Ezekiel 43 narrates the return of YHWH’s glory as the precise reversal of its earlier departure. The kavod that moved eastward in judgment (Ezek 10–11) now re-enters from the east and fills the temple (Ezek 43:1–5). The symmetry is deliberate, and commentators such as Daniel Block have underscored its theological and literary significance.
Ezra 3 and 6 describe the rebuilding and dedication of the Second Temple in language that recalls earlier temple accounts. Yet unlike Exodus 40 and 1 Kings 8, the narrative does not state that the glory fills the sanctuary. Although the altar is restored and the temple dedicated, Ezra never narrates a visible return of the kavod, a restraint that several commentators have found significant (Williamson; Grabbe).
Given the prominence of glory-theophanies in earlier temple narratives, this silence is difficult to treat as incidental. The question is not merely why the glory is absent, but what narrative function that absence serves.
It may be that Ezra–Nehemiah preserves a deliberate tension. Ezekiel offers a vision of restoration marked by visible indwelling (Ezek 43:1–5). Ezra narrates restoration without such a manifestation (Ezra 3:10–13; 6:16–18). The juxtaposition does not resolve the difference. Instead, it leaves readers within an unfinished horizon in which the promise of return and the reality of rebuilding do not fully coincide.
In that sense, the lack of an explicit glory scene may itself be part of the canon’s narrative shape. Rather than collapsing expectation into realization, the text sustains a space of anticipation. The restoration is real, yet something remains unarticulated.
This silence does not bring Ezekiel’s vision into fulfillment. The tension, however, remains unresolved. How should it be interpreted? Does it function as narrative restraint, or does it signal a development in how divine presence is theologically framed in the post-exilic period?
Spread the Spirit 
Share your thoughts!