I've read Clark and JFB's commentaries on pretty much all the prophecies (along with Matthew Henry's, Barnes', and pretty much all the rest that you can get for free on e-Sword), and to be honest, they aren't always that convincing, especially when one catches them making broad statements that spiritualize away clear promises of God, but without really present a convincing schema for explaining the symbolism. (JFB are better than Clarke and Henry in this regard, but they still slip from time-to-time.)
Not that I deny that there is symbolism to be found in the constructs of Ezekiel's Temple. There was symbolism to be found in Solomon's and in the Tabernacle too which we've only just skitted the surface of. However, the fact that Solomon's Temple appears to describe the architecture of the body, soul, and spirit of the believer (the temple of the Holy Spirit) does not mean that Solomon's Temple was not an actual building. Likewise, the Tabernacle clearly was designed to give a picture of Heaven (note the differences between the two for some interesting insights) as well as to the "architecture," if I may, of the Messiah in whom God "tabernacled among us," but that doesn't mean that it's description in Exodus and the Tanakh was fictional.
Likewise Ezekiel's Temple. Indeed, we know that at some point there must be a Temple upon the earth to fulfill Jeremiah 33:17-18 (see post #592, and please forgive me for forgetting to ping you to it). The Levites were given a priesthood forever, not just until the Messiah came.
Now regarding Clarke, let me deal with the reason that I find his commentary here to be unconvincing. In the opening to his commentary on Ezk. 40, he writes,
As the prophet knew that the Chaldeans had utterly destroyed the temple, he thought it necessary to preserve an exact description of it, that on their restoration the people might build one on the same model.Notice that he claims that the prophet decided, on his own volition, to write Ezekiel 40-48 as a historical record. This belies the prophet's own claim that he recorded what he saw in a vision. Whether he's intending to or not (and Clarke is deliberate and analytical enough that I have to believe that he knows what he's doing), he's trying to play down Ezekiel's Temple vision as prophecy by right up front denegrating it so that the reader won't pay too much attention. Then he goes on to say,
As to allegorical meanings relative to this temple, I can say nothing: God has given no data by which any thing of this kind can be known or applied; and as to those who have laboured in this way, perhaps "Solomon's Temple Spiritualized, by John Bunyan," is equally good with their well-intended inventions. Those who wish to enter much into the particulars of this temple must have recourse to the more voluminous expositors, who on this subject seem to have thought that they could never say enough.So, while declaring the whole Temple allegorical and symbollic, he refuses to explain, or even attempt to explain, the symbolism. That frankly doesn't make him much of a choice as an authority on which to base one's theology about Ezekiel's vision.
JFB's interpretation is frankly, pretty premillennial. We might dither on some of the details, but what strikes me about their commentary is that they continually discuss every element of the Temple as if they thought it to refer to something literal.
Perhaps, in the absence of an explanation of some of the symbolism (as we inevitably get in apocalyptic prophecy like Daniel's or Zechariah's visions or the Revelation), the wiser course is to assume literalness until it is proven otherwise.
Problem is, the First and Second Temples were physical structures; physical structures whose dimensions came in face-to-face contacts with God Himself. In contrast, Ezekiel's Temple came in a vision. Further, JFB states that the physical dimensions described in the temple are physically impossible:
The square of the temple, in Ezekiel 42:20, is six times as large as the circuit of the wall enclosing the old temple, and larger than all the earthly Jerusalem. Ezekiel gives three and a half miles and one hundred forty yards to his temple square. The boundaries of the ancient city were about two and a half miles. Again, the city in Ezekiel has an area between three or four thousand square miles, including the holy ground set apart for the prince, priests, and Levites. This is nearly as large as the whole of Judea west of the Jordan. As Zion lay in the center of the ideal city, the one-half of the sacred portion extended to nearly thirty miles south of Jerusalem, that is, covered nearly the whole southern territory, which reached only to the Dead Sea (Ezekiel 47:19), and yet five tribes were to have their inheritance on that side of Jerusalem, beyond the sacred portion (Ezekiel 48:23-28).
Likewise Ezekiel's Temple. Indeed, we know that at some point there must be a Temple upon the earth to fulfill Jeremiah 33:17-18 (see post #592, and please forgive me for forgetting to ping you to it). The Levites were given a priesthood forever, not just until the Messiah came.
No, you presume that there must be a third physical temple. Your interpretation of Jer. 33:17-18 is actually contra the tenor of the whole Epistle to the Hebrews. "When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear" (Heb. 8:13). The Levites are part of that system that was "ready to disappear," and indeed did disappear with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
What is the point of a return to the Old Testament system of sacrifices? Does not Hebrews say that "there is no longer any offering for sin" and that "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (10:18; 10:4)? As another commentator writes, quoted in JFB, "A temple with sacrifices now would be a denial of the all-sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ. He who sacrificed before confessed the Messiah. He who should sacrifice now would solemnly deny Him."
As for JFB's premillenialism, I am not concerned with their conjecture; just their statements of fact. And the facts are that the temple in Ezekiel is described in terms that are physically impossible given the geography of the region and other uses of the land of Judea mentioned in Ezekiel 40-48. The conjecture is that "These difficulties, however, may be all seeming, not real."