29. Poured out my spirit. The revival of Israel would have been accompanied by a great outpouring of the Spirit. This promised power would have enabled them speedily to evangelize the world and prepare for the coming of the Messiah.
1. Five and twentieth year. Evidently of Jehoiachin’s captivity (see on 1:2), if the scale of years is the same throughout the book. The fact that 1 refers to “our” captivity (as does 33:21) indicates that Ezekiel was taken captive along with Jehoiachin.
Beginning of the year. ro’sh hashshanah, “head of the year.” Since ro’sh is sometimes translated “first,” some take this to mean the first month of the year, namely Nisan. If so, this date was in April, 573, or April, 572 (depending on whether Ezekiel began the year from the spring or the fall). However, if Ezekiel meant the beginning of the year and was reckoning the Captivity by the Jewish civil year, which began with the 7th month (Tishri), this was the Day of Atonement in October, 573 (see 572). It is interesting to note that this is the only occurrence in the Bible of the phrase ro’sh hashshanah, by which the 1st of Tishri, or New Year’s Day, is still called by the Jews today, but this does not prove that it necessarily meant the same in that time. The day mentioned is the 10th, not the 1st.
Fourteenth year. The 25th year of Jehoiachin’s captivity can be equated with the 14th after the fall of Jerusalem, to allow the three possible dates mentioned in the preceding paragraph (see III, 92, 93).
Chapters 40-48 constitute one continuous prophecy of a unique character. They present a vision of a new temple in careful detail, a new and remarkable plan for the division of the land, and a vision of life-giving waters issuing from that magnificent temple.
The prophecy presents several problems of interpretation. Three main lines of exposition have been adopted:
1. The literal view. This holds that Ezekiel furnished the sketch of a new constitution for Israel, to be actually put into operation at some time in the future, either immediately subsequent to the Exile or later. According to this view the erection of a temple, the institution of a worship, and a division of the land would have followed precisely the specifications furnished by Ezekiel.
2. The futurist view. This finds in the temple vision a new constitution for restored and reunited Israel. However, although it concedes that in some small degree it may have been put into force after the Exile, it looks to a yet future golden age as the time when the vision will receive an exact and complete fulfillment.
3. The allegorical view. This denies any literal fulfillment and looks to some symbolical fulfillment in the time immediately subsequent to the Exile, or in the Christian church, or at the end of the age.
As to these three views certain comments may be made.
Against the literal view, it is urged that it is inconceivable that there should be no allusion to the language of Ezekiel in the historical books of Ezra and Nehemiah, or in the prophecies of Haggai, which all relate to this period. Although these describe the return and settlement in the land, and the rebuilding of the Temple, they make no reference to this prophecy, nor display a desire on the part of the builders to conform to Ezekiel’s directions.
Against the futurist view, it is urged that in view of the relations between the old and new dispensations as set forth in Scripture it is impossible to conceive that animal sacrifices could ever again be restored by divine command and find acceptance with God.
Against the allegorical view, it is urged that it supplies an inadequate justification for the many details of the vision and fails to present a sufficiently significant interpretative pattern to warrant the extended attention devoted to the subject.
The simplest view is the one that follows the principles outlined in the comments on 38:1. According to these principles the temple vision would have been literally fulfilled if the people had been faithful to their trust, but because they failed, the prophecy could not be fulfilled in its original intent. Only a few, comparatively, returned, and these fell far short of God’s purpose for them. Certain features (see 47) will have a degree of fulfillment to the Christian church, as indicated by later inspired writers.
The temple vision is a pictorial prophecy, and the principles outlined in comments on 1:10 must be applied. Ezekiel saw representations of the actual and not the actual itself, and the degree of identity remains a problem for further interpretation. Nevertheless, in whatever degree the two vary, a comparison with other prophecies relating to the restoration leads us to the belief that the prophet is here describing a literal state with a literal temple and a literal capital. It is hard to conceive how the Jews, to whom this prophecy was addressed, could have understood it otherwise. The fact that the postexilic Bible writers never referred to this prophecy, and the fact that the Temple builders apparently paid no attention to the plan, may be explained on the ground that the builders were fully aware that the conditions had not yet been met that would permit the fulfillment of these promises. Nor does this series of prophecies give any intimation that the plans were to be executed immediately upon the return of the exiles to their own country. They were doubtless help up as a future goal toward which to strive.