Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezekiel 44:1
Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it [was] shut.
Outward sanctuary – The court of the priests, as distinguished from the temple itself. This gate was reserved for the prince, to whom it was opened on certain days. Only a prince of the house of David might sit down in the priests court (compare Eze 46:1-2).
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
CHAPTER XLIV
This chapter gives an account of the glory of God having
returned to the temple, 14.
The Jews reproved for suffering idolatrous priests to pollute
it with their ministrations, 5-8.
Ordinances respecting the conduct of the priests, and the
maintenance due to them, 9-31.
NOTES ON CHAP. XLIV
Verse 1. The outward sanctuary] In opposition to the temple itself, which was the inner sanctuary.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Then; when the altar was measured, and directions given for consecrating it at first, and for the perpetual use of it for future.
Back; from the inner court, where be had been viewing the altar, to the outer part of the same court, and to the east gate thereof: others say it was to the templegate eastward and that the temple is called
outward sanctuary, in respect of the holy of holies.
It was shut; when, or by whom, the prophet says not, but he found it shut.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary,…. The prophet was brought by his divine guide, from the altar of burnt offerings, which stood before the house, where he had given him the dimensions of it, and the ordinances concerning it, to the temple or holy place, called the outward sanctuary, in distinction from the inward sanctuary, or holy of holies; and to one of the gates of it, which was a gate of the inner court:
and which looketh toward the east: the eastern gate, and was the same he had been at before, and therefore is said to be brought back the way of it; see Eze 43:1:
and it was shut; when he was there before, it was open; for he saw the glory of the Lord enter into the house by the way of it; but now it was shut, and for that reason, because he had entered into it; signifying, among other things, that he would never return, or remove from thence any more. The Misnic doctors d interpret this of one of the little doors to the great gate of the temple, that had two little doors, one in the north, the other in the south; that which was in the south no man ever entered in by, and this they say is understood here; but it is not a little door, but a gate here spoken of, and that the eastern one; of which more in the following verses.
d Misna Middot, c. 4. sect. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The Place of the Prince in the Sanctuary. – Eze 44:1. And he brought me back by the way to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which looked toward the east; and it was shut. Eze 44:2. And Jehovah said to me, This gate shall be shut, shall not be opened, and no one shall enter thereby; because Jehovah, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall be shut. Eze 44:3. As for the prince, as prince he shall sit therein, to eat bread before Jehovah; from the way to the porch of the gate shall he go in, and from its way shall he go out. – From the inner court where Ezekiel had received the measurements of the altar of burnt-offering and the instructions concerning its consecration (Eze 43:5.), he is taken back to the east gate of the outer court, and finds this gate, which formed the principle entrance to the temple, closed. Jehovah explains this fact to him through the angel ( is to be understood according to Eze 43:6 and Eze 43:7) thus: “this gate is to be shut, because Jehovah, the God of Israel, has entered into the temple thereby,” as we have already learned from Eze 43:2. Only the prince, as prince, was allowed to sit in it for the purpose of holding sacrificial meals there. So far the meaning of the words is clear and indisputable. For there can be no doubt whatever that Eze 44:3 introduces a more precise statement concerning the closing of the gate; in other words, that the right of sitting in the gate to eat bread before Jehovah, which is conceded to the priest, is intended as an explanation, resp. modification and limitation, of the statement (Eze 44:2). On the other hand, the more precise definition of the prerogative granted to the prince in Eze 44:3 is not quite clear, and therefore open to dispute. Such a prerogative is already indicated in the prominence expressly given to the prince, consisting partly in the fact that is written first in an absolute form, and partly in the expression , which is repeated in the form of a circumstantial clause, “prince is he,” equivalent to “because he is prince, he is to sit there.” is neither the high priest, as many of the older commentators supposed, nor a collective term for the civil authorities of the people of Israel in the Messianic times (Hvernick), but the David who will be prince in Israel at that time, according to Eze 34:23-24, and Eze 37:24. “To eat bread before Jehovah” signifies to hold a sacrificial meal at the place of the divine presence, i.e., in the temple court, and is not to be restricted, as Kliefoth supposes, to that sacrificial meal “which was held after and along with the bloodless sacrifices, viz., the minchoth , and the shew-breads, and the sweet loaves of the Passover.” There is no authority in the usage of the language for this literal interpretation of the expression “to eat bread,” for means in general to partake of a meal, compare Gen 31:54, etc., and especially Exo 18:12, where Jethro “eats bread before God” with Aaron and the elders of Israel, that is to say, joins in a sacrificial meal composed of or slain-offerings. According to this view, which is the only one supported by usage, the prerogative secured to the of the future is not “that of participating in the sacrificial meals (of the priests), which were to be held daily with the minchoth and shew-bread, in opposition to the law which prevailed before” (Kliefoth), but simply that of holding his sacrificial meals in the gate, i.e., in the porch of the gate, whereas the people were only allowed to hold them in the court, namely, in the vicinity of the sacrificial kitchens.
There is also a difference of opinion concerning the meaning of the second statement in Eze 44:3: “from the way of the porch of the gate shall he enter in, and thence shall he go out.” The suffix in can only refer to , “from the way from which he came (entered), from this way shall he go out again.” Hitzig follows the Rabbins, who understand the passage thus: “as the gate is to remain shut, he must go by the way to the porch which is directed inwardly, toward the court (Eze 40:9). He must have gone into the outer court through the north or the south gate, and by the way by which he came he also went back again.” But Kliefoth argues, in objection to this, that “if the prince was to eat the bread in the porch, the entrance through the south or the north gate would be of no use to him at all; as the gate which could be shut was at that door of the porch which was turned toward the outer court.” Moreover, he affirms that it is not at all the meaning of the text that he was to eat the bread in the porch, but that he was to eat it in the gate-building, and he was to come thither , i.e., “from the place which served as a way to the gate porch, that is to say, the walk from the eastern entrance of the gate-building to the front of the porch, and from that was he to go out again.” The prince, therefore, was “to go into the gate-building as far as the front of the porch through the eastern entrance, there to eat his bread before Jehovah, and to come out again from thence, so that the gate at the western side of the gate porch still remained shut.” But we cannot regard either of these views as correct. There is no firm foundation in the text for Kliefoth’s assertion, that he was not to eat the bread in the porch, but in the gate-building. It is true that the porch is not expressly mentioned as the place where the eating was to take place, but simply the gate ( ); yet the porch belonged to the gate as an integral part of the gate-building; and if is the way to the porch, or the way leading to the porch, the words, “by the way to the porch shall he enter in,” imply clearly enough that he was to go into the porch and to eat bread there. This is also demanded by the circumstance, as the meaning of the words cannot possibly be that the prince was to hold his sacrificial meal upon the threshold of the gate, or in one of the guard-rooms, or in the middle of the gateway; and apart from the porch, there were no other places in the gate-building than those we have named. And again, the statement that the gate on the western side of the gate porch was to be shut, and not that against the eastern wall, is also destitute of proof, as , the way to the porch, is not equivalent to the way “up to the front of the porch.” And if the prince was to hold the sacrificial meal behind the inner gate, which was closed, how was the food when it was prepared to be carried into the gate-building? Through a door of one of the guard-rooms? Such a supposition is hardly reconcilable with the significance of a holy sacrificial meal. In fact, it is a question whether eating in the gate-building with the inner door closed, so that it was not even possible to look toward the sanctuary, in which Jehovah was enthroned, could be called eating .
Hitzig’s explanation of the words is not exposed to any of these difficulties, but it is beset by others. At the outset it is chargeable with improbability, as it is impossible to see any just ground why the prince, if he was to hold the sacrificial meal in the porch of the east gate, should not have been allowed to enter through this gate, but was obliged to take the circuitous route through the south or the north gate. Again, it is irreconcilable with the analogous statements in Ezekiel 46. According to Eze 46:1., the east gate of the inner court was to be shut, namely, during the six working days; but on the Sabbath and on the new moon it was to be opened. Then the prince was to come by the way of the gate porch from without, and during the preparation of his sacrifice by the priests to stand upon the threshold of the gate and worship. This same thing was to take place when the prince desired to offer a freewill offering on any of the week-days. The east gate was to be opened for him to this end; but after the conclusion of the offering of sacrifice it was to be closed again, whereas on the Sabbaths and new moons it was to stand open till the evening (Eze 46:12 compared with Eze 44:2). It is still further enjoined, that when offering these sacrifices the prince is to enter by the way of the gate porch, and to go out again by the same way (Eze 44:2 and Eze 44:8); whereas on the feast days, on which the people appear before Jehovah, every one who comes, the priest along with the rest, is to go in and out through the north or the south gate (Eze 44:9 and Eze 44:10). If, therefore, on the feast days, when the people appeared before Jehovah, the prince was to go into the temple in the midst of the people through the north or the south gate to worship, whereas on the Sabbaths and new moons, on which the people were not required to appear before the Lord, so that the prince alone had to bring the offerings for himself and the people, he was to enter by the way of the porch of the east gate, and to go out again by the same, and during the ceremony of offering the sacrifice was to stand upon the threshold of the inner east gate, it is obvious that the going in and out by the way of the porch of the gate was to take place by a different way from that through the north or the south gate. This other way could only be through the east gate, as no fourth gate existed. – The conclusion to which this brings us, so far as the passage before us is concerned, is that the shutting of the east gate of the outer court was to be the rule, but that there were certain exceptions which are not fully explained till Ezekiel 46, though they are hinted at in the chapter before us in the directions given there, that the prince was to hold the sacrificial meal in this gate. – The outer east gate, which was probably the one chiefly used by the people when appearing before the Lord in the earlier temple, both for going in and coming out, is to be shut in the new temple, and not to be made use of by the people for either entrance or exit, because the glory of the Lord entered into the temple thereby. This reason is of course not to be understood in the way suggested by the Rabbins, namely, that the departure of the Shechinah from the temple was to be prevented by the closing of the gate; but the thought is this: because this gateway had been rendered holy through the entrance of the Shechinah into the temple thereby, it was not to remain open to the people, so as to be desecrated, but was to be kept perpetually holy. This keeping holy was not prejudiced in any way by the fact that the prince held the sacrificial meal in the gate, and also entered the court through this gateway for the purpose of offering his sacrifice, which was made ready by the priests before the inner gate, and then was present at the offering of the sacrifice upon the altar, standing upon the threshold of the inner gate-building. is therefore the way which led from the outer flight of steps across the threshold past the guard-rooms to the gate porch at the inner end of the gate-building. By this way the priest was to go into the gate opened for him, and hold the sacrificial meal therein, namely, in the porch of this gate. That the offering of the sacrifice necessarily preceded the meal is assumed as self-evident, and the law of sacrifice in Ezekiel 46 first prescribes the manner in which the prince was to behave when offering the sacrifice, and how near to the altar he was to be allowed to go.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Message of the House of Israel. | B. C. 574. |
1 Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. 2 Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. 3 It is for the prince; 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.
The prophet is here brought to review what he had before once surveyed; for, though we have often looked into the things of God, they will yet bear to be looked over again, such a copiousness there is in them. The lessons we have learned we should still repeat to ourselves. Every time we review the sacred fabric of holy things, which we have in the scriptures, we shall still find something new which we did not before take notice of. The prophet is brought a third time to the east gate, and finds it shut, which intimates that the rest of the gates were open at all times to the worshippers. But such an account is given of this gate’s being shut as puts honour, 1. Upon the God of Israel. It is for the honour of him that the gate of the inner court, at which his glory entered when he took possession of the house, was ever after kept shut, and no man was allowed to enter in by it, v. 2. The difference ever after made between this and the other gates, that this was shut when the others were open, was intended both to perpetuate the remembrance of the solemn entrance of the glory of the Lord into the house (which it would remain a traditional evidence of the truth of) and also to possess the minds of people with a reverence for the Divine Majesty, and with very awful thoughts of his transcendent glory, which was designed in God’s charge to Moses at the bush, Put off thy shoe from off thy foot. God will have a way by himself. 2. Upon the prince of Israel, v. 3. It is an honour to him that though he may not enter in by this gate, for no man may, yet, (1.) He shall sit in this gate to eat his share of the peace-offerings, that sacred food, before the Lord. (2.) He shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, by some little door or wicket, either in the gate or adjoining to it, which is called the say of the porch. This as to signify that God puts some of his glory upon magistrates, upon the princes of his people, for he has said, You are gods. Some by the prince here understand the high priests, or the sagan or second priest; and that he only was allowed to enter by this gate, for he was God’s representative. Christ is the high priest of our profession, who entered himself into the holy place, and opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
EZEKIEL – CHAPTER 44
THE GATE FOR THE PRINCE
Verses 1-3:
Verses 1, 2 recount that the measuring angel brought Ezekiel back from the sanctuary by way of the outer gate, the court of the priests, toward the east gate and it was shut, Eze 43:1. Then the Lord told him that this gate (Eastern Gate) should be shut, shut to the people, opened only on special occasions for the prince, the ruler who held the place of God in civil and political things, as the priest did in spiritual things, Eze 46:1; Exo 19:21-22; Exo 19:24. only a prince (ruler), of the house of David, might sit down in the priest’s court. As a mark of respect to an Eastern monarch, the gate by which he enters is hereafter shut to all other persons, Job 12:14; Isa 22:22.
Verse 3 certifies that this Eastern gate was to be restrictedly for the prince or civil and political ruler of Israel, who only was permitted to enter and eat bread before the Lord, in connection with the sacrifices, Gen 31:54; Exo 18:12; Exo 24:11; 1Co 10:18. Prior to this only priests had been permitted to eat with or in the presence of the priests.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
THE RELATION OF PRINCE AND PRIESTS TO THE TEMPLE (Chap. 44)
EXEGETICAL NOTES.Eze. 44:1. The gate of the outward sanctuarythe court of the priests as distinguished from the Temple itself. This gate shall be shutshut to the people, but opened on certain days for the prince (chap. Eze. 46:1), he holding the place of God in political concerns, as the priests do in spiritual. Only a prince of the House of David might sit down in the priests court. As a mark of respect to an Eastern monarch, the gate by which he enters is thenceforth shut to all other persons.
Eze. 44:3. It is for the prince. The Rabbis understood this to be the Messiah; but this cannot be, as He would not be likely to offer a burnt-offering as the prince was required to do (chap. Eze. 46:4). The prince must mean the civil ruler under Messiah: he represents Messiah, who entered heaven, the true Sanctuary, by a way that none other could. Because the Lord nata entered in by it. How glorious must the entering Lord be when the prince cannot be more highly honoured than by a place in the gate by which He entered!Hengstenberg. To eat bread before the Lorda custom connected with sacrifices (Gen. 31:54; Exo. 18:12; Exo. 24:11; 1Co. 10:18). According to the old law, these feasts belonged only to the priests; none of the rest of the congregation, not even the king, might partake of them: the new system gives to the prince a privilege which he did not before possess, he standing, as the representative of Messiah, in a higher position than the kings of old.
Eze. 44:6. The rebellious house of Israel. The sins of the priesthood acted and reacted on one another: like priest, like people; and like people, like priest (Jer. 5:31; Hos. 4:9). God expostulates with His people in the seat of their former iniquity (Eze. 44:4; chap. Eze. 8:3).
Eze. 44:7. Strangers. Here the people are taught that unfaithful priests uncircumcised in heart (Act. 7:51), though of the true lineage, are regarded as strangers.
Eze. 44:8. Ye have set keepersaccording to your own pleasure, not My ordinances (Num. 16:40; 1Ki. 12:31).
Eze. 44:10. The Levites that are gone away far from Me. The Levites as a body had remained true to the Temple-service at Jerusalem (2Ch. 11:13). But individuals among them deserted to Israel. These apostate Levites shall bear their iniquities; they shall not be restored to their former rank and privileges.
Eze. 44:11. Yet they shall be ministersservants performing menial offices for the ministering priestsacting as porters, helping in the slaughter of the victims, but not as sacrificing priests. They shall not be excluded from all service in the Sanctuary, but degraded from the functions of priests to those of simple Levites. One may be a believer, and that, too, in a distinguished place, and yet lose some special honourbe acknowledged as pious, yet be excluded from some dignity. Having charge at the gates. Though standing as mere doorkeepers, it is in the house of God which hath foundations; whereas they who dwell with the wicked dwell in but shifting tents (Psa. 84:10).
Eze. 44:15. The priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok. The priests of the line of Ithamar were to be discharged from ministrations in the Temple because of their corruptions. Zadok, according to his name, which means righteous, and his line were to succeed, as they did not take part in the general apostasy to the same degree (1Ki. 2:35; 1Ch. 24:3). It indicated a race of faithful and devoted servantsa priesthood serving God in newness of spirit, not in the oldness of the letter, as the people whom they represented should also have become true Israelites, themselves a royal priesthood offering up spiritual sacrifices to the Lord.
Eze. 44:17. Clothed with linen garments. Four vestments were worn by the ordinary priestthe linen breeches, the coat, the girdle, and the bonnet. The material of which they were made was linen, or, more accurately, byssus, the white shining cotton stuff of Egypt. These two qualities of the byssus are specially marked as characteristic, being symbolical of purity.
Eze. 44:20. Neither shall they shave their headsas mourners used to do, and as the Levitical priests were forbidden to do (Lev. 21:1-5). The worshippers of the Egyptian idols Serapis and Isis shaved their headsanother reason why the priests of Jehovah are not to do so. Nor suffer their locks to grow longas the luxurious, the barbarians, and soldier in warfare did.
Eze. 44:21. Neither shall any priest drink winelest the holy enthusiasm of their devotion should be mistaken for inebriation, as in Peters case (Act. 2:13; Act. 2:15; Act. 2:18).
Eze. 44:23. And they shall teachto spread out the hand, for example, to point to something, to teach. The priestly service is to comprehend worship and doctrine, representation of the people before God, and representation of God before the peopleeverything with an eye to sanctification.
Eze. 44:24. They shall stand in judgment. There was in the second Temple a council of priests whose special duty it was to regulate everything connected with the Sanctuary.
Eze. 44:28. It shall be unto them for an inheritance. The remains of the sacrifices were a chief source of the priests support. I am their inheritancepossessionsomething which one grasps and retains. Jehovah is the all-sufficing possession of His servants (Num. 18:20; Deu. 18:1).
Eze. 44:30. And every oblationoffering, or heave-offering, whatever is according to precept, or of free will, lifted up for Jehovah as a consecrated gilt to the Sanctuary. That he may cause the blessing to rest in thine house. The heaving and waving of the offering involved the thought that in consequence of such gifts to the priest the blessing of God is brought down on the individual house.
Eze. 44:31. That priest shall not eat of anything that is dead of itself, or torn. This was defiling for any man (Lev. 17:15); how much more so for the priests of Jehovah! (Lev. 22:8). Thus was the idea of holiness strictly enforced.
HOMILETICS
THE DIGNITY OF THE CIVIL RULES
(Eze. 44:1-3.)
I. Arises from the exalted character of His regal functions. The king is the human representative of Divine justice, both in its administration and maintenance; he is Gods vicegerent and deputy. The word that describes his office indicates his powerKing, Knning, Able-man. He is the summary of all that is great and noble in man. Priest, teacher, whatsoever of earthly or of spiritual dignity we can fancy to reside in a man embodies itself here, to command over us, to furnish us with constant practical teaching, to tell us for the day and hour what we are to do. He is a leader and guide of men, and must be lifted far beyond the suspicion of selfishness and partiality. He must rule in equity and righteousness, with an ear deaf to the flattery of the rich, and a hand ever ready to help the oppressed and poor. He must defend virtue among the weakest, and punish iniquity among the strongest. Every brave and honest endeavour to act the king adds new lustre to the dignity of the office. The king, like every other true man, is not above acting upon the advice
This above all: To thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the light the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
II. Distinguished by privileged access to the Divine Temple (Eze. 44:1-3). The east gate, through which the glory of the Lord entered the Temple, was to be shut, to be a perpetual reminder of that signal honour paid to the building, and to induce a profound reverence for the Divine majesty. But the prince was permitted to enter the porch of that gate to indicate that his office brought him into nearer contact with God, and to give weight and authority to all his royal proceedings. It is necessary to surround and support the throne with the sanctions of Divine privilege in order to keep up the king to the loftiest standard of right and to give force to every act of justice in the kingly administration.
III. Maintained by spiritual communion and fellowship with the Divine Ruler. He shall eat before the Lord (Eze. 44:3). The prince is permitted to enter the porch of the east gate that he may worship God. It is thus he is constantly reminded of his high duty and receives moral strength to act in harmony with the Divine standard. The higher we rise in the social scale the greater are our responsibilities, and the more need is there to seek Divine help to be faithful and true. The loftiest function of the king is to be the patron and protector of religion. He must seek power for his work at the same source to which the humblest believer is invitedin communion with God. The soul finds its greatest blessings in intense fellowship with the highest. Augustine once beautifully said, Thou mayest seek after honours and not obtain them; thou mayest labour after riches and yet remain poor; thou mayest doat on pleasures and have many sorrows. But our God, of His supreme goodness, says, Whoever sought Me and found Me not? Whoever desired Me and obtained Me not? Whoever loved Me and missed Me? I am with him that seeks Me. He hath Me already that wishes for Me; and he that loveth Me is sure of My love. Fellowship with God is the secret of power to govern righteously and to labour with pleasure and success.
LESSONS.
1. The kingly office has grave responsibilities.
2. The highest honour of the king is to be the faithful servant of God.
3. The king must seek Divine grace to fulfil the duties of his office.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
Eze. 44:1-3. The spiritual truth to be learned here is, that our Messiah entered heaven, the true Sanctuary, by a way that none other could, on the ground of His own perfect holiness (Rom. 1:4): all we must enter as sinners saved by grace. Through Him alone believers eat before the Lord in the communion of the Holy Supper, and shall hereafter experimentally realise that scripture, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God (Luk. 14:15).Fausset.
Eze. 44:1. And it was shut. The Glories of Heaven
1. Are Divinely secured.
2. Are open to all penitent seekers.
3. Are inaccessible to the unbelieving.
Our heart too should be shut to the world and the devil when once the holy God has entered into it and His glory has swallowed up sin and misery in us. Alas! if the door of heaven should be shut!Lange.
Eze. 44:3. What could this import but that the prince should feel he now occupied a place of peculiar nearness to God? As Gods vicegerent and deputy among the people, it became him to be the most distinguished representative in public life of Gods holiness; to tread the higher walks of spiritual communion with heaven, and stand pre-eminent in his zeal for the interests of truth and righteousness. Far now from usurping the authority that belonged to God and abusing it to selfish ends, all authority and power in Israel should be exercisedif this Divine ideal were reduced to practicein a solemn feeling of subordination to Gods majesty and with an unfeigned desire for His glory.Fairbairn.
The Kingly Office
1. Enjoys distinguished privileges.
2. Involves much anxious thought and onerous toil.
3. Needs the help of an earnest, practical piety.
The Christian ruler ought to be the Christian pattern of his people. He is not to preach, just as it is not his office to offer sacrifice; but he is to nourish and protect the Church and avow its faith. He ought to have a good conscience and joy before the Lord because of his princely office, which does not merely consist in this, that we live in peace and quiet under his sceptre, but also that the people may hear the Word of God and without fear offer to Him the sacrifices of their worshipLange.
HOMILETICS
A HOLY PRIESTHOOD
(Eze. 44:4-31.)
I. Urged to fidelity by admonitions of former neglect.
1. Reminded of the lofty standard of Temple-service (Eze. 44:4-5). Having seen the exalted position of the prince, the prophet is shown the character of the priesthood which is to minister in the glorious Temple. A vision of the Divine glory filling the house is again flashed upon him, and he is earnestly called upon to observe with special care the ordinances and laws of the priesthood and every minute detail of the Temple-ritual. The supreme holiness of Jehovah and the manifested splendour of His majesty demand a worship of the highest and purest order. He can be ministered unto acceptably only by a holy priesthood. The object of worship reacts upon the worshipper; and our conceptions of God must necessarily affect and mould the character of the worship we offer to Him. Our souls should be continually straining after enlarged views of God, that our worship may be intelligent, reverent, and holy.
2. The apostasy of priests and people is a desecration of the Temple (Eze. 44:6-10). Priests and people had been unfaithful to covenant engagements and rebelled against the Divine laws. The corruption of the one class reacted upon the other, and their conjoint abominations polluted the holy Sanctuary. The old adage, Like priest, like people, is not less true than Like people, like priest. The priesthood is bound by its calling always to be ahead of the people in teaching and morality.
3. Unfaithful priests are deposed from the highest service (Eze. 44:11-14). The Levites who were carried away with the idolatrous tendency of the times are degraded in their status. Yet their punishment is mixed with mercy. They were not utterly excluded from the Temple. While they were not allowed to take part in the more privileged acts of worship, they were permitted to perform inferior and menial duties. The goodness of God ever provides a way of recovery for the erring; and the humblest place in His Temple is a post of honour that should be appreciated the more it is undeserved.
II. Composed of those who have been faithful in time of trial (Eze. 44:15-16). Amid the general defection the descendants of Zadok maintained their integrity, and they are promoted to honour; they become a type of the holy priesthood which is to occupy the highest place in the newly constituted Temple of the future. Trial is the test of character, and every resistance to evil is a strengthening of the moral fibre. The men who are to-day wielding the mightiest influence for good in Church and State are those who, in the midst of obscurity and misrepresentation, have remained true to their conscience and their God. As gold shines the brighter when submitted to the fiercest fire, so religious principle glows with a diviner lustre the more it is tried. Trial is the pathway to honour and fame.
III. Must observe the Divinely sanctioned laws of purity (Eze. 44:17-27). The minute directions here given concerning the vestments and habits of the priests have a distinctly moral significance. They must wear linen garments, emblems of cleanliness and purity; they must not shave their headsas mourners didnor let their hair grow uncutas persons unfit for active servicenor drink wine when engaged in Temple-servicelest they should be unfit for high spiritual emotionsnor do anything which under the outward restrictions of a symbolic ritual betokened a want of inward purity. The holiness that pervades the house of God must pervade the hearts and lives of those who are called to minister in its hallowed services. The spirit in which the holiest acts are done is a sample and pattern of the spirit in which every duty should be done (Luk. 22:19; comp. Col. 3:17).
IV. Assured of adequate maintenance (Eze. 44:28-31). God takes care to make ample provision for those who work for Him. What they may lack in worldly affluence He makes up to them in the satisfying comfort of His presence and in the riches of His grace. Poverty has its temptations and anxieties, but it is powerless to harm the soul that has its inheritance in God. Let body and soul be wholly devoted to the service of God, and He will not fail to furnish all necessary supplies (Psa. 37:3).
LESSONS.
1. Priestly sins are aggravated because of the privileges and opportunities of the priestly office.
2. Priestly duties demand the loftiest purity.
3. The priest is a power for good only as he is faithful to the Divine law.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
Eze. 44:4-31. All who are engaged in the ministry should be blameless, sound in the faith, full of good works, exemplary in their lives, walking humbly before God and circumspectly in the sight of men. They should be especially careful in forming connections, and prudent in the management of their families, observing and teaching others to keep the statutes of the Lord. They should delight in every part of their sacred service, yet do all in humble reliance on Christ. Their wants should be supplied, so that they may not be obliged to involve themselves in worldly cares and employments for a maintenance.Henry and Scott.
Eze. 44:4-5. Divine Revelations
1. Should be seen from different points of view. Then brought he me the way of the north gate before the house (Eze. 44:4).
2. Overpower the earnest student with their splendour. I looked, and behold the glory filled the house, and I fell upon my face (Eze. 44:4).
3. Boldly challenge the most minute and careful investigation. Mark well all the ordinances, the entering in and every going forth of the sanctuary (Eze. 44:5).
Eze. 44:4. God reveals His glory to His servants, especially when He calls on them to make known His will to His people (Act. 18:9; Act. 23:11).
Eze. 44:5. Divine things are not to be drowsily listened to or drowsily engaged in. In everything there must be heartin seeing, in hearing, in doing.The goings in and out of the Sanctuary a solemn consideration for every one, but especially for those who keep the charge of the Sanctuary, whatever their rank in the service.Lange.
Eze. 44:6-14. Gods Treatment of Rebels.
1. Their sins are accurately recordedrebellion (Eze. 44:6), abominations (Eze. 44:6-7), polluting the Sanctuary (Eze. 44:7), idolatry (Eze. 44:12), breaking of covenant (Eze. 44:7), neglect of duty (Eze. 44:8).
2. They are faithfully reproved (Eze. 44:6-13).
3. They are made conscious of their evil doings. They shall bear their iniquity (Eze. 44:10; Eze. 44:12).
4. They suffer official degradartion (Eze. 44:11; Eze. 44:14).
Eze. 44:7. The voice of the people, the choice of the people, is not Gods voice, Gods choice, but frequently Gods judgment to the full.Self-chosen Divine service is an abomina to the Lord.Lange.
Eze. 44:8; Eze. 44:14. Ye have not kept the charge. But I will make them keepers of the charge. The Divine Mercy
1. Takes note of every act of unfaithfulness.
2. Does not fail to administer faithful reproof.
3. Does not utterly abandon the transgressor.
4. Is ever ready to restore the penitent.
Eze. 44:8. What general can employ a soldier who is everything else, but no soldier?
Eze. 44:9. It is a token of the greatest decline of the Church when the wicked and manifest hypocrites are not only not expelled, but go freely in and out, and even have the ruling power.Lange.
Eze. 44:10. Where there are ungodly teachers there is no want of ungodly hearers (Jer. 5:31). Degraded priests a mirror for pastors.Starke.
Eze. 44:11. Even in the performance of subordinate service, where one originally stood higher, the grace of God may be with us, provided we let Gods humbling of us issue in conversion of heart and look upon the punishment as a righteous recompense. It is not at all necessary that we should, as the world calls it, make a successful career in the clerical profession.Lange.
Eze. 44:12. The sins of the preacher in their consequences as regards the life of the community.
Eze. 44:13. How great then was the love of the Lord Jesus to Peter and the rest of His disciples after His resurrection, as in sending them that sweet message (Mar. 16:7), so in readmitting them to the work of the ministry after so foul a revolt! (Joh. 20:21-23). And doth He not the very same still for His poor sinful servants who desire indeed to fear His name, but are oft overtaken in a fault through infirmity of the flesh?Trapp.
Let us beware of losing precious opportunities wherein we may have the honour of doing great things for God, such as Mark lost in leaving Paul and Barnabas in Pamphylia, and in not going forward to the glorious work through love of ease or fear of man; and such as the disciples lost in not affording Jesus at His request the sympathy of their prayers and tears, through drowsiness, in Gethsemane.Fausset.
The ignominy of failure in ministerial life: personal access to God is hindered, and the office becomes a torment.Lange.
Eze. 44:15-16. Fidelity in Gods Service
1. Commendable in times of general backsliding.
2. Attracts the Divine notice and approval.
3. Rewarded with special honour and blessing.
1. The Lord takes notice of those who serve in His house, who are false and who are faithful in corrupt and apostatising times.
2. God takes pleasure in and honours those who are faithful and constant in His service.Greenhill.
The promise of a priesthood of the house of Zadok entirely corresponded to the promise of a shepherd with the name of David. It is the raising up of a people who should be themselves such a priesthood, and the sons of Zadok came into notice only because in connection with them there was an historical ground for taking them as representatives of a right-hearted spiritual community. All was to rise into a new and higher sphere, first the Kingdom of God itself, and then the people who enjoyed its distinctive privileges and experienced its blessings.Fairbairn.
Eze. 44:16. The precepts according to the law should remind us that preachers particularly run within lists, as Paul writes of the Christians. What is fitting for any one else may yet be far from seemly in a preacher.But it is just those who take things easy that speak most of their severe toil and the heavy labour they have to Undergo.Lange.
Eze. 44:17. The reason is plain; wool is more apt than linen to contract dirt and breed insects; linen breeds none: besides, this is a vegetable and the other an animal substance. It was an ancient maxim that whatever was taken from a dead body was impure in matters of religion, and should not be permitted to enter into the Temple. The Egyptian priests always wore linen on their bodies and shoes of matting or rushes on their feet. The Mohammedans never write the Koran upon vellum or skin of any kind, as they would consider that as a defilement.A. Clarke.
Eze. 44:17-24. The various precepts respecting the purifications and the dress of the priests strikingly impress our minds with the great sanctity which God attaches to the ministry. The bodies of ministers must be preserved in sanctification and in honour. He who does the work and delivers the Word of God must habitually live the servant and friend of God. Nothing in his person, in his food, in his dress, or in his conduct must revolt the faithful against the Word and ordinances of the Lord. On the contrary, all about the priest must be inviting and calculated to recommend religion by a cloud of virtues and engaging qualities. If religion do not make ministers holy and happy, what hope can remain for the people?Sutcliffe.
Eze. 44:19. He who ministers at the Sanctuary must never seem profane, nor a fop in his attire, nor comic in his speech, nor a man of the world in his transactions. He may seem ridiculous to the world, only never conformed to the world.Lange.
Eze. 44:20. Seemly, but not remarkable either in defect or excess.Men of extremes are unfit for the holy ministry.
Eze. 44:23-24. Ministerial Duty
1. To point out the clear distinction between the false and the true. They shall teach My people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern (Eze. 44:23).
2. To be just and impartial in controversy. They shall judge according to My judgments (Eze. 44:24).
3. To observe and enforce obedience to the Divine laws. They shall keep My laws and statutes and hallow My Sabbaths (Eze. 44:24).
Eze. 44:23. As their life, so, above all, their teaching ought to preserve the people from defilement and train them to purity.
Eze. 44:24. The obligation to hallow the Sabbaths of the Lord is not done away with by the advent of Messiah; for here, in a passage which, in any fair interpretation, can only apply to Christian times, this obligation is expressly insisted on.Fausset.
Gods word is Gods judgment, the righteous Judge, right law and upright judgment.The servant of God as umpire in disputes. He must not be a party man, but stands over the parties.Lange.
Eze. 44:25. They who are the messengers, heralds, and representatives of an eternal life shall neither have their serenity disturbed by the death of believers, which is no death, nor their pure life defiled by the life of the spiritually dead, which is no life.We too are allowed to wipe our eyes, as God wipes away every tear from the eyes of His saints.
Eze. 44:28. God the Heritage of the Good
1. Ensuring all necessary temporal good.
2. Supplying all sufficing spiritual blessing.
3. Cures all anxiety as to present and future maintenance.
All who have first the Kingdom of God for their possession are also truly priests. God feeds them wholly on what is hallowed, and he who will have a blessing in his house must evince love to them.Diedrich.
Eze. 44:30. That he may cause the blessing to rest in thine house. Ministerial Maintenance a Source of Family Blessing
1. As it is liberally devised.
2. As it is cheerfully bestowed.
3. As it is gratefully appreciated.
It is all in all to the comfort of any house to have the blessing of God upon it, and that blessing to rest in it; to dwell where we dwell and to extend to those who shall come after us. And the way to have the blessing of God upon our estates is to honour God with them, and to give Him and His ministers, Him and His poor, their share out of them. God blesses, He surely blesses the habitation of those who are thus just (Pro. 3:33); and ministers, by instructing and praying for the families that are kind to them, should do their part towards causing Gods blessing to rest there.Benson.
Eze. 44:31. In Gods service there is no filthy lucre. The Lord purifies everything for them who eat with Him.Diedrich.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
B. The Ministers of Worship: The Priests 44:1-45:8
After briefly discussing the relationship of the prince to the sanctuary (Eze. 44:1-3), Ezekiel speaks of the qualifications of the temple ministers (Eze. 44:4-14), the regulations for the Zadokite priests (Eze. 44:15-27); the provision for the Zadokite priests (Eze. 44:28-31), and finally the allocation of land which was theirs (Eze. 45:1-8).
1. The prince and the sanctuary (44:13)
TRANSLATION
(1) Then he brought me back by the way of the outer gate of the sanctuary, which looks toward the east; and it was shut. (2) And the LORD said unto me, This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, neither shall any man enter in by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered in by it; therefore it shall be shut. (3) As for the prince, he shall sit therein as prince to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of the gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.
COMMENTS
The angel now brought Ezekiel back from the inner court to the outer eastern gate which only shortly before he had entered (Eze. 43:1). He found that gate shut now that the glory of God had re-entered the Temple (Eze. 44:1). Never again would that gate be open, for Gods glory would never again depart from His Temple. No man would be permitted to enter the gate through which the divine presence had come (Eze. 44:2). However, the future leader of Gods people the prince would be permitted to partake of sacrificial meals within the eastern gate complex. But not even he would be allowed to enter by that sealed gate. He would enter the gate complex from the rear or west end by the way of the porch of the gate.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XLIV.
The altar being consecrated, the next thing is to provide for the purity of the worship of which it is the centre. The pollutions of former times had been largely introduced by the princes, and by the Levites and priests; and these classes are therefore treated of in this chapter. Only three verses are here given to the prince, since he is to be spoken of at greater length hereafter, and the rest of the chapter is occupied with directions as to the exclusion of strangers, and the duties of the Levites and priests.
(1) The gate of the outward sanctuary.This is better rendered, the outer gate of the sanctuary. The prophet had been in the inner court, or court of the priests, where the altar stood, and is now brought back to the eastern gate of the outer court. He finds it shut, as it was ordinarily to remain; but with the exceptions mentioned in Eze. 44:3, and in Ezekiel 46
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
THE SERVANTS OF THE SANCTUARY.
1-3. The prophet is now conducted “to the outer gate of the sanctuary” (R.V.), facing the east, which he had formerly seen open (Eze 43:1), but which was now shut because the glory of the Lord had entered into the house by this gate, which must henceforth be counted too sacred to be entered by any other. It is not impossible that the locked door signified also the abiding presence of him who should go out no more forever, but the former thought is emphasized by Ezekiel. The prince (see Eze 45:7, etc.), though not allowed to pass through this gateway, could enter the outer court through any of the other entrances and eat the sacrificial meal (Lev 2:3; Lev 23:6; Lev 24:9) in the porch or vestibule before this peculiarly sacred threshold.
It is for the prince; the prince Either read with R.V., “As for the prince, he shall sit therein as prince,” or consider “The Prince” to be a heading which gives the content of the passage and which has accidentally slipped into the text (Peters, Journal of Biblical Literature, 12:48).
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Permanent Closing of the East Gate of the Heavenly Temple ( Eze 44:1-3 ).
‘Then he brought me back the way of the outer gate of the sanctuary which looks towards the east, and it was shut. And Yahweh said to me, “This gate will be shut, it shall not be opened, neither shall any man enter by it, for Yahweh the God of Israel has entered in by it. Therefore it shall be shut.” ’
Having heard the voice of the Lord Yahweh speaking to him from the sanctuary with instructions about the altar, Ezekiel was now brought by the heavenly visitant back to the east gate of the heavenly temple. And he found that it was permanently closed. For a similar abrupt reintroduction of the heavenly visitant see Eze 46:19.
God then spoke to him again and told him the reason for the closure. It was because Yahweh, the God of Israel had Himself entered by it. Thus it was to remain shut up until it released the overflowing of blessing for which it was purposed (chapter 47).
This kind of ban was also known among earthly monarchs of great importance. When the great king had entered a city, the gate through which he entered would for a time be closed to common people because he had passed through it, in recognition of his status and greatness.
This was once again to remind God’s people of His holiness. Once His glory had been in contact with something it was ‘very holy’. It could not be touched by common man. This was now true of the gate of the heavenly temple by which Yahweh had entered. His glory remained in it (compare Exo 34:29). As far as we know the restriction was never placed on an earthly temple. Even though the glory of Yahweh did enter the second temple (Hag 2:4-9 with 21-23), there is no mention of His entering by any gate or of an east gate ever having been shut permanently (although nor do we know that it was not. We do not know the make up of the second temple).
But this gate was no ordinary gate. It was a supernatural gate. For one day from under its threshold would flow rivers of living water, and such abundant waters that they would transform the landscape, and the world, and this too was measured by the man with the measuring line (Eze 47:3). Thus the gate symbolised the unique presence of God waiting in heavenly power in His heavenly temple to burst forth on the world.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The New Temple ( Eze 40:1 to Eze 48:35 ).
The book of Ezekiel began with a vision of the glory of God and the coming of the heavenly chariot throne of God in order to speak directly to His people through Ezekiel (chapter 1). He then recorded the departure of God’s glory from Jerusalem and the Temple because of the sins of Israel (chapters 8 – 11). This was followed by the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Now it ends with another vision, the return of God’s glory to the land and to His people (chapters 40 -48) depicted in the form of a heavenly temple established on the mountains of Israel to which the glory of God returns, resulting in the final restoration of ‘the city’ as ‘Yahweh is there’. Thus this part of the book follows both chronologically and logically from what has gone before.
Furthermore at the commencement of the book Ezekiel received his divine commission as a prophet (chapters 1 – 3), then he pronounced oracles of judgment against Judah and Jerusalem for their sins, declaring that Jerusalem must be destroyed (chapters 4 – 24). He followed this up with oracles of judgment against the foreign nations who had opposed Israel (chapters 25 – 32). Then on hearing of Jerusalem’s fall (Eze 33:21), the prophet proclaimed messages of hope for Israel, declaring that God would fulfil His promises to deliver and bless His people Israel, and would restore them to the land of their fathers and establish them in the land.
Yes, more, that they would be established there everlastingly under a new David, with an everlasting sanctuary set up in their midst (stressed twice – Eze 37:26; Eze 37:28) (chapters 34 – 39). And now he declares the presence of that new Temple, even now present in the land, invisible to all but him and yet nevertheless real in so much that it can be measured. It is ‘the icing on the cake’, the final touch to what has gone before (40-48). God is back in His land. For such an invisible presence, a glimpse of another world, present but unseen except by those with eyes to see, compare Gen 28:12; 2Ki 2:11-12; 2Ki 6:17; Zec 1:7-11. Indeed without that heavenly temple the glory could not return, for it had to be guarded from the eyes of man.
The heavenly temple can be compared directly with the heavenly throne with its accompanying heavenly escort which Ezekiel saw earlier (chapter 1). That too was the heavenly equivalent of the earthly ark of the covenant, and huge in comparison. So Ezekiel was very much aware of the heavenly realm and its presence in different ways on earth, for he was a man of spiritual vision.
But there is one remarkable fact that we should notice here, and that is that having been made aware of the destruction of Jerusalem, and looking forward to the restoration of Israel and its cities and the Satanic opposition they will face, and even speaking of the building of a new Temple, Ezekiel never once refers directly by name to Jerusalem in any way (in Eze 36:38 it is referred to in an illustration). This seems quite remarkable. It seems to me that this could only arise from a studied determination not to do so. He wants to take men’s eyes off Jerusalem.
Here was a man who was a priest, who had constantly revealed his awareness of the requirements of the cult, who had been almost totally absorbed with Jerusalem, who now looked forward to the restoration of the land and the people, and yet who ignored what was surely central in every Israelite’s thinking, the restoration of Jerusalem. Surely after his earlier prophecies against Jerusalem his ardent listeners must have asked him the question, again and again, what about Jerusalem? And yet he seemingly gave them no answer. Why?
It seems to me that there can only be two parallel answers to that question. The first is that Jerusalem had sinned so badly that as far as God and Ezekiel were concerned its restoration as the holy city was not in the long run to be desired or even considered. What was to be restored was the people and the land, which was his continual emphasis. Jerusalem was very secondary and not a vital part of that restoration. And secondly that in the final analysis the earthly Jerusalem was not important in the final purposes of God. Jerusalem had been superseded. His eternal sanctuary would be set up, but it would not be in the earthly Jerusalem (chapter 45 makes this clear). Rather it would be set up in such a way that it could more be compared to Jacob’s ladder, as providing access to and from the heavenlies (Gen 28:12) and a way to God, and yet be invisible to man. It is a vision of another world in its relationships with man (compare 2Ki 6:17). It was the beginnings of a more spiritual view of reality. And it would result in an eternal city, the city of ‘Yahweh is there’ (Eze 48:30-35).
Now that is not the view of Jerusalem and the temple of men like Nehemiah (Neh 1:4) and Daniel (Dan 9:2; Dan 9:16; Dan 9:19), but they were God-inspired politicians thinking of the nearer political and religious future not the everlasting kingdom. (Daniel does of course deal with the everlasting kingdom, but he never relates Jerusalem to it. He relates the everlasting kingdom to Heaven). Nor do the other prophets avoid mentioning Jerusalem, and they do see in ‘Jerusalem’ a place for the forwarding of the purposes of God (e.g. Isa 2:3; Isa 4:3-5; Isa 24:23; Isa 27:13; Isa 30:19; Isa 31:5; Isa 33:20-21; Isa 40:2; Isa 40:9; Isa 44:26-28; Isa 52:1-2; Isa 52:9; Isa 62:1-7; Isa 65:18-19; Isa 66:10-20; Jer 3:17-18; Jer 33:11-18; Joe 2:32; Joe 3:1; Joe 3:16-20; Oba 1:17-21; Mic 4:2-8; Zep 3:14-16; Zec 2:2-4; Zec 2:12; Zec 3:2; Zec 8:3-8; Zec 8:15; Zec 8:22; Zec 9:9-10; Zec 12:6 to Zec 13:1; Zec 14:11-21; Mal 3:4), although some of these verses too have the ‘new Jerusalem’ firmly in mind. And certainly God would in the short term encourage the building of a literal Temple in Jerusalem (Haggai and Zechariah). Thus all saw the literal Jerusalem as having at least a limited function in the forward going of God’s purposes, simply because it was central in the thinking of the people of Israel. Although how far is another question. However, Ezekiel’s vision went beyond that. It seems to be suggesting that in the major purposes of God the earthly Jerusalem was now of little significance. It was not even worthy of mention. It is now just ‘the city’.
Yet we find him here suddenly speaking of the presence of a new Temple in the land of Israel. But even here, although it is referred to under the anonymous phrase ‘the city’ (Eze 40:1), Jerusalem remains unmentioned by name. And the temple is not sited in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is simply a place called anonymously ‘the city’, whose future name, once it is redeemed and purified, is ‘Yahweh is there’ (Eze 48:35). What Ezekiel is far more concerned to demonstrate is that the glory of Yahweh, and His accessibility to His own, has returned to His people in a new heavenly Temple, which has replaced the old, and is established on a mysterious and anonymous mountain, rather than to stress His presence in an earthly Jerusalem. Indeed he will stress that this temple is outside the environs of Jerusalem (Eze 45:1-6).
This should then awaken us to the fact that Ezekiel is in fact here speaking of an everlasting sanctuary (Eze 37:26; Eze 37:28). This is no earthly Temple with earthly functions. There is no suggestion anywhere that it should be built, indeed it was already there and could be measured. It is an everlasting heavenly Temple of which the earthly was, and will be, but a shadow.
It is true that a physical temple would be built, and they are specifically told that the altar described (but pointedly not directly ‘measured’) is to be made (Eze 43:18), for physical sacrifices would require a physical altar, and that will be the point of contact with the heavenly temple, but the important thing would be, not the physical temple, but the invisible heavenly temple, present in the land, of which the physical was but a representation. The ancients regularly saw their physical religious artefacts as in some way representing an invisible reality, and so it is here. A fuller picture of the heavenly temple is given throughout the Book of Revelation. And this temple was now ‘seen’ to be established in the land even before a physical temple was built. God had again taken possession of His land, and awaited the return of His people for the ongoing of His purposes.
But a further point, putting these verses firmly in its context, is that this will make them realise that once they have come through the trials brought on them by Gog and his forces, fortified by the presence of God in their midst, they will be able to enter the eternal rest promised them by God, for His heavenly, everlasting temple was here so that He could dwell among them in an everlasting sanctuary. This was thus putting in terms that they could understand the heavenly future that awaited His people. It was a fuller and more perfect sanctuary (Eze 37:26-28; Heb 9:11). And it had relevance from the beginning as the sign that God had returned to His land.
This section about the ‘heavenly’ temple can be split into five parts. The first is a brief introduction in terms of the vision that Ezekiel experienced (Eze 40:1-4). This is followed by a detailed description of the new temple complex with the lessons that it conveyed (Eze 40:5 to Eze 42:20), the return of Yahweh to His temple (Eze 43:1-9), the worship that would follow as a result of that temple (Eze 43:10 to Eze 46:24), and the accompanying changes that would take place with regard to His people as they ‘repossessed the land’ with the final establishment of a heavenly city (chapters 47-48), all expressed in terms of what they themselves were expecting, but improved on. To them ‘the land’ was the ultimate of their aspirations, a land in which Yahweh had promised them that they would dwell in safety and blessing for ever. So the promises were put in terms of that land to meet with their aspirations. But there are clear indications that something even more splendid was in mind as we shall see. The land could never finally give them the fullness of what God was promising them, and once the temple moved into Heaven, ‘the land’ would move there too.
But we should perhaps here, in fairness to other commentators, pause to recognise that there are actually a number of main views (with variations) with regard to these chapters, which we ought to all too briefly consider for the sake of completeness, so as to present a full picture. As we consider them readers must judge for themselves which one best fits all the facts, remembering what we have already seen in Ezekiel the details of a vision that reaches beyond the confines of an earthly land. We must recognise too that accepting one does not necessarily mean that we have to fully reject the others, for prophecy is not limited to a single event, but to the ongoing action and purposes of God. Nevertheless we cannot avoid the fact that one view must be predominant
1) Some have considered that what Ezekiel predicted was fulfilled when the exiles returned and re-established themselves in the land, rebuilding the physical temple and restoring the priesthood. However nothing that actually took place after the return from Babylon matches the full details of these predictions. Neither the temple built under Zerubbabel’s supervision, nor the temple erected by Herod the Great, bore any resemblance to what Ezekiel describes here. In fact, there has been no literal fulfilment of these predictions. And there does not seem to have been a desire for it. Thus this view disregards many of the main facts outlined and dismisses them as unimportant. It sees them as mainly misguided optimism or permissible exaggeration.
2) Others have interpreted this section spiritually. They have seen these predictions as fulfilled in a spiritual sense in the church, and certainly the New Testament to a certain extent confirms this view. Consider for example the use of the idea in chapter 47 in Joh 7:38. But many consider that this approach fails to explain the multitude of details given, such as the dimensions of the various rooms in the temple complex. They point out that Ezekiel’s guide was careful to make sure that the prophet recorded these details exactly (Eze 40:4). The reply would be that what they indicate symbolically is God’s detailed concern for His people. This view presupposes that the church supersedes the old Israel in God’s programme (as many believe that the New Testament teaches) and that many of God’s promises concerning a future for Israel find part of their actual fulfilment in the church as God’s temple and as the new Israel, symbolically rather than literally. There is certainly some truth in this position.
3) Still others believe that these chapters describe a yet future, eschatological temple and everlasting kingdom in line with Eze 37:24-28, and following 38-39, but that they again do so only symbolically. These interpreters believe that the measurements, for example, represent symbolic truth concerning the coming everlasting kingdom, including the dwelling of God among His people, the establishing of true and pure worship, and the reception by His people of all that He has promised them in fuller measure than they can ever have expected, but they do not look for a literal temple complex and the establishment of temple worship. Indeed they consider that such would be a backward step in the progress of God’s purposes.
It is claimed by those who disagree with them that this view also overlooks the amount of detail given, so much detail, they would claim, that one could almost use these chapters as general blueprints to build the structures in view. To this the reply is partly that the detail is in fact not sufficient to prepare efficient blueprints, and partly that they bear their own message. Indeed they argue that all the many attempts to make a reliable blueprint have failed. If taken literally, they argue, there are problems with the detail that cannot be surmounted. They are therefore far better seen as depictions of the concern of God for perfection for His people.
4) Still others also take this passage as a an apocalyptic prophecy but anticipate a literal fulfilment in the future. While they accept that some of the descriptions have symbolic significance as well as literal reality, and that some teach important spiritual lessons, and can also be applied to the eternal state, nevertheless, they argue, the revelation finally concerns details of a literal future temple to be built to these specifications, details of a system of worship and priesthood which will be literally established, and actual physical changes in the promised land, which will occur when a people identifying themselves specifically as Israel, not the church, dwell there securely (i.e. during what they call the Millennium).
Those who disagree with them point among other things to the impracticality of the plans for the temple, the impossibility of now establishing a genuine Zadokite priesthood, the contradiction of establishing a system of sacrifices when the New Testament points to a better sacrifice, made once for all, which has replaced all others, the discrepancies and difficulties with regard to the siting of the temple, and the unfeasability of dividing the land in the way described.
5) And finally there is the view that we are proposing here, that the Temple of Ezekiel was never intended to be built by man, but was rather a genuine and real presence of the heavenly temple which was from this time present invisibly on earth (invisible to all but Ezekiel, as the armies of God were present but invisible to all but Elisha –2Ki 6:17). It is saying that God has established Himself in His own invisible temple in the land ready to carry out His campaign into the future. This can then be seen as connected with the temple seen in Revelation in heaven, with the earthly temples to be built as but a shadow of the heavenly, and with the final temple in the everlasting kingdom. The strength of this position will appear throughout the commentary. Suffice to say at this point that there is nowhere in the chapters any suggestion that the temple should be built from the description presented (in complete contrast with the tabernacle – Exo 25:40). And this is even more emphatically so because instructions are given to build an altar for worship. Given Ezekiel’s visionary insight this fact in itself should make us hesitate in seeing this as any but a visionary temple already present in Israel at the time of measuring.
Whatever view we take we cannot deny that the New Testament does see God’s temple as being present on earth in His people (Eph 2:20-22; 1Co 3:16-17 ; 2Co 6:16; Rev 11:1), and that John in Revelation refers throughout to a temple in Heaven, and to a new Jerusalem, clearly related to some of the things described in these chapters. Furthermore his description of the eternal state, of life in ‘the new earth’ after the destruction of the present earth, is partly based on chapter 47-48 (Revelation 21-22). And we might see that as suggesting that once the Messiah had been rejected God’s heavenly temple was thought of as having deserted Israel, and as having gone up into Heaven where it was seen by John, although still being represented on earth, no longer by a building, but by His new people.
Bearing all this in mind we will now consider the text.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Israel’s Glorification Eze 35:1 to Eze 48:35 deals with the topic of Israel’s glorification. The description of the restored land of Israel and the new Temple and its worship (36-48) reveals a building and nation more majestic and beautiful that that found during the time of Solomon. These passages reveal the glorification that God has in planned for His people Israel. This glorification is different than what He has planned for the Church. The prophecies of this passage signify the fact that God has a much greater blessing in store for His people than any earthly kingdom in the past, even greater than Israel in its golden age of King Solomon. The future glories of the heavenly kingdom will far exceed the earthly. The Book of Jubilees (4.26-27) tells us that this Mount Zion will be sanctified in the new creation for a sanctification of the earth; through it will the earth be sanctified from all (its) guilt and its uncleanness throughout the generations of the world.
From these last chapters in the book of Ezekiel we know that the full restoration of Israel involves three key events that will take place in order to make their restoration complete and everlasting. These events will involve the restoration of Israel as a nation (36-37), the battle against Gog and its allies (38-39), and the restoration of the Temple and its worship (40-46) and its land (47-48).
Here is a proposed outline:
1. Judgment upon Edom Eze 35:1-15
2. The Restoration of Israel as a Nation Eze 36:1 to Eze 37:28
3. The Battle against Gog and its Allies Eze 38:1 to Eze 39:23
4. The Restoration of the Temple and its Worship and Land Eze 40:1 to Eze 48:35
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Restoration of the Temple Eze 40:1 to Eze 46:24 deals with the issue of the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Status of the Prince, the Levites, and the Priests
v. 1. Then He brought me back the way of the gate of the outward Sanctuary which looketh toward the east, v. 2. Then said the Lord unto me, v. 3. It is for the prince, v. 4. Then brought He me the way of the north gate before the house, v. 5. And the Lord said unto me, Son of man, mark well, v. 6. And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God, v. 7. in that ye have brought into My Sanctuary strangers, v. 8. And ye have not kept the charge of Mine holy things, v. 9. Thus saith the Lord God, No stranger, uncircumcised in heart nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My Sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel. v. 10. And the Levites that are gone away far from Me, when Israel went astray, v. 11. Yet they shall be ministers in My Sanctuary, v. 12. Because they ministered unto them before their idols and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity, v. 13. And they shall not come near unto Me to do the office of a priest unto Me, nor to come near to any of My holy things, v. 14. But I will make them keepers of the charge of the house, v. 15. But the priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of My Sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from Me, v. 16. They shall enter into My Sanctuary,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
The prophet, having finished his account of the temple, or place of worship, proceeds, in the second section of his vision (Ezekiel 44-46.), to set forth the culture, or ritual, to be performed in the temple; treating first of the several classes in the new community, and of their relation to the sanctuary (Eze 44:1-31.); next of the regulations to be observed in the maintenance of worship (Eze 45:1-25.); and, thirdly, of certain supplementary orders for the prince, the people, and the priests, when engaged in the solemnities of their religion (Eze 46:1-24.). In particular, the present chapter deals
(1) with the relation of the prince to the sanctuary (Eze 44:1-3);
(2) with that of the people, Levites, and priests (Eze 44:4-16); and
(3) with the duties and emoluments of the priests (Eze 44:17-31).
Eze 44:1-3
The relation of the prince to the sanctuary.
Eze 44:1
The gate of the outward sanctuary, the outer gate of the sanctuary (Revised Version)which looketh toward the east. To this door the prophet was conducted back, by way of the inner north or south gate, from the inner court, in which he had received the measurements of the altar and the instructions for its consecration (Eze 43:5). Whether Ezekiel stood upon the outside of this door as in Eze 43:1, or upon its inside, cannot as yet be determined; but in either ease he observed that it was shutagain, whether on the east side towards the temple precincts, or on the west towards the outer court, is not mentioned, and cannot at this stage be decided. What led the seer to notice that the gate was closed was probably the circumstance that the last time he stood beside it it was open (Eze 43:1), though proof cannot be given that he passed through it (Eze 43:5), conjoined with the fact that it formed the principal entrance to the temple, and as such had been described to him and measured (Eze 40:6).
Eze 44:2
This gate shall be shut, The prophet must have noted this as an important difference between the new sanctuary and the old (whether temple or tabernacle), in which the east gate stood always open. That the gate of the new temple was to be closed only on the six working days Ewald mistakenly infers from Eze 46:1, where he reads, after the LXX; the outer instead of the inner court. But Eze 46:1 refers to the east gate of the inner court. Of the east gate of the outer court it is declared emphatically that it shall not be opened, neither shall any man enter in by it, meaning that it should be closed in perpetuity; and that not, as Abar-banel and Lightfoot have supposed, to express the idea that the glory of Jehovah should no more depart from the temple, but abide in it forever, but to inspire an exalted conception of the sanctity of the “house” and all its belongings, as Jehovah explained, Because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.
Eze 44:3
It is for the prince conveys an erroneous impression, as if the edict, excluding all from passing through the east outer gate, did not apply to the prince; but even for him the gate was not to serve as a mode of entrance into the temple, or, if so, only on exceptional occasions (see on Eze 46:2), but merely as a place to sit in. The Revised Version accurately renders the words, As for the prince, he shall sit therein as prince, etc. That the “prince” here alluded to () could not have been the Prince David, i.e. the Messiah already spoken of (Eze 34:23, Eze 34:24; Eze 37:24), but must have denoted the civic authorities of the new community of Israel, “the civil head of the theocracy,” Havernick infers from Eze 45:8, Eze 45:9, where the coming “prince” is contrasted with Israel’s previous rulers who oppressed their subjects, from the absence of some such characteristic predicate as “shepherd” or “king,” which would, he thinks, have been attached to the word “prince” had it been intended to designate Messiah, from the prince’s offering for himself a sin offering (Eze 45:22), from the allusion to his sons (Eze 46:16), and from what is recorded about his behavior in worship (Eze 46:2); but none of these statements concerning the “prince’ forbids his identification with Messiah, unless on the supposition that it was already understood Messiah should be a Divine-human Personage. This, however, had not then been so distinctly revealed as to be widely and accurately known. Hence it seems enough to say that while the “prince” would have his highest antitype in the Messiah, he would also have, though in a lower and lesser degree, an antitype in every righteous ruler (if ever there should be such) who might subsequently preside over Israel (see on Eze 37:25). The phrase, to eat bread before the Lord, while referring in the first instance to those sacrificial meals which, under the Law, commonly accompanied unbloody offerings, as the meat offerings (Le Eze 2:3), the showbread (Le Eze 24:9), and the unleavened leaves of the Passover (Exo 12:18; Lev 23:6 Num 28:17; Deu 16:3), and could only be partaken of by the priests, in the second instance signified to partake of sacrificial meals in general, even of such as consisted of the portions of flesh which were eaten in connection with ordinary bloody offerings (Gen 31:54; Exo 18:12). If, after Kliefoth, the former be adopted as the import of the phrase here, then the thought will be that in the new cultus the prince should enjoy a privilege which under the old was not possessed even by the king; if, after Keil, the second view be preferred, the sense will amount to this, that under the regulations of the future the prince should have the favor accorded him “of holding his sacrificial meals in the gate,” whereas the people should only be permitted to hold theirs “in the court,” or “in the vicinity of the sacrificial kitchens.” The way of the porch is mentioned as the ingress and egress for the prince; which implies that he should obtain access to the outer court by either the north or the south gate, since the outer door of the east gate was shut. This renders it probable that Ezekiel was himself standing on the outside of the east gate (see on verse 1).
Eze 44:4-16
The relations of the people, Levites, and priests to the sanctuary.
Eze 44:4
From the outside of the east gate of the outer court the prophet was brought the way of the north gate, but whether of the outer or of the inner is uncertain, and set down before the house. On the ground that the prophet at his new station was in front of the temple, Hitzig, Keil, and others decide for the north gate of the inner court; whereas Kliefoth, looking to the circumstance that the first communications made to the prophet at his new post concerned “the entering in of the house,” and “the going forth of the sanctuary,” prefers the north gate of the outer court. But at whichever of the gates the prophet was set down he perceived a second time (comp. Eze 43:5) that the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord, and this, perhaps, should cast the balance in favor of the inner court entrance, from which the interior of the “house” could be more easily
Eze 44:5
Having fallen on his face before the renewed theophany, the prophet was summoned as once before (Eze 40:4), but with greater emphasis than before, to mark well, or set his heart to observe, the communications about to be made to him concerning all the ordinances of the house of the Lord, and. all the laws thereof (see on Eze 43:11), more especially with regard to the persons who should have a right to participate in its services.
Eze 44:6
Let it suffice you of all your abominations. It was not without sights canoe that at the north gate, which had formerly been represented as the scene of Israel’s idolatries (Eze 8:5), the prophet should be reminded of those past iniquities of his nation, and receive instructions as to how the new community should be preserved from lapsing into similar transgressions.
Eze 44:7
The special sin chargeable against Israel in the past had been the introduction into the sanctuary, while the priests were engaged in sacrifice, of strangersaliens (Revised Version); literally, sons of a strangeruncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, in express contravention of Jehovah’s covenant. Ewald, Havernick, Hengstenberg, Schroder, and Currey restrict the designation “strangers” to unfaithful and unauthorized priests, who, as in the days of Israel’s apostasy, notoriously under Jeroboam (1Ki 12:31; 2Ch 11:15), may, in the confluence of idolatries that took place in Jerusalem during the reigns of Ahaz (2Ki 16:3, 2Ki 16:4, 2Ki 16:10-15; 2Ch 28:2-4, 2Ch 28:23-25) and Manasseh (2Ki 21:2-7, 2Ki 21:11, 2Ki 21:15; 2Ch 33:2-7), have been admitted to participate in the temple services; but Kliefoth, Delitzsch, Keil, Smend, and Plumptre, with better judgment, recognize in the “strangers” foreigners who had not incorporated themselves with Israel by submitting to circumcision, but, though dwelling in the midst of Israel, were still uncircumcised heathen in both heart and flesh. With regard to these foreigners, the Law of Moses (Le 17:8,10) enacted that, by accepting circumcision, they might become members of the Israelitish commonwealth, but that without this they could not be permitted to partake of the Passover, the highest symbol of national and religious unity (Exo 12:48, Exo 12:49). Nevertheless, it was open to them, on giving a certain measure of obedience to the Law (Exo 12:19; Exo 20:10; Le Exo 17:10, Exo 17:12; Exo 18:26; Exo 20:2; Exo 24:16, 22), to enter the sanctuary and present all sorts of offerings to Jehovah (Le 17:8; Num 15:14, Num 15:29) Hence Israel’s offence had not been the admission of such “sons of the stranger” into the sanctuary, but the admission of them without insisting on the above specified conditions, in other words, the admission of such as not only lacked the bodily mark of circumcisionwhich would not have excluded thembut were destitute as well of the first elements of Hebrew piety, i.e. were as uncircumcised in heart as they were in the flesh. The sanctioning of such within the temple courts, while Jehovah’s bread, the fat and the blood, was being offered, i.e. while sacrificial worship was being performed, was not simply a desecration of the “house,” but was an express violation of the covenant Jehovah had made with Israel with reference to these very “sons of the stranger.”
Eze 44:8
Instead of having exercised a holy solicitude for the purity of the temple and the regularity of its rites, by keeping strict watch over the holy things of Jehovah, the house of Israel had set keepers; literally, had set them, i.e. the uncircumcised “strangers” above referred to, as keepers of Jehovah’s charge in his sanctuary for themselves, i.e. to please themselves, irrespective altogether of Jehovah’s enactments. From this it has been argued, by Wellhausen, Smend, Driver, and others, that the “strangers” above mentioned had been not only allowed access to the outer court as spectators or as worshippers while the priests were offering sacrifice, but admitted to the inner court as assistants to the priests in their altar duties, that this, the employment of these heathen hierodules, had been the special wickedness of which Israel had been guilty, and that henceforward these “foreign ministers” were to be thrust out from their offices, and their places supplied by the about-to-be-degraded Levites. It is, however, doubtful if the phrase, keepers of my charge in the sanctuary, can be made to signify more than has already been expressed by the clause, “to be in my sanctuary when ye offer my bread” (Eze 44:7), by which, as Kliefoth and Keil explain, Israel had practically made these strangers “keepers of Jehovah’s charge,” i.e. observers of the rites of worship prescribed by him, though observers in their way, not in his; if more can be extracted from the words, then the most they can be legitimately made to affirm (as there is no mention of the inner court) is that these “strangers,” in addition to obtaining access to the outer court to witness the sacrifices, or perhaps offer such for themselves, had been more or less frequently employed in performing subordinate offices towards the Levites, who were the proper priests’ assistants, like the Gibeonites, whom Joshua (Jos 9:27) made “hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation and for the altar of the Lord unto this day,” and like the Nethinim, whom, according to Ezra (Ezr 8:20), David and the princes had given for the service of the Levites. (On the phrase, “to keep the charge of Jehovah,” as signifying to follow his directions or comply with his prescriptions, see Num 9:23.) “In the sanctuary” explains that the prescriptions alluded to were those pertaining to the sanctuary or to the worship of Jehovah.
Eze 44:9-16
Accordingly, that no such abuses might creep in to desecrate the temple of the future, a new Torah was promulgated concerning the persons who should have a right to participate in its services. If the “prince” is omitted, the reason probably was that a special section is subsequently devoted to him (Eze 46:1-8).
Eze 44:9
The ordinance for the people. No stranger (or, alien), uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary. The publication of this edict marked a clear advance upon preceding legislation. The old Torah conceded right of access to a foreigner, though uncircumcised, on certain conditions (Eze 44:7); this new Torah would accord such right of access to a foreigner on no conditions. Even should he be circumcised in the flesh, unless he possessed also that which the bodily mark symbolized, viz. circumcision of heart, he must remain without. Does not this look as if Ezekiel were posterior to the priest-code, rather than vice versa, as Wellhausen contends?
Eze 44:10-14
The ordinance for the Levites. According to the so-called priest-code, the Levites were Levi’s descendants, who were chosen by Jehovah for service in the tabernacle (Num 3:6-13; Num 16:9), to minister to the priests when these sacrificed in the tabernacle (Num 8:19; Num 18:6), and in particular to keep the charge of the tabernacle, i.e. of the house and all its vessels (Num 1:53), as distinguished from the charge of the sanctuary and of the altar, which pertained to Aaron and his sons alone as priests (Num 18:2-6, Num 18:23). The Deuteronomic code, says Wellhausen, was unacquainted with any such distinction between Levites and priests, who, it is alleged, composed one homogeneous body, the tribe of Levi, whose members were equally empowered to officiate at the altar (Deu 10:8), the lower duties of the tabernacle having been performed by the aforesaid strangers, and the subordination of Levites to priests having first been suggested by Ezekiel, and first formally carried out alter the exile. This theory, however, cannot be admitted as made out in face of
(1) Deu 18:1-22; which (Deu 18:1) recognizes “the priests” and” the Levites” as constituting “the whole tribe of Levi,” and (Deu 18:3, Deu 18:6) distinguishes between “the priest” and “the Levite;”
(2) 2Sa 15:24, which associates with Zadok the priest, the Levites as carriers of the ark;
(3) 1Ki 8:4, in which the same distinction between the two bodies is recognized;
(4) 1 and 2 Chronicles, passim, which attest the existence of priests and Levites as separate temple officials in pre-exilic times; and
(5) Ezr 1:5, 62; Ezr 3:8, Ezr 3:10; Ezr 6:20, which show that the distinction, alleged to have been first made by Ezekiel, was well known to the first company of exiles who returned under Zerubbabel to Jerusalem, and was by them traced back to pre-exilic times. The question, therefore, of which Levites Ezekiel speaks in this verse, whether of those whose duties were of a menial order or of those whose functions partook of a priestly character, is not difficult to resolve. It could hardly have been the former, since in verses 11-14 Ezekiel’s Levites are represented as about to be degraded by being relegated to inferior tasks than those they had formerly performed; it must have been the latter, because in the present verse they are designated the Levites that are gone away (or, went) far from me, when Israel went astray. Now, Israel’s apostasy from Jehovah and declension towards idolatry began with Solomon’s unfaithfulness (1Ki 11:4-8), and continued with greater or less intensity in every subsequent reign till the exile; it certainly cannot be restricted, as Keil and Currey propose, to Jeroboam’s conduct in setting up rival sanctuaries in Dan and Bethel, with altars and priests, for the accommodation of the northern kingdom (1Ki 12:26-33). Nor is there room for doubting, although historical notices of the fact are not abundant, that in this apostasy the priesthood largely led the way (Jer 26:7, Jer 26:11; 2Ki 16:11-16; Zep 1:4), becoming priests of the high places, ministering for the people at heathen altars, and so causing them to fall into iniquity (verse 12). Hengstenberg and Plumptre suggest that the reason why these apostate priests are now called Levites was to intimate that they were no more worthy of the priesthood, and were about to be reduced to the lower ministry of the Levites so called. Consequently, under the new Torah, those among the priests (who were also Levites) who had been guilty of this flagrant wickedness (i.e; says Delitzsch, all the Aaronides who were not Zadokitos) would no more, either in themselves or their descendants, be suffered to retain the priestly office, but would be degraded to the status of ordinary Levites, and, like them, should be ministers in Jehovah’s sanctuary, having chargeor, oversight (Revised Version)at the gates of the house, and ministering, to (or, in) the house, i.e. in its courts, serving as keepers of the charge of the house (verse 14), as watchers at the gates of the house (verse 11), as slaughterers of the sacrificial victims (verse 11), but should not, like their brethren who had remained faithful, be allowed to do the office of a priest, i.e. approach the altar to offer sacrifice, or to enter into the holy place (verse 13). In this way they should bear their iniquity (verses 10, 12)a favorite expression in the middle books of the Pentateuch (Exo 28:38, Exo 28:43; Le Exo 5:1; Exo 10:17; Exo 20:19; Num 5:31; Num 18:1), but never occurring in Deuteronomy, and meaning “to be requited” on account of, and make expiation for, sin and their shame and their abominations, i.e. the shame due to them for their abominationsa specially Ezekelian phrase (comp. Eze 16:52, Eze 16:54; Eze 32:30; Eze 36:7).
Eze 44:15, Eze 44:16
The ordinance for the priests. That Ezekiel derived the phrase, the priests the Levites, from Deuteronomy (Deu 17:9; Deu 18:1; Deu 24:8; Deu 27:9) may be granted without admitting that the Levites were all priests, or that the phrase had other import than that the priests were, as the Deuteronomist says, “sons of Levi” (Deu 21:5; Deu 31:9). The priesthood, at its institution, having been entrusted to Aaron and his sons (Exo 27:20, Exo 27:21; Exo 28:1-4; Exo 29:9, Exo 29:44; Num 3:10; Num 16:40; Num 18:7; Num 25:13), on Aaron’s death the high priesthood passed into the hands of Eleazar, his eldest (living) son (Num 20:26-28), and after Eleazar’s death into those of Phinehas, his eldest son (Num 25:11-13). In the last days of the judges, when the ark and tabernacle stood at Shiloh? The high priesthood belonged to Eli, of the line of Ithamar, in which line it continued till the reign of David, when it was held conjointly by Abiathar (called also Ahimelech) of the line of Ithamar, and Zadok of the line of Eleazar (2Sa 8:17; 2Sa 20:25; 1Ki 4:4). This arrangement, however, Solomon eventually overturned, by deposing the former for espousing Adonijah’s pretensions to the throne (1Ki 1:7; 1Ki 2:26), and from that time forward till the exile the high priesthood remained with Zadok and his sons (1Ki 2:35; 1Ch 29:22). When, therefore, it is announced to Ezekiel that his vision-sanctuary should have as priests the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of Jehovah’s sanctuary, when the children of Israel went astray from him; the first question that arises isTo what does this allude? Kliefoth holds it cannot mean that, while Israel as a whole declined into idolatry, the Zadokite priests remained faithful to the worship of Jehovah, because the vision of Judah’s idolatries granted to the prophet, in Eze 8:16, revealed quite clearly that the priesthood was as much caught in the national apostasy as were the princes or the people. Nor is the language of the text perfectly satisfied by the view of Havernick, Keil, Delitzsch, and others, that it goes beck to Zadok’s fidelity to the throne of David at the time of Absalom’s rebellion (2Sa 15:24-29), a fidelity exhibited also by Abiathar, or to his adherence to Solomon in preference to Adonijah (1Ki 1:8, 1Ki 1:39), this time without Abiathar’s concurrence, rather in the face of his opposition. In neither of these instances was Zadok’s fidelity specially directed towards Jehovah’s sanctuary, but concerned expressly and exclusively David’s throne. Hence the commendation of the Zadokites’ fidelity can only signify that, while the priesthood as a body were corrupt like the people, there were among them, as among the people, some who, like Ezekiel, continued steadfast to Jehovah’s sanctuary; that these faithful few were Zadokites (see Eze 48:11), and that to these should be entrusted the priesthood in the new sanctuary. But, at this point, a second question startsWas it intended to declare that the new priesthood should be Zadokites in body, i.e. in respect of lineal descent, or only in soul, i.e. in respect of moral and religious excellence? The former is contended by Kuenen, Wellhausen, Smend, and others, who see in the vision-sanctuary a plan of the second, or post-exilic, temple, and in its ordinances a program for the establishment of the Levitical hierarchy; but this contention shatters itself on the fact that no proof exists either that the second temple was constructed after Ezekiel’s as a model, or that those who served in it were exclusively flesh and blood Zadokites. The latter opinion, favored by Kliefoth, appears the more correct, that moral and spiritual resemblance to the sons of Zadok should form the first qualification for the priesthood in this ideal sanctuary of the future (see note at the end of Eze 48:1-35.).
Eze 44:17-31
The duties and emoluments of the priests.
Eze 44:17
Beginning with their attire when engaged in temple service, this verse states, in a general way, that the priests should be clothed with linen garments, as the priests were under the Law (Exo 28:40-43; Exo 39:27-29; Le Exo 6:10), with this difference, that whereas under the Law the terms employed were , the white byssus of Egypt, and , “fine white linen,” here the word is , or “flax”a difference which assists newer critics to perceive in the so-called priest-code a refinement on Ezekiel, and therefore an evidence that the priest-cede arose later than Ezekiel But if the so-called priest-code had already indicated that the linen for priests’ garments should be of the finest quality, Ezekiel may have felt there was no occasion for him to use other than the generic term for “linen,” which (pishteh) seems to have been (comp. Le 13:47, 48, 52, 59; Deu 22:11; Jer 13:1). That this was so is suggested by the statement that no wool, , “perhaps so called from its being shorn off” (Gesenius), should come upon them whiles they ministered in the gates of the inner court, or within the court itself, or the housethe contrast being between what was of vegetable and what was of animal production. The reason for the prohibition of wool is hinted at in verse 18it was apt to cause sweat, and thus entail impurity; the clean white linen, on the other hand, was designed both for hygienic reasons and as an emblem of purity (comp. Rev 19:8, Rev 19:14).
Eze 44:18
In particular the priests should have linen bonnets upon their headsliterally, linen tires shall be upon their headsand linen breeches upon their loins. To infer from the use of in Le Eze 8:13 and of here for the head-dress of the priests, that Ezekiel was composed before Leviticus, is not convincing. Smend explains the latter term as the customary headdress of common people, and the former as a specially ornamental tiara or turban. Gesenius reverses this meaning, making the former the ordinary round cap, and the latter a tiara (see for the former, Exo 28:40; Exo 29:9; Exo 39:28; and for the latter, Exo 39:28; Isa 61:10; Eze 24:17, Eze 24:23). In addition, the priests should not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat; literally, should not gird themselves in, or with sweat, which was another way of forbidding them to wear woollen clothing, which might cause them to sweat and so lead to uncleanness.
Eze 44:19
When the priests retired from the inner court, and before they passed into the outer court to mingle with the people, they were enjoined to lay aside their official robes, depositing them in the holy chambers already described (Eze 42:1-14), and to put on other, i.e. their ordinary, clothes (comp. Le Eze 6:11). The reason for this injunction was that they might not sanctify the people (comp. Eze 46:20) through the people’s coming in contact with their garments. These, being in a manner, i.e. ceremonially, holy, would impart to the people a levitical or ritualistic sanctity which would disqualify them, for a time, at least, from attending to the common duties of life, as under the Law those were who touched the sacrificial flesh (Le 6:18, 27), the altar (Exo 29:37), and the vessels of the sanctuary (Exo 30:29).
Eze 44:20
The next rubric concerned the mode in which the priests should wear their hair. It should neither be shaved nor worn long, thus avoiding excess on either side (compare for the first, Le Eze 21:5; and for the second, Le Eze 10:6; Eze 21:10, Revised Version), but should merely be polled. The obligation to let the hair grow freely was imposed upon the Nazarite only during the period of his vow (Num 6:5). The verb “to poll,” or “cut” (), occurs nowhere else. Smend thinks what is hero denied to the priests collectively is in the priest-code denied solely to the high priest (Le Eze 21:10, Revised Version; compare, however, Lev 10:6, Revised Version), and discovers in this a sign of the later origin of Leviticus. Ezekiel’s raising the priesthood as a body to the rank of the high priest, of whom in connection with this temple is no trace, rather proves Ezekiel to have been later than Leviticus.
Eze 44:21
The prohibition of wine to the priests when engaged in temple service accorded with Mosaic legislation (Le Eze 10:9). Total abstinence at other times was not enjoined.
Eze 44:22
As to marriage (since the priests in Ezekiel’s “house” were no more expected to be celibates than were those employed about Moses’ tabernacle or Solomon’s temple), they were forbidden to marry widows (which the Levitical priests were not, though the high priest was) or divorced women, and allowed to wed only virgins of the house of Israel, or (the sole exception) widows of such as had been priests (compare with the priest-code, Le Eze 21:7, Eze 21:13, Eze 21:14). Ezekiel’s enactment discovers two variationsfirst, that it does not formally forbid to the priests marriage with a harlot; and, second, that it sanctions marriage with a priest’s widow. But the first was implied in the prohibition of marriage with an adulteress, and the second was a sign of the higher sanctity of the priesthood belonging to Ezekiel’s temple. Hence, so far from indicating the priority of Ezekiel, it rather points to the priority of Leviticus.
Eze 44:23, Eze 44:24
Among the priests’ official duties four things are prescribed.
(1) The education of the people in the fundamental principles of their religion, viz. that a distinction existed between the “holy” and “profane,” or “common,” and in the practical application of that principle, the art of discerning between the “unclean” and the “clean.” This duty had been laid upon the priests of Mosaism (Le Eze 10:10; Deu 24:8; Deu 33:10), but in the last years of the monarchy had been neglected (Eze 26:1-21 :26; comp. Mal 2:7-9).
(2) The administration of justice in all disputes arising out of and connected with the practices of their religion. This office had pertained to the priests under the Law (Num 5:14-31; Deu 17:8-13; Deu 19:17; Deu 21:5), and was exercised in pre-exilic times (Hos 4:6; Mic 3:11; Isa 28:7; Jer 18:18), though not always in accord-ante with Jehovah s judgments. That the juridical authority of the priests was purely of a moral kind (Wellhausen, Smend), can be maintained only by rejecting 2Ch 17:7-9 and 2Ch 19:5-11 as unhistorical
(3) The regulation of all festal assemblies in accordance with the Divine statutes. For errors in the celebration of these festivals, the priests should be answerable, as they had always been; only under the new regime there should be no errors.
4. The hallowing of Jehovah‘s sabbaths. This they should do both by resting on the seventh day and by offering the sabbath sacrifices, the showbread, and the burnt offering; both of which things the priests under the Law had been commanded to do (see Exo 20:8-11; Exo 31:13-17 : Le Exo 23:3; Exo 24:8; Num 28:9), but had not done (Eze 20:12,Eze 20:13, Eze 20:20, Eze 20:21; Eze 22:8; Eze 23:28).
Eze 44:25-27
Regulations are next given for preserving the priesthood from defilement through coming in contact with the dead, and for removing such defilement in case of its having been contracted. As under the Law, so in the ideal constitution of Ezekiel, the priests should not be at liberty to contract ceremonial impurity through touching a corpse except in the case of near relations (comp. Le Eze 21:1-4). That neither in Leviticus nor in Ezekiel is the priest’s wife among the excepted is surprising, and hardly to be explained, with Knobel, on the ground that a wife is not a blood-relation, since according to the Divine conception of marriage husband and wife are one (Gen 2:24), but either by holding, with Keil, that the wife, who stands nearer her husband than any of the relatives named, was viewed as included under the phrase, “and for his kin that is near unto him” (Le Eze 21:2), or by supposing it self-evident that such defilement could not be avoided in the case of a wife and was therefore tacitly allowed. Smend, as usual, finds signs of Ezekiel’s priority to the priest-code, first in the circumstance that Ezekiel regarded it as perfectly natural that a priest should sorrow for his wife (Eze 24:15-18), which showed he had no acquaintance with Lev 21:1-24.; and secondly, in the fact that Le Lev 21:11 prohibits absolutely to the high priest all contact with a corpse, which, it is argued, betrays a greater strictness than existed in the days of Ezekiel. But as the prohibition in Le Eze 21:11 applies only to the high priest, who in Ezekiel’s temple has no place, an argument as to which of the books had priority of origin cannot properly be founded on so insecure a Basis. Knobel remarks on Le Eze 21:1-4 that “among the Greeks, priests and priestesses remained at a distance from funerals; while among the Romans ought the Flamen dialis to touch no corpse (Gell; 10.15), the augur perform no funeral rites (Tacit; ‘Ann.,’ 1.31), and the pontifex accompany no funeral procession (Die Cass; 56.31); not at all should he behold a dead body (Serv; ‘Ad AEn.,’ 6.176),and in case he had occasion to pronounce a funeral oration, a curtain should hang between him and the corpse.” As to the cleansing of a defiled priest, that should be conducted in accordance with the customary regulations (comp. Num 19:1-22.),with this differencethat on the termination of the ordinary rites, which extended over seven days, an additional seven days, according to Havernick and Keil, should elapse, at the end of which, on the presentation of a sin offering, he should be restored to service in the inner sanctuary.
Eze 44:28-31
state the emoluments which should Be enjoyed by the priests.
Eze 44:28
The Authorized Version conveys the impression that the first portion of the priests’ sustenance should be derived from the sin offering, which is not mentioned till the following verse. And it shall be unto them for an inheritance ought rather to be rendered, and there shall be to them (what shall be) for an inheritance; or more simply, and they shall have an inheritance (Revised Version), which, it is next declared, as in the Law (Num 18:20; Deu 10:9; Deu 18:1, Deu 18:2), should be Jehovah, and not any territorial possession or tribal tract such as should be assigned to the other tribes (see Eze 48:1-35.). Smend thinks Ezekiel was scarcely accurate in describing the priests as landless in the sense intended by the Deuteronomist and the priest-code, since in Eze 45:4 they are, after all, furnished with a plot of ground on which to build their houses and erect their sanctuary; whilst Wellhansen holds the priest-code to have somewhat romanced in adopting the same language about the Aaronides and Levites, since, if they really did obtain forty-eight cities, “what were these if not a lot and a land tract, and that too a comparatively great and important one?” Neither view stands in need of refutation.
Eze 44:29
To the priests should be allocated, in addition, what already had been assigned them by the Law for their support, the meat (or, meal) offering, consisting of flour, corn, or bread (comp. Le Eze 2:1 -16; 6:16; Num 28:12, Num 28:13), and the sin offering (see Le 6:25-29; Eze 7:6; Num 18:9, Num 18:10), and the trespass (or, guilt) offering (comp. Le 7:28-38), and every dedicated (or, devoted) thing in Israel (see Le Eze 27:21; Num 18:14). The burnt offering is omitted, because it was entirely consumed upon the altar, with the exception of the hide or skin, which under the Law became a perquisite of the officiating priest (Le Eze 7:8). That Ezekiel is silent about this, while the requirement of Le 7:30, that the priest should obtain the breast with the right shoulder of every fire offering, goes beyond the prescription of Deu 18:3, that the shoulder, two cheeks, and the maw should be the priest’s portion, is regarded by Wellhausen and Smend as a proof that Ezekiel stands between Deuteronomy and the priest-code. But as Ezekiel does not condescend upon the particular parts which should be reserved from the fire offerings, it is impossible to say whether he held with the Deuteronomist or the writer of the priest-code, supposing them to be different; and, inasmuch as Le 7:30 speaks of an offerings, by fire that was first paid to Jehovah and by him afterwards handed over to Aaron and his sons, while Deu 18:3 treats of the dues which should be paid by the people directly to the priests, it is clear that both practices may have existed together instead of the one (the former) coming in as an advance upon the other (the latter); see Keil on Deu 18:3.
Eze 44:30
A further portion of the priests’ emoluments is stated as the first of all the firstfruits of all thingsor, of everything (Revised Version), as e.g. of corn, oil, must, and wooland every oblation ()or, heave offeringof allor, of everythingwith the first of the people’s dough; or, coarse meal; which again re-echoes the provisions of the Law, the first of the firstfruits being specified in Exo 23:19; Exo 34:26; Num 18:13; Deu 18:4; the oblation, or terumah (Hebrew), in Num 15:19; Num 18:19; and the dough, or coarse meal, or groats, in Num 15:20, Num 15:21. Ezekiel’s supposed (Wellhausen, Smend) silence as regards the firstlings of cattle, which in the book of the covenant (Exo 22:29) and in the Deuteronomist (Deu 15:19) are to be eaten by the offerer, but in the priest-code (Num 18:21) belong to the priests, is imaginary. The first of all the firstfruits of everything cannot surely mean of everything except cattle. If Ezekiel does not give the tenths of the tithes to the priests, he still assigns them to the sanctuary (see Eze 45:14).
Eze 44:31
The commandment of the Mosaic Law is here renewed against eating the flesh of any fowl or beast that had either died a natural death or been mangled in the killing (comp. Le Eze 17:15; Eze 22:8)a commandment which, while enjoined specially upon the priests (Le Eze 22:8), was equally binding upon all (Exo 20:1-26 :31; Deu 14:21).
HOMILETICS
Eze 44:2, Eze 44:3
The shut gate.
The “Golden Gate” at Jerusalem, on the eastern side of the temple area, looking towards the Mount of Olives, is now built up, so that it can only be traced by means of the form of the arches and carved work embedded in a line of wall. Tradition associates this now inaccessible archway with the gate which Ezekiel said should be shut till the Prince passed through it. There is a striking symbolism in Ezekiel’s description of the shut gate.
I. THE GATE WAS SHUT.
1. The way to God was closed. Man once had free access to his Father. Sin barred the door and shut him out in the waste.
2. The way to life was closed. Cherubim with flaming swords, stood between Adam and the tree of life (Gen 3:24). Fallen man cannot recover his spiritual life; he has forfeited eternal life, and it is beyond his power to regain it.
3. The way to happiness was closed. The tree of life stood in Eden, and Eden was shut against fallen man.
4. The way to heaven was closed. The door was shut against the foolish virgins. The bliss of futurity is denied to man in his sin.
II. THE HOLINESS OF GOD BARS THE GATE. God had passed through the gate; therefore it was to be closed against man. This suggests a painful thought; where God is man may not be. The same idea was prominent at Horeb, when no man or beast was to come near the mount while God descended upon it (Heb 12:20). There is a natural feeling of the supreme majesty of God that leads to a thought of utter separateness. No being approaches him in greatness or rank. The Sovereign of all is alone in his awful majesty. Yet we must not associate vulgar ideas of pomp and ceremony with God. He does not need the artificial dignity of separateness. He is necessarily apart from us in sheer greatness. But he desires to be near to his children. The real secret of the separateness is sin. Man cannot come where God is because man is sinful and God is holy.
III. THE GATE IS OPENED FOR THE PRINCE. Christ, and Christ alone, realizes the Messianic vision of Hebrew prophecy. He is the Prince par excellence. Christ has a right of access to God by reason of his sinlessness, and by reason of his nature as “the Only Begotten of the Father.” He has made a way to God by his intercession and his sacrifice. The door, long barred by sin, is now opened by grace. First our Prince goes through it, and himself realizes communion with God. But he does not keep this as a rare privilege for himself alone. He is the “Firstborn among many brethren,” and he opens the door of access to God for all men. He leads all his people to the tree of life, for “he that hath the Son hath life” (1Jn 5:12). He gives true blessedness to his people. He unbars the golden gate of heaven. All who sleep in Jesus will awake in the glorious resurrection-life of which he is the Source and Center who could say, “I am the Resurrection and the Life” (Joh 11:25).
Eze 44:5
The attentive consideration of religious truth.
Ezekiel was to mark well the minute directions which were given to him concerning the temple. He was not a builder, and there is no reason to think that he was expected to consider these matters with a view to carrying out the work of constructing the new temple. But it was important that he should attend to the suggestiveness of every detail, because all that was here set forth was symbolical of spiritual truth. The smallest points of this truth should be considered with exactness, while every effort is made to grasp and comprehend it in its vast length and breadth.
I. RELIGIOUS TRUTH IS WORTHY OF ATTENTIVE CONSIDERATION, Great attention is required for a man’s business if that is to be made successful. Politics absorb the thoughts of those who are much engaged in them. Pleasure, and what is called “sport” command earnest attention. Is it right that these things should occupy all a man’s faculties, and that religion should be treated in an off-hand style as not worth much thought? Yet the conduct of multitudes would suggest that this supreme interest could be sufficiently considered by occasional and listless attendance at public worship. But note how important it is.
1. It concerns God. Surely heMaker of all things, Ruler of the universe, “in whom we live and move and have our being,” our Father and our Godis worthy of some thoughtful attention.
2. It concerns our duty. The chief thing to be thought of is what we ought to do. To give much attention to our worldly interests and pleasures, and to treat our duty with thoughtless indifference, is to show shameful negligence of what is supremely important to us.
3. It concerns our eternal welfare. Religion is a matter of life and death. Its truth embraces eternity. When the petty affairs of this brief life are forgotten, its mighty issues will still proceed to work our highest blessedness or our utter destruction.
II. RELIGIOUS TRUTH NEEDS ATTENTIVE CONSIDERATION. It is not to be taken in with indolent ease. A man cannot comprehend his Bible at a glance, as he would his newspaper. Religious truth requires thought for several reasons.
1. It is remote from our common experience. It should not be so; but sin has introduced an entirely different train of ideas. We require an effort to bring thoughts of religion vividly to mind.
2. It is concerned with great mysteries. We can never understand it perfectly; but there is room in it for the explorations of the greatest minds. We must never forget, indeed, that its most precious pearls are for simple, childlike minds; that God has revealed to babes what he has hidden from the wise (Mat 11:25). But who giver such absorbing attention to what interests them as children? We just need the child’s whole-hearted listening, as when he drinks in a tale, every detail of which he pictures to himself in his fresh imagination.
III. RELIGIOUS TRUTH SHOULD RECEIVE ATTENTIVE CONSIDERATION. We now come to the practical pointHow are we to give full attention to this great subject? Ezekiel suggests three ways.
1. We must fix attention. “Mark well.” The mind tends to float away from difficult subjects. The anchor to hold it is some keen interest. The love of truth, or, better, the love of Christ, should serve as such an anchor.
2. We must look into truth. “And behold with thine eyes, and ‘hear with thine cars.” We must, so to speak, visualize truth. To make it real we must see it before us. But first we must look for it. There is a seeing and hearing by experience that is better than all indirect testimony. As soon as we thus come into personal contact with truth it is likely to be interesting to us. Then it is a real thing. Above all, it is well to follow the Greeks, who “would see Jesus,” and by living experience to know him for ourselves.
Eze 44:6
A sufficiency of sin.
I. OBSERVE IN WHAT THE SUFFICIENCY OF SIN CONSISTS. All sin is in excess of what it should be, for no sin is permissible. How, then, can there be such a thing as a sufficiency of it? We may regard this as an ironical idea, or as a thought that is useful in the argumentum ad hominem. It is as though a man had said he must have some sin, and now the question is raisedHas he not had enough? Those who sin greatly may be said to have had more than enoughto have attained what St. James calls “a superfluity of naughtiness” (Jas 1:21). The sufficiency of sin may be tested in three ways.
1. By its magnitude. What more can the sinner desire? Would he still add to his enormous pile of guilt? Surely no mortal man could crave a heavier account.
2. By its fruits. The pleasures of sin soon cloy, and the foolish slave of vice has to turn from one to another form of evil to whet his jaded appetite. One would have thought that he had got his surfeit. Is there yet more pleasure to be extracted from the rotten root of sin? Certainly the more it is drawn upon the less really enjoyable are its products.
3. By its penalties. All this tin must be paid for, and the time of reckoning is at hand. Is not the sin already committed enough to have to answer for? It will be a heavy account as it is, if no more be added.
II. CONSIDER HOW THE SUFFICIENCY OF SIN IS TO BE TREATED.
1. It should not be increased. It is great enough; let us add no more to it. This awful tale of guilt can never be met; it would be madness to proceed still further in piling up accusations against one’s self.
2. It should be regarded with profound penitence. There are not many things of which the sinner is full. In regard to his better nature he seems to be a helpless bankrupt. Indeed, he has but one perfect thinghis sin. He is rich only in one commoditywickedness. Surely the consciousness of such a state of affairs should overwhelm him with grief and shame.
3. It should be brought to God for pardon. Man cannot undo the past, nor can he compensate for the many misdeeds he has committed. Were his sin but small, it would still be impossible for him to atone for it. With a fullness of sin to account for, there can be no possibility for hope in man alone. But great as man’s sin is, the love of God is even greater. Heavy as is his guilt, the merits of Christ outweigh it all. Thanks be to God, the sufficiency of man’s sin is met by the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. The sin was great to require the death of the Son of God; but since Christ has died for it, the supreme work of redemption has been accomplished. Even a surfeit of past sin is now no barrier to God’s full pardon of his penitent children.
Eze 44:8
Religion by proxy.
The people had neglected their own duty in regard to the worship of God, and had appointed hirelings to discharge the sacred offices in their stead. This was a case of trying to practice religion by proxy. We often see the-attempt made in various ways now, but it is doomed to failure.
I. THE ATTEMPT TO SATISFY THE CLAIMS OF RELIGION BY PROXY. There are now many Jews in Jerusalem kept in idleness by their more wealthy brethren in Europe, who hope by this expedient to secure for themselves the merit of living and dying in the Holy City, without undergoing the irksome experience of actual residence. In Roman Catholic countries it is common to devote a sum of money to the payment of the priest who is to say so many Masses on behalf of a person. Among ourselves there is an unconfessed but common notion that the minister in some way performs the offices of religion on behalf of the people, who stand by as idle spectators, and yet enjoy the fruits of his vicarious service. The development of elaborate ritual and the cultivation of highly ornate choral services tend in this direction, by taking the acts of worship out of the grasp of the people, and consigning them to the clergy and choir. Where this is not the ease, there is a common feeling that the mere attendance at church when a service is being conducted is of some religious efficacy, the officiating minister carrying on the real worship on behalf of the congregation, which may be listless and indifferent, so long as he discharges his duty faithfully. Or perhaps the religion by proxy is attempted in the way of money payments. The rich man who will make no moral sacrifice, and who is unwilling to worship God or serve him, subscribes to charities and Missionary Societies, and consoles himself by the thought that he is supporting religion and other good works. He is not a pillar of the church within the sacred building, but he is a sort of buttress outside it. By this indirect service of a money payment he thinks to compound for his irreligion. Lastly, living in a Christian land, belonging to a Christian home, and having Christian associates are regarded as matters of some religious value by people who possess no real religion of their own. Thus they too would be religious by proxy.
II. THE UTTER FUTILITY OF THIS ATTEMPT. Every man must have his own personal dealings with God. There are such things as mediation, intercession, and vicarious sacrifices. The good mother is spiritually helpful to her children. Christ’s righteousness, his obedience, and his sacrifice are for the good of the world. But none of these things will compensate for irreligion in those who would avail themselves of their advantages. Moreover, God looks to the heart. Money gifts not offered by a grateful, devout heart, but only paid in fines to exonerate a man from the consequences of his misdeeds and negligences, are of no value whatever in the sight of God. There is no merit in helping the religion of other people if no right motive inspires the action. The very desire to be religious by proxy reveals a wrong state of the heart, for it shows that those people who experience it have no love for God and no real inclination for religion. The man whose heart is right with God will not wish to be religious by proxy. The son who has true affections will have no inclination to pay a substitute to take his place in the family circle. When his heart is renewed the Christian is most eager to be near to God, for then worship is glad and spontaneous.
Eze 44:9
The exclusion of the stranger.
There was a strict exclusiveness about the Hebrew religion. Only the circumcised were to share in its privileges. In regard to outward ordinances and national distinctions, this exclusiveness is destroyed by Christ, and his gospel is free to Gentile as well as Jew, to the uncircumcised as well as the circumcised (Gal 5:6). Nevertheless, in spite of the new breadth of Christianity, the ideas suggested by the old, narrow exclusiveness still obtain, though now only in spiritual relations.
I. THE STRANGER TO GOD IS EXCLUDED FROM THE PRIVILEGES OF RELIGION. It matters not what nation he belongs to; now we have to do with spiritual, not national distinctions. Thus it is possible that the Jew or the Christian may be a stranger to God, while the Gentile and one of a heathen nation may really know and love God. But where the distinction is it does involve serious consequences. It is a mistake to treat a Christian nation as though all its citizens enjoyed the favor of Heaven; and it is a mistake to address a Christian congregation as though all its members were devout men and women. Now, so long as a man is alienated from God, he is excluded from all the highest blessings of the gospel. The door of heaven is shut against the hard, the worldly, the impenitent. Surely some Church discipline should be exercised in regard to those whose alienation from God is undisguised. To keep up the name of Church-fellowship with people in this unhappy condition is to delude them with false hopes.
II. THE UNCIRCUMCISED IN HEART ARE STRANGERS TO GOD. Even in the directions that concern the old Jewish ritual this class is named as well as that of the uncircumcised in flesh. The one great question is as to the state of a man’s heart. The uncircumcised heart is given up to sinful naturalism. Pure human nature should be fit for the presence of God, but sinful human nature is not. Unclean and degraded, it needs a spiritual circumcision before it can be accepted by God. In the state of sin man is thus far from God, and so excluded from the privileges of enjoying heavenly Blessings. But the estrangement that results from this sinful condition involves a state of ignorance. Alienated from God, sinful man does not know his loss. He is out in the darkness, a heathen, though bearing the Christian name.
III. THE STRANGERS WHO ARE AS YET UNCIRCUMCISED IN HEART MAY BECOME TRUE PEOPLE OF GOD AND ENJOY THE PRIVILEGE OF ACCESS TO GOD. The hindrance must first be removed.
1. There must be a change of heart. The mischief is in the heart; thither the cure must be brought. Thus the first thing is for a man to pray that God would create in him a clean heart (Psa 51:10).
2. This can only be brought about by a Divine renewal, which may be called the circumcision of the heart. God, and he only, can create, and we need to be new creatures in Christ Jesus.
3. This may be realized through the gospel of Christ. He has come to call in the strangers. By his great all-embracing love he reconciles “them that are afar off” as well as “them that are near.” There are now no barriers which the grace of Christ cannot break through. It only remains for the strangers and uncircumcised in heart to avail themselves of that grace by penitent confession of sin and active trust in Christ.
Eze 44:10-16
The degradation of the Levites.
From this interesting passage it would appear that there was a time when the Levites enjoyed free access to the altar, and were allowed to serve as priests before the Lord. But they had abused their privileges in admitting heathen people to the sacred enclosure, in doing their work by proxy, in even going aside to idolatry. Therefore they were degraded from their high functionsall of them except one family, that of Zadok. As the members of this family had remained true, the priesthood was now settled exclusively on them, while the rest of the Levites were put down to serve in secondary offices in connection with the temple ritual.
I. DISLOYAL SERVICE IS PUNISHED BY LOSS OF OFFICE. The unfaithful priest is deprived of his rank and ministry. Of Judas it was said, “His bishopric let another take” (Act 1:20). The hireling may direct the flock for a season to his own advantage. Even the thief and the wolf may be in office. We cannot judge of a man’s character by his rank, nor can we tell what is his position in the eyes of God by observing his ecclesiastical status. Much is expected of those to whom much has been given. Therefore the disloyal servant who stands in a high position will be most sternly judged. His first penalty will be loss of office. The man who had buried his talent is deprived of it (Mat 25:28).
II. DEGRADED SERVANTS MAY BE PERMITTED TO DISCHARGE HUMBLER DUTIES. The Levites are not discharged; they are only put to lower offices. God inflicts no heavier penalties than are absolutely necessary, He bears no grudge against any of his servants. If we have failed in a more honorable position, we need not despair; there may be a lowly work which we can still perform. It must have been most painful for the Levites to be thus forced to take a lower place. Possibly at first they would rather have given up the whole temple service, and have devoted themselves to secular pursuits. It speaks well for them that they silently confessed the justice of what was done, and quietly took the lower place. It is hard, like John the Baptist, to step back and give way for a new man; hard to say, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (Joh 3:30). But he who has the cause of Christ at heart will be willing to do anything for the service of his Master. Many would be willing to take the rank of priests. The test is whether we will obey when we are called to the more humble work of the Levites.
III. THE DEGRADATION OF THE UNFAITHFUL IS ACCOMPANIED BY THE EXALTATION OF THE FAITHFUL. The loss of the Levites is the gain of the family of Zadok. The talent that is taken from the idle servant is given to the servant with ten talents. We may here see a hierarchy in the making. Merit and practical utility lie at the foundation of institutions that have subsequently become more formal. But merit and utility should always govern the appointment to office. There is no higher honor than to have been true in a time of general unfaithfulness.
Eze 44:23
The difference between the holy and profane.
I. THERE IS A REAL DIFFERENCE. Men have been much concerned with wholly fictitious distinctions, and a most artificial line has been drawn between what has been accounted sacred and what has been regarded as profane. But this is only the abuse and the degeneracy of what should be discovered in its high and true condition as a genuine difference. The formal distinctions of the Jewish Law were all intended to symbolize moral and spiritual differences. Some of them were obviously concerned with matters of common cleanliness and decency; some had a more immediate bearing on sanitary laws; others, perhaps, were too suggestive of Jewish exclusiveness or conventional propriety; but even these latter regulations could not but impress upon the minds of thoughtful men the separateness of true holiness. The one real distinction is moral. It is the line of demarcation that separates sin from righteousness. This, and not the supposed distinction between the secular and the sacred, is the real difference between clean and unclean. St. Peter was taught to call none of the creatures of God common or unclean (Act 10:15). It is not they that are so, but the uncleanness is in us, in our use of them. “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled” (Tit 1:15). Similarly, men make an artificial distinction between sacred and profane history. Coming from the pen of a Josephus, the history of Israel is profane; written by an Arnold, the history of Rome is sacred. He who sees God in history beholds a sacredness in it. To him who is worldly and untrue in heart all that he touches is profane.
II. THIS DIFFERENCE IS TO BE LEARNT BY SPIRITUAL EDUCATION. The priests were to teach the people the difference between the clean and the unclean. No doubt the elaborate external regulations of the Jewish Law required careful study, and men needed to be thoroughly instructed in regard to them, in order that they might avoid even unconscious offences. This was a necessary adjunct of a ceremonial religion. A religion of law needed lawyers for its priests. Now that system is wholly swept away. We live in the glorious liberty of the sons of God, and there is no need for us to be instructed in elaborate rules of ceremonial purification. Still, moral education is now needed, though in another direction. Conscience must be educated, so that it may be sensitive and keen to discern what is right, and separate this from what is evil. This education is not to be a drilling in casuistry, which would be a return to the old bondage of the Law; but it is to be an enlightening in regard to the great principles of Christian righteousness, and still more a quickening of the soul to feel the force of those principles, and to apply them without delay to every case as it arises. It is important that the religious teaching of children should be directed more to this end. One great function of the pulpit is to awaken men’s sense of the great distinction between sin and purity. We live too much by compromise. We need to learn more of the absolute claims of righteousness.
Eze 44:28
Taking God as an Inheritance.
The priests were to have no share in the partition of the land. They were to be supported by means of the sacrificial offerings of the people; and in so living they were said to take God for their Inheritance. Viewing their position from the lowest point of view, we have the thought that they were dependent on what was dedicated to God, as their livelihood was derived from God’s share of the produce of the land; a higher consideration would lead them to see that it was through God’s relation to his people that they received their maintenance; and the highest view to which they could attain would be to regard God himself as their real Inheritance, and the sacrificial offerings merely as necessary means of living. Let us see how God may be regarded as an Inheritance and a Possession.
I. GOD MAY BE RECEIVED. An inheritance is not some distant territory that one simply knows of or beholds at a distance. We may believe in God, and even look towards him from afar, and yet not think of having any inheritance in him. But it is possible to have more close relations with him.
1. The inheritance is received as a birthright. The priests had a hereditary claim on their portion. All men are by nature children of God. By new birth we recover our original birthright. The Christian is an heir of God.
2. The inheritance is received through death. One dies, and another receives his inheritance. That was seen in Old Testament times in the succession of the priests. To us it is remarkable, as witnessed in the great fact that Christ died to give us our heavenly inheritance.
II. GOD MAY BE OWNED. When we receive God as an Inheritance, we take him as our Possession. There is thus a certain ownership in God established. But in the most complete way he owns us. How, then, can we also own God? There is a spiritual appropriation by which we personally accept God as our God, and hold to him in faith. It is much to be able to say from the heart, “O God, thou art my God!” All religion centers in that experience. The priests were to enjoy special Divine privileges in the Jewish system; all Christians are now to own God as their peculiar Possession.
III. GOD MAY BE ENJOYED. The inheritance is made use of and valued for what it gives, and on its own account.
1. When God is our Inheritance, Divine blessings are our portion. A rich inheritance contains many treasuresacres of fertile soil, well-timbered land, farms and orchards, perhaps mines and houses. He who takes God for his Portion has all the wealth of God to supply his need. It is true he may still receive but little of this world’s goods; that is because God sees that it is best for him to be tried with poverty. But he will have a true sufficiency. If he trusts in God, and does what is right, he has the promise that he shall be fed (Psa 37:3). Ultimately he will have great possessions. “All things are yours” (1Co 3:22).
2. God is himself the greatest Blessing for his people. The inheritance itself is more valuable than all that it is the means of procuring for us. To own God is to be rich indeed. When the Lord is our Portion we have a wealth of treasures for our souls. His presence, his love, his truth, his life, he himself dwelling within, make those who own him rich in the highest good.
HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON
Eze 44:1-3
The prerogative of the prince.
The regulation prescribed in these verses is very remarkable, and is not free from difficulties. It appears that a peculiar sanctity attached to the eastern gate of the temple, owing to the fact that it was by this gate that the glory of the Lord entered, and by this same gate that the glory of the Lord had previously forsaken, the sacred precincts. To mark this sacredness, the gate was kept shut, and no one was permitted to pass through it, except the prince. He, as the head, the representative, the ruler, of Israel, was permitted to enter and to depart by this gate. And further, it was appointed that he should in this gateway eat breadwhether by this be meant the meat offering or the showbread. This was a priestly privilege, but it seems to have been shared by the prince, who, after the return from the Captivity, was not only the representative of the consecrated people, but also the representative of the premised Messiah. This singular prerogative suggests to our minds certain principles which have a special application to a religious community and state.
I. THE UNITY OF A RELIGIOUS AND CONSECRATED NATION IS PERSONIFIED IN A RELIGIOUS SOVEREIGN. David was not only the greatest of the Hebrew monarchs; he was the representative of the Hebrew monarchy and theocracy. In the prophets and in the later national religions literature, David appears as the ideal king, personifying the people of the covenant and foreshadowing the promised Messiah. And the” prince” of the people is, in this and other passages, regarded as the successor of the cherished son of Jesse. The prince is looked upon as worthy of his station, worthy of his illustrious and beloved predecessor. The true head of a great and religious people is that people’s representative, not only before man, but before God.
II. THERE IS IMPLIED IN THIS PROVISION THE DIVINE ORIGIN AND CHARACTER OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY. There are some students of Scripture who find in the Word of God much relating to the authority of the Church, but who fail to remark the many assertions of the Divine authority of the state and of its officials and rulers. But it is very instructive for those in such a position to remark how, in this and similar passages, stress is laid upon the position and power of the prince. “The powers that be are ordained of God;” the state is as much Divine in its origin and sanction as is the Church. In the theocracy the monarch no doubt occupied a very special position. But religion certainly has for one of its functions the upholding of government as a Divine institution and of authority as a Divine principle. Independently of the form of government, and of the designation of the chief ruler of the state, it is for teachers of religion to follow the example of the scriptural writers in requiring justice from the governor and loyalty from the governed.
III. THE OBLIGATION IS APPARENT THAT THOSE IN AUTHORITY SHOULD CULTIVATE AND PRACTICE TRUE RELIGION. It is taken for granted by the prophet that the prince will appreciate and will use the prerogative here described. Nevertheless, it is probable that some who occupied the highest position in the nation were far from being truly devout and pious men. In every age and country men are found who come short of the ideal of their station. This, however, does not affect the fact that the occupation of a high position, the primacy of a great people, imposes upon a man a peculiar obligation to honor God, the Fountain of all authority and the Judge of every earthly sovereign. He who leads a people should lead them in the ways of righteousness and of piety.T.
Eze 44:4
Reverence.
The prophet was brought “the way of the north gate before the house,” because it was thence that, on a previous occasion, he had been directed to gaze upon the provision for idolatrous worship which aroused the indignation of Jehovah. Instructions were about to be given which would be the means of preventing a repetition of the infamous defilement of God’s holy place which in times past had taken place within the temple precincts. And that a suitable impression might be made, “the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord.” It was upon this occasion that the prophet, filled with reverence and awe, fell upon his face.
I. THERE IS MISPLACED REVERENCE.
1. When men revere worldly greatness and splendor.
2. When men revere idols and deities, which are nothing but the work of their own hands and the invention of their own minds.
II. THERE IS JUSTIFIABLE AND BECOMING REVERENCE. Such was that felt and manifested by Ezekiel in the presence of the glory of the Lord.
1. The nature of man is capable of true and profound reverence. There is groveling and degrading homage offered to men or to supposed supernatural powershomage not worthy to be designated reverence. But man has the capacity of honoring the noblest and the best; and this is among the sublimest capacities of his nature.
2. The attributes, the character, of God deserve such reverence. The more the Eternal is studied, as manifested in his works and in his Word, the mere will it be felt that he is the one fit Object of reverential regard and worship. The admonition of the angel addressed to the seer of the Apocalypse was just and is universally applicable, “Worship God!”
III. THERE IS APPROPRIATE EXPRESSION OF TRUE VENERATION AND ADORATION. A natural manifestation of reverence is that accorded in the text: “I fell upon my face.” The attitude of the body and the expression of the countenance are the natural revelation of the deep feelings of awe and veneration. A more articulate expression is the language of prayer and praise, which must indeed always be inadequate, which yet may in all conceivable circumstances be employed by the Church of Christ. All attitudes and all language are vain except as the manifestation of the deep feelings of the heart. Yet it is not possible for men to have a just view of God, to feel aright towards him, without presenting some audible or visible, some manifest expression of such thought and emotion. Man is both soul and body, and the movements, the attitudes, the utterances, of the bodily nature are the expressions of what is intellectual and spiritual. Whilst worship, to be acceptable, must be in spirit and in truth, they who are in the flesh will bow in reverence or kneel in supplication, will pour forth their gratitude in song, and their faith and adoration in petition and in praise.T.
Eze 44:9
The true circumcision and the true worshipper.
Provisions such as this were no doubt of an educational character, and were intended to teach the Israelites the necessity and the duty of holiness. The consecrated nation was called to present to Jehovah a pure offering. The alien was denied the privileges appointed for the Israelite; being uncircumcised, and not a child of the covenant, he was forbidden access to the holy place.
I. THE SANCTUARY WAS A SYMBOL OF THE DIVINE PRESENCE, FELLOWSHIP, AND FAVOR. The Lord’s holy temple was the scene of the especial manifestation vouchsafed by Jehovah to Israel. The Divine presence, naturally ubiquitous, was for a purpose localized. Here was, so to speak, the point of contact between the God of Israel and his chosen people; the media of communication being the sacrifices and services ministered by the consecrated priesthood. Here the acceptance and good will of Jehovah were sealed. They who conformed to Divine appointments were ceremonially justified and cleansed; and they who drew near with hearts prepared to receive a spiritual blessing were abundantly rewarded.
II. THE SELECTION OF THE CIRCUMCISED AND CONSECRATED, AND THE EXCLUSION OF THE UNCIRCUMCISED AND THE ALIEN, WERE SYMBOLICAL OF THE SPIRITUAL CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTABLE WORSHIP. No one can suppose that there was “favoritism” in the treatment of worshippers by the just, impartial God; we know that in every nation those who wrought righteousness were accepted. But so far as the temple at Jerusalem was concerned, there were regulations intended to draw attention to the character of true worship, and to the qualifications of acceptable worshippers. No doubt impure Israelites were admitted, and just and benevolent aliens were excluded. But all were taught the indispensable necessity of compliance with Divine regulations, and of the possession of prescribed qualifications. This provision was a preparation for the introduction amongst men of a higher and purer conception of true holiness, that which is not ceremonial, but real.
III. IN CHRISTIANITY WE HAVE THE FULFILMENT OF THE TYPE AND PROMISE OF THIS PREPARATORY DISPENSATION. The religion of Christ lays stress upon the new nature, the new heart, the new birth, the new life. It requires a cleansing, a putting off of the old nature, the circumcision of the spirit. It requires a naturalization in the new and Divine kingdom, a citizenship such as no physical birth and no external legislation can impart. A man must be born anew and from above in order to enter into the kingdom of God, of heaven. The conditions of acceptable worship at Jerusalem have to be translated into the language of spiritual reality in order to be applicable to the new dispensation.
IV. THE CONDITIONS OF ENTRANCE INTO THE HEBREW SANCTUARY WERE AN ANTICIPATION OF THE TERMS OF HEAVENLY CITIZENSHIP. In this, as in so many passages; the prophecies of Ezekiel point on to the language of the Apocalypse, and the reader of the New Testament interprets these ancient declarations, prescriptions, and promises in the light of the closing book of the canon. The ceremonial preparation required of the Hebrew worshipper prefigured the qualifications laid down as a condition of admission into the celestial temple. Into the abodes of immortal purity there enters nothing that worketh abomination or maketh a lie. The citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem are renewed and purified and thus fitted for the privileges and occupations of the city whose Builder and Maker is God.
Eze 44:15, Eze 44:16
Appointed ministrations.
The priests were an essential element in the Mosaic system, and their duties were prescribed with a precise exactness. After the Captivity, they still fulfilled their appointed duties, although their relative importance was probably diminished, whilst the scribes became growingly the religious leaders and teachers of the people. In the dispensation of the Spirit, the priesthood, so far as it is perpetuated, has been widened so as to include the whole Christian congregation.
I. MINISTRY IN THE CHURCH IS THE APPOINTMENT OF GOD. As the priesthood was instituted by Divine wisdom, so the will and pleasure of the great Head of the Church is that the members of the spiritual society should regard themselves as called by God to the fulfillment of varied duties as his servants.
II. MINISTRY IN THE CHURCH IS UPON THE PATTERN OF THE MINISTRY OF CHRIST THE HEAD. The Son of man came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister. The Lord was himself Servant of all, and those who are his are summoned to follow the example of him who declared that he was among his people as One who served.
III. MINISTRY IN THE CHURCH IS FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT. It is sometimes taken for granted that there are certain persons who minister to their fellow-Christians, whilst the rest simply receive and enjoy the advantages of their services. But in reality there is no one member of the true Church who is not commissioned for some special work which it is for him to do, who has not some gifts and opportunities for serving his fellow-disciples, for the edification of the body of Christ.
IV. MINISTRY IN THE CHURCH IS FOR THE SALVATION OF THE WORLD. The Jewish Church was restricted; the Christian Church has a universal missiona mission for the benefit of mankind. They who have Christ’s Spirit will live as disciples of him who said, “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.”
V. MINISTRY IN THE CHURCH INVOLVES ACCOUNTABILITY TO GOD. With calling and gifts and influence there is associated responsibility. And this responsibility is to him who is the one, only, all-sufficient Judge and Lord. From this responsibility there is no escape; and it must ever be the aim and the hope of every Christian that he himself and his work may be acceptable and approved at last, when every man shall have praise of God.T.
Eze 44:23
The difference between the holy and profane.
It was one great office of the Jewish priesthood to instruct the people to discern between the unclean and the clean. No doubt this office was often discharged in a perfunctory manner; yet a valuable purpose was answered by the importance which the Israelites were thus encouraged to attach to obedience to the behests of the great King.
I. THERE IS AN ARBITRARY AND FACTITIOUS DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE HOLY AND THE PROFANE. Such is the distinction drawn in heathen communities, simply in the interests of the priests themselves, with no moral bearing or intention.
II. THERE IS A CEREMONIAL AND SYMBOLICAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE HOLY AND THE PROFANE. Such was the difference which was established by the Law given by Moses to the Israelites, and maintained by Divine command by the instrumentality of the priests of Jehovah.
III. THERE IS A SPIRITUAL AND REAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE HOLY AND THE PROFANE. It cannot be doubted that the ceremonial differences were intended to be the emblems of deeper and more real distinctions of a moral nature. In the Christian dispensation men were early taught upon the highest authority to call nothing common or unclean. But whilst Christ abolished distinctions, which were a means to an end, which served a temporary purpose of preparation, he emphasized those distinctions which, in the sight of a holy God, are real and important. Especially was this the case with the eternal difference between moral good and evil, between what is in accordance with, and what is repugnant to, the nature, the character, and the will of God, This distinction is one which the Church of Christ is bound to maintain, both by teaching and by conduct, before a sinful and disobedient world.T.
Eze 44:28
The Lord the Inheritance of his people.
There was a special sense in which the Lord was the Inheritance of the Levites and priests among the sons of Israel. A provision was made for them to compensate them for the lack of a territory such as was apportioned to the other tribes. Jehovah himself undertook the care of those who ministered in his sanctuary; he was their Inheritance. This declaration is suggestive of a wider truth, viz. that God is the Portion and Inheritance of all his people.
I. THE LORD PROVIDES FOR ALL THE NEED, BOTH TEMPORAL AND SPIRITUAL, OF THOSE WHO TRUST IN HIM.
II. THE LORD IS THE JOY AND COMFORT OF THE HEARTS OF ALL WHO LOVE HIM.
III. THE LORD IS THE EVERLASTING PORTION OF ALL WHO SEEK AND SERVE HIM HERE.
APPLICATION. Such a declaration as this should assist those who profess themselves to be God’s people to overcome the natural tendency to be anxious and careful concerning their temporal state and prospects. It should encourage them to set their affection upon things aboveupon the true riches. “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”T.
Eze 44:29
The devoted thing.
There were objects, both animate and inanimate, in connection with the worship and the sacrifices of the temple, which were in an especial sense dedicated and devoted to the Lord. By this provision, spiritual instruction was afforded, and religious reverence was encouraged. As in the Christian dispensation nothing is common or unclean, we are taught to regard everything that belongs to and is associated with the Christian as consecrated to the Lord.
I. ALL THAT THE CHRISTIAN HAS IS DEVOTED TO THE LORD IN VIRTUE OF WHAT THE LORD HAS DONE FOR HIM.
1. Everything is the Lord’s gift. What have we that we did not receive?
2. Everything is redeemed by Christ, who, in giving himself a ransom for us, redeemed our possessions and our powers unto himself.
II. ALL THAT THE CHRISTIAN HAS IS DEVOTED TO THE LORD IN VIRTUE OF HIS CONSCIOUS SURRENDER AND DELIBERATE CONSECRATION OF HIMSELF TO HIS REDEEMING GOD. The dedication which the true Christian has made of himself to his Savior is unreserved.
“Yet if I might make some reserve,
And duty did not can,
I love my Lord with zeal so great
That I would give thee all!”
As it was foretold that upon the bells of the horses should be inscribed, “Holiness unto the Lord,” so, as a matter of fact, should the sincere Christian devote to his Redeemer all the common possessions, all the daily opportunities, with which Providence enriches him.
III. THE PRINCIPLE LENDS A NEW BEAUTY AND DIGNITY TO ALL THAT THE CHRISTIAN OWNS AND DOES. Every Christian’s life is dedicated, and all his property and all his talents and influence are devoted. He is not his own. Thus the light of heaven is shed upon the darkness of earth, and common things are not without a glory, because they are sanctified and ennobled as used for the service and the praise of God.T.
HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES
Eze 44:4-9
Church-worship vital to the soul.
As the heart is vital to the body, and sends its tide of life to every organ in the system, so the sanctuary is the central source of spiritual life to the human commonwealth. What the Church is, the home will be, the town will be, the nation will be. The guilt contracted by Israel in the temple was a fount of iniquity whence defilement spread to every part of the body politic. The sin of the sanctuary was the sin of sins. On the other hand, the sanctuary may be a well-spring of salvation. The loftiest expectations cherished here God will satisfy. “This is my rest for ever; here will I dwell.” Here, “he that asks, receives.” “I looked, and, behold, the glory of the Lord filled the house.”
I. CHURCH–WORSHIP IS SUPREMELY IMPORTANT. “Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears, all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house.” Of such moment to human interests are these laws and ordinances, that the prophet must give concentrated attention to the matter. Every faculty of soul must be engaged to learn the will of God, and to do it. There are subtle bonds of vital connection between the human soul and temple-worship, which easily escape the notice of the eye. To gain the good which God intends we must prepare the heart and mind beforehand. “Mark well the entering in of the house” High expectation of blessing should be raised. A state of mind free from selfish care should be fostered. As the photographer carefully prepares his plate to receive a faithful impression, so equally concerned should we be to prepare our hearts for high and intimate converse with God. Nor should we be unmindful how we depart from that august Presence. What care is needed to bury deep in our memory the truths we have received! What care ought there Be to retain the anointing of holy influence upon the soul!
II. CHURCH–WORSHIP EMBRACES ELEMENTS VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE. To be acceptable worshippers God required that they should Be circumcised in flesh and circumcised in heart. The one was designed to be the visible symbol of the other. To circumcise the flesh would Be useless if there was not also the circumcision of the heart. The circumcision of the flesh was instructive and disciplinarywas a test of obedience. To neglect this was a willful and open breach of the covenant made with Israel. In our present earthly state, outward religions forms are highly useful; but if they remain only formsdone without heart or willinghoodthey are barren of blessing to men. As the race advances in religious culture, simpler and fewer forms will suffice. Men will be able to rise to communion with God without the intervention of rites. In the heavenly home no temple is found, for God himself is the Temple, and the redeemed have immediate access to his presence. But for the present, visible ordinances are the best channels by which we can gain fellowship with God.
III. CHURCH–WORSHIP REQUIRES PURITY OF CHARACTER. Had the God of Israel demanded internal purity as the condition of approaching him, he would have shut out the whole race of men from his house. But his high design is to create holy character among men, and every arrangement of temple-worship has purification for its end. The uncircumcised Gentiles were allowed to enter an outer court; the circumcised could have nearer approach; an inner circle was reserved for the children of Levi; and only one of all the human race was permitted to enter the holiest sanctuarythe very presence-chamber of Jehovah. In this way the world was taught the value of moral purity. In proportion to holiness of character is the nearness of access to God, The pure in heart shall see him. Hence the cardinal distinction between the circumcised and the uncircumcised, which God so wisely imposed. With that man God dwells who has a humble and contrite heart. To promote moral purity is the proper design of Church-worship.
IV. CHURCH–WORSHIP DEBASED IS THE FOULEST OFFENCE. It is to repel God in the act of his most gracious approach to men. It is to wound God in the tenderest part of his nature. Sacrilege has always been counted a most heinous offence. To secularize the temple is to destroy the only ladder by which we can climb to heaven. To trifle with religion is to commit spiritual suicide. On this head our Lord asks, “If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!” As new-fallen snow is among the most beautiful of natural objects, so tarnished snow is most offensive to the eye. If the only fount of living water be poisoned, how can the life of men Be sustained? To abuse the ordinances of the sanctuary is to starve one’s own soul, is to make religion obnoxious to our fellows, is to insult Jehovah. This is man’s crowning sin”a sin unto death.”
V. RELIGIOUS SERVICE MUST BE PERSONAL AND INDIVIDUAL. “Ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things: but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves/’ In the eyes of God it was a foul offence that the priests had delegated their work to othersto persons whom Jehovah had not appointed, did not approve! It is impossible for any man to devolve his service for God upon another person. God’s service cannot be discharged by proxy. Just as no man can transfer to another his talents, or his qualities, or his position, so no man can transfer his responsibilities or his work. Already God has supreme claim to the entire service of that man to whom I may wish to transfer my task. Already he is under tribute to serve the same Master. Moreover, by abandoning my service, I abandon my reward and my joy. Delegation of service in God’s kingdom is forbidden. “Each one of us must give account of himself before God.” Rightly understood, service is privilege. To serve is to reign.D.
Eze 44:10-16
Reward and punishment on earth,
According to rank and position in the Church is responsibility. Example is contagious. Treachery by a military officer is a graver sin than treachery by a soldier in the ranks. Pollution at the fourth is a greater evil than pollution in a branch-stream. Disease in the heart is a more serious matter than disease in the skin or at the extremities. If the priests of God sanction idolatry, the whole nation will follow suit, and the cause of God is betrayed. The sin of Judas lay in thisthat he had been a trusted friend and companion of Jesus. God’s ministers hold responsible posts.
I. MEN ARE OFTEN SUBJECTED TO A CRUCIAL TEST. The present race is mainly tempted to infidelity, but the earlier generations of men were tempted to idolatry. As infidelity is now the ally of vice, so was and is idolatry. Both chime in with the lower passions of human nature. In the period preceding Ezekiel’s birth Israel had gone astray after idols. On every side false deities were being set up. Idolatry was in the atmosphere. A great opportunity opened to the Levites. As ministers of Jehovah, set apart for the service of religion, they should have stood in the gap and raised barriers against the inflowing tide of idolatry, the honor of God was in their keeping. The well-being of the nation rested with them. They were the trustees of God’s truth for the world. It was a testing-time. Men’s favor or God’swhich would they choose? Popularity for the moment or enduring fidelitywhich? Alas! they made a suicidal choice! They chose the path of selfish ease. Like a physician summoned to a critical case, they too might have abated the raging fever and saved the patient’s life. But they had no religious earnestness. They were mere functionaries of a system; and so long as duty was light and a livelihood secure, religion might take care of itself. Honored with a tremendous trust, they proved themselves unworthyfaithless. Regard for God was lacking. Moral prowess was lacking. They drifted with the stream. Their sin was the sowing of evil tares, which developed into a harvest of misery and disaster.
II. IN SUCH CASES TWO LINES OF CONDUCT ARE POSSIBLE. In the stress of temptation men can either resist or yield. In no case is it a necessity to succumb. Moral principle in man has withstood the incoming deluge of temptation, and it always can. Unseen resources are on the side of him who steadfastly adheres to right. God is at his side. So far as public action went, Elijah stood alone in the days of Jezebel’s idolatry. In Babylon Daniel stood erect as the sole witness for Jehovah, and notable triumph was his. Martin Luther was for years the only champion of Bible truth on the continent of Europeone man against the world; yet he prevailed. So, in the instance narrated here, one family remained faithful. The sons of Zadok were worthy sons of a worthy sire. A good name is a good heritage, and no better name can a man wear than Zadok, i.e. “Righteousness.” If a man trusts to his good name, he is a fool; but if he lives up to a good namemakes that his modelhe is wiser than Solomon. A rotten ship will not survive the storm, though she is named Impregnable. These sons of Zadok were like Abdiel, “faithful among the faithless found.” “They kept the charge of the sanctuary” when Israel went astray. They had moral backbonesome iron principle in their blood. It is the basest cowardice merely to go with the majority. Numbers are not the arbiter of truth or of right. Men who deserve the name inquire for themselves, judge for themselves, seek guidance from the Unerring Source, and act according to the result. There was no external necessity to follow the crowd of idolaters. The sons of Zadok resisted. So in every case a man’s conduct is the outcome of his own choice.
III. AS THERE ARE TWO LINES OF CONDUCT, THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF AWARD. It is only the blindness of men that supposes that God’s justice ever slumbers or ever mistakes. God can patiently wait his time, and can generously forbear. Yet with perfect calmness he metes out justice to every man. Touching these Levites he declares, “they shall even bear their iniquity.” If any sensitiveness of soul was left in them, they must have been sorely pained, during the seventy years of captivity, with the self-conviction that their unfaithfulness had been a main cause of Israel’s disaster. Nor was this all. A perpetual stigma was upon their name. An everlasting degradation was imposed on them and on their posterity. Their children and their children’s children through many generations were involved in the disgrace and in the deprivation of office. So far as it had been an honor to be a Levite, now it shall be reversedit shall be a dishonor. “They shall not come near unto me, to do the office of a priest unto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things, in the most holy place.” They had put God far away from them; it was simple retribution that God should forbid them to come near to him. Sin always bears its Own natural fruit. Still, judgment was tempered with mercy. They shall not be entirely superseded. They shall not be banished from the new temple. Inferior office they may yet fill; subordinate service they may yet perform. And in their degraded rank they shall learn that God’s service is real honor; that nearness to God is man’s heaven. “They shall be ministers in my sanctuary, having charge at the gates of the house, and ministering to the house; they shall slay, the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people.” But, on the other hand, special honor is conferred on the loyal sons of Zadok. “They shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table,” etc. Here is unmistakable promotion. “They had kept the charge of the sanctuary;” now “they shall keep my charge.” In other words, “They shall be my treasures: I will entrust my honor and all my precious things unto them.” Their fidelity is established; yea, is strengthened and enlarged by this strain of temptation. Their characters have come forth from the furnace like burnished gold. They shall be trusted in the heavenly kingdom because they are trustworthy. The omniscient eye of God does not overlook the least meritorious deed. High reward is in course of preparation for the righteous. Men often deceive themselves with specious hopes of escape. They often deceive others with plausible semblances, they can never deceive God!D.
Eze 44:27-30
Substantial wealth.
In every part of the world there is hunger, more or less, to possess land. By long observation men have discovered that to possess land is to possess influence and honor among their fellow-men. Is not land essential as the foundation of the harvest-crops? And are not crops of corn and fruit essential to the life of men? Is not agriculture the mainstay of a nation’s well-being? Yet without land agriculture is impossible; is it not therefore reasonable that men should eagerly long to call the land their own? On the other hand, this anxiety chains down men’s thoughts to inferior occupations and to a provision for their inferior nature. Such anxiety tends to draw away their attention from God and to weaken their sense of pious trust. In order to counteract this disastrous tendency, God appointed a class of men whose business it should be to keep God prominently before the eyes of their fellow-men. These servants of God were precluded from acquiring wealth. They were to be wholly employed in fostering the religious life in men. For their maintenance God provided in a special manner. These priests were designed to be models of human life, patterns of later Christians. God’s method for teaching the race is thisviz; to set down a good man in their midst, and to inspire others with the desire to imitate him. If one man can live and prosper by virtue of implicit and practical faith in God, other men can. By diligent culture of the land, God has ordained that human life shall be sustained. Yet God is not shut up to this one system. “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
I. EARTHLY POSSESSION IS ONLY A MEANS TO AN END. It is not a blessing, but only a medium of blessing. It is part of God’s system of means. The land exists with a view to harvest. The harvest is produced with a view to man’s bodily life. Man’s bodily life is sustained with a view to his spiritual character. On the whole, it is best that the land should be appropriated to personal possession. This secures that the land shall be cultivated in the highest degree, and that the crops shall be protected from premature use. If all land should remain as common property, there would be lack of inducement to cultivate it; there would be lack of inducement to personal exertion; there would be no check to extravagant waste. Personal possession is best for a community; yet it becomes a waste and an injury if a man possesses more than he can cultivate. God gives not land to a man in order that he may be tyrannical, selfish, puffed up with overweening conceit. This is a miserable perversion of a Divine gift. Land is created for cultivation. Cultivation of laud is designed for the support of human life. And all the laud in the world is worth nothing to me except as it ministers to the health and vigor of my life.
II. GOD CAN SECURE THIS END BY OTHER SYSTEMS OF MEANS. The best proof that, he can do so is the fact that he has done so on many occasions. It would be the height of folly to suppose that God has not made the wisest possible arrangement for the well-being of men. Yet if men abuse the arrangement and push God away from his rightful place, God can alter his system, and bring about his end by other agencies. He sustained the life of Abraham, gave him wealth and influence among men, while, at the same time, he refused to give him a rood of land. He was the Special Protector of the Hebrew nation; yet he led them about the desert for the lifetime of a whole generation, where harvests could not be gathered, and where land was not desired as a possession. Yet they wanted not for food or for clothing. God was to them better than all harvests. So Jesus Christ called away the twelve from their secular pursuits; yet he did not suffer them to want any good thing. Jesus himself preferred to have no encumbrance of land or wealth. He freely chose the state of poverty. To him, living in such intimate union with his Father, landed possession would have been a needless burden; yet, not only were his own wants supplied, but he royally spread a table for others. What the Son did on earth was the visible effect of his Father’s working.
III. UNSELFISH SERVICE BRINGS TO A MAN THE LARGEST GAIN. He who forgets himself in his generous kindness is not forgotten by his fellowsis not forgotten by God. The family of Zadok were prohibited from being landholders. Nevertheless, they shall not want. “Every dedicated thing in Israel shall be theirs.” “The first of all the firstfruits” shall be theirs. God out-distances all his creatures in generously rewarding faithful service. In his book every item of devoted toil and sacrifice is noted; for it ample reward is preparing. Just as one pain of corn will produce, in the harvest, a hundred grains, so consecrated service is living seedit shall fructify into splendid results. Did Abraham ever regret his unswerving fidelity to God? Does St. Paul feel today that he made too great sacrifices of himself for others? Has any one been a loser for serving God? It almost savors of profanity to propose such a question. The true servants of God shall enjoy the tribute due to God himself. Statesmen, under a mighty king, are rewarded with a goodly share of the revenue of the empire; so the tribute paid into God’s temple God distributes among his priests. For them who serve God well other men labor. Other men till the ground and prepare the produce. They who do the highest work shall have the best reward. Thus it was predicted, “Strangers shall stand and feed your flock, and the sons of the alien shall be your ploughmen and your vine-dressers; but ye shall be called the Priests of the Lord.” Like many other good things, the name and the office of the priest have been made a curse. Yet a true priestGod’s servant to mankindis a very fount of blessing. He is like salt in the eartha preserving and purifying power. Wherever he comes he is a spring-season of life and joy. He is to be well cared for, so “that he may cause the blessing to rest in thine house.”
IV. THE DEVOTED SERVANT OF GOD OBTAINS A PROPRIETORSHIP IN GOD. “I am their Inheritance I am their Possession.” An estate is not really ours because we call it ours. We cannot call anything ours unless it becomes a part and parcel of ourselves. If it adds to our character and our strength, then, and only then, is it ours. The land estate is often the master of the man. He lives to improve it rather than to be improved by it. We possess property when we really get some advantage out of it. So is it also with respect to God. If we make God our Friend, we extract advantage from him. If we believe his promises and open our souls to his vitalizing grace, we are enriched from him. God’s wisdom becomes our wisdom. His righteousness becomes our righteousness. His love becomes a fountain of love in us. We are “partakers of the Divine nature.” In a very emphatic sense God gives himself to us. Every capacity in us may be filled with God. If we are fully God’s property, God is our Portionour Inheritance. This is transcendent condescension, the sublimity of love.
V. TO POSSESS GOD IS TO POSSESS ALL THINGS. On this account it would have been a superfluity if Jesus had been a Proprietor of wealth. Of what advantage would it have been for him to possess fields, if he could create a sufficient supply of bread by the magic of command? Although the poorest, he was yet the richest of men. It is understood that he who possesses the key of the bank possesses the contents of the hank. If the Creator be mine, if I can call him “my Father,” then whatever his creation contains of good is mine also. It is clear that I must, as a creature, be dependent. Is it better to depend on law or on the Lawgiver? on the cistern or on the Fount? on blind circumstances or Omniscient Wisdom? on natural forces or on the all-creative God? My faith is founded in common sense. God undertakes to be my Friendmy Father. Then I am his child; and” if a son, then an heirheir of God; “All things are yours, for ye are God’s.”D.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Eze 44:1, Eze 44:2
The shut gate: reverence.
What is the true significance of this closure? Much has been made of it by fanciful exposition; but surely the true lesson is that which lies upon the surface, viz. that the closed gate would be a continual reminder that the people must reverently abstain from using the entrance through which the Most High himself had once passed. It was another symbolic utterance of the truth that we must “put off our shoes” when we stand on “holy ground.” The fact that there was a closed gate in this visionary, this ideal temple, may not unfittingly suggest to us (though it cannot be said to teach us)
I. THE WAY THAT IS BARRED. If we try to enter the kingdom of God by the way or the gate of:
1. A false independence; if we attempt to reach the saving and redeeming truth of God by our unaided intelligence, unwilling to learn of him who came to teach us, to be to us “the Wisdom of God,”then we shall find no entrance there (see Mat 18:3; 1Co 3:18). The same may be said of:
2. Unholy indulgence; and of:
3. The favorable opportunity in the future. Whoever seeks to enter the kingdom of Christ by these doers will find no open gate, but a barred way; he must enter by the way of childlike faith, of purity, of immediate decision. The closed gate may also suggest to us, by contrast
II. THE OPENNESS OF THE KINGDOM. There is a very valuable and most precious sense in which no gate is shut that was ever open into the kingdom of God. No man, let him be who or what he may, let him have been anything whatever in the past, coming to the gate of the kingdom of Christ in sincere penitence and simple faith, will find it closed against him. By whatever path he may have approached, by whatever influences constrained, if he be earnestly desirous of seeking God and serving him, he will find himself before an open door. Christ himself/s the Door, and he is ever saying, “Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out.” But the true lesson of the passage is
III. THE CONSTANT DUTY OF REVERENCE IN THE WORSHIP AND SERVICE OF GOD. The shut gate said (in effect), “Where God has come, you may not enter; there must be another way for the feeble and sinful creature than that taken by the almighty and holy Creator; realize the immeasurable difference between yourself and him.” It is well that there should be raised, now and again, the reminder that the Lord whom we serve is the Most High and the Most Holy One; that it becomes us to worship him and to speak for him in the spirit of deepest reverence; that if a “holy boldness” may be cultivated, an unholy irreverence is to be most sedulously shunned; that our dearest Friend is our Divine Lord, worthy of the profoundest homage our hearts can pay him, claiming the fullest subjection we can bring to his feet, as we worship in his house or work in his vineyard.C.
Eze 44:9-14
Divine discrimination.
The prophet is necessarily expressing himself in the terms of the old dispensation; and he declares, in God’s name, that no man who has not received a right spirit (“uncircumcised in heart”), and that no man who has not been admitted to the citizenship of the kingdom of God (“uncircumcised in flesh”), can “enter the sanctuary”can come into closest contact with, and render holiest service unto, the Lord (see Eze 44:9). And he further declares that those of his people who had grievously sinned against him by their guilty apostasy should be excluded from the more sacred offices of the priesthood; yet that they should be admitted to the humbler posts of guarding the doors, of slaying ‘the sacrificial animals, and of ministering to those priests who were worthier than themselves (Eze 44:11, Eze 44:14). The general lesson we learn is that God deals with us graciously and generously, but discriminately. He gives to all his children, but he does not give the same kind, nor does he give the same measure, to all; he is merciful to the penitent, but he does not let his mercy obscure or reduce his righteousness. Those who have done serious wrong “bear their iniquity” (Eze 44:10), they “bear their shame” (Eze 44:13); and yet they have their place and do their work in the day of restoration (see Eze 44:11, Eze 44:14). In that kingdom of God wherein we now stand we see illustrations of this Divine discrimination in
I. THE DISPENSING OF THE DIVINE BOUNTY. God gives much to all his creatures, to all his children; but he gives much more to some than he does to others. Herein is no favoritism or injustice. It is simply the presence of a most desirable variety; the conferring upon every one more than he deserves or can claim, and upon some a very large inheritance of good. Not any one of us is entitled to our being, or our comforts, or our powers; but God, in the fullness of his bounty, gives us these. Shall we complain because there are those to whom he has been even more bountifully than he has to us? Shall we not rather rejoice and be grateful that he has not limited his love as he might well have done? In fact, although very much inequality here is due to our own unwisdom, much is due to the variety in the Divine distribution. To some he gives more vigorous health, a clearer or more active mind, a stronger will, a fuller or longer life. Surely gratitude and not complaint is the note of the wise and the good.
II. THE DIVERSITY OF THE DIVINE BESTOWAL OF “GIFTS.” While there is no one who may not and who should not bring his contribution to the cause of Christ and of man, it is clear that some may do a much higher and a much greater work than others can. To some it is given to guard the door only; to others to present the sacrifice unto the Lord. Some with a feeble intelligence and a scanty knowledge may be quite equal to a humble post; others with versatile and vigorous powers and a well-stored mind may render most important and vital service. And there are many degrees between the humblest and the highest office in the Christian ranks. Let every man feel that to be or to do anything for Christ is a joy and an honor; let those who are invited to the “chief seats” remind themselves that they “have nothing which they have not received,” and let them do everything “as with the ability which God giveth.”
III. THE EXERCISE OF DIVINE MERCY. The “Levites that went astray after their idols’ were to receive the Divine mercy; they were to be restored to their place in the commonwealth of Israel; they were to be admitted to service at and indeed in the sanctuary (see Eze 44:11, Eze 44:14); but they could not wholly regain what they had lost; some of their iniquity (or shame, Eze 44:13) they would have to bear; at a certain point their privileges stopped. Now, in the kingdom of Christ, we have the same kind of Divine discrimination.
1. There is mercy for those who have gone furthest astray. Into whatever alienation of heart, rejection by the mind, guiltiness of behavior, they have wandered, there is forgiveness to be had in Jesus Christ.
2. The mercy of God means much. It means the absolute pardon of all past sin; the restoration of the soul to the favor and the friendship of God; access, full and free, to his praise, his throne, his table; liberty to serve him in the broad field of sacred usefulness.
3. But there is some serious and necessary qualification. They who have gone very far into wrong-doing, or have spent many years in sinful estrangement, must “bear their iniquity” in one sensethey must suffer the injury which their sin has wrought in the formation of evil habits (mental or physical) which cannot be immediately cast forth; in the loss of reputation which cannot be at once regained; in the enfeeblement of the soul (or, at any rate, the loss of strength and influence that might have been acquired) which has to be endured. Sin means some considerable measure of absolutely irreparable loss.C.
Eze 44:15, Eze 44:16
Fidelity and its reward.
We do not suppose that the statement respecting the sons of Zadok is to be pressed to historical exactitude. Their steadfastness is assumed for the purpose of exhortation, to point out the reward of fidelity in the kingdom of God. We have
I. THE FACT AND THE ACCOUNT OF UNFAITHFULNESS. There is no more patent fact before our eyes than that men do “go astray;’ they go astray, like these Levites, from God, from truth, from wisdom, from purity, from their earlier convictions and their noble life. The frequency of the fact cannot dull our eyes to the extreme sadness of it. What sadness was there in the tone of the Master’s question, “Will ye also go away?” With what profound regret do we now witness the descent or’ a human soul from the heights of heavenly wisdom to the depths of disbelief or iniquity! If we are asked to account for it, we suggest three powerful temptations which prove too strong for resistance.
1. The fascinations of novelty; the love of looking at things in new lights or of treading new paths.
2. The strength of the social current; the unconscious and (often) the wholly unreasonable deference we pay to the opinions of those around us. It is difficult to row against the stream of current thought and practice; it is pleasant to go with the tide, even though we suspect it is bearing us out to the open sea of uncertainty and unbelief.
3. Concern for our temporal interests; for it often happens that a firm adherence to conviction means a painful parting, not only from friends, but from the source of “food and raiment.”
II. THE SUMMONS TO FIDELITY. Many things demand of us that we should be faithful even to the end. Fidelity is:
1. Obligatory. We cannot leave the service of God or of truth without breaking the most sacred bonds, without laying ourselves open to self-reproach and doing that which we shall look back upon with shame and sorrow. We owe it to those who are coming up after usespecially to our own childrenthat we turn not our back on our old principles.
2. Excellent. There is something honorable and admirable in a very high degree in a consistent and faithful life; not, of course, the unintelligent repetition of the old sounds, but the adherence, through good report and evil report, through storm and sunshine, to the vital principles we learnt at the feet of Jesus Christ. The head that has grown white with the consistent advocacy and illustration of elevating and ennobling truth does wear a glorious crown.
3. Attended with a large and a true reward. Steadfastness, as compared with vacillation or apostasy, not only commands the esteem of men, and not only enables its possessor to enjoy his own self-respect, but it secures for him the abiding favor of God. God calls such men not only to the gate or door of the sanctuary; he bids them “enter into it,” and “come near to his table,” to “minister unto him.” For them is reserved the closer fellowship and the more honorable and essential service. In the service of Christ fidelity not only aspires to the higher and better service of the Master and of mankind below, but it looks forward to an admission within the blessed gates, and sitting down to the “table” of the Lord in the heavenly kingdom (Luk 22:30).C.
Eze 44:17-31
A good minister of Jesus Christ.
What the faithful priest was under the Law, that the “good minister” is under Christ (1Ti 4:6). And while the form of service is altogether different, the spirit should be the same. The ideal priest, as here delineated, is, mutatis mutandis, the true bishop or pastor of the New Testament. The latter is
I. STUDIOUS OF HIS MASTER‘S WILL, EVEN IN SMALL PARTICULARS. The priest was to carry out very minute instructions (see Eze 44:17-20). The minister of Christ is freed from the observance of such particulars, but still he is to be regardful of the will of Christ in everything. He is to carry a Christian temper and bearing everywhere. If in the view of the Master there was a right and a wrong way of entering a room and taking a seat (see Luk 14:7-10), so may there be a right and a wrong way of entering a pulpit, or reading a chapter, or visiting a cottage.
II. CAREFUL TO BE AT HIS BEST IN PUBLIC MINISTRATIONS. The priest was to avoid the drinking of wine at or near the time of sacrifice (Eze 44:21). The true minister of Christ will
(1) shun everything in the way of bodily indulgence which unfits him, and
(2) study and practice every habit, whether physical or mental, which will qualify him, for the discharge of his sacred duties with the utmost efficiency.
III. AN EXEMPLAR IN ALL MATTERS OF PURITY. (Eze 44:22, Eze 44:25, Eze 44:26.) In all domestic relations, as husband and father (see 1Ti 3:1-5; Tit 1:6). And in all his relations with either sex it becomes him to be a pattern of purity; not only shunning that which is positively wrong and guilty, that which is condemned in terms, but avoiding even the approaches to evil in this direction, knowing the great importance that he should encourage all, more especially the young, in that thorough purity (of heart, of word, and of deed) without which no character can be beautiful in the sight of God.
IV. ONE THAT EXPOUNDS AND ENFORCES PRACTICAL RIGHTEOUSNESS. (Eze 44:23.) What the people have a right to look for from their Christian teacher is:
1. A full, clear, forcible declaration of those truths which determine their relation to God, First of all, men want to be brought into a right relation with him; until that is done it may be said that nothing is done; estranged and separated from God, there is no rest or rightness for the human heart. Then comes:
2. A clear enunciation of Christian morals; such an exposition of duty that men shall know and feel the distinction between what is right and what is wrong in all their dealings with their fellow-men, in all their home relations, in all the varied spheres in which they, move.. The minister of Christ is to be, like Noah, a “preacher of righteousness, he is so to speak that those who hear him will be powerfully encouraged in every virtue, strongly dissuaded from every evil way and all unworthiness in temper and spirit.
V. A MAN OF AN ESSENTIALLY DEVOUT LIFE. (Eze 44:24, Eze 44:27, Eze 44:28.) One that delights in the worship of God, that does not fail to use well the privileges provided by the day and the house of the Lord, that finds his chief and best inheritance in God himself; to whom the Fatherhood of God and the friendship and service of Jesus Christ are (and not merely bring) an “exceeding great reward.” He is to be a man who can say that “to him to live is Christ,” and that, conversely, to know and love and serve Christ is life indeed.C.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
CHAPTER 44
1And he led me back the way of the outer gate of the sanctuary that 2looks to the east; and it was shut. And Jehovah said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall go in through it; 3because Jehovah, the God of Israel, went in through it; thus it is shut. As to the prince, he [is] prince, he shall sit in it, to eat bread [food] before Jehovah; from the way of the [to the] porch of the gate shall he go in, and 4from its way shall he go out. And he brought me the way of the north gate before the house, and I looked, and behold, the glory of Jehovah filled 5the house of Jehovah; and I fell upon my face. And Jehovah said to me: Son of man, set thy heart, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of Jehovah, and all its laws [or: its whole law]; and thou settest [shalt set] thy heart to the approach of the house in [conjunction with] all the out-goings of the 6sanctuary. And thou sayest to the contumacy, to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Cease at last from all your abominations, O house 7of Israel, When ye brought sons of the outland, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary, to desecrate it, even My house; when ye offered My bread [My food] (through them), fat and blood, and they 8broke My covenant in addition to all your abominations. And [yea] ye have not kept the charge of My holy things, and [but] ye set [such, those] to keep My charge for you in My sanctuary. 9Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: A son of the outland, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall not come to My sanctuary; in respect of every son of the outland [shall it be said] that Isaiah 10 in the midst of the children of Israel. Nay, but the Levites who went far from Me when Israel went astray, who went astray from Me after their 11detestable idols, they bear their guilt; And they are servants in My sanctuary, sentinels at the gates of the house and servants of the house; they shall slay the burnt-offering and the slain-offering for the people, and they 12shall stand before them to serve them. Because they used to serve them before their detestable idols, and were to the house of Israel a stumbling-block of guilt, therefore have I lifted My hand over them,sentence of the Lord Jehovah,and they bear their guilt. 13And they shall not draw near to Me, to minister as priests to Me, and to draw near over all My holy things to the most holy place, and [but] they bear their reproach and their abominations 14which they did. And I have given them to be keepers of the charge 15of the house, for all its service and for all that is to be done in it. And [but] the priests the [these] Levites, the sons of Zadok, who kept the charge of My sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from Me, they shall come near to Me to minister unto Me, and stand before Me to offer unto Me fat 16and blood,sentence of the Lord Jehovah. They shall come to My sanctuary, and they shall draw near to My table to minister unto Me, and to 17keep My charge. And it comes to pass, when they go to the gates of the inner court; they shall put on linen garments, and wool shall not come upon them when they minister in the gates of the inner court and at the house. 18Linen turbans shall be upon their heads, and linen breeches upon their loins; 19they shall not gird themselves in sweat. And on their going out to the outer court, to the outer court to the people, they shall put off their garments in which they minister [ministered], and lay them away [down] in the cells of holiness, and put on other garments; and they shall not sanctify the people in 20[with] their garments. And their head they shall not shave, nor suffer their 21locks to grow long; polling they shall poll their heads. And no priest shall 22drink wine when they go to the inner court. And a widow and a divorced woman shall they not take to themselves for wives; but maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, and the widow who was widow of a priest they may take. 23And they shall teach My people; what [the difference is] between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean, they shall make them 24know. And over [matters of] strife shall they stand to judge in My judgments, and judge them [so]; and My laws and Mine ordinances on all My festivals 25shall they keep; and My Sabbaths shall they hallow. And to a dead body of a man shall he not go to be defiled; but for father, and for mother, and for son, and for daughter, for brother, and for sister who had no husband, 26they may defile themselves. And after his cleansing they shall count to him 27seven days. And on the day of his coming to the sanctuary to the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin-offering,sentence of 28the Lord Jehovah. And it is to them for an inheritance [namely], I am their inheritance; and a possession shall ye not give them in Israel, I am their 29possession. The meat-offering, and the sin-offering, and the guilt-offering, they shall eat it; and every devoted thing in Israel shall be theirs. 30And the first of all the firstlings of everything, and every oblation of all, out of all your oblations, shall be to the priests, and the first of your [ground] corn shall ye give to the priest, to bring down a blessing upon thy house. Whatever is carrion, or torn, whether of fowl or of beast, 31the priests shall not eat.
Eze 44:2. Sept.: … . . Vulg.:eritque clausa (3) principi. Princeps ipseper viam port vestibuli ingredietur et per viam ejus
Eze 44:3. .
Eze 44:4. . (Another reading: .)
Eze 44:5. … . . Vulg.: de universis ceremoniis in viis templi per omnes exitus
Eze 44:7. … . (Another reading: and .)
Eze 44:8. … . Vulg.: et non servastis prcepta et posuistis custodes observationum mearum invobismet ipsis.
Eze 44:10. Vulg.: Sed et qui longe recesserunt
Eze 44:11. Vulg.: ditui et janitores portarum
Eze 44:12. …
Eze 44:13. … . . . . Vulg.: juxta sancta sanctorum (Another reading: .)
Eze 44:14. . . (Another reading: .)
Eze 44:15. … ,
Eze 44:17. Sept.: … . .
Eze 44:18. .
Eze 44:19. The words repeated are wanting in several manuscripts, and in the Sept., Syr., Vulg., Arab., and Chaldee.
Eze 44:20.. , . Vulg.:neque comam nutrient, sed tondentes attondent capita sua.
Eze 44:23. … . .
Eze 44:24. . . , . , . Vulg.: controversia, stabunt in judiciis meis et judicabunt;(Another reading: .)
Eze 44:25. . Vulg.: ad mortuum hominem qualterum virum non habuerit,
Eze 44:26. Another reading: .
Eze 44:27. … . Vulg.:ut ministret mihi
Eze 44:28. . Vulg.: Non erit autem eis
Eze 44:29. .
Eze 44:30. . . . . . Vulg.: Et primitiva omnium primogenitorum et omnia libamenta ex omnibus qu offeruntur et primitiva ciborum vestrorum ut reponat
Eze 44:31. … .
EXEGETICAL REMARKS
Eze 44:1-3. The Prince in the East Gate
[As the preceding chapter had disclosed the purpose of God to re-occupy, and that for ever, this new temple, and had described the necessary means and rites of consecration in order to its being a source of blessing to His people, so the present chapter lays down regulations for preventing any new desecration of the house, such as might again compel God to withdraw His gracious presence. These regulations refer successively to the prince and the priesthoodthe two classes through whom directly the former pollutions had been introduced into the house of God.Fairbairn.W. F.]
The prophet observed in the priests court (Eze 43:5) all that relates to the altar of burnt-offering. He is thence brought back, as we shall have to suppose, through the inner north or south gate the way to the outer east gate. It is not without significance that the east gate of the outer court (comp. Eze 43:12) is designated as gate of the sanctuary, the outer one which, etc. Looking into it from the court (not as Hitzig and Hengstenberg: from before the outer east gate, as Eze 43:1), Ezekiel perceived that it was shut (comp. Eze 40:11); and this, must the more astonish him, as this entrance to the sanctuary had been described to him in Ezekiel 40. as forming the rule for all the other gates of the temple. The fact, then, of its being closed demands an explanation, which also Jehovah (comp. on Eze 43:6-7) gives him in Eze 44:2. Since the whole vision points to the future, it is said first of all in reference thereto: This gate shall be shut (). Hence the closing shall continue for all futurity, as is again expressly confirmed by the statement: It shall not be opened, and strengthened by this other declaration: And no man (whoever he may be) shall go in through it,in other words, by the exclusion of every one. When it is thereafter said: Because Jehovah, etc., the explains certainly the immediate present (), the present closing of the gate, which, as we see in Eze 44:1, is the first thing treated of; but we shall have to draw upon it for the explanation for the future likewise, for this future has been announced as the continuance of the closing in the present. The way which the glory of Jehovah went (Eze 43:4) is thus a unique way, and will remain such, no man shall tread it henceforth; and this, when we look upon the fulfilment in Christ of all that had been written aforetime, reads like a Messianic prophecy, without its being necessary for us to suppose with the Church Fathers a direct reference to the virginity of Mary (fit porta Christi pervia, referta, plena gratia, transitque rex et permanet clausa ut fuit per scula). [The Rabbins have interpreted the closing of the gate to this effect: that the Shechinah shall no longer be able to come out, an idea which Lightfoot has transformed into the ever-during dwelling of the glory of God in the Christian Church; while Hengst. expresses it thus: that the glory of the impending revelation of the Lord embodies itself in the doors remaining shut.]When, after this quite universal explanation in respect to future and present of the shut east gate, Eze 44:3, by its very commencing with the absolute construction , directs attention to the prince, and, besides, gives as reason for what is to be said of him in reference to the east gate, , that is as much as to say: qua prince it belongs to him; then an exception from the rule just laid down, that is, an exceptional entering of the prince through this gate at certain times and for certain contingencies, is not to be supposed, especially as what is announced regarding him is not: , but simply: , that he shall sit in this gate, namely (comp. for the expression: to eat bread before God, Exo 18:12; Luk 13:26), to enjoy the sacrificial banquets. Of this place of the prince in the east gate, Hengst. exclaims: How glorious must the entering Lord be, when the prince cannot be more highly honoured than by a place in the gate by which He entered! Now, since according to Eze 44:1-2 the entrance through the east gate was closed to him, the way by which the prince arrived at his place of honour will necessarily have to be given, as is accordingly done; and this account is not to be interpreted, with Keil, of the outside stair over the threshold at the guardroom, and onward to the gate-porch at the inner end of the gate-structure. For such a way surely would be a strange mode of expression! On the contrary, this mode of expression is quite conceivable when we consider the way of the prophet (Eze 44:1), who had been brought from the north or south to the east gate, and finds himself there on the side of the court west of the gate; and hence has the porch right before him, so that he will the more readily define from it the way of the prince into the gate (from its way he shall also go out), as the entering from the way of the porch of the gate forms self-evidently the contrast to an entering from the way of the gate without. Consequently, the prince has (as Hitzig rightly understands) to come through the outer north or south gate into the outer court, and to cross the same, in order to arrive at the place where he will sit, etc. Whether the gate-porch which thus lay on this side (toward the court) of the gate-barrier is meant to be given as the place for the banquets of the prince may be questioned; Hengstenberg recommends, as specially adapted for them, the inner threshold immediately adjacent to the porch. According to all this, the exception of the prince symbolizes merely, in its own way, the holiness of the sanctuary, the solemnity of drawing near to Jehovah and appearing before Him. It will no longer be as in the former temple, that any one () will march straight to the sanctuary through the east gate; but the saints of God, His people sanctified for ever, will know how to honour the holiness of Him who sanctified them. ( In the case of the tabernacle and its court there was only one entrance, from the east, through which all had to go, Klief.) But it is significant that the civil head of the people (comp. on Eze 43:22), the prince, sits and eats in the east gate closed for every one, on the way which the glory of Jehovah went to fill the house (Eze 44:4), and there enjoys the fruit of that which has been provided. For the significance of the banquets has regard to the communion and friendly relation in which the participants stand to one another, and with the provider of the feast, who in the last resort is Jehovahat least He participates therein in the sense of Rev 3:20; just as also the gladness and joy before the Lord, and even the joys of the kingdom of heaven, appear under the figure of a feast (Psa 23:5; Psa 36:9 [8]; Mat 8:11; Luk 14:15; Rev 19:9). We have in this the genuine gospel feature, which excels in glory the face of the law. So much the more, however, as regards the princewho, as has been said, is rather a reflex of the people (comp. Eze 46:10), just as to them also the entrance to the temple has been opened by the setting in operation of the altar of burnt-offering (Eze 43:26)must we avoid the interpretation which accentuates in him the David of Messianic times (Eze 34:23 sq., Eze 37:24). On this comp. also Eze 45:22; Eze 46:2; Eze 46:16. It would be better to insist with Hengst. on his cheering form, as opposed to the ceasing of the magisterial office in the exile, especially when his presence is so incidentally presupposed. But this prince ship, which makes orderly civil relations again obtain in Israel, had its post-exile appearance in Zerubbabel, for instance (Zechariah 4), and has at all events been perfected in the Messianic kingdom, even as to the side applicable here, which Isa 53:10 expresses thus: The pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper through his hand; while in Eze 44:11 he is said: to see, to be refreshed; and similarly Eze 44:12.
[ In regard to the prince, it is impossible for us to think of any one but the royal head, as he is throughout spoken of as an individual, and in the next chapter is directed to prepare for himself, and for all the people of the land, a sin-offering (Eze 45:22). So that the idea of Hvernick, that the word is used collectively for the rulers and presidents generally of the people, is quite untenable. And not less so is the opinion, that by the expression is simply to be understood the Messiah; for this is utterly irreconcilable with all the prescriptions given, and in particular with those requiring the presentation of sacrifices and sin-offerings for the prince. It is to be explained precisely as the whole delineation here, and in the preceding visions (Ezekiel 34-39), by viewing it as part of an ideal description of coming realities under the form and aspect of the old relations. And no more than we expect other parts of the vision to find their accomplishment under the gospel by a restoration of the carnal sacrifices and institutions of Judaism, should we look here for an actual prince to follow the regulations prescribed. Standing on the position he did, the prophet must speak of the future under the image of the past; and as it was by means of the earthly head of the Jewish state that many of the former corruptions had been introduced, he now shows how a repetition of such evils is to be guarded against in the future. Whether the kingly power should ever again be concentrated in one person, or should be shared by many, is of no moment as regards the substance of the truth here unfolded. As for the connection between the prince and the east gate (Eze 44:1-3), what could this import, but that the prince should feel he now occupied a place of peculiar nearness to God? As Gods vicegerent and deputy among the people, it became him to be the most distinguished representative in public life of Gods holiness, to tread the higher walks of spiritual communion and fellowship with Heaven, and stand pre-eminent in his zeal for the interests of truth and righteousness. Far now from usurping the authority that belonged to God, and abusing to selfish ends and purposes the power which was given by Him for higher ends, all authority and power in Israel should be exercisedif this divine ideal were reduced to practicein a solemn feeling of subordination to Gods majesty, and with an unfeigned desire for His glory.Fairbairns Ezekiel, pp. 477, 478.W. F.]
Eze 44:4-16 The Priests.
Eze 44:4. The outer north gate cannot be the one spoken of, for the prophet stands in the outer court before the porch of the east gate. He is brought , and so , must be the way to the inner north gate, as this was also the way by which to get near to the temple-house.Comp. for the rest on Eze 43:5; Eze 43:3. As there the filling of the house with the glory of Jehovah introduced the Thorah of the temple, especially the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering, which certainly forms also the transition to the temple – service, so here by a similar introduction, in which Eze 44:5 refers so far back as to Eze 40:4, the service before Jehovah is now introduced, and that with attentive regard to the personelle. Thus the two parts of the section, Ezekiel 40-46, are even formally-separated.Jehovah, as in Eze 44:2.The threefold demand upon the prophet, of which the first, which as the most inward strikes the key for the seeing and hearing, has its ground not exactly in the glory just now seen (Hengst.), but rather in what Jehovah will say to him, and in the abominations committed by Israel, to which it has reference.What concerns the ordinances and laws of the house (comp. Eze 43:11-12) is certainly limited here by to the temple building proper, as is also indicated by the designation: house of Jehovah, repeated from Eze 44:4, so that the approach of the house with all the out-goings is to be understood in reference to the priests.
Eze 44:6. That the house of Israel is to be addressed (Eze 2:7) shows the more plainly how it had been represented by the priesthood of the past. , literally: there is much to you from all your abominations, sufficient, enough for you, so that you may at last abstain (1Pe 4:3). Like priest, like people; but also, like people, like priest (Hos 4:9).
Eze 44:7, in this connection, in which the temple-house accessible to the priests alone is treated of, and priestly ministration is had regard to, can hardly refer to heathens or foreigners living amongst Israel (comp. for this Lev 17:10; Lev 17:12; Num 15:13 sq.; Exo 12:43-44; 1Ki 8:41 sq.), foreign merchants as sellers of sacrificial victims, etc., nor heathenized Israelites in general, but must be understood as referring to the introduction of priests, who, as the children of Israel were called heathens () in Eze 2:3, were , instead of being sons of Jehovahs house. In what sense the term employed is to be taken is shown by the next clause: uncircumcised in heart, which, if said of genuine born heathens, would be nonsense; whereas, said of Israelites, of the priests here, and conjoined with the following clause: and uncircumcised in flesh, it expresses exactly the same as Rom 2:25, when the ,when the direct opposite of the idea of the symbol realizes itself (comp. besides, Deu 30:6), the distinction also which the symbol denotes will disappear, the Jew has become heathen. Comp. also Eze 16:3; Zec 14:21 (Php 3:3). The expression: to be in My sanctuary, which more closely defines the as the bringing in to the priestly ministration, is still farther illustrated by the clause: to desecrate it, My house. When it is farther said: when ye offered (in a manner, the daily bread of Jehovah, which is immediately explained to mean the sacrificial food as to its elements: fat and blood, for which comp. Num 28:2; Lev 3:11; Lev 21:6; Lev 21:8, etc.), this parallel phrase to: when ye brought to be in My sanctuary, etc., confirms the view that priests are meant who formed the pure contrast to the Israelitish priesthood according to its idea, and this the more plainly as (Eze 16:59; Eze 17:18-19) can scarcely be said of heathens as such, who were outside of the covenant; but when understood of such priests, it looks straight into the inmost relation, from which are derived the sanctuary, the service in it, and the sanctification of Israel. The interchange of ye and they is farther shown to be intentional by the next clause: in addition to all your abominations, inasmuch as not even the priests were correct, with whose holiness the people so frequently think they may venture to dispense with their own. Eze 44:8 accordingly goes on to reprimand such shameful priestly representation of the people in respect to the holy things (Eze 22:8) of Jehovah (comp. Eze 40:45-46). Of this Keil gives a superficial view, when he says that the people, by unlawfully admitting ungodly heathen into the temple, had not only forgotten the reverence due to the holy things of God (!), but had also made for themselves these heathen, so to say (?), ministers of God in His sanctuary. How can permission to tread the temple be put on the same level, even only spiritually, with placing in the temple for superintending the worship? What is meant flows, moreover, from the general statement, impossible to be understood except in its constant sense: And ye set (namely, such parties) for you in My sanctuary. implies also the representation of the people by such keepers of the charge, which the sanctuary and the covenant of Jehovah with them bound Israel to keep. (Comp. 1Ki 12:31) Hv.: Not to serve God, but to serve your own sinful inclination.
[Fairbairn: The children of Israel are spoken of as doing all this, because the corrupt priesthood was inseparably connected with the sins of the peoplethe one continually acting and reacting on the other. And the corruption in the priesthood, it will be observed, is expressed as if persons had been put into the office who were not of the tribe of Levi, or even of the seed of Israel, but uncircumcised heathen. Not that literally persons of this description had been admitted into the priestly office; that did not take place, not even in the kingdom of Israel, where still the Israelites were employed, though not of the family of Aaron. But the prophet is viewing all in a spiritual light; he is reading forth the import of the outward transactions, as they appeared to the eye of God; and as in that respect the officiating priesthood had been no better than uncircumcised strangers, so he speaks of them as having actually been such.W. F.]
Eze 44:9. We have now, in condemnation of such profanation, Jehovahs solemn declaration regarding the personelle of His service in future. In the first place, a simple negativing of what has been, that shall no longer be; hence , to be understood in the same sense as in Eze 44:7; also the phrase: shall not come to, etc., corresponding to what has been previously said, is to be understood of priests, as: My sanctuary, proves beyond a doubt. But the summary winding up (, Ewald, Gram. 310a): that is in the midst of, etc., precludes, by the explanation it gives, every thought of genuine foreigners, or even of the , strangers, Eze 47:22 sq. Jewish heathen, as Hengstenberg designates them, are most expressly excluded by this canon of church discipline, which begins at the house of God. To be a son of Israel is the first qualification which Jehovah demands for His priesthood, and this taken strictly explains likewise as antithesis thereto the son of the outland. Eze 44:10. (a strong but, Ewald, Gram. p. 856), after the ample negativing Eze 44:9), introduces the position which makes everything perfectly clear that the discourse is to be concerning the tribe of Levi. This designation is given in the outset, because there will still take place a choix sur choix, a narrower election in respect of the Aaronites, the peculiarly priestly family, and a degradation of priests to be servants and assistants, like the Levites given as such to Aaron and his lineage (Numbers 3). (Eze 11:6; Eze 8:15), to be away, to depart from, Jer 2:5; Jer 2:8. is: to stagger (Isa 28:7), in the wider signification: to go astray (Isa 53:6). can explain Israels going astray (Eze 6:4), and then it is still people and priest taken together as formerly; and this is especially clear when , corresponding to the , makes it conformable to Israels going astray., Eze 14:10; Eze 16:52; Eze 16:58 (Hengst.: they shall take their iniquity upon them), the guilt to be borne will be made clear by the immediately following punishment. This idolatrous staggering had at different times seized hold of priest and people, sometimes more, sometimes less. Instead of allowing themselves to be dragged along by the people to active or even passive participation in the service of idols, they ought, from their office, to have restrained the people, Jer 2:8. Comp. moreover, Psa 16:4. [Hvernick thinks here of even the old misdeeds of Levi, which will make themselves observable.]
Eze 44:11. They shall not be excluded from all service in the sanctuary, but degraded from the functions of priests to those of simple Levites; as Rashi expresses it; to do what strangers and servants and women can perform. is used also of priestly service; it is only (the function for those discharging it) that with the words expressly added points to the gates of the house, although the word in itself is equivalent to , . It is still in respectful terms that these degraded priests are spoken of (it is not said: , as is said of the Levites specifically, Num 16:9). They are porters and house-servants, yet in this at least they still represent the people, that they relieve them of the slaying of the victims; it is only with their standing before them to serve them that their being degraded to Levites becomes more marked (comp. Num 16:9), because now the punishment corresponding to the guilt is
Eze 44:12to be mentioned; the guilt which they shall bear is characterized by the punishment for it in this way: what they were accustomed to do in the apostasy at the will of the peopleand thus as a stumbling-block which caused to fall into guiltis now officially imposed upon them.Comp. on Eze 20:5-6; Eze 20:15; Eze 20:23; Eze 36:7.
Eze 44:13 hereupon expressly cuts them off from being priests as hitherto , the fuller stem of , signifies: those who establish anything as it should be according to the divine ordinance, the people continuing always in their functions; according to others: those bending themselves, namely, doing homage to the Eternal; Num 16:10 of the priesthood, as distinguished from mere Levite service. is therefore antithesis to , Eze 44:11. Farther details are given in what follows. By the appositional , the expression: to draw near over all My holy things, isas itself suggests, and the plural (comp. Num 4:19) confirmsinterpreted as referring to the eating of the most holy things (comp. on Eze 42:13), appertaining to the priests alone. For the rest, comp. Eze 16:52.
Eze 44:14 recapitulates and sums up the reproach and guilt to be borne, with respectful reference to their former priestly calling; hence , which mode of expression, however, receives its levitical limitation through (comp. Num 16:9, Ezekiel 3).
Eze 44:15. Those likewise are called Levites who in contrast to the punishment of the former priests are all the more exalted as priests., the son of Ahitub (1 Chron. 5:34 [1 chron6:8]), of the line of Eleazar (1Ch 24:1 sq.), was co-high priest with Abiathar of the line of Ithamar, in consequence of the twofold service of worship in Davids time, that at Jerusalem and that at Gibeon (1 Chronicles 16. [1Ch 16:17] 1Ch 16:39). After Abiathar had like Joab repeatedly attached himself to Adonijah, the pretender to the crown, and had brought about his own fall and banishment to Anathoth (1 Kings 2), Zadok was appointed by Solomon sole high priest, and with him the line of Eleazar again became the alone high-priestly one. We are not to go along with Hengstenberg when he, in order to interpret the sons of Zadok, goes back even to the relation of fatherhood in the Decalogue, and drags in the pope too as a holy father, simply to get a father-priest, after whom all priests (since 1 Kings 2) are to be designated as his sons, even the unfaithful, says Hengstenberg, who were excluded in the foregoing passage (!!). He hazards this contradiction to the connection in order to get the faithful priests first in Eze 48:11, and because he finds in Eze 43:19, instead of sons of Zadok (as in Eze 40:46), that are of the seed of Zadok, the heads (!) of the high-priesthood, those who are of the high priests kindred (Act 4:6), officiating at the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering (that is, it is incorrect to say that in the whole vision the high priest never meets us!). In Zadok we might indeed be reminded of Melchizedek, had not the very name Zadok ( righteous), and still more what is historically known of him, symbolized him as a type of the true priestly character. The faithful position which he had taken towards David he did not forsake towards Solomon, as Abiathar did (1Ki 1:7-8; 1Ki 1:25-26; 1Ki 2:22); he even anointed Solomon king over Israel. Consequently, in the theocratic (Messianic) signification of the kingdom of David and Solomon, Zadok kept himself precisely in the relation which is so significant for our vision (see Doct. Reflec.). Comp. also 1Sa 2:35.[Fairbairn: The promise of a priesthood of the house of Zadok entirely corresponded to the promise of a shepherd with the name of David. It simply indicated a race of faithful and devoted servants, in whom the outward and the inward, the name and the idea, should properly coincide,a priesthood serving God in newness of spirit, not in the oldness of the letter, as the people whom they represented should also have become true Israelites, themselves a royal priesthood offering up spiritual sacrifices to the Lord. In truth, it is the raising up of a people who should be such a priesthood that is meant by the description, and the sons of Zadok came into notice only because in connection with them there was an historical ground for taking them as representatives of a right-hearted spiritual community.W. F.]But as not all the children of Abraham are of his faith, so here the sons of Zadok are only those who kept, etc., who have kept and will keep themselves faithful to Me. Not until after this essential personal qualification for priest, is the formal and official service described: in general, the drawing near, etc. (Eze 40:46; Eze 43:19), in particular, the standing before Me (in contrast to before them, Eze 44:11) to offer unto Me (comp. Eze 44:7) fat, etc., part of the service at the altar of burnt-offering.Then in Eze 44:16 comes the treading of the dwelling in the holy place, especially the drawing near to the altar of incense (Eze 41:22), for which the name table is significantly retained. Finally, reverts to the starting-point in Eze 44:15, .
Eze 44:17-31. Priestly Duties and Privileges
Eze 44:17 begins with the most external, the clothing; the duty in this respect will make the symbolized inward obligation the more apparent. The coming to the inner gates implies the intention of service at or in the sanctuary, and thereby involves the duty of putting on (, flax) linen garments, and this makes , as already ordained by Moses, perfectly clear (comp. Exo 39:28; Exo 28:39 sq.; Lev 6:3 [10], Eze 16:4; Eze 16:23). The express prohibition of wool (, what is drawn together, hanging together like vellus, , ) gives additional emphasis to the linen, and makes the ministering in the gates of the inner court, that is, within them, and at the house, said of functions discharged within the house, the former in relation to the altar of burnt-offering, and the latter in relation to the altar of incense, still more distinctly prominent.
Eze 44:18, like Eze 44:17, refers to the priests garments; is properly: adornment, diadem, which might suggest the special high-priestly ; the word, however, occurs rather in connection with , Exo 39:28 ( goodly bonnets), and we have no warrant for supposing it is a special head-covering for priests in general. It is rather meant to be remarked that they are adorned ( is suggestive of floral ornaments), although with linen.The covering for the loins (, plural or dual), reaching from high above the loins down to about the thigh (comp. Exo 28:42), forms the third of the four articles, as Bhr says, designed for the official dress of the priests (in accordance with the symbolical place of Jehovahs testimony and revelation); while the injunction about girding, which, moreover, explains the sense and spirit of the whole linen dress, subjoins the , that is, girdle of the priests, as the fourth article. This was worn higher up toward the breast, as would then be confirmed by the added defining clause: not in sweat; which certainly will not bear the meaning: while they sweat, but according to Bhr is meant to imply: where they sweat. But (), found only here, elsewhere , from : what is forced out by pressure or anguish) certainly means nothing but what has been said already: that no wool shall come upon them; for as the white linen makes the cleanness apparent, so sweat, so readily produced by woollen stuff, especially when forming a girdle and thus confining the body, is meant to be guarded against as uncleanness, and on the whole accordingly the holiness of the priests for the sanctification of the people to be signified. [Did the Septuagint mean too tight girding, or girding in violent haste?]
Eze 44:19. The repetition: to the outer court, is meant to strengthen the prohibition, which is particularly strong in our verse; to call attention to the distinction between the outer court and the inner, while both, however, are still only courts; and to the altar in the inner court, where the sanctification of the people willed by Jehovah has to take place. After this (comp. Eze 42:14) comes the laying aside of the priests official dress, and the laying of it down at the place suitable to the holiness of Jehovah (Eze 42:13), and the putting on of other garments, for the purpose of guarding against the thought of another sanctification than the God-ordained one by the way of sacrifice. Not in their garments, that is, it is not they, although they are priests, who are to sanctify the people (comp. Joh 17:19!). Consequently, the going out to the people is to be understood in reference to sanctification, and shows moreover that this outer court was for the people. Expositors generally refer here to Lev 6:11; Lev 6:20 (); Exo 29:37; Exo 30:29; comp. besides, Exo 28:43; Lev 6:4 [11], Eze 16:23. [That contact with the people defiles the priests when in their official dress, as Keil referring to Leviticus 21 supposes, is not said here.]
Eze 44:20 forbids, as already Lev 19:27; Lev 21:5, the shaving of the head smooth, as heathenish; censuring the Creator (!?), says Hengst.; according to Bhr, as mourning, a sign of fellowship with the dead, inasmuch as the hair is a proof of life and vigour of body. The Egyptian priests kept the head always close shaved. On the contrary, the priests of Israel are to bear their head high, as the mediators of an eternal life in holiness through grace. implies: breaking forth, being on the top; hence, the hair on the head. The covering for the head is treated of next to the garments for the body. Keil cites for ( to let loose), as to let grow freely, Lev 10:6 and Num 6:5. But the first passage must not be so understood, and we need not suppose here, in accordance with the second, a prohibition of Nazaritism, but, as the markedly positive clause shows, the hair is simply to be kept short, to be polled. Comp. 1Co 11:14 sq. (Rev 9:8). ( is found only here.). On this Hengstenberg observes: That which is the sign of a wild, disorderly man, who lets nature take its free course, might indeed be permitted to the Nazarite, in consequence of a vow undertaken for a time, in order thereby to typify his separation from the world; but not to the priest, whose duty it was to hold converse with the world, and adapt himself to society, to enter which with shorn hair was the custom even in Josephs time. The priest should be no separated person. If flowing locks and the growth of hair generally is the sign of vigorous natural life, as the forbidden shaving also on its part symbolizes, then by forbidding the priest as representative of a holy people to let his locks grow long, the false positive, in addition to the false negative, is forbidden; the maxim that: every one is his own law (as every one his own devil), unbounded naturalism is forbidden. Neither annihilation nor yet glorification of nature, neither askesis unto death nor honouring of the flesh, but simply law, divine order, is the watchword for the servant of Jehovah. The sanctification treated of is neither heathenishly self-chosen, ones own fabrication, self-sanctification, nor is it a natural holiness of ones own, which needs not a sanctification in Jehovahs way.
Eze 44:21. Although abstinence from wine is demanded, yet our passage has nothing to do with the Nazarite proper. His was a vow regulated by law; but always a free-will dedication pro tempore, where the man thus devoted himself to God with all his naturalism, just as he had grown up. That the priests are not to drink wine (Lev 10:9) is grounded on no temporary, formal separation from the world, is no drastic consecration, as in the case of the Nazarite, but is simply an emblem of what is seemly, of sobriety of soul, of the true spirit of a servant of God, who goes into the inner court,the reason assigned for the prohibition.
Eze 44:22. From their manner of life in respect to drinking, and no doubt generally (Rom 13:14), the obligation of the priests turns to their married life. The injunction not to marry a widow (Lev 21:14; Lev 21:13) is extended here from the high priest to the whole body of priests, who in this respect then appear high-priestly, just as in Eze 43:12 everything upon the mountain round about was most holy. The ordinary priest also is not allowed to marry (Lev 21:7) , a woman put away by her husband, of course with reason, because of guilt; one of this kind is classified as a factitious widow with those who are really widows. The permission to take a priests widow forms a pendant to the judgment pronounced on the daughter of a priest in Lev 21:9. For the rest, the verse relates to the priests being holy with reference to the holiness of Jehovah. [The Jewish Talmudic view limits the first part to the high priest, understanding of the other priests: Yet the widow who is (really) a widow, those who occupy the position of ordinary priests may take.]
Eze 44:23 defines the official duties of the priests. (Hiph.), to spread out, the hand, for example, to point to something, to teach, here the people, of whom Jehovah says: My people (Deu 17:10 sq., Eze 33:10; Lev 10:10); and above all to teach them the difference between, etc., for which comp. Eze 22:26. The priestly service, then, is to comprehend worship and doctrine, representation of the people before God, and representation of God before the people. (Comp. Mal 2:7) But above all, everything with an eye to sanctification.
Eze 44:24 gives in addition to this the court of judicature which they form in disputed cases (Deu 17:8 sq., Deu 19:17): , they are to stand over the confused and complicated points raised by the parties, and because they have the power to stand over them as judges, since they have to judge in My judgments, they will always find in the law of Jehovah what is right in every case. Qeri: , and Qeri: , are both equally unnecessary. What this administration of justice is in civil lifeit too being a sanctification of the people through the judgment of Godhas its counterpart in church life, in the observance of all the laws and ordinances, on all the festivals of Jehovah, the key-note for which is given with the hallowing of the Sabbaths (comp. for the reverse, Eze 22:26), while at the same time we are told what is always the main matter in priestly ministration.
Eze 44:25 therefore shows how the priests have to keep themselves from defilement. individualizes, to speak exactly.The exception ( ) affects the same blood-relations as Leviticus 21. The exception of the high priest (Lev 21:10 sq.) is not noticed, just as there is no notice of the high priest in the whole book. Eze 44:26 is, according to Keil, the command to purify from uncleanness by the dead sharpened, inasmuch as he believes the seven days are appointed over and above the space of seven days prescribed by the law (Num 19:11 sq.), and finds this indicated in , in which he thinks he sees a compensation for the previously permitted coming of the priests to the dead, which in the law had been forbidden to the high priest even in the case of father or mother. Rather perhaps the number seven simply points the more strongly to holiness and sanctification. Hengstenberg, on the other hand, insists on the distinction between: having been cleansed, and: cleansing, which, he says, began with the beginning of the seven days (Numbers 19), seven days being the longest period which any uncleanness lasts. At all events it cannot be denied that Eze 44:27 still demands the offering of a sin-offering when the priest enters again on his ministry.
After the duties come now the privileges of the priests, what is to accrue to them for their service.In Eze 44:28 we have, first of all, the fundamental condition known from the law (comp. Num 18:20; Deu 10:9; Deu 18:1), expressed first positively, then negatively, and finally once more positively; which the Israelite priestly consciousness received and retained in living and in dying. For, since the priests of Israel are no foreigners, no dominant race, but of Israel, like all their brethren, it would be natural, when Canaan was promised by God as to the people to whom they belonged, that to them also there should be a definite tribal territory for inheritance and possession (, something which one grasps and retains). But they represent Israel not as to the flesh but as to the spirit, as to the idea which from the outset makes of this people Gods peculiar possession, and thereby God their peculiar possession: My people, and I am Jehovah, thy God. Now, as the Lord already (Gen 15:1) says to Abraham, the father of all believers: I am thy very great reward, so this is to the priests for an inheritance, that I am their inheritance (), as Jehovah says. They are thereby in such a position that nothing more is to be given to them ( ), at least by their fellow-countrymen, to whom on the contrary they give an earnest of the ideality of their nationality, of the eternal inheritance, of the possession of Canaan in truth, in that they as matter of fact teach Israel its better self, its true aspiration, its eternal future. [Eze 44:28 does not, as Keil supposes, treat of cities to dwell in, with the houses and pasture-grounds belonging thereto, which in the Mosaic economy Jehovah assigns to the Levites and priests from His own peculiar possession in land; comp. Ezekiel 45]
Eze 44:29. On the contrary, they have their livelihood from the offerings, and in so far live from Jehovahs hand. On the meat, sin, and guilt-offerings here mentioned, comp. in the law Lev 2:1-10; 1Co 9:13. ( separating) is what is devoted to Jehovah without possibility of redemption; for this comp. Lev 27:21; Lev 27:28.
Eze 44:30. are the first-fruits of tree-fruit and of corn (from , to break forth). Comp. Exo 23:19; Exo 34:26; Num 18:13; Deu 18:4. is said of parts of the offerings with reference to the ceremonial of heaving and waving, which likewise signified consecration to Jehovah. The Rabbins explain the word of the gift separated for the Lord; for thus it took place with all the first-fruits, sheaves as well as loaves. At all events, the heave-offering is in general whatever is according to precept or of free will lifted up for Jehovah as a consecrated gift to the sanctuary, indirectly to its ministers (Exo 25:2 sq., Eze 30:13 sq.; Num 15:19 sq., Eze 18:27 sq.). Comp. Eze 20:40., used only in the plural, is supposed to be groats, or peeled grain (Gesenius), with which does not well harmonize; hence Meier supposes grain-corn. Comp. Num 15:20 sq.Everything mentioned in Eze 44:29 tends to sanctification; the heaving and waving in particular involved the thought, that in consequence of such gifts to the priest the blessing of God is brought down on the individual house. Hengstenberg translates: and that thou mayest make blessing rest in thy house, and cites Mat 15:4-5. Comp. Mal 3:10.
Eze 44:31 brings to a close what refers to the sustenance of the priests, mentioning the things to be excluded therefrom. , a dead body, what lies stretched out of men and beasts, cadaver. , something torn off, torn by wild beasts. Comp. Eze 4:14; Exo 22:30 [31]; Lev 22:8. Lev 17:15 marks this as defiling for any man, how much more so for the priests of Jehovah; so that by this the idea of holiness is exemplified. Only what Jehovah gives to them and His sanctuary in offerings and dues, which, however, must never be unclean, shall accrue to them; and this at the same time forms the best transition to the awards which follow (Ewald).
HOMILETIC HINTS
On Ch. 44
Eze 44:1 sq. Blessed are they who walk under Gods guidance, whom He brings back as here to the principal gate toward the east (Starck).Gods connection with mankind remains a secret (Diedrich).The shut gate is the book sealed with seven seals, which only the victorious Lion of the tribe of Judah opens, and no one shuts (Rev 5:5). When we draw near to Him who is the Door of the sheepfold, He, because He is the only-begotten of the Father, will open unto us and show us the Father (col.).Christ needs no successor to figure as His vicar in the Church (Berl. Bib.).But certainly in what follows a prerogative is indicated which pious princes, magistrates, and lords may have (Cocc.).Our heart, too, should be shut to the world and the devil, when once the Holy God has entered into it, and His glory has swallowed up sin and misery in us (Starke).Alas, if the door of heaven should be shut! (Starck.)
Eze 44:3. The position of the prince in the sanctuary of the Lord.Even the highest civil power has nothing to complete here, but only enjoys the fruits of the completed, perfect sacrifice of Christ.Princedom and power in the light of the glory of Christ.The Christian ruler and the rule of Christ.Privileges and the corresponding responsibility.The nearer we are to the sanctuary, the more holy and godly ought we to be (Starck).The Christian ruler ought to be the Christian pattern to his people.He is not to preach, just as it is not his office to offer sacrifice; but he is to nourish and protect the Church and avow its faith.Christ is the gate, the only gate; through Him the glory of God has entered into the Church. It also belongs to Him alone to speak the word of God. Hence even the prince is not allowed to enter the Church for the purpose of making his own discourses be heard there. For in the Church is the throne of Christ alone, and of no one else. What is said of the prince is rather this, that he ought to have a good conscience and joy before the Lord because of his princely office, which does not merely consist in this, that we live in peace and quiet under his sceptre, but also that the people may hear the word of God, and without fear offer to Him the sacrifices of their worship (Cocc.). (Interpreting the prince as the Messiah: No one knoweth the Father but the Son, who is from God, because He says: My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me (Joh 4:34), (col.)
Eze 44:4. If the prophet here again falls to the ground before the glory of the Lord, have we not humbly to acknowledge and confess our frailty and weakness in presence of the divine mysteries? No plummet of the understanding sounds the abyss of the mysteries of God. Let us be content with what revelation presents to us (after Jerome).God reveals His glory to His servants, especially when He calls on them to make known His will to the people, Act 18:9; Act 23:11 (Tb. Bib.).Consider, O Christian, whether thou art what thou art called; whether thou hast God or some one else dwelling in thy heart; whether thou art full of glory or of worldliness, sensuality, and carnality! (Starke.
Eze 44:5 sq. Divine things are not to be drowsily listened to, or drowsily engaged in.In everything there must be heartin seeing, in hearing, in doing.Pectus theologum facit, not pathos.The goings in and out of the sanctuary, a solemn consideration for every one, but especially for those who keep the charge of the sanctuary, whatever their rank in the service.The sin which still adheres to believers makes them often inattentive in the most necessary things; hence they need many a stirring up and putting in remembrance, 2Pe 1:13 (Starke).
Eze 44:6. Sinners make light of their doings; but God suddenly says: Enough.He who seeks to be saved out of this lost world must once for all have enough of it (Starck).The feeling of final surfeit of the world must, however, include aversion; for repentance is conversion, not so weariness of the world, disgust with the world, or such like.There is a difference between the Israel after the flesh and the Israel after the Spirit.
Eze 44:7. The false Israel gives the sacraments to the heathen, and elects heretics to office (Diedrich).I know thy works, saith the Lord, but of thy faithfulness I know nothing. Quite enough to remove the candlestick, although baptizing, marrying, and dispensing the Lords Supper still go on.The so-called liberal clergy.The voice of the people, the choice of the people, is not Gods voice, Gods choice, but frequently Gods judgment to the full.Strange doctrine indicates an uncircumcised heart; and where that is, in spite of ordination and consistorial confirmation, and whatever else pertains to circumcision, there is nothing but the foreskin of a hireling, a thief, and a murderer of the sheep.Self-chosen divine service is an abomination to the Lord (Starke).The responsibility in the election of a pastor.The outward discharge of the ministerial office, however exact, does not make a minister such as he should be according to Gods word,A person baptized in due form may yet be no Christian alter the Spirit.
Eze 44:8. The false teachers, who please the spirit of the age and have the applause of the world.What general can employ a soldier who is everything else, but no soldier? And the general superintendents [bishops, presbyteries] ordain year by year men who have got through their examinations and are of canonical age, but who are fitter for anything else than for being pastors.
Eze 44:9. It is accordingly a token of the greatest decline of the Church when the wicked and manifest hypocrites are not only not expelled, but go freely in and out, and even have the ruling power (Berl. Bib.).The Church of the future of Jesus Christ, a pure church.
Eze 44:10 sq. The judgment on the priests of the sanctuary, already begun inwardly, is their evil conscience, that cripples all energy in presence of the world, and degrades them to the position of paid domestics; and outwardly too, for even men of the world have no respect for them, although they do not revile them as fanatics.The false righteousness, which is not Gods righteousness, is also a detestable idol, behind which so many preachers commit adultery.Where there are ungodly teachers there is no want of ungodly hearers, Jer 5:31 (Starke).The lower service in the sanctuary a question of conscience reaching into many a pastors life.Degraded priests a mirror for pastors.
Eze 44:11. But even in the performance of subordinate service, where one originally stood higher, the grace of God may be with us, provided we let Gods humbling of us issue in conversion of heart, and look upon the punishment as a righteous recompense. It is not at all necessary that we should, as the world calls it, make a successful career in the clerical profession.It is not natural gifts, but heartfelt piety, which decides as to the testimonials which the Lord grants, and as to capacity for office in His eyes.
Eze 44:12. Least of all should a preacher be a stumbling-block and cause of destruction to others. Yet the grace of God will still raise up from their fall even those who caused others to fall. Grace and always grace. Let us not despise the offer, let us not neglect the day of grace.But there is no grace without self-judgment and self-condemnation.The sins of the preacher in their consequences as regards the life of the community.A minister of the Church ought to be a pattern to the flock in doctrine and life, 1Ti 4:12; 2Ti 1:13; Tit 2:7 (Starck).The servant who knows his lords will and does it not shall receive a double amount of stripes.
Eze 44:13-14. The ignominy of failure in ministerial life: personal access to God is hindered, and the office becomes a torment.Wherein can they who have cause to be ashamed before others of their former doings, and have given much offence to others, complain of God that the first have become last, when God still finally receives and takes hold of them, although they do not attain to such a high position as otherwise they might have attained to, and which others have attained to? Should they not rather extol Gods exceeding great and undeserved mercy to them? (Berl. Bib:)
Eze 44:15-16. The sons of Zadok are those who have neither received the mark of the beast in their hand nor in their forehead (Revelation 13).Faithful servants of God are highly esteemed in His sight, Psa 105:15 (Cr.).
Eze 44:16 sq. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God (Matthew 5).Sheep they ought to be, but neither to keep the sheep for the sake of the fleece, nor to enter in in sheeps clothing (Berl. Bib.).Let him who desires to be found at last among them that are clothed in white robes, be diligent to have a conscience void of offence, Act 24:15 sq. (Starke).The precepts according to the law should remind us that preachers particularly run within lists, as Paul writes of the Christians. What is fitting for any one else may yet be far from seemly in a preacher.But it is just those who take things easy that speak most of their severe toil and the heavy labour they have to undergo.
Eze 44:19 sq. Let them manifest their intimate fellowship with God and the glorious privileges over which their soul rejoices in a becoming walk and conversation. They are not to conform to the world, but to shine as lights among men (Php 2:15); while at the same time they are not to make a show of their inward life, lest the people from hypocrisy should imitate that to which their mind is a stranger (Heim-Hoff.).They certainly should go among the people, but not seek to exalt themselves over the people because of their prerogatives, but to hold converse with them as brethren with brethren (Cocc.). (Comp. on Eze 42:14.)He who ministers at the sanctuary must never seem profane, nor a fop in his attire, nor comic in his speech, nor a man of the world in his transactions. He may seem ridiculous to the world, only never conformed to the world.But the pretended sanctification through holy priests is also of the devil, for of God Christ is made to us sanctification, etc., and there is no other mediator than He the only Mediator between God and men.
Eze 44:20 sq. Seemly, but not remarkable either in defect or excess.Men of extremes are unfit for the holy ministry.The spirit of believers is a spirit of power, and of love, and of a sound mind, 2Ti 1:7 (Berl. Bib.).
Eze 44:22. Ministers widows an exception among widows.But this neither bids ministers marry, nor forbids their remaining unmarried, only the marriage ought to be a priestly one.The spiritual side of the married state.
Eze 44:23. As their life, so above all their teaching ought to preserve the people from defilement, and train them to purity.
Eze 44:24. Gods word is Gods judgment, the righteous Judge, right law and upright judgment.The servant of God as umpire in disputes. He must not be a party man, but stands over the parties.The Sabbath in the pastors house also a subject for reflection.
Eze 44:25 sq. They who are the messengers, heralds, and representatives of an eternal life shall neither have their serenity disturbed by the death of believers, which is no death, nor their pure walk defiled by the life of the spiritually dead, which is no life.Have no fellowship with those who love dead works but hate the life of God (Berl. Bib.).We too are allowed to wipe our eyes, as God wipes away every tear from the eyes of His saints.At Jehovahs altar is peace and joy in the Holy Ghost (Psa 132:9; Psa 132:16).
Eze 44:28. Why dost thou, O teacher, strive for a larger stipend and greater income? Knowest thou not that the Lord Himself will be thine inheritance and thy exceeding great reward, or wishest thou not that He should be so? (Tb. Bib.)All who have first the kingdom of God for their possession, are also truly priests. God feeds them wholly on what is hallowed, and he who will have a blessing in his house must evince love to them (Diedrich).What greater inheritance can there be than God, the Lord of all; and what greater possession than He who made, who sustains, and rules heaven and earth?So Christians ought not to endeavour after filthy lucre; they are not to have their portion in this world, but to have their home in heaven (col.).
Eze 44:31. In Gods service there is no filthy lucre. The Lord purifies everything for them who eat with Him (Diedrich).
DOCTRINAL REFLECTIONS ON CH. 4046
1. Hvernick rightly finds the nervous and lofty unity in the prophecies of Ezekiel manifested in this section also. The visions of the prophet find here their fairest completion and perfect rounding off. Already in the exposition (on Eze 40:1 sq.) the harmony with the former part of Ezekiels prophecy has been remarked. Eze 43:3 expressly refers back to Ezekiel 1, 8. The free conformity in expression between our chapters and the whole closing portion generally, and the earlier chapters, has been often proved (comp. Philippson, p. 1294). The proof is the more striking when we consider the complete difference of the subject. That we have a vision here too harmonizes not only with Ezekiel 1, 8, but in general with the prophetic character of Ezekiel, Ezekiel 8, 15, 17. The prophet has repeatedly hinted at this close of his book. Thus Eze 11:16; Eze 20:40; Eze 36:38; Eze 37:26 sq. The last passage in particular might be regarded as the text for Ezekiel 40 sq. The eighth and following chapters required by the necessity of the idea our conclusion of the book.
2. In regard to analogies in the other prophets, Ezekiels contemporaries, as we may well conceive, will chiefly come into consideration. Hence, above all, Ezekiels fellow-labourer Jeremiah. Jeremiah represents the restoration and renewal of Israel as a rebuilding of Jerusalem, Jer 31:38 sq. (with this comp. in our prophet, Eze 47:13 sq., Ezekiel 48). Jer 33:18 is similar to Eze 44:9 sq. Hag 2:7 sq. follows entirely the thought here of a new temple, insisting on its glory in view of a meagre present. But still more analogous are the night-visions of Zechariah (Eze 2:5 [1] sq., Ezekiel 4, Eze 6:13 sq., Ezekiel 14).
3. The parallel between Isaiah and Ezekiel, as it stands in relation to the vision in Ezekiel 1 (p. 41), is not completed by citing Isaiah 60 as corresponding to the close of our book; but we shall have to seek the culminating point of Isaiahs prophecy for the culmination of Ezekiels, in accordance with the office of this prophet to be the prophet of Jehovahs holiness to obdurate Israel, just as for the commencement Isaiah 6 is covered by Ezekiel 1not so much in the close as in Ezekiel 53. The corresponding pendant to our closing chapters is the life-like description given there of the Messiah and His sacrifice of Himself. It is this self-sanctification of Jehovah through His servant Israel which in Isaiah corresponds to the self-glorification of Jehovah in Ezekiel (Ezekiel 40 sq.) by means of the new sanctuary and the new nationality; and this, again, accords with Ezekiels office, to behold the glory of Jehovah in the misery of the exile. In this respect Ezekiel stands to Isaiah somewhat as Easter and Pentecost do to Good Friday.
4. The different views, especially regarding the vision of the temple, may be distinguished generally as subjective and objective. I. The views which derive the explanation of Ezekiel 40 sq. solely or chiefly from Ezekiels subjectivity: (1) Already Villalpandus saw everywhere here only reminiscences of Solomons temple and of Solomons era, and consequently a similar line of thought to that in Ezr 3:12. Similarly Grotius, only that he reconciled the differences between Ezekiels temple and that of Solomon by ascribing them to the temple at the time of its destruction, just as Bunsen refers in this connection to 2 Kings 16. According to both these expositors, Ezekiel traced out from reminiscences a pattern for the future restoration. Thus, according to Ewald, Ezekiel becomes a prophetic lawgiver. Such an undertaking, quite unusual in the case of earlier prophets, is explained from the predominating thoughts and aspirations of the better class of those days for the restoration of the subverted kingdom. Ezekiel probably meditated long, with passionate longing and lively remembrance, on the institutions of the demolished temple, etc.; what appeared to him great and glorious became impressed upon his mind as a pattern, with which he compared the Messianic expectations and demands, etc., until at length the outline of the whole arrangement which he here writes down pressed itself upon him! Above all, he sketches the holy objects, temple and altar, with the utmost exactness and vividness, as if a spirit (!) impelled him, now when they were destroyed, at least to catch up their image in a faithful and worthy form for the redemption that will one day certainly come; so that he must have diligently instructed himself in these matters from the best written and oral sources (!). Thus it is quite in keeping with Ezekiels way of prophesying, that he introduces everything as if he had been borne in spirit into the restored and completed temple, accompanied throughout by a heavenly guide, and had learned exactly from him all the single parts of this unique building as to their nature and use. The paragraph Eze 47:1-12 is, in Ewalds opinion, from its great, all-embracing sense, quite adapted to bring to a close briefly and pithily all these presentiments! Yet when precepts more moral are to be given, or the perfected kingdom has to be described in its extent, reaching even beyond the temple, this assumed form (!) easily passes over into the simple prophetic discourse. (2) While the foregoing view looks to realization, Hitzig, for example, entirely rejects the idea that Ezekiel considered such things (as our chapters contain) possible, feasible, or probable, and relatively commanded and prescribed them. One does not or did not reflect that the prophets calling was to express the demands of the idea, indifferent in the first instance about their realization. All is pure fancy, a mere castle-in-the-air, a kind of Platonic sketch, as Herder expresses himself. The self-criticism of this view of our chapters can hardly be more suitably given than when Hitzig continues: Inasmuch as this or that could be set in order otherwise than he imagines, he would not in regard to plans and proposals have resisted obstinately, but would have known how to distinguish the unessential of the execution from the essential of the thing itself. He sketches the future in the form he must wish it to take, in which it really would have the fairest appearance. If the reality falls short of the image, then the idea is defectively realized; but the fault lies in the reality, not in the idea, and Ezekiel is not responsible for it. This, moreover, is merely what already Doederlein and others have held with respect to the closing portion of our book. Similarly Herder: Ezekiels manner is to paint an image entire and at length; his mode of conception appears to demand great visions, figures written over on all sides, even tiresome, difficult, symbolical acts, of which his whole book is full. Israel in his wandering upon the mountains of his dispersal, among other tongues and peoples, had need of a prophet such as this one was, etc. So also as regards this temple. Another would have sketched it with soaring figures in lofty utterances; he does so in definite measurements. And not only the temple, but also appurtenances, tribes, administration, land, etc. How far has Israel always, so far as depended on his own efforts, remained below the commands, counsels, and promises of God! (3) Bttcher has attempted to combine both views, and after him Philippson, who expresses himself to the following effect: Ezekiel the prophet, sunk in himself, brooding over matters in the distance and in solitude, had not, like Jeremiah, upon whom the immediate reality pressed, viewed the occurrences simply as punishment of defection and degeneracy, but was conscious also of their inward signification, which came to him in the appearance of a vision. Hence he represented the destruction of the temple as a suspension of the relation of revelation between God and Israel; and so much the more necessary was it to represent the restoration of that same relation as the return of God into the restored sanctuary. Now, from the peculiar character of Ezekiel, this necessarily had to assume a form at once ideal and real,ideal in its entirety as something future, real as individual and special, matter of fact in its appearance. As the indubitable motive of the prophet, the following is given: to keep alive in the exiles in the midst of Babylonian idolatry the idea of the one temple, and the priestly institute consecrated to it, as the centre of the religion of the one God; and at the return into Palestine to confirm the life of the people in their calling, by the removal of all elements of strife, and by approximation to the Mosaic state of things. Hengstenbergs view is surprisingly near the above one; he says: With the exception of the Messianic section in Eze 47:1-12, the fulfilment of all (!) the rest of the prophecy belongs to the times immediately after the return from the Chaldean exile. So must every one of its first hearers and readers have understood it. Jeremiah, whom Ezekiel follows throughout, had prophesied the restoration of the city and temple 70 years after the beginning of the Chaldean servitude, falling in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. Thirty-two years had already elapsed. Forty years after the devastation of Egypt (Eze 29:13), the nations visited by the Chaldeans shall get back to their former state. According to Eze 11:16, the restoration is to follow in a brief space after the destruction of the temple. We have before us a prophecy for which it is essential (!) to give truth and poetry (! !), which contains a kernel of real thoughts, yet does not present them naked, but clothed with flesh and blood, that they may be a counterpoise to the sad reality, because they fill the fancy, that fruitful workshop of despair, with bright (!) images, and thus make it an easier task to live in the word at a time when all that is visible cries aloud, Where is now thy God? The incongruity between the prophecy of Ezekiel and the state of things after the exile, vanishes at once by distinguishing between the thoughts and their clothing, and if we can rightly figure to ourselves the wounds for which the healing plaster is here presented, and at the same time the mental world of the priest (Ezekiel), and the materials given in the circumstances surrounding him, for clothing the higher verities which he had to announce to the people. II. The views which above all look to and keep hold of the objectivity of the divine inspiration of Ezekiel. The very regard which must, in one way or other, be paid to the circumstances under which the people for whom, and the Babylonian exile in which, Ezekiel prophesied, objectivizes in some measure his subjectivity, so that not all the views hitherto cited of our chapters and the ones that follow are to be designated as purely subjective; the properly objective, however, will be, that the hand of Jehovah was upon him, that he was brought in visions of God to the land of Israel. Here the distinction is drawn by his own hand between the prophet of Israel and the fanciful Jewish priest; and not only this, but the unavoidable and irreconcilable alternative presents itself: either Ezekiel was a man of God, or a deceiver, for whom the fact that he had deceived himself also with assumed divine objectivity were no excuse, but would only be his self-condemnation. The case of Ezekiel, for the sake of truth, is too solemn for thinking of poetic clothing in the case before us. The subjective for the form before us, is to keep in mind when considering it what that form is. It has pleased God to speak to us through men. If we take full account of the national peculiarity of Israel in general during the whole old covenant, and of the peculiar personality in the case of our vision here, that is, that Ezekiel is the priest-prophet, that he above all other prophets is, as Umbreit says, a born symbolist ( in the temple which he erects he makes known his greatness as a symbolist, as well by what he says as by what he passes over in silence),if we concede to Umbreit the surprising skill in popularizing instruction which he observes in Ezekiel, we shall have to accept as the ultimate ground why Israel was the mediator of the worlds salvation, and Ezekiel was chosen to behold the temple of the future, divine wisdom and its purpose for the world, that is, the objective above everything subjective. In accordance with this principle, we have to judge of (1) the view objectivized in this sense of a model for the rebuilding of the temple after the return from the exile, the supporters of which assume a building-plan issued under divine authority, given by Jehovah through the prophet. Although there is a resemblance between Exo 25:9; Exo 25:40 and Eze 40:4, yet it is not said to Ezekiel regarding Israel: according to all that I show thee, the pattern of the dwelling, etc., even so shall ye make it; the prophet is only to convey, announce () all that he sees to the house of Israel. From this circumstance, and not because the reality fell short of the idea (Hitzig, Herder), or, as Philippson adduces here, the similar fate of so many Mosaic precepts, the fact is explained that the post-exile temple was built without any regard to our vision. Only the fundamental reference to Solomons temple, which in general obtains in Ezekiel also, meets us in Ezr 3:12. This fact, the more remarkable considering the nearness of time, shows that Eze 40:4, soon after it was written, and when fully known, was not regarded as a divine building-specification. We do not need, therefore, to express, as Hengst., the obvious impossibility of erecting a building according to the specifications here given. The circumstance that the building materials are not given has at least not prevented the temple of Ezekiel from being, with more or less success, constructed and fashioned after his statements. Bunsen says that the temple here forms a very easily realized, congruous whole, of which an exact outline may be made, as the prophet also has evidently done. Umbreit, too, holds this latter view. And although we have to do not with an architect but with a prophet, yet nothing stands in the way of our believing that the subjectivity of Ezekiel was preeminently qualified for this vision, from the fact that he possessed architectural capacity (Introd. 7). (2) The symbolical view. It corresponds generally to the character of Holy Writ. (Comp. Lange, Rev. Introd. p. 11.) In particular it pays due regard to the law of Moses, to the part of it relating to worship, the subject here. Especially when the whole worship of Israel is concentrated in the temple, a symbolical view respecting a vision thereof will be quite in place. Thereby only its due right is given to this objective, to the divine idea, in the shape which it has above all assumed in
Israelitish worship. The symbolical character, moreover, is specially appropriate for the prophetic writings. As has already been often said and pointed out, the symbolical predominates in Ezekiel; and as to these concluding chapters, Hvernick adduces, as indicating their general character, the description of the circuit of the new temple (Eze 42:15 sq.), the representation of the entrance, etc. of the divine glory (Eze 43:1 sq.), the river (Eze 47:1 sq. etc.), and observes that it is just such passages that form the conclusion to the previous description, and hence cast a light on it. Comp. on Eze 43:10 sq. But everything architectonic is not a symbol, although everything of that nature will indeed primarily relate to the building to be erected, and will thereby at the same time in some way serve the idea of the whole. This character comes out clearly even in individual statements of number, yet all such measurements are not therefore to be interpreted symbolically. Nay, as the exposition shows, there are here bare numbers, resisting every attempt to trace them back to the idea. It is sufficient in respect to the numbers, that (comp. Umbreit, p. 259 sq.) 4, as signature not only of regularity but also of the revelation of God in space, e.g. in the quadrangle of the temple; 3, the signature of the divine, e.g. in the sets of three gates; 10, perfection complete in itself, occurring often; likewise the sacred number 7; and the number 12 in the tables for preparing the offerings (Ezekiel 40), represent symbolism. (On the symbolism of numbers, comp. Lange on Rev. Introd. p. 14.) Umbreit rightly maintains: It is a symbolical temple, notwithstanding the arid and dry description, in which only exact specifications of the number of cubits and the apparently most insignificant calculations and measurings occur; as he says, quite in keeping with the poverty of the immediately succeeding age and the dignity of the most significant inwardness. (3) The Messianic view (for which comp. Lange on Kings, p. 60 sq.) is only the taking full advantage of and applying the symbolic view in general. Symbol and type, emblem and pattern, must mutually interpenetrate one another in a law like that of Israel. What separates Israel from the heathen is its law; what qualifies Israel for the whole world is its promise. But now, because of sin, the law has come in between the promise and the fulfilment; that sin becoming the more powerful as transgression may make manifest for faith the grace which alone is still more powerful, and that consequently the necessity of the promise should be the more apparent; that is, the pedagogy of the law (and especially of its ethical part) to Christ. Thus the law of Israel is the theocratic expression of Israel, the servant of God, as he ought to be, and hence prefigures the servant of Jehovah who is the fulfilling of the law, as He is the personal fulfilling of Israel, inasmuch as in Him who was delivered for our transgressions, and raised again for our , Israel after the Spirit is represented; so that here out of the law relating to worship rise up, as on the one hand sacrifice and the priesthood, so on the other the concentration of the whole of worship in the temple, this parable of the future, with reference to which Christ, John 2, gives the : Destroy () this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (), saying this of the temple of His body; as also the disciples remembered when He had risen from the dead, and as the accusation against Him ran (Mat 26:61). Accordingly the law, and especially the temple and its service, is : the future is given in the ( , Hebrews 10). This reference to the future, says Ziegler (in his thoughtful little work on the historical development of divine revelation), is the most dynamical among all the references of the law; its significance for its own time is so weak and unimportant, that it seems to exist solely for the sake of the future, although its office is the opposite of the office of the New Testament, which is formed and abiding in the hearts of men ( , ); still it was a sensible type, a strongly marked and distinctly stamped shadow of the coming substances, and yet, moreover, a veil which concealed it. What has been said shows the typical signification of the vision of Ezekiel, in which the symbolical view of it is completed, and the pedagogic and providential necessity of that form borrowed from the legal worship in which it is enshrined. Here is more than what (as Hengstenberg can say) suffices to employ the fancy. For the anointed one is . But as the Messianic view of our chapters is thus justified by the symbolic view, when we have taken into account the law, particularly the law of worship in Israel, so likewise the already (Doct. Reflec. 1) noted connection of Ezekiel 40 sq. with the previous chapters, especially with Eze 37:26 sq. (p. 351), yields the same result, as also the position after Ezekiel 38, 39 and the relation to this prophecy will have to be taken into consideration. What holds good of Eze 37:26 sq. will also be a hint for our chapters. But even the Talmudists saw themselves compelled (principally because of the treatment of the law of Moses, to be spoken of presently) to acknowledge that the exposition of this portion would be first given in Messianic times, as the best (according to Philippson) Jewish expositors recognised here the type of a third temple. The saying of Jesus in John ii. possibly alluded to the exegetical tradition of the Jews. Hvernick accommodates as follows: The shattered old theocratic forms rather than new ones were above all cognate to the priestly mind of Ezekiel; so he sees nothing perish of that which Jehovah has founded for eternity; those forms beam before him revivified, animated with fresh breath, and lit up in the splendour of true glory; he recognises their full realization as coming in first in Messianic times. As errors are still committed, e.g. by Schmieder, in the symbolizing of particulars, so the Messianic typology of a Cocceius has deserved, although only in part, the anathema on mystical allegories, which above all modern criticism utters; for our defect in understanding in respect of many particulars will always have to be conceded. The Christian idea, however, the Old Testament typical symbolizing of which we have here to expound, is not only the idea of Christ, but also the idea of the Christian Church, the kingdom of God in Christ. If the resurrection of the Anointed One comes into consideration in the first respect, so in the latter does the consummation of the kingdom of grace, after its last affliction, into the kingdom of glory; comp. Rev 21:22. The one is as eschatological in the wider, that is, christological in the narrower sense, as the other is eschatological in the narrower, or christological in the wider sense. By the translating of our passage into the higher key of Johns Apocalypse, the relation of Ezekiel 40 sq. to Ezekiel 38, 39 must be so much the more evident. Comp. Doct. Reflec. on xxxviii. and xxxix. We refer, finally, to what has been said in the Introduction, 7, that Jehovahs building in Ezekiel here (still more in its already actual reality for the seer, so that what already existed had only to be measured to him) forms the architectonic antithesis to the buildings of Nebuchadnezzar. As the figure of Gog with his people may have presented itself to our prophet through means of Babylon (comp. Doct. Reflec. on Ezekiel 38 39, p. 375), so from that same quarter may have been derived the representation given of the kingdom of God in its victorious opposition to the world. Hitzig, too (as we now first see when treating of the closing chapters), supposes that there probably flitted before the eyes of the author living in Chaldea, when describing his quadrangle, the capital of the country and the temple of Belus,the former, like the latter, forming a square, with streets intersecting one another at right angles. Umbreit says of the vision of Ezekiel as a whole: It is a great thought, which presents itself unadorned to our view in the prophetico-symbolic temple: God henceforth dwells in perfect peace, revealing Himself in the unbounded fulness of His glory, which is returning to Jerusalem, in the purest and most blissful unison with His sanctified people, making Himself known in the living word of progressive, saving, and sanctifying redemption. Everything is placed upon the ample circuit of the temple, whose extended courts receive all people, and through whose high and open gates the King of Glory is to enter in (Psa 24:7; Psa 24:9), and then upon the order and harmony of the divine habitation, the well-proportioned building (Eze 42:10); and the revelations of the holiest are stored up in the pure, deep water of His word, which in life-giving streams issues from the temple. The stone tables of the law are consumed (?), and the fresh and free fountain of eternal truth streams forth from the temple of the Spirit, quickening and vivifying in land and sea, awakening by its creative and fructifying power a new and mighty race on earth. And thus hast thou, much misjudged yet lofty seer, in the unconscious depth of thy mysteriously flowing language, set up upon the great, undistinguishing (comp. Jer 31:34), well-proportioned, and beautifully compacted building, a type of the simple yet lofty temple of Christ, from which flows the spiritual fountain of life ! From this Messianic view of the section we have to reject (4) the chiliastic-literal view, according to which Ezekiel describes what may be called either the Jewish temple of the future, or the Jewish future of the Christian Church. It is interesting to observe what kind of spirits meet together here in the flesh; e.g. Baumgarten and Auberlen, Hofmann and Volck (who acts as champion for him, and that partly with striking power of demonstration against Kliefoth), are combined here only in general because they make the community of God at our Lords Parousia to be an Israelite one. Comp. moreover, p. 357 and 10 of the Introduction. Auberlen (Daniel and the Revelation of John, p. 348 sq., Clarks tr.) expresses the apocalyptic phantasm as follows: Israel brought back to his own land becomes the people of God in a far higher and more inward sense than before, etc.; a new period of revelation begins, the Spirit of God is richly poured forth, and a fulness of gracious gifts is conferred, such as the apostolic Church possessed typically (!). (One can hardly go farther in the delusion of deeper knowledge of Scripture than to make primitive and original Christianity a type of Judaism!) But this rich spirit-imparted life finds its completed representation in a priestly as well as in a kingly manner. That which in the ages of the Old Covenant obtained only outwardly in the letter, and that which conversely in the age of the Church withdrew itself into inward, hidden spirituality, will then in a pneumatic (!) manner assume also an outward appearance and form. In the Old Covenant the whole national life of Israel in its various manifestationshousehold and state, labour and art, literature and culturewas determined by religion, but only in an external legal manner; the Church, again, has to insist above all on a renewal of the heart, and must leave those outward forms of life free, enjoining it on the conscience of each individual to glorify Christ in these relations also; but in the millennial kingdom all these spheres of life will be truly Christianized from within outwardly. Thus looked at, it will no longer be offensive (?) to say that the Mosaic ceremonial law corresponds to the priesthood of Israel, and the civil law to its kingship. The Gentile Church could adopt only the moral law; so certainly the sole means of influence assigned to her is that which works inwardly,the preaching of the word, the exercise of the prophetic office.
(The Romish Church, however, has known how to serve itself heir satis superque to the Jewish ceremonial law!) But when once the priesthood and the kingship arise again, then alsowithout prejudice to the principles laid down in the Epistle to the Hebrews (?)the ceremonial and civil law of Moses will unfold its spiritual depths in the cultus and the constitution of the millennial kingdom (Mat 5:17-19). The present is still the time of preaching, but then the time of the liturgy shall have come, which presupposes a congregation consisting solely of converted people, etc. etc. When Hengstenberg calls such interpretation altogether unhappy, that is the least that one can say about it; but even that could not have been said if Ezekiels descriptions really had the Utopian character which Hengstenberg attributes to them. He, however, justly animadverts upon the incongruity of expecting the restoration of the temple, the Old Testament festivals, the bloody sacrifices (!!), and the priesthood of the sons of Zadok, within the bounds of the New Covenant. Comp. Keil, p. 500 sq., who, both from the prophetic parts of the Old Testament and from the New, refutes at length the notion of a transformation of Canaan before the last judgment, and a kingdom of glory at Jerusalem before the end of the world. (Auberlen, who looks on the first resurrection as a bodily coming forth of the whole community of believers from their hitherto invisibility with Christ in heaven, makes the now transformed Church again return thither with Christ, and the saints rule from heaven over the earth; and from this he concludes that the intercourse between the world above and the world below will then be more active and free, etc. Hofmanns transference of the glorified Church to earth, and his further connecting therewith the national regeneration of Israel, Auberlen declares to be incompatible with the whole of Old Testament prophecy, to say nothing of its internal improbability.)
ADDITIONAL NOTE ON Ezekiel 40-46
[Dr. Fairbairns classification of the views which have been held of Ezekiels closing vision generally, and in particular of the description contained in it respecting the temple, is as follows: 1. The historico-literal view, which takes all as a prosaic description of what had existed in the times immediately before the captivity, in connection with the temple which is usually called Solomons. 2. The historico-ideal view, that the pattern exhibited to Ezekiel differed materially from anything that previously existed, and presented for the first time what should have been after the return from the captivity, though, from the remissness and corruption of the people, it never was properly realized. 3. The Jewish-carnal view, held by certain Jewish writers, who maintain that Ezekiels description was actually followed, although in a necessarily imperfect manner, by the children of the captivity, and afterwards by Herod; but that it waits to be properly accomplished by the Messiah, who, when He appears, shall cause the temple to be reared precisely as here described, and carry out all the other subordinate arrangements,a view which, strangely enough, is in substance held also by certain parties in the Christian Church, who expect the vision to receive a complete and literal fulfilment at the period of Christs second coming. 4. The Christian-spiritual or typical view, according to which the whole representation was not intended to find either in Jewish or Christian times an express and formal realization, but was a grand, complicated symbol of the good God had in reserve for His Church, especially under the coming dispensation of the gospel. From the Fathers downwards this has been the prevailing view in the Christian Church. The greater part have held it, to the exclusion of every other; in particular, among the Reformers and their successors, Luther, Calvin, Capellus, Cocceius, Pfeiffer, followed by the majority of evangelical divines of our own country.
To this fourth and last view Dr. Fairbairn himself strenuously adheres, expounding, illustrating, and defending it at considerable length, and with marked ability and success. We give his remarks in a somewhat condensed form.
1. First of all, it is to be borne in mind that the description purports to be a vision,a scheme of things exhibited to the mental eye of the prophet in the visions of God. This alone marks it to be of an ideal character, as contradistinguished from anything that ever had been, or ever was to be found in actual existence after the precise form given to it in the description. Such we have uniformly seen to be the character of the earlier visions imparted to the prophet. The things described in chap, 13 and 811, which were seen by him in the visions of God, were all of this nature. They presented a vivid picture of what either then actually existed or was soon to take place, but in a form quite different from the external reality. Not the very image or the formal appearance of things was given, but rather a compressed delineation of their inward being and substance. And such, too, was found to be the case with other portions, which are of an entirely similar nature, though not expressly designated visions; such, for example, as Ezekiel 4, 12, 21, all containing delineations and precepts, as if speaking of what was to be done and transacted in real life, and yet it is necessary to understand them as ideal representations, exhibiting the character, but not the precise form and lineaments, of the coming transactions. Never at any period of His Church has God given laws and ordinances to it simply by vision; and when Moses was commissioned to give such in the wilderness, his authority to do so was formally based on the ground of his office being different from the ordinarily prophetical, and of his instructions being communicated otherwise than by vision (Num 12:6). So that to speak by way of vision, and at the same time in the form of precept, as if enjoining laws and ordinances materially differing from those of Moses, was itself a palpable and incontrovertible proof of the ideal character of the revelation. It was a distinct testimony that Ezekiel was no new lawgiver coming to modify or supplant what had been written by him with whom God spake face to face upon the mount.
2. What has been said respecting the form of the prophets communication, is confirmed by the substance of itas there is much in this that seems obviously designed to force on us the conviction of its ideal character. There are things in the description which, taken literally, are in the highest degree improbable, and even involve natural impossibilities. Thus, for example, according to the most exact modes of computation, the prophets measurements give for the outer wall of the temple a square of an English mile and about a seventh on each side, and for the whole city [i.e. including the oblation of holy ground for the prince, the priests, and the Levites] a space of between three and four thousand square miles. Now there is no reason to suppose that the boundaries of the ancient city exceeded two miles and a half in circumference (see Robinsons Researches, vol. i.), while here the circumference of the wall of the temple is nearly twice as much. And then, taking the land of Canaan at the largest, as including all that Israel ever possessed on both sides of the Jordan, it amounted only to somewhere between ten and eleven thousand square miles. Surely the allotment of a portion nearly equal to one-half of the whole for the prince, the priests, and Levites is a manifest proof of the ideal character of the representation; the more especially, when we consider that that sacred portion is laid off in a regular square, with the temple on Mount Zion in the centre. The measurements of the prophet were made to involve a literal incongruity, as did also the literal extravagances of the vision in chap. 38, 39, that men might be forced to look for something else than a literal accomplishment.
3. Some, perhaps, may be disposed to imagine that, as they expect certain physical changes to be effected upon the land before the prophecy can be carried into fulfilment, these may be adjusted in such a manner as to admit of the prophets measurements being literally applied. It is impossible, however, to admit such a supposition. For the boundaries of the land itself are given, not new boundaries of the prophets own, but those originally laid down by Moses. And as the measurements of the temple and city are out of all proportion to these, no alterations can be made on the physical condition of the country that could bring the one into proper agreement with the other. Then there are other things in the description, which, if they could not of themselves so conclusively prove the impossibility of a literal sense as the consideration arising from the measurements, lend great force to this consideration, and, on any other supposition than their being parts of an ideal representation, must wear an improbable and fanciful aspect. Of this kind is the distribution of the remainder of the land in equal portions among the twelve tribes, in parallel sections, running straight across from east to west, without any respect to the particular circumstances of each, or their relative numbers. More especially, the assignment of five of these parallel sections to the south of the city, which, after making allowance for the sacred portion, would leave at the farthest a breadth of only three or four miles a piece! Of the same kind also is the supposed separate existence of the twelve tribes, which now, at least, can scarcely be regarded otherwise than a natural impossibility, since it is an ascertained fact that such separate tribeships no longer exist; the course of Providence has been ordered so as to destroy them; and once destroyed, they cannot possibly be reproduced. Of the same kind, farther, is the very high mountain on which the vision of the temple was presented to the eye of the prophet; for as this unquestionably refers to the old site of the temple, the little eminence on which it stood could only be designated thus in a moral or ideal, and not in a literal sense. Finally, of the same kind is the account given of the stream issuing from the eastern threshold of the temple, and flowing into the Dead Sea, which, both for the rapidity of its increase and for the quality of its waters, is unlike anything that ever was known in Judea, or in any other region of the world. Putting all together, it seems as if the prophet had taken every possible precaution, by the general character of the delineation, to debar the expectation of a literal fulfilment; and I should despair of being able in any case to draw the line of demarcation between the ideal and the literal, if the circumstances now mentioned did not warrant us in looking for something else than a fulfilment according to the letter of the vision.
4. Yet there is the farther consideration to be mentioned, viz. that the vision of the prophet, as it must, if understood literally, imply the ultimate restoration of the ceremonials of Judaism, so it inevitably places the prophet in direct contradiction to the writers of the New Testament. The entire and total cessation of the peculiarities of Jewish worship is as plainly taught by our Lord and His apostles as language could do it, and on grounds which are not of temporary, but of permanent validity and force. The word of Christ to the woman of Samaria: Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father, is alone conclusive of the matter; for if it means anything worthy of so solemn an asseveration, it indicates that Jerusalem was presently to lose its distinctive character, and a mode of worship to be introduced capable of being celebrated in any other place as well as there. But when we find the apostles afterwards contending for the cessation of the Jewish ritual, because suited only to a church in bondage to the elements of the world, and consisting of what were comparatively but weak and beggarly elements; and when, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, we also find the disannulling of the Old Covenant, with its Aaronic priesthood and carnal ordinances, argued at length, and especially because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof, that is, its own inherent imperfections, we must certainly hold, either that the shadowy services of Judaism are finally and for ever gone, or that these sacred writers very much misrepresented their Masters mind regarding them. No intelligent and sincere Christian can adopt the latter alternative; he ought, therefore, to rest in the former. And he will do so, in the rational persuasion, that as in the wise administration of God there must ever be a conformity in the condition of men to the laws and ordinances under which they are placed, so the carnal institutions, which were adapted to the Churchs pupilage, can never, in the nature of things, be in proper correspondence with her state of manhood, perfection, and millennial glory. To regard the prophet here as exhibiting a prospect founded on such an unnatural conjunction, is to ascribe to him the foolish part of seeking to have the new wine of the kingdom put back into the old bottles again, and while occupying himself with the highest hopes of the Church, treating her only to a showy spectacle of carnal superficialities. We have far too high ideas of the spiritual insight and calling of an Old Testament prophet, to believe that it was possible for him to act so unseemly a part, or contemplate a state of things so utterly anomalous. And we are perfectly justified by the explicit statement of Scripture in saying, that a temple with sacrifices now would be the most daring denial of the all-sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, and of the efficacy of the blood of His atonement. He who sacrificed before, confessed the Messiah; he who should sacrifice now, would most solemnly and sacrilegiously deny Him.1
5. Holding the description, then, in this last vision to be conclusively of an ideal character, we advance a step farther, and affirm that the idealism here is precisely of the same kind as that which appeared in some of the earlier visions,visions that must necessarily have already passed into fulfilment, and which therefore may justly be regarded as furnishing a key to the right understanding of the one before us. The leading characteristic of those earlier visions, which coincide in nature with this, we have found to be the historical cast of their idealism. The representation of things to come is thrown into the mould of something similar in the past, and presented as simply a reproduction of the old, or a returning back again of what is past, only with such diversities as might be necessary to adapt it to the altered circumstances contemplated; while still the thing meant was, not that the outward form, but that the essential nature of the past should revive. In this connection, Dr. Fairbairn refers to the vision of the iniquity-bearing in Ezekiel 4; to the sojourn in the wilderness spoken of in Ezekiel 20; to the ideal representation given of the king of Tyre in Eze 28:11-19; and to the prediction of Egypts humiliation in Eze 29:1-16. Now in all these cases, he goes on to remark, of an apparent, we should entirely err if we looked for an actual repetition of the past. It is the nature of the transactions and events, not their precise form or external conditions, that is unfolded to our view. The representation is of an ideal kind, and the history of the past merely supplies the mould into which it is cast. The spiritual eye of the prophet discerned the old, as to its real character, becoming alive again in the new. He saw substantially the same procedure followed again, and the unchangeable Jehovah must display the uniformity of His character and dealings by visiting it with substantially the same treatment. If, now, we bring the light furnished by those earlier revelations of the prophet, in respect to which we can compare the prediction with the fulfilment, so as to read by its help, and according to its instruction, the vision before us, we shall only be giving the prophet the benefit of the common rule, of interpreting a writer by a special respect to his own peculiar method, and explaining the more obscure by the more intelligible parts of his writings. In all the other cases referred to, where his representation takes the form of a revival of the past, we see it is the spirit and not the letter of the representation that is mainly to be regarded; and why should we expect it to be otherwise here? In this remarkable vision we have the old produced again, in respect to what was most excellent and glorious in Israels past condition,its temple, with every necessary accompaniment of sacredness and attractionthe symbol of the divine presence withinthe ministrations and ordinances proceeding in due order withoutthe prince and the priesthoodeverything, in short, required to constitute the beau-ideal of a sacred commonwealth according to the ancient patterns of things. But, at the same time, there are such changes and alterations superinduced upon the old as sufficiently indicate that something far greater and better than the past was concealed under this antiquated form. Not the coming realities, in their exact nature and glorious fulnessnot even the very image of these things, could the prophet as yet distinctly unfold. While the old dispensation lasted, they must be thrown into the narrow and imperfect shell of its earthly relations. But those who lived under that dispensation might get the liveliest idea they were able to obtain of the brighter future, by simply letting their minds rest on the past, as here modified and shaped anew by the prophet; just as now, the highest notions we can form to ourselves of the state of glory is by conceiving the best of the Churchs present condition refined and elevated to heavenly perfection. Exhibited at the time the vision was, and constructed as it is, one should no more expect to see a visible temple realizing the conditions, and a reoccupied Canaan, after the regular squares and parallelograms of the prophet, than in the case of Tyre to find her monarch literally dwelling in Eden, and, as a cherub, occupying the immediate presence of God, or to behold Israel sent back again to make trial of Egyptian bondage and the troubles of the desert. Whatever might be granted in providence of an outward conformity to the plan of the vision, it should only be regarded as a pledge of the far greater good really contemplated, and a help to faith in waiting for its proper accomplishment.
6. But still, looking to the manifold and minute particulars given in the description, some may be disposed to think it highly improbable that anything short of an exact and literal fulfilment should have been intended. Had it been only a general sketch of a city and temple, as in the 60th chapter of Isaiah, and other portions of prophecy, they could more easily enter into the ideal character of the description, and understand how it might chiefly point to the better things of the gospel dispensation. But with so many exact measurements before them, and such an infinite variety of particulars of all sorts, they cannot conceive how there can be a proper fulfilment without corresponding objective realities. It is precisely here, however, that we are met by another very marked characteristic of our prophet. Above all the prophetical writers, he is distinguished, as we have seen, for his numberless particularisms. What Isaiah depicts in a few bold and graphic strokes, as in the case of Tyre, for example, Ezekiel spreads over a series of chapters, filling up the picture with all manner of details,not only telling us of her singular greatness, but also of every element, far and near, that contributed to produce it, and not only predicting her downfall, but coupling it with every conceivable circumstance that might add to its mortification and completeness. We have seen the same features strikingly exhibited in the prophecy on Egypt, in the description of Jerusalems condition and punishment under the images of the boiling caldron (Ezekiel 24) and the exposed infant (Ezekiel 16), in the vision of the iniquity-bearing (Ezekiel 4), in the typical representation of going into exile (Ezekiel 13), and indeed in all the more important delineations of the prophet, which, even when descriptive of ideal scenes, are characterized by such minute and varied details as to give them the appearance of a most definitely shaped and lifelike reality.
Considering his peculiar manner, it was no more than might have been expected, that when going to present a grand outline of the good in store for Gods Church and people, the picture should be drawn with the fullest detail. If he has done so on similar but less important occasions, he could not fail to do it here, when rising to the very top and climax of all his revelations. For it is pre-eminently by means of the minuteness and completeness of his descriptions that he seeks to impress our minds with a feeling of the divine certainty of the truth disclosed in them, and to give, as it were, weight and body to our apprehensions.
7. In farther support of the view we have given, it may also be asked, whether the feeling against a spiritual understanding of the vision, and a demand for outward scenes and objects literally corresponding to it, does not spring, to a large extent, from false notions regarding the ancient temple and its ministrations and ordinances of worship, as if these possessed an independent value apart from the spiritual truths they symbolically expressed? On the contrary, the temple, with all that belonged to it, was an embodied representation of divine realities. It presented to the eye of the worshippers a manifold and varied instruction respecting the things of Gods kingdom. And it was by what they saw embodied in those visible forms and external transactions that the people were to learn how they should think of God, and act toward Him in the different relations and scenes of lifewhen they were absent from the temple, as well as when they were near and around it. It was an image and emblem of the kingdom of God itself, whether viewed in respect to the temporary dispensation then present, or to the grander development everything was to receive at the advent of Christ. And it was one of the capital errors of the Jews, in all periods of their history, to pay too exclusive a regard to the mere externals of the temple and its worship, without discerning the spiritual truths and principles that lay concealed under them. But such being the case, the necessity for an outward an literal realization of Ezekiels plan obviously alls to the ground. For if all connected with it was ordered and arranged chiefly for its symbolical value at any rate, why might not the description itself be given forth for the edification and comfort of the Church, on account of what it contained of symbolical instruction? Even if the plan had been fitted and designed for being actually reduced to practice, it would still have been principally with a view to its being a mirror in which to see reflected the mind and purposes of God. But if so, why might not the delineation itself be made to serve for such a mirror? In other words, why might not God have spoken to His Church of good things to come by the wise adjustment of a symbolical plan? Let the same rules be applied to the interpretation of Ezekiels visionary temple which, on the express warrant of Scripture, we apply to Solomons literal one, and it will be impossible to show why, so far as the ends of instruction are concerned, the same great purposes might not be served by the simple delineation of the one, as by the actual construction of the other.2
It is also not to be overlooked, in support of this line of reflection, that in other and earlier communications Ezekiel makes much account of the symbolical character of the temple and the things belonging to it. It is as a priest he gives us to understand at the outset, and for the purpose of doing priest-like service for the covenant-people, that he received his prophetical calling, and had visions of God displayed to him (see on Eze 1:1-3). In the series of visions contained in Ezekiel 8-11, the guilt of the people was represented as concentrating itself there, and determining Gods procedure in regard to it. By the divine glory being seen to leave the temple was symbolized the withdrawing of Gods gracious presence from Jerusalem; and by His promising to become for a little a sanctuary to the pious remnant in Chaldea, it was virtually said that the temple, as to its spiritual reality, was going to be transferred thither. This closing vision comes now as the happy counterpart of those earlier ones, giving promise of a complete rectification of preceding evils and disorders. It assured the Church that all should yet be set right again; nay, that greater and better things, should be found in the future than had ever been known in the past,things too great and good to be presented merely under the old symbolical forms; these must be modelled and adjusted anew to adapt them to the higher objects in prospect. Nor is Ezekiel at all singular in this. The other prophets represent the coming future with a reference to the symbolical places and ordinances of the past, adjusting and modifying these to suit their immediate design. Thus Jeremiah says, in Ezekiel 31:3840: Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the city shall be built to the Lord from the gate of Hananeel to the corner gate. And the measuring line shall go forth opposite to it still farther over the hill Gareb (the hill of the leprous), and shall compass about to Goath (the place of execution). And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields to the brook Kedron, unto the corner of the horse-gate toward the east, shall be holy to the Lord. That is, there shall be a rebuilt Jerusalem in token of the revival of Gods cause, in consequence of which even the places formerly unclean shall become holiness to the Lord: not only shall the loss be recovered, but also the evil inherent in the past purged out, and the cause of righteousness made completely triumphant. The sublime passage in Isaiah 60 is entirely parallel as to its general import. And in the two last chapters of Revelation we have a quite similar vision to the one before us, employed to set forth the ultimate condition of the redeemed Church. There are differences in the one as compared with the other, precisely as in the vision of Ezekiel there are differences as compared with anything that existed under the Old Covenant. In particular, while the temple forms the very heart and centre of Ezekiels plan, in Johns no temple whatever was to be seen. But in the two descriptions the same truth is symbolized, though in the last it appears in a state of more perfect development than in the other. The temple in Ezekiel, with Gods glory returned to it, bespoke Gods presence among His people to sanctify and bless them; the no-temple in John indicated that such a select spot was no longer needed, that the gracious presence of God was everywhere seen and felt. It is the same truth in both, only in the latter represented, in accordance with the genius of the new dispensation, as less connected with the circumstantials of place and form.
8. It only remains to be stated, that in the interpretation of the vision we must keep carefully in mind the circumstances in which it was given, and look at it, not as from a New, but as from an Old Testament point of view. We must throw ourselves back as far as possible into the position of the prophet himself. We must think of him as having just seen the divine fabric which had been reared in the sacred and civil constitution of Israel dashed in pieces, and apparently become a hopeless wreck. But in strong faith in Jehovahs word, and with divine insight into His future purposes, he sees that that never can perish which carries in its bosom the element of Gods unchangeableness; that the hand of the Spirit will assuredly be applied to raise up the old anew; and not only that, but also that it shall be inspired with fresh life and vigour, enabling it to burst the former limits, and rise into a greatness and perfection and majesty never known or conceived of in the past. He speaks, therefore, chiefly of gospel times, but as one still dwelling under the veil, and uttering the language of legal times. And of the substance of his communication, both as to its general correspondence with the past and its difference in particular parts, we submit the following summary, as given by Hvernick:1. In the gospel times there is to be on the part of Jehovah a solemn occupation anew of His sanctuary, in which the entire fulness of the divine glory shall dwell and manifest itself. At the last there is to rise a new temple, diverse from the old, to be made every way suitable to that grand and lofty intention, and worthy of it; in particular, of vast compass for the new community, and with a holiness stretching over the entire extent of the temple, so that in this respect there should no longer be any distinction between the different parts. Throughout, everything is subjected to the most exact and particular appointments; individual parts, and especially such as had formerly remained indeterminate, obtain now an immediate divine sanction; so that every idea of any kind of arbitrariness must be altogether excluded from this temple. Accordingly, this sanctuary is the thoroughly sufficient, perfect manifestation of God for the salvation of His people (Eze 40:1 to Eze 43:12). 2. From this sanctuary, as from the new centre of all religious life, there gushes forth an unbounded fulness of blessings upon the people, who in consequence attain to a new condition. There come also into being a new glorious worship, a truly acceptable priesthood and theocratical ruler, and equity and righteousness reign among the entire community, who, being purified from all stains, rise indeed to possess the life that is in God (Eze 43:13 to Eze 47:12). 3. To the people who have become renewed by such blessings, the Lord gives the land of promise; Canaan is a second time divided among them, where, in perfect harmony and blessed fellowship, they serve the living God, who abides and manifests Himself among them3 (Eze 47:13-23).Fairbairns Ezekiel, pp. 436450.W. F.]
5. In connection with the wall with which the description begins, mention is forthwith made (Eze 40:5) of the house. This makes clear in the outset what is the principal building, to which all else is subordinate, although the wall is called a building. However large, then, that which the wall comprehends may appear to be,and it is said in 40:2 to be a city-like building,the house is still the kernel. Comp. the measuring from it in 40:7 sq. Hence the symbolized idea is the dwelling of Jehovah as a permanent one, especially when we compare Eze 37:26 sq. As type, the realization of the idea is to be found in the Word become flesh (Joh 1:14), as also the (Joh 4:23) farther shows that the worship in spirit and in truth, and thereby the fulfilling of the worship at Jerusalem, has come with Christ. Salvation ( ) is of the Jews, as our vision also sets forth in an architectonic form; they worship what they know. But as the law was given by Moses, so grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. The original influence of the sanctuary on the first constituting of Israel as a people through the making of a divine covenant is still held by in Eze 37:26 sq. (Yes, Israel is Jehovahs family, His house, , Joh 1:11; Jehovahs covenant with Israel is a marriage-covenant, Ezekiel 16.) The visibility of Jehovahs dwelling, even in the vision here, although spiritual, must be looked on as a pledge of the entire relation of Jehovah to Israel, and especially of the promise of the Messiah. This is the sacramental character of Ezekiels vision of the temple specially insisted on by Hengstenberg. But the temple as the abode of Jehovah is a place of farther revelation, for Jehovah is the Self-revealing One. The very name Jehovah contains a pledge for the whole future of the kingdom of God, the Church of the future. Now this name, as is well known, coincides most essentially and intimately with the destination of this house; Ezekiel repeatedly emphasizes the fact that it is the name of His holiness, just as in connection therewith the sanctification of Israel is again and again expressed. Now, as this expresses also the ultimate aim of all Jehovahs revelation in Israel, we must have got before us in the sanctuary the perspective to the end of Gods way with Israel and mankind in general, the vision of Israel fulfilling its destiny of being Gods tabernacle with men, and the consummation of the world in glory, Revelation 21, 22. But the holiness of Jehovah, the sanctification of Israel, is signified forthwith by the wall round about the house.
6. The significance of the wall, however, comes first info consideration in respect to the court of the people, so that in special the sanctification of Israel as the end and object of Jehovahs dwelling in their midst is before all thus symbolically expressed. If the house is the central point of the whole, still the court completes the idea of the house; as we have the temple in its entirety, as it was meant to be, only when it has the two courts conjoined with it. The reference to the city, and farther to the whole land, which undoubtedly was always contained in the idea of the court, is moreover expressly given shape to in Ezekiel (comp. Ezekiel 48). The court here represents the Israel in the widest extent that appears before Jehovah, as it lives in the light of His countenance and of intercourse with Him; that is to say, it refers to the idea proper of a holy people. When, accordingly, the visionary-prophetic description in Ezekiel exhibits a striking difference from the brevity, incompleteness, and indefiniteness of the historical account in the books of Kings and Chronicles, this indicates, as respects the idea, another Israel than the people had hitherto been. Hvernick remarks on the wide compass, in order to contain the new community, and the sanctuary extending itself on all sides of the temple indiscriminately, that which was formerly undefined is now, as he says, to receive a higher, a divine sanction. Bhr, speaking of Solomons temple, says that the almost total indefiniteness of its court is owing to its human character in contrast to the idea and purpose of the house, and that even the court of the tabernacle, although measured and defined more exactly than that of the temple, shows numbers and measurements which indicate imperfection and incompleteness. This latter statement might possibly give a hint as to Ezekiels description of the courts of the temple, which is, on the contrary, so exact and detailed, and would at least be plainer than what Bhr says of the human as not divine, etc., while yet he must concede to the court a mediate divineness. Israel in the wilderness might, as Jehovahs host, as the people under His most special guidance, still in some measure stamp this relation on the court of the tabernacle. In Solomons temple, on the contrary, the self-development, left more to the freedom of the people, especially as they now had kings like other nations, and when their position under Solomon was so influential, would be expressed in the characteristic indefiniteness of the peoples part in the sanctuary. But the Israel of the future, Ezekiel in fine would say, will be exactly and distinctly Jehovahs possession. Hvernick (and Bhr too) cites for the conformation of the court, shaping itself according to the need of the people and the times, its well-known division by Solomon into two courts. After referring to 2Ch 20:5, and the various annexes, the cells, and the frequent defilement of this locality (2Ki 23:11-12), he concludes thus: The treading of the courts (Isa 1:12) has now come to an end; the repentant people are ashamed of their sins, and draw near to their God in a new spirit, Eze 43:10. The new condition of the courts is a figure, an expression of the new condition of the community. (Comp. Zec 3:7; Rev 11:2.) Thus in Ezekiels symbolism the new garnishing of the courts comes to view as the quickening anew, the glorious restoration of the community of Israel. [Comp. additional note on p. 388.W. F.]
7. But the description in our vision begins with the gates, dwelling specially on the east gate. For the copiousness with which the gates are described, comp. Eze 43:11; Eze 48:31 sq. Hvernick, against Bttcher, dwells on their significance (p. 641 sq.); makes them since Solomon have acquired under his successors the disturbing character of the incidental; remarks that the law says nothing definitely regarding them; points out the profane use to which they were put (Jer 20:2); and maintains that, on the contrary, the prophet assigns to them a definite relation to the whole of the building, so that they are thoroughly in conformity with the idea of the building. But the contrast to Ezekiel 8 and those that follow is to be very specially observed. Brought to the gates of the temple, the prophet had been witness of the idol-worship prevalent there. And he had seen the Shechinah departing out of the east gate. To this we have now a beautiful and complete contrast. Henceforth Jehovah will no longer see the holy passages in and out so contemptuously desecrated and defiled (Eze 43:7 sq.); on the contrary, the holy bands that keep the feast and offer sacrifice shall go in and out with the prince of the people in their midst (Eze 46:8 sq.; comp. Rev 21:25 sq.). But above all, the glory of Jehovah shall enter in by the east gate (Eze 43:1 sq.). Hence this gate is the pattern for all the others, etc.
8. From the relation on the whole to the temple of Solomon, Bunsen thinks that in general the old temple was the model; only, on the one hand, the disposition of the parts was simpler and less showy, and on the other, an effort was exhibited to attain to symmetry in the proportions and regularity in general. While Tholuck and others remark on the colossal size in different respects, as indicating the pre-eminence of the future community, Hengstenberg finds throughout always very moderate dimensions. Unmistakeably there is a reference throughout to the temple which Ezekiel had seen with his own eyes; this explains the brevity and incompleteness partially attaching to the description, although in respect to the sanctuary proper this peculiarity of Ezekiel, who is otherwise so pictorial, demands some farther explanation. That the knowledge of the temple, whenever it could be supposed, is supposed in our vision (comp. on Ezekiel 41), especially when what was seen presented itself, as it were, in short-hand to the prophet, is only what we should naturally expect. But it corresponded also to the typology of Solomon and the glorious age of Solomon, which had entered so deeply into the consciousness of Israel, and was so popular, when Solomons temple forms the foil for the still future revelation of glory and the form it assumes. Ezekiels vision presupposes, indeed, that which it passes over in silence, but certainly not always that which it suppresses, as having to be supplied from the days of Solomon. A supposition of this kind is least of all permissible for the metallic ornaments, of which nothing whatever is said in passages in which, on the contrary, e.g. Eze 41:22, what is made of wood is particularly mentioned, or when explanations are made, such, for example, as: This is the table which is before Jehovah. The old is presupposed, and also something new and different is inserted in the old when not put in its place. What Hvernick observes generally regarding the use made of the sacred symbols of the Old Testament and the allusions to the law by our prophet, may be applied to the way in which reference is made to Solomons temple and the knowledge of it supposed: He lives therein with his whole soul, but by the Spirit of God he is led beyond the merely legal consciousness, he rises superior to the legal symbolism, etc. In the prophetic description in the chapters before us, we can perceive a struggle as of a dawning day with the clouds of morning; and if something testifies to the derivation of our vision from a higher source than a fancy, however pious, would be, we may take that something to be the sudden advent of peculiar and quite unexpected lights, which have in them at least something strange and surprising in the case of Ezekiel, who was not only familiar with ancestral tenets and priestly tradition, but strongly attached to both. One might sometimes say a less than Solomon is here (Mat 12:42), and yet not be satisfied with Hengstenbergs reference to the troublous times in which temple and city were to be rebuilt, but (as Umbreit beautifully says) will feel constrained to take still more into consideration the worth of the most significant inwardness for the poverty of the immediately succeeding times, in view of the new temple for the new covenant, so that whatever of apparently meagre simplicity attaches to our temple-vision may have to be read according to the rule given in Mat 6:29. Umbreit aptly says: In the interior of the abode of the Holy One of Israel, quite a different appearance indeed is presented from that in Solomons temple, and the splendour of gold and brilliant hues is in vain sought for therein; no special mention is made of the sacred vessels, and only the altar of incense is changed into a table of the Lord, which, instead of all other symbols, simply suggests the purely spiritual impartation of the divine life. The ark of the covenant was destroyed by the fire of God, and our prophet no more than Jeremiah cared to know about a new one being made, as also, indeed, it was actually wanting in the so-called second temple. It is enough that the cherubim resume their place in the sanctuary, and, entering through the open doors, now fill the whole empty house, in which the distinctions of the old temple are very significantly left out; for we no longer see the veils, and the whole temple has become a holy of holies. In the same strain Hvernick says: If Jehovah wills to dwell among a new people, He must do so in a new manner, although in one analogous to the former. It is the same temple, but its precincts have become different, in order to contain a much more numerous people; and all the arrangements and adjustments here testify to the faithfulness and zeal with which the Lord is sought and served. The whole sacred temple area has become a holy of holies; in this temple there is no place for the ark of the covenant (Jer 3:16), instead of which comes the full revelation of the Shechinah. On the one hand, the legal form of worship is retained in every iota, or tacitly supposed; on the other, a new element, as with Eze 41:22, almost exactly what Christendom calls the Lords table, sheds its light over everything previously existing. On the one hand, the numbers and proportions express a magnitude and beauty, a majestic harmony, surpassing both the tent and the temple (Eze 41:1); on the other, there are unmistakeable indications, as respects the , in the simplicity and plainness of the whole and the parts, of an , a , and and here and there even a hint is perceptible of the outward poverty of the Church in the last times. Moreover, as the temple of Ezekiel consolingly presented to those who returned from the exile, approaching the more closely to them as respects its human character, its divinity and spirituality in their temple building, so again it contained a sacred criticism on the splendid edifice erected by Herod 500 years later (of the immensa opulentia of which the Roman Tacitus speaks),a criticism which He who walked in this last temple of Israel, and who was Himself the fulfilling of the temple, completed , and as , .
9. The treatment of the side-building (Eze 41:5 sq.), especially in its connection with the temple-house, and the detailed description, kept now first in due correspondence with the sanctuary, of the building on the gizrah (Eze 41:12 sq.), are worthy of observation, although not so important as Hvernick makes them. With a touch of human nature, Hengstenberg connects the side chambers with Ezekiels dearest youthful reminiscences, reminding us at the same time of Samuel, who, as well as Eli, had even his bedroom in such a side-chamber of the tabernacle. According to Hvernick, Ezekiels description is meant to keep the annexe in fairest proportion to the sanctuary itself, etc.; it is the perfect building, instead of the still defective and imperfect one described in 1 Kings 6. The side-building and the gizrah are evidently distinguished in relation to the temple as addition and contrast. The description, too, given of both, suggests a still farther realization of the temple-idea, as regards priestly service and other modes of showing reverence to God, and also of the in spirit and in truth for this future worship.
10. As to the temple of Ezekiels vision considered sthetically, Bhrs thoughtful analysis (Der sal. Tempel, pp. 7 sq., 269 sq.) is so much the more applicable, as this visionary temple is still more animated and dominated by the religious idea of Israel, which in its futurity is the Messianic idea. The temple before us is in the highest sense of the word music of the future, although only a variation of an old theme. The import of this old theme, Solomons temple and the original tabernacle, will first find full expression in Ezekiels temple, whether its measures and numbers are the old ones or different. We must not employ here the classical criterion of the beautiful; sensuous beauty of form is not to be found here. The adornment of the edifice is limited to cherubim and palms, either together or separate; and of the cherubim it must be granted that, sthetically considered, they are figures the reverse of beautiful. We meet, however, with nothing tasteless or repulsive, like the dog or bird-headed human forms, the green and blue faces of the Egyptian gods, or the many armed idols of the Indian cultus. But what a difference is there between the temple of Ezekiels vision and the fancy edifice, for example, the description of which is to be found in the younger Titurel (strophe 311415, edited by Hahn; comp. Sulp. Boisseree on the description of the temple of the Holy Grail, Munich 1834),the wondrous sanctuary on Mont Salvage, in which the ideal German architecture consecrates its poetic expression under the influence of reminiscences of Rev 21:11 sq.! (The chapel of the Holy Cross at Castle Karlstein, near Prague, presents to this day a partial imitation, and on a reduced scale, of the temple of the Grail.) A large fortress with walls and innumerable towers surrounds the temple of the Grail, like an extensive and dense forest of ebony trees, cypresses, and cedars. Instead of the guard-rooms (Ezekiel 40) and the express charge of the house (Ezekiel 44) of Ezekiel, are the guardians and protectors of the Grail,the templars, a band of spiritual knights of the noblest kind, humble, pure, faithful, chaste men. And whatever of precious stones, imagery, gold, and pearls the poetic fancy was able to imagine, is collected around the shrine of the Holy Grail. In the heathen temple, with its attempts to represent the divine, and especially in the Greek temple, conformably to the innate artistic taste of the Greeks, with such beautiful natural scenery cherishing and demanding this taste, where sky, earth, and sea on every side suggest the divine as also the beautiful, the execution, form, and shape, distribution and arrangement of the parts, as well as all its decorations, correspond to the demands of sthetics; but already in Solomons temple the ethical-religious principle of the covenant, and consequently of the theocratic presence of Jehovah among His people, penetrates and pervades everything else. Thus the tabernacle, and also the whole temple building, culminates in the holy of holies, which contains the ark of the covenant with the tables of the law, and in which the atonement par excellence is completed. A relation like this, then, is served by any form which rather fulfils its office than strives after artistic configuration, and the form has answered its purpose, provided it only is a religiously significant form. Solomons temple, says Bhr, cannot stand as a great work of art before the forum of the sthetic. Human art in general goes along with nature, hence its mainly heathenish, its cosmic (, decoration) character. Jehovah, on the contrary, is holiness, and no necessity of nature of any kind, no nationality as such, no deification of nature, no magic consecration binds Him to Israel, but the freest covenant grace, which has as its aim the sanctification of Israel as His people, with a view to all mankind. That Phnician artists executed the building of Solomons temple (comp. for this the exhaustive critique of Bhr in the work quoted above, p. 250 sq.)although (Krause, die drei ltesten Kunsturkunden der Freimaurer-brderschaft, Dresden 1819) freemasonry makes grand masters after Solomon, who is held to represent the Father (omnipotence), King Hiram as Son (wisdom), and Hiram Abif as Spirit (harmony, beauty)concerns chiefly the technical working in wood and metal. If the artistic execution, thus limited, of the temple decoration bore on it a Phnician character, and the employment of table work coated with silver showed signs of Hither Asia in general, yet the Phnician element, this mundane configuration, would not amount to much more than what the Greek language was, in which the gospel of the New Covenant, as well as that of the Old, came before the world. But a specifically Christian element, the really fundamental element in the first and oldest Christian church architecture, namely, that what is also called (it is true) Gods house is simply an enclosure of the congregation (; , , domus ecclesi), is an approximation to the extension of the outer court in Ezekiel, which extension is quite in unison with the Christological method of our prophet, with the peculiar regard he pays to the people of the Messiah (Introd. 9). Comp. 2Co 6:16; Eph 2:20 sq.; 1Pe 2:4. The Christian community forms in future the house of God, the temple; as also its development, externally and internally, is in the New Testament called edification, building. Voltaire has declared that he could remember in all antiquity no public building, no national temple, so small as Solomons; and J. D. Michaelis held that his house in Gttingen was larger; whereas Hengstenberg ascribes to Solomons temple, inclusive of the courts, an imposing size. The prominence given in Ezekiel to the east gate of the new temple, although the holy of holies still lies towards the west, may remind us of the projecting eastward of Christian church buildings from the earliest age, and especially of the Concha closing them on the east. As the glory of the God of Israel comes from the east (Ezekiel 43), so in the east is the Dayspring from on high (Luk 1:78; the Sun of Righteousness, Mal. 3:20 [4:2]), the Light of the world (Joh 8:12; Isaiah 4), which has brought a new day, the precursor and pledge of the future new morning and day of eternal glory (Rom 13:12; 2Ti 4:8). If the light-concealing stained windows of the Middle Ages are not to be traced back to the parts shut up and covered in Ezekiels temple, still the powerful tendency to elevation upwards, so appropriate to the Gothic style, has at least some support in the pillars (Eze 40:14), and even suggests an (Php 3:20; Col 3:1 sq.).
11. The designation of the temple in Ezekiel 43. as the place of Jehovahs throne, etc., might make us suppose the existence of the ark of the covenant, unless its significance as (to borrow Bhrs words) centre, heart, root, and soul of the whole edifice necessarily demanded an express mention, when, for example, we have in Ezekiel most exact accounts of the altars; comp on Eze 41:22. Solomons temple (1 Kings 8) first became what it was meant to be from the fact that the ark of the covenant came into it. But the post-exile temple had an empty holy of holies, as Tacitus (Hist. v. 9) relates of Pompey, that he by his right as conqueror entered the temple, from which time it became known that no divine image was in it, but only an empty abode, and that there was nothing in the mystery of the Jews. (Comp. Josephus, Bell. Jud. v. 5. 5) The most probable supposition is, that the ark of the covenant disappeared at the destruction of Solomons temple, that it was consumed by fire. For the traditions of what became of it are mere myths; e.g. in 2 Maccabees 2, that Jeremiah, among other things, by divine command hid the ark in a cave in Mount Nebo, but when they who had gone with him could not again find the place, he rebuked them, and pointed to the future, when the Lord would again be gracious to His people and reveal i to them, and the glory of the Lord and the cloud would appear as formerly. [The Mishna makes it be hid in a cave under the temple, a statement which the Rabbins endeavour to confirm from 2Ch 35:3. Carpzov supposes the ark included in 2Ch 36:10, and holds that it was restored by Cyrus, Ezr 1:7; a statement which Winer rightly cannot find in that passage, but rather the reverse; while at the same time he is unable to agree with Hitzig, who concludes from Jer 3:16 that the ark of the covenant was no longer in existence even in the days of this prophet. According to the Mishna (Joma v. 2), there had been put in its place an altar-stone rising three fingers above the ground, on which the high priest on the great day of atonement set the censer.] That the symbolical designation of the temple expressed in Ezekiel with reference to the ark of the covenant is simply a legal technical term may be the more readily believed, as in certain respects in contrast thereto, at least in distinction therefrom (although this is strangely denied by Hengst.), the whole precincts of the temple, in consequence of the re-entrance of the glory of Jehovah, became a holy of holies in accordance with the law of this house; comp. on Eze 43:12. W. Neumann expounds Jer 3:16 of the new birth of Israel, when Jehovah will be glorified in the midst of His saints, that these shall no longer celebrate the ark of the covenant. He rejects the opinion of Abendana, who, from 43:17 of the same chapter, inferred that the whole of Jerusalem is to be a holy dwelling-place, and holds to Rashis view, that the entire community will be holy, and that Jehovah will dwell in its midst as if it were the ark of the covenant. For the ark of the covenant as such is a symbolical vessel. As it contains within it the law, which testifies to the covenant (Deu 4:13; Deu 26:17 sq.), so the covenant-people are represented in it, the bearers of the law through worldly life, until the days when it shall be written on the hearts of the saints (Jer 31:31 sq.). The Capporeth represents the transformation of the creature transformed by Israels perfection in the Lord (?), the new heavens and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness, Isa 66:22-23. If this is the thought which lies at the root of the symbolism, then when the ark of the covenant is no longer kept in commemoration, the shadows of the Old Covenant have passed away, all has become new, and the redeemed are the holy seed (Isa 6:13), to whom Jehovahs law has become the law of their life. The eloquent silence in our prophet regarding the ark of the covenant will, moreover, be understood in respect to the man who speaks as Jehovah (comp. on Eze 43:7), that is, in a Messianic-christological sense, notwithstanding that Ezekiels Christology (Introd. 9) has the Messianic people principally in view.
12. Ezekiels vision rests throughout on the law of Moses. Were it otherwise in our chapters, Ezekiel could have been no prophet of Israel, nor the Mosaic law the law of God. This legal character was, moreover, well adapted to put an arrest on a mere fancy portraiture, if not to make it altogether impossible. As to the departure from the law of Moses, which, however, he must concede, Philippson maintains that it is not great, and is limited to the number of victims (? ?). Hengstenberg denies any difference, calling it merely alleged. On the other hand, Hvernick, with whom many agree, speaks of Ezekiels many differences and definitions going beyond the law of the Old Covenant, while at the same time he rejects the idea that the prophet forms the transition to the farther improved system of the Pentateuch (Vatke), and affirms against J. D. Michaelis the unchangeable character of the law of Moses. Hvernick says: These discrepancies rather show with so much the more stringent necessity, that a new condition of things is spoken of in the prophet, in which the old law will continue in glorious transformation, not abrogated, but fulfilled and to be fulfilled, coming into full truth and reality. Bunsen speaks to this effect: Ezekiels design was to make the ritual more spiritual, and to break the tyranny of the high-priesthood. For mention is nowhere made of a high priest, whereas a high-priestly obligation, although slightly relaxed, is laid upon the priests (Eze 44:22). The daily evening sacrifice falls away, and among the yearly feasts we miss Pentecost and the Great Day of Atonement, all which accords with the absence of the high priest and the ark of the covenant; instead of these comes an additional feast of atonement at the beginning of the year (Eze 45:18 sq.), and the amount of the morning sacrifice and the festal sacrifices is enhanced. There is, indeed, much reference to the original law throughout, and it is anew set forth with respect to transgressions and abuses that had crept in, special weight being laid on the precepts concerning clean and unclean (Eze 44:17 sq.; comp. Eze 22:26); but still more does Ezekiel go beyond the law, and gives additional force to its precepts. We must call to mind the position generally of prophecy to the law of Moses. As prophecy is provided for in the law in the proper place (comp. our Comment on Deut. p. 134), namely, when Moses departure demanded it, so its foundation is traced back in Deu 18:16 sq. to Sinai, and thus it is thenceforth comprehended historically in the legislation. But although it thus stands and falls with the law, having by its own account, like all the institutions of Israel, its norm in the law, yet it rejoices in its extraordinary fellowship with God, its divine endowment and inspiration. And this not in order, like the priesthood, to teach after the letter, and to serve in the ceremonial; but the provision made and charge given already on Mount Sinai, as they make the official duty of prophecy to be the representation of Gods holy will against every other will, so they give to it the character of a legitimate as well as legitimatized officiality, which, like Moses, has to serve as the chosen means of intermediation in relation to the will of the Most High Lawgiver revealing itself; the calling is ordained in Israel for the continuity of the divine legislation. This latter qualification of the prophets of Jehovah in Israel afforded a foundation for their deepening of the legal worship, as opposed to hypocrisy and torpid formality, for their spiritual interpretation of the ceremonial; as, in view of their position towards the future, a consideration of the ecclesiastical and civil law in their bearing on the future followed as a matter of course. The idea which for this end dominates Ezekiels closing vision is the holiness of Jehovah, and the corresponding sanctification of Israel, their separation to Jehovah as a possession. It is the root idea which the law expresses and symbolizes in all its forms, whether of morality, worship, or polity. And as it is said already in Exodus 19 : Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, so it is also said in 1 Peter 2 of the Christian community, that they who are lively stones are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (comp. 1Pe 2:9). Peter thus makes a New Testament use of the same mode of expression regarding worship, which, carried out in Old Testament form, is Ezekiels representation of Jehovahs service of the future, when Jehovah shall dwell for ever in His people. Comp. Eze 20:40. Ezekiels position, therefore, to the law of Moses is not that of freedom from legal restraints,a position which might be subjective and arbitrary,but what he applies from the law for the illustration of the future, and the way in which he does so, passing by some things, more strongly emphasizing others, or putting them into new shapes, derives its legal justification from the idea of the law as it shall be realized in a true Israel, that is, the Messianic Israel. That the Messiah, who says in John 17 : And for them I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth, remains as a person in the background, is quite in correspondence with Ezekiels Christology (Introd. 9), which, as already said, characterizes the times and the salvation of the Messiah through the Messianic people.
13. The proper significance of the new temple lies in the full revelation of Jehovah in His sanctuary, in the new and living fellowship into which God enters with His people by this His dwelling among them (Hv.). As being a return, which it is in relation to Ezekiel 11, the entrance of the glory of the Eternal has, although with a New Testament application, corresponding to the: (Mat 28:20), also its Apocalyptic significance, as John says before the close of his Revelation (Ezekiel 22): , .
14. If the idea of the court is unquestionably that of the people, whose Messianic perfection as Israel Ezekiel is to behold, then, since everything on the mountain of the vision here is most holy (Eze 43:12), the immediately following detailed description of the altar of burnt-offering and its consecration can only point to the future manifestation of Jehovahs holiness and the sanctification of His peculiar people (1Pe 2:9). What holds good of the altar refers also to the whole court; the blessing of the altar includes in it that of the community. By means of the expiation of the altar, the purpose of the divine love, to see a holy people assembled, is effected. The first act, consequently, in which the significance of the new sanctuary is expressed, is the complete expiation of the people, and its efficacy in this respect far surpasses in extent and glory that of the old sanctuary (Hv.). Accordingly, if they who are sanctified are perfected by the (Heb 10:14), the full and complete offering on Golgotha, then the idea also of this altar of burnt-offering upon the very high mountain must be fulfilled. But as the offering which fulfils is the most personal priestly offering, so the sanctification of the people in Ezekiels typical temple takes place on the altar of burnt-offering in the priests court, which therefore still remains separated from the court of the people, as in Solomons temple, whereas in the tabernacle there was only one court. The symbolical representation of the dominant idea of the sanctification of the people was, from their being represented by the priests, rightly localized in a priests court, which gives it due prominence here, where everything hinges on locality and arrangement. Thus also, as Bhr observes, in the camp of Israel the priestly family in its four main branches encamped close around the sanctuary on its four sides. [Comp. with this section the Additional Note on Eze 43:13-27, p. 410.W. F.]
15. As the shutting of the east gate (Ezekiel 44) for the future puts the key of Ezekiels temple into the hand of Him who, according to the typology of the law and the prediction of the prophets, is the Coming One of Israel, so the princes sitting and eating in the east gate must be taken as throwing light on the Messianic future of the people of the promise. It is very evident that by the prince is not to be understood the high priest of Israel. This interpretation, which was a Maccabean prolepsis, has now been abandoned. Kliefoth, Keil, and Hitzig justly dispute the indefinite sense which Hvernick gives to the , yet they do not sufficiently attend to what may be said in defence of Hvernicks indefiniteness, and which certainly tells against those who make the future theocratic ruler to be one with the King David of Ezekiel 34, 37, because he too is called , as indeed he is also called . They must own, however, that there is a difference between: My servant David shall be king over them, between the one shepherd who is prince for ever, and the here, who comes into consideration qu . Now if this must be granted, then it is only with justice that Hvernick observes that the designation sets before us the original, or, as he calls it, the purely natural constitution of the Israelites (Exo 22:27 [28]), although not so much because the time of the exile had again limited the people to this original constitution, or left them only a poor remainder of it, as because, looking, as in our vision we always should do, at the Messiah and His times, the discrepancy between theocracy and kingly power, which showed itself at the rise of the latter under Samuel, is to be adjusted on the original ground of the peculiarity of Israel. The is the prince of the tribe, as the tribal constitution of Israel put the juridical power and the executive into the hands of the natural superiors, the heads, of families and tribes. And even when in time of need, as in the days of the judges, a dictatorship, the power of one over all others, is had recourse to, it is potestas delegata, and is on both sides considered as nothing else. With a tribal constitution such as the natural constitution of Israel was, the want of an outward centrum unitatis might in itself be painfully felt, and the instituting of one be looked on as a political necessity; but that for Israel the necessity of the time as such should have demanded a permanent institution of the kind, is strikingly refuted by the days of the judges, for the present aid of Jehovah answered to the momentary distress, and raised up the competent helper from out of the tribes of Israel,then when they entreated and wept, the faithfulness of God helped them, and sooner than they supposed all distress was over,just as the former examples of Moses and Joshua showed that in the Israelitish theocracy the right men were not wanting at the right time. Jehovah alone, as on another side the fundamental canon of the priesthood still held up before the people, claimed as His due to be Israels king in political respects also. Originally there could be beside Him no other political sovereign, but merely the institution, in subordination to Him, of the princes of the tribes, and a sort of hegemony of a single tribe. The unity of the religious sentiment, which made the twelve externally separate tribes internally one community, had in earlier times made up for the want of an external centrum unitatis, and the free authority of certain individual representatives of this sentiment was quite in harmony therewith. Hence Jehovah says in 1 Samuel 8 : They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. Thus the demand of the people requesting a king must, having regard to Samuel, who occupied in Israel a position similar to that of Moses, be looked on as a symptom of disease, although the disease was one of development. We may concede to the elders of Israel who come before Samuel, Samuels age, which they urge; and still more, as the occasion of their demand, the evil walk of his sons. We can point to the picture exhibited in the later period of the judges, when everything, even the temporary alliance of individual tribes, appears to be in a state of dissolution; we can along therewith take into account the pride of Ephraim, in whose midst the sanctuary stood, and to whose claims of superiority, even over Judah, all the tribes were more or less compelled to bow. Nay, even in the law (Deu 17:14 sq.), where it refers to the future taking possession of Canaan, the future development of an Israelitish kingdom is taken into view by Jehovah Himself, and the very form foreseen in which the demand came to Samuel: I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are about me. But although this possible desire of the people, because tolerated, is not expressly blamed, yet neither the self-derived resolution there: when thou sayest: I will, etc., nor the pattern: like all the nations that are about me, is spoken of approvingly; nor can there be behind the emphatic command: thou shalt in any wise set him to be king over thee whom Jehovah thy God shall choose, anything but a presupposed conflict with the kingly authority of Jehovah, against which provision must be made in the very outset. Accordingly, when Jehovah Himself takes into view the earthly kingship for Israel, He does so in a way not very different from what Christ says in Matthew 19 regarding the Mosaic permission of divorce because of Israels hard-heartedness: . But Jehovah is the Physician of Israel, who (Numbers 21) made Moses set the brazen serpent on a pole, as a remedy against the bite of the fiery serpents. That which expresses to the full the sentiment of the people under Samuel is also the undisguised: like all the nations; with this their request before Samuel closes emphatically as its culminating point. Although to Samuel the thing that personally concerned him: that he may judge us, which they gave as their object in the case of the king to be appointed, was displeasing, was in his eyes the bad element in the request, Jehovah first set the matter before him in the light that in His eyes the request for the king () was rather a rejection of His reigning over them, and explained to him the: like all the nations, in the mouth of the elders of the people, by their hereditary disposition: they forsook Me, and served other gods. Kingly power, such as the heathen nations have from early times, is a necessary self-defence of polytheism against its own divisive and centrifugal elements in the realm of politics; it is a socialistic attempt to arrange a life in community, and that is to unite, both to make the internal unity and order strong and powerful externally, and to keep them so. For , from , is derived from: judging, as still attested by the Syrian signification: to advise, and also by the fact that the kingly power in Israel arose from that of the judges: the ruler is he who stands over the opposing parties, over the strife, he who unites; very different from whom is , the tyrant, , the coming to power by the right of the strongest. Thus kingly power is from the first peculiar to heathenism;
and because the boundary between the human and the divine is to the heathen consciousness a fluctuating one, kingship, especially in connection with the idolatrous worship thereof which grew up among the heathen nations, comes to be regarded as the contrast to the theocratic relations of the monotheistic people of Israel. Accordingly, when the people of Jehovah ask a king such as all the nations have (comp. 1Sa 8:20), this indicates that the theocratic consciousness is darkened and weakened in them; and thus a visible king appears necessary to them, because the invisible Ruler has, as it were, disappeared from their view. In times of religious and moral insensibility, inquiries are always directed to the political constitution; not to the state of society, but to the civil arrangements. And when Israel, forgetting the divine national prerogative they had enjoyed since leaving Egypt, placed themselves on a level with the heathen, then they must have looked on themselves with eyes like those of the heathen; it could not but occur to them, that in comparison with heathen monarchy they were, as Ziegler says, a people poorly and weakly organized, visibly only republican, and therefore easy to be overcome by the heathen, whose power was concentrated in monarchy. Thus Israels disease in desiring a monarchy like the nations was, that they had become infected by the political miasma of the polytheistic spirit of the age. For while the first king of Israel, Saul, very soon entered on the path of the heathen, the monarchy which is in accordance with the law of Israel first assumes shape with David, and then chiefly internally, and with Solomon, and then almost entirely externally. This, too, explains the significance of these two types of kings for the Messianic idea. Ziegler calls David: the king among kings. He comprehended thoroughly the office of a king in a theocracy; he was the best mediator between the people and Jehovah. Because he was the servant of Jehovah, he was also the lawful king. Through him the kingdom became the very best means for attaining to the divine purposes. Comp. Doct. Reflec. 14, etc. on Ezekiel 34, and Doct. Reflec. 21 on Ezekiel 37 But already with Davidso that Solomons sinking down from the greatest external kingly glory into the surrounding polytheism, and the after-division of the royal power through its being broken into two kingdoms, only furnish the foil to itthe wider and higher future of Israel was founded in spirit, namely, as this future should be realized in the Messiah. According to the flesh, the Coming One of Israel is the son of David; according to the spirit of Messianic prophecy, David is the historico-personal basis, its personal foundation, a thoroughly prophetic personality; as Ziegler says: Partly inasmuch as he is manifestly a in many phases of his character and life, even in the minute particulars,that, like Christ, he began his official career in his thirtieth year, and that he went weeping over the Kedron, and ascended the Mount of Olives with covered head; but also partly because in his psalms he manifests himself a prophet in the narrower sense of the word, a prophet who by his psalms really adds new elements of revelation to the old, his prophecies entering into the most minute details, his Son is the Spirit of his poetry. If the people were comprehended in Moses as the as to the law, we may say of David that they are gathered together in him as to the theocratic kingdom. Hence these are far-seeing divine thoughts, and bearing special reference to the Messianic salvation which in 1 Samuel 8. Jehovah repeatedly urged upon Samuel, viz. to listen to the voice of the people, although the people will not at all listen to Samuels voice. Not that Israel had, as Ziegler supposes, to be set by the monarchy on a level with he world in order to be preserved in the world,for it was just the monarchy that destroyed its national existence, by drawing it into the politics of the great world,but (and this is the sole object in view in the law regarding the king in Deuteronomy 17) the possible conflict with Jehovahs royal dominion over Israel was guarded against by this, that in the Israelitish monarchy, especially as represented by David personally and by Solomon regally, Jehovah made His Anointed for eternity assume a preparatory shape, that is, filled the heathen-political form of government, which might be and still more might become such a contrast to the true, the theocratic Israel, with that which is the final purpose of Gods dominion over Israel (just as already to the patriarchs kings were promised as their descendants). Accordingly in Deuteronomy also, as the Israelitish kingship rises up as on the foundation of the judgeship, so, parallel therewith, and in connection with the priestly office, the prophetic office rises up as a continuation of the revelation by Moses ( or , Deuteronomy 18), in whom, according to Peter, was the . And not less significantly does the prince in Ezekiel sit and eat in the gate, through which the glory of Jehovah had entered, and which it has Messianically sanctified. With him Israel appears again as what it was, just as the elders of Israel asked from Samuel a king like the nations, to be chief representative of Israel according to its tribal constitution; he who can be styled directly ,4 will be so in Messianic consecration and sanctification, so that Christian kingship might be symbolized. Umbreit observes: Whereas at first every particular tribe had its Nasi, they now are all reunited under a single one. Thus an old name, and yet again new in its signification. From this Umbreit infers a prince clothed with great splendour (?), like another Melchizedek, who may combine well the rights of the state and of the Church in one spirit, etc. etc. Yet surely Hvernick is right in finding indicated here the true and complete harmony of civil and ecclesiastical order in the days of the Messiah. Christ has no vicar; to no one but Himself shall the kingdoms of the world belong; but to pious princes (to princes as they ought to be), to lawful magistrates and lords, pertains a prerogative over the faithful, which again is a duty and a service (Cocc.). Comp. what is said on this point in the exposition of Eze 46:2. [See also Additional Note on p. 417.]
16. In regard to the priests of Ezekiels temple, Hengstenberg thinks the prophet wishes to draw away the view from the dreary present,the priests without prospect of office, the ruins of the priesthood,and, on the contrary, presents to the eye priests in office and honour, in whom the Mosaic ordinances are again in full exercise and authority; and next he wishes to labour for the regeneration of the priesthood. It is only surprising, when in accordance with Hengstenbergs general view of our chapters the fancy is worked on here too by ideas of Mosaic priests, that the idea of the high priest is wanting, that this most powerful impression is disregarded. But as regards the removal of the degradation of the pre-exile priesthood, the mention of Zadok sets forth too prominently for this end just the age of David and Solomon. Ezekiels priests certainly are Mosaic priests, but the Mosaic priests had a people to represent of whom it is said in Exo 19:6 : Ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation (at the passover the whole people acted as priests); so that it is certainly Mosaic, although according to the inmost idea of the Mosaic law, when the people of the future are in Ezekiel specially represented by the priests. But it is quite peculiar to Ezekiel, that, in order duly to set forth the sanctification of the people by the lofty holiness of their priests, the high priest appears in certain respects absorbed into the priests, and these are represented in a high-priestly aspect. As the people are dealt with in Eze 44:6 sq. for the bad priests set to keep the charge of Jehovahs holy things (44:8), so the exemplification of priestly instruction of the people given in 44:23 is that of the true priests teaching to discern the difference between the holy and the profane, the unclean and the clean: the high-priestly sanctity of the priests is to serve for a high-priestly sanctification of the people; the high-priestly idea is to become a national reality, just as the aggregate of these Old Testament letters (for which comp. Zechariah 6) is the fulfilling word of the body of Christ as the Church. For the figure of Zadok, the typical high priest, taken from the very specially Messianically-typical age of David and Solomon, corresponds to only such a Messianic prospect. Zadoks sons are called the true priests of the people, just as the true Shepherd of the people (Ezekiel 34, 37) is a descendant of David. And here we have a parallel exactly similar to that of Jeremiah 33, where the continuance of the Levitical priesthood is guaranteed in like manner as the continuance of the race of David, and similarly as to the increase of both,in which respect there shall, according to Isaiah 66, be taken of the Gentiles for priests and for Levites; and so in this way the position of priests among the Gentiles, promised to Israel in Isaiah 61, fulfils itself as a universal priestly position. Hvernick makes a special blessing for the priesthood be connected with the general blessing of the theocracy, inasmuch as not its hitherto meagre (?) form, but the priestly office, as a faithful expression of the idea inherent in it, will be established in perpetuity; and he compares Mal 3:3 : A new priesthood, made anew by the power of the Lord, arises on the soil of the Old Testament priesthood in the new theocracy; just as Ezekiels main concern is the priestly office in general, so also the idea of a really spiritual priesthood comes to light in his writings, etc. When Hengstenberg compares Psalms 24 for the reformation of the priesthood, we observe that the demands on His people, spoken of there from the coming of the Lord of glory, are no specially priestly demands, but are addressed to the whole house of Israel; and the same is really the case with Isaiah 40, which he also cites. The Messianic references of the priesthood of the sons of Zadok, whereby (neither by Zadok personally, nor by Samuel) the prophetic word spoken to Eli (1Sa 2:27 sq.) is fulfilled, is not only maintained by the Fathers, but also by Keil;5 comp. on 1Sa 2:35 sq. The Berleburg Bible observes: As in the person of Solomon the Spirit of prophecy pointed to the true and anointed Solomon, so also in this priest it points to the great High Priest, Jesus Christ. Hengst. remains quite on the ordinary priestly ground; the prospect into the New Testament relations remains completely closed. According to him, the prophet has to do only with what is to be accomplished after brief delay, etc. On the other hand, Umbreit says: The priesthood is quite in accordance with the transformation of the house of God. The old class of mediators between Jehovah and His people, consecrated by descent, has disappeared, and we no more find the high priest than we find the ark of the covenant. Instead of the Levites, who, together with the people, have to bear the guilt of the profanation of the covenant, there have come now only the inwardly worthy, the sons of Zadok, who should fulfil their significant name by maintaining fidelity in this ideal sense; and the supreme enhanced law of the new priesthood is the maintaining of inward purity from every outward stain, etc. Their outward support is the holy gift of Jehovah, so that they can say with the godly man in Psalms 16 : Jehovah is my portion and my cup; my lot has fallen to me in pleasant places (Psa 16:5 sq.). [Comp. Additional Note at pp. 419, 420.]
17. The temple building, with its sacred architecture on the basis of the first tabernacle, as Solomons temple most richly displays it, symbolizes essentially the same as that which in the priesthood of the temple of Ezekiels vision is illustrated liturgically by the ministrations in this temple. For the accomplished dwelling of the Holy One in Israel proclaims His people to be a sanctified, and therefore a holy people. These are the worshippers that the Father desires (John 4), a kingdom of priests, or a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2); just as the prince, representing the people civilly and politically, fulfils his idea in King-Messiah; while the priests, the sons of Zadok, represent them ecclesiastically and spiritually. This is the purpose and constitution of Israel, the people of God. What the temple is in spirit, the representation by the priesthood of the new temple gives in truth, that is, in faithfulness and trueness of life. In the former, everything is most holy; in the latter, all are high-priestly. But in Christ the idea to be represented is realized in so much the more priestly a manner, because we have here the community of the Lord, the , where, in the case of Israel, was the congregation of the people, the , the . We might, moreover, find some difficulty in reconciling the omissions, and also the occasional so pregnant additions and stricter definitions taken from the idea of the law, in the ordinances regarding the priesthood, with what Hengst. maintains, namely, that the aim is, by a few well-chosen strokes, to bring out the thought of the restoration of the Mosaic priesthood in its customs and its rights, while it has been so easy for the exposition (which comp.) to show the prominence given throughout to the priestliness and sanctity of the priests office and the priestly order with reference to the people to be represented. As, moreover, the prince is, in Ezekiel 44, advanced to a privileged relation to the sanctuary (comp. Eze 45:13 sq.), so along with teaching, instruction, especially in holiness ( ) and sanctification ( , Eze 44:23), the settlement of disputes by the judgment of God, the establishing of righteousness (as is perhaps indicated in the name Zadok), is specified in 44:24 among the official duties of the priests. The prince eats in the east gate in the enjoyment of peace; the priests have always to restore peace.
18. As, on the one hand, the burnt-offering is the predominant note in this temple-system of the future, so, on the other, in Ezekiel 45 oblation is said in reference to the whole land. It is the same idea of devotion to Jehovah which is expressed by both,the national life consecrated to the Lord in fellowship with Him (comp. the sacrificial feasts, in the east gate, of the prince of this people), Israels state of grace. The disquisition on the oblation of holiness, etc., preliminary to Ezekiel 47, 48, and for which Eze 44:28 sq. furnishes the occasion, is significant from the very fact of being thus occasioned. For where priests and Levites are taken account of expressly according to their ministry in relation to Jehovah (Ezekiel 45), there the whole house of Israel (45:6), and the prince in particular, with their portions of land, appear in the light of sacred property belonging to Jehovah, and also as His servants, who, while His more peculiar servants, the priests, are to see to holiness and sanctification, have to endeavour after judgment and righteousness. In this way the new nationality dedicated to the Lord (chiefly by the burnt-offering, and symbolized by the oblation) has to exhibit itself in civil, social, and secular life. It is actually a new nationality in relation to land and people; but, considered by itself, and apart from Eze 44:28 sq., it appears to mean the division of the land, and especially the oblation. Spring has come, yea, the fields are now already white for the harvest (John 4). The oblation of holiness announces itself as the commencement of the future harvest. Ewald: The holy portion, which is previously taken from the rest of the land (like the tithes from the fruits of the field), and set apart for its own special purpose, is here very expressively mentioned in the outset, and with manifest reference to the now completed description of the temple (44:2; comp. Eze 42:20); while the prophet evidently hastens more quickly over the portions connected therewith of the common Levites and the city of Jerusalem, in order to come to the portion and duties of the prince, etc.
19. Hvernick says on Ezekiel 45 : After the description of a so newly reviving order of things in church matters, it appears as a matter of course that the land itself must be treated as a new land, and stand in need of a new special division. This division stands in a converse relation to that under Joshua. While at that time the people before all, each particular tribe, receive their portion, and not until afterwards was a fixed seat in the land assigned to Jehovah, here Jehovah first of all receives a holy gift, which is presented to Him. A portion of land is separated for the sanctuary and the priests, and one of equal size for the Levites. The new temple is moreover kept separate by a kind of suburb, in order to point out its special holiness.
20. The design of the Mosaic regulation, according to which priests and Levites, especially the latter, were to dwell dispersed among all the tribes, whereby the curse formerly uttered with respect to Levi by Jacob in his blessing of the patriarchs (Genesis 49) became fulfilled as a blessing for Levi and for all Israel, was to settle the tribe among Israel in accordance with its calling. Bhr says: If the Levites were to preserve the law and word of God, and thereby spread religious knowledge, promote religious life, pronounce judicial decisions in accordance therewith, etc., then it was not only suitable, but necessary, that they should not all dwell in one place, in one district. Their dwelling dispersed reminded them to spread the light of the fear of God and piety among the whole people, to give preference to no tribe, and to neglect none. On this we observe, that it is certainly not to be looked on as an abolition of the Mosaic ordinance that in Ezekiel priests and Levites are all concentrated in one place,the negation of the former would necessarily have to be formally announced,but the fulfilment simply comes in place of the former arrangement, inasmuch as the end proposed by that arrangement and regulation is present with and in the future Church. Hengst. thinks the relation of the priests and Levites to the sanctuary is meant to be made clear by their concentration in its neighbourhood. But already before this the cities of the priests at least were to be found in those tribal districts which lay nearest to the place of worship. The idea from which the grouping of the priests and Levites around the sanctuary has to be understood is rather what Jeremiah predicts: that they shall no more teach every man his brother, etc., that from the least to the greatest they all shall know Jehovah (Jer 31:34). The aim of dividing Levi among all the tribes, viz. to care for, preserve, and spread abroad everywhere the law and the testimony, is thus attained. The people of the future will be such that their liturgical representation and the dwelling of their priests and Levites in the neighbourhood of the temple suffice; and besides, this significantly brings out the thought that Levi, this election from the elect people, is a people of God in the people of God (Bhr). For, what was designed by the appointed cities, in which we already see them collected while they were dispersed among all the tribes, is fully accomplished in the land of the priests and the Levites (Ezekiel 45); and if Bhrs interpretation of the number of the 48 cities of the priests and Levites as referring to the sanctuary (Symb. d. mos. Kult. ii. p. 51) needed confirmation, it might have it here, where what this interpretation makes of Levis dwelling in the midst of Israel is expressly stated of the dwelling-place of the priestly Levites: a holy place for the sanctuary (45:4). Accordingly it is with this diversity as respects the Mosaic law, which Philippson calls the real diversity, exactly as Christ says in Matthew 5.: I am come not to destroy (), but to fulfil, and that: not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law till all be fulfilled.
21. The sanctuary, the land of the priests and Levites, and the princes portion, form almost the centre of the land. The city does not include the sanctuary, but is situated beside it, also in the midst of the land. No jealousy about the possession of them can any longer separate the tribes (Hv.). This whole district, says Bunsen, is not to lie in the territory of a single tribe, which might thereby appear privileged, but, as accords with its sanctity, is separated from the tribal territories. In other words, the union-authority of the confederacy is to have a special seat for manifesting its activity. No wiser political idea could be devised. Hence Jerusalem still remains Jerusalem, but it no longer belongs to Benjamin. The central sanctuary is that which unifies also the tribes of Israel, just as the priesthood, royalty, and public property grouped around it give local expression to the unity and oneness of the whole. Instead of the violence-inflicting and heaven-assailing tower of Babel (Neteler), the tabernacle of Shem has become a divine sanctuary, which then no longer symbolizes solely Jehovahs dwelling in Israel, but is at the same time a type for mankind in general of His tabernacle with men (Rev 21:3), and of their being united to and under Him. Comp. the Doct. Reflec. on Ezekiel 47, 48.
22. Chiliasmand this is conceivable of the Jewish Chiliasm, whereas such a final Judaism cannot but prove injurious to modern Christian Chiliasm (Gal 3:3)forgets, while studying these closing chapters of our prophet, the beginning of his prophecy, the cosmic character of Ezekiel 1, which relates to creation generally, and on which the whole book is based. But indeed if in Romans 11 is the people, i.e. Israel after the flesh, then it is only logically consistent to interpret the requickening in Ezekiel 37 as a bodily resurrection of all dead Jews. Those who are raised become by this fact, or as at one stroke, converted to Christ; those who are alive are Christians already, or will become so in consequence of this; and this whole Israel returns to Palestine, and forms in a transformed state, as it is already marked out for being by this awakening, the focus of the millennial kingdom for fresh salvation to all nations. It is illogical to wish to pick out one piece here, and to understand another merely spiritually; but he who here says A must also say B. Whether the converted Jews are to live in their own land, under kings of the house of David, as a people who are to be preserved and finally also converted, as Kliefoth allows to be the doctrine of Scripture, or whether King David will then return and rule over Israel in glory, is rather an antiquarian than a theological question. Scripture teaches none of these fancies; nor does it speak of a kingdom of glory in the earthly Jerusalem, in which the Gentile Church is to be joined to Israel under the dominion of the then reappeared Christ-Messiah (as Baumgarten). According to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, it has been the destination of Israel, as the people separated from all nations from the time of their first fathers, to be a blessing to mankind. And the more its national theocracy expanded itself to universal Christocracy, which comprehended also the Gentiles under the blessing of the Messiah, the more evidently there becomes exhibited in Israel, with its ecclesiastical and political forms, the preformation of an Israel which wholly is what Israel exhibits only in type,a people of God that comprehends the redeemed, the saints of all mankind; in which accordingly, as to its worship, and as to its nationality in general, traced back to its original idea, and also viewed with respect to its future realization, the whole and (what is specially emphasized) every part always exhibits holiness and sanctification, the service of the holy God in spirit and in truth (Psa 22:28 [Psa 22:27] sq., Psa 47:10 [Psa 47:9], Psa 102:16 [Psa 102:15] sq.; Isa 26:2; Isaiah 51, 60; Luk 1:17; Rom 9:24 sq.; 2Co 6:16; Tit 2:14; 1Pe 2:5 sq., 1Pe 2:9-10, etc.). Nation and nationality are historical and hence perishable colourings of the idea of mankind, which have entirely faded since the eternal idea of Israel has been fulfilled in Christ, in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek (Galatians 3), but man, the new man (Ephesians 2) . What could be fulfilled according to the letterwhich, however, is the expression borne by the spirit of fulfilmenthas been fulfilled in the people of Israel by their rising and revival from the graves of the exile, by their return thenceforth to Canaan under Judah as Jews, by the period of the Maccabees, certainly in historical prelude only to the ideal, the entire, true fulfilment of the spirit-letter in the kingdom of God through Christ; according to which fulfilment the elect people are the people of the elect from all mankind, and the Jewish people now neither exist as a people, nor have a future such as Kliefoth would assign to them, namely, to be holy in the same way that every Christianized nation (!) now is, for (1Th 2:16). For the Church of God in Christ, so far as it belongs to this world, the representation of its spiritual life in a service of atoning sacrifices and cleansings, as here in Ezekiel, can be no antithesis; for still, according to Hebrews 12, the has to be laid aside, and (Jam 3:2) (comp. Eze 45:20). But to Ezekiel no other representation of the future could be given than in types of the sacred past of Israelas of its law, so of the Davidic royalty and of Canaan as the land of promise. But however prominent, observes Keil, is the Old Testament clothing of the Messianic prophecy in Ezekiel, yet even in this guise lineaments are found by which we recognise that the Israelitish-theocratic guise is only the drapery in which is concealed the New Testament form of the kingdom of God; and he very justly refers to 1Pe 1:10 sq., while he farther says: Even although the prophets, in their uninspired meditations on what they had prophesied as moved by the Holy Ghost, may not have known the typical signification of their own utterances, yet we who live in the times of fulfilment, and know not only the beginning in the appearing of our Lord, etc., but a considerable course of the fulfilment too in the eighteen hundred years spread of the kingdom of heaven on earth, have not so much to inquire after what the Old Testament prophets thought in their searching into the prophecies with which they were inspired by the Holy Ghost,if these thoughts of theirs could be in any way ascertained,but we have to inquire, in the light of the present measure of fulfilment (comp. 2Pe 1:19), what the Spirit of Christ, which enabled the prophets to behold and prophesy the future of His kingdom in figures of the Old Testament kingdom of God, has announced and revealed to us by these figures. Apart from the occasional references of Ezekiels representation to paradise, to the first creation (comp. on Eze 36:35; Eze 16:53), to which there is a return in Christ through Gods new creation, the whole handling of the Mosaic law in Ezekiel, of its forms of worship as hieroglyphs of the future to be prophesied of the true Israel, can be understood only from the point of view of a transmutation of the law into its fulfilment.
Footnotes:
[1]Douglas Structure of Prophecy, p. 71.
[2]See the Typology of Scripture, vol. i. Ezekiel 1, 2, for the establishment of the principles referred to regarding the tabernacle: and vol. ii. part iii., for the application of them to particular parts.
[3]Hvernick, Comm. p. 623.
[4]It will each time be a more definite person, but that does not determine who it will be: only this perhaps is implied, that each nation may retain what is natural to it, what accords with its special character and historic development. The Bible dictates neither a church constitution nor a state constitution; but in Ezekiel there is symbolized what in every constitution, in itself human, ought to be the abiding, the higher: the humanly highest one () sits and eats in the east gate of the Highest, of Jehovah.
[5]The final fulfilment comes with Christ and His kingdom; accordingly, the Lords Anointed, before whom the approved priest shall alway walk, is not Solomon, but David and Davids Son, whose kingdom shall endure for ever (Keil).
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
The subject is still continued, and advancing in sublimity. Here is great honour shown to the Prince, whose entrance through the East gate forbad all others from so doing, to notify his glory and distinction. After this, divers ordinances are appointed in this Chapter, concerning those who minister in holy things.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Surely there is in those verses so plain an allusion to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, that it is hardly possible for any to mistake it, or make application to any other. And not only to his person, on account of his infinite dignity, but also to his offices and character. For Jesus is not only the way, and the only way of access to Jehovah; but it is impossible, we are told, to approach by any but him. The gate is shut, and forever shut. How blessedly the Apostle speaks, on this grand point. Heb 9:11-12 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Eze 44:6
Still I delayed to scorn and leave the bliss of earthly things…. Wretched, most wretched, I had begged chastity from Thee in my early youth, crying, ‘Give me chastity, only not yet’. For I feared lest Thou shouldest hear me soon, and cure me soon of the disease of concupiscence, which I wished to have satisfied rather than extinguished.
Augustine, Confessions, viii. 7.
Eze 44:13-14
The comparison thought, that profit accrues to a life by the wise memory of its past shortcomings, is brought out in Sir Henry Taylor’s Notes on Life (p. 112): ‘When the consequences of an error are irremediable, how often are those who would animadvert upon it met with the admonition to “let the past be past”: as if the past had no relations with the future; and as if the experience of our errors of judgment, and the inquisition into their sources, did not, by its very painfulness, effect the deepest cultivation of the understanding that cultivation whereby what is irremediable is itself converted into a remedy.’
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
God’s Care of His Altar
Eze 44:9-16
Is not this rather severe upon the stranger? The injunction does not rest upon the fact of the strangeness of the stranger, because in chapter Eze 47:22-23 there is a distinct provision for the stranger in Israel: “And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger sojourneth, there shall ye give him his inheritance, saith the Lord God.” That preserves the great catholic genius of the Bible. From the first God was trying (with reverence be it spoken) to find a foothold for the stranger. The Jew had wholly misapprehended the purpose of God. The Jew thought he only had the book and the seal, the covenant and the whole insignia of election. God was constantly endeavouring to make a little place for the outsider, the Gentile, the stranger. It would be very perplexing to the spiritual conscience to find at last that the Redeemer is less than the Creator; that God fails in his second endeavour in the region of human propagation and culture; great in creation, but only partial in redemption; making all men, but able only to save a few of them. The Lord was constantly rebuking this superstitious imagination. What did it come to in the case of the Jews? It came to this, and to this it must always come, that if any man suppose himself to be the pet and favourite of Heaven, or any nation should entertain so wicked a superstition, they will kill the very God whom they suppose themselves to have accepted. The Jews so treated themselves, mischievously and falsely interpreting the purpose of God, that when God came to them in an incarnate form, they murdered him. You can only be just to yourselves in proportion as you are just to others. Only the man who sees the whole can properly see the individual part. God will therefore have the stranger in Israel have his inheritance, his lot; but when it becomes a question of the altar God naturally looks round for the Levite.
In this case the Levite was not present; the Levite had “gone away.” How had the Levites disqualified themselves? The facts are given in the context and in the text itself. First, in Eze 44:10 , they “are gone away.” Better not adorn that simplicity; that is a pathos to which we may not add one tear. Pause awhile and think of it “are gone away.” Some men have no right to go away; some men are bound by heredity, by environment, by pledge and covenant, by solemn seal and vow, to be always here. Other men seem to be uncentred, and to be as much at home in one place as in the other. They have a liberty that has corrupted itself into licence and wantonness; we never know where to find them. But the Levite, the sworn man, the man who has exchanged vows with God, should always be found in his place. When he goes away, it is like high treason in the army; when such a man goes away, it is as if a troop had been cut down with the edge of the sword. Some men are the trustees of society. We can always point to them and say, Come weal, come woe, they will be found heart-stout, true as steel, faithful unto death. When we lose these men the earth has lost its rocks, and when the rocks have gone the gardens will soon go after them. “Gone away far.” Observe that next word. The statement could not have ended at “gone away.” It was not a little lapse, one step aside, a little outre; but “gone away far from me.” You cannot stop one inch away from God; one inch means two, and two inches mean a foot, and the foot soon grows into furlongs and miles. When some men do not pray it is as if there were silence in the whole universe; their voices seem necessary to the completeness of things; a great awful breach or rupture has been made in the music of creation when such voices cease their adoration and the utterance of their desires. Here, then, is a wonderful difference in men. Sometimes one man is as a thousand. If that one man be found true he will bring the thousand right, if they can be brought right; but if that one man be gone astray and far away from God, who can set the thousand in their places? It is as if a section of the stars had been shattered.
To what had they gone? They “went astray away from me after their idols.” Here is the prostitution of reason. Here is no theological mystery, but a mystery of daily life that a man should know the true God, and turn away from him; a man should know that there is a coming eternity, and yet tabernacle himself in the huts of minutes and hours and all the other little details of perishing time. This we do; this is not a lesson to be found in the ancient books only, this is the tragic and unpardonable experience of the day. To know the right, and yet the wrong pursue, is the miracle of manhood. A man shall know that to take a certain vessel and drain its contents means madness; he shall walk around the vessel and look at it and condemn it, and say that he is well aware that there is death in the cup; and, having made this plain avowal, it lies within the mystery of manhood to take that vessel and drain its dregs. Why trouble yourself, therefore, about metaphysical perplexities and differences of a purely scientific or theological kind? Here is the awful mystery, that a man can turn his back upon the truth, and run after lies, and love them with all that is left of his soul.
But were the Levites without excuse? They had their reasons. They knew that they could account for this. There was a general decadence in Israel. In Eze 44:10 we have these awful words: “When Israel went astray.” What is the meaning of that word, which may be regarded as in some sense parenthetical? The reference is to a great historical apostasy: as who should say, in paraphrase, There was a time when all Israel loved the Lord. It was not the movement of a man or two here and there, or of a Levite or a priest, or an eminent legislator or leader; but all Israel in one great mass, as it were, went away, and the Levites went with them. Were not the Levites justified? May we not follow the times? Is there not a lead in the air? The Levites could rise and say, We did not go away by ourselves, we were only part of a general apostasy; there were hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of us; the great lapse was in Israel, and not in any one section of Israel: may we not therefore be pardoned for following a multitude? If we had gone astray Levitically or officially, we should see that we had deserved the great judgment of God; but all Israel, as it seemed to us, went astray, and we were only part of the crowd. The Lord will not have it so. It is the part of the Levite to stem the torrent of the crowd. It is the part of great statesmen and great writers and great characters to stop others from doing evil, not to go along with them. The Levites should have stood firm, whatever others did. Yet we must not make a perverted use even of this explanation. There is no more claim for a Levite to be good than there is for the humblest man in Israel. There is no more claim, in other words, for a Levite to go wrong than there ought to be for the very humblest creature in the whole Church. God expects every man to be firm, and we only increase in responsibility as we increase in capacity, in opportunity, in faculty, and in profession. Whilst, therefore, it is quite right to expect that certain men should keep the faith and walk in the right way, our expectancy concerning them is no excuse why we ourselves should go wrong. True, all Israel, speaking in the bulk, had become apostate; but the Lord will not, therefore, excuse the Levites “they shall even bear their iniquity.” The Lord will not deal with us in crowds, but in individual relationship to himself, his throne, and his law.
What was the result? Were the Levites wholly discharged? No; the word “yet” with which the eleventh verse opens points to an exercise of the divine clemency that is really wonderful, and it is worth while to indicate this in words because it continues unto this day. The Lord will never give up a man until the man literally wrenches himself out of the divine grasp. What became of the errant Levites? First, they were deposed. They were to have charge at the gates of the house; they were to do certain menial work in the house; they were to slay certain offerings and sacrifices. They were simply, therefore, deposed, put down to lower work; degraded, we may say, to the second place; taken down one step, three steps, a dozen steps, but still not wholly banished and excommunicated from the service of the sanctuary. Now this may happen with all of us. This may happen with men. What some men might have been! They might have led us; instead of that they are put down to menial service. Search into the reason, and you will find there has been a moral lapse, or an intellectual infirmity, or some proof of disqualification. Providence rectifies things, providence attends to its own music. The harmony of Providence will not be ultimately and permanently spoiled by the works of men. All persons shall be put into their right places and set in their right relation. If the Levite who might have been at the top has disqualified himself he may not be altogether ungowned, but he will be put far away down according to the enormity of his transgression. This is right. Some men go amongst us as deposed. They might have been as the star of the morning, they might have led the way to better things, to green Canaans and fruitful places; and yet because they have gone far away from God they are degraded. They are not cast into the bottomless pit, they are not put beyond the reach of light and hope and mercy; but it is of necessity that they should be deposed or degraded.
What is true of men individually is true of men ecclesiastically. Churches are put into the second place; churches are put back into the third place. There is a law to this effect: “The first shall be last and the last shall be first”; and the reason of the transposition shall not be arbitrary or mechanical, but shall be spiritual and moral. If we are not faithful to our vocation we shall go back a point or two; if we are lacking in courage other men shall be called forth to do the work; and what the Church is lacking in every day is courage, fire, accent, and emphasis of purpose. Thus the great Church is put down, and the almost new Church is put to the front. The Church that ought to lead the world because of its wealth, its learning, its historical opportunities and advantages, may so act that men who have no name, no status, no background of history, shall come forward by the voice and appointment of God, and lead the world into redemption and liberty and prospect of heaven.
Was the Lord then left wholly without faithful men? We find the contrast in Eze 44:15 :
“But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord God.”
There is always a contrast in history. We thought in the preceding verses that all Israel had gone astray, we find in this verse that the sons of Zadok “kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me.” There has always been a faithful party in the State. There has always been an element of constancy in all the mutation of men and times and institutions. God keeps watch over that permanent quantity; it is as his own ark in the wilderness of time. Some times the faithful man says he alone is left; and the Lord says, That is not the case, for in point of fact there are seven thousand men within call who have not bowed the knee to Baal. This is God’s historical record. Sometimes the case of the ark has been brought very low; now and then in history it would seem as if the kingdom of God had been within a very short distance of extinction: but what is a “short distance” in the estimation of God? A hair’s breadth is a universe; if there is one moment between a nation and destruction, in that one moment God can work all the miracles of deliverance. “Man’s extremity is God’s opportunity.” This lies within our province and within our hope may it lie also within our sense of duty that it is possible for us though few to be faithful; it is possible when all others have proved faithless for us to be faithful found. It is hard work. The other way would be much pleasanter to the flesh and to the sense to go with the multitude to do evil; we might go behind a blaring band and flaunting banners, and we might make merry because we were going down to the house of the devil to revile the memory of God. But reviling hath only a short night; wantonness hath but a short story, and then comes its ever-deepening perdition. Let us pray for the spirit of faithfulness, not for the spirit of popularity. Let us pray that we may always be able to express our conscientious convictions, come what may; then even if we be wrong in judgment it shall not be reckoned against us. The things that are reckoned against men in heaven are moral offences. The judgment may go far astray, but if the heart point to the north-star of righteousness and heaven, God will bring all the judgment up, and all the understanding will be rectified. All our merely intellectual errors shall be set down as transient infirmities, and if the heart be staunch to God, no man, no devil, can keep us back from heaven.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XIX
THE FINAL CONDITION OF THE REDEEMED
Ezekiel 40-48
The date of this prophecy as given in Eze 40:1 is about 572 B.C., thirteen years after his last prophecy before this one and fourteen years after the fall of the city of Jerusalem. Thus, there is an interval of thirteen years between the last writing of Ezekiel before this and this one.
As to what Ezekiel was doing during the thirteen years between his last prophecy and this one, we have no record whatever. Perhaps after he had prophesied the restoration of Israel and the glorious messianic age as found in Ezekiel 36-37, Ezekiel was thinking and pondering in his mind over the messianic kingdom. He was thinking of what it would be like, what would be its constitution, what would be its temple, what would be its temple service, what would be the relation between the king and the priesthood and what would be the condition of the people.
After those long years of thinking and pondering in his own mind, at last the vision broke upon him. A great many visions have come to God’s prophets and God’s servants along the line that they had been thinking and meditating. Thus the vision broke upon Ezekiel, and he saw in this vision the final condition of the restored and redeemed people of Israel. He does not picture any method of salvation in these chapters because he conceives of the people as enjoying salvation; they are in a condition of salvation, saved forever. It is the kingdom of God that he has in mind, the kingdom of God set up on earth with its center in Jerusalem and existing in all its glory, blessedness, and beauty. We call it the millennium, for to Ezekiel it was the millennial period of the world’s history.
This picture is cast in the Jewish mold. The best place to the Jew on this earth was in Palestine, his own land. There was death and burial and all the various incidents of life in this blessed age. There were families, there was a city of a certain size, a tabernacle of a certain size, and buildings, and chambers; there was a priesthood, there were sacrifices, there was to be a Prince of the line of David, the messianic Prince. All these things were to comprise the glorious messianic age, was all cast in the Jewish mold, and not to be taken as literal.
Now, in these chapters Ezekiel gives the religious side of the kingdom of Israel. He deals very little with anything but the religious phase. He touches on the geographical side of the country, a little on the civil side of affairs, but puts the emphasis almost entirely upon the religious and ecclesiastical. To Ezekiel religion was the foundation of a nation, for the foundations of national existence and the great informing principles in all national life from the beginning of history to the present time, have been the religious conceptions of the people.
Ezekiel, in vision, was brought by the hand of God into the land of Israel, and set down upon a very high mountain, whereon was, as it were, the frame of a city. Placed upon this high mountain Ezekiel opens his eyes in vision and sees a man, who appears to him as a man of brass. This is an angelic and supernatural being. He has a line of flax in his hand, also a measuring reed, and stands at the gate of this great structure.
Eze 40:1-4 gives the introductory remarks of Ezekiel showing how this vision occurred. He was standing facing the west and also facing the east gate of the great sanctuary. Before him lay an enclosure, a tabernacle, 500 cubits square, measuring probably 800 feet or about 250 yards square. This enclosure was surrounded by a wall six cubits high and six cubits broad, or thick. Right before him was a gate, the east gate, approached by seven steps. The gate itself was really a large building, twenty-five cubits broad altogether and fifty cubits long, reaching into the court of the temple. Inside that gate was the outer court. That outer court was 150 cubits from the outer wall to the inner wall, and one hundred cubits from the inside entrance of the gate to the next gate on the inner wall. This outer court ran around three sides of the enclosure and on these three sides were the pavements and chambers round about on the walls.
He then approached the inner court and that had a gate facing east just the same size as the gate on the outer court, approached by eight steps showing the gradations up into the holy place. Right in front of the gate which was the same size as the other gate, was a square place of 100 cubits and in the center of that was the altar for the burnt offerings. Right behind the gate approached by ten steps was the temple building itself. There was the porch, there the holy place behind it, and the most holy place behind that, and chambers around on three sides. There was a space of five cubits on either side of this temple building and chambers twenty cubits wide on the outside of that space. The raised pavement on which the temple stood was exactly 100 cubits square and reached back to the wall that surrounded the inner court. To the north of the outer court was a gate exactly the same as that of the east gate; to the south, a gate exactly the same as the one Ezekiel entered; on the west there was no gate at all. To the inner court there was a gate to the north and a gate to the south, exactly like the one to the east which Ezekiel entered.
A more detailed description of the temple with its parts is found in Eze 40:5-16 . There he describes the outer gate by which he approaches, ascending seven steps. The outer gate has a threshold, and the entrance into the outer court has on either side three lodges or guard chambers, intended for sentinels who abode there and watched the multitudes that thronged the gates into the temple courts. This entire gate was twenty-five cubits wide by fifty cubits long, reaching fifty cubits into the outer court minus the breadth of the wall.
In Eze 40:17-19 he describes the outer court just inside that gate. That outer court is altogether 150 cubits wide minus the wall and reaches around three sides. It is covered with a pavement and around on these three sides next the wall are chambers, large rooms. What these were for he does not tell us; doubtless they were intended for service in connection with the temple worship.
In Eze 40:20-23 we have described the north gate which is exactly the same as the one on the east which he entered. In Eze 40:24-27 he describes the south gate which is exactly the same as the east and the north gate.
In Eze 40:28-37 he describes the inner court. He enters the gate of the inner court by an approach of eight steps, passes through that fifty cubits deep into the inner court. There is & south gate and a north gate exactly the same, all facing the great altar in the center of the court 100 cubits square in the temple area itself.
In Eze 40:38-43 he describes the tables that are on either side of the north gate that enters into the inner court. Outside in the outer court are four tables for killing the sacrifices and washing them; inside are four tables for the sacrifices, and there are other large stone tables upon which they would lay the instruments for slaying their sacrifices. It was the law of Leviticus that the sacrifices were to be slain north of the altar, so all these tables and instruments are at the north gate which approaches the inner court north of the great altar.
Now in the inner court we have on either side of that court which is about 250 cubits square counting the thickness of the walls on the north side and on the south side, large chambers. These chambers were for the use of the priests in their ministrations. Those on the north were for the use of those who helped the priests in their services; the south for the sons of Zadok who were the leaders among the priests. In Eze 40:38-49 , he approaches the temple itself and the porch facing the temple building; ten steps brings him up on to the raised platform which is exactly 100 cubits square and which contains all the great temple buildings.
In Eze 41:1-14 , he describes the porch, gives the measurements, then the dimensions of the tabernacle which is forty cubits long and twenty cubits wide; then the holy of holies which is exactly twenty cubits square. Ezekiel does not go into the holy of holies; only the messenger goes in and brings out the measurements and tells them to Ezekiel. The walls are six cubits thick; then there are little chambers on either side, and there are walls five cubits thick beyond them. The lower chambers are four Cubits wide, the next, five; the next, six, just the same as those of Solomon’s Temple. All around on either side of that Temple with its chambers, which was nearly forty cubits wide altogether, was an open space of five cubits, and outside of that, again on this pavement of ten cubits, along the two sides were buildings used as chambers for the priests.
In Eze 41:15-26 he describes the inside of the temple proper. It is made of wood, beautifully carved wood, cherubim carved as was Solomon’s Temple; palm trees carved and engraved upon the wood also, and only one altar, no table of shewbread, no golden candlestick, no ark of the covenant, no laws written on tables of stone; they were written on the tables of the heart now and there is no need for an ark of the covenant or for these other things, only an altar representing the prayers and worship of the people. There are doors into the holy place and folding doors into the most holy place. We do not read that Solomon made any doors between those apartments.
Now in Eze 42:1-14 , the other buildings that are inside this inner court are described. This inner court, as we have said, is about 250 cubits square; 100 cubits are taken up by the altar, 100 for the temple buildings and chambers, then there are fifty cubits on either side along the north and south sides. Now these are described in the section we have just mentioned. They are chambers, and one row is three stories high, extending along 100 cubits on the north side of the temple buildings, and south side also a row 100 cubits long. These are for the priests, in which they store their garments, and in which they dress that they may appear before the people in the outer court and perform the services in the inner court.
In Eze 42:15-20 , we have the measurements of the outer wall and the whole area of the buildings. Here he gives the general measurements. Now note that he says 500 reeds. A reed is six cubits. Thus he gives the general measurements such as I have described. Thus far he has been describing the temple and we readily see it is impossible to give all the details.
In Eze 43:1-12 we enter upon a new theme: the vision of the entrance of Jehovah into this house, this temple, to abide forever. Notice that Ezekiel says in the latter part of verse Eze 43:3 : “The visions were like the vision that I saw by the river Chebar.” The same magnificent picture of the four cherubim appears here now right at the gate of the temple and Jehovah thus enters into the temple by the east gate, there to abide forever. Note what he says to Ezekiel as he enters, verses Eze 43:6-7 : “And I heard one speaking unto me out of the house; and a man stood by me. And he said unto me, Son of man, this is the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever. And my holy name shall the house of Israel no more defile.” Thus he goes on to describe the new and blessed condition of Israel and how they are purified from all their sins. Then in Eze 43:10-12 Ezekiel shows to the people this vision of the great temple that they are to have, and he says that they shall be ashamed of their iniquities when they see and learn the pattern. It is a perfect temple, perfect equipment, divinely measured and symbolizes the relation of Jehovah to his people.
Now in Eze 43:13-17 he describes the altar of burnt offerings in the center of that 100 cubits square in the court. Bight in front of the east, north, and south gates: that altar has a base eighteen cubits square and one cubit thick, resting upon the solid earth; then another place above that sixteen cubits square, and another one fourteen cubits square, and the uppermost one twelve cubits square with four projections, or horns, one at each corner. So the altar stands high and is twelve cubits, or about twenty feet, square.
In Eze 43:18-27 he describes the sacrifices and the ceremonies relating to the altar. The sacrifices and ceremonies are to be performed by the sons of Zadok and they are to cleanse the altar and purify it and make it ready for the sacrifices of God.
In Eze 44:1-3 , he says that the east gate was to be kept forever shut, because through that gate Jehovah had entered and he had entered to remain forever, and therefore the gate by which he had entered must be closed forever, and no being in heaven nor on earth should pass through it.
In Eze 44:4-14 , we have the subordinate position of the Levites. The Levites previous to the exile had become idolatrous, almost to a man; they had gone after the worship of idols (but many of the priestly families had remained faithful to Jehovah) and because of that Ezekiel says that the Levites should not serve in the temple, but should be degraded to a secondary position and only the sons of Zadok could minister in the inner court.
In Eze 44:15-30 , Ezekiel gives the precepts and the rules regarding the priests. These priests were of the sons of Zadok. Doubtless, Ezekiel himself belonged to that line. They alone were to go into the inner court; the people were allowed in the outer courts, but only the priests in the inner court. They were to have linen garments and everything was to be so pure and so clean that they were not allowed to wear any garments that would hold perspiration; not one drop of perspiration was allowed to remain in their clothing; they were to be scrupulously clean. Their beards were not to be shaved; they were not to drink any wine while performing the services; they were to marry only a certain class of women, the widow of a priest or a virgin of the house of Israel; they were to teach the people, and they were to be the judges in all cases of the law. The priests were to judge between the litigants. They were to have no possessions, verse Eze 44:28 : “I am their inheritance; and ye shall give them no possessions in Israel; I am their possession.” They were to have all the first-fruits of the land and certain other material resources.
In Eze 45:1-8 , we have the portion of land assigned to the priests. In almost the center of this land of Israel, a space 25,000 cubits wide extending from the Mediterranean Sea to the river Jordan was set apart for the prince and the priests and the city and the temple. In the center of that was a section 25,000 cubits long and 25,000 cubits wide divided thus: 10,000 cubits of the northern part was for the Levites, 10,000 cubits in the center, for the priests and in the center of that was this section we have just described; south of that, 5,000 cubits wide and 25,000 cubits long was the city area and in the center of that was the city itself, about two miles square; lands on either side also about two miles square; the whole section was about eight miles square. The Levites had a section about two by eight miles; the priests had a section about two by eight miles, and the city, a little more than two by eight. At each end of this section reaching to the Mediterranean Sea on the west side, and to the Jordan on the east, was the portion of the prince, or royal family, the messianic king.
In Eze 45:9-17 we have the ordinances for the prince. He was strictly commanded to be just and square in his dealings, and strange to say, the prince received the tithes from all the people of Israel, and he supplied the priests with all their sacrifices, and sustained them out of what the people brought to him. The prince was a very important personage. He was really the Messiah, the messianic King.
In Eze 45:18-25 we have the ordinances for cleansing the temple, for the atonement, for the Passover, and the various offerings, for which see the text.
In Eze 46:1-15 , we have the ordinances for the feasts. They are going to have sacrifices, feasts, pilgrimages, in this blessed messianic age, according to Ezekiel, and he lays down rules for the feasts of the new moon, the sabbath, the Passover, and all other appointed feasts. It is to be the Levitical system carried out to perfection all through the ages. But remember that this is only the Jewish mold into which these blessed events are cast.
In Eze 46:16-18 , Ezekiel says that a prince cannot forfeit permanently his inheritance. If he does deed it to any member of another noble family, it reverts back to the royal family in time. Thus these two portions of land are reserved to the line of David forever.
In Eze 46:19-24 we have described the kitchens for the priests. They are to have kitchens in the temple, and in the far northwest corner of the inner court, and the far southwest corner of this inner court are great buildings that serve as kitchens where the priests are to boil their meat for these services in the temple; then in the same corners of the outer court are large buildings where they are going to boil the meat and sacrifices for the people. The Levites are to do this, as they are not allowed in the inner court.
In Eze 47:1-12 Ezekiel describes a stream which issues from the temple and flows down to the inner court and outer court and out by the east gate through which Ezekiel had entered and through which Jehovah had entered, and which is forever closed, down across the land toward the valley of the Jordan and the Dead Sea. Many have preached from that chapter on “The River of Life.” It ran through that desert land, and coursed down to the awful wilderness surrounding the Dead Sea, making everything green and the trees bore their fruit every month, the analogue of John’s vision of the River of Life flowing through the great city of God. Then it flows through those deserts and into the Dead Sea healing the water which became alive with fishes and everything the river touches lives. It flows down into the barren deserts, the dead seas of life, the worthless places, and heals them. There are certain portions by that Dead Sea that Ezekiel says were given to salt, the marshes. These were not healed but were given to salt as they needed the salt in the east for their sacrifices and their food, that was a hot climate. Thus closes the vision of Ezekiel of the land of Israel. The land is rich and verdant, teeming with life and fruitage; it is the blessed messianic age. (See the author’s sermon on “The River of Life.”)
Eze 47:13-23 describe the boundaries of the Holy Land and the privilege of strangers attaching themselves to the tribes. The boundaries of the Holy Land we cannot exactly fix but they extend west to the Mediterranean Sea; to about the entering in of Hamath for the northern boundary; the eastern boundary is the valley of Jordan down through the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea; the southern boundary is by way of Kadeshbarnea and to the brook of Egypt. That is Ezekiel’s Holy Land.
In Eze 48:1-7 , he tells what tribes are going to live north of the oblation. This tract of land, 25,000 cubits wide and reaching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan, is the oblation; the tribes that are to live north of the oblation we find in verses 1-7. To the far north is Dan; south of him is Asher, reaching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan Valley; the same for Napthali, and a similar section for Manasseh, Ephraim, Reuben, and Judah, bordering on the oblation which was the center and contained the portion for the Levites, temple, city, and prince. Why he has them in that order we cannot tell.
In Eze 48:8-22 we have the oblation itself and its divisions again described: 25,000 cubits wide, reaching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan and in the center of that square, 10,000 to the north for the Levites, 10,000 for the priests and in the center of that, the temple; then a section, 5,000 wide to the south for the city. We see by this that Ezekiel does not think that the temple should be in the city, and he separated them by a distance of about three miles. The city is about two miles square. It has land on either side of it which is to support the people. Ezekiel makes no provision for the growth of the city, nor for the increase of the Levites, nor for the priests; there they are and they are going to abide forever.
In Eze 48:23-29 , he gives the tribes south of the city, and the first one is Benjamin. Ezekiel puts Judah north and Benjamin south, while before, they had always been the reverse. Below that is Simeon, then Issachar, then Zebulun, and Gad; previously they had been closer together.
Then Eze 48:30-35 tell of the gates of the city. There are three on each of the four sides. This is the analogue of John’s magnificent vision of the holy city “on the east three gates, on the north three gates, and on the south three gates, and on the west three gates.” He goes on to show which tribes shall enter in by these several gates: three tribes on one side, etc., grouping Ephraim and Manasseh under the name of Joseph. He closes by saying, Eze 48:35 , “And the name of the city from that day shall be Jehovah-shammah,” Jehovah is there, that is, all this land is to be sanctified by the presence of Jehovah, from Dan in the far north to Gad in the far south. As one approaches the oblation, it is to be more holy; the domain of the priests and the sanctuary, still more holy. The outer court, the inner court, the temple platform, the holy place, then the most holy of all.
That is Ezekiel’s picture of the great messianic age. He believed that all the people that inhabited this land were people who had a new heart and a right spirit, who had the old stony heart taken out of them and a heart of flesh given them; that God’s laws were written in their hearts and on their minds; that they walked in his statutes and in his law; converted people, regenerated people, living in bliss upon the earth.
Will this ever be literally fulfilled? Can it be possible that when Jesus Christ comes this will be fulfilled as Ezekiel pictures it? Our pre-millennialist brethren believe that this will be literally fulfilled. They believe that Christianity must revert back to Judaism with Jerusalem as its center. To me it is unthinkable that our gospel with its worldwide vision and mission can become so cabbined, cribbed, coffined, and confined that it will be shut up to Palestine and to Judaism. That would be an unthinkable anticlimax.
QUESTIONS
1. What was the date of the writing of this prophecy?
2. What was Ezekiel doing during the thirteen years between his last prophecy before this and this one and what the bearing on this last prophecy?
3. Give a bird’s eye view of the temple as Been by Ezekiel.
4. Give a more detailed description of the temple with its parts.
5. Describe Jehovah’s entrance into this temple and give its significance.
6. Describe the altar of burnt offerings and the sacrifices to be offered thereon.
7. What is the ordinance regarding the east gate and why?
8. What the ordinance respecting the position of the Levites and why?
9. What ordinances regarding the priests?
10. What provisions were made for the priests?
11. What are the ordinances regarding the prince and what special provision for the people by the prince?
12. What are the ordinances for cleansing the temple, etc.?
13. What are the ordinances for the feasts?
14. What are the ordinances for the inheritance of the prince?
15. What is the special provision for the work of the priests and Levites?
16. Describe Ezekiel’s “River of Life” and give its significance.
17. Give the boundaries of Ezekiel’s holy land.
18. What are tribes are to be north of the oblation?
19. Describe the oblation itself.
20. What are the tribes south of the oblation?
21. Describe the gates of the city and give the position of the tribes.
22. What do you say of the fulfilment of this magnificent prophetic picture by Ezekiel?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Eze 44:1 Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it [was] shut.
Ver. 1. Then he brought me back. ] From the east gate, which was found shut, to the north gate, where the prophet received large instructions. Eze 44:4 Christ must be followed, though he seem to lead us in and out, backward and forward, as if we were treading a maze.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Ezekiel Chapter 44
The prophet is again brought back to the gate that looks toward the east. This time it was shut. When he saw it before, the glory of Jehovah came by this very way into the house, and filled it. This gives occasion for the word of Jehovah. And there is ample instruction to decide its application. “Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. Then said Jehovah unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because Jehovah, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before Jehovah; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.” (Ver. 1-3)
The entrance of Jehovah, the God of Israel, was enough to close it for all but His representative. But He will have a representative upon earth – the prince – and the prince stall sit “to eat bread before Jehovah.” He is to have the honour of entering in and going cut by the way of the porch of that gate. No high priest ever claimed this. Indeed it is not a priest but the prince, the earthly chief of Israel. We shall learn from chapters 45 and 46. a little more about the prince. Suffice it to say that he is certainly not the Messiah, for although he is thoroughly distinguished from a priest, he needs to offer a sin-offering, and he may have sons. Doubtless it is a future prince of the house of David.
“Then brought he me the way of the north gate before the house. And I looked, and behold the glory of Jehovah filled the house of Jehovah; and I fell upon my face.” It is clearly the kingdom. The prince shall be there, and the glory of Jehovah too. No approach to it has yet been seen, only a type had once been in the days of Solomon. Greater things are yet in store for Israel.
“And Jehovah said unto me, Son of man, mark well; behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears, all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of Jehovah, and all the laws thereof. And mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary.” (Ver. 5) It is here that men have failed to set their heart. They have not understood the difference between all the ordinances and laws of the house here noted, and the past circumstances of the temple. They have failed to mark well, and confounded all with that which has been. Indeed it is where man habitually is dull. The Holy Ghost alone can show us “things to come” according to God.
“And thou shalt say to the rebellious, to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Let it suffice you of all your abominations, in that ye have brought children of a stranger, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat, and the blood; and they have broken my covenant, because of all your abominations.” (Vers. 6, 7) There will be no following of idols any more. Israel will have done with all their abominations. No longer will there be a tampering with the priesthood, nor yet a breach of Jehovah’s covenant. Holiness will be observed henceforth in the house of Jehovah for ever. Here He reminds them of their sins, but shows that there can be no toleration of such ways longer.
“And ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things, but ye have set keepers of my ordinance in my sanctuary for yourselves.” (Ver. 8) There is an end of every such failure.
“Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, no stranger uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel. And the Levites that are gone away far from me, when Israel went astray, when Israel went astray far from me, shall even bear their iniquity. Yet they shall be ministers in my sanctuary, having charge of the gates of the house, and ministering to the house. They shall slay the burnt-offering, and the sacrifice for the people; and they shall stand before them, to minister unto them. Because they ministered unto them before their idols, and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity, therefore have I lifted up mine hand against them, saith the Lord Jehovah, and they shall bear their iniquity. And they shall not come near unto me to do the office of a priest unto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things in the most holy place, but they shall-bear their shame and their abominations which they have committed. But I will make them keepers of the charge of the house, for all the service thereof, and for all that shall be done therein.” (Ver. 9-14)
Thus the Levites who had turned aside will feel their shame in the days of the kingdom. They are degraded from their proper work – at least in its higher parts – and are only allowed to do menial service for the sanctuary. Sad contrast with the Levites in the days of Moses, when even Aaron revolted! But it is the days of the kingdom, and righteousness governs. Past reputation will not suffice. If their sons have walked unfaithfully before Jehovah appears in glory, they must bear the consequences. Jehovah shall be exalted in that day, and those who have humbled themselves will He exalt in due time.
So Israel must here learn in due time upon the earth. We have had the prince and the Levites; the rest of the chapter concerns the priests.
If evidence be wanted to know the just application of this final vision (Ezek. 40-48), one can hardly conceive of anything plainer or more decisive than the latter verses of our chapter convey. It is not at all a ministry to preach the good news of God in indiscriminate grace or to establish the children of God in His truth and their privileges. The church state is gone before this prophecy begins to be fulfilled, as surely as that church state began long after the prophecy was written. As we have seen the house of Jehovah with its inner and outer courts, its gates and its porches, its separate place, its chambers, and its sanctuary, so now we have the sons of Zadok as the priests the Levites who alone are authorised to draw near in divine services for Israel.
It is in vain to plead that under Christianity there are priests; for this does not mean a class of Christian officials who represent their brethren and enjoy a greater nearness to God than the rest. It is the mystic priesthood of those who believe in Christ. They are all free to draw near to God, being equally brought nigh by the blood of Jesus. To assert a relationship of greater nearness for some is to deny the gospel not only for the others but for all; inasmuch as it is the very essence of it that grace now puts all who are Christ’s in the same absolute perfection by His blood. The efficacy of His sacrifice is complete, unchanging and everlasting. He annuls the work of Christ who attributes to it a various value; he has only a human traditional notion of it; he has not learnt what God reveals as to it. The teaching accordingly of the New Testament is that all who believe are priests. The same precious blood which has blotted out their sins has brought themselves near to God. They are in Christ before Him. As there was no difference of old in their sinfulness, so is there none in their access to God. We have therefore, all alike, boldness for entering into the holy places by the blood of Jesus, the new and living way which He has dedicated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh. We are a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices to God by Jesus Christ, yea, a royal priesthood to set forth the excellencies of Him who called us out of darkness to His wonderful light.
But here it is a certain favoured portion of the chosen people who could represent all where the rest could not go; and as this is an earthly priesthood, so the offerings are akin. “But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith Jehovah God: They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge.” (Vers. 15, 16) “The fat” and “the blood” according to the law were Jehovah’s portion, as we see claimed punctiliously in the directions for the peace-offering. (Lev 3:7 ) It has been pointed out already that, though the altar in the Old Testament is designated the table of Jehovah, nowhere is the Lord’s table in the New Testament spoken of as His altar. The altar of old might fittingly be styled His table because thereon was laid and consumed “the food of the offering made by fire unto Jehovah.” This in no way applies to the New Testament, where it is no question of any such oblation but of the church’s communion in the remembrance of Christ and thus in showing forth His death.
The details quite fall in with the remarks just made and confirm them. Thus linen was enjoined for the priestly ministration and wool forbidden; and this for the head as well as the body. Their ordinary clothes are all well outside, but they must wear the due priestly garments in their office and lay them in the holy chambers. They must neither shave their heads nor wear long hair; they must drink no wine when they enter into the inner court. They must not marry a widow save of a priest or maidens of Israel. “And it shall come to pass, [that] when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within. They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird [themselves] with anything that causeth sweat. And when they go forth into the utter court into the utter court to the people, they shall put off their garments wherein they ministered, and lay them in the holy chambers, and they shall put on other garments; and they shall not sanctify the people with their garments. Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads. Neither shall any priest drink wine, when they enter into the inner court. Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away: but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before.” (Ver. 17-22) It is clearly a repetition of Levitical order for the earthly priests of Israel in the days of the future kingdom, with even increase of strictness in this that all the priests are to be put under the conditions of marriage laid of old on the high priest. But in their literal bearing these precepts have no reference to Christians, still less to any class among them.
Their duties are next shown to embrace both ceremonial and judicial decisions. “And they shall teach my people [the difference] between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean. And in controversy they shall stand in judgment; they shall judge it according to my judgments; and they shall keep my laws and my statutes in all mine assemblies; and they shall hallow my sabbaths.” (Vers. 23, 24)
The law of defilement for the dead holds as rigidly as ever. “And they shall come at no dead person to defile themselves; but for father, or for mother, or for son, or for daughter, for brother, or for sister that hath had no husband, they may defile themselves. And after he is cleansed, they shall reckon unto him seven days. And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin-offering, saith the Lord Jehovah.” (Ver. 25-27) Death may be but rare and exceptional in that day, but so much the more reason was there why the priests should not be under its power in any way.
They are to be content with Jehovah as their inheritance, instead of the carnal portion of an Israelite. But they are appointed their share out of His offerings, dedicated things and first-fruits, abstaining from any food of what had died of itself or been torn. “And it shall be unto them for an inheritance: I [am] their inheritance; and ye shall give them no possession in Israel; I [am] their possession. They shall eat the meat-offering, and the sin-offering, and the trespass-offering; and every dedicated thing in Israel shall be theirs. And the first of all the first-fruits of all [things], and every oblation of all, of every [sort] of your oblations, shall be the priest’s: ye shall also give unto the priest the first of your dough, that he may cause the blessing to rest in thine house. The priests shall not eat of anything that is dead of itself, or torn, whether it be fowl or beast.” (Ver. 28-81) Surely it is not needful to demonstrate that these regulations are wholly outside Christianity; yet will they assuredly be in force when the glory of Jehovah visits and governs the earth. In heaven, or to the partakers of the heavenly calling, they are quite inapplicable. They will be lessons beautiful in their place and season. They are but beggarly elements now if taken literally, whatever spiritual instruction they furnish, as they undoubtedly may and do.
All turns on Christ. If He is known to faith while He is on high on the Father’s throne, a heavenly relationship is formed; and “as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.” But when He is manifested in glory and takes the earth, there will be a corresponding change in the relative place of His people. They will be no longer heavenly but earthly; and the Holy Spirit will not form them into the one body of a heavenly Head, but place them as Israel and the nations in their due positions, and of course, distinct; though the old enmity and jealous alienation shall have passed away under the reign of Him whom all own as Jehovah, king over the whole earth. Hence also earthly distinctions as priests and Levites, with the other features of an earthly worship, are again set up according to the will of God, instead of a common place of heavenly nearness in Christians as now.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Eze 44:1-3
1Then He brought me back by the way of the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces the east; and it was shut. 2The Lord said to me, This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut. 3As for the prince, he shall sit in it as prince to eat bread before the Lord; he shall enter by way of the porch of the gate and shall go out by the same way.
Eze 44:1-3 This text is often used as a prophecy relating to modern Jerusalem, Israel. The modern city’s wall has a sealed eastern gate, but these are not the walls of Jerusalem that were built by Solomon, Nehemiah, or even Herod. These modern walls were built by an Islamic ruler in the ninth century a.d. Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus in a.d. 70.
Ezekiel’s temple is symbolic of YHWH’s return to Palestine and His fulfillment of the covenant promises of the Mosaic covenant. Notice in context that this passage refers to YHWH Himself, who has already returned! He left the temple from this place (cf. chapters 8-10) and He once-and-for-all returned to this place (cf. Eze 44:4; Eze 43:4-5).
Eze 44:3 the prince This is a Messianic reference (cf. Eze 34:24; Eze 37:24-25).
eat bread before the Lord This is a metaphor of worship and covenant (cf. Gen 31:54; Exo 24:9-11). To eat with someone was a sign of friendship and fellowship. It was one way to seal a covenant. This fellowship meal is institutionalized in the Peace Offering and the meal that follows (cf. Leviticus 3, 7).
Also note that there is no hint that the prince is divine. The NT deity of the Messiah was a surprise because it seems to conflict with monotheism. Only the NT clearly reveals this surprising truth (i.e., Joh 1:1-14; Php 2:6-11; Col 1:15-18; Heb 1:2-3).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
the gate of the outward sanctuary = the outer gate of the sanctuary.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 44
Now as we get to chapter 44, we come to a prophecy that is so often misinterpreted. And I must confess to you that I have often misinterpreted this prophecy. And as I read it more carefully and have read it more carefully this time, and this is one of the problems I have with this last portion of Ezekiel, that every time I read it I seem to see something else that I didn’t quite understand before and my whole views have to change again.
But he brought me back to the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looks toward the east; and it was shut ( Eze 44:1 ).
Now, you go over to Jerusalem today and the east gate of the wall of Jerusalem is shut. It has been walled shut. There are big stones, and the gate is shut. And they will often point to this gate and declare to you that this gate being shut is actually the fulfillment of Eze 44:1-31 . And that this gate is shut and it’s going to be shut until the prince comes to enter through the gate. But if you’ll read the whole thing carefully, you’ll come to, first of all, the realization that the prince here is not Jesus Christ. For as we move along a little further, the prince has sons who he gives his inheritance to. The prince is mentioned some thirteen times here and he will be a prince, but not as we so often have thought of as Jesus Christ. The gate that is here shut is open for the prince. He uses it as an entry and as an exit, that is the gate towards the east, and it’s only for his entrance into the court. Those others who come in come from the gates to the north and the south. But it is not the gate that is called today the Golden Gate on the east wall of the ancient wall of Jerusalem.
Now, the reason why that gate is closed and walled up is someone misinterpreted this prophecy a long time ago. Of the prince or the Messiah coming in through the east gate and they thought that they would hinder His coming by sealing up that gate towards the east. But as I read this more carefully, I find that this is the gate to the sanctuary. It will be in this new temple and it is the gate into the sanctuary itself, and thus cannot be that gate towards the east that you find blocked over there. And I suggest that you read this again more carefully. Now, I found this a great disappointment, because I love to point out that gate to the people and read to them this prophecy out of Ezekiel, and show to them how, “Look, it’s sealed, it’s shut, and it’s going to remain that way until the Messiah the Prince enters in.”
But the prince here is not referred to as the Messiah, nor is he referred to as David. Now in other places we do have the Prince David and the reference there and the prince definitely there is Jesus Christ. But this prince is never referred to as David here in the forty-fourth chapter onward. And it speaks much about the prince, and as I say it speaks of his sons to whom he gives an inheritance and his servants. And that pretty much precludes Jesus Christ as the prince.
But as we read it, “He brought me back to the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary and it looks toward the east; and it was shut.”
Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it is not to be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD the God of Israel hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut ( Eze 44:2 ).
The glory of the Lord entered in by the east gate and for that reason it was to be shut.
But it is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of the gate, and he shall go out by the way of the same. And then he brought me to the way of the north gate before the house: and I looked, and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD: and I fell on my face ( Eze 44:3-4 ).
So coming around to this gate to the north as Ezekiel looked in, even as the glory of the Lord filled the temple of Solomon, so the glory of the Lord filled the temple area, and Ezekiel falls upon his face.
And the LORD said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and behold with your eyes, and hear with your ears all that I say concerning all of the ordinances of the house of the LORD, and all of the laws thereof; and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary ( Eze 44:5 ).
So he’s told now by the Lord to make a careful account of this, mark it well.
Thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations, In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, who were uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh ( Eze 44:6-7 ),
Paul the apostle speaks about circumcision of the heart. And many times people who go through a ritual that has a symbolism soon begin to trust in the ritual, but there is no reality. And thus it is a meaningless ritual. The ritual of circumcision was actually to speak of a people who were not living after the flesh but living after the spirit. The cutting off of the flesh, and so it was the denial of the flesh life to live the life of the spirit. But the rite itself did not guarantee that. Many people who had gone through the rite of circumcision were still living after the flesh. And so the whole ritual was totally negated by the fact that they were living after the flesh.
Now the ritual of baptism is to signify that your old man was crucified and you’re living the new life after Jesus Christ. The old man after the flesh is dead; he’s buried in the waters of baptism and now you have a whole new life in the spirit. But the ritual is totally meaningless if after the baptism you are still living after the flesh, the old life of the flesh and after the nature of the old man. And I don’t care how many ways or times you’ve been baptized; it’s only a ritual and it becomes a meaningless ritual unless there is the reality that has been carried through in your life. And so the important thing is not if you’ve experienced the ritual, but have you experienced the reality of which the ritual is a symbol.
And so he speaks here of the uncircumcision of the heart and Paul picks that up in the book of Romans showing to the Jews that the rite of circumcision was totally negated by the fact that they were still living after the flesh, for God wants the circumcision of the heart, not of the flesh. And it’s the circumcision of the heart that counts. That is, what has gone on within your heart is what really matters to God, not what you’ve done in outward rituals. And this is where people today who are trusting in rituals are in great danger. Because it could be just a meaningless thing that you have gone through. And the church has many rituals that become totally meaningless unless there is the corresponding reality in your life. The ritual means nothing apart from the reality that has happened in your life.
So you say, “Well, I take communion.” So. “I’ve been baptized.” So. Those are marvelous rituals. They are very meaningful rituals if the truth has been actualized in your own experience. But there are many people that are just trusting in the fact that they have taken the communion so my sins are washed. Or I’ve been baptized so I’m a new creature. But there’s got to be a corresponding reality in our lives.
And so God is speaking against these that have come in before Him uncircumcised in their hearts and in their flesh. And so in this future temple there will be nothing allowed in that defiles or that is defiled.
Now there’s an interesting thing to me as we get down to verse Eze 44:17 .
It shall come to pass, that [that is when the priests] enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, while they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within ( Eze 44:17 ).
So once they come into that inner court, the area where the priests came to minister to the Lord the offering and the sacrifices and so forth, there was to be only linen garments worn, no wool.
They shall have on linen bonnets upon their heads, linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causes sweat ( Eze 44:18 ).
Now that to me is extremely interesting. God really doesn’t want you to sweat when you’re serving Him. But perspiration is quite often a sign of the lack of inspiration. And when you don’t have inspiration quite often you need perspiration to get through. Now, Jesus said, “My yoke is easy; My burden is light” ( Mat 11:30 ). One thing God never wants is that man complaining of his service or what he has given to God. That is why the New Testament teaches us that you are to determine in your own heart what you’re to give. No one should be pressuring you, pushing you, exciting you to give. But every man should determine in his own heart that which he is going to give to the Lord and then he should give to God with a joyful heart or with a hilarious spirit. For God loves a hilarious giver. God wants you to be hilarious over everything you’ve given to Him. He never wants you to be begrudging or griping about what you’ve given. God doesn’t want any service that requires sweat.
God doesn’t want any complaining over what has been given to Him. Therefore, if you cannot give to God hilariously you would be better off not giving at all. Especially if you find yourself complaining or griping about what you have given to God. What an insult to God that I would go around complaining or griping about what I gave.
That is why we are extremely careful here never to try to excite people to give to God or even to encourage people to give to God. In fact, you notice you who were at the third service I think it was this morning when Mark was making the announcements after he said, “The ushers will now come to ta..receive the offering.” I’ve told the young men, “Now look, we don’t take offerings from people. We receive offerings.” We’ll be glad to receive what you want to give to God, but we’re not going to take anything from you. We don’t want to take anything from you. If you want to give to God we’ll receive it, but it’s completely up to you what God has laid upon your heart. There’ll never be any pressures for pledges or anything else, because that is something between you and God. And when you give it to God, you should be giving it hilariously, happily, joyfully unto the Lord, and that the Lord accepts and will bless you for it. But He doesn’t want you going out of here saying, “Ohhh, I don’t know what I’m going to do. I’ve given so much to God. Ohhh.” God just can’t stand that, and He doesn’t want that kind of giving. Nor does He want pressured service, where I’m under a pressure; I’m sweating as I’m serving God. So it’s very significant to me that they are to wear only linen. They are not to wear anything that would cause sweat.
Now when they go out to the people then they change their garments. And the garments that they ministered in, they lay them there in the holy chambers.
Now neither are they to shave their heads, nor allow their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads. Neither shall any priest drink wine, when he enters into the inner court ( Eze 44:20-21 ).
Again, God does not want service under any false stimulant. We remember when the tabernacle was first erected there in the wilderness and the fire of God came and kindled the coals on the altar and the sacrifice was consumed. An exciting moment because here was spontaneous combustion. They had set the sacrifice upon the altar, they were ready to institute the whole thing when fire came from God and the altar was kindled. An exciting moment because the glory of God ascended upon the tabernacle. And all of the people fell on their faces when they saw this and it was a glorious, exciting moment. God manifested His presence in the midst of the people. And the two sons of Aaron grabbed their little censors and they put incense in them and they went to offer incense before the Lord, but they lit their censors with fire that God called strange fire. And the fire came out from the altar and the two sons of Aaron were killed, were consumed by the fire that came from the altar. And then the Lord in instructing Moses said, “Tell Aaron and his sons that they are not to drink wine when they come or before they come to offer before the Lord the sacrifice or when the come before the Lord to serve.” Not to be drinking wine. Because God does not want service out of any kind of a false stimulant. God wants your mind to be totally clear. I know what I’m doing. I’m not being falsely stimulated as I am serving God.
I know that God has forgiven me, but I am guilty of having stimulated people to serve God with false stimulants. I used to offer to the children bicycles if they would bring so many to Sunday school. The one who brings the most will get a free trip to Disneyland. And I used to offer all kinds of incentives to get the kids to hustle their friends into Sunday school. And these incentives that I was offering to the children were actually false stimulants and I was guilty of offering these kind of false incentives for serving God. The only incentive that God wants you to serve Him with is the incentive of a heart of love. Paul said, “For the love of Christ constrains me.” And the only real service that God will accept from you is that service that comes from a heart of love. That’s the only stimulant any of us should ever need. We sing the chorus, “I will serve You because I love You,” and that’s what it’s all about. That’s the stimulant for serving God. God doesn’t want you to serve Him under any other stimulant. He doesn’t want you to serve Him in order that you might please the pastor or please the committee chairman, or please the board or whatever. He wants you to serve him only because you love Him. And that is why we have steered so totally away from any kind of contests or anything else that would create a false stimulant for people to serve God. That’s why we never ask people to serve God.
So many times people come up and they say, “We’ve been coming to Calvary for a long time and we used to be involved in church and we love teaching Sunday school. How do you get to… how do you become a Sunday school teacher here?” And we say, “Well, you just found out. You have to ask.” No one’s going to come asking you putting a Sunday school book in your hand and saying, “Would you please teach our second graders in the third service?” If you want to serve the Lord there are plenty of opportunities for you to serve Him, but no one’s going to be pressuring you or pushing you to do it. God’s got to do that work in your heart and you’re going to serve Him out of your love for Him. And that way we don’t have to be kickin’ everybody week by week to keep them going. We don’t have to be pushing.
I went back to Lubbock, Texas and pastored… or not pastored, I ministered for a week or so in a southern Baptist church in Lubbock. And the pastor back there said something I thought was extremely interesting. He said, “We decided to let every program die a natural death.” He said, “We decided to take off the artificial systems and let everything die that couldn’t survive on its own. We weren’t going to keep things going with artificial support systems.” He said, “We’ve been doing that for too many years.” And they just allowed all of the programs in the church to die that just didn’t carry with their own momentum. I thought that was extremely wise. Pretty much we do the same thing here. We do not have any artificial life support systems by which we’re keeping any programs alive. And we’re very blunt and plain about it. If God wants something to go it’ll go. He’s able to make it go and we’re not going to try and push it when God’s trying to kill it. Let it die a natural death with dignity and don’t keep the thing going with these artificial supports.
So the priests were not to drink any wine when they entered into the inner court. And their wives,
They were not to take a wife who was a widow, nor her who had been divorced: but they shall take maidens [or virgins] from the house of Israel, or a widow whose husband was a priest. And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and the profane ( Eze 44:22-23 ),
This is something that we were talking about this morning, how important it is for us to discern between what is holy and what is profane. And that’s the ministry of the priests. They were to cause them, the people, to discern these things.
In any controversies they would stand in judgment; and judge according to my judgments: they shall keep my laws and statutes in all my assemblies; and they shall hallow my sabbaths ( Eze 44:24 ).
And it goes on to give the laws and all respecting the priests there in the Kingdom Age.
They shall not receive any inheritance; for the LORD is their inheritance ( Eze 44:28 ):
Much as the priests were at the time of Joshua when they came into the land. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Eze 44:1-3
Eze 44:1-3
Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. 2 Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. 3 It is for the prince; 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.
Duties of the Prince and the Priests. Eze 44:1-31.
Vision of the Prince and the Gate. Eze 44:1-3.
Ezekiel’s angel-guide brought him back to the eastern gate of the inner court of the sanctuary; the gate was shut and Ezekiel heard God declare that it was to remain shut. This raises several questions: why was it shut; when was it shut; who is the Prince of the gate? The answer to the first question is suggested in the text. Jehovah returned to the temple through the east gate just as he had departed through the east gate (Eze 10:1-22; Eze 11:22-25). When God returned he promised never again to depart the city or temple (Eze 37:28; cf. Eze 14:11; Eze 34:30-31; Eze 37:24-28). Closing the east gate was a way of providing an affirming sign of his intention to remain in permanent residence. Ezekiel was not told when the gate was closed, but it is evident that it was closed when he saw it.
Today the eastern gate, also called the Golden Gate, is a significant holy site for three religions — Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Jews believe that when the Messiah comes he will open the east gate and enter the temple mount first and then enter the city of Jerusalem. Moslems believe that the gate is the site of final judgment and call it the gate of heaven and hell; they believe the final judgment of humanity will take place before the eastern gate and the redeemed are those who will be allowed to enter the temple mount; all others will be outcasts. The gate was open in Jesus’ day and perhaps he did use it on Palm Sunday as tradition suggests.
In 70 A.D. the temple, along with the eastern gate and the entire city of Jerusalem were destroyed. The gate that is there now is a seventh century A.D. structure, perhaps modified by the Crusaders and partially destroyed by the Ottoman Turks, who rebuilt the gate in the early sixteenth century. The Turkish governor of Jerusalem closed and walled up the gate in A.D. 1530 and it has remained closed since then.
Who is the Prince of the gate?
Some suggest that it is the Messiah. This is inconsistent with the fact that the prince made a sin offering for himself (cf. Eze 45:22), which Christ did not need (Heb 4:15). In addition, this leader had natural children (Eze 46:16). Some suggest that it is David resurrected and serving in the temple during the millennium. This is generally based on Eze 34:23-24 and Eze 37:24; however, these passages have been shown to apply to Christ, not David. Still others suggest that it is a special representative of the Messiah who will serve as an administrator of the temple, temple area, and sacred district.
The word translated prince usually was associated with royalty, but prior to the monarchy it was a general term that meant a “leader.” The use of this term to describe the office of the eastern gate seems consistent with the view that he is to be a leader of the people; his identity must remain unknown. The physical posture of sitting “in the gate” is also a familiar term of leadership in a municipality. Lot was “sitting in the gateway” of Sodom when the angel messengers came to warn him of the destruction of the city (Gen 19:1-19). This was an indication that he was a city official.
The city gates functioned as a town council, chamber of commerce, city court, and welcome wagon all in one. Amos decried the lack of justice in the gate and indicted the city fathers because they were corrupt and could be bribed into perverting justice. Thus the rich were able to secure whatever injustice they could buy, and the poor were disadvantaged (Amo 5:10; Amo 5:12; Amo 5:15; Pro 22:22).
The prince of Ezekiel’s temple is a godly representative of the messianic King. He will sit in the gate, commune with God, and serve as a guarantor of mercy, justice, and righteousness. He will be the perfect spiritual-administrative leader of the restored kingdom. The east gate is assigned to the priests (Eze 44:1-3). The priesthood is reproved and condemned for their sins (Eze 44:4-14). Next are given specific regulations for cleansing and purifying the priesthood (Eze 44:15-31).
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
The next section described the service of the new Temple. It commenced with the command that the eastern gate, through which Jehovah entered, must be kept closed, and that no man should be allowed to pass through it. The only exception to this rule was that the prince should eat his bread in the gate of Jehovah’s entrance.
Again the prophet beheld the glory of the Lord, and was solemnly charged to pay special attention to the ordinances of the house of the Lord and the laws thereof, which were about to be given to him. These ordinances provided, first, that under no circumstances should aliens or the uncircumcised in the heart or flesh serve in the sanctuary of Jehovah. This had been the sin of the past, and must not be repeated.
The Levites who had gone astray in the olden days, and who had been punished on account of their iniquity, while being excluded from the office of the priest, were, nevertheless, to be restored to the charge of the house and all its service. The sons of Zadok who had remained faithful to the charge of the sanctuary in the days of Israel’s unfaithfulness and apostasy were appointed to stand as priests before Jehovah in the new Temple. They were instructed about the garments they were to wear in the exercise of their office, their duties of teaching the people to distinguish between holy and common, their purification after necessary defilement by contact with the dead, and, finally, that they were to have no inheritance among the people, finding all they needed in Jehovah and His service.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Chapter Forty-four
Ordinances For The Priests
The chief theme of this chapter is that of the regulations under which the priests of Jehovah were to serve in His temple. In these we may see, in the main, a repetition of instruction given by Moses long before, as recorded in the book of Leviticus particularly, much of which had been ignored and even definitely disobeyed after idolatry came in and rulers, priests, and people drifted farther and farther from God. The reiteration of these commandments as given here tells us, in veiled form, of the unhindered worship that will be offered to the Lord in the coming glorious day of Israels cleansing and regeneration.
First, however, we read of a prince who is to occupy a place of special privilege and authority in that day.
Then he brought me back by the way of the outer gate of the sanctuary, which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. And Jehovah said unto me, This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, neither shall any man enter in by it; for Jehovah, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it; therefore it shall be shut. As for the prince, he shall sit therein as prince to eat bread before Jehovah; he shall enter by the way of the porch of the gate, and shall go out by the way of the same-vers. 1-3.
Many have thought they saw in the Golden Gate so-called, on the east of the temple-area, the fulfilment of this prophetic vision. But the east gate here is clearly that of the temple seen by the prophet. By way of that gate the glory returned to fill the house: this was Jehovahs entrance into His sanctuary. Henceforth, the gate was to be closed to all men, no matter how exalted in rank or conspicuous for piety.
The prince, who will be in all probability a lineal descendant of David, hence his son, enters the court by way of the porch of the gate but not through the gate itself. But he eats bread within the entryway of the gate, inside the court, thus enjoying a special place of communion and fellowship.
The prophet proceeds to tell of the privileges and responsibilities of the priests.
Then he brought me by the way of the north gate before the house; and I looked, and, behold, the glory of Jehovah filled the house of Jehovah: and I fell upon my face. And Jehovah said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of Jehovah, and all the laws thereof; and mark well the entrance of the house, with every egress of the sanctuary. And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations, in that ye have brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary, to profane it, even My house, when ye offer My bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken My convenant, to add unto all your abominations. And ye have not kept the charge of My holy things; but ye have set keepers of My charge in My sanctuary for yourselves. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My sanctuary, of any foreigners that are among the children of Israel. But the Levites that went far from Me, when Israel went astray, that went astray from Me after their idols, they shall bear their iniquity. Yet they shall be ministers in My sanctuary, having oversight at the gates of the house, and ministering in the house: they shall slay the burnt-offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister unto them. Because they ministered unto them before their idols, and became a stumblingblock of iniquity unto the house of Israel; therefore have I lifted up My hand against them, saith the Lord Jehovah, and they shall bear their iniquity. And they shall not come near unto Me, to execute the office of priest unto Me, nor to come near to any of My holy things, unto the things that are most holy: but they shall bear their shame, and their abominations which they have committed. Yet will I make them keepers of the charge of the house, for all the service thereof, and for all that shall be done therein-vers. 4-14.
In that house, so resplendent with the manifest presence of Jehovah, the glory which of old filled Solomons temple on the occasion of its dedication but which was never seen in the later temple, the priests of the Lord will have free access, but their behavior and habiliments must be in accordance with the law of the house. All idolatry is to be forever abolished: no more will Jehovahs house be defiled or His priests contaminated by pagan practices. He alone is to be exalted in that day. Heretofore, self-will and disobedience had prevailed: henceforth the statutes of Jehovah were to be kept in truth and faithfulness, and His priests were to remember they were separated to Himself.
No stranger to the divine covenant was to enter those sacred precincts. They who worshipped there were to be circumcised in heart, not only in the flesh. All filthiness of flesh and spirit were to be put away. We may see the full meaning of this in the instructions given to the church at Corinth in 2Co 6:14-18; 2Co 7:1. The same standard was set forth as expressing Gods will for the priests who should minister in this glorious sanctuary.
Neglect of these requirements had brought judgment upon both priests and Levites. Adherence to them would be the precursor to blessing, and would insure Gods continued delight in His people. Again we would be reminded that every offering spoke of Christ and some special aspect of His work: therefore, we need have no difficulty when we read once more of sacrifices and offerings such as were commanded under the legal dispensation.
But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of My sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from Me, they shall come near to Me to minister unto Me; and they shall stand before Me to offer unto Me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord Jehovah: they shall enter into My sanctuary, and they shall come near to My table, to minister unto Me, and they shall keep My charge. And it shall be that, when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, while they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within. They shall have linen tires upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with anything that causeth sweat. And when they go forth into the outer court, even into the outer court to the people, they shall put off their garments wherein they minister, and lay them in the holy chambers; and they shall put on other garments, that they sanctify not the people with their garments. Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only cut off the hair of their heads. Neither shall any of the priests drink wine, when they enter into the inner court. Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away; but they shall take virgins of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that is the widow of a priest. And they shall teach My people the difference between the holy and the common, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean. And in a controversy they shall stand to judge; according to Mine ordinances shall they judge it: and they shall keep My laws and My statutes in all My appointed feasts; and they shall hallow My sabbaths. And they shall go in to no dead person to defile themselves; but for father, or for mother, or for son, or for daughter, for brother, or for sister that hath had no husband, they may defile themselves. And after he is cleansed, they shall reckon unto him seven days. And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, into the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin-offering, saith the Lord Jehovah. And they shall have an inheritance: I am their inheritance; and ye shall give them no possession in Israel; I am their possession. They shall eat the meal-offering, and the sin-offering, and the trespass-offering; and every devoted thing in Israel shall be theirs. And the first of all the first-fruits of everything, and every oblation of everything, of all your oblations, shall be for the priest: ye shall also give unto the priests the first of your dough, to cause a bless- ing to rest on thy house. The priests shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself, or is torn, whether it be bird or beast-vers. 15-31.
By consulting 1Sa 2:35; 2Sa 15:24; 1Ki 2:27-35 we will understand what is said here of the sons of Zadok. These alone are given a true priestly place in this temple. All others of the sons of Levi are given positions of authority and service, but it is not theirs to present the offerings of the people on the altar. The priesthood failed almost from the beginning, and God set the other sons of Aaron aside in favor of the descendants of Zadok who was faithful in a day of declension and apostasy.
As we think of the typical character of the priesthood in Israel we may gain much for ourselves by a careful consideration of all these statutes and ordinances. No word of God shall be void of power; all Scripture is for our learning, and we cannot afford to neglect or pass lightly over any of it as though it contained nothing for our edification.
The priest is the worshiper; all believers are such, or should be, today-therefore the importance of keeping ourselves free from every defiling thing that we may worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
CHAPTER 44
1. The outward eastern gate for the prince (Eze 44:1-3)
2. The charge concerning the strangers and the rebellious tribes (Eze 44:4-14)
3. The charge concerning the priests, the sons of Zadok (Eze 44:15-27)
4. The inheritance of the priests (Eze 44:28-31)
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
the outward: So called in opposition to the temple itself, which was the inner sanctuary. Eze 40:6, Eze 40:17, Eze 42:14, 2Ch 4:9, 2Ch 20:5, 2Ch 33:5, Act 21:28-30
looketh: Eze 43:1, Eze 43:4, Eze 46:1
Reciprocal: Eze 46:8 – he shall go
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Eze 44:1. Eze 43:5 tells of the “man” taking Ezekiel to the inner court, and the present verse shows that lie was brought bac/c towards the outside again where he found the gate shut.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Section 4 (Eze 44:1-31).
Regulations concerning those who minister in the Sanctuary
1. Now that all as to the Sanctuary and altar has been set in order we are given the regulations concerning the ministers of the Sanctuary. It is not surprising that in this connection we are again reminded of the divine glory, and also to find that there is an abiding witness to its entrance into the House and to the essential pre-eminence of Jehovah, in that none, not even the Prince, is to enter by the east gate through which Ezekiel saw the Glory enter.
In the past kings, priests, and people had fallen into the evil of treating Jehovah as though He was altogether like one of themselves. In their rebellion and idolatry He had become but one God among many, even though they might give Him first place in their Pantheon. In the theocracy of the future there shall be one Jehovah and His name one. His absolute supremacy will be acknowledged by all, and the evil of idolatry will be banished from the earth. So the majesty and distinctive glory of Jehovah is emphasized by the shutting of the East Gate by which He entered His House; no one may enter or go out by that gate.
Here a dignitary is introduced who has not been mentioned before -the Prince. He is privileged, as no other person, to occupy the porch of the east gate, sitting there to eat bread before Jehovah. But he does not pass through the gate, he enters by the porch and goes out by the same way. Thus the special sanctity of this gate would be impressed upon all, and particularly upon the Prince himself, reminding him of his subordinate place; the closed gate and the limited privilege of this person who appears to be the highest secular dignitary in the nation, teaching all of the supreme place of Jehovah. We may notice that the porch is at the end of the gate-building toward the west, facing the altar and the House.
This important personage, the Prince, is apparently one of the nation, not Christ Himself: his sons are spoken of (Eze 46:16) and he offers a sin-offering for himself (Eze 45:22). It seems clear that he occupies a representative position, yet neither the same as that of the high priest, of whom Ezekiel does not speak, nor that of the king as formerly known in Israel. He is not accorded the privileges nor the power of either. He seems to occupy an intermediary place between the people and the priesthood, since he is found among the former in their seasons of worship (Eze 46:10), not among the priests, nor privileged to enter the inner court, yet drawing nearer than the people themselves, since he may worship in the inner east gate which opens upon the inner court, while the people worship in the outer court as gathered at the door of this gate (Eze 46:2). But he is responsible to supply the various offerings at the feasts, the new moons, the sabbaths, in all the solemnities of the house of Israel, and he is therefore the recipient and holder of what the people offer for these occasions; and thus too the priesthood would look to him for the provision needed to carry on the national worship (Eze 45:13-22). Then he is given his own special portion in the land, and he is enjoined not to take any of the people’s inheritance (Eze 45:7-8; Eze 46:18; Eze 48:21-22). The Oblation and the Sanctuary are spoken of as in the midst of the Prince’s portion.
These considerations show that the Prince occupies quite a unique place in the history of Israel. It serves to emphasize the absolute character of the theocracy as to both kingly and high priestly rule. They are vested in the Messiah Himself, not in any mere man. Priests and kings of the past may have been types, but now the Antitype has come -the substance has replaced the shadow. This world to come of which this vision treats will not be in subjection to angels, but to Him to whom all things have been made subject according to God’s purpose, even Jesus (Heb 2:5-10). Angelic hosts will then attend the Son of Man (Mat 13:41; Mat 24:31; Mat 25:31; Joh 1:51; 2Th 1:7).
Returning to our chapter, we see then in the closure of the east gate a standing object-lesson teaching the sanctity and preeminence of Jehovah, showing that none, not even Prince or priests, are to be thought of as approaching in any measure an equality with God such as free access at the same gate might be construed to imply. Still in the privilege of the Prince to partake of a sacrificial feast in the porch of this gate we get an intimation of the connection of the saved nation and the glory of God which has hallowed this gate in a special manner, for in his place he is doubtless representative of the nation. His communion, and so that of the nation as seen in him, is with God whose glory entered by that gate and now dwells in His House in their midst -a holy, happy, salutary lesson.
We see too that all the worship would be conducted with faces westward. This furnishes an instructive contrast to what the prophet had seen in the entry of the temple as recorded in chapter 8 -twenty-five men with their backs to the temple and their faces toward the
east, worshipping the sun. In their evil course they had reversed God’s order. In how many things it is found that man’s thought is the very opposite of God’s, the sad consequence of departure and alienation through sin. How evident it is also that Satan’s constant aim is to induce the creature to turn its back upon God and have an idol of his own which is always another creature, for fallen man will have his god to be like himself, and groping in the moral darkness into which he has fallen he deifies his own lusts and passions and makes their gratification the chief feature of his worship. Every step of God’s advancing revelation through the ages has been to undo this lie which has wrapped itself around the heart and mind of man, blinding him to’ the light which he learns to hate because his deeds are evil, while for the same reason he loves the darkness. That revelation reached its meridian splendor in the coming of the Son, and now it is known beyond all possible question that in God is no darkness at all, that indeed He is light and love, not darkness and hate. He is One whose thoughts are as high above man’s as the heavens are above the earth. This lesson, to learn which brings the creature into its right place and therefore its real blessing, seems clearly suggested to us in what Ezekiel sets forth.
2. The prophet is now brought before the House by way of the north gate. This was the gate of sacrifice, as we have seen. Is not this significant? For only by the way of sacrifice can we be brought before the glory of God. This he beholds filling the House, and bows low in worship. Then Jehovah reveals to him the ordinances which follow, after which he is taken to view other parts of the sacred enclosure.How suggestive the order -sacrifice, worship, revelation.
It is instructive to note that the communication of these ordinances of service and worship, including the allotment of the heave-offering, the feasts and special solemnities, with instruction as to the ways of righteousness which become those who draw near to God, should be given in the light of the glory and in close relation to where the work of sacrifice is performed. Three important truths are thus brought together -the glory of God who is the Holy One, the work of redemption as set forth in the sacrifices, and the holy ways which are to characterize God’s people. Peter, setting before us. God’s holy character and government, enjoins us to walk in holiness and fear, forasmuch as we are redeemed by the precious blood of Christ (1Pe 1:14-19). Redeeming love in Christ has given perfect answer to the light which God is, in which all that we are and have done is searched out and manifested, and which according to holiness God must judge. Thus we who believe are made fit for the portion of the saints in light, and as thus accepted by God we are privileged to enter the holiest of all by the blood of Jesus. This being so, we are under the responsibility to behave ourselves according to the holy requirement of God our Father. Here His. government over us comes in, and only the more so since He has abounded toward us in such riches of grace.
God claims the attention of the whole man (ver. 5) -heart, eyes, ears; and note, it is the inner man first. The heart stands for the inner springs of man’s being and life. As from this organ of our physical frame the blood goes forth to energize the whole of the body’s wonderful structure, returning to it to be again prepared for continued work in the circulatory system, so in the spiritual realm we have, as we may say, man’s spirit and soul, the sea of his intellectual and emotional faculties which are manifested in his course of life. These are claimed by God, and as being under His control (other control can only result in spiritual death) there goes forth into the spiritual sphere, into all its paths of movement, of circulation, of feeling and emotion, that vital energy which makes us fit vessels for divine service. Then our vision (the eyes) will be full of that light which shines from the innermost Sanctuary enlightening the inner man; and one Voice will be heard, whose accents falling upon the multitudinous strings of our spiritual ears, send those vibrations of divine speech and harmony through our being which bring the desired response to the Master.
The prophet is told to mark well, literally, “set thine heart to,” what Jehovah is making known. This is called for in view of the service he is to perform, that of communicating God’s mind to the people. It is well for us to remember that such occupation with what God may give is ever essential for the carrying out of any commission He may call upon us to fulfil. Purpose of heart is the necessary qualification for any servant of the Lord. One may possess much learning and great natural ability, be attractive in person and eloquent in speech, and yet useless, because the heart is not right, its purpose not formed in the secret place with God. If the inner man is under the power of divine things it is certain that the members of the outward man will be yielded in happy service to the holy and perfect will of God. God looks upon the heart, not upon the outward appearance, which may easily deceive.
The prophet is called to give whole-hearted attention to Jehovah’s Word. Apart from this he could not rightly perform his mission. Nor can we know how to rightly number our days and apply our hearts to wisdom apart from such attention to the Word of God. It alone provides a thorough furnishing of the man of God for every good work. Let us feed upon it, walk by it, preach it, serving others out of its treasuries, into which we daily enter with believing and worshiping hearts. Our hearts should stand in awe of that Word, while having joy in it as those who find great spoil (Psa 119:161-162).
Jehovah first reproves the house of Israel for their evil ways. They had forgotten His holy claims and defiled His house with their abominations. In view of this He established the ordinances which follow. By them they will be kept ever mindful of the past and of His own holiness, to safeguard which from all unlawful intrusion insures to them the fullest blessing and His own proper glory.
In earlier chapters of this book the prophet has told of Israel’s abominations (e.g., Eze 8:1-18; Eze 11:1-25), and many times have they been referred to as rebellious. Here they are so spoken of for the last time. This then is a word for the people of Ezekiel’s day, for when this new temple is built they will be no longer of such a character. This shows that God intended the new order of things to be established in the future, which the prophet was making known, to have a present effect upon the ways of the people. As they learned what God purposed for the day of glory, they were to already separate, themselves from past evils, which had come in through gross carelessness as to His honor and holiness. This, it may be said, is consistently God’s purpose in revealing the future. Those to whom it is revealed are responsible to walk in its light. God’s purpose as to future judgment or glory is His call to us to conduct ourselves now in a manner accordant with the revelation granted, and so to be witness to those around us of what we know is sure to come. This is the path of faith, for faith believing God’s testimony enters into fellowship with Him as to His purposes, and then judges of the present in the light of that secret which faith possesses, and which becomes its strength and comfort while waiting in the present. Thus we know that the day of the Lord is coming upon the ungodly world. It is not only a day of judgment but also the time of established righteousness and peace which Christ will bring in, and in which we shall have our part and place with Him. We are of the day, and not of this world’s present night. Hence we are to walk now as those who are of the day, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation -salvation out of the world which goes on to wrath (1Th 5:1-28). Whatever God has revealed in His prophetic Word is by no means for the gratification of curious minds, but so that he who believes it may walk with God in the present. By doing this we find practical deliverance from this present evil age, not being conformed to it, but transformed by the renewing of our minds in daily fellowship with God through His word of truth. So now Jehovah makes known by Ezekiel the order of things to obtain in the new Sanctuary and its service, that the people may learn therefrom and let the past suffice to have wrought abomination and rebellion.
Although these visions belong to a time still future, we see by the ministry of reproof and correction given in this chapter and the previous one (Eze 43:7-11; Eze 44:6-13), relating to the people and their rulers, both civil and religious, that God always has a present object in view in the revelations He gives. He brings the past into contrast with the future, that in the present practical sanctification may be realized in ceasing to do evil and learning to do well. Isaiah first describes the glory of the Millennial state, and then admonishes the people, saying, “House of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of Jehovah” (Isa 2:1-5).
In the first place provision is made to guard the Sanctuary from such profanation as had entered its precincts in the time of the kingdom. The evils that Jehovah rebukes had come in through unholy alliances with idolatrous neighbors, and by having hired foreigners to keep the charge of the gates. Such a state of things was aided by the close proximity to the temple of the king’s palace, so that the corruption of the royal house first seeped into the sacred enclosure of the first temple and then flooded it with wickedness, as in the days of Ahab and Manasseh. Balaam was made to give God’s thought concerning His people: “Lo, it is a people that shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations;” and he it was who later did his best to accomplish their mixture with the wicked nation of Moab. He could not curse, but becoming acquainted with God’s purpose, and being an enemy, he sought their overthrow by subtlety (Num 31:16). He snares them into evil associations, and God must deal in judgment. From this we learn what is meant by the doctrine of Balaam, and it shows one of the great wiles of the devil against which we must be on our guard. His constant effort is to effect mixture where God’s express mind is separation and purity. The admixture of Israel with the nations in her later history wrought her ruin, and brought the judgment of the Captivities and desolation. The admixture of the world and the Church, a greater evil, has wrought a correspondingly worse ruin. Scripture has especially warned us of this evil (2Co 6:11-18), so disastrous, whether in the individual or corporate sphere.
In this connection we may well consider Rev 2:14. It is one of those many instances in Scripture in which the things written afore-time for our admonition are taken up and made of present application. The doctrine of Balaam consisted, as we have seen, in the counsel he gave, directing the women of Moab and Midian to seduce the people of Israel into association with them in their idolatrous festivities, with which there was a practice of gross moral evil. Israel was caught in the snare of those friendly advances, which had behind them the enemy’s purpose to destroy the character of God’s people as called to “dwell alone,” in separation to God, whose holy ways and worship had been revealed to them. Doubtless, the seduction was intended to deprive Israel of her distinctive position and favor with God, which Balaam had been forced to proclaim. God’s thought was that His people should be separate from all the abounding evil of the nations. Balaam’s doctrine was that a mixture should be effected between them. Fleshly lusts and false religious activities were the instruments used.
This history has been repeated in the relations established between the Church and the world. In the apostolic period idolatry touched every sphere of life. As a result, the early Christians of necessity withdrew largely from all the social and festive activities in which moral evil abounded, and in which they had formerly taken part (1Pe 4:1-4). This brought against them much persecution and evil-speaking. In those days, to partake of the idol sacrifices came to signify the recantation of Christianity.
But things changed; the world became friendly and sought association with the Church, who, like Israel, was snared into evil practices. The doctrine of mixture prevailed. This destroyed the true character and testimony of the Church in the world. Expansion by compromise with the idolatrous world became the policy of its leaders. Features and practices of heathendom were incorporated into its life, both publicly and privately. But today we do not think of this, because idolatry has passed away. Nevertheless it has its lesson for us. This same principle of mixture assailed the returned remnant in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, and wrought and caused them much sorrow. It is one of our great dangers, if not the greatest. The idol-feasts, with their open immorality, are not around us today; but there are still idols to keep from, and fleshly lusts from which to turn away. With the light and knowledge we have, whatever displaces God, or represents Him as different from what He is known to be as revealed in Christ, or that changes His truth, cannot be followed without some form of moral failure resulting. Truth refused, perverted, or neglected, is accompanied in some degree with moral laxity and spiritual decrepitude.
3. Returning to our chapter we find that the Levites, except the family of Zadok (ver. 15), are appointed to keep guard and do the service of the house, but are excluded from the priestly office. In the government of God they are shut out from this higher place because of their previous history. They had followed the people into idolatry, and were a stumbling-block of iniquity instead of resisting the incoming evil and instructing the people in the laws of the covenant under which they stood in relation to Jehovah. God requires that which is past; and in His ways of holy government such departure from His revealed and known will must be remembered in judgment, though those subject to it are personally safe. The day of loss and reward is certain, and this God’s grace does not set aside. The future will bring out results which flow from the past, for as we sow we reap. If our work is good we shall receive reward, if bad we shall suffer loss, though we ourselves are saved. This solemn lesson is seen in the case of the Levites. The past and its lessons would thus be kept before them as they fulfilled their service, and be a constant reminder to all the people of the nation’s past sin, in which the Levites had joined, ministering to them before their idols.
The same principle of righteous government finds illustration in the priests of Zadok’s line. They had remained faithful when Israel departed from Jehovah, and now in the day of Messiah’s kingdom they fill the nearest place. Past faithfulness meets its reward. Having previously spoken. of Zadok’s place in the nation’s history, we may without further remark consider the details now given regarding the priestly office.
The difference between the Levites and the priests is that the former stand before the people and minister to them, while the priests minister to Jehovah, stand before Him, and enter the Sanctuary. The holy privilege of going into God’s presence and of fellowship with Him at His table is characteristic of the priestly place.
There are twelve features in the regulations of this section, falling into four groups of three each. All have to do with the service and walk, in which there is to be a manifestation of truth and holiness in keeping with their Sanctuary privileges.
1. Regulations regarding their place and service in the Sanctuary.
1 Their sacred charge (ver. 15a).
2 Their holy service in this charge (vers. 15b, 16).
3 Their holy garments (vers. 17-19).
2. Regulations regarding their habits and relationships.
1 Their hair -moderation, no extremes (ver. 20).
2 Their abstinence -sobriety (ver. 21).
3 Their marriage -purity (ver. 22).
3. Regulations regarding their service toward the people.
1 Their work of teaching (ver. 23).
2 Their work of judgment (ver. 24a).
3 Their responsibility to observe and care for the order of divine worship (ver. 24b).
4. Regulations regarding their separation from defilement.
1 As to the dead (vers. 25-27).
2 As to inheritance (ver. 28).
3 As to their food (vers. 29-31).
The Sanctuary, then, is in their charge. This brings to them an access that others do not share, and with it a ministry peculiarly their own. The fat and the blood are specially mentioned, and then the table, for communion can only follow that of which the former elements speak.
The fat and the blood were especially reserved from all the offerings as being God’s own portion. Compare Lev 7:22-27. The fat is spoken of as the food of the offering, and as burnt for a sweet savor (Lev 3:16). It stands for that which is entirely consecrated to God in all that pertains to both the will and the energy of life, which is all given up to Him, even as the fat is all consumed on the altar. In this connection it is of interest to note, as another has done, that the word for ashes used in reference to the sacrifices “literally means ‘fat.’ This has been thought to be because of the burning of the fat upon the altar, which would thus saturate the ashes. Be that as it may, the word is significant and suggestive. Ashes are the witness that the fire has done its work, the witness of an accomplished and accepted sacrifice. So we read in the margin of Psa 20:3, ‘The Lord turn to ashes thy burnt sacrifice,’ translated ‘accept,’ in explanation of the text. This witness of an accepted sacrifice is not a sign of sorrow, for which the word [generally translated ‘ashes’] is used, [as also for] showing the emptiness and vanity of things (Est 4:1; Est 4:3; Job 2:8; Job 42:6; Isa 61:3, etc.; Isa 44:20). There is nothing worthless in connection with the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.
“The ashes of the sacrifice were first put on the east side of the altar, toward the sun-rising; they were then removed to a clean place outside the camp (Lev 4:12; Lev 6:10-11). Our blessed Lord’s body, after He had yielded up His life to God on the cross, was kept absolutely inviolate. The piercing of the spear was in fulfilment of Scripture, and furnished the evidence that He had actually died. But ‘a bone of Him shall not be broken’ (Joh 19:33-37). So that precious body: (‘A body hast Thou prepared Me,’ Heb 10:5) was not suffered to be treated as that of a criminal, but was judicially handed over to those who loved Him, wrapped in fragrant and costly perfume, and laid in a new grave hewn out of the rock (Joh 19:38-42; Luk 23:52-53). Does this not show in reality what was suggested in the ‘fat ashes?’. . . The same unyielding judgment that had dealt with Him on the cross now demanded the fullest honor to Him, in judicial testimony to the acceptance of His sacrifice. The east side of the altar, the side of the sunrise, where the ashes were placed, is not only the witness of accepted sacrifice, but the pledge of resurrection. All this was ever before the Lord. He always linked His resurrection with His death (Mat 16:21). The ashes thus would speak of God’s acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice, giving full assurance to the believer of his acceptance.” -Lectures on the Tabernacle, pp. 439-441, by S. Ridout.
This is an acceptance connected, therefore, with all the preciousness to God of which the fat speaks. So we may say the fat speaks of our blessed Lord Himself in His unreserved and perfectly acceptable devotion to God’s holy will, for the accomplishment of which He yielded up all the strength of His holy and perfect life in the work of the cross. Are not those words of Psa 22:1-31 significant of this? “Like water I am poured out, and My bones are all disjointed: My heart is like wax, it is melted in the midst of My bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and My tongue cleaveth to My jaws; and Thou hast laid Me in the dust of death. . . I may tell all My bones: they gaze, they stare upon Me.”
What other language could more vividly depict the utter yielding up of all strength, of all fatness, in the work of sacrifice under the stroke of judgment? Truly this is the food of the offering, and a sweet savor to God. In it He finds His special portion and eternal delight.
Then there is the blood, it speaks of life, but laid down under judgment, given upon the altar to make atonement. No one was permitted to eat blood (Lev 3:17; Lev 17:10-14; Lev 19:26). Life essentially belongs to God, man has forfeited all claim to it through sin; but in connection with the sacrifices it speaks of Christ who became a Substitute for sinful men, and that the judgment sin required has been executed upon Him. As put upon the altar it declares the truth of acceptance, and provides the basis of worship for God’s people; as put upon the gate it marks the way of access into that blessing, and as put upon the House itself it shows what permits God to be with and dwell among His people, for it fully cleanses and atones in relation to all that would defile (Eze 43:20; Eze 45:19-20). The precious blood of Jesus cleanses from every sin. That precious blood gives us our access, for we are made nigh by it; it gives us our acceptance, for we are taken into favor in the Beloved in whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of offences; it enables God who is just to justify the ungodly who believe in Jesus; and in virtue of His work He will present His redeemed people faultless in the presence of God’s glory so that He will be found dwelling among them for eternity.
The next regulation refers to the clothing of the priests for entrance into God’s presence. They must be clothed in linen garments. No wool was permitted, nothing that would promote the exudation of nature, for this can have no place in His presence. That stands identified with man’s toil as a sinner (Gen 3:19). Linen we are familiar with as a symbol of righteousness, and of the righteousnesses of the saints, as in Rev 19:8. Whether we think of it in reference to our standing before God, what we are made in Christ, or the practical life of the believer, it is that which alone suits the holy presence of God. Such in fact are the garments of praise which should ever invest us as a holy priesthood. This alone rightly manifests His character, and on our part alone marks us as truly representing Him. Righteousness is the first feature of the kingdom of God (Rom 14:17). He who loves us and has washed us from our sins in His blood, has made us a kingdom, priests to His God and Father (Rev 1:5-6); and hence we are to follow righteousness (2Ti 2:22). We are to avoid evil, do good, seek and pursue peace, “because the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears toward their supplications; but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil. And who shall injure you if ye have become imitators of that which is good? But if also ye should suffer for righteousness’ sake, blessed are ye; but be not afraid of their fear, neither be troubled; but sanctify the Lord the Christ in your hearts” (1Pe 3:11-15). The righteous Lord loveth righteousness.
In no one like to the Lord Himself was the truth of the linen fully and perfectly displayed. So He is our example that we should follow in His steps.
Righteousness, we may say, is acting according to the place in which God has set us. As His righteousness in Christ, we are to be followers of Him as dear children. Thus in these verses we have been considering, we get first the place and its privileges (15, 16), then the responsibility to be clothed as befits that place, and to guard all as sanctified to the Lord.
In the second group of regulations, three important principles appear. That as to the hair shows how moderation is to mark those who present Jehovah’s offerings. They are to avoid extremes on the one side or the other. Neither undue severity nor fleshly looseness is to characterize their ways.
Hair occupies an important place in Scripture. In the case of the Nazarite it signifies lowly dependence upon God, the only proper creature-attitude, with withdrawal from the things of the flesh and its stimulus, so that action is not under such influences. In 1Co 11:1-34 it is used to show the relative place of man and woman in the divine order of creation -the short hair of the man indicating his headship and responsibility to rule, the long hair of the woman that of her place of dependence, yet helpfulness, without which the man is not complete. Thus we may see in it a sign of separation in devotedness to God, all that we are brought into subjection to His will, and so of obedience to His order for us in whatever sphere of relation we may be placed. It is evident that there may be that extreme asceticism which does dishonor to God’s creature, or on the other hand the turning of the grace of God into dissoluteness. It is needless to remark that neither is of God. It is the avoidance of such extremes that seems suggested in this ordinance as to the hair. It counsels true-hearted devotion to God in accordance with the obedience His Word enjoins, so that fleshly extremes are avoided on both sides.
Abstinence from wine in connection with their service in the inner court well accords with what we have just considered. It “plainly covers all fleshly stimulus, which prevents clear discernment of what is or is not according to the mind and nature of God. For us also who are called to walk in the light of God’s presence continually, this is not a casual, but a constant rule. The impulse of nature needs the restraint of Christ’s yoke; even where, as the apostle says, things are lawful to us, we must still not be brought under the power of any (1Co 6:12). And how easily do they acquire power!” It means the avoidance of all worldly, carnal methods, the love of the things of the world, in all that constitutes our place in worship and service as a holy and royal priesthood called to show forth the excellencies of Him who has brought us out of darkness into His marvelous light. We are to be controlled by that sober judgment which is formed in the Sanctuary. The psalmist might envy the ease, prosperity and power of the wicked when not in the current of God’s thoughts, but when he went into the Sanctuary then understood he their end (Psa 73:1-28). It is to such sobriety that the apostle exhorts -a sobriety of a spiritually sound mind, fleshly desires and passions held in restraint, the habits of life well regulated with discretion and moderation. Compare 1Ti 3:2; Tit 1:8; Tit 2:4; Tit 2:6; Tit 2:12; Rom 12:3; 1Pe 4:7; 2Co 5:13, sober, soberly, or sober-minded; Tit 2:2, temperate; ver. 5, discreet.
In the ordering of the marriage relation the purpose is to preserve purity of association. It comes as an added guard against yielding to the mere dictates of passion, or to acting in a careless, loose manner in forming the most sacred and important relation of human life. Compare Lev 21:7-14.
Thus in every way the habits and relationships of the priests are to constitute a good witness for God. The priest is to “show out of a good conversation his works with meekness and wisdom” (Jam 3:13). “But as He who hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation” (1Pe 1:15). Of course, we know that “conversation” means manner of life, and not merely our speech, though that is of itself an important factor.
The third group of regulations treats of priestly service toward the people. Let us not forget this order. To rightly fill priestly responsibility, to serve others in the work of teaching and judgment, we must first regulate our individual lives in accordance with the revealed mind of God. Here, as we know, Samson broke down, and how many another since his day! The apostle well understood this principle, and declares, “I buffet my body, and lead it captive, lest after having preached to others I should be myself rejected.” This gives us a sober guiding principle. To love this present age results in forsaking the path of true service, as Demas did (2Ti 4:10); that is only a form of self-love which refuses to give place to that love which would make Christ everything and all; in other words, to henceforth live unto Him who loved us and died for us, so that the life we now live in the flesh has Him for its supreme object. Plainly to know how to discern for ourselves, and so teach others the difference between the holy and profane, the clean and unclean, we must live in the light of the Sanctuary and know how to use its balances. And again what else can fit for the judgment of that which is in controversy? Those who thus serve and would lead others to obey the divine order must themselves observe God’s holy laws and statutes, thus setting the example of obedience thereto. This is their responsibility, the foundation upon which the superstructure of priestly service must be built. When this is not so we may see the consequences depicted in the case of Eli’s sons (1Sa 2:12-30).
In the last part of this section we return to what relates to the walk of the priests. First, as regards defilement from the dead. Compare Lev 21:1-6. To be connected with it in even the permitted cases defiles, requiring proper cleansing and the presentation of a sin-offering. Thus death becomes the remedy for the defilement which death brings in as the penalty of sin. To this the cross bears witness. But it is clear that general or promiscuous defilement was to be sedulously watched against. There is defilement in death because it is the penalty of sin, and what we have here is given as an evidence of what is suited to God’s presence. The priestly place is viewed in that relation. Into His presence death and its defilement cannot come. Sin is inextricably linked with it, and so even Christ is forsaken when dying under its judgment. Only His death avails to bring poor helpless man into the life beyond its touch. And He so perfectly and completely met all the issues raised by sin and death that He could sit down in the presence of God -a witness, indeed, how all is removed from before God through that one sacrifice. Upon this depends all the exercise of power to take away sin by, judgment. So we may learn from this regulation that the one who enters God’s presence must be free from the touch of death, from the defilement it causes. As redeemed by the precious blood of Christ we are made free, and stand identified with the glorious resurrection-life of our Saviour and Great High Priest. Our priestly place as linked with Him is in the power of indissoluble life. The present practical effect of this is to be a godly care to avoid unnecessary contact with what death stands for -sin and its fruits; while when this comes in we must remember what becomes His presence, the cleansing which restores the disturbed communion and service. The governing principle is, “I will be sanctified in them that draw near to Me.”
The subject of inheritance is next treated. “I am their inheritance . . . I am their possession.” The priests have no inheritance, no possession in Israel. Compare Num 18:20; Deu 10:9; Deu 18:1. Is this a deprivation? Can it be that to be an heir of God, to have Him as one’s inheritance and possession? Rather it expresses the highest possible place of nearness and blessing in which what God is becomes the portion of those so blessed. What more than this gives God His rightful place? The whole man is lifted up to Him in whom all his resources are found, from whom all his expectation must come. It reminds us of the Christian place -heirs of God, joint-heirs with Christ, who is the appointed Heir of all things, and He in whom we have obtained an inheritance into which we are brought according to the riches of His grace and to the praise of
His glory. Now we joy in God, and rejoice in hope of His glory. Our city is of His building, our kingdom is of His preparation and giving.
Finally, the food of the priests is virtually all that is offered to Jehovah by the people -His portion becomes their’s.
“Because of the anointing, the most holy things were given them to eat, which was a special privilege of the priests. The same thing is true with regard to us. Whatever is precious in the offering of Christ, in every point of view -in His life and in His death; in that bread come down from heaven, contemplated in His life of devotedness and grace here below; and in His death for us -all is the food and nourishment of our souls, in that communion with God in which we ourselves are kept in our priesthood. The priests alone ate the holy things, and they ate them in a holy place. It is only in the sense of the presence of God, and under the efficacy of that oil which is not poured on flesh, that we can truly realize what is precious in the work of Christ” (Synopsis, Vol. 1, pp. 261, 262).
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary
THE CLOSE OF THE BOOK
THE GATE OF THE PRINCE (Eze 44:1-3)
As the glory of Jehovah had entered this gate (Eze 48:4-5), it must hereafter be closed for all but His representative the prince. This cannot mean the Messiah, because the prince requires a sin-offering. (Remember that sin will be suppressed in that day, but not yet extirpated.) Doubtless this prince is a future prince of the house of David.
THE FUTURE PRIESTS AND LEVITES (Eze 44:9-31)
Eze 44:9-14 show that the Levites who, in the earlier time had turned from God to idols, will be made to feel their shame since it is the days of the earthly kingdom that are here referred to, and righteousness (not grace) governs. The concluding verses of this chapter show conclusively that they are dealing, not with Christian conditions, but with Israel again on the earth, and in covenant relations with God. Eze 44:17-22, for example, is a repetition of the Levitical law for the priests, only with greater strictness. The priests decisions are both for ceremonial and judicial matters (Eze 44:23-24). Death may be rare and exceptional on the earth in that day, but it will still take place (Eze 44:25-27).
THE LAND AND THE FEASTS (Ezekiel 45)
Jehovahs portion of the land must be set aside in acknowledgment of His claim to the whole, but He applies it for the sanctuary and those who minister there (Eze 45:1-5). The portion of the prince comes next, and then that of the people (Eze 45:6-8). Note the prophecy, My princes shall no more oppress the people selfishness and greed must at least cease on the earth (Eze 45:9-12). Note, also, the religious dues to be paid (Eze 45:13-17). Also the fact of sin still existing (Eze 45:18-20), and the feasts (Eze 45:21-24), excepting, however, the feasts of weeks, or Pentecost. One might think this would be the most prominent of the feasts during the Millennium, as that period is considered the era of the Holy Spirit which Pentecost represents, but the feast drops out of the list. Of course the Holy Spirit will be poured out on all flesh in that day, as the prophets foretell, but for a different object than now. Now He comes to baptize both Jew and Gentile into the body of Christ (this is the meaning of Pentecost), but then each Jew and Gentile will be blessed on their own ground, but there will not be union. There will be greater breadth of blessing then, but not the height and depth there is today.
The feast of tabernacle, however, is alluded to (Eze 45:25), because it most fully expresses their great ingathering when they rejoice before Jehovah, and look back on pilgrim days forever past.
PUBLIC WORSHIP (Ezekiel 46)
The Sabbath is made much of, and the new moon (v 1). There is a distinction between the prince and the people, but neither goes within the temple to worship (Eze 46:2-3). There is no drawing near as we now do through the rent vail, for Israel is being blessed on earth, and not like the church in heavenly places. There is no longer an evening lamb, though the offering of the morning lamb continues (Eze 46:12-15). The jubilee year is re- established (Eze 46:16-18).
THE TEMPLE WATERS (Eze 47:1-12)
Compare with Eze 47:1-5 of this chapter, Joe 3:15 and Zec 14:8, which show that the region of the Dead Sea, which had been the embodiment of barrenness and desolation, is, in the coming day to be changed into a scene of life and fruitfulness. And the remarkable fact is that the waters increase continually, without the least hint, rather to the exclusion of, accession from tributary streams. The whole thing is literal in fact, and yet supernatural in origin. For the healing effect of these waters read Eze 47:6-12.
THE DIVISION OF THE LAND (Eze 47:13 to Eze 48:35)
In accordance with Gen 48:5 and 1Ch 5:1 Joseph has two portions (Eze 47:13). The land will be rich enough not only for all Israel gathered there, but for the stranger and his children as well (Eze 47:22). And think of the largeness of vision of Israel in that day (Eze 47:23)! A comparison of chapter 48 shows the distribution of the tribes in the millennial kingdom will be different from that previously known, but we cannot consider it in detail (Eze 48:1-29). The distribution is to be made by lot.
The last and chief glory is the presence of Jehovah in the city of His choice (Eze 48:30-35).
QUESTIONS
1. What shows that the prince is not identical with the Messiah?
2. What consequence of sin will still be in evidence during the Millennium?
3. What noted feast of earlier Israel will be omitted in the Millennium? Why?
4. What ordinance of public worship shows the less desirable position of earthly Israel as compared with the heavenly church?
5. What other prophets corroborate Ezekiel concerning the temple waters?
6. Are these waters literal or only figurative?
7. What is the chief glory of the city of Jerusalem in the millennial age?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Eze 44:1-2. Then he brought me back, &c. From the altar to the gate belonging to the court of the priests, and leading to the outward court of the temple. All the courts were reckoned holy ground, and called sometimes by the name of the temple. And it was shut After that the glory of the Lord had entered that way. Then saith the Lord, This gate shall be shut Shall be generally kept shut; no man shall enter in by it None of the common people: see chap. Eze 46:1. Because the Lord hath entered in by it Namely, that glory which was the visible sign of Gods presence. This order was given, both to perpetuate the remembrance of the solemn entrance of the glory of the Lord into the house, and also to possess the minds of the people with a deep reverence for the Divine Majesty, and with very awful thoughts of his transcendent glory; which was also designed in Gods charge to Moses at the bush, Put off thy shoe from off thy foot.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Eze 44:5. Mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears. Every thing seen in this vision of the temple, adumbrates celestial glory, and therefore demanded the most profound attention. The law was a shadow of good things to come.
REFLECTIONS.
The substance of this chapter is much the same as the twenty first and twenty second chapters of Leviticus, under which suitable reflections will be found. But here it is of consequence to note, that the way in which the glory entered was peculiarly holy. The people must not enter that way, lest they should defile it with their feet; and the priests, in many of their more sacred services, officiated barefoot. The prince or the priest alone might enter at that gate, after the proper purification of his person. This reminds us, that the Lord Jesus is entered into the heavens by a new and living way; and that we cannot follow him till we are first made kings and priests unto God his Father, to whom be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
The uncircumcised in heart, and the uncircumcised in flesh, were excluded from the temple of the Lord. This shows us that the unregenerate shall not see the kingdom of God; consequently every one desiring to enter heaven, must ascend by the regular steps of repentance, faith, and holiness. This is the only way in which sinful men can approach the holy God; and without holiness no one shall see the Lord.
The various precepts respecting the purifications and the dress of the priests, strikingly impress our minds with the great sanctity which God attaches to the ministry. The bodies of ministers must be preserved in sanctification and in honour. He who does the work and delivers the word of God, must habitually live the servant and friend of God. Nothing in his person, in his food, in his dress, or in his conduct, must revolt the faithful against the word and ordinances of the Lord. On the contrary, all about the priest must be inviting, and calculated to recommend religion by a cloud of virtues and engaging qualities. If religion do not make ministers holy and happy, what hope can remain for the people?
The prohibition of the priests from defiling themselves for the death of nephew, niece, cousin, or friend, marks also the great importance of the ministry. The service and the glory of God are not to be neglected for the casualties of life; the salvation and comfort of the saints, and the saving of souls from death, are of more importance than domestic concerns in their most serious crisis. Let God be magnified in his house, let the interests of religion be exalted, and let secular affairs be postponed to the hours of leisure and domestic retirement. What then will the Lord say to those ministers who neglect both their studies, and the most sacred duties of their profession, to attend the profane recreations of life? How will they appear among the shepherds and the poorest of the flock, when they have peculiarly piqued themselves on the life and manners of accomplished gentlemen!
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Ezekiel 44-46. The Temple Officers and Festivals.
Eze 44:1-3.From the inner court where he had seen the Divine glory and heard the mysterious voice (435f.) the prophet was led back to the outer eastern gate; but as Yahweh had crossed its threshold on re-entering the Temple (cf. 1Sa 5:5) it was for ever after to remain shut. Only the princei.e. the king of the Messianic dayswas privileged to eat bread before Yahweh, i.e. to partake of the festal meal, in the vestibule.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
The east gate 44:1-3
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Ezekiel’s guide next took him back to the east outer gate (cf. Eze 40:6-16). The gate itself, on the east side of the gate complex, was shut and was to remain shut. The Lord told the prophet that this gate was shut because He had entered the temple complex through it (Eze 43:1-3). Its sealed condition guaranteed God’s promise that He would never depart from the temple again (Eze 37:24-28).
"As a mark of honor to an Eastern king, no person could enter the gate by which he entered . . ." [Note: Feinberg, p. 257.]
This is not the eastern gate of Zerubbabel’s or Herod’s temple (Israel’s second temple); there is no evidence that either of those gates was closed. Nor is it the gate on the east side of the temple enclosure in modern Jerusalem that has been sealed for centuries. The dimensions are different. It is the east gate of the millennial temple.
"The eastern gate that overlooks the Kidron Valley today is closed as it has been since the Crusades, nearly a thousand years ago. Crusaders walled up the gate because they believed that Jesus entered the temple mount by this gate on Palm Sunday and that it should be closed until he returns to reenter the temple mount. Zec 14:4-5 presents the Messiah coming to the valley on the eastern side of the temple in preparation for his entry into the temple area. This has been regarded as biblical evidence that the gate should remain closed until Jesus returns.
"Today the eastern gate, also called the Golden Gate, is a significant holy site for three major world religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Jews believe that when the Messiah comes he will open the east gate and enter the temple mount first and then enter the city of Jerusalem. Moslems believe that the gate is the site of final judgment and call it the gate of heaven and hell. They believe the final judgment of humanity will take place before the eastern gate and the redeemed are those who will be allowed to enter the temple mount; all others will be outcasts." [Note: L. Cooper, p, 388.]
The Romans destroyed the wall around Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The present Golden Gate dates back to the seventh century A.D. The Crusaders walled it up in the eleventh century. The Ottoman Turks partially destroyed it and then repaired it in the early sixteenth century. The Turkish governor then walled it up again in A.D. 1530, and it has remained closed ever since. [Note: Ibid., p. 389.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE IMPORT OF THE VISION
WE have now reached the last and in every way the most important section of the book of Ezekiel. The nine concluding chapters record what was evidently the crowning experience of the prophets life. His ministry began with a vision of God; it culminates in a vision of the people of God, or rather of God in the midst of His people, reconciled to them, ruling over them, and imparting the blessings and glories of the final dispensation. Into that vision are thrown the ideals which had been gradually matured through twenty years of strenuous action and intense meditation. We have traced some of the steps by which the prophet was led towards this consummation of his work. We have seen how, under the idea of God which had been revealed to him, he was constrained to announce the destruction of that which called itself the people of Jehovah, but was in reality the means of obscuring His character and profaning His holiness (chapters 4-24). We have seen further how the same fundamental conception led him on in his prophecies against foreign nations to predict a great clearing of the stage of history for the manifestation of Jehovah (chapters 25-32). And we have seen from the preceding section what are the processes by which the divine Spirit breathes new life into a dead nation and creates out of its scattered members a people worthy of the God whom the prophet has seen.
But there is still something more to accomplish before his task is finished. All through, Ezekiel holds fast the truth that Jehovah and Israel are necessarily related to each other, and that Israel is to be the medium through which alone the nature of Jehovah can be fully disclosed to mankind. It remains, therefore, to sketch the outline of a perfect theocracy – in other words, to describe the permanent forms and institutions which shall express the ideal relation between God and men. To this task the prophet addresses himself in the chapters now before us. That great New Years Vision may be regarded as the ripe fruit of all Gods training of His prophet, as it is also the part of Ezekiels work which most directly influenced the subsequent development of religion in Israel.
It cannot be doubted, then, that these chapters are an integral part of the book, considered as a record of Ezekiels work. But it is certainly a significant circumstance that they are separated from the body of the prophecies by an interval of thirteen years. For the greater part of that time Ezekiels literary activity was suspended. It is probable, at all events, that the first thirty-nine chapters had been committed to writing soon after the latest date they mentioned, and that the oracle on Gog, which marks the extreme limit of Ezekiels prophetic vision, was really the conclusion of an earlier form of the book. And we may be certain that, since the eventful period that followed the arrival of the fugitive from Jerusalem, no new divine communication had visited the prophets mind. But at last, in the twenty-fifth year of the captivity, and on the first day of a new year, he falls into a trance more prolonged than any he had yet passed through, and he emerged from it with a new message for his people.
In what direction were the prophets thoughts moving as Israel passed into the midnight of her exile? That they have moved in the interval-that his standpoint is no longer quite identical with that represented in his earlier prophecies-seems to be shown by one slight modification of his previous conceptions, which has been already mentioned. I refer to the position of the prince in the theocratic state. We find that the king is still the civil head of the commonwealth, but that his position is hardly reconcilable with the exalted functions assigned to the Messianic king in chapter 34. The inference seems irresistible that Ezekiels point of view has somewhat changed, so that the objects in his picture present themselves in a different perspective.
It is true that this change was effected by a vision, and it may be said that that fact forbids our regarding it as indicating a progress in Ezekiels thoughts. But the vision of a prophet is never out of relation to his previous thinking. The prophet is always prepared for his vision; it comes to him as the answer to questions, as the solution of difficulties, whose force he has felt, and apart from which it would convey no revelation of God to his mind. It marks the point at which reflection gives place to inspiration, where the incommunicable certainty of the divine word lifts the soul into the region of spiritual and eternal truth. And hence it may help us, from our human point of view, to understand the true import of this vision, if from the answer we try to discover the questions which were of pressing interest to Ezekiel in the later part of his career.
Speaking generally, we may say that the problem that occupied the mind of Ezekiel at this time was the problem of a religious constitution. How to secure for religion its true place in public life, how to embody it in institutions which shall conserve its essential ideas and transmit them from one generation to another, how a people may best express its national responsibility to God-these and many kindred questions are real and vital today amongst the nations of Christendom, and they were far more vital in the age of Ezekiel. The conception of religion as an inward spiritual power, moulding the life of the nation and of each individual member, was at least as strong in him as in any other prophet; and it had been adequately expressed in the section of his book dealing with the formation of the new Israel. But he saw that this was not for that time sufficient. The mass of the community were dependent on the educative influence of the institutions under which they lived, and there was no way of impressing on a whole people the character of Jehovah except through a system of laws and observances which should constantly exhibit it to their minds. The time was not yet come when religion could be trusted to work as a hidden leaven, transforming life from within and bringing in the kingdom of God silently by the operation of spiritual forces. Thus, while the last section insists on the moral change that must pass over Israel, and the need of a direct influence from God on the heart of the people, that which now lies before us is devoted to the religious and political arrangements by which the sanctity of the nation must be preserved.
Starting from this general notion of what the prophet sought, we can see, in the next place, that his attention must be mainly concentrated on matters belonging to public worship and ritual. Worship is the direct expression in word and act of mans attitude to God, and no public religion can maintain a higher level of spirituality than the symbolism which gives it a place in the life of the people. That fact had been abundantly illustrated by the experience of centuries before the Exile. The popular worship had always been a stronghold of false religion in Israel. The high places were the nurseries of all the corruptions against which the prophets had to contend, not simply because of the immoral elements that mingled with their worship, but because the worship itself was regulated by conceptions of the deity which were opposed to the religion of revelation. Now the idea of using ritual as a vehicle of the highest spiritual truth is certainly not peculiar to Ezekiels vision. But it is there carried through with a thoroughness which has no parallel elsewhere except in the priestly legislation of the Pentateuch. And this bears witness to a clear perception on the part of the prophet of the value of that whole side of things for the future development of religion in Israel. No one was more deeply impressed with the evils that had flowed from a corrupt ritual in the past, and he conceives the final form of the kingdom of God to be one in which the blessings of salvation are safeguarded by a carefully regulated system of religious ordinances. It will become manifest as we proceed that he regards the Temple ritual as the very centre of theocratic life, and the highest function of the community of the true religion.
But Ezekiel was prepared for the reception of this vision, not only by the practical reforming bent of his mind, but also by a combination in his own experience of the two elements which must always enter into a conception of this nature. If we may employ philosophical language to express a very obvious distinction, we have to recognise in the vision a material and a formal element. The matter of the vision is derived from the ancient religious and political constitution of the Hebrew state. All true and lasting reformations are conservative at heart; their object never is to make a clean sweep of the past, but so to modify what is traditional as to adapt it to the needs of a new era. Now Ezekiel was a priest, and possessed all a priests reverence for antiquity, as well as a priests professional knowledge of ceremonial and of consuetudinary law. No man could have been better fitted than he to secure the continuity of Israels religious life along the particular line on which it was destined to move. Accordingly we find that the new theocracy is modelled from beginning to end after the pattern of the ancient institutions which had been destroyed by the Exile. If we ask, for example, what is the meaning of some detail of the Temple building, such as the cells surrounding the main sanctuary, the obvious and sufficient answer is that these things existed in Solomons Temple, and there was no reason for altering them. On the other hand, whenever we find the vision departing from what had been traditionally established, we may be sure that there is a reason for it, and in most cases we can see what that reason was. In such departures we recognise the working of what we have called the formal element of the vision, the moulding influence of the ideas which the system was intended to express. What these ideas were we shall consider in subsequent chapters; here it is enough to say that they were the fundamental ideas which had been communicated to Ezekiel in the course of his prophetic work, and which have found expression in various forms in other parts of his writings. That they are not peculiar to Ezekiel, but are shared by other prophets, is true, just as it is true on the other hand that the priestly conceptions which occupy so large a place in his mind were an inheritance from the whole past history of the nation. Nor was this the first time when an alliance between the ceremonialism of the priesthood and the more ethical and spiritual teaching of prophecy had proved of the utmost advantage to the religious life of Israel. The unique importance of Ezekiels vision lies in the fact that the great development of prophecy was now almost complete, and that the time was come for its results to be embodied in institutions which were in the main of a priestly character. And it was fitting that this new era of religion should be inaugurated through the agency of one who combined in his own person the conservative instincts of the priest with the originality and the spiritual intuition of the prophet.
It is not suggested for a moment that these considerations account for the inception of the vision in the prophets mind. We are not to regard it as merely the brilliant device of an ingenious man, who was exceptionally qualified to read the signs of the times, and to discover a solution for a pressing religious problem. In order that it might accomplish the end in view, it was absolutely necessary that it should be invested with a supernatural sanction and bear the stamp of divine authority. Ezekiel himself was well aware of this, and would never have ventured to publish his vision if he had thought it all out for himself. He had to wait for the time when “the hand of the Lord was upon him,” and he saw in vision the new Temple and the river of life proceeding from it, and the renovated land, and the glory of God taking up its everlasting abode in the midst of His people. Until that moment arrived he was without a message as to the form which the life of the restored Israel must assume. Nevertheless the psychological conditions of the vision were contained in those parts of the prophets experience which have just been indicated. Processes of thought which had long occupied his mind suddenly crystallised at the touch of the divine hand, and the result was the marvellous conception of a theocratic state which was Ezekiels greatest legacy to the faith and hopes of his countrymen.
That this vision of Ezekiels profoundly influenced the development of post-exilic Judaism may be inferred from the fact that all the best tendencies of the restoration period were towards the realisation of the ideals which the vision sets forth with surpassing clearness. It is impossible, indeed, to say precisely how far Ezekiels influence extended, or how far the returning exiles consciously aimed at carrying out the ideas contained in his sketch of a theocratic constitution. That they did so to some extent is inferred from a consideration of some of the arrangements established in Jerusalem soon after the return from Babylon. But it is certain that from the nature of the case the actual institutions of the restored community must have differed very widely in many points from those described in the last nine chapters of Ezekiel. When we look more closely at the composition of this vision, we see that it contains features which neither then nor at any subsequent time have been historically fulfilled. The most remarkable thing about it is that it unites in one picture two characteristics which seem at first sight difficult to combine. On the one hand it bears the aspect of a rigid legislative system intended to regulate human conduct in all matters of vital moment to the religious standing of the community; on the other hand it assumes a miraculous transformation of the physical aspect of the country, a restoration of all the twelve tribes of Israel under a native king, and a return of Jehovah in visible glory to dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever. Now these supernatural conditions of the perfect theocracy could not be realised by any effort on the part of the people, and as a matter of fact were never literally fulfilled at all. It must have been plain to the leaders of the Return that for this reason alone the details of Ezekiels legislation were not binding for them in the actual circumstances in which they were placed. Even in matters clearly within the province of human administration we know that they considered themselves free to modify his regulations in accordance with the requirements of the situation in which they found themselves. It does not follow from this, however, that they were ignorant of the book of Ezekiel, or that it gave them no help in the difficult task to which they addressed themselves. It furnished them with an ideal of national holiness, and the general outline of a constitution in which that ideal should be embodied; and this outline they seem to have striven to fill up in the way best adapted to the straitened and discouraging circumstances of the time.
But this throws us back on some questions of fundamental importance for the right understanding of Ezekiels vision. Taking the vision as a whole, we have to ask whether a fulfilment of the kind just indicated was the fulfilment that the prophet himself anticipated. Did he lay stress on the legislative or the supernatural aspect of the vision-on mans agency or on Gods? In other words, does he issue it as a programme to be carried out by the people as soon as the opportunity is presented by their return to the land of Canaan? or does he mean that Jehovah Himself must take the initiative by miraculously preparing the land for their reception, and taking up His abode in the finished Temple, the “place of His throne, and the place of the soles of His feet”? The answer to that question is not difficult, if only we are careful to look at things from the prophets point of view, and disregard the historical events in which his predictions were partly realised. It is frequently assumed that the elaborate description of the Temple buildings in chapters 40-42 is intended as a guide to the builders of the second Temple, who are to make it after the fashion of that which the prophet saw on the mount. It is quite probable that in some degree it may have served that purpose; but it seems to me that this view is not in keeping with the fundamental idea of the vision. The Temple that Ezekiel saw, and the only one of which he speaks, is a house not made with hands; it is as much a part of the supernatural preparation for the future theocracy as the “very high mountain” on which it stands, or the river that flows from it to sweeten the waters of the Dead Sea. In the important passage where the prophet is commanded to exhibit the plan of the house to the children of Israel, {Eze 43:10-11} there is unfortunately a discrepancy between the Hebrew and Greek texts which throws some obscurity on this particular point. According to the Hebrew there can hardly be a doubt that a sketch is shown to them which is to be used as a builders plan at the time of the Restoration. But in the Septuagint, which seems on the whole to give a more correct text, the passage runs thus: “And, thou son of man, describe the house to the house of Israel (and let them be ashamed of their iniquities), and its form, and its construction: and they shall be ashamed of all that they have done. And do thou sketch the house, and its exits, and its outline; and all its ordinances and all its laws make known to them; and write it before them, that they may keep all its commandments and all its ordinances, and do them.” There is nothing here to suggest that the construction of the Temple was left for human workmanship. The outline of it is shown to the people only that they may be ashamed of all their iniquities. When the arrangements of the ideal Temple are explained to them, they will see how far those of the first Temple transgressed the requirements of Jehovahs holiness, and this knowledge will produce a sense of shame for the dulness of heart which tolerated so many abuses in connection with His worship. No doubt that impression sank deep into the minds of Ezekiels hearers, and led to certain important modifications in the structure of the Temple when it had to be built; but that is not what the prophet is thinking of. At the same time we see clearly that he is very much in earnest with the legislative part of his vision. Its laws are real laws, and are given that they may be obeyed-only they do not come into force until all the institutions of the theocracy, natural and supernatural alike, are in full working order. And apart from the doubtful question as to the erection of the Temple, that general conclusion holds good for the vision as a whole. Whilst it is pervaded throughout by the legislative spirit, the miraculous features are after all its central and essential elements. When these conditions are realised, it will be the duty of Israel to guard her sacred institutions by the most scrupulous and devoted obedience; but till then there is no kingdom of God established on earth, and therefore no system of laws to conserve a state of salvation, which can only be brought about by the direct and visible interposition of the Almighty in the sphere of nature and history.
This blending of seemingly incongruous elements reveals to us the true character of the vision with which we have to deal. It is in the strictest sense a Messianic prophecy-that is, a picture of the kingdom of God in its final state as the prophet was led to conceive it. It is common to all such representations that the human authors of them have no idea of a long historical development gradually leading up to the perfect manifestation of Gods purpose with the world. The impending crisis in the affairs of the people of Israel is always regarded as the consummation of human history and the establishment of Gods kingdom in the plenitude of its power and glory. In the time of Ezekiel the next step in the unfolding of the divine plan of redemption was the restoration of Israel to its own land; and in so far as his vision is a prophecy of that event, it was realised in the return of the exiles with Zerubbabel in the first year of Cyrus. But to the mind of Ezekiel this did not present itself as a mere step towards something immeasurably higher in the remote future. It is to include everything necessary for the complete and final inbringing of the Messianic dispensation, and all the powers of the world to come are to be displayed in the acts by which Jehovah brings back the scattered members of Israel to the enjoyment of blessedness in His own presence.
The thing that misleads us as to the real nature of the vision is the emphasis laid on matters which seem to us of merely temporal and earthly significance. We are apt to think that what we have before us can be nothing else than a legislative scheme to be carried out more or less fully in the new state that should arise after the Exile. The miraculous features in the vision are apt to be dismissed as mere symbolisms to which no great significance attaches. Legislating for the millennium seems to us a strange occupation for a prophet, and we are hardly prepared to credit even Ezekiel with so bold a conception. But that depends entirely on his idea of what the millennium will be. If it is to be a state of things in which religious institutions are of vital importance for the maintenance of the spiritual interests of the community of the people of God, then legislation is the natural expression for the ideals which are to be realised in it. And we must remember, too, that what we have to do with is a vision. Ezekiel is not the ultimate source of this legislation, however much it may bear the impress of his individual experience. He has seen the city of God, and all the minute and elaborate regulations with which these nine chapters are filled are but the exposition of principles that determine the character of a people amongst whom Jehovah can dwell.
At the same time we see that a separation of different aspects of the vision was inevitably effected by the teaching of history. The return from Babylon was accomplished without any of those supernatural adjuncts with which it had been invested in the rapt imagination of the prophet. No transformation of the land preceded it; no visible presence of Jehovah welcomed the exiles back to their ancient abode. They found Jerusalem in ruins, the holy and beautiful house a desolation, the land occupied by aliens, the seasons unproductive as of old. Yet in the hearts of these men there was a vision even more impressive, than that of Ezekiel in his solitude. To lay the foundations of a theocratic state in the dreary, discouraging daylight of the present was an act of faith as heroic as has ever been performed in the history of religion. The building of the Temple was undertaken amidst many difficulties, the ritual was organised, the rudiments of a religious constitution appeared, and in all this we see the influence of those principles of national holiness that had been formulated by Ezekiel. But the crowning manifestation of Jehovahs glory was deferred. Prophet after prophet appeared to keep alive the hope that this Temple, poor in outward appearance as it was, would yet be the centre of a new world, and the dwelling-place of the Eternal. Centuries rolled past, and still Jehovah did not come to His Temple, and the eschatological features which had bulked so largely in Ezekiels vision remained an unfulfilled aspiration. And when at length in the fulness of time the complete revelation of God was given, it was in a form that superseded the old economy entirely, and transformed its most stable and cherished institutions into adumbrations of a spiritual kingdom which knew no earthly Temple and had need of none.
This brings us to the most difficult and most important of all the questions arising in connection with Ezekiels vision-What is its relation to the Pentateuchal Legislation? It is obvious at once that the significance of this section of the book of Ezekiel is immensely enhanced if we accept the conclusion to which the critical study of the Old Testament has been steadily driven, that in the chapters before us we have the first outline of that great conception of a theocratic constitution which attained its finished expression in the priestly regulations of the middle books of the Pentateuch. The discussion of this subject is so intricate, so far-reaching in its consequences, and ranges over so wide a historical field, that one is tempted to leave it in the hands of those who have addressed themselves to its special treatment, and to try to get on as best one may without assuming a definite attitude on one side or the other. But the student of Ezekiel cannot altogether evade it. Again and again the question will force itself on him as he seeks to ascertain the meaning of the various details of Ezekiels legislation, How does this stand related to corresponding requirements in the Mosaic law? It is necessary, therefore, in justice to the reader of the following pages, that an attempt should be made, however imperfectly, to indicate the position which the present phase of criticism assigns to Ezekiel in the history of the Old Testament legislation.
We may begin by pointing out the kind of difficulty that is felt to arise on the supposition that Ezekiel had before him the entire body of laws contained in our present Pentateuch. We should expect in that case that the prophet would contemplate a restoration of the divine institutions established under Moses, and that his vision would reproduce with substantial fidelity the minute provisions of the law by which these institutions were to be maintained. But this is very far from being the case. It is found that while Ezekiel deals to a large extent with the subjects for which provision is made by the law, there is in no instance perfect correspondence between the enactments of the vision and those of the Pentateuch, while on some points they differ very materially from one another. How are we to account for these numerous and, on the supposition, evidently designed divergencies? It has been suggested that the law was found to be in some respects unsuitable to the state of things that would arise, after the Exile, and that Ezekiel in the exercise of his prophetic authority undertook to adapt it to the conditions of a late age. The suggestion is in itself plausible, but it is not confirmed by the history. For it is agreed on all hands that the law as a whole had never been put in force for any considerable period of Israels history previous to the Exile. On the other hand, if we suppose that Ezekiel judged its provisions unsuitable for the circumstances that would emerge after the Exile, we are confronted by the fact that where Ezekiels legislation differs from that of the Pentateuch it is the latter and not the former that regulated the practice of the post-exilic community. So far was the law from being out of date in the age of Ezekiel that the time was only approaching when the first effort would be made to accept it in all its length and breadth as the authoritative basis of an actual theocratic polity. Unless, therefore, we are to hold that the legislation of the vision is entirely in the air, and that it takes no account whatever of practical considerations, we must feel that a certain difficulty is presented by its unexplained deviations from the carefully drawn ordinances of the Pentateuch.
But this is not all. The Pentateuch itself is not a unity. It consists of different strata of legislation which, while irreconcilable in details, are held to exhibit a continuous progress towards a clearer definition of the duties that devolve on different classes in the community, and a fuller exposition of the principles that underlay the system from the beginning. The analysis of the Mosaic writings into different legislative codes has resulted in a scheme which in its main outlines is now accepted by critics of all shades of opinion. The three great codes which we have to distinguish are:
(1) the so-called Book of the Covenant; (Exo 20:24 – Exo 23:1-33, with which may be classed the closely allied code of Exo 34:10-28)
(2) the Book of Deuteronomy; and
(3) the Priestly Code (found in Exo 25:1-40; Exo 26:1-37; Exo 27:1-21; Exo 28:1-43; Exo 29:1-46; Exo 30:1-38; Exo 31:1-18; Exo 35:1-35; Exo 36:1-38; Exo 37:1-29; Exo 38:1-31; Exo 39:1-43; Exo 40:1-38, the whole book of Leviticus, and nearly the whole of the book of Numbers).
Now of course the mere separation of these different documents tells us nothing, or not much, as to their relative priority or antiquity. But we possess at least a certain amount of historical and independent evidence as to the times when some of them became operative in the actual life of the nation. We know, for example, that the Book of Deuteronomy attained the force of statute law under the most solemn circumstances by a national covenant in the eighteenth year of Josiah. The distinctive feature of that book is its impressive enforcement of the principle that there is but one sanctuary at which Jehovah can be legitimately worshipped. When we compare the list of reforms carried out by Josiah, as given in the twenty-third chapter of 2 Kings, with the provisions of Deuteronomy, we see that it must have been that book and it alone that had been found in the Temple and that governed the reforming policy of the king. Before that time the law of the one sanctuary, if it was known at all, was certainly more honoured in the breach than the observance. Sacrifices were freely offered at local altars throughout the country, not merely by the ignorant common people and idolatrous kings, but by men who were the inspired religious leaders and teachers of the nation. Not only so, but this practice is sanctioned by the Book of the Covenant, which permits the erection of an altar in every place where Jehovah causes His name to be remembered, and only lays down injunctions as to the kind of altar that might be used. {Exo 20:24-26} The evidence is thus very strong that the Book of Deuteronomy, at whatever time it may have been written, had not the force of public law until the year 621 B.C., and that down to that time the accepted and authoritative expression of the divine will for Israel was the law embraced in the Book of the Covenant.
To find similar evidence of the practical adoption of the Priestly Code we have to come down to a much later period. It is not till the year 444 B.C., in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, that we read of the people pledging themselves by a solemn covenant to the observance of regulations which are clearly those of the finished system of Pentateuchal law. {Neh 8:1-18; Neh 9:1-38; Neh 10:1-39} It is there expressly stated that this law had not been observed in Israel up to that time, {Neh 9:34} and in particular that the great Feast of Tabernacles had not been celebrated in accordance with the requirements of the law since the days of Joshua. {Neh 8:17} This is quite conclusive as to actual practice in Israel; and the fact that the observance of the law was thus introduced by instalments, and on occasions of epoch-making importance in the history of the community, raises a strong presumption against the hypothesis that the Pentateuch was an inseparable literary unit, which must be known in its entirety where it was known at all.
Now the date of Ezekiels vision (572) lies between these two historic transactions-the inauguration of the law of Deuteronomy in 621, and that of the Priestly Code in 444; and in spite of the ideal character which belongs to the vision as a whole, it contains a system of legislation which admits of being compared point by point with the provisions of the other two codes on a variety of subjects common to all three. Some of the results of this comparison will appear as we proceed with the exposition of the chapters before us. But it will be convenient to state here the important conclusion to which a number of critics have been led by discussion of this question. It is held that Ezekiels legislation represents on the whole a transition from the law of Deuteronomy to the more complex system of the Priestly document. The three codes exhibit a regular progression, the determining factor of which is a growing sense of the importance of the Temple worship and of the necessity for a careful regulation of the acts which express the religious standing and privileges of the community. On such matters as the feasts, the sacrifices, the distinction between priests and Levites, the Temple dues, and the provision for the maintenance of ordinances, it is found that Ezekiel lays down enactments which go beyond those of Deuteronomy and anticipate a further development in the same direction in the Levitical legislation. The legislation of Ezekiel is accordingly regarded as a first step towards the codification of the ritual laws which regulated the usage of the first Temple. It is not of material consequence to know how far these laws had been already committed to writing, or how far they had been transmitted by oral tradition. The important point is that down to the time of Ezekiel the great body of ritual law had been the possession of the priests, who communicated it to the people in the shape of particular decisions as occasion demanded. Even the book of Deuteronomy, except on one or two points, such as the law of leprosy and of clean and unclean animals, does not encroach on matters of ritual, which it was the special province of the priesthood to administer. But now that the time was drawing near when the Temple and its worship were to be the very centre of the religious life of the nation, it was necessary that the essential elements of the ceremonial law should be systematised and published in a form understanded of the people. The last nine chapters of Ezekiel, then, contain the first draft of such a scheme, drawn from an ancient priestly tradition which in its origin went back to the time of Moses. It is true that this was not the precise form in which the law was destined to be put in practice in the post-exilic community. But Ezekiels legislation served its purpose when it laid down clearly, with the authority of a prophet, the fundamental ideas that underlie the conception of ritual as an aid to spiritual religion. And these ideas were not lost sight of, though it was reserved for others, working under the impulse supplied by Ezekiel, to perfect the details of the system, and to adapt the principles of the vision to the actual circumstances of the second Temple. Through what subsequent stages the work was carried we can hardly hope to determine with exactitude; but it was finished in all essential respects before the great covenant of Ezra and Nehemiah in the year 444.
Let us now consider the bearing of this theory on the interpretation of Ezekiels vision. It enables us to do justice to the unmistakable practical purpose which pervades its legislation. It frees us from the grave difficulties involved in the assumption that Ezekiel wrote with the finished Pentateuch before him. It vindicates the prophet from the suspicion of arbitrary deviations from a standard of venerable antiquity and of divine authority, which was afterwards proved by experience to be suited to the requirements of that restored Israel in whose interest Ezekiel legislated. And in doing so it gives a new meaning to his claim to speak as a prophet ordaining a new system of laws with divine authority. Whilst perfectly consistent with the inspiration of the Mosaic books, it places that of Ezekiel on a surer footing than does the supposition that the whole Pentateuch was of Mosaic authorship. It involves, no doubt, that the details of the Priestly law were in a more or less fluid condition down to the time of the Exile; but it explains the otherwise unaccountable fact that the several parts of the law became operative at different times in Israels history, and explains it in a manner that reveals the working of a divine purpose through all the ages of the national existence. It becomes possible to see that Ezekiels legislation and that of the Levitical books are in their essence alike Mosaic, as being founded on the institutions and principles established by Moses at the beginning of the nations history. And an altogether new interest is imparted to the former when we learn to regard it as an epoch-making contribution to the task which laid the foundation of the post-exilic theocracy-the task of codifying and consolidating the laws which expressed the character of the new nation as a holy people consecrated to the service of Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel.