Nine chapters of symbolism?
Ezekiel describes the phsycial dimensions of the temple down to the last cubit. Ezekiel's physical descriptions of the millenial Temple are such that one can build a model of it based only on the description given in Ezekiel. You don't get that exact if you are merely going to symbolize something.
It appears that you are willing to admit that the Ezekiel Temple has never been built. Your position now appears to be that it will never be built and that it is only a symbol of.... something else.
Cop out. The existence of Ezekiel's actual temple contradicts your preconceived notions about eshcatology so rather than throw out your preconceived notions, you symbolize the passages rather than view them in the literal sense in which they were given.
The fact is that if Ezekiel's temple never gets built, then Ezekiel was a false prophet. Why should we judge today's false prophets by a measure less than we would judge Edgar Cayce or Jeanne Dixon or Charles Taze Russell? If their prophecies did not come to pass we didn't let them get away with symbolizing their predictions, we called them false prophets.
Why should we hold Ezekiel to a lesser standard?
Are you serious?? (I'd say "y'all" but that might get me in trouble.)
Revelation has 22 chapters of symbolism. Most of the prophetic books are chock full of symbolism (except the parts that dispensationalist say must be literal in order for them to sell their books).
Details in description does not in any way mitigate the symbolic/representational nature of the image. You think just because dimensions are given that requires a literal interpretation. Well it doesn't. And there is nothing in the Scripture to require it. It is a byproduct of your otherwise faulty hermeneutical method. It fact you have to ignore the obvious symbolism, e.g., the rounded/perfect numbers like 144, 1000, 21 times 12, etc. in order to fit your system.
It is being built. 1 Cor. 3:16,17.
I tell you what. Let's do this. Let's each ante up $1000 and place it in a bank account with the stipulation that, if within 100 years a temple with the exact description from Exekiel 40-48 is built in Jerusalem your heirs get the money and if it isn't then my heirs get the money. How does that sound? Are you confident enough in your exegesis? Or is 100 years too soon?
I for one have no problem with the idea that Ezekiel's Temple is symbolic--just as I have no problem with the idea that Solomon's Temple is symbolic of the believer's architecture or the Tabernacle is symbolic of Heaven. That doesn't mean that Solomon's Temple and the Tabernacle were not literal, physical structures, however. Neither is Ezekiel's Temple merely an etherial symbol without a physical substance.
The existance of a symbol does not deny the existance of the literal.