The Word Alone

The doctrine of the sanctuary occupies an important place in biblical prophecy, particularly in relation to the nation of Israel and the future Messianic kingdom. Within dispensational theology, the sanctuary is understood according to the normal, grammatical and historical meaning of the biblical text. When prophetic Scripture speaks of a temple, altar, priesthood, sacrifices and Jerusalem, these things are not ordinarily regarded as symbols of the Church, but as realities connected with God’s covenant purposes for Israel.

This interpretation rests upon one of the fundamental principles of dispensational theology: Israel and the Church are distinct in the programme of God. The Church does not replace Israel, nor do the spiritual blessings presently enjoyed by Christians cancel the national and earthly promises which God made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants.

Consequently, when Scripture foretells a future sanctuary in Jerusalem, dispensational theology expects the prophecy to receive a corresponding historical and physical fulfilment.

The Meaning of the Sanctuary

The word sanctuary denotes a holy place, that which has been set apart for God. In relation to Israel, the sanctuary was especially the place in which God manifested His presence amongst His covenant people.

Under the Mosaic economy, the tabernacle served this purpose. God commanded Moses, “And let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8). The tabernacle was subsequently succeeded by the Temple in Jerusalem. Although the omnipresent God could never be confined within a building, the sanctuary represented His particular dwelling amongst Israel and stood at the centre of the nation’s worship.

This association between Israel, Jerusalem and the sanctuary is important when approaching biblical prophecy. The prophets repeatedly speak of a future restoration of Israel in connection with the land, Jerusalem, the kingdom and the sanctuary. A consistent dispensational interpretation therefore does not transfer these promises to the Church unless the biblical text itself gives warrant for doing so.

The Destruction and Restoration of the Sanctuary

Israel’s historical sanctuaries suffered destruction as a consequence of national unbelief and divine judgement. Solomon’s Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC. The Second Temple, greatly enlarged under Herod the Great, was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70, precisely as the Lord Jesus had foretold.

Speaking of the Temple buildings, Christ declared, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down” (Matthew 24:2). Yet the destruction of the historical Temple does not mean that the sanctuary has disappeared permanently from God’s prophetic programme for Israel. Scripture contains further references to a temple associated both with the events preceding Christ’s return and with the kingdom which follows it.

The Tribulation Temple

Dispensational interpreters commonly understand several prophetic passages to require the existence of a Jewish sanctuary during the future Tribulation. Daniel foretold the cessation of sacrifice in connection with the seventieth week. Daniel 9:27 says, “But in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering.” For sacrifice and grain offering to be stopped, they must first have been taking place. This is one reason many dispensationalists anticipate a restoration of Jewish worship and a sanctuary in Jerusalem before the Second Coming of Christ.

The Lord Jesus likewise referred to Daniel when describing future events, “Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place…” (Matthew 24:15). Although Daniel’s prophecy had historical foreshadowings, dispensational interpretation understands Christ’s use of the prophecy as pointing forward to an ultimate fulfilment connected with the end of the age.

Paul supplies another significant passage. Concerning the future “man of lawlessness”, he writes that he, “…takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). This figure is commonly identified in dispensational theology with the final Antichrist. His blasphemous occupation of the Temple corresponds with Daniel’s abomination of desolation and Christ’s warning concerning the holy place.

Revelation 11 similarly speaks of “the temple of God” and “the altar” in connection with Jerusalem and the final period of Gentile domination. Taken together, these passages have led many dispensationalists to conclude that a literal sanctuary will exist in Jerusalem during the Tribulation and that it will eventually be desecrated by the Antichrist. Scripture does not, however, reveal all the circumstances by which such a sanctuary will be constructed. A sound prophetic interpretation should therefore distinguish clearly between what Scripture states and speculation concerning how present political events might bring it about.

The Millennial Sanctuary

The most extensive prophetic description of a future sanctuary occurs in Ezekiel 40–48. Ezekiel’s vision contains extraordinarily precise architectural details. Measurements are given for gates, courts, chambers, walls and the altar. Priestly responsibilities are specified, sacrifices are described, tribal territories are allotted, and the geographical arrangement of the land is set forth.

These details strongly support a literal interpretation of the passage. The sanctuary described by Ezekiel is associated with the restored presence of the glory of God. Earlier in the book, Ezekiel had witnessed the glory of the LORD departing from the Temple because of Israel’s sin. In the future vision, however, that glory returns.

Ezekiel 43:2 records, “And behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the way of the east.” The glory enters the sanctuary, after which the prophet hears the divine declaration, “Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever” (Ezekiel 43:7).

The language is distinctly Israelite, geographical and national. It concerns “the sons of Israel”, a sanctuary, a land, tribal divisions and Jerusalem. Dispensational theology therefore sees no sufficient reason to transform the passage into an allegorical description of the Church. Rather, Ezekiel is understood to describe conditions associated with the future Messianic kingdom on earth.

The Sanctuary and the Millennial Kingdom

Revelation 20 describes a period of one thousand years during which Christ reigns. Dispensational theology understands the repeated reference to “a thousand years” as referring to an actual future period following the visible return of Jesus Christ.

During this kingdom, the Old Testament promises concerning Israel, Jerusalem and Messiah’s earthly rule will receive their appointed fulfilment. The prophets consistently connect the Messianic age with Jerusalem. Isaiah declares, “For the law will go forth from Zion, And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem” (Isaiah 2:3). Zechariah likewise describes the LORD as King over the earth and portrays the nations coming to Jerusalem to worship the King (Zechariah 14:9, 16).

Within this restored kingdom, Ezekiel’s sanctuary occupies an important position. It will testify visibly to God’s faithfulness to Israel and to the presence and government of Messiah amongst His people. The Millennial Temple should therefore be understood within the broader fulfilment of God’s unconditional covenant promises to Israel.

The Question of Millennial Sacrifices

One of the more difficult questions arising from Ezekiel’s prophecy concerns animal sacrifices. Ezekiel does not merely describe a temple. He speaks repeatedly of burnt offerings, sin offerings, grain offerings and other sacrificial rites. If the sanctuary is interpreted literally, consistency requires serious consideration of the sacrifices described within it.

This does not mean that Christ’s sacrifice will somehow prove insufficient. The New Testament is unequivocal concerning the finality of the death of Christ. Hebrews declares, “But He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD” (Hebrews 10:12).

No animal sacrifice could add anything to the redemptive accomplishment of Calvary. Christ’s sacrifice is perfect, complete and unrepeatable. Dispensational interpreters who understand Ezekiel’s sacrifices literally have therefore generally explained them in terms that preserve absolutely the sufficiency of Christ’s finished work.

Sacrifices as Memorials

One prominent explanation regards the Millennial sacrifices as memorial sacrifices. Under this interpretation, the sacrifices will look backwards to the Cross rather than forwards towards it. The sacrifices under the Mosaic Law anticipated the sacrifice of Christ; those of the Millennium may commemorate the sacrifice already accomplished.

There is an instructive analogy in the Lord’s Supper. Christians partake of bread and the cup without believing that Christ is being sacrificed again. The ordinance is commemorative, “Do this in remembrance of Me” (1 Corinthians 11:24). In a comparable manner, Millennial sacrifices may serve as vivid ceremonial memorials of the cost of redemption and the sacrifice upon which every blessing of the kingdom ultimately rests.

Sacrifices and Ceremonial Cleansing

Another explanation, which may complement the memorial interpretation, concerns ceremonial purification. The Millennium will be a unique period. Christ will reign bodily upon the earth, yet mortal human beings will continue to inhabit the nations. Those entering the kingdom in natural bodies will have descendants, and sin and death will not yet have been removed in the absolute sense that characterises the eternal state.

Consequently, the sacrifices described by Ezekiel may possess a ceremonial function connected with maintaining ritual purity in a sanctuary in which the divine presence is manifested. Such sacrifices would not remove moral guilt or provide eternal salvation. Their purpose would instead concern ceremonial cleansing and the maintenance of holiness in relation to the earthly sanctuary.

This distinction is crucial. Ceremonial purification must never be confused with the judicial forgiveness of sins obtained through Christ’s blood. Salvation in every age ultimately rests upon the redemptive work of Christ alone.

The Sanctuary Does Not Replace Calvary

The existence of sacrifices in a future sanctuary does not constitute a return to the Mosaic system as though the Cross had never occurred. The Epistle to the Hebrews makes clear that the sacrifices of the old order could never finally remove sin, “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4).

Their inadequacy magnified the necessity of Christ’s perfect sacrifice. Therefore, whatever function the sacrifices of Ezekiel 40–48 possess, they cannot be interpreted as providing a rival means of salvation. They must be understood in complete subordination to the finished work of Christ.

The Messiah reigning in Jerusalem will be the very One who once offered Himself at Calvary. The sanctuary will not obscure His sacrifice; rightly understood, everything associated with the kingdom will testify to His glory.

Israel and the Church Must Be Distinguished

The interpretation of the sanctuary ultimately raises the larger theological question of the relationship between Israel and the Church. The New Testament unquestionably employs temple imagery in relation to Christians.

Paul writes to the Corinthian believers, “Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16). He also teaches that the believer’s body is “a temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:19).

Similarly, Ephesians 2:19–22 portrays believers as being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. These are glorious truths concerning the Church. The Holy Spirit indwells believers individually and corporately. The Christian does not require an earthly temple in order to approach God, for access to the Father is through Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless, dispensational theology rejects the conclusion that these truths require the cancellation of God’s promises concerning Israel’s future sanctuary. A spiritual temple and a physical temple are not mutually exclusive realities.

The fact that believers are presently called God’s temple does not prove that every prophetic reference to a future sanctuary must consequently refer to the Church. The context of each passage must determine its meaning.

The Church Does Not Replace Israel

At the heart of the dispensational understanding of the sanctuary stands the conviction that God’s calling of the Church has not nullified His covenant promises to Israel.

Paul addresses this matter directly in Romans 11, “I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be!” (Romans 11:1). Israel presently experiences a partial hardening, but Paul explicitly states that this condition is temporary, “For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery… that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in” (Romans 11:25).

The word “until” is significant. Israel’s present condition is not portrayed as God’s final word concerning the nation. Dispensational theology therefore maintains that God’s programme for Israel will resume in a particular and visible manner after the completion of the Church’s present calling. The national restoration of Israel, the fulfilment of the Davidic promises, Messiah’s reign from Jerusalem and the future sanctuary belong to this continuing purpose. The Church participates in the blessings secured through Christ, but it does not thereby become national Israel or inherit Israel’s identity.

Israel’s Earthly Calling and the Church’s Heavenly Calling

Dispensational theology has traditionally emphasised the different spheres of Israel’s and the Church’s respective callings. Israel’s promises are closely connected with the earth: a nation, a land, Jerusalem, a throne, a kingdom and the visible reign of Messiah. The sanctuary naturally belongs within this earthly and national programme.

The Church, by contrast, possesses a distinctive heavenly position in Christ. Paul writes, “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20). This distinction does not imply two different ways of salvation. There has never been salvation apart from God’s grace, and the Cross of Christ constitutes the sole redemptive foundation upon which sinners can be reconciled to God.

The distinction concerns God’s governmental purposes and the different callings revealed in Scripture. Israel remains Israel. The Church remains the Church. God’s faithfulness to one does not require His abandonment of the other.

The Sanctuary as a Testimony to God’s Faithfulness

The future sanctuary is therefore more than an architectural curiosity in biblical prophecy. It testifies to the character of God. God made promises to Israel. His faithfulness requires that those promises be fulfilled according to their intended meaning.

The future restoration of the sanctuary demonstrates that Israel’s failure cannot overturn God’s sovereign purpose. The nation experienced judgement, dispersion and the destruction of its historical temples, but none of these things renders the divine promises void.

Ezekiel’s prophecy reaches its magnificent conclusion with the restored city. Its final words declare, “…and the name of the city from that day shall be, ‘The LORD is there’” (Ezekiel 48:35). That declaration captures the great significance of the sanctuary. The glory which once departed returns. The nation once scattered is restored. The city once judged becomes the centre of Messiah’s earthly government. The promises apparently delayed are fulfilled.

Final Thoughts

From a dispensational standpoint, the biblical doctrine of the sanctuary must be interpreted within God’s continuing purposes for Israel. There was a historical sanctuary associated with Israel’s worship. Prophecy indicates a sanctuary connected with the events of the Tribulation. Ezekiel describes in remarkable detail a future sanctuary associated with Israel’s restoration and the Messianic kingdom. The sacrifices connected with that sanctuary neither repeat nor supplement the sacrifice of Christ, but may function memorially and ceremonially within the distinctive conditions of the Millennium.

At the same time, the New Testament reveals a separate and glorious truth concerning the Church. Believers are presently indwelt by the Holy Spirit and constitute a spiritual dwelling place of God. Yet this truth does not require the spiritualisation or cancellation of God’s national promises to Israel.

The two truths may therefore be held together without confusion: the Church is presently the dwelling place of God through the Spirit, whilst Israel still possesses divinely guaranteed promises concerning her future restoration, kingdom and sanctuary.

A consistent dispensational interpretation allows each promise to stand in its own biblical context. It does not require the Church to become Israel, Jerusalem to become a symbol of the Church, or Ezekiel’s carefully measured sanctuary to become an allegory of Heaven. The sanctuary consequently stands as a prophetic testimony to a fundamental truth concerning the character of God: what He has promised, He will fulfil.

Israel’s unbelief has not destroyed His faithfulness. The present age has not cancelled His covenants. The Church has not displaced the nation to which those promises were given. When Messiah reigns, Israel is restored and the glory of God once again dwells in the midst of His people, the sanctuary will visibly testify that not one purpose of God has failed.