel on the other hand didn't say that in addition to seeing a vision he was also given instructions to give to the Jews concerning the temple they were to build: Ezekiel only described what he saw, and no more. Except to say that the vision he was telling the Jews about was intended to inspire them to take courage and rebuild a temple and get the Levitical system up and running again. Which they did.
Moses and David both gave specific building-instructions. Ezekiel didn't do that: he merely described his vision. Moses and David didn't describe their visions. And it is the nature of visions that they might or might not require a certain amount of interpretation. But direct building-instructions don't require interpretation in the same way that a vision might.
We do know a temple was built, following Ezekiel sharing his vision. We don't know what it looked like. So we can't measure what was built, with certainty against what Ezekiel described seeing in his vision. We can't do that.
But it probably didn't look quite as grandiose as what Ezekiel saw in his vision. But it might or might not have been necessary to see a temple built to a description exactly fitting Ezekiel's vision, in order to say that the intent for which Ezekiel described his vision to the Jews of the captivity period had been carried out.
Other details in Ezekiel's prophecies had more transcending implications. Like God's presence and throne coming to dwell with Israel forever and ever. And a river bringing death to life all over the world. Statements like that in Ezekiel fuelled a yearning in Jews of the inter-testament period for more. It was like the captivity wasn't yet fully over.
It was in a world where Israel had that yearning, that the gospel began.
Moses & David were both shown the pattern of the tabernacle/temple in a vision by the Spirit - but when the tabernacle & temple were built, they didn't both look exactly the same as the other.
Assuming Moses and David were both shown the same pattern (which admittedly may or may not have been the case), it could mean that what was shown in vision-form may or may not necessarily have been exactly what a tabernacle or temple should look like after one was actually built.
So, Ezekiel's vision of a temple may or may not have meant that a temple, after it was built, could only look one way.
After all, Ezekiel only described his vision - unlike Moses and David who didn't describe their vision but rather, beyond that, they gave plain instructions about how the tabernacle or temple should be built. Moses even gave those instructions in straight prose. Moses was given those building-instructions by God, in addition to just being shown a vision. Then he gave those instructions to the people. But he didn't tell them all about the vision he'd seen. Ezekiel on the other hand didn't say that in addition to seeing a vision he was also given instructions to give to the Jews concerning the temple they were to build: Ezekiel only described what he saw, and no more. Except to say that the vision he was telling the Jews about was intended to inspire them to take courage and rebuild a temple and get the Levitical system up and running again. Which they did.
Moses and David both gave specific building-instructions. Ezekiel didn't do that: he merely described his vision. Moses and David didn't describe their visions. And it is the nature of visions that they might or might not require a certain amount of interpretation. But direct building-instructions don't require interpretation in the same way that a vision might.
We do know a temple was built, following Ezekiel sharing his vision. We don't know what it looked like. So we can't measure what was built, with certainty against what Ezekiel described seeing in his vision. We can't do that.
But it probably didn't look quite as grandiose as what Ezekiel saw in his vision. But it might or might not have been necessary to see a temple built to a description exactly fitting Ezekiel's vision, in order to say that the intent for which Ezekiel described his vision to the Jews of the captivity period had been carried out.
Other details in Ezekiel's prophecies had more transcending implications. Like God's presence and throne coming to dwell with Israel forever and ever. And a river bringing death to life all over the world. Statements like that in Ezekiel fuelled a yearning in Jews of the inter-testament period for more. It was like the captivity wasn't yet fully over.
It was in a world where Israel had that yearning, that the gospel began.
No comments:
Post a Comment