Untitled Document

WAS ISRAEL LO-AMMI THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT?

PART II “THE GLORY OF THE LORD DEPARTED”

In part one we discussed the scriputral reasons for my belief that God’s Word teaches that Israel had been taken back as His people after the 70 year Babylonian captivity, and also the arguments of those who believe otherwise. (Please see Was Israel Lo-ammi Throughout The Entire New Testament? Part I.) But many believe that the Shekinah glory departed Solomon’s temple and will not return until the millennium. For many that proves that Israel was lo-ammi from the 70 year captivity and will remain so until the millennium. This study will prove from scripture that the visions Ezekiel saw of the Shekinah glory was not the departing of the glory from Solomon’s temple, but the spreading of God’s glory in the millennial temple.

We read in Ezekiel 10:18, “Then the glory of the Lord departed from off the threshold of the house …..”. Then in Ezek. 43:2 we read with regard to the millennial temple, “and behold the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east”. And again in verse 4, “And the glory of the Lord came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east”. And in verse 5, “So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and behold the glory of the Lord filled the house”.

Most understand these passages to say that the glory of the Lord departed from Solomon’s temple when it was destroyed by the Babylonians, and that it did not come back until it returned to the millennial temple described in Ezek. 43. This suggests to many that when the glory of the Lord departed from Solomon’s temple it signified the lo-ammi period foretold in Hosea, and that that lo-ammi period will not end until the glory of the Lord enters the millennial temple. That would mean, of course, that Israel was lo-ammi from the time of the destruction of Solomon’s temple and will remain so until the millennium.

I do not agree with this thinking and will address several issues which will, I believe, lead us to a scripturally based view of Israel’s lo-ammi period and what the Holy Spirit meant by “the glory of the Lord” departing.

DEPARTED

The first thing we must do is establish how the Holy Spirit means for us to understand the Hebrew word translated “departed” in Ezek. 10:18. That Hebrew word is “yahtzah”. The meaning of any word is established by its usage, and it is the usage that we will examine in this study.

Before we get to the word “yahtzah” translated “departed” in Ezek. 10:18, let us take a quick look at some of the other Hebrew words translated “departed”. One of those words is “yahlach”, it is used approximately 1,000 times. It is translated “go”, “went”, “follow” etc. The first occurrence is in Gen. 11:31 where we read, “And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter in law…..they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees to go into the land of Canaan……”. The Hebrew word “yahlach” is translated “to go”. What is of particular interest in this verse is the fact that it also uses the Hebrew word translated “departed” in Ezekiel 10:18, i.e. “yahtzah”. In Gen. 11:31 it is translated “went forth”. So this verse tells us that Terah went forth with his family to go into the land of Canaan. It is important to note that the Holy Spirit uses a different word for “went forth” (i.e. “yahtzah”) from the word “to go” (i.e. “yahlach”). In other words, it is one thing to go forth and something else to go.

The next occurrence of “yahlach” tells us the exact same thing about these two Hebrew words. We read in Gen. 12:5, “And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, …..and they went forth ( “yahtzah”) to go (“yahlach”) into the land of Canaan….”.

Numbers 12:9-10 is also very helpful in our study of the Hebrew word translated “departed” in Ezek. 10:18. We read, “And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them (Miriam and Aaron because they spoke against Moses); and He departed”. The word “departed” is not the translation of the Hebrew word “yahtzah” used in Ezek. 10:18, it is the translation of the Hebrew word we looked at in Gen. 11,( i.e. “yahlach” meaning “to go”). That tells us that, at least in this passage, “yahtzah” was not the best word to express the Lord departing. In the next verse (vs. 10) we have yet a different Hebrew word translated “departed”, i.e. “soor”. That verse reads, “And the cloud departed ( “soor”) from off the tabernacle”. The word “soor” occurs approximately 400 times and is almost always translated “turned aside”, “departed”, “eschewed”, take away”, or “removed”.

In other words, the Hebrew word “soor” is certainly the word that best expresses the idea of departing. Let me explain these words this way.

“Soor” is the first step, i.e. “to depart”.

“Yahtzah” is the second step and means “to go forth” from whence one departed.

And “Yahlach” is the third step and means “to go to” a specified or implied location.

Where the Holy Spirit uses different words, it behooves us to understand the shades of meaning in each one.

Let us try to pull together what we have learned about the various words used by the Holy Spirit that have been translated “departed”. (There are a few others not mentioned but they are so rarely translated “departed” that I saw no need to further complicate this study.) The basic meaning of “soor” is “to depart”, i.e. “to move away from”. The basic meaning of “yahtzah” is “to go forth”. And the basic meaning of “yahlach” is “to go to” a location that is either given or implied. “Yahtzah” is the word used in Ezekiel 10:18. I am suggesting that if the Holy Spirit meant for us to understand that the glory of the Lord departed, “soor” would have expressed that much better than the word that was used, i.e. “yahtzah”.

Now let us take a closer look at the Hebrew word translated “departed” in Ezek. 10:18, (“Then the glory of the Lord departed”). I have not counted the number of times the word is used, but looking at the list given in the Englishman’s Hebrew And Chaldee Concordance of The Old Testament, I would guess it to be close to one thousand times. Obviously, we cannot examine every occurrence. I do not want the reader to think that I have picked out the verses that best support my view, so I suggest that we look at all the times it is used in Ezekiel in the same tense as it is used in Ezekiel 10:18 .

It is used in the future tense in the following phrases”

3:23, “I arose and went forth into the plain”

3:25, “thou shalt not go out among them”

5:4, “therefore, shall a fire come forth“

10:7, “took and went out“

10:18, “Then the glory of the Lord departed“

12:4, “thou shalt go forth at even”

12:12,”and shall go forth“

16:14, “and thy renown went forth“

19:14, “fire is gone out of a rod”

21:4, “therefore shall my sword go forth“

21:19, “therefore shall my sword go forth“

24:12, “her great scum went not forth out of her”

30:9, “in that day shall messengers go forth“

42:14, “shall they not go out of the holy place”

44:3, “shall go out by the way of the same”

46:8, “he shall go forth by the way thereof”

46:9, “shall go out by way of the south gate”

46:9, “shall go forth by way of the north gate”

46:9, “shall go forth over against it”

46:10, “when the shall go forth, shall go forth”.

Let us not be guilty of simply counting the number of times it is translated “go out” and comparing it to the number of times it is translated “go forth”. As we have seen above, the Holy Spirit uses different words to express the nuances of difference between “going”, “going forth”, and “going to”. Therefore I suggest that because we must understand how the Holy Spirit uses the word, we examine each of the references given above more closely.

The first occurrence listed above is in Ezek. 3:23 and reads, “I arose and went forth into the plain”. This cannot mean “departed” because the context does not speak of Ezekiel’s departing, i.e. where he came from, it speaks only of where he went.

In Ezek. 3:25 we read, “thou shalt not go out among them”. This entire verse reads in the NIV, “And you, son of man, they will tie you with ropes; you will be bound so that you cannot go out among the people”. It is true that Ezekiel will be bound, but the intent of this verse is not that Ezekiel will not depart from his home because of his bonds. The intent of the passage is that Ezekiel will not be among the people. Therefore, although I am not suggesting that in this verse the word is improperly translated, I am suggesting that the sense of the word is “go forth” that is to say, that Ezekiel will not go forth to be among the people.

In Ezek. 5:4 we read,”therefore, shall a fire come forth“. In this context Ezekiel is told to take some of his own hair and throw it into a fire. The entire phrase gives us the sense of how this verse is to be understood, “burn them (the hairs) in a fire, for thereof shall a fire come forth into all the house of Israel”. The intent of this verse is not to say that the fire comes “out” (departs) of the hair, the intend of the verse is to say that the fire goes forth to the house of Israel. The NIV translation is interesting. It reads, “take a few of these and throw them into the fire and burn them up. “A fire will spread from there to the whole house of Israel”. Again, I’m not suggesting that “spread” is necessarily the best translation, but it does give the best sense of the word in this verse.

In Ezek. 10:7 we read, “And one cherub stretched forth his hand from between the cherubims unto the fire that was between the cherubims, and took thereof, and put it into the hands of him that was clothed with linen, who took it and went out”. Did the man clothed in linen go out (depart) or did he go forth? We are not told. But, as the reader will see as we continue this study of the word “yahtzah”, (especially 46:9) even when it can be translated “went out”, it has the sense of “going forth”.

The next occurrence of the word is found in Ezek. 10:18, but we will wait until we have finished our study to draw any conclusions.

Ezek. 12:4 reads, “….thou shalt go forth at even …….”. The context will show that Ezekiel’s going forth was to witness to Israel of their sin. In this context the important point is not that Ezekiel is departing from his home. The point is that Ezekiel is commanded to go forth to his people with a message from God.

Ezek. 16:14, “And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty…..”. We don’t think of “renown” as departing, we speak of it going forth, i.e. “spreading” if you will. Here too, the word is used to express the idea that the renown “went forth”.

Ezek. 19:14, “fire is gone out of a rod of her branches, ….which hath devoured her fruit”. The point is not from where the fire comes, i.e. out of a rod. The point is that it goes forth to devour Israel. In this verse ” gone forth” would have expressed the point much better. In fact, once again the NIV has “the fire spread from one of its main branches”, which in my opinion, expresses the point of this verse.

In Ezek. 21:14 and 19 we read, “therefore shall my sword go forth“. Obviously, the sense of this verse is not that the sword departed its sheath. The sense of the verse is that the sword went forth.. Therefore, in this case “yahtzah” cannot read “go out”, i.e. “departed”.

Ezek. 24:12, “…..and her great scum went not forth out of her; her scum shall be in the fire”. Here we can tell that it is correctly translated “went forth” because the following word is “out”. That is to say, the phrase could not read, “the scum went out out of her”. Here is another time when “yahtzah ” must be translated “went forth”, not “went out” or “departed”.

Ezek. 30:9, “In that day shall messengers go forth from Me in ships to make the careless Ethiopians afraid….”. The sense of this verse is that the messengers go forth to spread their message. That is to say, the sense is not primarily one of departing, it is one of going forth.

Ezek. 42:14, “When the priests enter therein, then shall they not go out of the holy place into the outer court but there they shall lay their garments wherein they minister….”. We all want to know what the Holy Spirit means for us to understand by the use of the word “yahtzah”, so I trust the reader will not object if we skip for the moment to Ezek. 46:9 (quoted below) which will, I believe, help us to understand how the Holy Spirit means for us to understand 42:14.

Ezek. 46:9, “But when the People of the land shall come before the Lord….he that entereth in by the way of the north gate to worship shall go out by the way of the south gate; and he that entereth by the way of the south gate shall go forth by the way of the north gate; he shall not return by the way of the gate whereby he came in, but shall go forth over against it”. This passage is to inform Israel that they shall exit the millennial temple in the opposite way from which they entered, i.e. that they should keep going in the same direction so that they go out the opposite gate from which they entered. While this passage does speak of going out, the word “yahtzah” as we have seen, means “to go forth”. Therefore, I believe that even when the intention is to speak of going out, the word “yahtzah” is used to give the sense of going forth. The point is that in order for the people to exit from the opposite direction from which they entered, they must go forth. Therefore, I believe that the intent of the word “yahtzah” is “to go forth”, not “depart” .

Coming back then to 42:14, “When the priests enter therein, then shall they not go out of the holy place into the outer court but there they shall lay their garments wherein they minister….”. It is clear that because the verse is saying that priests must not go out of the holy place until they had divested themselves of their garments, the word is best translated “go out”. However, as we saw in 46:9 the word, even when in the context of coming in and going out, has the sense of going forth.

Ezek. 44:3, “It (the east gate) is for the prince (Christ); the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the Lord; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same”. Again, it is clear that the context has to do with entering and exiting. But because other verses having to do with entering and exiting use “yahtzah” in the sense of “going forth”, I believe that it is implied in this verse as well.

Ezek. 46:10, “And the prince (David) in the midst of them, when they go in, he shall go in; and when they go forth, he shall go forth”. I mentioned above in regard to 46:9 because the people of Israel may not go out the same way they entered, in order to exit they must go forth. Here the verse is about David, the prince, who according to this verse must also go forth so that he exist from the opposite way that he entered. So even when the context is obviously about departing, the intention of “yahtzah” is “to go forth”.

May I respectfully remind the reader that in the 20 occurrences of the Hebrew “yahtzah” that we have studied, the NIV translated it “spread” two times.We read in Ezek. 5:4, “the fire will spread from there to the whole house of Israel. And in 19:14 we read, “the fire spread from one of its main branches”. In fact, although it is not translated “spread” it has the sense of “spread” in Ezek. 16:14, “thy renown went forth”, i.e. “spread”. I am suggesting that the idea of spreading is, in some occurrences, implied in the word “yahtzah”. Is it impled in Ezek. 10? Let us examine the context.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE CONTEXT OF EZEKIEL 10:18

To remind the reader of the verse we are considering let me quote once again the verse that tells us that the glory of the Lord “departed” (according to the KJV), i.e. Ezek. 10:18, “Then the glory of the Lord departed from off the threshold of the house, and stood over the cherubims”. Let’s back up to verse 4, “Then the glory of the Lord went up from the cherub, and stood over the threshold of the house, and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the Lord’s glory”.

In verse 4 we learn that the glory of the Lord went up and stood over therershold of the house. but it certainly did not depart. It filled the house and the court. The house and court were filled with the glory of the Lord as it “stood over the threshold”. The Hebrew word translated “went up” is “room”. It occurs about 250 times and is most often translated “exalted”, “lift up high”, “proud” and “haughty”. It is clear that it is not used in the sense of “depart”. I believe that the glory of the Lord was lifted up in the sense of exalting, and that it spread from the threshold to fill the house and the court. Note verse 5, “and the sound of the cherubims’ wings was heard even to the outer court, as the voice of the Almighty God when He speaketh”.

Verses 6-17 describe the cherubim and the wheels that accompanied them. Then in verse 18 we have the verse that tells about the glory of the Lord. How did we get from verse 4 where we read of the glory of the Lord filling the temple and the court to verse 18 which is taken by many to say that the glory of the Lord departed? That the glory of the Lord departed just does not fit the context. That is to say, the passage begins with the glory of the Lord spreading from the threshold to fill the house and the court. It then goes on to describe the cherubim and the wheels that accompanied them when the glory of the Lord spread. It makes no sense to go from there to the glory of the Lord departing. It makes perfect sense if we understand that the glory of the Lord did not depart, it spread.

I believe that scripture teaches that the glory of the Lord did not depart, that it went forth, i.e. the glory of the Lord spread throughout the whole house. Then in verse 19 we read, “and the cherubim lifted up their wings ….they went out….”. They went out to the east gate. “Went out” is the translation of “yahtzah”, the same word used in verse 18. I agree they went out, but, as we have seen in the section above, even when the word is used in the context of exiting, it carries the sense of going forth and, at times of spreading. I believe that the glory of the Lord spread from the threshold (vs. 4) all throughout the temple and then in going forth (“yahtzah”) the glory of the Lord spread to the east gate of the court.

To be thorough in our study we should also look at Ezek. 11:23, “And the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city”.. The Hebrew word translated went up” is “gahlah” and it is used between 200 and 300 times. It is translated “arose”, “went up”, “ascended” etc. It is clear that in verse 11:23 the glory of the Lord did indeed leave. But, as mentioned above, the Holy Spirit chooses the words used in the Bible so that each one expresses exaclty what was meant. In this case, the word “gahlah” is not the word that expresses the idea of the glory of the Lord departing. It is used to express the idea of the glory of the Lord ascending. Because the context is clear that the glory of the Lord went forth in order to spread, I think we may conclude that here too, the glory of the Lord ascended so that it would spread.

THE EAST GATE

Most understand Ezek. 10:18 to say that the glory of the Lord departed from Solomon’s temple because that temple was about to be destroyed. I agree that Solomon’s temple was about to be destroyed, but I do not agree that the glory of the Lord departed, I believe it spread. But why would the glory of the Lord spread throughout a temple that was about to be destroyed? I believe that Ezekiel’s vision did not concern Solomon’s temple, it concerned the millennial temple. That is to say, I believe that Ezekiel’s vision was of the glory of the Lord spreading throughout the millennial temple. The vision was in part that “every one (the cherubim) stood at the door of the east gate of the Lord’s house”. But Solomon’s temple did not have an east gate, therefore this vision could not have been of Solomon’s temple. For the scriptural evidence of that statement we must first understand what the Bible means when it speaks of a “gate”.

The Hebrew word translated “gate” in Ezek. 10:19 is “shahgar”. In Ex. 38 we read of the gate to the courtyard that God had Moses build. Ex. 38:15, “And for the other side of the court gate, on this hand and that hand were hangings of fifteen cubits; their pillars three, and their sockets three. Verse 18, “and the hanging for the gate of the court was ….twenty cubits was the length, and the height in the breadth was five cubits and their pillars were four….”. The Companion Bible tells us that a cubit is between 21 and 25 inches. That means that the “hangings” of fifteen cubits were at least 26 feet. And the twenty cubits in length is at least 35 feet. I think it is clear that the “gates” of the courtyard were not simple gates in the way that most of us think of gates, they were more like enormous entry ways.

As we look at the gates of the city of Jerusalem (not the gate to Ezra’s temple) we will find the consistency in the way the Holy Spirit uses the Hebrew word “shahgar” that we would expect to find in the Word of God. We are not given the dimensions of the gates but we do read of the “doors” in the gates. For example we read in Neh. 3:1, “……they builded the sheep gate; they sanctified it, and set up the doors of it….”. We also read of the doors of the gates in verses 3, 13, 15 and 16. The Hebrew word translated “doors” is “dal”. The Companion Bible gives the following definition, “a door or gate hanging on hinges”. Here again, we can see that a “shahgar” is no mere gate as the sheep gate to the wall of Jerusalem had more than one door hanging in it. It helps to show the magnitude of the gate.

Now let us look at the description of the east gate of the courtyard to the millennial temple. Ezek. 40:6-11 describes that gate. “Then came he unto the gate (“shahgar”) which looketh toward the east, and went up the stairs thereof, and measured the threshold of the gate, which was one reed (about 3 and 1/2 yards) broad and the other threshold of the gate, which was one reed broad”. (Note there are two thresholds to the gate, each at least 3 and 1/2 yards wide.) Verses 7-11, “And every chamber was one reed long and one reed broad (3 and 1/2 yards by 3 and 1/2 yards); and between the chambers were five cubits (about nine feet); and the threshold of the gate by the porch of the gate within was one reed. He measured also the porch of the gate within one reed. Then measured he the porch of the gate, eight cubits (14 feet) and the posts thereof two cubits (3 and 1/2 feet) and the porch of the gate was inward. And the chambers of the gate eastward were three on this side, and three on that side, they three were of one measure; and the posts had one measure on this side and on that side. And he measured the breadth of the entry of the gate ten cubits (17.5 feet) and the length of the gate thirteen cubits (22.75 feet). I won’t continue, but I think it is obvious that the east gate of the millennial courtyard was a very elaborate entry way. .

What is important to this study is that the Word of God never mentions a gate in Solomon’s temple, let alone an east gate. That being the case, when we read in Ezek. 10:19 that the cherubim “stood at the east gate of the Lord’s house” we have two choices: 1) to put this vision at an assumed east gate of Solomon’s temple, or 2) to put the vision at the east gate of the millennial temple described in such detail in Ezek.40. In my opinion the choice is obvious, especially in view of the fact that the glory of the Lord did not depart, it spread.

One might ask if there was a reason that God would have given Ezekiel a vision of the east gate of the millennial temple just when He was about to destroy the city of Jerusalem and Solomon’s temple. I believe Ezek. 43:10 may help to answer that question, “Thou son of man, shew the house (the millennial temple) to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities….”. I am not suggesting that Ezekiel showed Israel the plans for the millennial temple in the period described in chapter 10. I am suggesting however, that when Ezekiel saw the glory of the Lord spread throughout the millennial temple and he shared that vision with his people (Ezek. 11:4-5) it was to make them ashamed of their iniquities.

THE VISION OF THE EAST GATE IN EZEKIEL’S DAY

I have tried to show from scripture that the glory of the Lord did not depart from Solomon’s temple, it went forth, i.e. it spread throughout the millennial temple. But Ezek. 11:1-5 speaks of Ezekiel being at the east gate and speaking to men of his time. .Because the men to whom he spoke were his contemporaries, does that mean that the east gate of his vision was the east gate to the temple of his time, i.e. Solomon’s temple? Let us consider this passage.

Ezek. 11:1-5, “Moreover, the spirit lifted me up, and brought me unto the east gate of the Lord’s house, which looketh eastward; and behold at the door of the gate five and twenty men….”. A few of these men were named and were clearly men of Ezekiel’s day for we read in the next verse, “Then said He unto me, ‘Son of man, these are the men that devise mischief and give wicked counsel in this city…..”. Again, if these men to whom Ezekiel was to prophecy were of his day, does that mean that they were at the east gate of the temple that was standing at that time, i.e. Solomon’s temple? But, as we learned above, Solomon’s temple did not have an east gate. What is the answer to this seeming contradiction?

We read in Ezek. 11:24-25, “Afterwards the spirit took me up, and brought me in a vision by the Spirit of God into Chaldee, to them of the captivity. so the vision that I had seen went up from me. Then I spake unto them of the captivity all the things that the Lord had shewed me”. Note that these men of Jerusalem were not in Jerusalem, they were captive. That means that they must have been in Babylon. That tells us that the vision of these men who lived in Ezekiel’s time who were seen to be in Jerusalem at the east gate of a temple were actually not in Jerusalem, they were in Babylon. So the vision puts these men in a different place then they were in reality. Were they also in a different time than reality? That is to say, did Ezekiel’s vision put them in a different time, (the millennium) as well? For the answer to that question let us continue our study of Ezek. 11. To what vision was Ezekiel referring when he wrote, “the vision that I had seen went up from me”? Let’s go through this entire chapter for the answer to that question.

In verses 1-4 Ezekiel was told that he would prophecy against his countrymen. In verses 5-12 Ezekiel was told what he was to say to Israel. In verse 13 we read, “And it came to pass when I prophesied, that Pelatiah the son of Benaiah died….”. And Ezekiel asked, “Ah Lord, will Thou make a full end of the remnant of Israel?” Was this part of Ezekiel’s vision or was it a reality? Let us continue in this chapter for the answer to that question. The next verse, i.e. verse 14 reads, “Again the word of the Lord came unto me saying”. Verse 15 is the record of God telling Ezekiel of those in Jerusalem claiming that the city is theirs, not the others of Israel. Verses 16-21 is a prophecy of the gathering of Israel for the millennial reign of Christ. Then in verse 22 we read, “Then did the cherubim lift up their wings……”. These are the cherubim of chapter 10. That shows that the entire chapter 11 is part of the same vision that is recorded in chapter 10. My point is that 11:1 concerns Ezekiel’s vision of himself at the east gate with those who were leaders of Israel. But verse 25 tells us that Ezekiel “spake unto them of the captivity”. Those of the captivity were obviously not in Jerusalem or they would not have been captive, i.e. they would have been free, in Jerusalem.

Therefore, I believe that the vision Ezekiel saw was of a different time (the millennium) in a temple that had at that time not been built (the millennial temple) speaking to men of Jerusalem who were captive in Babylon. Let me try to put that another way. Chapter 11 of Ezekiel is the record of what Ezekiel saw in a vision. What he saw was a vision of himself at the east gate of the millennial temple speaking to leaders of Jerusalem who were actually captive in Babylon. Therefore, even though the men to whom Ezekiel spoke were his contemporaries , they were in his vision in a different place (not Jerusalem, but Babylon) and a different time (the millennium). There is a precedence for this. We know that John was at the isle of Patmos but was carried away by the spirit to a different time, i.e. “the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10) and a different place, i.e. he saw visions of the events of that time in Israel and in heaven.

CONCLUSION

We read in Ezek. 10:18 of Ezekiel’s vision of the glory of the Lord. I believe that the study of the word translated “departed” in that verse will show that its basic, fundamental sense is not “to depart”, but “to go forth“. And the context, especially 10:4 tells us that the glory of the Lord spread throughout the house and the court, i.e. that the glory of the Lord did not depart, it spread.

The fact that Solomon’s temple did not have any “gates”, as the Hebrew word is used in Ezek. 10:18, 11:1 etc. and only the millennial temple did have “gates”, shows that we must conclude that in Ezekiel’s vision, the glory of the Lord spread throughout the millennial temple.

This paper was written by Joyce Pollard. If you would like to respond, please feel free to e-mail me at: [email protected]

HOME