1.Solomon’s Temple. No, the architectural details don’t match.
2.Re-built 2nd Temple (6th century B.C.) No, for same reason.
3.An illustrative, “idealized” Temple. What evidence of this?
4.Symbol of the Christian Church in this age. Incorrect, see below.
5.The millennial Temple.
Why this isn’t a symbol of the Christian Church
·Just because something is in a vision doesn’t make it a symbol.
·There are too many exact practical details for a symbol.
·This is most similar to the Tabernacle (Ex. 25), which was physical.
·The NT never says that this was a symbolic temple.
·The fact that a word is used as a metaphor in the NT doesn’t prove that the same word in the OT was a symbol. Jesus called His body a “temple” (Jn 2:19), but this obviously isn’t a vision of Jesus’ body. Just because the Church is called a temple (1st Cor. 3:16) doesn’t prove this is a vision of the Church.
·The Jews have not been replaced in God’s plan.
·This Temple will have sacrifices. 43:19-27, 45:17-25, 46:1-3
oThe OT rituals were never spiritually saving to begin with, so reinstituting them doesn’t encroach on the real work of Christ. Reformed errors about saving- sacraments-for-the-elect create a lot of confusion here.
oThe reality of salvation and the NT symbol of it (the Lord’s Table) co-exist in the same age. So there is no reason why the reality of salvation and the OT symbols of it (Sabbaths, festivals, sacrifices), can’t also co-exist during the kingdom age.
·Gentiles are barred from it. 44:9.
oSpiritual equality in Christ for Jews and Gentiles does not mean that there can be no special privileges for Jews. God’s gifts to the Jews are irrevocable (Romans 11:29). Again, the underlying idea that the Christians replace the Jews is wrong.
What was the vision for?
·To give believing Jews hope, in spite of their disaster. 43:10-11