By lot – Not by casting lots, but by allotment, the several portions being assigned by rule Jos 13:6.

Oblation – The oblation (properly heaveoffering) was regarded as the Lords portion Lev 27:30. This oblation is given here as part of the provision made for the priests, and was probably in lieu of tithes Lev 27:30; Num 18:21, just as the prince had his definite portion of land instead of being supported by the contributions of the people. The priests and Levites had, in addition, the sacrifices (Eze 44:28, note). This provision for them, out of proportion in any actual arrangement, is no doubt intended to symbolize the reverence and honor due to God, and expressed by liberality to His services and His ministers. The Septuagint read the breadth twenty thousand; and those who adopt this, read Eze 45:3 and from this whole measure is to be deducted the priests special portion 25,000 from east to west, and 10,000 from north to south. Others, retaining the reading of the text, suppose the term oblation here to denote the portion assigned to the priests alone (as in Eze 48:9), and of this measure Eze 45:3 to mean not deducted from this measure, but computed by this measure. The King James Version rightly supplies reeds, since the precincts Eze 42:20 were 500 reeds square. 25,000 reeds =about 42 12 statute miles, 36 12 geographic miles.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

CHAPTER XLV

The several portions of land appointed for the sanctuary, 1-5,

the city, 6,

and the prince, 7, 8.

Regulations concerning the weights and measures, 9-12;

with ordinances respecting the provisions for the ordinary and

extraordinary sacrifices, 13-25.

NOTES ON CHAP. XLV

Verse 1. When ye shall divide by lot] That is, when on your repossessing your land, every family settles according to the allotment which they formerly had; for it is certain that the land was not divided afresh by lot after the Babylonish captivity. The allotment mentioned and described here was merely for the service of the temple, the use of the priests, and the prince or governor of the people. A division of the whole land is not intended.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

When ye, ye returned Jews, restored to your own land, shall divide by lot: it was not on the return divided by lot, as it was by Joshua, but lot and inheritance are the same many times in the Scripture, and the expression alludes to the usual way of assigning inheritances. The land; land of Canaan. Ye shall offer an oblation; as it is fit God have his portion first set out. Holy portion, by its relation to God, and because dedicated to his service. Reeds: the Hebrew doth not express either reeds or cubits; our translators supply reeds. but the French reads it cubits, (coudees,) Rochelle edit. 1616. The Greek keeps to the Hebrew, and adds not reed or cubit. Could it be demonstrated which is here intended, we might proceed with greater clearness and certainty. It is true reeds are first mentioned as the measure, but cubits are also very often mentioned, as a known measure in measuring the temple and courts, as appears to any one that will read over chapters 40 through 43. Besides, the 2nd verse expressly saith cubits; and I am apt to think that it hath relation as well to the twenty-five thousand, Eze 45:1, as, to the five hundred, Eze 45:2. I rather favour the cubit measure than the reed, that so the whole contents may not seem overgrown; for at reed measure this portion contains at least seventy-seven miles and a little more in length; but at the cubit measure it amounts but to twelve miles and a half. This easily, the other hardly imaginable. Ten thousand reeds is at least thirty miles and a half, but cubits amount to five miles in breadth, and this seems to me both likeliest to be intended and easiest to be understood: however, since the 1st verse mentions not the particular measure, I may as well borrow it from the 2nd verse, as others fetch it from the 40th chapter; and I think the 3rd expressly limits us to the measure by cubits, which see, with notes. Shall be holy; set apart for holy uses, the whole circuit thereof.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1. offer an oblationfrom aHebrew root to “heave” or “raise”; whenanything was offered to God, the offerer raised the hand. The specialterritorial division for the tribes is given in the forty-seventh andforty-eighth chapters. Only Jehovah’s portion is here subdivided intoits three parts: (1) that for the sanctuary (Eze 45:2;Eze 45:3); (2) that for thepriests (Eze 45:4); (3) thatfor the Levites (Eze 45:5).Compare Eze 48:8-13.

five and twenty thousandreeds, &c.So English Versionrightly fills the ellipsis (compare Note, see on Eze42:16). Hence “cubits” are mentioned in Eze45:2, not here, implying that there alone cubits aremeant. Taking each reed at twelve feet, the area of the whole wouldbe a square of sixty miles on each side. The whole forming a squarebetokens the settled stability of the community and the harmony ofall classes. “An holy portion of the land” (Eze45:1) comprised the whole length, and only two-fifths of thebreadth. The outer territory in its distribution harmonizes with theinner and more sacred arrangements of the sanctuary. No room is to begiven for oppression (see Eze45:8), all having ample provision made for their wants andcomforts. All will mutually co-operate without constraint orcontention.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Moreover, when ye shall divide by lot the land, for inheritance,…. This is not to be understood literally of the division of the land of Israel; which agrees not with the division of it begun by Moses, and finished by Joshua, upon his conquest of it, and the introduction of the people of Israel into it; nor was such a division as this made when the Jews returned from Babylon; nor is there any reason to expect the like when they shall be converted in the latter day; nor is it meant typically of the heavenly inheritance, which saints obtain in Christ by lot, Eph 1:11, of which the earthly Canaan was a type; though some in this way interpret it: but since the whole vision respects the church of Christ on earth, it must be meant mystically and spiritually of the kingdom of Christ, and the settlement and establishment of it throughout the whole world, according to the allotment and determination of God; and they are a distinct and special people that are admitted into this state; it is by the distinguishing grace of God that they are taken into the Gospel church, and have a part and share in all the privileges and immunities of it.

Ye shall offer an oblation unto the Lord, an holy portion of the land; which should be lifted up as the heave offering was, and dedicated to the Lord: this designs such persons who are separated from the world, and sanctified by the Spirit of God, who shall be brought by the ministers of the word to the Lord, as trophies of his efficacious and victorious grace, ascribing the whole glory of their conversion to him; and these shall present themselves, souls and bodies, a holy, living, and acceptable sacrifice to him; see Isa 66:20.

The length shall be the length of five and twenty thousand reeds, and the breadth shall be ten thousand; the kind of measure is not expressed in the original, so that it is a question whether reeds or cubits are meant; some think the latter, and the rather, because mention is made of them, Eze 45:2, and it is added,

and of this measure shall thou measure the length of five and twenty thousand; which, if understood of cubits, will greatly reduce the length and breadth of this holy portion of the land; wherefore it is best to take the largest measure, since that seems better to answer the design of the Holy Ghost in this passage; and the rather, since this measure is more proper to measure land with, and is that which the measurer is said to have in his hand, Eze 40:5, and besides, the measure of the sanctuary, said to be five hundred square, Eze 45:2 was measured with the measuring reed, and not the cubit, Eze 42:16, and which therefore must be supplied here; and a measuring reed being six cubits, by a cubit and a hand’s breath, Eze 40:5, makes this portion of land to be more than six times larger than if it was supposed to be measured by the cubit; and twenty five thousand of this measure, according to Cornelius apide, made five hundred miles, which was three times as large as the land of Canaan; that being, as Jerom u says, a hundred and sixty miles long, and forty six broad; and is a proof, that the land of Canaan literally taken is not here meant; but the whole is designed to set forth the amplitude and large extent of the church of Christ in the world, in the times the vision refers to.

This shall be holy in all the borders thereof round about; that is, this portion of land measured out, and distinguished from the rest: holiness of heart and life shall appear in all the subjects of Christ’s kingdom, and members of his church, which becomes his house for ever.

u Ad Dardanum, tom. 3. fol. 21. I. K.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The determination of the means of support for the priesthood is followed still further by an explanation of the manner in which Jehovah will be their inheritance and possession; in other words, assign to the priests and Levites that portion of the land which was requisite for their abode. This is to be done by His causing a definite tract of land to be set apart for Himself, for the sanctuary, and for His servants, and for the capital, when the country is distributed among the tribes of Israel (Eze 45:1-8). On both sides of this domain the prince is also to receive a possession in land, to guard against all exaction on the part of the princes in time to come. And everywhere unrighteousness is to cease, just weight and measure are to be observed (Eze 45:9-12), and the people are to pay certain heave-offerings to provide for the sacrifices binding upon the prince (Eze 45:13-17).

Eze 45:1-8

The Holy Heave from the Land. – Eze 45:1. And when ye divide the land by lot for an inheritance, ye shall lift a heave for Jehovah as a holy (portion) from the land; five and twenty thousand the length, and the breadth ten (? twenty) thousand. It shall be holy in all its circumference round about. Eze 45:2. Of this five hundred shall belong to the Holy by five hundred square round about, and fifty cubits open space thereto round about. Eze 45:3. And from this measured space thou shalt measure a length of five and twenty thousand, and a breadth of ten thousand, and in this shall be the sanctuary, a holy of holies. Eze 45:4. A holy (portion) of the land shall this be; to the priests, the servants of the sanctuary, shall it belong who draw near to serve Jehovah, and it shall be to them the place for houses and a sanctuary for the sanctuary. Eze 45:5. And five and twenty thousand in length and ten thousand in breadth shall belong to the Levites, the servants of the house, for a possession to them as gates to dwell in. Eze 45:6. And as a possession for the city, ye shall give five thousand in breadth and five and twenty thousand in length, parallel to the holy heave; it shall belong to the whole house of Israel. Eze 45:7. And to the prince (ye shall give) on both sides of the holy heave and of the possession of the city, along the holy heave and along the possession of the city, on the west side westwards and on the east side eastwards, and in length parallel to one of the tribe-portions, from the western border to the eastern border. Eze 45:8. It shall belong to him as land, as a possession in Israel; and my princes shall no more oppress my people, but shall leave the land to the house of Israel according to its tribes. – The domain to be first of all set apart from the land at the time of its distribution among the tribes is called , heave, not in the general sense of the lifting or taking of a portion from the whole, but as a portion lifted or taken by a person from his property as an offering for God; for comes from , which signifies in the case of the minchah the lifting of a portion which was burned upon the altar as for Jehovah (see the comm. on Lev 2:9). Consequently everything that was offered by the Israelites, either voluntarily or in consequence of a precept from the Lord for the erection and maintenance of the sanctuary and its servants, was called (see Exo 25:2., Eze 30:15; Lev 7:14; Num 15:19, etc.). Only the principal instructions concerning the heave from the land are given here, and these are repeated in Eze 48:8-22, in the section concerning the division of the land, and to some extent expanded there. The introductory words, “when ye divide the land by lot for an inheritance,” point to this. (See the map on Plate IV.) , sc. (Pro 1:14), to cast the lot, to divide by lot, as in Jos 13:6. Then shall ye lift, set apart, a heave for Jehovah as a holy (portion) from the land. is to be closely connected with , as shown by Eze 45:4. In the numbers mentioned the measure to be employed is not given. But it is obvious that cubits are not meant, as Bttcher, Hitzig, and others assume, but rods; partly from a comparison of Eze 45:2 with Eze 42:16, where the space of the sanctuary, which is given here as 500 by 500 square, is described as five hundred rods on every side; and partly also from the fact that the open space around the sanctuary is fixed at fifty cubits, and in this case is added, because rods are not to be understood there as in connection with the other numbers. The correctness of this view, which we meet with in Jerome and Raschi, cannot be overthrown by appealing to the excessive magnitude of a of twenty-five thousand rods in length and ten thousand rods in breadth; for it will be seen in Ezekiel 48 that the measurements given answer to the circumstances in rods, but not in cubits. The before and after the number is pleonastic: “as for the length, twenty-five thousand rods in length.” Length here is the measurement from east to west, and breadth from north to south, as we may clearly see from Eze 48:10. No regard, therefore, is paid to the natural length and breadth of the land; and the greater extent of the portions to be measured is designated as length, the smaller as breadth. The expression is a remarkable one, as is constantly used, not only in Eze 45:3 and Eze 45:5, but also in Eze 48:9-10, Eze 48:13, Eze 48:18. The lxx have , twenty thousand breadth. This reading appears more correct than the Masoretic, as it is demanded by Eze 45:3 and Eze 45:5. For according to Eze 45:3, of the portion measured in Eze 45:1 twenty-five thousand rods in length and ten thousand in breadth were to be measured for the sanctuary and for the priests’ land; and according to Eze 45:5, the Levites were also to receive twenty-five thousand rods in length and ten thousand in breadth for a possession. The first clause of Eze 45:3 is unintelligible if the breadth of the holy terumah is given in Eze 45:1 as only ten thousand rods, inasmuch as one cannot measure off from an area of twenty-five thousand rods in length and ten thousand rods in breadth another space of the same length and breadth. Moreover, Eze 45:1 requires the reading , as the “holy terumah ” is not only the portion set apart for the sanctuary and the priests’ land, but also that which was set apart for the Levites.

According to Eze 48:14, this was also “holy to Jehovah;” whereas the portion measured off for the city was “common” (Eze 48:15). This is borne out by the fact that in the chapter before us the domain appointed for the city is distinguished from the land of the priests and Levites by the verb (Eze 45:6), whilst the description of the size of the Levites’ land in Eze 45:5 is closely connected with that of the land of the priests; and further, that in Eze 45:7, in the description of the land of the prince, reference is made only to the holy terumah and the possession of the city, from which it also follows that the land of the Levites is included in the holy terumah. Consequently Eze 45:1 treats of the whole of the , i.e., the land of the priests and Levites, which was twenty-five thousand rods long and twenty thousand rods broad. This is designated in the last clause of the verse as a holy (portion) in its entire circumference, and then divided into two domains in Eze 45:2 and Eze 45:3. – Eze 45:2. Of this ( , of the area measured in Eze 45:1) there shall come, or belong, to the holy, i.e., to the holy temple domain, five hundred rods square, namely, the domain measured in Eze 42:15-20 round about the temple, for a separation between holy and common; and round this domain there is to be a , i.e., an open space of fifty cubits on every side, that the dwellings to the priests may not be built too near to the holy square of the temple building. – Eze 45:3. , this measure (i.e., this measured piece of land), also points back to Eze 45:1, and cannot be taken in any other sense than in (Eze 45:2). From the whole tract of land measured in Eze 45:1 a portion is to be measured off twenty-five thousand rods in length and ten thousand rods in breadth, in which the sanctuary, i.e., the temple with its courts, is to stand as a holy of holies. This domain, in the midst of which is the temple, is to belong to the priests, as the sanctified portion of the land, as the place or space for their houses, and is to be a sanctuary for the sanctuary, i.e., for the temple. Eze 45:5. A portion equally large is to be measured off to the Levites, as the temple servants, for their possession. The Keri is formed after the of Eze 45:4, and the Chetib is indisputably correct. There is great difficulty in the last words of this verse, , “for a possession to them twenty cells;” for which the lxx give , and which they have therefore read, or for which they have substituted by conjecture, . We cannot, in fact, obtain from the of the Masoretic text any meaning that will harmonize with the context, even if we render the words, as Rosenmller does, in opposition to the grammar, cum viginti cubiculis , and understand by capacious cell-buildings. For we neither expect to find in this connection a description of the number and character of the buildings in which the Levites lived, nor can any reason be imagined why the Levites, with a domain of twenty-five thousand rods in length and ten thousand rods in breadth assigned to them, should live together in twenty cell-buildings. Still less can we think of the “twenty cells” as having any connection with the thirty cells in the outer court near to the gate-buildings (Eze 40:17-18), as these temple cells, even though they were appointed for the Levites during their service in the temple, were not connected in any way with the holy terumah spoken of here. Hvernick’s remark, that “the prophet has in his eye the priests’ cells in the sanctuary, – and the dwellings of the Levites during their service, which were only on the outside of the sanctuary, were to correspond to these,” is not indicated in the slightest degree by the words, but is a mere conjecture. There is no other course open, therefore, than to acknowledge a corruption of the text, and either to alter `srym into , as Hitzig proposes (cf. Num 35:2-3; Jos 21:2), or to take as a mistake for : “for a possession to them as gates to dwell in,” according to the frequent use of , gates, for , cities, e.g., in what was almost a standing phrase, “the Levites who is in thy gates” (= cities; Deu 12:18; Deu 14:27; Deu 16:11; cf. Exo 20:10; Deu 5:14, etc.). In that case the faulty reading would have arisen from the transposition of into , and the change of into .

Beside the holy terumah for sanctuary, priests, and Levites, they are also (Eze 45:6) to give a tract of twenty-five thousand rods in length and five thousand rods in breadth as the property of the city (i.e., of the capital). : parallel to the holy heave, i.e., running by the longer side of it. This portion of land, which was set apart for the city, was to belong to all Israel, and not to any single tribe. The more precise directions concerning this, and concerning the situation of the whole terumah in the land, are not given till Eze 48:8-22. Here, in the present chapter, this heave is simply mentioned in connection with the privileges which the servants of the Lord and of His sanctuary were to enjoy. These included, in a certain sense, also the property assigned to the prince in Eze 45:7 as the head of the nation, on whom the provision of the sacrifices for the nation devolved, and who, apart from this, also needed for his subsistence a portion of the land, which should be peculiarly his own, in accordance with his rank. They were to give him as his property (the verb is to be supplied to from Eze 45:6) the land on this side and that side of the holy terumah and of the city-possession, and that in front ( ) of these two tracts of land, that is to say, adjoining them, extending to their boundaries, ‘ , “from” (i.e., according to our view, “upon”) the west side westward, and from (upon) the east side eastward; in other words, the land which remained on the eastern and western boundary of the holy terumah and of the city domain, both toward the west as far as the Mediterranean Sea, and toward the east as far as the Jordan, the two boundaries of the future Canaan. The further definition ‘ is not quite clear; but the meaning of the words is, that “the length of the portions of land to be given to the prince on the east and west side of the terumah shall be equal to the length of one of the tribe-portions,” and not that the portions of land belonging to the prince are to be just as long from north to south as the length of one of the twelve tribe-possessions. “Length” throughout this section is the extent from east to west. It is so in the case of all the tribe-territories (cf. Eze 48:8), and must be taken in this sense in connection with the portion of land belonging to the prince also. The meaning is therefore this: in length (from east to west) these portions shall be parallel to the inheritance of one of the twelve tribes from the western boundary to the eastern. Two things are stated here: first, that the prince’s portion is to extend on the eastern and western sides of the terumah as far as the boundary of the land allotted to the tribes, i.e., on the east to the Jordan, and on the west to the Mediterranean (cf. Eze 48:8); and secondly, that on the east and west it is to run parallel ( ) to the length of the separate tribe-territories, i.e., not to reach farther toward either north or south than the terumah lying between, but to be bounded by the long sides of the tribe-territories which bound the terumah on the north and south. is the accusative of direction; , some one (cf. Jdg 16:7; Psa 82:7). – In Eze 45:8, with the article is to be retained, contrary to Hitzig’s conjecture : “to the land belonging to him as a possession shall it (the portion marked off in Eze 45:7) be to him.” , as in 1Ki 11:18, of property in land. In Eze 45:8, the motive for these instructions is given. The former kings of Israel had no land of their own, no domain; and this had driven them to acquire private property by violence and extortion. That this may not occur any more in the future, and all inducement to such oppression of the people may be taken from the princes, in the new kingdom of God the portion of land more precisely defined in Eze 45:7 is to be given to the prince as his own property. The plural, “my princes,” does not refer to several contemporaneous princes, nor can it be understood of the king and his sons, i.e., of the royal family, on account of Eze 46:16; but it is to be traced to the simple fact “that Ezekiel was also thinking of the past kings, and that the whole series of princes, who had ruled over Israel, and still would rule, was passing before his mind” (Kliefoth), without our being able to conclude from this that there would be a plurality of princes succeeding one another in time to come, in contradiction to Eze 37:25. – “And the land shall they (the princes) leave to the people of Israel” ( in the sense of concedere; and , the land, with the exception of the portion set apart from it in Eze 45:1-7). – The warning against oppression and extortion, implied in the reason thus assigned, is expanded into a general exhortation in the following verses.

Eze 45:9-12

General Exhortation to Observe Justice and Righteousness in their Dealings. – Eze 45:9. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Let it suffice you, ye princes of Israel: desist from violence and oppression, and observe justice and righteousness, and cease to thrust my people out of their possession, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah. Eze 45:10. Just scales, and a just ephah, and a just bath, shall ye have. Eze 45:11. The ephah and the bath shall be of one measure, so that the bath holds the tenth part of the homer, and the ephah the tenth part of the homer: after the homer shall its standard be. Eze 45:12. And the shekel shall have twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall the mina be with you. – The exhortation in Eze 45:9 is similar to that in Eze 44:6, both in form and substance. As the Levites and priests are to renounce the idolatry to which they have been previously addicted, and to serve before the Lord in purity and holiness of life, so are the princes to abstain from the acts of oppression which they have formerly practised, and to do justice and righteousness; for example, to liberate the people of the Lord from the . is unjust expulsion from one’s possession, of which Ahab’s conduct toward Naboth furnished a glaring example (1 Kings 21). These acts of violence pressed heavily upon the people, and this burden is to be removed ( ). In Eze 45:10-12 the command to practise justice and righteousness is expanded; and it is laid as a duty upon the whole nation to have just weights and measures. This forms the transition to the regulation, which follows from Eze 45:13 onwards, of the taxes to be paid by the people to the prince to defray the expenses attendant upon the sacrificial worship. – For Eze 45:10, see Lev 19:36 and Deu 25:13. Instead of the hin (Lev 19:36), the bath, which contained six hins, is mentioned here as the measure for liquids. The is met with for the first time in Isa 5:10, and appears to have been introduced as a measure for liquids after the time of Moses, having the same capacity as the ephah for dry goods (see my Bibl. Archol. II pp. 139ff.). This similarity is expressly stated in Eze 45:11. Both of them, the ephah as well as the bath, are to contain the tenth of a homer ( , to carry, for , to contain, to hold; compare Gen 36:7 with Amo 7:10), and to be regulated by the homer. Eze 45:12 treats of the weights used for money. The first clause repeats the old legal provision (Exo 30:13; Lev 27:25; Num 3:47), that the shekel, as the standard weight for money, which was afterwards stamped as a coin, is to contain twenty gerahs. The regulations which follow are very obscure: “twenty shekels, twenty-five shekels, fifteen shekels, shall the mina be to you.” The mina, , occurs only here and in 1Ki 10:17; Ezr 2:69; and Neh 7:71-72, – that is to say, only in books written during the captivity of subsequent to it. If we compare 1Ki 10:17, according to which three minas of gold were used for a shield, with 2Ch 9:16, where three hundred (shekels) of gold are said to have been used for a similar shield, it is evident that a mina was equal to a hundred shekels. Now as the talent ( ) contained three thousand (sacred or Mosaic) shekels (see the comm. on Exo 38:25-26), the talent would only have contained thirty minas, which does not seem to answer to the Grecian system of weights. For the Attic talent contained sixty minas, and the mina a hundred drachms; so that the talent contained six thousand drachms, or three thousand didrachms. But as the Hebrew shekel was equal to a , the Attic talent with three thousand didrachms corresponded to the Hebrew talent with three thousand shekels; and the mina, as the sixtieth part of the talent, with a hundred drachms or fifty didrachms, ought to correspond to the Hebrew mina with fifty shekels, as the Greek name is unquestionably derived from the Semitic . The relation between the mina and the shekel, resulting from a comparison of 1Ki 10:17 with 2Ch 9:16, can hardly be made to square with this, by the assumption that the shekels referred to in 2Ch 9:16 are not Mosaic shekels, but so-called civil shekels, the Mosaic half-shekel, the beka, , having acquired the name of shekel in the course of time, as the most widely-spread silver coin of the larger size. A hundred such shekels or bekas made only fifty Mosaic shekels, which amounted to one mina; while sixty minas also formed one talent (see my Bibl. Archol. II pp. 135, 136).

But the words of the second half of the verse before us cannot be brought into harmony with this proportion, take them how we will. If, for example, we add the three numbers together, 20 + 25 + 15 shekels shall the mina be to you, Ezekiel would fix the mina at sixty shekels. But no reason whatever can be found for such an alteration of the proportion between the mina and the talent on the one hand, or the shekel on the other, if the shekel and talent were to remain unchanged. And even apart from this, the division of the sixty into twenty, twenty-five, and fifteen still remains inexplicable, and can hardly be satisfactorily accounted for in the manner proposed by the Rabbins, namely, that there were pieces of money in circulation of the respective weights of twenty, twenty-five, and fifteen shekels, for the simple reason that no historical trace of the existence of any such pieces can be found, apart from the passage before us.

(Note: It is true that Const. l’Empereur has observed, in the Discursus ad Lectorem prefixed to the Paraphrasis Joseph. Jachiadae in Danielem , that “as God desired that justice should be preserved in all things, He noticed the various coins, and commanded that they should have their just weight. One coin, according to Jewish testimony, was of twenty shekels, a second of twenty-five, and a third of fifteen shekels; and as these together made one mina, according to the command of God, in order that it might be manifest that each had its proper quantity, He directed that they should be weighed against the mina, so that it might be known whether each had its own weight by means of the mina, to which they ought to be equal.” But the Jewish witnesses ( Judaei testes ) are no other than the Rabbins of the Middle Ages, Sal. Jarchi (Raschi), Dav. Kimchi, and Abrabanel, who attest the existence of these pieces of money, not on the ground of historical tradition, but from an inference drawn from this verse. The much earlier Targumist knows nothing whatever of them, but paraphrases the words thus: “the third part of a mina has twenty shekels; a silver mina, five and twenty shekels; the fourth part of a mina, fifteen shekels; all sixty are a mina; and a great mina (i.e., probably one larger than the ordinary, or civil mina) shall be holy to you;” from which all that can be clearly learned is, that he found in the words of the prophet a mina of sixty shekels. A different explanation is given by the lxx, whose rendering, according to the Cod. Vatic. (Tischendorf), runs as follows: , , ; and according to the Cod. Al.: … Boeckh ( Metrol. Untersuch. pp. 54ff.) and Bertheau ( Zur Gesch. der Isr. pp. 9ff.) regard the latter as the original text, and punctuate it thus: , , , – interpreting the whole verse as follows: “the weight once fixed shall remain unaltered, and unadulterated in its original value: namely, a shekel shall contain ten gerahs; five shekels, or a five-shekel piece, shall contain exactly five; and so also a ten-shekel piece, exactly ten shekels; and the mina shall contain fifty shekels.” But however this explanation may appear to commend itself, and although for this reason it has been adopted by Hvernick and by the author of this commentary in his Bibl. Archol., after a repeated examination of the matter I cannot any longer regard it as well-founded, but am obliged to subscribe to the view held by Hitzig and Kliefoth, “that this rendering of the lxx carries on the face of it the probability of its resting upon nothing more than an attempt to bring the text into harmony with the ordinary value of the mina.” For apart from the fact that nothing is known of the existence of five and ten shekel pieces, it is impossible to get any intelligible meaning from the words, that five shekels are to be worth five shekels, and ten shekels worth ten shekels, as it was self-evident that five shekels could not be worth either four shekels or six.)

And the other attempts that have been made to explain the difficult words are no satisfactory. The explanation given by Cocceius and J. D. Michaelis ( Supplem. ad lex. p. 1521), that three different minas are mentioned, – a smaller one of fifteen Mosaic shekels, a medium size of twenty shekels, and a large one of twenty-five-is open to the objection justly pointed out by Bertheau, that in an exact definition of the true weight of anything we do not expect three magnitudes, and the purely arbitrary assumption of three different minas is an obvious subterfuge. The same thing applies to Hitzig’s explanation, that the triple division, twenty, twenty-five, and fifteen shekels, has reference to the three kinds of metal used for coinage, viz., gold, silver, and copper, so that the gold mina was worth, or weighed, twenty shekels; the silver mina, twenty-five; and the copper mina, fifteen, – which has no tenable support in the statement of Josephus, that the shekel coined by Simon was worth four drachms; and is overthrown by the incongruity in the relation in which it places the gold to the silver, and both these metals to the copper. – There is evidently a corruption of very old standing in the words of the text, and we are not in possession of the requisite materials for removing it by emendation.

Eze 45:13-17

The Heave-offerings of the People. – Eze 45:13. This is the heave-offering which ye shall heave: The sixth part of the ephah from the homer of wheat, and ye shall give the sixth part of the ephah from the homer of barley; Eze 45:14. And the proper measure of oil, from the bath of oil a tenth of the bath from the cor, which contains ten baths or a homer; for ten baths are a homer; Eze 45:15. And one head from the flock from two hundred from the watered land of Israel, for the meat-offering, and for the burnt-offering, and for the peace-offerings, to make atonement for them, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah. Eze 45:16. All the people of the land shall be held to this heave-offering for the prince in Israel. Eze 45:17. And upon the prince shall devolve the burnt-offerings, and the meat-offering, and the drink-offering at the feasts, the new moons, and the Sabbaths, at all the festivals of the house of Israel; he shall provide the sin-offering, and the meat-offering, and the burnt-offering, and the peace-offerings, to make atonement for the house of Israel. – The introductory precepts to employ just measures and weights are now followed by the regulations concerning the productions of nature to be paid by the Israelites to the prince for the sacrificial worship, the provision for which was to devolve on him. Fixed contributions are to be levied for this purpose, of wheat, barley, oil, and animals of the flock – namely, according to Eze 45:13-15, of corn the sixtieth part, of oil the hundredth part, and of the flock the two hundredth head. There is no express mention made of wine for the drink-offering, or of cattle, which were also requisite for the burnt-offering and peace-offering, in addition to animals from the flock. The enumeration therefore is not complete, but simply contains the rule according to which they were to act in levying what was required for the sacrifices. The word in Eze 45:13 must not be altered, as Hitzig proposes; for although this is the only passage in which occurs, it is analogous to in Gen 41:34, both in its formation and its meaning, “to raise the sixth part.” A sixth of an ephah is the sixtieth part of a homer. , that which is fixed or established, i.e., the proper quantity. is in apposition to (for the article, see the comm. on Eze 43:21), the fixed quantity of oil, namely of the bath of oil-i.e., the measure of that which is to be contributed from the oil, and that from the bath of oil-shall be the tenth part of the bath from the cor, i.e., the hundredth part of the year’s crop, as the cor contained ten baths. The cor is not mentioned in the preceding words (Eze 45:11), nor does it occur in the Mosaic law. It is another name for the homer, which is met with for the first time in the writings of the captivity (1Ki 5:2, 25; 2Ch 2:9; 2Ch 27:5). For this reason its capacity is explained by the words which are appended to : ‘ , from the cor (namely) of ten baths, one homer; and the latter definition is still further explained by the clause, “for ten baths are one homer.” – Eze 45:15. , from the watered soil (cf. Gen 13:10), that is to say, not a lean beast, but a fat one, which has been fed upon good pasture. indicates the general purpose of the sacrifices (vid., Lev 1:4). – Eze 45:16. The article in , as in ni sa , ni in Eze 45:14. , to be, i.e., to belong, to anything – in other words, to be held to it, under obligation to do it; (Eze 45:17), on the other hand, to be upon a person, i.e., to devolve upon him. In the feast and days of festival, which have been previously mentioned separately, are all grouped together. ‘ ‘ .rehtegot , to furnish the sin-offering, etc., i.e., to supply the materials for them.

So far as the fact is concerned, the Mosaic law makes no mention of any contributions to the sanctuary, with the exception of the first-born, the first-fruits and the tithes, which could be redeemed with money, however. Besides these, it was only on extraordinary occasions – e.g., the building of the tabernacle – that the people were called upon for freewill heave-offerings. But the Mosaic law contains no regulation as to the sources from which the priests were to meet the demands for the festal sacrifices. So far, the instructions in the verses before us are new. What had formerly been given for this object as a gift of spontaneous love, is to become in the future a regular and established duty, to guard against that arbitrary and fitful feeling from which the worship of God might suffer injury. – To these instructions there are appended, from Eze 45:18 onwards, the regulations concerning the sacrifices to be offered at the different festivals.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

      1 Moreover, when ye shall divide by lot the land for inheritance, ye shall offer an oblation unto the LORD, a holy portion of the land: the length shall be the length of five and twenty thousand reeds, and the breadth shall be ten thousand. This shall be holy in all the borders thereof round about.   2 Of this there shall be for the sanctuary five hundred in length, with five hundred in breadth, square round about; and fifty cubits round about for the suburbs thereof.   3 And of this measure shalt thou measure the length of five and twenty thousand, and the breadth of ten thousand: and in it shall be the sanctuary and the most holy place.   4 The holy portion of the land shall be for the priests the ministers of the sanctuary, which shall come near to minister unto the LORD: and it shall be a place for their houses, and an holy place for the sanctuary.   5 And the five and twenty thousand of length, and the ten thousand of breadth, shall also the Levites, the ministers of the house, have for themselves, for a possession for twenty chambers.   6 And ye shall appoint the possession of the city five thousand broad, and five and twenty thousand long, over against the oblation of the holy portion: it shall be for the whole house of Israel.   7 And a portion shall be for the prince on the one side and on the other side of the oblation of the holy portion, and of the possession of the city, before the oblation of the holy portion, and before the possession of the city, from the west side westward, and from the east side eastward: and the length shall be over against one of the portions, from the west border unto the east border.   8 In the land shall be his possession in Israel: and my princes shall no more oppress my people; and the rest of the land shall they give to the house of Israel according to their tribes.

      Directions are here given for the dividing of the land after their return to it; and, God having warranted them to do it, would be an act of faith, and not of folly, thus to divide it before they had it. And it would be welcome news to the captives to hear that they should not only return to their own land, but that, whereas they were now but few in number, they should increase and multiply, so as to replenish it. But this never had its accomplishment in the Jewish state after the return out of captivity, but was to be fulfilled in the model of the Christian church, which was perfectly new (as this division of the land was quite different from that in Joshua’s time) and much enlarged by the accession of the Gentiles to it; and it will be perfected in the heavenly kingdom, of which the land of Canaan had always been a type. Now, 1. Here is the portion of land assigned to the sanctuary, in the midst of which the temple was to be built, with all its courts and purlieus; the rest round about it was for the priests. This is called (v. 1) an oblation to the Lord; for what is given in works of piety, for the maintenance and support of the worship of God and the advancement of religion, God accepts as given to him, if it be done with a single eye. It is a holy portion of the land, which is to be set out first, as the first-fruits that sanctify the lump. The appropriating of lands for the support of religion and the ministry is an act of piety that bids as fair for perpetuity, and the benefit of posterity, as any. This holy portion of the land was to be measured, and the borders of it fixed, that the sanctuary itself might not have more than its share and in time engross the whole land. So far the lands of the church shall extend and no further; as in our own kingdom donations to the church were of old limited by the statute of mortmain. The lands here allotted to the sanctuary were 25,000 reeds (so our translation makes it, though some make them only cubits) in length, and 10,000 in breadth-about eighty miles one way and thirty miles another way (say some); twenty-five miles one way and ten miles the other way, so others. The priests and Levites that were to come near to minister were to have their dwellings in this portion of the land that was round about the sanctuary, that they might be near their work; whereas by the distribution of land in Joshua’s time the cities of the priests and Levites were dispersed all the nation over. This intimates that gospel ministers should reside upon their charge; where their service lies there must they live. 2. Next to the lands of the sanctuary the city-lands are assigned, in which the holy city was to be built, and with the issues and profits of which the citizens were to be maintained (v. 6): It shall be for the whole house of Israel, not appropriated, as before, to one tribe or two, but some of all the tribes shall dwell in the city, as we find they did, Neh 11:1; Neh 11:2. The portion for the city was fully as long, but only half as broad, as that for the sanctuary; for the city was enriched by trade and therefore had the less need of lands. 3. The next allotment after the church-lands and the city-lands is of the crown-lands, Eze 45:7; Eze 45:8. Here is no admeasurement of these, but they are said to lie on the one side and on the other side of the church-lands and city-lands, to intimate that the prince with his wealth and power was to be a protection to both. Some make the prince’s share equal to the church’s and city’s share both together; others make it to be a thirteenth part of the rest of the land, the other twelve parts being for the twelve tribes. The prince that attends continually to the administration of public affairs must have wherewithal to support his dignity, and have abundance, that he may not be in temptation to oppress the people, which yet with many does not prevent that; but the grace of God shall prevent it, for it is promised here, My princes shall no more oppress my people; for God will make the officers peace and the exactors righteousness. Notwithstanding this, we find that after the return of the Jews to their own land the princes were complained of for their exactions. But Nehemiah was one that did not do as the former governors, and yet kept a handsome court, Neh 5:15; Neh 5:18. But so much is said of the prince in this mystical holy state, to intimate that in the gospel-church magistrates should be as nursing fathers to it and Christian princes its patrons and protectors; and the holy religion they profess, as far as they are subject to the power of it, will restrain them from oppressing God’s people, because they are more his people than theirs. 4. The rest of the lands were to be distributed to the people according to their tribes, who had reason to think themselves well settled, when they had both the testimony of Israel and the throne of judgment so near them.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

EZEKIEL – CHAPTER 45

THE LORD’S PORTION OF THE LAND

Verses 1-6:

Verse 1 directs that when the new rulers and priests shall cause the land to be divided by lots for an inheritance, similar to its division before their captivity, they shall then offer an oblation to the Lord, Num 26:55; Num 33:54; Jos 13:6. It shall be lifted up, elevated, or heaved for holy purposes to the Lord; This portion is in three parts: 1) for the sanctuary, v. 2, 3; 2) for the priests, v. 4; and 3) for the Levites, v. 5. See also Eze 47:22; Pro 3:9-10; Eze 48:8. Dimensions of the oblation portion were a square of 60 miles on each side, while the holy part was only two fifth of the breadth. The form of a square suggests the central stability of this area for all Israel, Eze 48:8.

Verse 2, 3 describe a portion of the oblation-lifted holy ground area that was within the larger description of v. 1—This was to be for location of the sanctuary and the most holy place, and their attached buildings, with the sanctuary located in its midst, Eze 42:20; Eze 48:8.

Verse 4 explains that the holy part defined, v. 3, should be reserved for the “priests, the ministers of the sanctuary;” The inner chambers provided places of residence and preparation for the priests to dress and eat in connection with their ministry in and about the sanctuary, within the inner court, Eze 44:15; Num 16:5; Num 16:40. These are distinguished from the Levites who were only “ministers of the house,” in the outer court service, v. 5.

Verse 5 explains that, of this holy property, those Levites who were “ministers of the house,” in the outer courts should have twenty of the thirty chambers as their possession, for residential occupancy, Eze 40:17-18; Eze 48:13.

Verse 6 asserts that the entire area of five thousand long and five and twenty thousand broad should be (or exist) over against or along side the holy portion previously described, as a city area for the whole house or nation of Israel; It was not to be seized or’ encroached upon as it was later, by certain kings of Judah, Jer 22:13.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

THE APPORTIONMENT OF TERRITORY AROUND THE TEMPLE (Chap. 45)

EXEGETICAL NOTES.Eze. 45:1. Divide by lotnot by casting lots, but by allotment, the several portions being assigned according to rule. Ye shall offer an oblationfrom a Hebrew root to heave or raise, because when anything was offered to God the offerer raised the hand. Unto the Lord an holy portion. The Lords portion is subdivided into throe partsthat for the Sanctuary (Eze. 45:2-3), that for the priests (Eze. 45:4), and that for the Levites (Eze. 45:5). This provision for the priests and Levites, out of proportion in any actual arrangement, is no doubt intended to symbolise the reverence and honour due to God and expressed by liberality to His services and His ministers. The length five and twenty thousand reeds, and breadth ten thousand. The English Version fills in the ellipsis with reeds, according to chap. Eze. 43:16. Cubits are mentioned in Eze. 45:2, but not here, implying that there cubits alone are meant. Taking each reed at twelve feet, the area of the whole would be a square of sixty miles on each side. The holy portion of the Lord comprised the whole length and only two-fifths of the breadth. The form of a square indicates the settled stability of the community and the harmony of all classes.

Eze. 45:5. A possession for twenty chambersmeaning that the Levites, who live in twenty out of the thirty chambers mentioned in chap. Eze. 40:17, shall have the portion of land for a possession.

Eze. 45:6. For the whole house of Israel. This portion is to belong to the whole people, not to be subject to the encroachments made by the later kings of Judah (Jer. 22:13).

Eze. 45:7. A portion for the prince. The princes possession is to consist of two halves, one on the west, the other on the east, of the sacred territory. The prince as head of the holy community stands in closest connection with the Sanctuary; his possession, therefore, on both sides must adjoin that which was peculiarly the Lords.Fairbairn. The definition of the princes territory was to prevent the oppressions foretold (1Sa. 8:14), described (2Ki. 23:35), and reproved (Jeremiah 22).

Eze. 45:10. Ye shall have just balances. This fitly introduces the strict regulation of quantities in the prescribed offerings.

Eze. 45:11. The ephah and the bath. The ephah was in use for dry measure, the bath for liquid. The homer seems to have contained about 75 gallons The homer was employed as a standard, for in calculation the ephah and bath were both after the homer, according to the standard of the homer, and were to be equal to each other.

Eze. 45:12. The shekel shall be twenty gerahs. The standard weights were lost when the Chaldeans destroyed the Temple. The threefold enumeration of shekels, twenty, twenty-five, fifteen, probably refers to coins of different value, representing respectively so many shekels, the three collectively making up a maneh. By weighing these together against the maneh a test was afforded whether they severally had their proper weight; sixty shekels in all, containing one coin a fourth of the whole (fifteen shekels), another a third (twenty shekels), another a third and a twelfth (twenty-five shekels).Menochius.

Eze. 45:13. This is the oblation that ye shall offer. Here the offerings are reduced to regular order and the amounts ordained. In later days there were often shortcomings in these respects (Mal. 3:8). This is obviated and regularity ensured in the new order of things.

Eze. 45:16. All the people shall give this oblation for the prince. The peoples gifts were to be placed in the hands of the prince, so as to form a common stock out of which the prince was to provide what was necessary for each sacrifice.

Eze. 45:18. In the first month, in the first day of the month. It is probable that this celebration is the first in a series of generally recurring ordinances, and in this case we have an addition to the Mosaic ritual.

Eze. 45:25. In the seventh month. This is the Feast of Tabernacles (Num. 29:12). Of the other great festival, the Feast of Weeks, no mention is made. Ordinances that are literal, though not slavishly bound to the letter of the law, will set forth the catholic and eternal verities of Messiahs kingdom.

HOMILETICS

RELIGION THE TRUE BASIS OF EQUITY

(Eze. 45:1-25.)

Humanitarianism professes to construct a morality apart from religion. It is contended that man has within himself the norm or rule of right, and by the exercise of his own will-power he can elect to do that which he ought to do and which it is best to do, and which is for him the highest good. But who is the man referred to? Is it the man formed in Gods image, who fell into sin, which must necessarily fetter all moral actions, and who is redeemed by Christ: or is it the man, the pure product of nature, working with the dim light of his own unaided reason, and ignoring every other god but the one centred in his own egoism? The notions of equity in the natural man must necessarily be crude, uncertain, distorted. Man needs, in order to act up to the highest level of justice, not only a revelation of the infallible standard of right, but the aid of Divine power to rectify and strengthen his moral faculties. We have in this chapter an illustration of Religion as the only true basis of Equity.

I. Seen in the impartial distribution of land (Eze. 45:1-8). Here all is to be fairly and unchangeably allocated and according to the unchallengeable principles of religious equity. The form of a square for the land apportioned to the priests, the prince, and the people indicated the perfect harmony and satisfaction existing among these classes. There was no ground for envy, no temptation or disposition to invade and appropriate the territory of another. Nothing has exhibited the insatiable avarice of man more strikingly than his treatment of the land question: to gratify his greed for possession he has not hesitated to practise duplicity, fraud, and oppression. The tendency has been to accumulate the bulk of the land of a nation in the hands of the few, and scant respect has often been paid to the rights of the many. In the good time coming, when religion, and not simply utility, shall be universally acknowledged as the true basis of equity, the rights of king and people shall be readily recognised, and all occasion for lawless interference with each others possessions will be abolished (Eze. 45:8).

II. Seen in the accurate adjustment and use of weights and measures (Eze. 45:9-13). The moral degeneracy of the Jews was apparent in their business transactions. They tampered with weights and measures, and they were frequently charged with falsifying balances (Amo. 8:5; Hos. 12:7; Mic. 6:11). There was ample ground for the severe reproof of the prophet that their ways were not equal (chap. Eze. 33:17). Their trickery and over-reaching was an abomination in the sight of God (Pro. 11:1; Pro. 20:23). The law of the land, however carefully framed and wisely administered, does not always secure perfect justice as between man and man, even when that law is interpreted in the light of equity. The morality of Christian times does not always reach the standard of Pagan honesty. When valuable presents were sent to Epaminondas, the celebrated Theban general, he used to say, If the thing you desire be good, I will do it without any bribe, even because it is good; if it be not honest, I will not do it for all the goods in the world. It is dangerous to trifle with conscientious scruples: it is better to suffer abuse and misrepresentation than to do wrong. The tender sensitiveness of the conscience, like the delicate bloom of ripe fruit, when it is once damaged can never be restored: the heart sighs in vain for the exquisite experience of a time of former conscious innocence. It does not pay to do wrong. A merchant one day, measuring a piece of cloth and finding it short, asked his clerk to help him to stretch it to the required length. The young man refused on conscientious grounds; he lost his situation, but he afterwards rose into fame and greatness, and his praise was in all the churches. It does pay to do right. Religion is the only true basis of equitable dealing as between man and man; it teaches us to render to each other that which is just and equal.

III. Seen in regulating the ordinances of worship (Eze. 45:14-25). The exact directions given in these verses regarding the sacrifices indicate that everything connected with Temple-service must be regulated according to the strictest laws of equity. Of all places, the Sanctuary must not be polluted or its worship marred with mutilated offerings and half-hearted devotion. Morality alone, morality divorced from true religion, does not inspire worshipit lacks motive, lifting power. We cannot worship God till we know Him, and we never know Him till we love Him and the whole soul is swayed and thrilled with the influence of that love. The laws of ethics are but broken lights of a higher truth, and the fragments have been still more hopelessly shattered and inextricably confused by the infatuated attempts of men to construct them into a philosophy of religion that shall be independent of Divine sanctions. Vain dream! It is a repetition of the task of Sisyphus, who spent his time in rolling a stone up a hill, which as soon as it reached the summit rebounded again to the plain. The equitable demands of Divine worship can alone be met by the aid of genuine religion. The soul must be made good before it can be just to God or man.

LESSONS.

1. The highest ideal of equity should be expressed in just and equal laws.

2. Religion, and not utilitarianism, is the true basis of equity.

3. Worship is acceptable to God only as it is in perfect harmony with justice and equity.

GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES

Eze. 45:1-9. The Land Question

1. Should recognise the Divine ownership (Eze. 45:1).

2. Should sanction a distribution in harmony with the rights and claims of all classes (Eze. 45:2-8).

3. Should not allow unjust exactions, or the oppression of the weak by the strong (Eze. 45:8).

4. By its equitable settlement removes temptations to robbery and wrong (Eze. 45:9).

Eze. 45:1-6. The frequent occurrence of the number five in these measurements is remarkable, and if we consider that God has fitted in the human hand five instruments by which man fashions to his will the materials of the worldthat these are the measure of his power over themwe may be instructed by this passage to believe that every Christian State is bound to provide for the maintenance of pure and undefiled religion, according to the measure of its power in the earth.MFarlan.

Eze. 45:1. A portion of the land was first reserved for the Lord. His Temple required an ample space of ground and His poor required support, and He ever lives their Guardian and constant Friend. If we expect the Lords blessing we must pay Him homage down to the widows mite. It is well, therefore, for men when they come to their inheritance to consecrate their fortune by a small offering to Heaven in this way, as it seemed the young ruler in the Gospel wished to do.Sutcliffe.

Those who live from Gods hand are content with His measure, even when it turns out small and modest.It ought to be our joy to be near God, to be associated with Him.Starck.

Eze. 45:3. The Sanctuary was situated in the centre of all; so ought religion to be the central point of life, and Christ the centre of true religion.Religion, faith, Christianity, ought not, either in the life of nations or of individuals, to be placed in a corner merely as a tolerated piece of antiquity.

Eze. 45:4. The Lords faithful priests shall dwell beside Him and be with Christ for refreshment and revival from the strife and disquiet of men among whom they are scattered.Lange.

Eze. 45:7. Royalty which watches with a paternal eye for the public weal should be amply supported in return. The king is the Lords minister, and, next to a lot of land for the Lords house, his support is guaranteed in order and prior to the provision for ministers of religion. His portion was adjacent to the capital because he must reside contiguous to the court and the bench of justice.Sutcliffe.

For princes to have their domains is not unjust, but they should not seek to draw everything into these domains.Starke.

Eze. 45:8. To protect, but not to fleece.Governments ought to give good heed to weights, measures, and coinage, and allow no inequalities to creep in.Knowingly to pass spurious coin is intentional deceit, and so is the clipping of coins in order to lessen their weight.Unjust gain does not profit the third generation. Lightly come, lightly gone.Lange.

Eze. 45:9-12. An Ideal Commonwealth

1. Where God is acknowledged and obeyed.
2. Where the ruler is just and powerful.
3. Where oppression and violence are unknown.
4. Where commerce is conducted on principles of strictest equity.

1. Princes and magistrates commonly are covetous and cruel.
2. Christianity does not overthrow but establish magistracy.
3. The great thing required of them is to do justice, execute judgment and justice, do wrong to none, neither suffer wrong to be done.
4. Princes are not to rule by prerogative in an arbitrary way, but they themselves are tied to the laws of God and bound by them.Greenhill.

Eze. 45:9. Self-interest and avarice, that have hitherto wrought so perniciously, shall no longer prevail among the people of the future, but rather righteousness, a spirit of willing sacrifice.Hengstenberg.

How happy would nations be if their princes ruled in justice, not for self-aggrandisement, but for the glory of God and as holding their authority under Christ; and how happy the people so governed would be, living in tranquillity, prosperity, and true godliness!Fausset.

This is the voice of God to all the rulers of the earthTake away your exactions, do not oppress the people; they are Mine. Abolish all oppressive taxes.A. Clarke.

Eze. 45:10. Just Balances

1. Requisite as between mans actions and his conscience.
2. As between man and man.
3. As between man and God.
4. Will be used in the final judgment.

Eze. 45:13. Even the small gifts of the poor, when given in true love, are an acceptable offering (Heb. 13:16).It is reasonable that a man set apart a considerable portion of his income for the glory of God and the support of true worship.The revenue for spiritual objects is most defrauded.Lange.

Eze. 45:16-25. A Good King

1. Is interested in the religious welfare of his people (Eze. 45:16).

2. Sustains the ministers of the truth in their sacred work (Eze. 45:17-21).

3. Makes generous provision for the national worship of God (Eze. 45:17; Eze. 45:22-25).

These offerings would be perpetual remembrancers to the prince of the sacred character he maintained as the head of such a people, and would supply him by Divine enactment with what was needed to fulfil this part of his office without resorting to arbitrary and oppressive measures. Expressed more generally, it was a symbol of the perfect harmony and mutual co-operation which should exist in such a holy communion in regard to the public service and glory of God; without constraint or any sort of jarring, the several classes would freely and faithfully do their parts. They were all symbolical of the spiritual and eternal truths of Gods Kingdom, and may be variously adjusted, as is now done, in order to make them more distinctly expressive of the greater degree of holiness and purity that is in future times to distinguish the people and service of God over all that has been in the past.Fairbairn.

Eze. 45:17. When Christ on the cross consecrated the new Temple, He cancelled our sins.

Eze. 45:18-25. This order of solemn services does not follow exactly the order of Moses, of Solomon, or of Ezra, who, on the return from captivity, rearranged the festivals on the Mosaic pattern. Familiar as Ezekiel was with every detail of the Levitical law, this deviation can scarcely have been accidental, and we may herein recognise fresh indications that the whole vision is symbolical, representative of the times when, after the oblation of the one Sacrifice, reconciliation and sanctification were effected for man through the presence of God dwelling in the midst of the people.Speakers Commentary.

Eze. 45:18. At the beginning of the new year of grace, and with the newly rising light, the Temple was again raised up or opened, and the true justification and sanctification through the sacrifice of Christ recognised and proclaimed.Lange.

Let us begin our years, our months, our weeks, and days with self-examination, repentance, faith, prayer, and devotedness to God, and spend them in like manner.

Eze. 45:20. Sin as error and seduction, and error and seduction as sin.We ought to attend Divine service from beginning to end.Lange.

Eze. 45:21. Every solemnisation of the Lords Supper a fulfilled paschal solemnity.But our Passover is Christ.It behoves us to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles in spirit and in truth so much more than the Jews the nearer we approach eternity.Our home is above, to which we draw nearer every moment.Lange.

Hereafter there shall be a new Passover and a new Feast of Tabernacles observed in Israel, with ceremonies vastly exceeding in glory those of the same feasts under the Old Testament. The antitypical, perfect, and eternal realities of Christs manifested Kingdom shall be set forth with observances which, though literal, are not to be slavishly bound down to the letter of the old law, but which shall bring out all the heretofore hidden glories and excellences of that law viewed in its essential spirit.Fausset.

Eze. 45:22-25. The sin-offering to be sacrificed first of all, the sins of prince and people being transferred to it as the priest confessed them with his hands on the head of the victim, to show their conviction that the wrath of God must abide on them till transferred to another who should die in their stead; then came the burnt-offerings, to show that, being clear of guilt in His sight, He would accept their service and transfer it with themselves into His heavenly glory by the Spirit, as the burnt-offerings were by the fire of the altar.MFarlan.

Eze. 45:25. By these feasts and sacrifices also we are reminded of the spiritual joy the saints have in their communion together under the Gospel and spiritual sacrifices they offer up to God by Christ.Greenhill.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

5. The apportionment of the sacred portion of the land

(45:18)

TRANSLATION

(1) Moreover, when you shall divide by lot the land for inheritance, you shall offer an oblation unto the LORD, a holy portion of the land; the length shall be the length of twenty-five thousand reeds, and the breadth shall be ten thousand: it shall be holy in all the border thereof round about. (2) Of this there shall be for the holy place five hundred in length, square round about; and fifty cubits for the suburbs thereof round about. (3) And of this measure you shall measure a length of twenty-five thousand, and a breadth of ten thousand; and in it shall be the sanctuary, which is most holy. (4) It is a holy portion of the land; it shall be for the priests, the ministers of the sanctuary, that come near to minister unto the LORD; and it shall be a place for their houses, and a holy place for the sanctuary. (5) And twenty-five thousand in length, and ten thousand in breadth, shall be unto the Levites, the ministers of the house, for a possession unto themselves, for twenty chambers. (6) And you shall appoint the possession of the city five thousand broad, and twenty-five thousand long, side by side with the oblation of the holy portion: it shall be for the whole house of Israel. (7) And whatsoever is for the prince shall be on the one side and on the other side of the holy oblation and of the possession of the city, in front of the holy oblatit)n and in front of the possession of the city, on the west side westward, and on the east side eastward; and in length answerable unto one Of the portions, from the west border unto the east border. (8) In the land it shall be to him for a possession in Israel: and My princes shall no more oppress My people; but they shall give the land to the house of Israel according to their tribes.

COMMENTS

Ezekiel anticipates an apportionment of the Holy Land among the tribes of Israel. The central portion of that land was to belong to the Lord. This rectangular area twenty-five thousand by ten thousand reeds[525] was to be reserved for the priests and the new Temple (Eze. 45:4). This portion of the land is viewed as more holy than the rest of the land (Eze. 45:1). In the center of this priestly portion of ground was a square (500 x 500 reeds) where the Temple would be located. It was separated from the area where the priests dwelled by fifty cubits of open space (Eze. 45:2-3).[526]

[525] Actually the unit of measurement is missing in the Hebrew text. Some scholars think the unit is the cubit.

[526] It if not clear whether Eze. 45:3 refers 10 an additional portion or 25,000 x 10,000 reeds. or whether this is the same portion mentioned in Eze. 45:1.

The Levites would occupy a portion of land equal in extent to and adjoining that of the priests. Scholars differ as to whether this area was north or south of the priests portion. At the extreme end of the Levites portion twenty chambers[527] were to be built apparently to house the gate-keepers so that they would be near the Temple (Eze. 45:5).[528]

[527] The RSV follows the Greek Old Testament and reads for cities to live in.

[528] In Eze. 45:5 the Levites are again called ministers of the house in contrast to the priests who were ministers unto the Lord.

The city of Jerusalem was allocated a rectangular portion of land (25,000 x 5,000 reeds) adjacent to the portion of the priests on the south. This section of the land could be inhabited by any Israelite without regard to tribe (Eze. 45:6). The total territory of the holy portion the territory allocated to the holy city, to the priests, Levites and Temple comprised an area 25,000 reeds square.

On either side of the holy portion (lit., holy offering[529]) which has been described in the previous verses were the territories of the prince (Eze. 45:7). The portion of the prince was equal to that assigned to entire tribes, except that within his territory was the 25,000 reed square holy portion (cf. Eze. 48:21). The princes of the future would not confiscate the land of their subjects; they would respect the tribal boundaries. These princes would be God-fearing men, and they would have adequate territories to support their own needs. Therefore, they would have neither the inclination nor the need to wrong the people of God (Eze. 45:8).

[529] The Hebrew word translated offering is teruma. This word is frequently translated heave-offering. A more accurate translation is

levy, or compulsory contribution. See Taylor. TOTC, p. 273

C. The Regulations Concerning Worship 45:9-46:24

At this point in his vision of the new Temple Ezekiel sets forth the regulations pertaining to (1) the rights and duties of the prince (Eze. 45:9-17); (2) the festival offerings (Eze. 45:18-25); (3) the offerings on the sabbath and new moon (Eze. 46:1-7); (4) the entrance and exit of the worshipers (Eze. 46:8-10); (5) the offerings of the prince on behalf of the people (Eze. 46:11-15); (6) the inheritance of the prince (Eze. 46:16-18); and (7) the preparation of the sacrificial meals (Eze. 46:19-24).

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

XLV.

This and the first part of the following chapter form a remarkable portion of the book. They first describe the setting apart of a large part of the whole land for the sanctuary, the priests, the prince, and the city, in a way and in a geographical position entirely unknown either in the past or the subsequent history of the people (Eze. 45:1-8). The portion assigned to the prince is to prevent violence and exaction on his part; in this connection all unjust measurements are to cease, and standard weights and measures are prescribed (Eze. 45:9-12). Then follow directions for the tax or oblation to be paid by the people to the prince, that he may be able to furnish the required sacrifices (Eze. 45:13-17). The chapter closes with directions concerning the daily sacrifices and the feasts, these feasts being in part unknown to the law; while some feasts that were prominent in the law are entirely omitted, and the ritual of nearly all is greatly changed. The whole is so different from the arrangements of the Mosaic economy, and so foreign to the restoration of that economy on the return from the exile, that it can only be explained of an ideal picture which both prophet and people understood was not to receive a literal realisation.

(1) When ye shall divide by lot.The same expression is used in Eze. 47:22; Eze. 48:29, as it had long before been used in Jos. 13:6; but that it does not imply anything of chance is plain from the fact that in Ezekiel 48 a definite portion of the land is assigned to each of the tribes by name. The idea seems to be the same as is conveyed by our word allotment.

An oblation.Literally a heave offering. This portion of the land is thus called from its analogy to the sacrificial gifts which were lifted up or heaved before the Lord. As a small portion of these was burned upon the altar and the rest given to the priests, so here, a small part of this territory was to be occupied by the sanctuary and the rest given to the priests and Levites. A fuller description of this oblation is given in Eze. 48:8-22; it is here merely mentioned in connection with the support of the priests and the prince.

Five and twenty thousand.In the original there is no mention of the measure to be used, but the English has rightly supplied reeds. This is plain both from the size of the precincts of the Temple, which are made 500 reeds square in Eze. 42:16-20, and from the special mention of cubits in Eze. 45:2 implying that the measure in other cases was different. The length is from east to west, as shown by Eze. 48:8. This length of 25,000 reeds or 150,000 cubits is something over forty-seven statute miles. For its location and comparative size see the map under Ezekiel 48.

The breadth shall be ten thousand.The Greek here reads twenty thousand, and many would alter the text accordingly, but without any advantage. We know from Eze. 48:8; Eze. 48:20, that the whole width of the oblation was 25,000, the same as its length; and this was made up of three portions: the northernmost, 10,000 wide (Eze. 48:13), for the Levites; the next, of the same width (Eze. 48:10), for the priests, in the midst of which was the sanctuary; and the remainder, half as wide (Eze. 48:15), for a profane place for the city, for dwelling, and for suburbs. Yet while this whole territory is there called the oblation, the particular portion for the priests is also called by the same name (Eze. 48:9). The word may therefore be used here in the same sense as there, for that part of the oblation which was for the priests: the oblation of the oblation.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

1-8. Having given directions as to what the temple ministers should eat, the prophet now specifically states what portion of land shall be theirs, and also what portions shall be for the prince and the city (Eze 45:7). The only measure mentioned in the text is that of the Hebrew cubit (Eze 45:2).

Perhaps in every case where the A.V. supplies “reed” in the text it ought to be “cubit.” If this be the case, the “oblation” or “holy portion” of land thus set apart for the temple grounds, including the residence of the priests and Levites (Eze 45:4-5), would be a square of twenty-five thousand cubits [about seven miles). This square is divided by lot or probably merely “allotted” into several parts, as stated in the text and shown in the chart, page 235. The central “oblation,” or holy territory reserved for Jehovah, is twenty-five thousand cubits long (E. to W.) by twenty thousand cubits (Eze 45:1, LXX.) broad (N. to S.). In the exact center of this (Eze 48:8) is the sanctuary, five hundred by five hundred cubits (compare Eze 42:20) surrounded on every side by an open space of fifty cubits (Eze 45:2). Of the first “measure,” or area, a rectangle is cut off twenty-five thousand by ten thousand cubits (Eze 45:3), in which must necessarily fall the sanctuary, “which is most holy” (R.V.), and also the houses of the priests (Eze 45:4). This gives the priests a holy residence district in which to live, as well as a holy place for the sanctuary. Another rectangle exactly equal to that assigned to the priests is now assigned to the Levites “for a possession unto themselves” (R.V.), for “cities to dwell in” (LXX.). Still another rectangle just half the size allotted to the priests and Levites is now cut off from this central sacred area for the city (Eze 45:6), while “the prince shall have the land on both sides of the sacred reservation and the territory of the city, facing the two on the west and on the east, and equal in length to one of the portions of the tribes from the west border to the east border of the land. It shall be his possession in Israel; and the princes of Israel shall no more oppress my people, but shall give the land,” etc. (Toy, Eze 45:7-8).

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

The Allotment of the Sacred Portion.

“Moreover when you divide by lot the land for inheritance, you will offer a gift-offering to Yahweh, a holy portion of the land. The length shall be the length of twenty five thousand, and the breadth shall be ten thousand. It shall be holy in all its surrounding borders. Of this there shall be for the holy place five hundred by five hundred, square round about, and fifty cubits for its open space round about. And by this measure you will measure, a length of twenty five thousand, and a breadth of ten thousand. And in it will be the sanctuary which is most holy. It is a holy portion of land. It will be for the priests, the ministers of the sanctuary who come near to minister to Yahweh. And it will be a place for their houses and a holy place for the sanctuary.”

The commencement is simple enough. It is a reference to when the people eventually return to the land in a new Exodus and begin to parcel out the land. But then he moves on to his new conception.

On return to the land Israel were first to set aside as ‘a holy portion’ for Yahweh an area of land ‘twenty five thousand by ten thousand’ (this is totally outside the city). This was probably intended to be seen as the equivalent of the priestly tithe. But it is stressed that it is a ‘holy portion’, and it is to be sited where it will itself surround the heavenly temple. This would then be followed by an allotment to the Levites (Eze 45:5) an allotment for ‘the city’ (Eze 45:6), and allotments to the prince (Eze 45:7-8), after which the remainder would be divided up by lots as depicted in Eze 47:13 to Eze 48:35.

As we suggested on Eze 42:20, where no mention is made of a unit of measurement we are probably to see it as meaning cubits, and this may be seen as confirmed by the mention of ‘cubits’ for the ‘open space’ around the sanctuary. So the size of ‘the holy portion’ is to be twenty five thousand by ten thousand cubits. These measurements for the holy portion stress the covenant aspect of the whole. Twenty five is five times five, ten is five times two. Both are ways of expressing five intensified. Thus the holy portion itself strongly stresses the covenant relationship between Yahweh and His people.

‘Of this there shall be for the holy place.’ Of the holy portion a section five hundred by five hundred has already been set aside for ‘the holy place’, the heavenly sanctuary (Eze 42:20), in its midst, for the heavenly sanctuary is already there, as Ezekiel has witnessed. This is described in Eze 45:3 as ‘most holy’. This section is then to be surrounded by an open space of fifty cubits wide all round (the priests are not to be limited by the larger distances mentioned in Eze 42:16-19).

The five hundred by five hundred was the size of the heavenly tabernacle to its outer wall (Eze 42:20). So we are again in the realm of the heavenly. This is not describing the site of an earthly temple, but of the temple which is heavenly, depicting heavenly perfection, of which any earthly temple will be but a meagre copy. No one allocating actual land would do it on such a basis (when taken with what follows). This represents a God-given covenant ideal. In this regard we would point out once again that according to Eze 42:15-20 measurements were made on a different basis, and that there the land outside the 500 by 500 was called ‘common’, for there the emphasis was on the holiness of the heavenly sanctuary, to distinguish it from the mundane world to which it had come. There was as yet no ‘holy portion’ for the priests.

But now the emphasis is on the holiness of the portion of land appointed to the priests, a portion of covenant proportions, which surrounds the heavenly sanctuary, and includes it. This is clearly later in point of time than the first arrival of the heavenly sanctuary, and does indeed await the return of the exiles. It is not strictly a temple which is in mind but a holy portion around the heavenly sanctuary on its mountain.

Furthermore the whole of this area, including the sanctuary in its midst, is specifically stated to be outside ‘the city’ (Eze 45:6). This certainly cannot be fitted in directly with a temple built in Jerusalem. The city in this case is seen as not worthy of the sanctuary. It is not even a part of ‘the holy portion’. The Jews, whose hearts were still wedded to Jerusalem, would never even have thought in terms of reproducing this situation. Nor did they. They missed the opportunity altogether. As ever their hearts were on the mundane. But Ezekiel was trying to turn their thoughts away from the earthly city of Jerusalem to a deeper heavenly reality, which he had already stressed in the vision of the heavenly temple, a sphere of holiness which had nothing to do with Jerusalem. He was envisaging something heavenly when there was little conception of such ideas.

So we must surely see this idealistic picture as rather presenting the truth that those who have God as their inheritance are to receive a perfect inheritance, an inheritance connected with the heavenly temple and that in the end this could only be fulfilled in the heavenly sphere. For where were they to find the heavenly temple? Possibly Ezekiel himself half believed they would see it when they arrived back in the land. But God’s thoughts went deeper than that. This is the beginning of the transference of ‘the land’ which they are to inherit, from the earth to the heavens, and to the new earth (compare Isa 65:17; Isa 66:22).

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 Portion of the Land

v. 1. Moreover, when ye shall divide by lot the land for inheritance, the division of the land being thought of as in the time of Joshua, ye shall offer an oblation unto the Lord, as consecrated to His service, an holy portion of the land, literally, “holiness from the land,” as of something separated for sacred purposes; the length, namely, of this strip of land set apart for the Lord, shall be the length of five and twenty thousand reeds, and the breadth shall be ten thousand. This shall be holy in all the borders thereof round about.

v. 2. Of this there shall be for the Sanctuary, as shown in 42:20, five hundred in length, with five hundred in breadth, square round about, and fifty cubits round about for the suburbs thereof, as its environs, a space to be kept free of buildings, lest they come too close to the sacred square of tile Temple compound.

v. 3. And of this measure, that is, according to this measure, shalt thou measure the length of five and twenty thousand and the breadth of ten thousand; and in it shall be the Sanctuary and the Most Holy Place, or, “therein shall the Sanctuary be the Most holy Place. ”

v. 4. The holy portion of the land shall be for the priests, the ministers of the Sanctuary, which shall come near to minister unto the Lord; and it shall be a place for their houses, so that they would have sufficient room for their dwellings on this sacred strip, and an holy place for the Sanctuary.

v. 5. And the five and twenty thousand of length and the ten thousand of breadth, that is, another strip of the same size, shall also the Levites, the ministers of the house, as performing the minor services of the Temple, have for themselves, for a possession for twenty chambers, an expression which may mean that the Levites occupied barrack-like cells with smaller portions of pasturage.

v. 6. And ye shall appoint the possession of the city, as the capital of the new nation, five thousand broad and five and twenty thousand long, this being the total area or region under its immediate control, over against the oblation of the holy portion, that is, running next to the strip reserved for the Sanctuary; it shall be for the whole house of Israel, all tile tribes having an equal interest in it.

v. 7. And a portion shall be for the prince on the one side and on the other side of the oblation of the holy portion and of the possession of the city before the oblation of the holy portion and before the possession of the city, from the west side westward and from the east side eastward, extending outside of the boundaries of these strips as far as the country extended toward the east and west; and the length shall be over against one of the portions, from the west border unto the east border, so that the Strips belonging to the prince run parallel to the strips assigned to the several tribes.

v. 8. In the land shall be his possession in Israel, or, “it shall be land to him for a possession in Israel”; and My princes shall no more oppress My people, as had been the case with many of the former rulers; and the rest of the land shall they give to the house of Israel according to their tribes, assigning the several parts as described in chapter 47. The context once more clearly indicates that an ideal country and nation is meant, which we cannot understand but of the spiritual Israel, of the Church of God.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

From the sustenance of the priests (Eze 44:29-31), the new Torah naturally passes in the present chapter to the maintenance of the temple service as a whole, setting forth in the first section of the chapter (Eze 45:1-8) the portions of land that should be allotted respectively to the sanctuary, i.e. for the temple buildings, and the priests’ and Levites’ houses (Eze 45:1-5), to the city and its inhabitants, that they might be able to discharge their religious and civil obligations on the one hand to the temple, and on the other hand to the state (Eze 45:6), and to the prince to enable him to support himself and meet the charge of those public offerings which were required of him as the head of the community (Eze 45:7, Eze 45:8); in the second section (Eze 45:9-17) dealing with the oblations the people should make to the prince for this purpose, reminding the prince, on the one hand, that these should not be levied from the people by extortion (Eze 45:9), and the people, on the other, that these should be delivered to the prince with honesty (Eze 45:10-16), and both that a certain part of the prince’s revenue from the people’s oblations should be devoted to the furnishing of offerings for the solemnities of the house of Israel (Eze 45:17); and in the third section (Eze 45:18-25) instituting a new feast-cycle, beginning with a Passover in the first (Eze 45:18-24) and ending with a Feast of Tabernacles in the seventh (Eze 45:25) month.

Eze 45:1-8

The portions of land that should be allotted to the sanctuary, the city, and the prince.

Eze 45:1

Moreover, When ye shall divide by lot the land (literally, and in your causing the land to fall) for inheritance. As the territory of Canaan had been originally divided by lot among the twelve tribes after the conquest (comp. Num 26:55; Num 33:54; Jos 13:6, etc.), this same method of allocating the soil amongst the new community should be followed on a second time taking possession of it after the exile. Currey believes the phrase, “divide by lot,” “does not imply anything like casting lots, but is equivalent to our notion of allotment, the several portions being assigned by rule.” There is, however, little doubt “lots” were cast to determine, if not the actual size, at least the precise situation, of each tribe’s territory (see Keil and ‘Pulpit Commentary’ on Num 26:54). That no such methodical distribution of Canaan ever took place, or for that matter could hays taken place amongst the returned exiles, should be proof sufficient that the prophet here moves in the region of the ideal and symbolical rather than of the real and literal. Ye shall offer an oblationliterally, lift up a heave offering (comp. Eze 44:1-31 :80; Exo 25:2, Exo 25:3; Exo 29:28; Exo 30:13, Exo 30:14; Le Exo 7:14, 32; Exo 22:12; Num 15:19; Num 18:24)unto the Lord, an holy portion of the land; literally, a holy (portion) from the land. Very significantly, in the new partition of Palestine the Lord’s portion should be the first to be marked off and solemnly dedicated to Jehovah for the purposes to be forthwith specified. Those who, like Wellhansen and Smend, perceive in this allotment of land to Jehovah, and therefore to the priests, a contradiction to Eze 44:28, omit to notice first that Jehovah required some place on which his sanctuary might be erected, and the priests some ground on which to build houses for themselves; and secondly, that, so far as the priests were concerned, the laud was given by the people, not to them, but to Jehovah, and by him to them (comp. on Eze 44:28). The exact site of this terumah, or “holy portion,” is afterwards indicated (Eze 48:8); meanwhile its dimensions are recorded. The length shall be the length of five and twenty thousand reeds, and the breadth shall be ten thousand. Whether “reeds” or “cubits” should be supplied after “thousand” has divided expositors. Bottcher, Hitzig, Ewald, Hengstenberg, and Smend decide for “cubits,” principally on the grounds that “cubits” are mentioned in Eze 44:2; that “cubits” have been the usual measure hitherto, even (as they contend) in Eze 42:16; and that otherwise the dimensions of this sacred territory must have been colossal, in fact, out of all proportion to the Holy Land, viz. about 720 square miles. Havernick, Keil, Kliefoth, Currey, and Plumptre favor “reeds,” chiefly for the reasons that in Eze 42:2 “cubits” are specified, and are therefore to be regarded as exceptional; that the customary measuring instrument throughout has been a reed (see Eze 40:5; Eze 42:16); and that the dimensions, which Ezekiel designed should be colossal (comp. Eze 40:2), correspond exactly with the measurements afterwards given in Eze 48:1-35; if these he in reeds, but not if they be in cubits. As to the breadth of this terumah from east to west, Hitzig, Keil, Smend, Schroder, and Plumptre follow the LXX. ( ) in substituting 20,000 for 10,000, considering that the space referred to in Eze 48:3 appears as if meant to be taken from an already measured larger area, which could only be that of Eze 48:1the portion in Eze 48:1 being the whole territory assigned to the priests and Levites, and that in Eze 48:3 the allotment for the priests. Kliefoth, however, contends that no necessity exists for tampering with the text, and certainly if Eze 48:1-4 be regarded as descriptive of the priests’ portion only, and in the phrase, “of this measure” ( ), in Eze 48:8 be rendered “according to”a sense it may have (see Gesenius, sub voce), the supposed difficulty disappears. In this ease the demonstrative this in the last clause will refer to the priests’ portion exclusively; in the former ease, to the whole portion of the priests and Levites. That Eze 48:14 declares the Levites’ portion to be “holy unto the land” does not prove it must have been included in the holy terumah of Eze 48:1 Nor does this concession follow, as will appear, from Eze 48:7.

Eze 45:2

Of this district, either of 25,000 x 10,000, or 25,000 x 20,000 reeds, according to the view taken of Eze 45:1, there should be measured off for the sanctuary five hundred in length, with five hundred in breadth. The supplement here also, Keil, Kliefoth, Plumptre, and others consider to be “reeds,” since obviously the whole temple with its precincts is intended (Eze 42:16-20), though Hengstenberg and Schroder prefer “cubits,” holding the sanctuary to be the temple buildings enclosed within the outer court well (Eze 40:1-49.). The free space of fifty cubits round about for the suburbs (or, open places) thereof seems to indicate that the larger area was that alluded to by the prophet. That the term . occurs more frequently in the so-called priest-code (Le 25:84; Num 35:2, Num 35:3, Num 35:4, Num 35:5, Num 35:7; Jos 14:4; Jos 21:2, Jos 21:3, Jos 21:8, Jos 21:11, Jos 21:13, etc.) and in the Chronicles (1Ch 5:16; 1Ch 6:35, 1Ch 6:37; 1Ch 13:2; 2Ch 11:14; 2Ch 31:19) than in Ezekiel (see Eze 27:28; Eze 48:15, Eze 48:17) is a fact; but on this fact cannot be founded an argument for the priority of Ezekiel, since it rather points to Ezekiel’s acquaintance with such “suburbs” in connection with priestly and Levitical cities.

Eze 45:3

And of this measure shalt thou measure. As above explained, if , “of,” be taken as equivalent to “from,” i.e. deducted from, then the whole “measure” in Eze 45:1 must have been 25,000 x 20,000 reeds; but if, as Ewald translates, it may signify “after,” “according to,” then the text in Eze 45:1 will not require to be altered (see on Eze 45:1), and the present verse will be merely a reiteration of the statement in Eze 45:1 that the priests’ portion should be 25,000 x 10,000 reeds, preparatory to the additional notification that in it should be the sanctuary and the most holy place, or rather, the sanctuary which is most holy (Revised Version). The exact position of the sanctuary in the priests‘ portion is afterwards stated to have been in the midst (see Eze 48:8).

Eze 45:4

The holy portion of the land just defined (Eze 45:3) should be reserved for the priests the ministers of the sanctuary, i.e. of the inner court, who were privileged to draw near to Jehovah in altar ministrations (comp. Eze 44:15; Exo 28:43; Exo 30:20; Num 16:5, Num 16:40), as distinguished from the Levites, who were only” ministry of the house” (Eze 45:5), i.e. guardian, of the temple and assistants in its outer court services. As such this holy portion should serve the twofold purpose of providing- for the priests a place for their houses in which they might dwell, and an holy place for the sanctuary, in which they should minister.

Eze 45:5

A portion of similar dimensions should likewise be marked off for the Levites, for themselves, for a possession of twenty chambers; better, for a possession unto themselves for twenty chambers (Revised Version). Ewald, Hitzig, and Smend, as usual, follow the LXX. ), and amend the text after Num 35:2; Jos 21:2, so as to read “cities () to dwell in;” and with them Keil agrees, only substituting “gates” () instead of “cities.” Kliefoth and Curroy retain the word “chambers “as in the text, and think the “chambers” and the “land” were two distinct possessions of the Levites, the chambers having been within (see Eze 40:17, Eze 40:18) as the land was without the sanctuary. Rosenmller, Havernick, Hengstenberg, and Schroder decide for “chambers,” or “courts,” rows of dwellings standing outside the sanctuary as the priests’ chambers were located within. Havernick supposes that along with these, which were obviously designed to be employed when the Levites were on duty, there may have been other Levitical towns and dwellings, Hengstenberg conceives them as having been “barracks for the Levites, the inhabitants of which used the twentieth part of the land assigned to them as pasturage.” Unfavorable to the first view is the fact that it requires the text to be altered. Against the second is its awkward dividing of the verse and unexpected interjection of a reference to cells within the sanctuary while speaking of the land without. The third, while not free from difficulty as taking to be equivalent to “cell-buildings,” is perhaps the best.

Eze 45:6

In addition to the holy terumah for the priests and the portion for the Levites, should be marked off as the possession of the city a third tract of territory, five thousand (reeds) broad, and five and twenty thousand long, over againstrather, side by side with (Revised Version), “parallel to” (Keil)the oblation of the holy portion. That is to say, it should lie upon the south, as the Levites’ territory lay upon the north of the priests’ portion. Adding the 10,000 reeds of breadth for the Levites’ domain, the 10,000 for the priests’ land, and the 5000 for the city quarter, makes a total breadth of 25,000 reeds; so that the tract in which all these were included was a square. That the portion for the city should be for the whole house of Israel implied that it should be communal property, belonging to no tribe in particular, but to all the tribes togetherin modern phrase should be “common good, ein Volksgut (Kliefoth), which should neither be confiscated by kingly rapacity (comp. Jer 22:13) nor invaded by individual and private appropriation, but retained for the use of the inhabitants generally (see Eze 48:18, Eze 48:19).

Eze 45:7

And a portion shall be (or, ye shall appoint) for the prince. As to situation, his portion should lie on both sides of the holy portion (or portions, i.e. of the priests and of the Levites; see Eze 48:20-22), and of the possession, or portion, of the city; should stretch exactly in front or alongside of these, i.e. from north to south; and should extend on the one side westward (to the Mediterranean), and on the other side eastward (to the Jordan). The concluding clause, And the length shall be over against (, a plural form, occurring only here) one of the portions, from the west border unto the east border, though somewhat obscure, obviously imports that the prince’s portion, on both sides of the holy terumah, should extend lengthwise, i.e. from east to west, along the side of one of the portions assigned to the tribes; in other words, should be bounded on the north and south by the tribal territories of Judah and Benjamin (see Eze 48:22).

Eze 45:8

My princes shall no more oppress my people. That Israel in former times had suffered from the oppressions and exactions of her kings, from Solomon downwards, as Samuel had predicted she would (1Sa 8:10-18), was matter of history (see 1Ki 12:4, 1Ki 12:10, 1Ki 12:11; 2Ki 23:35), and was perhaps partly explained, though not justified, by the fact that the kings had no crown lands assigned them for their support. This excuse, however, for regal tyranny should in future cease, as a sufficient portion of land should be allocated to the prince and his successors, who accordingly should give, or leave, the rest of the land to the house of Israel according to their tribes. The use of “princes” does not show, as Hengstenberg asserts, that “under the ideal unity of the prince in Ezekiel, a numerical plurality is included,” and that “these who understand by the prince merely the Messiah must here do violence to the text;” but simply, as Kliefoth explains, that Ezekiel was thinking of Israel’s past kings, and contrasting with them the rulers Israel might have in the future, without affirming that these should be many or one (see on Eze 44:3).

Eze 45:9-17

The oblations of the people to the prince for the sanctuary.

Eze 45:9

In continuation of the foregoing thought, the princes of Israel first are reminded that whatever they should obtain from the people for the sanctuary was not to be extorted from them by violence and spoil (comp. Eze 7:11, Eze 7:23; Eze 8:17 : Jer 6:7; Jer 20:8; Hab 1:3) or by exactionsliterally, expulsions, or drivings of persons out of their possessions, such as had been practiced on Naboth by Ahab (1Ki 21:1-29.)but levied with judgment and justice, which, besides, should regulate their whole behavior towards their subjects.

Eze 45:10

The exhortation addressed to the princes to practice justice and judgment now extends itself so as to include their subjects, who are required, in all their commercial dealings, to have just balances and just measuresa just ephah for dry goods, and a just bath for liquids.

Eze 45:11

The ephah (a word of Egyptian origin) and the bath shall be of one measure. That is, each was to be the tenth part of an homer (see Le Eze 27:16; Num 11:32), or cot (, , 1Ki 4:22; Luk 16:7), which appears to have contained about seventy-five gallons, or thirty-two pecks. The homer (or, cheroot) is to be distinguished from the omer of Exo 16:36, which was the tenth part of an ephah.

Eze 45:12

The shekel shall be twenty garahs. This ordained that the standard for money weights should remain as it had been fixed by the Law (Exo 30:13; Le 27:25; Num 3:47). The “shekel” (or “weight,” from , “to weigh;” compare the Italian lira, the French livre out of the Latin libra, and the English Found sterling) was a piece of silver whose value, originally determined by weight, became gradually fixed at the definite sum of twenty “gerahs,” beans, or grains (from , “to roll”). The “gerah,” value two pence, was the smallest silver coin; the “shekel,” therefore, was forty pence, or 3s. 4d. Commentators are divided as to how the second half of this verse should be understood: twenty shekel, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels shall be your maneh. The “maneh” (or “portion,” from , “to be divided”), which occurs only here and in 1Ki 10:17; Ezr 2:69; and Neh 7:71, Neh 7:72“that is to say, only in books written during the Captivity or subsequent to it” (Keil)was probably the same coin as the Greek rains (), though its weight may have somewhat differed. A comparison of 1Ki 10:17 with 2Ch 9:16 shows that a maneh was equal to a hundred shekels, which cannot be made to harmonize with the statement in this verse without supposing either that an error has crept in through transcription, or that the chronicler has employed the late Greek style of reckoning, in which one mina is equivalent to a hundred drachmas. Again, the Hebrew and Attic talents, when ex-stained, fail to solve the problem as to how the text should be rendered. The Hebrew talent, , contained 3000 sacred or Mosaic shekels according to Exo 38:25, Exo 38:26; and the Attic talon 60 minas, each of 100 drachmas, i.e. 6000 drachmas, or 3000 drachmas, each of which again was equal to a Hebrew shekel. Hence the Attic mina must have been one-sixtieth part of 3000, i.e. 50 shekels, which once more fails to correspond with Ezekiel’s notation. What this notation is depends on how the clauses should be connected. If with “and,” as Ewald, following the Targumists, thinks, Ezekiel is supposed to have ordained that in the future the maneh should be, not 50, but 60 shekelsthe weight of the ‘Babylonian mana (‘Records of the Past,’ 4.97, second series); only, if he so intended, one sees not why he should have adopted this roundabout method of expression instead of simply stating that henceforth the maneh should be sixty shekels If with “or,” as Michaelis, Gesenius, Hitzig, and Hengstenberg prefer, then the prophet is regarded as asserting that in the future three manehs of varying values should be currentone of gold, another of silver, and a third of copper (Hitzig), or all of the same metal, but of different magnitudes (Michaelis); and this arrangement might well have been appointed for the future, although no historical trace can be found of any such manehs of twenty, twenty-five, and fifteen shekels respectively having been in circulation either among the Hebrews or among foreign peoples. Kliefoth pronounces both solutions unsatisfactory, but has nothing better to offer. Keil supposes a corruption of the text of old standing, for the correction of which we are as yet without materials. Bertheau and Havernick follow the LXX. (Cod. Alex.), , “The five shekel (piece) shall be five shekels, and the ten shekel (piece) shall be tea shekels, end fifty shekels shall your maneh be;” but Hitzig’s judgment on this proposal, with which Kliefoth and Keil agree, will most likely be deemed correct, that “it carries on the face of it the probability of its resting upon nothing more than an attempt to bring the text into harmony with the ordinary value of the maneh.”

Eze 45:13-15

The offerings the people’ should present are next specified.

(1) Of wheat, the sixth part of an ophah of (out, of, or from) an homer; i.e. the sixtieth part of an homer, equal to about one-tenth of a bushel (Eze 45:13).

(2) Of barley, the same (Eze 45:13).

(3) Of oil, a tenth part of a bath out of the cor, or homer of ten Baths, i.e. the hundredth part of every homer, equal to a little more than half a gallon (Eze 45:14).

(4) Of the flock, one lamb or kid (, meaning either) out of the flock, out of two hundred, out of the fator well-watered (see Gen 13:10)pastures of Israel, i.e. one of every two hundred, and never the worst, but always the best. These oblations should be made for the maintenance of the necessary sacrificial worship in the new temple, for the meal, burnt, and peace or thank offerings that should there be presented to make reconciliation or atonement for the house of Israel.

Compared with the offerings prescribed by the Law of Moses, these discover important variations.

(1) Of flour, the Law demanded one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour with a lamb (Exo 29:40), with a ram two-tenths (Num 15:6), with a bullock three-tenths (Num 15:9); of wheat and of barley Ezekiel’s Torah requires one-sixteenth of an ephah for each, i.e. one-third in all.

(2) Of oil, the Mosaic ordinance was, with a lamb should be presented one-fourth of a bin, i.e. one-twenty-fourth of a bath; with a ram, one-third of a bin, i.e. one-eighteenth of a bath; with a bullock one-half of a hin, i.e. one-twelfth of a bath. Ezekiel’s ordinance was in every case one-tenth of a bath.

(3) Of animals, the Pentateuchal legislation left the necessary victims, whether rams, goats, or bullocks, to be provided by the offerers at their own free-will, stipulating as compulsory only the firstborn of the flocks and herds (Exo 13:2, Exo 13:12; Exo 22:29, Exo 22:30; Le 27:26; Num 3:13; Num 8:17; Deu 15:19), the first ripe fruits of the earth (Exo 22:29; Num 18:12), and the tithes, or tenths, of seed, fruit, the herd and flock (Le Eze 27:30-33); the Ezekelian omits the latter, but ordains in lieu of the former that one animal out of every two hundred in every flock shall be obligatory on Jehovah’s worshippers. Thus the demands of Ezekiel’s Torah surpass those of the earlier or Mosaic Torah in quantity as well as quality. That these demands are definitely specified does not prove they should partake rather of the nature of a tax than of a free-will offering. That they were not to be regarded as taxes is shown by the absence of any allusion to penalties for neglect of payment; that they were designed to be looked upon as free-will offerings is plain from the circumstance that Jehovah never supposes for a moment that these generous offerings will be withheld; and perhaps all that is really signified by them is that the liberality of Jehovah’s people in the future age should greatly exceed that which had been practiced at any former time.

Eze 45:16

All the people of the land shall give (literally, shall be for) this oblation (or, terumah) for the prince in Israel. Assuming that the prince here refers to the ordinary civil magistrate, Hengstenborg founds on this an argument in support of state Churches: “This is also the general doctrine, that the magistrate shall take first of all from the taxes levied the means for the proper observance of Divine worship.” But if the oblations above referred to were not properly taxes, and if the prince was not properly an earthly sovereign of the ordinary type, this argument falls to the ground.

Eze 45:17

The prince, as receiver-general of the people’s offerings, should devote them to maintaining (literally, it should be upon him, and so form part of his duty to maintain) the sacrificial worship of the new temple, in the feasts (, or joyous celebrations), and in the now moons, and in the sabbaths, and generally in all solemnities (, or appointed times, hence festal seasons) of the house of Israel, that thereby he might make reconciliation (or, atonement) for the house of Israel. This combination of the kingly and priestly offices in the person of the prince (David) obviously typified the similar union of the same offices in David’s Son (Christ).

Eze 45:18-25

These verses allude to the institution of a new feast-cycle, whose deviations from that of the Pentateuch will be best exhibited in the course of exposition. Whether three festivals are referred to or only two is debated by expositors. Fairbairn, Havernick, Ewald, Keil, Schroder, and Plumptre decide for threethe festival of the new year (Eze 45:18-20), the Passover (Eze 45:21-24), and the Feast of Tabernacles (Eze 45:25). Kliefoth, Smend, and Curtsy find only two a Passover and a Feast of Tabernacles. Hengstenberg sees in the solemnities of the first and seventh days of the new year a special consecration service for the new temple, not to be repeated, corresponding to the dedication of the tabernacle on the first day of the first month (Exo 40:1, Exo 40:17), or of the Solomonic temple in the seventh month (1Ki 8:2; 2Ch 7:8), and in imitation of which the post-exilic temple was dedicated, probably on the first day of the year (Ezr 6:16-22). Against the notion of a special dedication service, however, stand the facts

(1) that the temple had been already consecrated by the entrance into it of the glory of the Lord (Eze 43:4); and

(2) that the service hero described differs in respect either of time or ritual or both from every one of the three cited dedications. Between the two other views the difference is slight. If the festival of the new year (Eze 45:18-20) was distinct from the Passover, it was still, by the ritual of the seventh and fourteenth days of the first month (Eze 45:20, Eze 45:22), so closely connected with the Passover as practically to form a preparation for and introduction to it. Then the circumstance that the proper ceremonial for the new moon is afterwards described (Eze 46:6) favors the proposal to regard the rites in Eze 45:18-20 as a part of the Passover festival; while this view, if adopted, will explain the omission from Eze 45:25 of all mention of the Feast of Trumpets on the first day of the seventh month (Le Eze 23:24; Num 29:1), and of the great Day of Atonement on the tenth day of the seventh month (Le Eze 23:27; Num 29:7), with which the autumn festival was usually preceded, by showing that in lieu of these a sacrificial observance had been prefixed to the Passover on the first and seventh days of the first month. Smend’s theory, that “Ezekiel’s feast-calendar divides the ecclesiastical year into two halves, each of which begins with a re. conciliation ceremony (or expiatory sacrifice) on the first days of the first and seventh months respectively,” would lend confirmation to the above view, were it not that the theory in question is based on an alteration of the text in verse 20 (see Exposition).

Eze 45:18

Thus saith the Lord God. The usual solemn introduction prefixed to Divine enactments (comp. Eze 45:9; Eze 43:19; Eze 44:6, Eze 44:9; Eze 46:1, Eze 46:16). In the first month, in the first day of the month (comp. Gen 8:13). That the first month, Abib, was intended is apparent from Eze 45:21, compared with Exo 12:2; Num 9:1. Under the Mosaic Torah, the Passover began on the tenth day of the first month by the selection of a lamb (Exo 12:3-6), corresponding to which the great Day of Atonement in the seventh month fell upon the tenth day (Lev 23:27). In the Torah of Ezekiel, the ceremonies introducing and leading up to the Passover should begin with the first day of the month, as under the Law the Feast of Trumpets on the first day of the seventh mouth practically began the solemnities which culminated in the Feast of Tabernacles. A young bullock without blemish should form the sacrificial offering on this first day of the year, according to the ordinance published by Ezekiel; that promulgated by the Hebrew lawgiver appointed for new moons generally, in addition to the burnt and meat offerings, a he-goat for a sin offering (Num 28:15), and particularly for the first day of the seventh month, in addition to the regular burnt and meat offerings, one young bullock, one ram, and seven lambs for a burnt offering, meat offerings of flour and oil for each of these animals, and a he-goat for a sin offering (Num 29:2-6). The object for which the Mosaic offerings were presented was to make atonement for the worshippers; the Ezekelian sacrifices should stand in more immediate relation to the place of worship, and be designed to cleanse the sanctuary from such defilement, to be afterwards mentioned, as might be contracted from the presence in it of erring men (verse 20).

Eze 45:19

The mode in which this act of purgation should be performed is next described. The blood of the sin offering should by the priest be put (not sprinkled) upon the posts of the house, i.e. upon the posts or pillars of the door connecting the holy place with the holy of holies (Eze 41:21), and upon the four corners of the settle of the altar of burnt offering in the inner court (Eze 43:14), and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court, not of the eastern gate only, as Hitzig suggests, but of all the three gates (Eze 40:29, Eze 40:33, Eze 40:36). Compare Eze 43:20, and the procedure in sin offerings under the Law, which directed that in certain eases part of the blood should be put by the priest’s finger upon the horns of the altar, and the rest poured out beside the bottom of the altar (Exo 29:12; Le Exo 4:7), while in other cases it should be sprinkled before the veil of the sanctuary (Le Eze 4:6, Eze 4:17), and on the great Day of Atonement seven times even on and before the mercy-seat, and on the altar of incense (Le Eze 16:14, Eze 16:18, Eze 16:19).

Eze 45:20

The same ceremony should be repeated on the seventh day of the month, not on the first day of the seventh month, as Smend proposes, in accordance with the , and on the ground that “the seventh day of (the same) mouth” would have been in Hebrew , as in Eze 1:1; Eze 30:20; at the same time admitting that is sometimes used (Num 10:11), though not (except in this verse) by Ezekiel. The sin offerings in question should be made for (or, on account of, , “away from,” expressing the reason why anything is done) every one that erreth, and for him that is simple, i.e. for such transgressors as should have gone aside from the straight path through ignorance or foolishness, the “simple” man being here, as in Pro 7:7; Pro 22:3; Pro 27:12, one easily enticed or persuaded to do evil. For such offenders the Law of Moses provided means of expiation (Le Pro 2:2, etc.; Pro 5:15; Num 15:27); for the presumptuous sinner, who despised the word of the Lord and violated his commandment, only one doom remained, to be cut off from among his people (Num 15:30; Deu 17:12).

Eze 45:21

With the fourteenth day of the month, the day appointed by the Law of Moses for the killing of the Paschal lamb (Exo 12:6), the Passover ( with the article, the well-known festival of that name) should commence. Though the selection of the lamb upon the tenth day of the first month is not specified, it may be assumed that this would be implied in the appointment of a Passover which should begin on the day already legalized by the Mosaic Torah. According to Wellhausen and Smend, the first mention of the Passover occurs in Deu 16:2, Deu 16:5, Deu 16:6, and the next in 2Ki 23:22; but this can only be maintained by declaring Exo 34:25, which occurs in the so-called “Book of the Covenant”a pre-Deuteronomic work”a gloss,” and by relegating Exo 12:1-51. to the “priest-code” for no other reason than that it alludes to the Passover (Exo 12:11, Exo 12:21, Exo 12:27, Exo 12:43)a principle of easy application, and capable of being used to prove anything. Smend likewise regards it as strange that the Passover should be made to commence on the fourteenth of the month, and not, as the autumn feast, on the fifteenth (Exo 12:25); and suggests that the original reading, which he supposes was the fifteenth, may have been corrected subsequently in accordance with the priest, code. But if the priest-cede was posterior to and modeled after Ezekiel. Why should it have ordained the fourteenth instead of that which its master recommended, viz. the fifteenth? A sufficient explanation of the differing dates in Ezekiel is supplied if Ezekiel, in fixing them, may be held to have followed the so-called priest-cede. A feast of seven days; literally, a feast of hebdomad of days ( ). By almost all interpreters this is understood to mean “a feast of a full week, the exact duration of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which began with the eating of the Paschal lamb (Exo 12:8, Exo 12:15-20; Le Exo 23:6; Num 9:11; Deu 16:3, Deu 16:4). At the same time, it is frankly admitted that, to extract this sense from the words, must be changed into . As the words stand, they can only signify a feast of weeks of days. , in Exo 34:22 and Deu 16:10, is applied to the Feast of Pentecost, which was called “a Feast of Hebdomads,” from the seven weeks which intervened between the Passover and it. Hence Kliefoth, adhering to the legitimate sense of the expression, understands the prophet to say that the whole period of seven weeks between the first Passover and Pentecost should be celebrated in the new dispensation as a Feast of Unleavened Bread. In support of this Kliefoth cites a similar use of the word “days” in Gen 29:14; Gen 41:1; Deu 21:13; 2Ki 15:13; Jer 28:3, Jer 28:11; Dan 10:2, Dan 10:3; and certainly no objection can be taken to a Passover of seven weeks, if Ezekiel may be supposed to have been merely expressing analogically spiritual conceptions, and not furnishing actual legislation to be afterwards put in operation. Against this translation, however, Keil urges that the expression, “seven days of the feast” (verse 23), appears to mark the duration of the festival; but this is not so convincing as its author imagines, since the prophet may be held as describing, in verses 23, 24, the procedure of each seven days without intending to unsay what he had already stated, that the feast should continue seven weeks of days. A second objection pressed by Keil, that “is not usually connected with the preceding noun in the construct state, but is attached as an adverbial accusative,” as in the above-cited passages, is sufficiently disposed of by Kliefoth’s statement that the punctuation might easily be altered so as to read . Upon the whole, while not free from difficulty, the view of Kliefoth seems best supported by argument.

Eze 45:22

The first day of the feast proper, i.e. the fourteenth, should be distinguished by the prince’s presenting, for himself and for all the people of the land, a bullock for a sin offering. That this was a deviation from the earlier Mosaic legislation in three particulars is apparent. In, the first place, the “sin offering” here prescribed was manifestly to take precedence of the Paschal feast proper, whereas in the Paschal festival of the so-called priest-code the daffy sacrifices were appointed to begin on the fifteenth after the Paschal lamb had been slain and eaten (Le Eze 23:8). In the second place, the sin offering was to consist of a bullock instead of a he-goat as formerly (Num 28:22). In the third place, it was not intended to be renewed on each of the seven following days of the feast, but was designed, by repeating the sacrifice of the first and seventh days, to connect these with the fourteenth, on which the feast proper opened.

Eze 45:23, Eze 45:24

The deviations of Ezekiel’s Torah from that of Moses in regard to the offerings to be made during the seven days of the feast are also unmistakable (see Num 28:19-22).

(1) While the Pentateuchal code demanded, as a daily burnt offering, two bullocks, one ram, and seven yearling lambs, this of Ezekiel prescribes seven bullocks and seven rams.

(2) While that enjoined, as a meat offering, three-tenths of an ephah of flour mixed with oil for each bullock, two-tenths for a ram, and one-tenth for each lamb, this asks an ephah of flour with a hin of oil for each bullock and each ram.

(3) The sin offering in the new Torah should be the same as in the old, a he-goat daily.

Eze 45:25

In the seventh month, i.e. in month of Tishri (1Ki 8:2), in the fifteenth day of the month, shall he, i.e. the prince, as in Eze 45:22, do the like in the feast of the seven days; or, in the feast shall he do the like the seven days (Revised Version). That is, the same sacrifices should be offered daily throughout the seven days of this feast as had been offered during the seven days of the former feast. That this feast was designed to represent the ancient Feast of Tabernacles can scarcely be doubted, though the practice of living in booths (Le Eze 23:40-43) is not adverted to. Possibly this may have been omitted, as Keil remarks, “because the practice of living in booths would be dropped in the time to come” (see, however, Neh 8:14-17), or, as Kliefoth observes, “because, when Ezekiel’s Torah should come into operation, the people of God would be dwelling in the eternal tabernacles of which the booths of the Mosaic Torah were but the types.” Nor are the deviations of Ezekiel’s Torah from that of Moses, in respect of the daily offerings prescribed for this feast, fewer or of less importance than those which have been noted in connection with the Passover. Ezekiel’s Torah prescribes for a burnt offering seven bullocks and seven rams daily, for a sin offering a he-goat daily, for a meat offering an ephah of flour with a hin of oil for each bullock and each ram daily; the Mosaic Torah, while retaining the he goat for a sin offering, requiredfor a burnt offering on the first day thirteen young bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs, and so on, diminishing by one bullock each day, till the seventh, when seven bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs should be sacrificed; and for a meal offering three-tenths of an ephah of flour for every bullock, and two-tenths of an ephah for every ram, and one-tenth of an ephah for each lamb, according to the number of bullocks, rams, and lambs for each day. In addition, the Mosaic celebration concluded with a solemn assembly with special sacrifices on the eighth day (see Le Eze 23:34-36; Num 29:12-39), of which no mention is made in Ezekiel. Nor should it be overlooked that Ezekiel’s Torah omits all reference to the other great festival that figures in the Mosaic Torah, viz. that of Pentecost, or the Feast of Weeks, as well as to the Feast of Trumpets and the great Day of Atonement (see on verse 21), although Hengstenberg is of opinion that Ezekiel, having instanced the Passover and Tabernacles, the beginning and end of the feast-cycle already known to the Jews, designed that all the feasts which lay between should be included. Be this, however, as it may, to infer from the deviations in Ezekiel’s Torah from that of Moses, as George, Vatke, Kuenen, Wellhausen, Smend, Robertson Smith, Cornill, and Driver have done, that the latter had no existence in the time of Ezekiel is, as Havernick observes, not only to render Ezekiel’s representations completely unintelligible, but to beg the entire question between the newer criticism and the old faith. “How will one generally explain,” asks Cornill, “that a Jerusalem priest sets up a Torah for the future, which completely ignores the priest.code (?), in all points remains far behind its requirements (?), and in a groping manner lays hold of the future, instead of appropriating to himself the finished system (i.e. of the, so-called priest code, supposing it to have then existed)? Why does Ezekiel require, in the cultus (which he sets up) so much less than Num 28:1-31 and Num 29:1-40.? Where, in Ezekiel is the high priest, who for the priest code is the center of the theocracy? Where is the great Day of Atonement of Lev 16:1-34.?” and so on. The answer to these interrogations is that Ezekiel did not intend to republish the Mosaic Torah, but to modify it so as to meet the requirements of the new era, or (perhaps better) to express more adequately the new conceptions of religion and worship he had been commissioned to set before his fellow-exiles; and that Ezekiel had a perfect right to deal in this way even with the Mosaic Torah, inasmuch as he distinctly claimed, in committing to writing the details of his temple- vision, to be acting under special Divine guidance (Eze 43:10, Eze 43:11; Eze 44:5). Canon Driver admits that the argument from Ezekiel’s deviations from the so-called priest-code in favor of the later origin of the latter, if “taken by itself, would not, perhaps, be a decisive one,” and even adds that, “however doubtful it may be whether Ezekiel presupposes the completed priests’ code, it is difficult not to conclude that he presupposes parts of it” ibid; p. 138). But if none of it existed before Ezekiel, then a counter-question to that of Cornill may be put, “How is it to be explained that the unknown author of the priests’ code should have allowed himself to deviate so far from the arrangements which Ezekiel, a prophet acting under Jehovah’s guidance, had established?” The natural reply is that when the priests’ code was composed, Ezekiel’s Torah did not exist. If the newer criticism believes that Ezekiel would not have deviated so largely as he has done from the rites prescribed in the priests’ code had these been in operation and invested with authority, the newer criticism should explain how the priests’ code came to deviate from the Torah of Ezekiel, which, if it was not then in actual operation, was at least invested with Divine authority. Is it not every way as logical to infer, from the deviations of the priests’ code (supposing it to be post-exilic) from the Torah of Ezekiel, that the author of the priests’ code could not have known of the existence of Ezekiel’s Torah, and therefore that it could not then have been in existence, as vice versa that Ezekiel had no acquaintance with the priests’ code, and that therefore it had not in his day been composed? The impartial reasoner, with no theory to uphold, will recognize that the two arguments run exactly purpose.

HOMILETICS

Eze 45:7

The Prince’s portion.

In the division of the land and its produce, while care was taken for the maintenance of the priesthood by means of the sacrifices, arrangements were also made for the support of the government by assigning a certain portion to “the prince.” Christ, as “Prince of Peace,” the Head of the spiritual kingdom, has a right to claim his portion in all that we possess.

I. A PORTION SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR OUR HEAVENLY PRINCE. All that we have should be devoted to Christ, and nothing used except as he may be pleased with the purpose to which it is directed. In all our daily pursuits, if we are true Christians, we should not forget that Christ owns us, and therefore owns all our property. But it is not enough to allow this truth and even endeavor to act upon it. As the idea of the sacredness of all days is sometimes pleaded in excuse for the misuse of Sunday, so the notion that all we have belongs to Christ may be used as a plea for escaping from all direct acts of sacrifice on behalf of his cause. But we have to remember that our Master claims a portion for his immediate use. Some of our time should be devoted to Christ’s work, some of our money to the furtherance of his kingdom among men. What we give to a missionary society should be considered as especially a part of the Prince’s portion. Does the Prince have all that is due to him in this way?

II. THE PRINCE REQUIRES AND WILL USE HIS PORTION. What we give wisely to the cause of Christ is not wasted as a merely ceremonial oblation. It is not like a sacred libation which is spilt for no practical purpose. The money and labor spent in the cause of Christ should bear fruit in advancing his cause. By the economy of Providence this great work is left to Christ’s people. If they do not give their Prince his portion, the rights of the kingdom will be crippled, and its progress among men will be hindered. Great and rich as he is, Christ has graciously condescended to make the spread of his kingdom on earth depend on the gifts and labors of Christian men and women. Thus we may say the Prince needs his portion.

III. THE PRINCE HAS EARNED HIS PORTION. Democratic people grow impatient at the claims of princes, whom they consider to be idle and useless. But some princes have their missions in the world. Christ came to do a great work. He was no indolent Prince, only eager to clutch at his dues, and giving his people nothing in return. The account lies just the other way. He who was rich, for our sakes became poor, that we through his poverty might be rich (2Co 8:9). Christ has given himself for his people. He has now ascended up on high, to give gifts to men (Eph 4:8). When we give him anything, we are only returning some portion of what we first received from him, only rendering to him what is his own. If we would measure Christ’s claim upon us, we must be able to tell how great was his condescension in coming to this world, how tremendous was his sacrifice in his death on the cross, and how glorious are the blessings which he bestows on his people.

Eze 45:10

Just balances.

The princes of Israel are exhorted to govern justly and to be fair in their exaction of taxes. The older prophets often had occasion to denounce the oppression and robbery of the people by the princes. After the chastisement of the Captivity, the restored people should be well treated by a better order of princes. But when the rulers set an example of using just balances, the people may he required to follow.

I. COMMERCIAL HONESTY IS A PRIMARY CHRISTIAN DUTY. It is possible to represent the spirituality of religion as so extremely ethereal that it has no contact with the commonplace facts of daily life. There is a subtle temptation to antinomianism in the highest pretensions of holiness. But the scriptural view of religion keeps it in close relations with plain every-day morality. The saintliness that is too refined to condescend to questions of truth and honesty is pure hypocrisy. The Christian should be first just and true; let him then add whatever other graces he may attain to. But to neglect these duties is to leave the most fundamental parts of morality unestablished. The airy pinnacles of rapturous devotion that shoot up so high in the heavens rest on an insecure foundation when these essential duties are neglected.

II. THIS DUTY IS SHAMEFULLY NEGLECTED BY PROFESSEDLY CHRISTIAN PEOPLE. In some quarters there seems to be a tacit understanding that it is impossible to be quite true and straightforward. A certain amount of laxity is said to be permitted by “the custom of the trade.” This evil is glaringly apparent in regard to those goods that are exported to foreign nations. The worthless shoddy and the sized calico that wealthy English firms send abroad advertise to the world the hypocrisy of English Christianity. It is hard for the missionary to urge the heathen to embrace the gospel when the merchant offers to them these things as specimens of its products. It is vain to urge that competition is so fierce as to make an honest course ruinous to these who would pursue it. It is better to be a bankrupt than to be a thief. But experience shows that dishonest trading does not pay in the long run. Its character is certain to be discovered, and then confidence is destroyed and the trade checked. On the other hand, there are well-known houses that have grown rich and prosperous on their ascertained fairness in supplying good wares by honest measures.

III. DISHONESTY MINGLED WITH FALSEHOOD IS DOUBLY WICKED. This is the case where incorrect measures are used. The measures are intended to represent a certain standard, of which they come short. There is the pretence of giving good measure. This is worse than the offering of a short quantity without the show of testing it. The highwayman who meets a man openly and demands his purse is no hypocrite. But the business man who uses false measures is passing himself off as honest while he is acting as a thief. The shame of lying is added to the crime of stealing. There is an abuse of confidence, for the well-known measure is supposed to represent a certain quantity. The deceitfulness of this conduct utterly degrades the miserable man who fattens for a while on its ill-gotten gains, only to reap in the end certain ruin in the next world, if not in this.

Eze 45:13-15

Systematic giving.

Very elaborate regulations were drawn up to determine the several proportionate gifts of various kinds which were to be made by the Israelites. These regulations were after the manner of the times, and in accordance with the spirit of the Jewish Law. A larger freedom appertains to the Christian era, and we are not now required to make our offerings according to any definite proportion fixed for us by authority. But we are not therefore to conclude that there is to be no system or method in our giving for Christian or charitable objects. We are left to make our own system. No one is to say what his brother should do. But each is responsible to his Master to do what he feels to be right. Thus St. Paul says, “Let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him” (1Co 16:2).

I. SYSTEMATIC GIVING IS LESS DIFFICULT THAN IRREGULAR GIVING. People who live up to if not beyond their incomes find it impossible to spare any considerable amount for objects outside the range of their private expenses. But if the money to be contributed for such objects were set aside from the first, it would be forthcoming, just as the rent money is forthcoming. Christ’s portion is his due, and provision should certainly be made for this, whatever may remain over for other objects. That can be done by a man setting aside a portion of his income as sacred for his Master’s use.

II. SYSTEMATIC GIVING IS GENEROUS GIVING. People who give without method or consideration rarely know how little they give. There are pitiable creatures, who feel as though they were being bled every time a coin is extracted from them for some good object. They remember the disagreeable operation long after, and it makes so deep an impression on them that, when it comes to be repeated, they imagine that they are always giving. If they were always giving this would be no hard thing; for are they not always receiving? But if these people deliberately considered the claims of the best objects, and then determined to assign a portion of their income to meet those claims, they could not put down the miserable sum their contributions now amount to, unless they were devoid of all Christian principle.

III. SYSTEMATIC GIVING SHOULD BE WISE GIVING. Spasmodic charity may be very generous, but it is likely to be foolish and misdirected. A more thoughtful method would lead to a more just apportioning of the funds that are contributed. It is not right that the cause of Christ should depend on irregular gushes of liberality. There may be less scope for sentiment in a methodical manner of giving, but there will be more practical utility.

IV. SYSTEMATIC GIVING WILL BECOME HURTFUL IF IT IS TREATED IN A WRONG SPIRIT. One danger is that it should degenerate into a mechanical routine, like the payment of taxes. Then all heart and soul will vanish out of it. Another danger is that it may generate ostentatiousness, since the left hand may know too well what the right hand does. A third danger is that this system of giving may harden the heart in regard to new claims. The systematic giver often fortifies himself against the most pathetic appeals by the reply that he has reached the end of his charitable fund. Such an answer is unworthy of one who has a Christian heart of sympathy. The remedy is to be found in regarding the fixed amount to be given as a minimum, never as a maximum.

HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON

Eze 45:8

Princes not oppressors.

In the apportionment of the restored and newly occupied territory there was need for a display of a just and equitable spirit. That there was some danger of another and contrary spirit is evident from the admonition here addressed by the prophet in the name of the Lord to those in power and authority.

I. THE SPHERE OF OPPRESSION. The oppressor may exercise his might in violation of the principles of righteousness; either

(1) against the personal liberty, or

(2) against the property and possessions, of the oppressed.

II. THE MOTIVE TO OPPRESSION. This is almost always selfishness, the desire of personal enrichment, aggrandizement, or power, to attain which the rights of another are treated as of no account.

III. THE OPPORTUNITY OF OPPRESSION. It is no merit on the part of the obscure, the impoverished, the friendless, that they abstain from oppression, for the simple reason that it is not in their power; they may be oppressed, but they cannot be oppressors. But those in high station, especially princes, whose power is arbitrary and unchecked, have many opportunities of wronging their subjects and inferiors. In a country like our own, where public rights are secured, and where the monarch acts of necessity within constitutional limits, it is not easy to understand how in other states of society the poor and uninfluential may be at the mercy of the great.

IV. THE SIN OF OPPRESSION. This appears from considering the fact that the distinctions obtaining amongst men are to a large extent accidental and artificial. It is for the welfare of society that certain individuals should be entrusted with power; when that power is abused, the very purpose of such distinctions is violated. The law of him who is King of kings, and the principles of whose government are justice and mercy, is opposed to the exercise of political power in an unrighteous and inconsiderate manner.

V. THE REMEDY FOR OPPRESSION. This is set forth in a very striking manner in the passage before us: “My princes shall no more oppress my people.” The fact that both superior and inferior, both governors and subjects, are the Lord’s, is adduced as the strongest argument against oppression. If both alike are the Lord’s, the unreasonableness is apparent of one class treating the other with harshness and injustice. In fact, religion is here, as elsewhere, the true guide of human conduct, the true corrective of human ills. Let men first consider their obligations to the Giver of all, their responsibility to the Ruler of all, and such considerations will preserve them from wronging those who are, with them, subjects of the same Sovereign and children of the same Father. All alike are his, and there is a community of interest amongst all who acknowledge a common allegiance and a common indebtedness. In such a case, oppression is not only unrighteous, it is unreasonable and monstrous.T.

Eze 45:15

Reconciliation.

The relations between Israel and Jehovah were symbolical of those existing between the race of man and the same righteous Ruler and Judge. The sacrifices and priesthoods, the services and festivals, of the Mosaic economy have all a spiritual significance, and are typical of spiritual and Christian realities. Turning from the local and temporary circumstances, and regarding only the abiding, permanent, and universal truths suggested by the term “reconciliation,” we remark

I. THERE IS REASON AND NEED FOR RECONCILIATION. This is to be found in the estrangement of the human race from God, in that rebellion which is both serious in itself and universal in extent, in the displeasure of him who is justly offended with the repudiation of his claims and the rejection of his authority.

II. RECONCILIATION IS NEEDED FOR MAN WITH GOD. God’s favor is essential to man’s welfare. God stands in no need of aught upon man’s part. The requirements and necessity are on the human side; but the advances and the provision must be upon the Divine side. The question isIs God willing to be reconciled with sinful, rebellious, guilty man? There is no equality between the parties to the transaction. It is God’s part to bestow, and man’s to receive.

III. RECONCILIATION IS EFFECTED BY A DIVINELY APPOINTED MEDIATOR. It is observable that, in the arrangement prescribed in the prophetic book, the prince and the Driest both took part in the work of reconciliation. The oblation of the people was handed to the prince, and he gave it to the priests, who duly presented it. The kingly and sacerdotal offices had accordingly each a part in the work of reconciliation. This typifies the union of the two offices in the Person of the great Reconciler, the Son of God. In him were combined the functions of the high priest with the functions of the king. The more the character and the offices of Christ are studied, the more is it apparent that he combined in himself all the qualifications needed for the fulfillment of the atoning work, for making reconciliation for the sins of the people.

IV. THE MEANS BY WHICH RECONCILIATION IS EFFECTED ARE SACRIFICIAL. The sacrifices required under the old covenant were minutely prescribed; but their importance lay, not only in the moral truths which they symbolized, but in the great Sacrifice which was to be offered up for all mankind, and not for Israel alone, and by which not a ceremonial but a true and spiritual reconciliation was to be brought about. Christ offered himself for us.

V. THE RESULT IS WORTHY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED. Whether we consider the vast numbers of those whose acceptance and well-being is secured, the completeness of the harmony effected, or the everlasting duration of the peace secured, we cannot but admit that the sacrifice offered on Calvary and pleaded in heaven was not provided in vain. The nation of the saved is brought into harmonious relations with the Lord of all. Rebellion is at an end, and an affectionate loyalty reigns for ever in place of discord and disobedience.T.

Eze 45:18-25

Sacred festivals.

The prophet here refers to some of those great “feasts of the Jews” which formed so interesting a feature of the social and religious life of the chosen people. These references are suggestive of the spiritual privileges and religious exercises of the vaster Israel of God, which he has redeemed to himself by the death of his Son and consecrated to himself by the grace of his Spirit. Among the lessons which these festivals may thus convey may be mentioned

I. THE UNITY OF THE CONSECRATED PEOPLE. Never could Israel have more impressively realized and displayed their oneness in political and religious life than when they together celebrated such festivals as those of the Passover and of Tabernacles, both referred to by the prophet in this passage. A grander unity distinguishes the spiritual Israel, which is one because under the care of the one Father, because redeemed by the one Mediator, because informed, hallowed, and guided by the one Spirit. It was the prayer and the purpose of the Divine High Priest that all his people might be oneas one nation, cherishing the same memories, obeying the same laws, speaking the same language, and honoring the same King.

II. THE INDWELLING OF GOD AMONG THE CONSECRATED PEOPLE. It was not to celebrate a merely human community that the children of Israel kept their solemn feasts; it was in order to realize, in a striking and helpful manner, the perpetual interest and care of their glorious Lord and King. They were a chosen nation, a peculiar people, and this they both recognized and testified when they assembled to observe their festive solemnities, instituted by Divine wisdom to retain among the nation the sentiment of nearness to the unseen but mighty Head.

III. THE MORAL HARMONY EXISTING BETWEEN GOD AND THE CONSECRATED, PEOPLE. The sacrifices and offerings presented were the symbolic means of preserving this harmony between Jehovah and the seed of Abraham. Offences were confessed with penitence, submission was made, prescribed observances were complied with, and the favor of God was manifested and the conscience was purged from guilt. Such harmony, only deeper and more spiritual, obtains between God and his Church on earth. The estrangement and enmity are abolished; reconciliation is effected; communion is enjoyed.

IV. THE PERPETUAL REMEMBRANCE OF INSTANCES OF DIVINE MERCY, FORBEARANCE, AND DELIVERANCE. The Hebrew people were accustomed, upon occasion of their sacred festivals, to remind one another of the blessings bestowed upon their forefathers. The Passover reminded them of their deliverance from the cruel bondage of Egypt; the Feast of Tabernacles brought to their memory the wanderings in the wilderness. On such occasions they would turn their thoughts to their marvelous national history, and especially to its more instructive and memorable incidents. Similarly in. the Church of Christ, the wonderful interpositions effected by Divine power and clemency can never be forgotten; they must be held in everlasting remembrance; the mighty works which God did in old time must never lose their freshness and their wonder. The “sacred year” of the Church is filled with reminders of God’s mercy, and especially of those supremely glorious and blessed events in which the Church on earth wok its rise-events connected with the advent, the sacrifice, and the glory of Immanuel, and those connected with the gift of the Holy Spirit of God.

V. THE PRIVILEGE OF UNITED AND JOYFUL PRAISE. The Hebrew festivals were occasions of social and sacred joy. With them were associated the thanksgivings and the adorations of a nation. The people gave thanks to the God of gods, the Lord of lords, to him who remembered them in their low estate, who led his people through the wilderness; for his mercy endureth forever. There is no exercise more congenial or delightful to the Church of Christ than the exercise of grateful praise. The songs of the redeemed and the righteous ever ascend to him from whom all mercies flow, to whom all praise is due. The moral nation of the saved ever lifts to heaven the tribute and offering of filial gratitude and spiritual worship.T.

HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES

Eze 45:9-12

Religion the parent of morality.

It is certain that God feels an active interest in all the covenants of man. The same authority that requires love to God requires love for our neighbors, equal in strength to love for self. True religion is not sublimely indifferent to the details of home and mercantile life. It designs to make every home a nursery for the Church, every shop an arena for the victories of faith. Every commercial transaction bears a testimony either for God or against him.

I. RELIGION HAS A MESSAGE FOR EVERY RANK OF HUMAN SOCIETY. Like the sun in the heavens, religion exerts the benignest influence on men of every rank and station. It teaches the monarch humility and self-restraint. It teaches princes to live for others. It teaches magistrates the value of equity and justice. It teaches merchants principles of honesty and truthfulness. It cares for the poorest and the meanest among men; inspires them with the spirit of industry; casts a halo of beauty over the lowliest lot. Nothing that appertains to man is too insignificant for the notice of true religion. For every stage in life, from childhood to old age, religion has some kindly ministration. For every circumstance it affords some succor. It superadds dignity to the prince. It gives a kingly bearing to the peasant. It links all classes (when unhindered) in true and blissful harmony. Tyranny on the one hand, and insubordination on the other, are equally obnoxious to religion.

II. RELIGION SHEDS ITS INFLUENCE THROUGH EVERY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN LIFE. We cannot go into any assembly of men for whatever purpose they meet, where we are excused from manifesting the principles and the spirit of true religion. Whether we meet for gaining knowledge, or for industrial toil, or for political action, or for commercial pursuits, religion claims to preside over all our thoughts and plans and deeds. The shop and the mart are capacious fields for the daily exercise of Christian virtuesfields exquisitely suited for the growth and ripening of the noblest qualities. Courage can only be developed in presence of strife and peril; so our religious virtues can only be strengthened in an atmosphere of temptation. If a man is not pious and faithful and truthful in his commercial transactions, he will not be pious and faithful anywhere. This is his test; and woe be to the man who succumbs in the strife!

III. RELIGION SETS UP STANDARDS FOR ALL HUMAN ACTIONS. “Ye shall have just balances.” The shekel and the homer were to be fixed standards. If fraud be allowed to creep into our commercial scales and measures, the fraud will corrupt every transaction. The very heart of the mercantile system will be poisoned. Villany secreted here would spread as from a center to the whole circumference of commerce. It is supremely important that men establish right standards of speech and conduct. If the exchange is to prosper, it must (like the throne) be established in righteousness. Over the portals of every shop, on the beam of every balance, engraved on every coin, ought the maxim to run in largest capitals, “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them!”D.

Eze 45:13-15

Religion a practical thing.

In the infancy of the world outward symbol was more needed for the religious instruction of men than it is today. In the sacred ceremonies of the temple every man had a part to take. Religious truth can better be impressed upon the mind when outward action accompanies inward sentiment. Religion requires the loyalty and service of the entire man; and if convictions of religious duty can be wrought into the soul, it is cheaply purchased by the devotement of our wealth to God. No cost is too great by which we can gain adequate appreciation of our indebtedness to God. God’s requirements and our advantage are identical; they are interwoven like light and heat in solar rays.

I. RELIGION EMBRACES MANY ELEMENTS. There were required “meat offerings, and burnt offerings, and peace offerings.” Each of these had a distinct meaning, and represented a distinct need of man. In true religion there enters the sentiment of reverential homage, gratitude for gifts received, acknowledgment of transgression, application for larger blessing, vows of fresh service, intercession on behalf of others. Offerings for ourselves, for our household, for the nation, are suitable; and in desiring the good of others, our benevolent nature expands, we get a larger good ourselves. The expansion of the soul is real gain.

II. RELIGIOUS WORSHIP IS BEST EXPRESSED BY PERSONAL OFFERINGS. Wheat, barley, lambs, heifers, oil, were to be the staple of the people’s offerings. It is of the first importance that men should feel that God is the Creator and Giver of all good. We are absolutely dependent on his bounty. To live in the hourly realization of this dependence is blessing unspeakable. Nor can any arrangement better promote this end than the regular offering of such things as God has conferred. We owe to him our all, our whole being, our entire possessions. But he graciously accepts a part as acknowledged tribute, and gives in return a substantial blessing upon the remainder. Best of all, he uses our gift as a channel through which to pour new blessing and joy into our own souls. Our spontaneous offerings foster the growth of faith and love and spiritual aspiration. “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

III. RELIGIOUS OFFERINGS SHOULD BE PROPORTIONAL TO OUR PROSPERITY. The man that supposes God to be an austere Taskmaster is a precipitant blunderer. He has grossly missed the truth. God does not require gigantic offerings. He requires gifts simply proportionate to our possessions. The gift of ten thousand pounds may be in the balance of righteousness only a paltry and selfish deed. The giver may be seeking only self-interests or human fame. The gift of a farthing may win the smile of Jehovah. The magnitude of our offering is measured by the motive that prompts it, the end sought, and the residue that remains. According to this spiritual calculation, the woman who gave all she had gave transcendently more than the rich donors of golden shekels. The offering of our heart’s warm love is the noblest tribute which God appreciates, and unless our gifts are the outflow and manifestation of our love, they are rejected as worthless, they are like smoke in one’s eyes. “That which is highly esteemed among men is often an abomination in the sight of God.”

IV. FIDELITY TO GOD BRINGS THE LARGEST BENEFITS TO MEN. The end of such offerings among the Jews was “to make reconciliation for them, saith the Lord God.” Yet we shall grossly err if we look upon this as a commercial bargain. Reconciliation with God cannot be purchased with gold, or tithes, or animal sacrifices. Reconciliation is the outcome of God’s grace; but to bestow it upon rebellious men indiscriminately would be a waste and a crime. The grace that has originated reconciliation must prepare men’s hearts to possess it. This omnipotent kindness of God moves the sinner’s heart to repentance. His desire for God’s friendship expresses itself in prayer and in substantial offerings. To obtain such a heavenly boon he is willing to make any sacrifice. Such good does his conscience perceive to dwell in God’s favor that obedience to his will is a delight, a very luxury to the soul. As a child finds a delicious joy in pleasing its parent, and runs cheerfully to do that parent’s will, so the repentant man loyally responds to God’s commands, and at the altar of sacrifice implores to be reconciled. To have God as his Friend is his supreme desire, his supreme good. “In his favor is life, his loving-kindness is better than life.”D.

Eze 45:18-20

Sanctity of time and place.

Human life on earth is conditioned by lime and place. It is a necessity of our existence here that we should occupy some definite place. It is a necessity that we should live during some duration of time. We are cradled amid outward circumstance. Until the soil has matured its powers, it is molded and modified by external surroundings. What these are, the character of the man, in great measure, will be.

I. THE SANCTUARY IS THE FOUNTAIN–HEAD OF PUBLIC RELIGION. A man’s personal piety must be nourished in secretby meditation, faith, and prayer. But a man is not an isolated creature. He is related on many sides to others. He is part of a family, part of a community. Therefore his religion must have a public aspect, and must influence all his relationships. His religion is helped by mutual action and reaction. It is fostered by common beliefs, common sympathies, common worship. The meeting-place between man and man is also the meeting-place between men and God. Scarce any man will rise above the level of religious life prevailing in the sanctuary. Here men’s souls are fed and nourished and vitalized. What the sanctuary is the home will be, the nation will be, the world will be. If the fountain be clear and abundant in its flow, the streams will be fall and clear also. The future of our world hangs upon our sanctuary-worship.

II. THE FOUNTAIN–HEAD OF PUBLIC RELIGION MUST BE KEPT PURE. So subtle and insidious is the working of sin, that it insinuates a way into the house of God. Base and selfish motives disfigure the beauty of our worship. Worldliness clogs the wheels of the soul, and prevents it from running in the way of holy duty. The priests and ministers of God are liable to temptation’s defiling touch. The channel of communication between heaven and men may become choked with avarice and earthly ambition. The face of God may be hidden by the mists and clouds of human unbelief. The ears of men may become deaf to the soft whispers of God’s voice. Sin in the sanctuary may be so subtle as to remain undetected. Our knowledge of God and of his will is so partial and imperfect that even good men sin through ignorance and error and inadvertence. Hence arises the need for the repurification of the sanctuary. No means are to be neglected by which men’s minds can be more deeply impressed with the need of purity. No expenditure is waste by which the souls of men can be cleansed and ennobled. Our very tears of repentance must be washed. The fountain of truth and piety must he kept sweet.

III. THE PURIFICATION OF THE SANCTUARY DEMANDS THE FIRST MOMENTS OF OUR TIME. The holiest work must be the work first done. The dawn of the new year is the most fitting time for this sacred service. Just as every part of the nation is hallowed for God by the hallowing of a particular spot, so the whole year is hallowed by the consecration to God of its first moments. God’s claim to every part of our nature and of our possessions must be practically yielded; and we admit the obligation by bringing the first fruit of our fields, the best of our flocks, the central spot of our territory, the first moments of the year. It is by giving that we gain. None have been losers by giving freely unto God. That which we thus give we really possess.D.

HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON

Eze 45:1-5

Devotement and consecration.

In the ideal kingdom there was to be a certain portion of the land devoted to sacred objectsto the sanctuary of Jehovah and to the residence of his ministers. This was called “a holy portion;” it was “an oblation unto the Lord.” Thus in the very heart of the metropolis, in the most commanding situation, on the very best possible site, there was an abiding witness of the presence and the claims of God, and a continual recognition of and response to those claims on the part of the nation. In a country as Christian as ours the towers and spires of our sanctuaries, rising heavenward under every sky, standing strong and even thick among the homes and the shops and counting-houses of town and city, bear their testimony that God is remembered, that Jesus Christ is honored and worshipped by the people of the land. But better than this devotement of land and this building of sanctuaries, good as that is, is the consecration of heart and life to the Person and the service of the Redeemer. The first and essential step in this act is

I. THE SURRENDER OF OURSELVES TO JESUS CHRIST. The clear recognition that we are not our own, but his; that he claims us in virtue of his surpassing love and. his supreme sacrifice; that he has “bought us with the price” of his own blood (1Co 6:20). And the free and full surrender of ourselves to himself; the hearty and definite acceptance of him as our Divine Teacher, Lord, and. Friend; so that in the future it is the will of Christ, not our own will, that will be the determining power within us. This surrender or consecration of self necessarily includes

II. THE DEDICATION OF OUR DAYS AND OUR POWERS TO HIS SERVICE. Being his, in the deepest thought of our mind and the strongest feeling of our heart and the most deliberate choice of our will, we can withhold nothing from him.

1. Not merely will one day in seven be given to worship in his sanctuary, but all the hours of all our days will be spent as in his presence and to his praise.

2. Not only shall we sing some psalms and utter some prayers “unto the Lord,” but we shall use every faculty we possess, both of mind and sense, with the view of pleasing and of honoring him. And beyond this, or we might say, implied and included in this, is

III. THE ASSIGNMENT OF OUR POSSESSIONS TO HIM AND TO HIS SERVICE. This includes:

1. The holding and the spending of all that we have in the spirit of obedience, having regard to his will in all that we do with our substance.

2. The assignment of some serious proportion of our means to the cause of God and of man, of religion and of humanity. What that proportion shall be, and what form it shall takeland, money, time, laboris left to the individual conscience. There is no prescription in the New Testament. We are called unto liberty; but we are sacredly and happily bound to give all we can for such a Savior, in such a cause.C.

Eze 45:8

Human oppression.

“My princes shall no more oppress my people.” God is now upon the throne (see Eze 43:7), and there is no room for an earthly sovereign. The highest ruler is the “prince;” but that word stands for human authority and power, whatever be the name by which it is indicated. The promise has a reflex significance; it points to the evils which had been in past times. And Israel would have been fortunate indeed if it had escaped the common doom of oppression at the hand of its kings and princes. Many and sad are the sorrows which this poor world of ours has endured at the hand of those who should have lived to bless and not to curse it. The view, or review, is melancholy in the last degree; surely it is only too true that

“Man’s inhumanity to man
Makes countless ages mourn.”

I. ITS VARIOUS FORMS. These are:

1. Impressment. The children of Israel were plainly and powerfully forewarned of this evil (1Sa 8:11-17).

2. Taxation. It was not long before the land groaned beneath the weight of the sovereign’s levies (2Sa 10:4).

3. Robbery of individual right, and invasion of individual liberty. It needs but to mention the case of David’s sad defection from right, and Ahab’s senseless covetousness and weak yielding to his truculent queen, to be reminded how kings, even of Judah and Israel, defrauded men of their dearest rights. And if we extend the meaning of the word “prince” to any one in authority, or in power, or in possession, we think at once of the terrible oppressions, in this worst form, that have dishonored the lands, darkened the homes, and blighted the lives of men under every sky and in every age of the world.

4. Violence.

II. ITS ESSENTIAL INIQUITY AND ENORMITY. For what is it, in truth? It is a shameful abuse of power. It is nothing less than a man taking from the hand of God the power or opportunity which he gave him in order that he might use for the good, the elevation, the happiness of his kind, and turning that power into an instrument of mischief and of sorrow. It is a heartless and shameless exaggeration by a man of his own personal importance, as if his comfort were everything, and an equally heartless and shameless disregard of the wishes and the wants, the joys and the sorrows, the hearts and the homes of other people. It is a guilty perversion of the purpose and debasement of the gift of God.

III. THE DEEP DIVINE DISAPPROVAL OF IT. How could the Divine Father of all human spirits see one of his children wronging, oppressing a number of his fellows, weighting them with grievous burdens or robbing them of the essential rights of their manhood or their womanhood, without deep, Divine indignation and sorrow (see Exo 3:7; 2Ki 13:4; 2Ki 14:26; Isa 1:23, Isa 1:24; Isa 49:25; Jer 22:17; Hos 4:18; and Eze 22:27)?

IV. THE DIVINE PROMISE UNDER THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST. The time shall come when princes and powers “shall no more oppress.” When Jesus Christ shall exercise his benignant sway over all nations, when his spirit of righteousness and of love shall fill the hearts and regulate the lives of men, then the hard hand of oppression will be taken off every shoulder; the cruel exactions shall cease; the spirit of the Christian poet will prevail, when he says

“I would rather be myself the slave
And wear the bonds than fasten them on him;”

cruelty shall give place to kindness, and selfishness to considerateness; and instead of men askingHow much can I get out of the multitude to fill my purse and serve my purpose? they will askWhat can I do to enlighten, to enrich, to elevate, to bless?C.

Eze 45:10

Piety and equity.

“Ye shall have just balances.” Devotion, when divorced from morality, is worth nothing in the sight of God. Men have thought and taught that the one thing that God (or the gods) required was to be reverently approached by his adherents, and to receive their numerous offerings (see Mic 6:6, Mic 6:7). But his disciples did not so learn Moses, and we have not so learned Christ. Under him we have come to understand that every good tree must bring forth good fruit, and that it is he who doeth righteousness that is righteous. In this great matter of equity between man and man it is difficult to over-estimate its religious importance. By error and failure therein we separate ourselves from God; by rectitude and fidelity therein we commend ourselves to his loving favor. We take the injunction as covering more ground than the words themselves express; and we look, therefore, at

I. THE RANGE OF ITS APPLICATION. “Ye shall have just balances” means, of course, more especiallyBe fair in your dealings when you trade one with another; but it also meansDo what is just and upright in all your relations; do sound and thorough work at the carpenter’s bench, and at the fore, when you build the house or dig the garden or plant the field; be true and faithful to your scholars, to your people, to your clients, to your constituents, in the schoolroom, or the pulpit, or the court, or the House of Commons. Do what you undertake to do; be what you profess to be; be honest, sincere, faithful in every sphere in which you move.

II. THE DIVINE REGARD. “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good;” but if they could overlook anything they would not fail to observe whether men did or did not do justice to their fellows. If we suppose that there are some things respecting which God is indifferent, among these, assuredly, is not the question whether we do or leave undone what we have promised to do. From the formal compact, carefully drawn and solemnly ratified between the sovereign and the nation, down to the word of promise made by the tradesman or the seamstress, all our human dealings and undertakings are the object of the Divine regard. “I have seen” is a sentence we should do well to hear at all times and in every place when we covenant with men.

III. THE DIVINE RECOMPENSE.

1. Approval or displeasure. We may make quite sure that, when we are acting unfairly or unfaithfully in any relationship whatever, however we may be gathering money or reaping honor, we are laying up a large measure of Divine disapproval; the “anger of the Lord is kindled against us.” But when we are acting conscientiously and equitably: however we may be disregarded and passed by on the part of our fellows, we are enjoying the favor of our Lord.

2. Reward or penalty. Faithfulness will bring

(1) our own self-respect;

(2) the esteem of those whom we serve;

(3) the consolidation of our Christian character;

(4) commendation and promotion in the day of Divine recompense (Luk 19:17).

Unfaithfulness will have to bear a penalty corresponding to thisthe loss of self-respect, public reprobation, degradation of character, Divine condemnation in the future.C.

Eze 45:20

The erring and the simple.

The sacrifices under the Law of Moses were not intended for presumptuous, high-handed sins of the worst kind (see Num 15:30; Deu 17:12). They were designed for the less grave offences, more especially for transgressions of the ceremonial law. Here we have an injunction requiring a general, and not individual, offering to be rendered on behalf of those who had been inadvertently led into error, or who, by reason of mental simplicity, had failed to recognize their duty, and had therefore left it undone. It was valuable as recognizing the responsibility of the nation for those of its members who were less well able to take care of themselves, and it suggests to us our Christian duty to seek, for their sake as much as for our own, to guide or to restore them.

I. THE PRESENCE OF THE SIMPLE. We not only come into this world very variously endowed, some having inclinations and faculties of which others are not conscious at all, but our minds are of very different gradations in general capacity. Between that of the man just above imbecility and that of the greatest poet, or statesman, or organizer, how immeasurable the distance! There is quite a considerable company of the imbecile; these have been, in some countries, singularly regarded as in close connection with the supernal powers, and treated with peculiar regard on that account. Otherwise and elsewhere they are usually the objects of a good-natured tolerance. But above these and below the men and women of average intelligence are “the simple”those who can acquire but very little learning, study how they may; who soon lose their way in reasoning, and are easily worsted in dispute; who cannot look far ahead, and may be readily taken advantage of by the unscrupulous; who cannot discern dangers ahead, and are specially open to the attacks of the enemy.

II. THE PRESENCE OF THE ERRING. It is, no doubt, “the simple” who become “the erring,” whose error is due to their simplicity. But it is not all the simple who err, nor are all the erring to be found among the simple. There are those who leave the strait path without that excusemen and women who are possessed of the ordinary intelligence and have received a very fair measure of instruction and Christian influence, who are found in paths of folly. Some temptation has proved too strong for them. And if they are not among the flagrantly immoral, yet is there, in their case, a deviation from the straight line of truthfulness, or of purity, or of sobriety, or of reverence, or of the becoming and the consistenta deviation which detracts seriously from the worth and beauty of their character, and which makes their best friends concerned or even alarmed about them.

III. OUR SACRED DUTY, WHICH IS OUR PRIVILEGE, CONCERNING THESE.

1. To guide and guard. Those on whom God has conferred greater power, and who can consequently see more clearly where evil lies and where danger begins, should esteem it their most sacred and bounden duty to befriend, to preserve, to save, those who are feebler and more exposed. We have our powers, no doubt, that we may take care of ourselves, that we may secure and enrich ourselves. But this is only one part, and it is quite a small part, of our duty and of our opportunity. We live to love and bless. God has made us what we are and given us what we have, for the express purpose that we may serve those who are around us, and more particularly those who are nearly related to us, by defending them when they are assailed, by timely warning against attack, by arming them for the evil hour, by encouraging them m the midst of the battle when they are distressed, by enabling them to make the most of the resources which they possess. By wise direction and strengthening companionship many a simple soldier has been enabled, on moral as well as material fields, to fight a brave and faithful battle, and to win the victory and the crown.

2. To restore. “Ye who are spiritual restore such a one” (Gal 6:1). Here is not only a sacred duty, but a very high privilege. To win a fortune, to establish “a house” or a family, to build up a great reputation, to rise to conspicuous eminence,this is laudable, honorable, attractive enough, or at least it may be so. But there are things which are higher and better than these. And of these nobler things there are few that rank higher in the estimate of Christ or will give our own hearts deeper satisfaction in the calmer and truer moments of our life than the act of restoration. To lead our erring brother or sister back again from the highway or the byway of evil into the road of rectitude, into the path of life,this is emphatically and pre-eminently the Christian thing to do; it is to reduce to action the Divine instruction, “As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.”C.

Eze 45:21

The moral of the Passover.

This great feast, which was so solemnly though hastily inaugurated, and so solemnly and joyously renewed after a discreditable lapse (Exo 12:1-51.; 2Ch 30:1-27.), had an historical and also a religious aspect.

I. ITS HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE. It recalled one great event of surpassing national interest; it brought back to memory the pitiless cruelty, the blind obduracy, the false confidence of Egypt, and, at the same time, the sad sufferings and the trembling hopes of Israel. “With what solemn awe and yet with what thrilling expectation did their forefathers in the land of bondage partake of that strange meal! With what eager carefulness did they see that the saving blood-stream marked the lintels of the door which would shut in their dear ones! And what a morning on the morrow! What joyous congratulations in each Hebrew family when they all met, in life and health, on that memorable march! And what terrible consternation in those Egyptian homes where the angel of death had not passed by but had struck his fearful stroke! It was the hour of Jehovah’s most signal interposition; it was the hour of national redemption. They might well remember it “in all their dwellings through all their generations.”

II. ITS SPIRITUAL SIGNIFICANCE. The keeping of the Passover was fitted to exert a most invaluable influence in two ways.

1. It was calculated to bind the nation together and so to preserve its unity; or, when that unity was broken, to induce a kinder or more brotherly feeling between the separated communities, and to prevent further dissolution. For nothing is a stronger tie than common sacred memoriesthe vivid recollection of scenes, of sufferings, of struggles, through which common ancestors have passed. Such memories allay ill feeling and strengthen existing “cords of love.”

2. It was calculated to preserve their allegiance to their Divine Deliverer. For the slaying and eating of the lamb in their homes:

(1) Spoke to their hearts of the vast and the immeasurable obligation under which they stood to the Lord their God; it presented him to their minds as the Lord their Redeemer, who had with a mighty hand rescued them from tyranny and oppression, and placed them in the land of plenty, in homes of peace.

(2) Summoned them to the liveliest gratitude for such signal mercy, for such abounding and abiding goodness.

(3) Charged them to live that life of purity and of separateness from heathen iniquity of which the unleavened bread spoke to them while the feast lasted (see homily in loc; in Le Eze 23:4-8).

1. It is well to signalize individual mercies; it is well, by some wise habit or institution, to call to remembrance, for renewed gratitude and consecration, some special deliverance granted us by the God of our life during our past career.

2. It is well to commemorate common, national favors; to recall, with thankfulness and devotion, the goodness of God shown in great national conjunctures.

3. It is best to perpetuate the one great, surpassing redemption of our race; to join in the commemoration of that supreme event when the Lamb of God was slain for the sins of the world.C.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Eze 45:1. When ye shall divide by lot the land The land was first divided by lot under Joshua, a particular share of which was to be God’s portion, as an acknowledgement of his sovereign dominion. See Lowth, Num 26:55 and the note on chap. Eze 48:35 of this book. Instead of offer an oblation, Houbigant reads, set off a part; and so throughout the chapter; and cubits instead of reeds.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

CHAPTER 45

1And when ye allot [divide] the land as inheritance, ye shall make an oblation to Jehovah, a holiness from the land; the length five and twenty thousand and the breadth ten thousand; holiness [is] it in all its border round 2about. Of this shall be [come, belong] to the sanctuary five hundred by five hundred, a square round about; and fifty cubits of environs for it round 3about. And from [according to] this measure shalt thou measure a length of five and twenty thousand and a breadth of ten thousand, and in it shall be 4the sanctuary, the most holy place. Holiness from the land is this; for the priests, the ministers of the sanctuary shall it be, who draw near to minister to Jehovah; and it is to them a place for houses, and a holy place for the 5sanctuary. And five and twenty thousand in length and ten thousand in breadth shall be [belong] to the Levites, the ministers of the house, to them 6for a possession, twenty chambers. And as a possession of the city ye shall give five thousand in breadth, and in length five and twenty thousand, beside [running along] the oblation of holiness; it shall be for the whole house of Israel 7And for the prince: adjoining the oblation of holiness on both sides and the possession of the city, before the oblation of holiness and before the possession of the city, on the west side westward, and on the east side eastward, and the length, beside [running along] one of the [tribal] portions from the west border 8to the east border. It shall be land to him for a possession in Israel; and My princes shall no more oppress My people; and [but] the land shall they give to the house of Israel according to their tribes. 9Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Enough for you, O princes of Israel; remove [put away] violence and rapine, and do judgment and justice, take away your expulsions from My people,sentence of the Lord Jehovah. 10Ye shall have just balances, and a just ephah, and a just bath. 11The ephah and the bath shall be of one measure; that the bath may contain [amount to] the tenth of the homer, and the ephah a tenth of the homer; its measure shall be after the homer. 12And the shekel [shall be] twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh. 13This is the oblation which ye shall make: the sixth of the ephah from the homer of wheat, and ye shall six the ephah 14from the homer of barley. And the ordinance of the oil: the bath of oil [what is to be offered as bath from the oil shall be] the tenth of the bath out of the cor, 15[which is] ten baths, a homer; for ten baths are a homer. And one sheep [or goat] out of the flock, from two hundred from the watered [land] of Israel, for the meat-offering, and for the burnt-offering, and for peace-offerings, to atone for [to cover] them,sentence of the Lord Jehovah. 16All the people of 17the land, they shall be [held] to this oblation for the prince in Israel. And upon the prince shall be the burnt-offerings, and the meat-offering, and the drink-offering, on the feasts, and on the new moons, and on the Sabbaths, in all the festal seasons of the house of Israel; he shall prepare the sin-offering, and the meat-offering, and the burnt-offering, and the peace-offerings, to atone for [to cover] the house of Israel. 18Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: In the first [month], on the first of the month, thou shalt take a bullock, a young steer, without blemish, and cleanse the sanctuary: 19And the priest takes of the blood of the sin-offering, and puts it upon the posts of the house, and upon the four corners of the ledge of the altar, and upon the posts of 20the gate of the inner court. And so shalt thou do on the seventh of the month for the erring man and for the fool, and ye atone for the house. 21In the first [month], on the fourteenth day of the month, shall the passover be to you, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten [one shall eat22mazzoth]. And the prince brings on this day for himself and for the whole 23people of the land a bullock as a sin-offering. And the seven days of the feast he shall bring as a burnt-offering to Jehovah seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish, daily the seven days; and as a sin-offering a kid of the 24goats for the day [daily]. And as a meat-offering he shall offer an ephah for a bullock, and an ephah for a ram, and of oil an hin for the ephah. 25In the seventh [month], on the fifteenth day of the month, in the feast he shall bring just such [offerings] seven days, as the sin-offering, as the burnt-offering, and as the meat-offering, and as the oil.

Eze 45:1. Sept.: … . (The second or the first is omitted in the various manuscripts.)

Eze 45:2. … Vulg.: Et erit ex omni parte sanctificatum in suburbana ejus

Eze 45:3. … . Vulg.: templum sanctumque sanctorum.

Eze 45:4. … .

Eze 45:5. … .

Eze 45:6. … . .

Eze 45:7. … . , . , . . , . (8) . . . . .Vulg.: et non depopulabuntur(Another reading: .)

Eze 45:9. . . Vulg.: Iniquitatem et rapinas separate confinia vestra a populo meo

Eze 45:10. … . . .

Eze 45:11. … . . , , . . Vulg.: qualia et unius mensur partem cori juxta mensuram cori erit qua libratio eorum.

Eze 45:12. . , . . . Vulg.: obolos Porro viginti sicli et et mnam faciunt. (Another reading: .)

Eze 45:13. … . Vulg.: primiti.

Eze 45:14. Sept: … , . Vulg.: batus olei, decima pars cori est; et decem bati corum faciunt, quia decem bati implent corum.

Eze 45:15. . . . .Vulg.: Et arietem unum de grege ducentorum, de his qu nutriunt Israel

Eze 45:17. . (Other readings: and .)

Eze 45:18. … .

Eze 45:19. Another reading: .

Eze 45:20. … . . , Vulg.: qui ignoravit et errore deceptus est

Eze 45:22. … . . . . .

Eze 45:23. … . . (24) .

Eze 45:24. Vulg.: Et sacrificium ephi per vitulum

Eze 45:25. … . Vulg.: sicut supra dicta sunt

EXEGETICAL REMARKS

Eze 45:1-9. The Oblation of Holiness, the Land of the Levites, the Possession of the City, and the Portion of the Prince

That Jehovah is the inheritance and possession of His priests (Eze 44:28) is a reality even for this world, as godliness in like manner has the promise of the life that now is. In order to give form to this truth, Eze 45:1 connects what follows with the preceding., from , signifies: to make to fall, and is used peculiarly of the lot (Eze 24:6); but when nothing suggests this, and when is not prefixed to the word, it is to be taken in its general sense, and , cum essenti, is to be understood as meaning: to divide in general. Comp. Psa 16:6. (The reference to the time immediately after the Babylonian servitude, hitherto maintained by Hengstenberg, must now, as we may well conceive, be abandoned; and so then he makes the prophet travel to Utopia, etc.) (Hiphil of , referring to what was done in the case of the peace or thank-offerings with the shoulder of the victimthe waving with the breast) has here the more general signification, although not that of: to present a present, nor that of: to offer an offering, but that of: to consecrate, to hallow to the Lord (), which, moreover, was the meaning of the ceremony of heaving on high as well as of the heaving up upon the altar. Comp. also on Eze 44:30. For details see on Ezekiel 48.Holiness (corresponding to Jehovah) from the land, and thus separated, partly for sacred and partly at least for higher, more general purposes (Bunsen); but see the intended use in what follows.The word length is repeated, perhaps on account of the significant number mentioned for the first time, or because the natural length of the land is not to be regarded, but by length reference is meant to be made to that which is forthwith so called in the vision, the extension from east to west, and so the repetition is not exactly pleonastic. Whether rods (Jerome, Rashi, Hv.) or cubits (Ewald, Hitzig, Hengst.) are meant, is not said. The supporters of both interpretations appeal to Eze 42:16 sq.; hence compare what is said there.The express mention, too, of cubits in Eze 45:2 is pressed into the service of both parties. Those who hold for rods say: Thus rods are always meant in what goes before, because here cubits are excepted; those who contend for cubits reply: Thus in what goes before, too, as everywhere in the case of all the large measurements, cubits are to be understood, otherwise rods would need to be expressly named. That cubits are mentioned first in Eze 45:2, Hengstenberg explains from the unexpectedly small measure there, so that one might easily think of a larger scale. Bttcher, moreover, adduces against the measurement by rod which he calculates would give 40 German [about 900 English] square miles (?), i.e. almost the tenth of the whole land, the colossal disproportion to the statements elsewhere, especially as to the temple, which measures only 500 cubits square. Keil, on the other hand, maintains that Ezekiel 48 with its proportions corresponds throughout to the of 25,000 rods in length and 10,000 rods in breadth. Comp. therefore Ezekiel 48.The breadth trends from north to south (Eze 48:10).Keil finds for 10,000 surprising, for which, he observes, is constantly used in Eze 45:3; Eze 45:5, and in Ezekiel 48. He therefore prefers the 20,000 of the Sept., giving is additional reasons for this, that the part mentioned in Eze 45:3 is to be measured off from what was measured in Eze 45:1; also that the Levites of Eze 45:5 are to be considered, whose possession is likewise Terumah of holiness (Eze 48:14 sq.), as is plain from other passages of our chapter; Eze 45:1 comprehends the land of the priests and of the Levites [25,000 and 20,000], which Eze 45:2-3 divide into two districts.Finally, the character of the oblation, because to Jehovah, is again insisted on, and that in respect of all its border round about.

Eze 45:2, after this general statement, marks-off from the above-mentioned () the sanctuary described and measured in Ezekiel 40, that is, the 500 cubits square forming the temple edifice, or, as Keil, in accordance with his view of Eze 42:15 sq.: the 500 square rods pertaining to the sacred enclosures of the temple. But as he adds: there is still to be around this enclosure, which separates between the sacred and the common, a free space of fifty cubits on each side to keep the priests dwellings from being built too near to the sacred square of the temple buildings, how, we ask, does he leave this latter entirely out of account!?, comp. on Eze 27:28. A free space of 50 cubits to a sanctuary of 500 rods would be much too small. It was evidently intended to be an interspace between the house of God and the houses of the priests (Hengst.).

Eze 45:3. is not the same as in Eze 45:2; for if so, this distinct and different mode of expression would not have been chosen, which, as it refers to the measuring of the sanctuary, so it designates as the sanctuary the temple building, and not the sacred enclosure of the temple. Keil needs 10,000 rods more in Eze 45:1, because he makes here = this measured piece of land. , as modified by , which has had always hitherto to be translated measure, denotes that from which the prophet has to take the measure, and is therefore entrusted with the measuring (, as it is expressly said); it had, indeed, been measured before him in Ezekiel 40. The temple building, just referred to in Eze 45:2 as the principal part, is normal for the whole oblation, which as such is again referred to in Eze 45:3, where also the centrality of the temple, already indicated by the phrase: and in it shall be the sanctuary, is distinctly denoted by the epithet: most holy, pointing to Eze 43:12. After that the holiness, the separation from the land for the holy purpose (for Jehovah, for His sanctuary) of the land of which the oblation consists (), with (Eze 45:3) the sanctuary in it (inclusive of the courts), has been again insisted on. Eze 45:4 treats now of the area in question in its relation to the priests, who, as hitherto (Eze 40:46; Eze 42:13; Eze 44:15)here, however, with a view to the sanctuary and its central positionare described, both as respects their official functions and their dwelling-places. Since they are such, since this is their official calling, it is befitting to assign to them the holiness from the land as a place for houses, explained in the clause following to be: a holy place for the sanctuary, so that this latter defines the priests houses to be a dependency of the sanctuary, just as similarly in Eze 43:12 the whole was even called most holy (Eze 45:3 here). The last clause of the verse is commonly taken as indicating a second use for the area of the oblation, namely, for the temple, a superfluous repetition. The mention of houses is in harmony with the law, in which the thirteen cities for the priests (Joshua 21) likewise come into consideration simply as regards the houses in them. From that which is His own through the oblation Jehovah gives to the priests as His ministers, and as ministers of the sanctuary in the neighbourhood, the space necessary for dwellings (just as in Ezekiel 45 the necessaries of life). This is an arrangement which doubtless is to be taken in connection with the entire division of the land, but differs from that laid down in Numbers 35, so that it will have to be understood from the idea meant to be illustrated (Doct. Reflec. 19).

Still more surprising is the new arrangement in Eze 45:5, where an area equal to that occupied by the sanctuary and priests houses is assigned to the Levites as ministers of the house (Eze 44:11 sq.), without any farther description, while the priests were described (Eze 45:4) as ministers of the sanctuary, making thus a marked difference between them; and this distinction of the Levites is also marked by the phrase: to them for a possession; for the next verse goes on to speak likewise of a possession of the city, although this latter is given (comp. on the other hand 54:28, ), and does not simply belong (), and stands evidently opposed to the of ver 4. But this area will be different from the one demanded in general in Eze 45:1, although the Levites too belong to the ministers of the Lord, and the twenty chambers correspond very little to a special landed possession of the extent mentioned. Keil includes the land of the Levites in Eze 45:1; but indeed with his 20,000 rods in breadth there, of which 10,000 fall to the priests and the sanctuary, he has still a breadth of 10,000 rods left for the Levites. Hengst. on the other hand says: Along with the priests the Levites receive a portion of land of like extent; then follows the district of the holy city with the same length, and a breadth of 5000 cubits; so that the whole portion marked off in advance for priests, Levites, and city is in breadth as in length 25,000 cubits.Instead of , the Qeri reads: .The words formed a difficulty to the LXX., who perhaps imagined the text to be . The chambers, instead of the thirty-five Levitical cities of Moses with pasturage, form, as regards the expression, no difficulty; they are very suitable diminutives of the houses of the priests. The priests have houses, the Levites as inferiors only chambers, which possibly may mean ranges of cells (Rosenm.) or courts, with one-twentieth of the pasturage for each. Keil, who cannot understand the Masoretic text, and holds to be a corruption of , reads: , by which, however, he obtains only gates (! !) as dwellings for the Levites, understanding indeed the gates as equivalent in meaning to cities. Hengst. calls them the barracks of the Levites; the departure from the ordinance of Moses, according to which the Levites dwelt scattered through the whole land, is so much the more surprising.

Eze 45:6. The land of the Levites could be properly oblation only if it were the same portion of land as that of the priests and the sanctuary, or if the reading in Eze 45:1 be 20,000 rods in breadth. Hence Hengst. limits the oblation to the sanctuary and the priests portion. Only in the wider sense does he make it include also the portion of the Levites and the circuit of the city; it may include even the portion of the prince (he says), since the prince acts as the minister of God. The structure of the clause in Eze 45:5 speaks in favour of a special area of 10,000 in breadth as Levites land; and so does the consideration that by such a possession in land the so much greater number of cities than of priests cities, which according to the ordinance of Moses belonged to them, is perhaps given expression to. Comp. besides on Eze 48:20. But however much the definition in Eze 45:5 : to them for a possession, indicates a special pertion of Levites land outside of the Terumah ( oblation) demanded in Eze 45:1, yet the possession of the city lies still farther outside, as likewise seems to separate it even from the land of the Levites. The city is the capital of the land. Its area has the same length as that hitherto given (25,000), but differs in breadth, which therefore is mentioned first; we have in this respect 10,000 + 10,000 + 5000 = 25,000. The possession of the city is to be distinguished from the city itself, which (Eze 48:16) is square, the length being equal to the breadth (Hengst.). The length of this possession runs along the oblation of holiness, by which designation is meant specially the land of the priests and the sanctuary. Its destined purpose, for the whole house of Israel, shows that it is to belong to no single tribe merely. Comp. Ezekiel 48.

The transition to in Eze 45:7 is mediated by the whole house of Israel in Eze 45:6, of which the prince is the civil head and representative.Either a kind of protasis to which Eze 45:8 forms the apodosis, or we may supply: ye shall give, from Eze 45:6. = on both sides, so that the oblation of holiness, which certainly may here include the land of the Levites, and the possession of the city lie between, running before these from north to south, so that seen from the west side what is westward as far as the Mediterranean Sea, seen from the east side what lies east as far as the Jordan is to belong to the prince; just as explains that as to the length, that is from west to east, the territory shall run the same length with one, i.e. any one of the portions of the tribes, shall neither go beyond nor fall short of any single tribal portion. Jerome remarks that the prince received for himself a whole tribal portion, with the exclusion, however, of the land of the sanctuary, the priests, the Levites, and the city; but in return he has not only the duty of protecting the square in question, but also the honour of possessing on his territory whatever is holy pertaining to the nation.

Eze 45:8. , more exactly defined by : the land described in Eze 45:7 shall be the land assigned to him for a possession in Israel. The reason for this arrangement follows: . The former state of things, in which no landed possession, no crown estate, was allotted to them qua princes, had tempted them to misuse of their power, to acquire for themselves possessions.My princes corresponds to My people; hence those who will in future have princely power over the people. This My applied to both parties contains at the same time the divine sentence on the former princes, who may be considered persons as little conscious of their high and responsible position as of the significance of Israel. Instead of taking to themselves, they are rather to give to the house of Israel, that is, to leave in possession, and also, if need be, to restore. The phrase: according to their tribes, shows what land is meant. [Fairbairn: That the whole ground for the priesthood, the prince, and the people of the city was to form together a square, betokened the perfect harmony and agreement which should subsist between these different classes, as well as the settled order and stability which should distinguish the sacred commonwealth, in which they held the highest place. That the priesthood were to occupy what was emphatically holy ground, was a symbol of the singular degree of holiness which should characterize those who stood in their official position the nearest to the Lord. And that the prince was to have a separate possession assigned him was to cut off all occasion for his lawlessly interfering with the possessions of the people, and to exhibit the friendly bearing and upright administration which was to be expected of him (Eze 45:8). And not only must he personally abstain from all oppressive behaviour, but as the divinely constituted head of a righteous commonwealth, he must take effective measures for establishing justice and judgment throughout the whole. Particular examples are given of this in regard to the using of just weights and measures in the transactions of business (Eze 45:9-12).W. F.]

Eze 45:9 concludes what specially regards the princes, by whose conduct in good and in bad a mirror and example was held up to the people, while at the same time it solemnly introduces the more general regulations which follow in regard to judgment and justice in trade and commerce.The subject in Eze 44:6 was the people with reference to the priesthood, here it is the prince in reference to the people; as there holiness and sanctification, so here judgment and justice. (Jerome interprets let this tribe-like possession suffice you!) What has already taken place far too often is now so much the more enough, as all natural temptation has been taken away by the assigning of domains (Eze 45:7 sq.).( ) is virtually the same as , a violent mode of acting, misuse of power, only stronger, because the consequence thereof: devastation, is implied in the word, as in the corresponding justice the exercise of judgment is manifested. Hengstenberg thinks: the direct address shows that representatives or descendants of the princes who had formerly committed injustice were also in exile. is expulsion of the lawful possessor from his property, as in 1 Kings 21.The burden which this was to the community, the pressure which thereby was inflicted on Israel, is depicted in the words: . The political parties especially, observes Hengstenberg, gave occasion for the confiscations. Comp. besides, 1Sa 8:14.

Eze 45:10-12. Justice in Common Life

The transition which is made by Eze 45:10 shows what an example for the community the conduct of the prince may be in evil and ought to be in good.( Princes have in all times attempted to take advantage of their subjects by alteration of coinage and weights, Philippson.) dual, denotes the two scales of the balance, from , to make ready, to fix; in reference to the way this can be done, to weigh, to determine the weight.() , according to Josephine in Greek, a measure about the same as a Berlin bushel [about 1 1/12; bushels English]; see Gesen. Lexicon. In the same way as the ephah for dry goods, the was used for liquids, as Delitzsch observes on Isa 5:10. This measure occurs first in the days of the kings, and from Josephus calculation it might contain somewhat more than 33 Berlin quarts [about 7 gallons English],

Eze 45:11 now begins to discuss what is right as to measure (, pensum, Exo 5:18), that which the ephah and bath are to represent, in order clearly to set forth exactness in trade and commerce as the divine characteristic of the people, as their holiness in ordinary life. Eze 45:10 is expounded and illustrated by examples. Rashi explains by , to bear = to hold, to contain. The (a heap collected together) shall be the measure, the norm, for ephah and bath, as the greatest dry goods measure, commonly called cor from the time of the kings, and (from Josephus) estimated at a little more than 15 Berlin pecks [about 600 English pints].

Eze 45:12 proceeds to speak of the standard for money, the shekel. An exactly weighed and hence definite (small) pound of silver, called by the Rabbins rock in distinction from the gerah, which they called little stone, is the oldest biblical standard of value, originally, in barter a weight, afterwards a coin, like the drachma among the Greeks and the as among the Romans. The value doubtless affixed by common agreement of the dealers to the ordinary shekel before the time of Moses cannot now be determined; but originating probably in Babylon, and coming through the Phnicians, the word meets us also in Greek (, ). is what is made small, hence grain as a small piece, like grain (a weight), from granum; Gesenius supposes it to be the carob bean (), which the Greeks, Romans, and Arabians used as the smallest weight, in the same way as barley and pepper-corns have been so used,the smallest biblical silver coin.After the value of the shekel has been thus defined from the parts it contains (comp. Exo 30:13; Lev 27:25; Num 3:47), there may perhaps, as Cocceius and J. D. Michaelis think, be three different kinds of shekel given, a larger, an intermediate, and a smaller. Hengstenberg better: the maneh, probably of foreign origin, which explains its rare and late occurrence, is stated at a threefold value, according to its different worth in the several countries from which it came. The normal maneh = 20 shekels, corresponding to the 20 gerahs, stands first. (1Ki 10:17; Ezr 2:69; Neh 7:71-72), from a comparison of the first passagein which Hengstenberg, indeed, prefers to read instead of with 2Ch 9:16, it appears that a maneh is equal to 100 shekels, a result usually reconciled with our passage by saying that civil shekels, that is, Mosaic half-shekels, are intended to be meant in 2 Chronicles 9, since the in the course of time became as shekel the widest spread large silver piece. But still 100 such shekels, or 50 Mosaic ones, by which Ezekiel reckons, would not be 20 + 25 + 15, the numbers given here, added together = 60 shekels; and besides, the three divisions and the putting of the 20 first remain unexplained! Hence Keil infers a very ancient corruption of the text. Hitzig, accepting like Hengstenberg three manehs, the only reasonable interpretation of the present text, supposes computation in gold, silver, and copper; that is, a gold, a silver, and a copper maneh. The Chaldee paraphrast, on the other hand, took the 60 shekels as the extraordinary value of the happy Messianic age ( ). The interpretation of the LXX., accepted by Boeckh (Metrol. Unters.) and Bertheau (Gesch. der Isr.), gives the following very insignificant proposition: The 5-shekel weight shall be to you 5 shekels, and the 10-shekel weight 10, and 50 shekels shall be a maneh.

Eze 45:13-17. The Oblation of the People

As formerly it was from the prince to the people, so now it is what the people have to render to the prince. The foregoing fixing of measures forms the transition, and the designation in Eze 45:13, taken from Eze 45:1 sq., is also an intermediate link. The oblation is offered to Jehovah as being set apart for purposes of worship. It is to be the sixtieth part of wheat and barley. , to divide into six parts, hence here: to take off the sixth part.

Eze 45:14. is the ordinance of the oil, what the law of the oblation is to be in respect to the oil; namely, as explained by the apposition: , which Hengstenberg makes a parenthesis, and paraphrases thus: the bath is the measure for the oil,the quantity taken from the bath of oil shall be the tenth part of it. The cor (1Ki 5:2 [4:22]; 2Ch 2:9 [10], 27:5), for dry goods and liquids, a post-Mosaic name of a measure; and hence it is not only added that the cor is ten baths, but also that it is the same as the homer, for ten baths (Eze 45:11) make a homer. [Hengst.: homer without doubt the native name; cor introduced from the Aramaic during or after the exile.] Thus the tenth of the bath is as regards the oil the hundredth part of the harvest.Wine (specifically for the drink-offering) is not mentioned; small cattle however are

Eze 45:15(the oblation in their case is to be one out of two hundred, and that one to come from fat pastures, to be well fed), but not oxen. The enumeration, says Keil, is not complete, but contains only the norm for levying the contributions; as Hengstenberg expresses himself: to serve as proof that the regulations here do not bear the character of an actual tax, but are only by way of example and outline. Philippson remarks: This impost appears intended to serve as substitute for the tithes prescribed by Moses, which are not mentioned here. is a watered district, like Gen 13:10; a significant allusion: Israel after their return to their own land will be as richly blessed as ever the valley of Jordan was before its devastation.

Eze 45:16 consigns this oblation to the princes. , they are to see to it that they render it. The prince is hereby on the one hand enabled to provide for the service of worship, as on the other his representation of the people is made manifest. Hengstenberg holds the amount of this oblation to be too great, and barley moreover was not used in worship, unless we understand that the other expenses for the general good were to be included.

Eze 45:17. Instead of , which applies to all the people, we have now , that which concerns the prince only; on him it shall be incumbent. First, the things incumbent upon him are enumerated, and then is added what he has to do (), namely, as is obvious from his very position, that he shall defray the material expenses of worship, and in so far perform it. He is indeed governor of the feast, but not officiator in presenting the atoning sacrifice on the feast days, with a priestly dignity, such as Umbreit attributes to him. may simply be: cause to be done (Eze 46:2). Hvernick again well observes: Thus there arises a beautiful contrast to the former state of matters. Instead of violent exactions, harsh oppression, infamous tyranny, and mutual injustice and disloyalty, comes a settled order of things, conscientious gifts of the people which are holy gifts. The prince appears as the theocratic head, who truly cares for the weal and safety of Israel, who supports in the liveliest and demands in the strongest manner the close communion of the people with their God; not only administering justice, but also caring for the most sacred interests of the people, etc.

Eze 45:18-20. The Sin-offering in the First Month

A solemn introduction: Thus saith, etc.( Taking occasion from the thought in Eze 45:17, the prophet now portrays, as a new, solemn cycle of feasts begins in Israel, what also the prophets elsewhere announce regarding the sacred festivals in the Messianic period, e.g. Isa 66:23; Zec 14:16, Hv.) The whole mode of expression in Eze 45:18, as well as the comparison of Eze 43:18 sq. (of the difference between that and this), and the connection with what follows,all this compels us to reject the view given by Hengstenberg, that corresponding to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offerings, we have to regard the consecration of the sanctuary as a solemnity occurring only once. Hengstenberg compares the seven days solemnity in the case of Solomons temple (2Ch 7:8), and the fresh consecration of the temple under Hezekiah (2Ch 29:18 sq.), but especially the consecration of the tabernacle on the first day of the first month in Exodus 40. Besides what we have said already, the following consideration tells against this view. Surely we may suppose a difference between these sanctuaries built by men, like the altar of burnt-offerings ( ), and the divine temple beheld by Ezekiel, when its consecration in this sense had already taken place by the coming in of the divine glory (Eze 43:2 sq.). The solemnity here ordained on the first and seventh days of the month (Nisan, Eze 45:21) is a yearly returning one, as is shown also by the reference in Eze 45:20 to continual recurrence. Num 28:11 sq. shows that the beginning of every month is to be solemnized, and Numbers 29 that there is to be additionally a special solemnity on the first day of the seventh month. On this comp. Ezekiel 46The cleansing of the sanctuary is effected here through a young bullock, instead of the goat prescribed by Moses for the new moon,an augmentation of the sin-offering as to the victim, just as in Eze 45:19 through the process which accomplishes the cleansing. The posts of the house (Eze 41:21) refer to the sanctuary (Eze 45:18), without distinction in respect to its two divisions, the altar of burnt-offerings and the gate (doubtless collective for all the three gates, for if only the east gate were meant, specific mention of it would hardly be omitted) of the inner court.

Eze 45:20, however, explains in direct terms that this cleansing of the sanctuary on the first and seventh days of the first month takes place from the ground (), the cause which, in view of the holiness of the house, may be found in , that is: the erring, frail man, and , either: folly, or, abstr. pro concreto: the fool (properly, the man open to every impression, easily led astray). The two designations are distinguished as actus and potentia, the occasional act and the natural disposition; but it has been rightly remarked that both denote sins of weakness. [Keil wrongly interprets from, away from, setting him free from his sin; for this neither agrees with the immediately following , nor can it be found in the , which refers back to Eze 45:19.] Thus shall the year, newly consecrated by such a beginning, most truly present the appearance of a holy year. At the same time this is the preparation for the feast of the passover in Eze 45:21 (Hv.). Since the great day of atonement (Lev 16:16 sq.) had the same end in view as the very expressive and augmented solemnity ordained here on the first day of the month, the single yearly day of atonement is otherwise quite passed over, and thus there is ground for the opinion that the solemnity here is meant to express the idea of the day of atonement for the worship of the future.

Eze 45:21-25. The Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles

Eze 45:21. The chief fundamental feast of Israel, the beginning of the feast-cycle, as afterwards its close, so that with the passover and the feast of tabernacles the whole circle of feasts in the narrower sense is either embraced (Hv.), or decreed as the annual feasts of the future (Keil). Comp. the original institution of the feast of the passover in Exodus 12. , to which is here added , is: feast of seven days, because it always lasted seven days (comp. Num 28:17), so that the continuous feast is denoted, but not, as Hengst.: in contrast to the feast of consecration, but rather implying that in this connection recurring feasts are spoken of. The old translations render the designation simply: a feast of seven days; the addition: , will at least distinguish it as seven-dayed from the feast of weeks ( ), celebrated later at the close of harvest. Kliefoth, on the other hand, supposes that in future the passover will be held as a feast of seven weeks, which lasts seven weeks; and so not merely the seven days of unleavened bread, but the whole seven weeks will be passoverthe feast of weeks shall be one with the passover. The ordinance regarding the relates (he holds) to the whole seven weeks up to the feast of first-fruits. See the refutation of this in Keil on the passage. The seven days of the feast in Eze 45:23 also tell very plainly what is meant. Comp. on Deuteronomy 16.

Eze 45:22 exhibits the prince in the charge imposed upon him (, here ). ).is the above-mentioned fourteenth day of the first month, the feast-day proper (), on the evening of which the paschal lamb was slain and eaten.The sin-offering precedes, whereas in Numbers 28 it follows after. In this way the idea of the day of atonement pervades also the passover of the future (for himself and for the whole people of the land). The victim, too, of the sin-offering on the first feast-day proper is not a goat, but a bullock! For the seven following days of the mazzoth there are ordained

Eze 45:23as a burnt-offering, instead of the two bullocks of Moses, seven bullocks, and instead of the one ram in the law, here seven rams, all without blemish, , for the day, each of the seven days; and only the one goat as daily sin-offering is retained from the law of Moses. This enhancement of the feast-offerings, 49 bullocks and 49 rams as burnt-offering, is additional proof of an element which has already repeatedly shown itself, to wit, Israels state of grace for the future. In reference to the passover Hengstenberg observes: That precisely the grace of redemption sealed by this festival was to receive so rich an accession by the events of the future. The seven lambs of the first year ordained in the law are omitted by Ezekiel; we might say, because the Lamb of God, who is the fulfilment of this feast, will be sufficient in the Messianic times. But, as only befits the symbolized idea meant to be made prominent, the meat-offering

Eze 45:24accompanying the burnt-offering surpasses even the measure of the latter. In the law there are to each bullock only three-tenths of an ephah of flour mingled with oil, two-tenths to the ram, and only one-tenth to each of the seven lambs; here a whole ephah, namely of flour, is appointed for each bullock and each ram, finally of oil one (Eze 4:11).

Eze 45:25 describes the feast of tabernacles, the feast () falling on the 15th day of the 7th month, so designated because not expressed by name. Keil and Kliefoth assign as the reason for its not being named: without doubt because the dwelling in tabernacles will for the future be discontinued. What the prince has to perform in this feast is, as to time (seven days) and kinds of offering, the same as in the passover. Hengstenberg excepts from this similarity the number of victims. Comp. Num 29:13 sq. But the definition: as meat-offering, leaves us to suppose for the rest also nothing but a matter relative to number and measure, and Hengstenbergs solicitude about the passover as the root of all feasts, seems in the case of such a comparison as is made here to overlook the fact that the number of victims, which indeed daily decreased, was far more signal and greater in the Mosaic feast of tabernacles; moreover, the eighth day, as concluding feast with its special offerings, is, as Keil observes, wanting here. Hvernick farther observes: The sacred number seven dominates here both in the passover and in the offerings of the feast of tabernacles. The gradual decrease of the number of victims in the latter, explained by Bhr as a gradual decrease of the festal character of the seven feast-days, receives a fresh confirmation. Here, namely, an equal number of victims is appointed for every day. The distinction between the feasts themselves thereby almost disappears. Each day comes forth in its proper and symmetrical holiness. The sacred number seven pervades the whole cycle of feasts. The defective and imperfect character of the ancient mode gives place to a higher and more perfect form.

additional note on Eze 45:18-25

[ As it was more especially in connection with the stated and yearly festivals that the prince had to represent the people in the public service of God, so the prophet takes a rapid glance of these, and refers particularly to the first and the last. But he first mentions a consecration service with which the year was always to begin, and of which no mention whatever was made in the law (Eze 45:18-20). On the first and again on the seventh day of the first month, the sanctuary was always to be cleansed, that the year might be commenced in sacredness, and that all might be in preparation for the feast of the passover on the fourteenth day of the month. As the prophet has introduced a new solemnity before the passover, so for the passover itself he appoints quite different sacrifices from those named by Moses; instead of one ram and seven lambs for the daily burnt-offering, he has seven bullocks and seven rams; and the meat-offerings also vary. And while there were quite peculiar offerings prescribed in the law for the feast of tabernacles, constantly diminishing as the days of the feast proceeded; here, on the other hand, the prophet appoints the same as in the case of the passover. This shows how free a use was made by the prophet of the Old Testament ritual, and how he only employed it as a cover for the great spiritual truths he sought to unfold. They were not permanently fixed and immutable things, he virtually said, those external services of Judaism, as if they had an absolute and independent value of their own, so that precisely those and no other should be thought of; they were all symbolical of the spiritual and eternal truths of Gods kingdom, and may be variously adjusted, as is now done, in order to make them more distinctly expressive of the greater degree of holiness and purity that is in future times to distinguish the people and service of God over all that has been in the past.Fairbairns Ezekiel, pp. 485, 486.W. F.]

HOMILETIC HINTS

On Ch. 45

Eze 45:1 sq. Here in particular I acknowledge the weakness of my knowledge. I silently revere the mysteries of this passage. Neither will any mortal explain them completely, because that which God has prepared for them that love Him does not come into the heart of man. This indeed I see, that he speaks of the possession of the land of the living, as also the Revelation of John has borrowed much from this passage. Thus olampadius expresses himself.God promises believers an inheritance, and will also give it them in due time, but that is in heaven (Starck).God the Lord needs indeed no land for Himself, yet it is for His honour when real estates are bequeathed to churches and schools, that those who labour in them may receive their support from them, Gen 47:22 (Starke).They who live from Gods hand are content with His measure, even when it turns out small and modest (Starck).It ought to be our joy to be near God, to be associated with Him (Starck).

Ver, 2. There is nothing twisted and crooked with God; with Him everything is straight (Starck).The paths are often crooked and yet straight on which Thou makest Thy children come to Thee, etc. (Arnold.)

Eze 45:3. The sanctuary was situated in the centre of all; so ought religion to be the central point of all life, and Christ the centre of true religion.Religion, faith, Christianity ought not, either in the life of nations or of individuals, to be placed in a corner merely as a tolerated piece of antiquity.

Eze 45:4. If those who labour in the church and the school have no official houses, still they must have houses to dwell in. Therefore it is fitting that the community should build such, and keep them in a habitable condition (Starke).When ministers houses are near the church, they can the better attend to their office, 1Ch 9:27 (O.).The Lords faithful priests shall dwell beside Him, and be with Christ, for refreshment and revival from the strife and disquiet of men among whom they are scattered (Cocc.).

Eze 45:5 sq. Although a lesser service in the Church appears to be incumbent on church officers and school masters, yet care must be taken to provide them with food and lodging, etc. (Starck.)Hence offices and ranks which are not mutually destructive ought to continue; only let each in his place belong to the Lord (Tossani).The sanctuary is not included in the city or state as formerly, for God will not permit His kingdom to be confounded with the temporal power; this, however, does not mean that God cannot rule in the state, bu only that Gods kingdom and human kingdoms are different. For human authority is not to interfere in the kingdom of God, but the divine authority does interfere in the kingdoms of men, and God makes subjects obey their princes, servants their masters, and children their parents; and all obedience, if of the right kind, is paid to Him as the Lord, and to men as brethren and fellow-servants whom the common Lord has placed in authority for the Lords sake. But we do not obey God for the sake of a man, nor can any man by his power make us obedient to God, etc. (Coco.)Hence when this prophecy places the sanctuary outside of the city, and yet annexes the sanctuary to the city, that indicates that in the kingdom of Christ states and governments will belong to the people of God; in which, however, the kingdom of God will not be absorbed nor confined (Cocc.).The magisterial office is holy, and has also part in the holy, Num 7:1 sq. (Cr.)For princes to have their domains is not unjust, but they should not seek to draw everything into these domains, etc. (Starke.)

Eze 45:8 sq. To protect, but not to fleece.Governments ought to give good heed to weights, measures, and coinage, and allow no inequalities to creep in (Tb. Bib.).Christians ought to be upright in their dealings, 1Th 4:6 (O.).Knowingly to pass spurious coin is intentional deceit, and so is the clipping of coins in order to lessen their weight (Starke).Unjust gain does not profit the third generation. Lightly come, lightly gone (Hafenreffer).

Eze 45:13 sq. Even the small gifts of the poor, when given in true love, are an acceptable offering, Heb 13:16 (Cocc.).It is reasonable that a man set apart a considerable portion of his income for the glory of God and the support of the true worship, Rom 15:16 (Tb. Bib.).The revenue for spiritual objects is most defrauded (Starke).There are liberals and liberals; the liberals of former days built churches, the liberals of to-day would like to tear them down; to the former, church endowment was an aim, to the latter an eyesore.Almsgiving in private is a fruit of faith; but not less so is liberality in endowments for churches and schools(Cocc.).The Christian munificence of our fathers was a very different thing from the duty of subscribing to associations imposed on their children, and from the whole ordinary system of collecting as it is carried on to raise supplies for the kingdom of God.

Eze 45:15. The antitype of the lambs, the Lamb that bore the sin of the world (Starck).The sacrifices considered in Christ.Christian sacrifices are spiritual sacrifices.The fulfilling of the sacrifices in the Spirit of Christ.

Eze 45:17. When Chris on the cross consecrated the new temple, He can celled our sins (Heim-Hoff.).

Eze 45:18 sq. The new year of grace.At the beginning of the new year of grace, and with the newly rising light, the temple was again raised up or opened, and the true justification and sanctification through the sacrifice of Christ recognised and proclaimed (Berl. Bib.).Without cleansing there is no sanctuary for man, nor sanctification of him: Let him who desires to be clean cleanse himself in the blood of Christ, 1Jn 1:7 (Starck).

Eze 45:20. Sin as error and seduction, and error and seduction as sin.We ought to attend divine service from beginning to end (Cr.).

Eze 45:21 sq. The ever-renewed remembrance of redemption in every participation of the Lords Supper, and also in the experience of believers.Every solemnization of the Lords Supper a fulfilled paschal solemnity.But our passover is Christ, 1 Corinthians 5.How wearisome are church festivals to the men of our time!This prophetic representation contains a beautiful pattern for many a land; yet the main matter is this, that the Holy Ghost teaches us here how firmly and fixedly God with His grace has settled down among us men, and how priesthood and royalty are upheld in Christendom from His fulness. But they must keep close to the sanctuary, and the magistracy must protect the confessors of the truth on the right and on the left. The deepest ground, however, is this: Christs disciples are all of them priests, and they themselves are also the royalty; they themselves offer sacrifice and also protect themselves, for God Himself is their strength through Christ. He who has the Spirit of Christ will easily understand the whole of this figure, etc. (Diedrich).It behoves us to celebrate the feast of tabernacles in spirit and in truth so much more than the Jews the nearer we approach eternity. For the nearer we come thereto, the less ought we to hold by this world, but on the contrary ought to withdraw our thoughts from the earth, from houses, cities, and lands, and allow scarcely a thought to arise in us that we still have a portion on earth and in the world; but, since we only dwell in tabernacles, let us have our loins girded, as those who are ready to depart, that they may be with the Lord (Berl. Bib.).Our home is above, to which we draw nearer every moment (Heim-Hoff.).Tabernacles ought to be as passover; that is, we ought to pursue our pilgrimage on the ground of eternal redemption.

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 of the preceding Chapters is still continued through this. The Prophet is informed of the different portions to be set apart, for the sanctuary and the city, and the Prince.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

If there were no other evidence but what those six verses contain, in proof, that somewhat of an higher nature, and design, than any event which ever yet took place, in the Jewish history, in the extent of their city and temple is intended, this passage would be sufficient. After the captivity in Babylon was ended, and the people returned to their home, never did they possess territories like what are here described. And though the second temple did indeed, in point of glory, possess by the Lord Jesus’s presence, infinitely more than the first, yet, what is here said of extent and greatness, refers to a greater glory in the Church, in point of multitude, than hath yet been seen. Hence it should seem to follow, that the Prophet is here taught to look forward to the faith and expectations of that blessed period of the Church, which is to distinguish the latter day glory; when a little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation, Isa 60:22 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Eze 45:9

A great writer has said that ‘grace was beauty in action’. I say that justice is truth in action.

Beaconsfield.

References. XLVI. 9. J. Leckie, Sermons Preached at Ibrox, p. 210. XLVI. 16. J. M. Neale, Sermons on the Prophets, vol. ii. p. 54. XLVII. 1. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Ezekiel, p. 32. XLVII. 3, 4, 5. F. B. Meyer, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lviii. 1900, p. 43.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

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 45:1 Moreover, when ye shall divide by lot the land for inheritance, ye shall offer an oblation unto the LORD, an holy portion of the land: the length [shall be] the length of five and twenty thousand [reeds], and the breadth [shall be] ten thousand. This [shall be] holy in all the borders thereof round about.

Ver. 1. Moreover, when ye shall divide by lot. ] As Eze 48:29 , where we have the division of the land, and the several seats assigned to each tribe. Here we have first provision made for the church service, which Christ’s people are most zealous of, and do therefore allot, before any divident, a portion for the Lord’s house and servants, and that very large, to prefigure the largeness of the Church of the New Testament. See Rev 7:9-10 , &c. Here Jerome aeknowledgeth himself to be in a labyrinth. The Jews call again for their Elias. Oecolampadius comes in with his huius loci mysteria tacitus veneror, and thinks this part of the prophecy such as no human understanding can fathom. Howbeit –

“ Nil desperandum Christo duce, et auspice Christo. ”

The length shall be. ] See Trapp on “ Eze 40:1 “

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Ezekiel Chapter 45

Next follows a fresh characteristic of the new age, the oblation set apart to Jehovah.

“And when ye shall cause the land to fall by lot for inheritance, ye shall heave an heave-offering unto Jehovah, a holy portion of the land. The length [shall be] the length of five and twenty thousand, and the breadth ten thousand; it shall be holy in all the border round about. Of this shall be for the sanctuary five hundred by five hundred, square round about; and fifty cubits an open place for it round about. And of this measure shalt thou measure the length of five and twenty thousand, and the breadth of ten thousand; and in it shall be the sanctuary and the most holy place. The holy portion of the land shall be for the priests the ministers of the sanctuary, which shall come near to minister unto Jehovah: and it shall be a place for their houses, and an holy place for the sanctuary. And the five and twenty thousand of length, and the ten thousand of breadth, shall also the Levites, the ministers of the house, have for themselves, for a possession for twenty chambers.” (Vers. 1-5) Jehovah thus claims His right as the acknowledged possessor of the land, but uses them for His people’s sanctuary and those who carry on the worship there, whether priests or Levites. It is a fresh arrangement for the millennial age; nothing equivalent was known in the past.

“And ye shall appoint the possession of the city five thousand broad, and five and twenty thousand long, over against the oblation of the holy portion; it shall be for the whole house of Israel. And a portion shall be for the prince on the one side, and on the other side of the oblation of the holy portion, and of the possession of the city, before the oblation of the holy portion, and before the possession of the city, from the west side westward, and from the east side eastward: and the length shall be over against one of the portions, from the west border unto the east border. In the land shall be his possession in Israel: and my princes shall no more oppress my people; and the rest of the land shall they give to the house of Israel according to their tribes.” (Vers. 6-8) Thus Israel have their portion in the possession of the city; the prince has his, and the tribes theirs, in the land generally; Jehovah binds up the entire system of His people, civil and religious, with His own name. Thenceforward selfish oppression will be as unknown as corruption in worship. But it is not less clearly the earth and the earthly people. Heavenly things have no place here. What a blank must be in the thoughts of such believers as leave no room for such a change in the earth to the praise of Jehovah’s name!

This leads to a pointed moral exhortation, addressed to those of the prince’s house. “Thus saith the Lord Jehovah; Let it suffice you, O princes of Israel: remove violence and spoil, and execute judgment and justice, take away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord Jehovah. Ye shall have just balances, and a just ephah, and a just bath. The ephah and the bath shall be of one measure, that the bath may contain the tenth part of a homer, and the ephah the tenth part of a homer; the measure thereof shall be after the homer. And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh.” (Ver 9-12 ) God deigns to regulate all things for His people on earth; there is nothing beneath His notice.

Next, the religious dues are laid down with precision. “This is the oblation that ye shall offer; the sixth part of an ephah of a homer of wheat, and ye shall give the sixth part of a ephah of a homer of barley: Concerning the ordinance of oil, the bath of oil, ye shall offer the tenth part of a bath out of the cor, which is a homer of ten baths; for ten baths are a homer: And one lamb out of the flock, out of two hundred, out of the fat pastures of Israel; for a meat-offering, and for a burnt-offering, and for peace-offerings, to make reconciliation for them, saith the Lord Jehovah. All the people of the land shall give this oblation for the prince in Israel. And it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt-offerings, and meat-offerings, and drink-offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin-offering, and the meat-offering, and the burnt-offering, and the peace-offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.” (Ver. 18-17) The relative places of the people and the prince were thus defined; there was no confusion, but their interests were common, and could not be severed.

Then we come to the times and seasons, as they were henceforth to be observed by Israel. At once we notice a new order for cleansing the sanctuary. “Thus saith the Lord Jehovah; In the first month, in the first day of the month, thou shalt take a young bullock without blemish, and cleanse the sanctuary: and the priests shall take of the blood of the sin-offering, and put it upon the posts of the house, and upon the four corners of the settle of the altar, and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court. And so thou shalt do the seventh day of the month for every one that erreth, and for him that is simple: so shall ye reconcile the house.” (Ver. 18-20) It is not now a testimony at the beginning of their months, any more than an atonement in the seventh month. The year opens on its first day with an offering which sets forth Christ in His full unblemished devotedness, yet suffering for sin; and this again on the seventh day, for every one that errs and for the simple, that none such should be debarred from the enjoyment of God and his privileges.

But there are the feasts, as well as the reconciliation of the house. God re-enacts the passover. It is the great unchanging institution for His people, begun in Egypt, observed in the wilderness, celebrated in the land, after long indifference recovered by Hezekiah, and again by Josiah; and now anew we see that in the kingdom Israel are still to keep the feast of seven days with unleavened bread. “In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin-offering. And seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt-offering to Jehovah, seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily the seven days; and a kid of the goats daily for a sin-offering. And he shall prepare a meat-offering of an ephah for a bullock, and an ephah for a ram, and a hin of oil for an ephah.” (Ver. 21-24) It is not here thousands of oxen and sheep offered willingly out of a free heart; but the prince and all the people, on the fourteenth day of the first month, are identified as they never were before in a single bullock for a sin-offering, while every day of the seven the prince prepares a complete burnt-offering, with its sign of perfect consecration to Jehovah, and its daily sin offering, and not without the appropriate meat-offering.

Most strikingly however the feast of weeks appears nowhere. There are those who conceive of the millennial day as peculiarly the era for the gift of the Spirit, and who might naturally expect this to be then far the most prominent of all feasts. But it absolutely drops out of the list. This is solemnly instructive. The gift of the Spirit has been, and is, the characteristic of this day of grace when we have to walk in faith and patience, rather than of the day when the kingdom comes in power. It is not that the Holy Spirit will not then be poured out on all flesh, for the prophets are explicit that so it is to be in that day. But now He is come down, not only in the way of power and blessing, but baptising all that believe whether Jew or Gentile into one body, the body of Christ the glorified Head of the church on high. It will not be so in the future day. Israel and the nations will be blessed, and they will rejoice together; but no such union is predicted as one body. They are to be each on their own ground, forming distinct circles, however blessed, around their Lord and God, whose earthly throne will be Jerusalem in that day. There will be far greater breadth then, but no such height and depth as the sovereign grace of God gives in this day for the praise of His earth-rejected Christ now exalted in heaven. Hence, as it appears to me, most fittingly, Pentecost is not found for the day of earth’s blessedness, having found its highest and richest fulfilment in the church of God united to Christ in heavenly places.

But the feast of tabernacles will surely be then. This accordingly is here appointed afresh, and in the usual time. “In the seventh month, in the fifteenth day of the month, shall he do the like in the feast of the seven days, according to the sin-offering, according to the burnt-offering, and according to the meat-offering, and according to the oil.” (Ver. 25) The sense of Christ’s work is fully maintained, as in the passover; but the feast which is most fully expressed then is clearly the great ingathering to rejoice before Jehovah, after the harvest and the vintage (cf. Rev 14 ) when they look back on pilgrim days past for ever. It is not a witness now as in the two loaves, but the blessing of Israel when the glory shines on Zion.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Eze 45:1-5

1And when you divide by lot the land for inheritance, you shall offer an allotment to the Lord, a holy portion of the land; the length shall be the length of 25,000 cubits, and the width shall be 20,000. It shall be holy within all its boundary round about. 2Out of this there shall be for the holy place a square round about five hundred by five hundred cubits, and fifty cubits for its open space round about. 3From this area you shall measure a length of 25,000 cubits and a width of 10,000 cubits; and in it shall be the sanctuary, the most holy place. 4It shall be the holy portion of the land; it shall be for the priests, the ministers of the sanctuary, who come near to minister to the Lord, and it shall be a place for their houses and a holy place for the sanctuary. 5An area 25,000 cubits in length and 10,000 in width shall be for the Levites, the ministers of the house, and for their possession cities to dwell in.

Eze 45:1 when you divide by lot the land The verb (BDB 656, KB 709, Hiphil infinitive construct) basically means to fall, but in the Hiphil refers to casting lots to know the Lord’s will on a matter. The concept (i.e., mechanism) originated with the Urim and Thummim of the High Priest (cf. Exo 28:30; Num 27:21). This method was to be used to divide the Promised Land (i.e., Canaan) among the twelve tribes (excluding Levi) as described in Num 26:53-56; Num 33:54; Num 34:2; Num 34:13; Num 36:2-3 and originally done in Joshua 13-22 (esp. Eze 14:1-2). Ezekiel is drawing a mental image from the past to illustrate a new beginning!

an allotment to the Lord The phrase is literally set apart an offering. This refers to the temple area.

This offering/allotment is described in Eze 45:1-5.

1. length, 25,000 cubits or rods/reeds (cf. Eze 42:15-20)

2. width, 10,000 cubits (LXX, 20,000) or rods/reeds, which means it includes the priestly and Levitical areas

3. containing a square 500 cubits by 500 cubits or rods/reeds for the holy place

4. square surrounded by an open space of 50 cubits or rods/reeds

5. contains YHWH’s sanctuary and priests’ housing

6. area for the Levites (25,000 cubits by 10,000 cubits or rods/reeds)

A cubit would be about 21 inches, a rod/reed about 10 feet.

Eze 45:5

NASB, NRSV,

LXXcities

NKJV, JPSOAchambers

TEV, NJBtowns

PESHITTAhouses

REBplaces in which they live

The MT has chambers (), which is so common in this section of Ezekiel (cf. Eze 40:17 [twice], 38,44,45,46; Eze 41:10; Eze 42:1; Eze 42:4; Eze 42:7 [twice],8,11), but the Septuagint has cities (). The B (beth) and K (kaph) consonants are formed in a similar way and are often confused in handwritten texts.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

offer = heave up, See next note.

oblation = a heave offering. See note on Eze 44:30.

the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4. Ih

holy. See note on Exo 3:5.

ten. The Septuagint reads twenty. Compare Num 35:2. Jos 21:2.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Chapter 45

Now in chapter 45 he describes here the length and all of the city, of the land itself. And it is described here as being,

in length twenty-five thousand reeds, and in breadth ten thousand reeds. And then the sanctuary five hundred in length, five hundred in breadth, square round about; and fifty cubits around that for the suburbs. And of this measure thou shalt measure the length twenty-five thousand, the breadth ten thousand: it shall be the sanctuary and the most holy place. The holy portion of the land shall be for the priests and the ministers ( Eze 45:1-4 ),

So this is the area that God has set aside for those priests and those ministers in the land, the holy place for the sanctuary.

And ye shall appoint the possession of the city five thousand broad, and twenty-five thousand long, over against the oblation of the holy portion: it shall be for the whole house of Israel. Now the portion for the prince one side of the other side of the oblation of the holy portion, the possession of the city, before the oblation to the holy portion, and before the possession of the city, from the west side westward, from the east side eastward: the length shall be over against one of the portions, from the west ( Eze 45:6-7 )

And you see why I haven’t gone through the whole thing? I get lost in this to tell you the truth. And so there’s a lot of this that I just file and say, “All right, Lord, one day when I see it maybe I’ll understand it. But I just don’t get it now.” And that’s just the way it is.

Now the Lord commands the princes in verse Eze 45:9 to,

remove violence and spoil, and execute judgment and justice, take away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord GOD ( Eze 45:9 ).

In other words, quit taxing the people. That’s an interesting thing.

And ye shall have just balances, a just ephah, and a bath. An ephah and a bath shall be of one measure ( Eze 45:10-11 ),

Now, many times those merchants in those days had weights to sell with and weights to buy. And you can see what could happen with that. One set of weights to buy from you and another set of weights to sell to you. And so these measurements are to equal those that you buy with and those that you sell with. One. And he goes ahead and tells the measurements and the size of the measurements and so forth that will be in those days, things that we cannot really relate to now.

The cleansing of the sanctuary is spoken of in verse Eze 45:18 , with a bullock without blemish, and how that the priests are to take the blood of it and put it upon the posts of the house and upon the four corners and upon the posts of the gates in the inner court.

And thou shalt do this the seventh day of the month for every one that erreth, and for him that is simple: so shall ye reconcile the house ( Eze 45:20 ).

And the Feast of the Passover is to be re-instituted, and that should be extremely interesting when, again, they have the Feast of the Passover as they had celebrated in so many times in their history fantastic, glorious events in the celebration of the Feast of the Passover. “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Eze 45:1-8

This gives instructions for the provision of land for the sanctuary and temple grounds, and then for dividing up the remainder of the Holy Land to the Twelve Tribes of Israel. An appeal is made for the kings of Israel to refrain from violence and from false trading. Specifications for certain animal sacrifices are also made.

Eze 45:1-8

Moreover, when ye shall divide by lot the land for inheritance, ye shall offer an oblation unto the LORD, an holy portion of the land: the length shall be the length of five and twenty thousand reeds, and the breadth shall be ten thousand. This shall be holy in all the borders thereof round about. 2 Of this there shall be for the sanctuary five hundred in length, with five hundred in breadth, square round about; and fifty cubits round about for the suburbs thereof. 3 And of this measure shalt thou measure the length of five and twenty thousand, and the breadth of ten thousand: and in it shall be the sanctuary and the most holy place. 4 The holy portion of the land shall be for the priests the ministers of the sanctuary, which shall come near to minister unto the LORD: and it shall be a place for their houses, and an holy place for the sanctuary. 5 And the five and twenty thousand of length, and the ten thousand of breadth, shall also the Levites, the ministers of the house, have for themselves, for a possession for twenty chambers. 6 And ye shall appoint the possession of the city five thousand broad, and five and twenty thousand long, over against the oblation of the holy portion: it shall be for the whole house of Israel. 7 And a portion shall be for the prince on the one side and on the other side of the oblation of the holy portion, and of the possession of the city, before the oblation of the holy portion, and before the possession of the city, from the west side westward, and from the east side eastward: and the length shall be over against one of the portions, from the west border unto the east border. 8 In the land shall be his possession in Israel: and my princes shall no more oppress my people; and the rest of the land shall they give to the house of Israel according to their tribes.

Division of Land for the priests, Levites, and prince.

Eze 45:1-8.

These verses give the details of the apportionment of the central sacred district of the land that is to be assigned to the priests, Levites, and the prince (Eze 47:13 to Eze 48:35 will divide the remaining land among the people). The sacred district that Ezekiel saw had a central area of 25,000 by 20,000 cubits flanked on either side by areas for the prince with the sanctuary located in the center. This land was allotted to the Zadokite priests who lived in this section and ministered in the sanctuary (Eze 45:3-4).

Just to the north of this section was a tract of 25,000 cubits by 10,000 cubits assigned to the Levites (Eze 45:5). A third section 25,000 by 5,000 cubits was allotted for the new city (Eze 45:6). On either side of the central district allotted to the Zadokite priests, Levites, and city is the land allotted to the prince (Eze 45:7). He received two sections of land on either side of the central district that are also 25,000 cubits from north to south but extend from the sacred central district to the borders of the land to the east and west (Eze 45:8).

This land will belong to the prince who will oversee the allotments of the land for all the tribes (see Eze 47:13 to Eze 48:35). The land of the priests will be a sacred district belonging to the Lord. Those who commit themselves to God’s service are his and are to live by what his people provide for his work (Eze 45:1-8; 1Co 9:14).

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Seeing that the priests were to have no inheritance, the next section of the prophecy dealt fittingly with the method of their support. After the distribution of the land, a description of which followed later, a lot was to be set apart at its very center as an oblation to the Lord, and was to be looked on as holy land. Of this one part was to be for the maintenance of the priests and another for the Levites. On each side of this holy square of territory, land was to be set apart for the prince, and the princes of Jehovah were to oppress the people no more.

The prophet immediately followed with Jehovah’s charge to the princes. Their duty was to cease violence and taking spoil, and executing judgment and justice. The standards of weight and measurement were then given, and the provision for the offerings of the prince was described. These offerings were provided by the people for the burnt-offerings and the meal offerings and the drink-offerings, and it was the prince’s duty to provide these things for the priests out of this resource.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

Chapter Forty-five

Jehovahs Appointments

This chapter deals particularly with the apportionment of the land for the Lord, His priests the Levites and the people, all in connection with the site of the sanctuary and its court. It is an ideal picture of Jehovah dwelling in the midst of His saints.

Moreover, when ye shall divide by lot the land for inheritance, ye shall offer an oblation unto Jehovah, a holy portion of the land; the length shall be the length of five and twenty thousand reeds, and the breadth shall be ten thousand: it shall be holy in all the border thereof round about. Of this there shall be for the holy place five hundred in length by five hundred in breadth, square round about; and fifty cubits for the suburbs thereof round about. And of this measure shalt thou measure a length of five and twenty thousand, and a breadth of ten thousand: and in it shall be the sanctuary, which is most holy. It is a holy portion of the land; it shall be for the priests, the ministers of the sanctuary, that come near to minister unto Jehovah; and it shall be a place for their houses, and a holy place for the sanctuary. And five and twenty thousand in length, and ten thousand in breadth, shall be unto the Levites, the ministers of the house, for a possession unto themselves, for twenty chambers. And ye shall appoint the possession of the city five thousand broad, and five and twenty thousand long, side by side with the oblation of the holy portion: it shall be for the whole house of Israel. And whatsoever is for the prince shall be on the one side and on the other side of the holy oblation and of the possession of the city, in front of the holy oblation and in front of the possession of the city, on the west side westward, and on the east side eastward; and in length answerable unto one of the portions, from the west border unto the east border. In the land it shall be to him for a possession in Israel: and My princes shall no more oppress My people; but they shall give the land to the house of Israel according to their tribes-vers. 1-8.

Of old the land of Palestine was divided by lot among the children of Israel. The lot was an Old Testament way of determining the mind of God, The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord (Pro 16:33). The last use of this method was that in connection with the choice of one to take the place of Judas, as recorded in Act 1:26. This was before Pentecost. Since then God guides and directs His people by the Spirit and the Word.

As one reads the dimensions given which are somewhat indefinite owing to the fact that we are not told whether cubits or reeds are intended, the impression left on the mind is one of spaciousness, as though God would indicate that He has large things in store for His people in the coming day. The divisions for the tribes are given in chapter 48 and are altogether different from those of old. The portion for the prince has been before us already in the previous chapter but is enlarged upon here. All shall be holy unto the Lord.

Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Let it suffice you, O princes of Israel: remove violence and spoil, and execute justice and righteousness; take away your exactions from My people, saith the Lord Jehovah. Ye shall have just balances, and a just ephah, and a just bath. The ephah and the bath shall be of one measure, that the bath may contain the tenth part of a homer, and the ephah the tenth part of a homer: the measure thereof shall be after the homer. And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh-vers. 9-12.

Government was established by God. It is He who puts men in places of authority. But all down through the centuries princes and rulers have been prone to misuse their God-given privileges and to forget their responsibilities. The later kings of Judah were fla- grantly recreant to their duty, and God judged them for it.

Here principles are laid down which all in positions of authority should heed, and which will characterize those who are associated with Christ in ruling in Israel, and over the entire world in the kingdom age.

This is the oblation that ye shall offer: the sixth part of an ephah from a homer of wheat; and ye shall give the sixth part of an ephah from a homer of barley; and the set portion of oil, of the bath of oil, the tenth part of a bath out of the cor, which is ten baths, even a homer (for ten baths are a homer); and one lamb of the flock, out of two hundred, from the well-watered pastures of Israel;-for a meal-offering, and for a burnt-offering, and for peace-offerings, to make atonement for them, saith the Lord Jehovah. All the people of the land shall give unto this oblation for the prince of Israel. And it shall be the princes part to give the burnt-offerings, and the meal-offerings, and the drink-offerings, in the feasts, and on the new moons, and on the sabbaths, in all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin-offering, and the meal-offering, and the burnt-offering, and the peace-offerings, to make atonement for the house of Israel-vers. 13-17.

As before we may see in the instruction given here a picture of the worship in which princes and people shall participate in the day of the Lords manifested authority. Christ Himself as set forth typically in these offerings, will be the joy of the hearts of His people. The perfection of His work will be remembered forever by those who have been brought into fellowship with Him on the basis of the blood of the cross.

Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: In the first month, in the first day of the month, thou shalt take a young bullock without blemish; and thou shalt cleanse the sanctuary. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering, and put it upon the door-posts of the house, and upon the four corners of the ledge of the altar, and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court. And so thou shalt do on the seventh, day of the month for every one that erreth, and for him that is simple: so shall ye make atonement for the house-vers. 18-20.

In Lev. 23 we have the feasts or appointed seasons of the Lord. Here our attention is directed to these set times, some of which will no doubt be observed in millennial days. The feast of Pentecost is omitted however. It has had its complete fulfilment in the Church, of which it was the type. The new moons, the passover, and the tabernacles or feast of ingathering, all have their place telling us that all Israels future blessing rests upon and is the result of the work of the cross. Christ died as the paschal lamb, not for the Church of this age alone but for Israel and the nations as a whole. All who are ever saved in any age or in accordance with any dispensation will owe everything for eternity to the blood of the Lamb of God.

In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin-offering. And the seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt-offering to Jehovah, seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily the seven days; and a he-goat daily for a sin-offering. And he shall prepare a meal-offering, an ephah for a bullock, and an ephah for a ram, and a hin of oil to an ephah. In the seventh month, in the fifteenth day of the month, in the feast, shall he do the like the seven days; according to the sin-offering, according to the burnt-offering, and according to the meal-offering, and according to the oil-vers. 21-25.

The feast of tabernacles or booths, celebrated after the harvest was gathered in, very aptly typifies full millennial blessing, as we see here and in Zech. 14.

These appointed seasons will be observed as memorials of what God has wrought through the work of His Son, but it is not necessary to think of the sacrifices and offerings as being reinstituted; rather that of which they speak will be the joy of the hearts of the people of God forever.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

CHAPTER 45

1. The portions of the priests, the Levites, of the whole house of Israel, and the prince (Eze 45:1-8)

2. Concerning the prince (Eze 45:9-17)

3. The feast of Passover and the feast of tabernacles (Eze 45:18-25)

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

shall divide by lot: Heb. cause the land to fall by lot, Eze 47:21, Eze 48:29, Num 34:13, Jos 13:6, Jos 14:2, Psa 16:5, Psa 16:6

ye shall offer: Eze 45:2-7, Eze 48:8-23, Lev 25:23, Pro 3:9

an holy portion: Heb. holiness, Zec 14:20, Zec 14:21

the length: That our translators rightly added the word reeds, is evident from the length and breadth of the sanctuary being exactly the same as before – compare Eze 45:2, with Eze 42:16-19. Estimating the reed at 3+ yards, this holy oblation would constitute a square of nearly fifty miles on every side. From the north side a portion of nearly twenty miles in width, and nearly fifty in length, was appointed for the priests; and in the midst of this portion, the area of the sanctuary, about a mile square, to be enclosed by a wall – Eze 45:1, Eze 45:2. Next to this, on the south, was the Levites’ portion, of the same dimensions as that of the priests’ – Eze 45:5, and south of this was the portion for the city, of the same length as those of the priests and Levites, but only half the width – Eze 45:6. These three formed the square of 25,000 reeds, or nearly fifty miles; and that set apart for the prince, the breadth of which is not mentioned, extended in length from north to south, along the east and west sides of the square. As Canaan would not admit of so large a portion for the sanctuary, etc., this was no doubt intended to intimate the large extent of the church in the glorious times predicted.

Reciprocal: Num 35:2 – General Jer 31:40 – shall be Eze 37:26 – set Eze 45:4 – holy portion Eze 48:4 – by the border Eze 48:15 – for the city

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Eze 45:1. The figures and descriptions are so out of proportion to what the literal meaning could be here, I shall Insist that the reader again see the KEY at the beginning of chapter 40. The whole passage is still an ideal and figurative description of the restoration work that was to be done after the release from Babylonian captivity. But although that is the overall subject with perhaps very little significance attached to the details of the description, I shall try to explain the meaning of them. This verse begins the redistribution of the land which is an allusion to the division that was made by Joshua after the entrance of the children of Israel into Palestine. Almost all important operations that the Israelites performed were started with a sacrifice of some kind which is the meaning of oblation. The first portion was to be allotted to the Lord and it Is called an holy portion. Reeds has no word in the original, but Moffatt’s translation renders the numbers of this verse as eight and a third by six and two-thirds miles. This tract was to be regarded as holy ground.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Section 5 (Eze 45:1-25; Eze 46:1-24).

Divine government exercised in the apportionment of the land, and the establishment of ordinances for worship and service

{Verse 1 ‘breadth’: It may be better to read here 20,000 with the LXX. This is preferred by Keil, Davidson, and others. It seems to make ver. 3 more intelligible. “Of this measure [or, out of this measure, i.e. the 25,000×20,000]” they were to measure 25,000×10,000 for the priests, and in this the sanctuary was located. Thus the previously mentioned allotment of 500×500 plus 50 cubits all around was in this portion given to the priests. Ver. 5 tells us to whom the remainder of the 25,000×20,000 was assigned, namely, the Levites who received a portion equal in size to that of the priests. Both these portions are called holy in Eze 48:10; Eze 48:14, thus agreeing with Eze 45:1 if read with the LXX -“This shall be holy [the 25,000×20,000] in all the borders thereof round about.” The adjoining possession of the city is not called holy. -(J. Bloore)}

1. The apportionment of the land and the arrangement of the heave offering, which includes the Sanctuary, we have already considered. Little more need be added here, except to notice that it is the Lord’s portion that is specially in view. The tribal portions are stated in Eze 48:1-35. It is given first place, and the order in which the parts of this heave offering are mentioned emphasizes the Lord’s pre-eminence. That of the priests and Levites comes first, for what has to do with the Sanctuary is of chief importance. This is the more evident since the priests, portion is first mentioned, although the central division of this offering from the land.

Ver. 8 shows how moral considerations govern throughout. The possession given to the Prince has in view the correction of past abuses when those who ruled in Israel appropriated for themselves the possession of others, as in the case of Naboth’s vineyard (1Ki 21:1-29). Naboth’s refusal was based on the Lord’s word. His mind as to the change of possession had been given in Num 36:7-9. The inheritance was not to remove from tribe to tribe, but each one was to cleave to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers; and provision was made to redeem any possession that had been sold because of poverty (Lev 25:25-28). The book of Ruth affords us precious lessons in this connection. God’s care that each of His people should have preserved to him the allotted inheritance, teaches us the unchangeable character of His giving (for all was determined by lot which He disposed), and that there is an individuality which He designs should be preserved in the inheritance. Thus the person and his portion in the land as allotted of God (Num 33:54; Jos 14:2; Num 36:2-3; Pro 16:33) are so identified in His mind that no separation is to take place -individuality, distinctness and abiding character are involved in this. Israel lost her inheritance, and the land reverted to Him who had given it and who claims it as His. But Israel is to be brought back, and the land will be again divided by lot according to this vision of Ezekiel. Then shall its apportionment to the redeemed people abide according to the purpose of God.

Abuses such as that of Ahab’s were decried by the prophets (Isa 5:8). Micah pronounces, “Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! When the morning is light they practise it, because it is in the power of their hand. And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away; and they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage” (Mic 2:1-2). Hosea says, “The princes of Judah are become like those that remove the land-mark” (Hos 5:10; see Deu 6:21; Deu 19:14). The oppression of the ruling classes had grown in evil from the days of Solomon. Ezekiel found the princes of the land “like wolves ravening the prey to shed blood, to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain” (Eze 22:27). The prevalence of such oppression finds confirmation from many passages in the prophets, and these show how deep and vile was the corruption -religious, moral, and civic -which destroyed the life of both kingdoms (Israel and Judah) until there was no remedy, the unsparing stroke of judgment must fall. How good to know that the day of restoration shall not be darkened by this evil -“My princes shall no more oppress My people.”

The lesson of this history is patent. With departure from God’s order and the ways of truth and righteousness which His Word directs, oppression, tyranny, and violence come in as the means to establish man’s unrighteousness and its evil brood. This marks the line of Cain at the very beginning, and human history bears its sad and solemn witness to the inevitable consequences of rejecting the revealed knowledge of God, whether in the individual, the family, the Church, or the nation. Under this incubus creation groans, and will continue to do so until He comes whose rod of iron shall smite, breaking in pieces the oppressor, bringing liberty to creation and freeing the nations from the shackles in which sin and Satan’s power have bound them.

2. In the light of that coming day when the last blow of the oppressor’s cruel will shall have fallen, and his terror cease from the earth, the prophet calls for that response in his day which would be in accord with the evident mind of God.

The admonition of these verses reaffirms the ordinances of the Law (Lev 19:15; Lev 19:35-36; Deu 25:13-15) . In the Proverbs we are assured that a false balance, divers weights and measures, are an abomination to the Lord (Pro 11:1; Pro 20:10); and by Micah He denounces the prevailing injustice scant measure, deceitful weights. Amos also exposes the same wickedness (Micah 8: 4-7).

Isa 5:10 makes clear that both liquid and dry measure are mentioned by Ezekiel, the bath being the former and the ephah the latter. The homer is made the standard for both, a measure approximately estimated at 11 bushels, or 90 gallons.

As to weights, the shekel is to be that of the Sanctuary, twenty gerahs (Exo 30:13; Lev 27:25). The latter part of this verse is difficult to understand. The maneh is usually taken to equal fifty shekels; here it seems to be sixty, that is, 20+25+ 15; but if this is so, the reason for giving it in three parts is not apparent. Kiel inclines to consider the text corrupt; but Hengstenberg and Hitzig suppose a maneh of threefold value, but evidence for this is lacking. If the talent is correctly estimated as 60 maneh, the statement here seems at variance with Exo 38:25-26, an analysis of which gives the following result: 603,550 persons gave each half a shekel. This would give 301,775 shekels, deducting the 1,775 leaves the 300, 000, which would be equal to the 100 talents, these being taken as sixty manehs each, requires each maneh to equal fifty shekels (100x60x50=300,000). This is true of the later Jewish weight system. The passage remains obscure. Some critics suggest the adoption of the LXX as read in the Alex. MS., “Five (shekels) shall be five, and ten shekels ten, and fifty shekels shall be your maneh,” meaning that all shall be genuine of equal and full weight. This at least is in accord with the moral significance of the context.

This insistence upon judgment, justice, honest measure and weight, may serve to remind us of the character of the Millennial age. It is the time when righteousness shall reign and all conform to the divine standards (Psa 45:1-17; Isa 11:1-5; Isa 32:1-5; Isa 32:16-19; Isa 33:5-6; Isa 60:17-18; Isa 61:10-11; Jer 33:15; Dan 9:24).

3. Here what relates to the worship of the people -their gifts, the feasts, and other regulations -is given in seven sub-sections. First, we considered the place of the Sanctuary (vers. 1-8) then ways of holiness and truth enjoined (vers. 9-12); and now the order of worship, the manner of approach to God. This teaches us that right ways in practical life are the garments which must first invest those who are to be worshipers. The removal of evil and the following of righteousness must characterize those who offer their gifts to God. Of this the fine white linen in which the priests are clothed for service is the symbol. Apart from the accompaniment of obedience and practical righteousness, God can take no pleasure in mere outward observances and lip worship (Isa 1:10-17; Mat 15:7-9). He desires mercy and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings (Hos 6:6). Obedience is better than sacrifice. God looks upon the heart, His searching eye penetrates the mask of outward appearance, and what He desires of His people is that they should do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with Him (Mic 6:7). This order, namely that of practical righteousness preceding activity in worship, fits well with this as a fifth section -the number that speaks of responsibility to maintain and be exercised in godliness as under the government of God with whom relationship has been established through grace. This principle holds good for us as well as Israel. This the Epistles abundantly teach. The marvelous grace which they reveal as ours only obligates us to answer the more fully to the righteous and holy requirements of Him whose love and grace we now know. The hands that are lifted up to Him are to be holy hands, the sacrifices of our lips confessing His name are to be yielded up from hearts true in their purpose for His glory, the out-breathing of lives yielded up to obedience in sincerity and truth -our bodies presented as living sacrifices.

(1) Let us now consider the various features of the order of worship. First we have the gifts of the people. These consist of wheat, barley, oil, and lambs, in the measure and proportion stated. All is given to the Prince from all the people of the land, and he is to supply the various offerings at the yearly and monthly feasts, on the sabbaths, and in all the solemnities. These gifts have their significance. As to the lamb little remark is needed, we are so familiar with it as the type of Christ, the Lamb of God. Oil is the well-known symbol of the Holy Spirit; this is associated with the oblation of an ephah presented with the various sacrifices. The cereals too we think of in relation to Christ, the Bread of Life (wheat), while also the food of the poor and humble, to be which He Himself entered into humiliation (barley). Barley was, and still is, to some extent, the food of the poor (Rth 2:17; 2Ki 4:42; Joh 6:9; Joh 6:13). Its connection with Gideon makes it a type of those who are despised and of lowly condition. Then wheat is the figure used by the Lord in reference to His people, those really His whom He will gather into His barn. It thus becomes a symbol of what is true and genuine as the result of the divine work. Such alone are acceptable to God. On the other hand the barley may suggest the humble station of those who become God’s people, and the lowly place they must take to enter into blessing with Him. To be converted man must become as a little child. It is to the babes that the Father makes His revelation of the Son. To the poor the gospel is preached, and “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” Not many mighty, not many noble are called; but the despised and those of no account in the eyes of the world become God’s peculiar treasure.

But aside from these suggestions, this heave-offering from all the people teaches the recognition of God’s goodness and bounteous giving from the lowest to the highest, from the least to the greatest form of blessing (barley, wheat); realized in the power of the Spirit (oil), and redemption (the lamb). This should be true of all God’s people, whether the form of blessing be earthly or heavenly.

Terumah, the word for heave-offering, means a sacrifice or gift offered up, that is, as raised or lifted up in presentation for acceptance, and as such devoted to Jehovah’s service. In the Law the right shoulder is the usual heave-offering, the type of service, and that the most efficient, for the right shoulder is the one best able to bear the burden. It is the term applied to the gifts of Israel for the tabernacle, and in that connection we learn what God’s mind is as to the inward state of those who offer: it is heart-willingness, the spirit of being wholly yielded up to God in devoted service, the inner attitude answering to the outward act as the gift is heaved or lifted up. Here in Ezekiel it is specially connected with the oblation which accompanies the sacrifices mentioned in these regulations (Eze 45:24-25; Eze 46:5; Eze 46:7; Eze 46:11; Eze 46:14-15); and then with two forms of offering, the burnt and peace-offerings, the latter being always mentioned in the plural, which thus emphasizes the ideas of thanksgiving and fellowship so prominent in those offerings (Lev., Notes.). Since the gift of lambs is only mentioned in the heave-offering of the people, and later in the sacrifices of the sabbaths and new moons and the daily burnt offering (Eze 46:3-5; Eze 46:13-15), it would seem that the people are particularly associated with these occasions. We may conclude that the other animals of sacrifice, the bullocks, rams, and he-goats, are of the Prince’s own providing, though in doing so he doubtless fills a representative place. In one case this is specifically stated (ver. 22). Yet that the people are identified with all these sacrifices may be seen in that an oblation accompanies each supplied out of the cereal-offering of all the people. The sacrifices for the purgation of the House (vers. 18-20) appear rather to be the responsibility of the priests, though the indefiniteness of the address -“Thou shalt” -may leave it open to question.

(2) Now the yearly feasts are stated; and first the offerings to cleanse and atone for the House. Two occasions are mentioned, on the first and seventh of the first month. This is a remarkable deviation from the Levitical order. The great day of atonement is not mentioned, and these two occasions in the first month seem to take its place. The bullock only is offered, whereas in Lev 16:1-34 there are the bullock and two goats, as well as the two rams for burnt-offerings. Yet the object in view is similar, cleansing and atonement respecting the House and those who err. We hear of no ark or mercy-seat, as of old, upon which the blood is sprinkled; but the blood is put upon the posts of the House, upon the altar, and the posts of the gate of the inner court. Which gate is not specified, though most likely the north gate was meant, for here the work of preparing the sacrifices took place.

The omission of not only the day of atonement, but also the offering of firstfruits, Pentecost, and the blowing of trumpets, is significant. In fact, at the time to which the vision of Ezekiel applies, all these will have been accomplished. The resurrection of Christ, the formation of the Church, and the regathering of Israel answer to them, while all that the day of atonement typified, including its application to Israel (Lev., Notes, p. 344), will have also found its fulfilment.

Evidently these sacrifices which open the year cannot be considered in the same light as those of old. These point back to the basic work of redemption at the Cross, as those of the past pointed forward to it -those anticipated it, these memorialize it. At the same time they constitute a continual reminder of God’s holiness, which must take notice of the least departure.

Next in order comes the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread. Here there are also marked differences from the Mosaic order, which required for each of the seven days two bullocks, one ram, and seven lambs, and an oblation of fine flour mingled with oil, graded for each (Num 28:19-21). Ezekiel requires seven bullocks and seven rams for each of the seven days, and no lambs. In both cases there is also the daily sin-offering of one he-goat. The oblation is one ephah for a bullock, and one for each ram, and an hin of oil for an ephah. In addition there is on the first day a bullock for a sin offering for the Prince and all the people, a feature not included in Numbers. The significance of this feast has been fully given in its place (Exodus, Notes), and in considering the offerings in Leviticus the spiritual meaning of the animals of sacrifice has been adequately stated. Here, then, let it suffice to notice that the offerings required are much richer than under the Law. This emphasizes the fulness of obedience in service (bullock) and consecration (ram). The omission of the lambs would concentrate attention upon. the one lamb of this feast -the Passover lamb, and so upon Christ, the Lamb of God.

The third, and last, yearly feast is that of tabernacles. Referring again to Numbers (Num 29:12-34) we find here an entire change, and on the whole a simplified ritual, since it is to be the same as at the previous feast of unleavened bread. The eighth day appears omitted also, for its significance finds fulfilment in the establishment of the kingdom with its glorious new beginning of righteousness, peace, and rest for Israel, the nations, and creation itself.

(3) The ordinances which relate to the weekly and monthly feasts -sabbaths and new moons -are now given. In connection with them a distinctive feature appears in regard to the east inner gate. This is closed for the six working days, but opened on the sabbath and the day of the new moon. At this open gate Prince and people worship (vers. 2, 3). The Prince is distinguished by alone having permission to enter its porch, and standing there to worship during the offering of his sacrifices. This brings these acts of worship into line with the great altar, and the entrance of the House, immediately before the indwelling glory.

Again comparing Num 28:9-15 we see there are marked differences.

Numbers

Sabbath: Two lambs, with their oblation of two-tenths parts of fine flour mingled with oil, and the required drink offering.

New Moon: Two bullocks, one ram, seven lambs, with their graded oblations. One goat for a sin-offering.

Ezekiel

Sabbath: Six lambs, one ram, with an oblation of an ephah for the ram, and that for the lambs is left to the Prince’s generosity: and oil, a hin for an ephah.

New Moon: One bullock, one ram, six lambs, with an oblation of an ephah for a bullock, and for the ram, and for the lambs according to the Prince’s generosity: and oil, a hin for an ephah.

This new order of sacrifices gives greater prominence to the sabbath, while the greatly increased oblation in all cases may signify the increased fruitfulness and prosperity of those Millennial days; and the emphasis on the sabbath suggests that what it means for the earth and creation is then blessedly realized in the righteousness, peace, rest and abundant blessing of the kingdom. The enlarged oblations which answer to the meal-offerings of old, and are typical of Christ’s Person in its human perfection, may well speak of the enhanced appreciation of Him in that day when He will no longer be One having no beauty that He should be desired. Of Him then will it be sung, “Thou art fairer far than the sons of men: grace is poured into Thy lips. . .Thy throne, O God, is forever and aye; the sceptre of Thy kingdom is an even sceptre.” The larger proportion of the oil intimates the greater fulness of the Spirit, and so of apprehension. The offerings are increased threefold, for there is full realization through redemption of the victory of good over evil (6) in the sabbath-keeping of that coming day.

As to the differences on the feast of the new moon we can say little. The monthly return of the moon speaks of constant renewal under the good hand of God, and that of course of the creature, weak and nothing in itself, ever dependent upon the sufficiency and ministry of the Creator; like the moon, in itself nothing, and getting all its light from the great source of light and power, the sun. It has its special reference to Israel, but yields its lessons also for the Church and the individual (Numbers, Notes, p. 498). The bullock and ram must still speak of service and consecration, but in the victory of known redemption.

(4) Certain directions as to the times of public worship follow. First, the Prince cannot enter the inner court. He comes into the porch of the east gate, which is at the outer end toward the court of general assemblage, and goes out the same way. This shows that he is not privileged to pass through the gate.

The people are to enter by one gate and leave by the opposite one. Only two gates are available for them, the north and south, for the outer east gate was perpetually closed. This rule of the Sanctuary is, in effect, “Let all things be done fittingly and in order” (1Co 14:40). We have referred to the meaning of the north when considering that gate. The south affords another lesson. To go southward is to go toward Egypt -the land of the serpent, with its lure for the flesh, and its bondage too, though with this may be found a measure of ease and pleasure which gratifies the natural man. Abram travelled there to escape the famine and the exercise of dependence upon God alone. We are kept by His power through faith, not sight, but that means a path of both exercise and discipline. Relaxing influences are found in the south; they may be pleasant for a season, but there too we experience the burning heat which parches the earth and destroys fruitfulness. “How many have found the hot breath of worldly prosperity the destruction of spiritual fruit.” In the tabernacle it is suggestive to find the table of the showbread on the north side, for the truth of communion is what we need and get there, where also we learn how through sacrifice judgment is forever removed so that our darkness is turned to light. But on the south side of the ‘tabernacle, opposite the table, the candlestick was placed, for as we walk in the light of the Spirit we do not fulfil the lusts of the flesh -the south does not attract. Instead we bear the fruit of the Spirit, of which the motif used in designing the candlestick plainly speaks. Spiritually speaking, we need to pass through both the north and the south gates, for thus the altar and the House come into view and their lessons are impressed upon us.

(5) The oblation, or meal-offering, is now specially emphasized by repeating its measure in relation to the sacrifices. Typical of Christ in His perfect humanity it brings Him before us as the Son of Man, the One in whom full, perfect and holy Manhood is united with full Deity, for in Him the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily. It is fitting that that which speaks of Him in this character should receive prominence in these visions of Ezekiel, for they refer to the time of the kingdom of the Son of Man, when He as that will take up His great power and reign, possessing Himself of the inheritance of which He is the appointed Heir.

(6) This next ordinance shows the distinctive place of the Prince. The east gate is opened to him whenever he presents his freewill offering. It seems clear that he fills a representative place, and this being so may not his special privilege suggests the preeminent place of Israel as compared with other nations who come up to the mountain of Jehovah’s House?

(7) Finally, the daily burnt-offering is prescribed. In contrast to the Levitical order it is offered in the morning only. The oblation is increased from one-tenth to one-sixth, and the oil from one-quarter of a hin to one-third.

4. Further warning against oppression is given, and the purpose expressed that each preserve his own inheritance. This latter feature is guarded in the regulation concerning the division of the Prince’s inheritance. It must remain in his family, so that a portion given to a servant reverts to him in the year of jubilee, or liberty.

5. In this concluding part we are told about the kitchens for the priests and for the people. The care to keep what is priestly from the people is meant surely to maintain a sense on both sides -with the priests and people -of the sanctity of the service of Jehovah, so guarding against all undue familiarity, as a result of which in. the past so much had crept in to defile the courts of Jehovah’s house.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

Eze 45:1. When ye shall divide by lot the land for inheritance The land was first divided by lot under Joshua, a particular share of which was to be Gods portion, as an acknowledgment of his sovereign dominion: see Lev 25:23. It is therefore here called , an oblation. The word properly signifies the offering made to God out of the first-fruits and other increase of the ground, (see Eze 44:30; Num 18:24,) because this was a sort of first-fruits of the land or soil itself, Eze 48:14. The length shall be five and twenty thousand reeds, and the breadth ten thousand The Hebrew does not express either reeds or cubits: our translation supplies the word reeds, but Houbigant, Waterland, Newcome, and many other interpreters, read cubits, which sense they think is plainly determined by Eze 45:3, where it is said, Of this measure (namely, the cubit measure mentioned in the preceding clause, Eze 45:2) shalt thou measure the length of five and twenty thousand, &c. According to this measure, the portion here set apart will be almost seven miles square; whereas if we measure by reeds it will arise to six times as much, and can only be understood in a mystical sense. Mr. Scott, however, with some others, is of opinion, that our translators did right in adding the word reeds to the numbers mentioned in this admeasurement; referring to the reed that was in the hand of Ezekiels divine conductor, because the length and breadth of the sanctuary are stated the same as before: (see Eze 42:16-19 🙂 so that, they think, unless the text be there totally changed, without any authority, this passage as well as that must be understood of reeds. They acknowledge, indeed, that the land of Canaan could by no means admit of so large a proportion being allotted to the sanctuary, with the priests and Levites, &c.; but they think this was intended to intimate the immensely large extent of the Christian Church above that of Israel; especially in those glorious times, which are doubtless emblematically predicted.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Eze 45:18. Thou shalt take a young bullock without blemish, and cleanse the sanctuary. In the ancient tabernacle all the vessels were touched with blood, to purify and consecrate them to sacred purposes. In like manner Christ sanctifies his people, by washing them from their sins in his own blood.

REFLECTIONS.

The command to divide the land by lot, or into fair proportions on the return of the jews, differs materially from the division made by Joshua; and it is allowed that no such division was made, or even attempted, when the jews returned from Babylon. Consequently the visions here refer chiefly to happier times than Israel ever yet saw.

We find in the division of the country that a portion of the land was first reserved for the Lord. His temple required an ample space of ground, and his poor required support; and he ever lives their guardian and constant friend. If we expect the Lords blessing, we must pay him homage down to the widows mite. It is well therefore for men when they come to their inheritance to consecrate their fortune by a small offering to heaven in this way.

A portion was next reserved for the prince. Royalty which watches with a paternal eye for the public weal, should be amply supported in return. The king is the Lords minister; and next to a lot of land for the Lords house, his support is guaranteed in order, and prior to the provision for ministers of religion. His portion was adjacent to the capital, because he must reside contiguous to the court, and the bench of justice.

With regard to the various offerings here prescribed, though I do sincerely believe that these visions of the temple seen by Ezekiel were in figure the church of Christ throughout all ages, as the last chapters in the Revelation explain; yet as the jews are a part of that church, to whom a preference was once given, and as on their return they will not in general be converted, there is no doubt but this enlargement of the usual sacrifices will be offered to the Lord, till under the oppression of their foes they shall in some way, and probably as St. Paul in his way to Damascus, look on Him whom they have pierced: then the millennium, and the purest worship of God will commence. Hence I wonder much at certain ingenious writers, who think that the jews will make Ezekiels vision the model of their future city and temple. If the glory of the latter day is to consist in splendid architecture, I know not how the age of Solomon can be surpassed. The temple which he built was a work of perfection; yea, the tabernacle in Shiloh was adequate to express by shadows, the spiritual glory of the church. But the forty seventh chapter seems to bear the most evident marks of being figurative, and consequently, of being understood in a spiritual sense.

There can be no doubt but the city, the holy Jerusalem, which the apostle John saw in vision, is the same as that foretold by Ezekiel; but it certainly had no appearance of a terrestrial city. Every thing about it is heavenly and divine, such as was never seen on earth, and whose only builder and maker is God. Instead of being erected in the land of Palestine, it comes down from God out of heaven, having no temple, neither sun nor moon to shine in it; even the earth and the sea were passed away. The Lord God and the Lamb are the temple of it, and their glory is the light thereof. Every thing shows this city to have a celestial origin, being contrasted with all the productions of human art, and with whatever is known in the present world. It can be understood only of the heavenly state, or subordinately of the church on earth in its highest perfection in the latter day, as the prelude or anticipation of the heavenly glory. It is therefore agreeable to the analogy of faith to consider the predictions of the prophet as referring to a spiritual city and temple, in accordance with the rapturous visions of the holy apostle. Compare Rev 21:22. with Ezekiel 47, 48.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Eze 45:1-4. The Priests. (Their estates.)A rectangular space, roughly eight miles by three, in the centre of which was the sanctuary, is to be reserved for the priests.

Immediately north of this was an area of similar extent for the Levites (Eze 45:5), and south of it lay the city with its adjacent territory, occupying an area of about eight miles by two (Eze 45:6)the whole thus forming a square. East of this, stretching to the Jordan, and west to the Mediterranean, were the domains of the prince (Eze 45:6-8). (In Eze 45:5 for twenty chambers read, with LXX, cities to dwell in.)

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

45:1 Moreover, when ye shall divide by lot the land for inheritance, ye shall offer an oblation to the LORD, an {a} holy portion of the land: the length [shall be] the length of five and twenty thousand [reeds], and the breadth [shall be] ten thousand. This [shall be] holy in all its borders on every side.

(a) Of all the land of Israel the Lord only requires this portion for the temple and for the priests for the city and for the prince.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The sacred district in the Promised Land 45:1-8

The Lord next gave Ezekiel directions for the division of some of the Promised Land in the future. Revelation about apportioning the rest of the land follows later (Eze 47:13 to Eze 48:35). These descriptions do not coincide with any division of the land in the past, and the amount of detail argues for a literal fulfillment in the future.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

In the future the Israelites were to divide the land by lot, but the Lord, of course, would control the outcome (Pro 16:33). This land belonged to the Lord-He was the Israelites’ inheritance-but He would allow them to occupy it as He specified. They were to set aside one part of the land for the Lord’s use for especially holy purposes. It was to be 25,000 cubits long and 10,000 cubits wide (about 8.3 miles by 3.3 miles). The Hebrew text has "rods" rather than "cubits," but long cubits must be the measurement in view to harmonize with the other measurements in these chapters. This land was to be considered holy within all its boundaries.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

PRINCE AND PEOPLE

Eze 44:1-31; Eze 45:1-25; Eze 46:1-24, PASSIM

IT was remarked in a previous chapter that the “prince” of the closing vision appears to occupy a less exalted position than the Messianic king of chapter 34 or chapter 37. The grounds on which this impression rests require, however, to be carefully considered, if we are not to carry away a thoroughly false conception of the theocratic state foreshadowed by Ezekiel. It must not be supposed that the prince is a personage of less than royal rank, or that his authority is overshadowed by that of a priestly caste. He is undoubtedly the civil head of the nation, owing no allegiance within his own province to any earthly superior. Nor is there any reason to doubt that he is the heir of the Davidic house and holds his office in virtue of the divine promise which secured the throne to Davids descendants. It would therefore be a mistake to imagine that we have here an anticipation of the Romish theory of the subordination of the secular to the spiritual power. It may be true that in the state of things presupposed by the vision very little is left for the king to do, whilst a variety of important duties falls to the priesthood; but at all events the king is there and is supreme in his own sphere. Ezekiel does not show the road to Canossa. If the king is overshadowed, it is by the personal presence of Jehovah in the midst of His people; and that which limits his prerogative is not the sacerdotal power, but the divine constitution of the theocracy as revealed in the vision itself, under which both king and priests have their functions defined and regulated with a view to the religious ends for which the community as a whole exists.

Our purpose in the present chapter is to put together the scattered references to the duties of the prince which occur in chapters 44-46 so as to gain as clear a picture as possible of the position of the monarchy in the theocratic state. It must be remembered, however, that the picture will necessarily be incomplete. National life in its secular aspects, with which the king is chiefly concerned, is hardly touched on in the vision. Everything being looked upon from the point of view of the Temple and its worship, there are but few allusions in which we can detect anything of the nature of a civil constitution. And these few are introduced incidentally, not for their own sake, but to explain some arrangement for securing the sanctity of the land or the community. This fact must never be lost sight of in judging of Ezekiels conception of the monarchy. From all that appears in these pages we might conclude that the prince is a mere ornamental figurehead of the constitution, and that the few real duties assigned to him could have been equally well performed by a committee of priests or laymen elected for the purpose. But this is to forget that outside the range of subjects here touched upon there is a whole world of secular interests, of political and social action, where the king has his part to play in accordance with the precedents furnished by the best days of the ancient monarchy.

Let us glance first of all at Ezekiels institutes of the kingdom in its more political relations. The notices here are all in the form of constitutional checks and safeguards against an arbitrary and oppressive exercise of the royal authority. They are instructive, not only as showing the interest which the prophet had in good government and his care for the rights of the subject, but also for the light they cast on certain administrative methods in force previous to the Exile.

The first point that calls for attention is the provision made for the maintenance of the prince and his court. It would seem that the revenue of the prince was to be derived mainly, if not wholly, from a portion of territory reserved as his exclusive property in the division of the country among the tribes. {Eze 45:7-8; Eze 48:21-22} These crown lands are situated on either side of the sacred “oblation” around the sanctuary, set apart for the use of the priests and Levites; and they extend to the sea on the west and to the Jordan Valley on the east. Out of these he is at liberty to assign a possession to his sons in perpetuity, but any estate bestowed on his courtiers reverts to the prince in the “year of liberty.” The object of this last regulation apparently is to prevent the formation of a new hereditary aristocracy between the royal family and the peasantry. A life peerage, so to speak, or something less, is deemed a sufficient reward for the most devoted service to the king or the state. And no doubt the certainty of a revision of all royal grants every seventh year would tend to keep some persons mindful of their duty. The whole system of royal demesnes, which the king might dispose of as appanages for his younger children or his faithful retainers presents a curious resemblance to a well-known feature of feudalism in the Middle Ages; but it was never practically enforced in Israel. Before the Exile it was evidently unknown, and after the Exile there was no king to provide for. But why does the prophet bestow so much care on a mere detail of a political system in which, as a whole, he takes so little interest? It is because of his concern for the rights of the common people against the high-handed tyranny of the king and his nobles.

He recalls the bad times of the old monarchy when any man was liable to be ejected from his land for the benefit of some court favourite, or to provide a portion for a younger son of the king. The cruel evictions of the poorer peasant proprietors, which all the early prophets denounce as an outrage against humanity, and of which the story of Naboth furnished a typical example, must be rendered impossible in the new Israel; and as the king had no doubt been the principal offender in the past, the rule is firmly laid down in his case that on no pretext must he take the peoples inheritance. And this, be it observed, is an application of the religious principle which underlies the constitution of the theocracy. The land is Jehovahs, and all interference with the ancient landmarks which guard the rights of private ownership is an offence against the holiness of the true divine King who has His abode amongst the tribes of Israel. This suggests developments of the idea of holiness which reach to the very foundations of social well-being. A conception of holiness which secures each man in the possession of his own vine and fig tree is at all events not open to the charge of ignoring the practical interests of common life for the sake of an unprofitable ceremonialism.

In the next place we come across a much more startling revelation of the injustice habitually practised by the Hebrew monarchs. Just as later sovereigns were wont to meet their deficits by debasing the currency, so the kings of Judah had learned to augment their revenue by a systematic falsification of weights and measures. We know from the prophet Amos {Amo 8:5} that this was a common trick of the wealthy landowners who sold grain at exorbitant prices to the poor whom they had driven from their possessions. They “made the ephah small and the shekel great, and dealt falsely with balances of deceit.” But it was left for Ezekiel to tell us that the same fraud was a regular part of the fiscal system of the Judaean kingdom. There is no mistaking the meaning of his accusation: “Have done, O princes of Israel, with your violent and oppressive rule; execute judgment and justice, and take away your exactions from My people, saith Jehovah God. Ye shall have just balances, and a just ephah, and a just bath.” That is to say, the taxes were surreptitiously increased by the use of a large shekel (for weighing out money payments) and a large bath and ephah (for measuring tribute paid in kind). And if it was impossible for the poor to protect themselves against the rapacity of private dealers, poor and rich alike were helpless when the fraud was openly practised in the kings name. This Ezekiel had seen with his own eyes, and the shameful injustice of it was so branded on his spirit that even in a vision of the late days it comes back to him as an evil to be sedulously guarded against. It was eminently a case for legislation. If there was to be such a thing as fair dealing and commercial probity in the community, the system of weights and measurement must be fixed beyond the power of the royal caprice to alter it. It was as sacred as any principle of the constitution. Accordingly he finds a place in his legislation for a corrected scale of weights and measures, restored no doubt to their original values. The ephah for dry measure and the bath or liquid measure are each fixed at the tenth part of a homer. “The shekel shall be twenty geras: five shekels shall be five, and ten shekels shall be ten, and fifty shekels shall be your maneh.” {Eze 14:12}

These regulations extend far beyond the immediate object for which they are introduced, and have both a moral and a religious bearing. They express a truth often insisted on in the Old Testament, that commercial morality is a matter in which the holiness of Jehovah is involved: “A false balance is an abomination to Jehovah, but a just weight is His delight.” {Pro 11:1} In the Law of Holiness an ordinance very similar to Ezekiels occurs amongst the conditions by which the precept is to be fulfilled: “Be ye holy, for I am holy.” {Lev 19:35-36} It is evident that the Israelites had learned to regard with a religious abhorrence all tampering with the fixed standards of value on which the purity of commercial life depended. To overreach by lying words was a sin: but to cheat by the use of a false balance was a species of profanity comparable to a false oath in the name of Jehovah.

These rules about weights and measures required, however, to be supplemented by a fixed tariff, regulating the taxes which the prince might impose on the people. {Eze 14:13-17} It is not quite clear whether any part of the princes own income was to be derived from taxation. The tribute is called an “oblation,” and there is no doubt that it was intended principally for the support of the Temple ritual, which in any case must have been the heaviest charge on the royal exchequer. But the oblation was rendered to the prince in the first instance; and the prophets anxiety to prevent unjust exactions springs from a fear that the king might make the Temple tax a pretext for increasing his own revenue. At all events the peoples duty to contribute to the support of public ordinances according to their ability is here explicitly recognised. Compared with the provision of the Levitical law the scale of charges here proposed must be pronounced extremely moderate. The contribution of each householder varies from one-sixtieth to one-two-hundredth of his income, and is wholly paid in kind. The proper equivalent under the second Temple of Ezekiels “oblation” was a poll-tax of one-third of a shekel, voluntarily undertaken at the time of Nehemiahs covenant “for the service of the house of our God; for the shew-bread and for the continual meal-offering, and for the continual burnt-offering, of the Sabbaths, of the new moons, for the set feasts, and for the holy things, and for the sin-offerings to make atonement for Israel, and for all the work of the house of our God.” {Neh 10:32-33 : cf. Eze 14:15} In the Priestly Code this tax is fixed at half a shekel for each man. But in addition to this money payment the law required a tenth of all produce of the soil and the flock to be given to the priests and Levites. In Ezekiels legislation the tithes and firstfruits are still left for the use of the owner. who is expected to consume them in sacrificial feasts at the sanctuary. The only charge, therefore, of the nature of a fixed tribute for religious purposes is the oblation here required for the regular sacrifices which represent the stated worship rendered on behalf of the community as a whole.

This brings us now to the more important aspect of the kingly office-its religious privileges and duties. Here there are three points which require to be noticed.

1. In the first place it is the duty of the prince to supply the material of the public sacrifices of-feted in the name of the people. {Eze 14:17} Out of the tribute levied on the people for this purpose he has to furnish the altar with the stated number of victims for the daily service, the Sabbaths, and new moons, and the great yearly festivals. It is clear that some one must be charged with the responsibility of this important part of the worship, and it is significant of Ezekiels relations to the past that the duty does not yet devolve directly on the priests. They seem to exercise no authority outside of the Temple, the king standing between them and the community as a sort of patron of the sanctuary. But the position of the prince is not simply that of an official receiver, collecting the tribute and then handing it over to the Temple as it was required. He is the representative of the religious unity of the nation, and in this capacity he presents in person the regular sacrifices offered on behalf of the community. Thus on the day of the Passover he presents a sin-offering for himself and the people. as the high priest does in the ceremonial of the Great Day of Atonement. And so all the sacrifices of the stated ritual are his sacrifices, officiating as the head of the nation in its acts of common worship. In this respect the prince succeeds to the rights exercised by the kings of Judah in the ritual of the first Temple, although on a different footing. Before the Exile the king had a proprietary interest in the central sanctuary, and the expense of the stated service was defrayed as a matter of course out of the royal revenues. Part of this revenue, as we see in the case of Joash, was raised by a system of Temple dues paid by the worshippers and expended on the repairs of the house; but at a much later date than this we find Ahaz assuming absolute control over the daily sacrifices, which were doubtless maintained at his expense.

Now the tendency of Ezekiels legislation is to bring the whole community into a closer and more personal connection with the worship of the sanctuary, and to leave no part of it subject to the arbitrary will of the prince. But still the idea is preserved that the prince is the religious as well as the civil representative of the nation; and although he is deprived of all control over the performance of the ritual, he is still required to provide the public sacrifices and to offer them in the name of his people.

2. In virtue of his representative character the prince possesses certain privileges in his approaches to God in the sanctuary not accorded to ordinary worshippers. In this connection it is necessary to explain some details regulating the use of the sanctuary by the people. The outer court might be entered by prince or people either through the north or south gate, but not from the east. The eastern gate was that by which Jehovah had entered His dwelling-place, and the doors of it are forever closed. No foot might cross its threshold. But the prince-and this is one of his peculiar rights-might enter the gateway from the court to eat his sacrificial meals. It seems therefore to have served the same purpose for the prince as the thirty ceils along the wall did for common worshippers. The east gate of the inner court was also shut, as a rule, and was probably never used as a passage even by the priests. But on the Sabbaths and new moons it was thrown open to receive the sacrifices which the prince had to bring on these days, and it remained open till the evening. On days when the gate was open the worshipping congregation assembled at its door, while the prince entered as far as the threshold and looked on while the priests presented his offering; then he went out by the way he had entered. If on any other occasion he presented a voluntary sacrifice in his private capacity, the east gate was opened for him as before, but was shut as soon as the ceremony was over. On those occasions when the eastern gate was not opened, as at the great annual festivals, the people probably gathered round the north and south gates, from which they could see the altar; and at these seasons the prince enters and departs in the common throng of worshippers. A very peculiar regulation, for which no obvious reason appears, is that each man must leave the Temple by the gate opposite to that at which he entered; if he entered by the north, he must leave by the south, and vice versa.

Many of these arrangements were no doubt suggested by Ezekiels acquaintance with the practice in the first Temple, and their precise object is lost to us. But one or two facts stand out clearly enough, and are very instructive as to the whole conception of Temple worship. The chief thing to be noticed is that the principal sacrifices are representative. The people are merely spectators of a transaction with God on their behalf, the efficacy of which in no way depends on their co-operation. Standing at the gates of the inner court, they see the priests performing the sacred ministrations; they bow themselves in humble reverence before the presence of the Most High; and these acts of devotion may have been of the utmost importance for the religious life of the individual Israelite. But the congregation takes no real part in the worship; it is done for them, but not by. them; it is on opus operatum performed by the prince and the priests for the good of the community, and is equally necessary and equally valid whether there is a congregation present to witness it or not. Those who attend are themselves but representatives of the nation of Israel, in whose interest the ritual is kept up. But the supreme representative of the people is the king, and we note how everything is done to emphasise his peculiar dignity within the sanctuary. It was necessary perhaps to do something to compensate for the loss of distinction caused by the exclusion of the royal body-guard from the Temple. The prince is still the one conspicuous figure in the outer court. Even his private sacrificial meals are eaten in solitary state, in the eastern gateway, which is used for no other purpose. And in the great functions where the prince appears in his representative character, he approaches nearer to the altar than is permitted to any other layman. He ascends the steps of the eastern gateway in the sight of the people, and passing through he presents his offerings on the verge of the inner court which none but the priests may enter. His whole position is thus one of great importance in the celebration of public ordinances. In detail his functions are no doubt determined by ancient prescriptive usages not known to us, but modified in accordance with the stricter ideal of holiness which Ezekiels vision was intended to enforce.

3. Finally, we have to observe that the prince is rigorously excluded from properly priestly offices. It is true that in some respects his position is analogous to that of the high priest under the law. But the analogy extends only to that aspect of the high priests functions in which he appears as the head and representative of the religious community, and ceases the moment he enters upon priestly duties. So far as the special degree of sanctity which characterises the priesthood is concerned, the prince is a layman, and as such he is jealously debarred from approaching the altar, and even from intruding into the sacred inner court where the priests minister. Now this fact has perhaps a deeper historical importance than we are apt to imagine. There is good reason to believe that in the old Temple the kings of Judah frequently officiated in person at the altar. At the time when the monarchy was established it was the rule that any man might sacrifice for himself and his household, and that the king as the representative of the nation should sacrifice on its behalf was an extension of the principle too obvious to require express sanction. Accordingly we find that both Saul and David on public occasions built altars and offered sacrifice to Jehovah. The older theory indeed seems to have been that priestly rights were inherent in the kingly office, and that the acting priests were the ministers to whom the king delegated the greater part of his priestly functions. Although the king might not appoint any one to this duty without respect to the Levitical qualification, he exercised within certain limits the right of deposing one family and installing another in the priesthood of the royal sanctuary. The house of Zadok itself owed its position to such an act of ecclesiastical authority on the part of David and Solomon.

The last occasion on which we read of a king of Judah officiating in person in the Temple is at the dedication of the new altar of Ahaz, when the king not only himself sacrificed, but gave directions to the priests as to the future observance of the ritual. The occasion was no doubt unusual, but there is not a word in the narrative to indicate that the king was committing an irregular action or exceeding the recognised prerogatives of his position. It would be unsafe, however, to conclude that this state of things continued unchanged till the close of the monarchy. After the time of Isaiah the Temple rose greatly in the religious estimation of the people, and a very probable result of this would be an increasing sense of the importance of the ministration of the official priesthood. The silence of the historical books and of Deuteronomy may not count for much in an argument on this question; but Ezekiels own decisions lack the emphasis and solemnity with which he introduces an absolute innovation like the separation between priests and Levites in chapter 44. It is at least possible that the later kings had gradually ceased to exercise the right of sacrifice, so that the privilege had lapsed through desuetude. Nevertheless it was a great step to have the principle affirmed as a fundamental law of the theocracy; and this Ezekiel undoubtedly does. If no other practical object were gained, it served at least to illustrate in the most emphatic way the idea of holiness, which demanded the exclusion of every layman from unhallowed contact with the most sacred emblems of Jehovahs presence.

It will be seen from all that has been said that the real interest of Ezekiels treatment of the monarchy lies far apart from modern problems which might seem to have a superficial affinity with it. No lessons can fairly be deduced from it on the relations between Church and State, or the propriety of endowing and establishing the Christian religion, or the duty of rulers to maintain ordinances for the benefit of their subjects. Its importance lies in another direction. It shows the transition in Israel from a state of things in which the king is both de jure and de facto the source of power and the representative of the nation and where his religious status is the natural consequence of his civic dignity, to a very different state of things, where the forms of the ancient constitution are retained although the power has largely vanished from them. The prince now requires to have his religious duties imposed on him by an abstract political system whose sole sanction is the authority of the Deity. It is a transition which has no precise parallel anywhere else, although resemblances more or less instructive might doubtless be instanced from the history of Catholicism. Nowhere does Ezekiels idealism appear more wonderfully blended with his equally characteristic conservatism than here. There is no real trace of the tendency attributed to the prophet to exalt the priesthood at the expense of the monarchy. The prince is after all a much more imposing personage even in the ceremonial worship than any priest. Although he lacks the priestly quality of holiness, his duties are quite as important as those of the priests, while his dignity is far greater than theirs. The considerations that enter in to limit his power and importance come from another quarter. They are such as these: first, the loss of military leadership, which is at least to be presumed in the circumstances of the Messianic kingdom; second, the welfare of the people at large; and third, the principle of holiness, whose supremacy has to be vindicated in the person of the king no less than in that of his meanest subject.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that the transition referred to was not actually accomplished even in the history of Israel itself. It was only in a vision that the monarchy was ever to be represented in the form which it bears here. From the time of Ezekiel no native king was ever to rule over Israel again save the priest-princes of the Asmonean dynasty, whose constitutional position was defined by their high-priestly dignity. Ezekiels vision is therefore a preparation for the kingless state of post-exilic Judaism. The foreign potentates to whom the Jews were subject did in some instances provide materials for the Temple worship, but their local representatives were of course unqualified to fill the position assigned to the prince by the great prophet of the Exile. The community had to get along as best it could without a king, and the task was not difficult. The Temple dues were paid directly to the priests and Levites, and the function of representing the community before the altar was assigned to the High Priest. It was then indeed that the High Priesthood came to the front and blossomed out into all the magnificence of its legal position. It was not only the religious part of the princes duties that fell to it, but a considerable share of his political importance as well. As the only hereditary institution that had survived the Exile, it naturally became the chief centre of social order in the community. By degrees the Persian and Greek kings found it expedient to deal with the Jews through the High Priest, whose authority they were bound to respect, and thus to leave him a free hand in the internal affairs of the commonwealth. The High Priesthood, in fact, was a civil as well as a priestly dignity. We can see that this great revolution would have broken the continuity of Hebrew history far more violently than it did but for the stepping-stone furnished by the ideal “prince” of Ezekiels vision.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary