Chapter XXX. Renewal And Allotment Of The Land. Chapters xlvii., xlviii.

In the first part of the forty‐seventh chapter the visionary form of the

revelation, which had been interrupted by the important series of

communications on which we have been so long engaged, is again resumed.

The prophet, once more under the direction of his angelic guide, sees a

stream of water issuing from the Temple buildings and flowing eastward

into the Dead Sea.(299) Afterwards he receives another series of

directions relating to the boundaries of the land and its division among

the twelve tribes.(300) With this the vision and the book find their

appropriate close.

I

The Temple stream, to which Ezekiel’s attention is now for the first time

directed, is a symbol of the miraculous transformation which the land of

Canaan is to undergo in order to fit it for the habitation of Jehovah’s

ransomed people. Anticipations of a renewal of the face of nature are a

common feature of Messianic prophecy. They have their roots in the

religious interpretation of the possession of the land as the chief token

of the divine blessing on the nation. In the vicissitudes of agricultural

or pastoral life the Israelite read the reflection of Jehovah’s attitude

towards Himself and His people: fertile seasons and luxuriant harvests

were the sign of His favour; drought and famine were the proof that He was

offended. Even at the best of times, however, the condition of Palestine

left much to be desired from the husbandman’s point of view, especially in

the kingdom of Judah. Nature was often stern and unpropitious, the

cultivation of the soil was always attended with hardship and uncertainty,

large tracts of the country were given over to irreclaimable barrenness.

There was always a vision of better things possible, and in the last days

the prophets cherished the expectation that that vision would be realised.

When all causes of offence are removed from Israel and Jehovah smiles on

His people, the land will blossom into supernatural fertility, the

ploughman overtaking the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth

seed, the mountains dropping new wine and the hills melting.(301) Such

idyllic pictures of universal plenty and comfort abound in the writings of

the prophets, and are not wanting in the pages of Ezekiel. We have already

had one in the description of the blessings of the Messianic kingdom;(302)

and we shall see that in this closing vision a complete remodelling of the

land is presupposed, rendering it all alike suitable for the habitation of

the tribes of Israel.

The river of life is the most striking presentation of this general

conception of Messianic felicity. It is one of those vivid images from

Eastern life which, through the Apocalypse, have passed into the symbolism

of Christian eschatology. “And he showed me a pure river of water of life,

clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In

the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there

the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her

fruits every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the

nations.”(303) So writes the seer of Patmos, in words whose music charms

the ear even of those to whom running water means much less than it did to

a native of thirsty Palestine. But John had read of the mystic river in

the pages of his favourite prophet before he saw it in vision. The close

resemblance between the two pictures leaves no doubt that the origin of

the conception is to be sought in Ezekiel’s vision. The underlying

religious truth is the same in both representations, that the presence of

God is the source from which the influences flow forth that renew and

purify human existence. The tree of life on each bank of the river, which

yields its fruit every month and whose leaves are for healing, is a detail

transferred directly from Ezekiel’s imagery to fill out the description of

the glorious city of God into which the nations of them that are saved are

gathered.

But with all its idealism, Ezekiel’s conception presents many points of

contact with the actual physiography of Palestine; it is less universal

and abstract in its significance than that of the Apocalypse. The first

thing that might have suggested the idea to the prophet is that the Temple

mount had at least one small stream, whose “soft‐flowing” waters were

already regarded as a symbol of the silent and unobtrusive influence of

the divine presence in Israel.(304) The waters of this stream flowed

eastward, but they were too scanty to have any appreciable effect on the

fertility of the region through which they passed. Further, to the south‐

east of Jerusalem, between it and the Dead Sea, stretched the great

wilderness of Judah, the most desolate and inhospitable tract in the whole

country. There the steep declivity of the limestone range refuses to

detain sufficient moisture to nourish the most meagre vegetation, although

the few spots where wells are found, as at Engedi, are clothed with almost

tropical luxuriance. To reclaim these barren slopes and render them fit

for human industry, the Temple waters are sent eastward, making the desert

to blossom as the rose. Lastly, there was the Dead Sea itself, in whose

bitter waters no living thing can exist, the natural emblem of resistance

to the purposes of Him who is the God of life. These different elements of

the physical reality were familiar to Ezekiel, and come back to mind as he

follows the course of the new Temple river, and observes the wonderful

transformation which it is destined to effect. He first sees it breaking

forth from the wall of the Temple at the right‐hand side of the entrance,

and flowing eastward through the courts by the south side of the altar.

Then at the outer wall he meets it rushing from the south side of the

eastern gate, and still pursuing its easterly course. At a thousand cubits

from the sanctuary it is only ankle deep, but at successive distances of a

thousand cubits it reaches to the knees, to the loins, and becomes finally

an impassable river. The stream is of course miraculous from source to

mouth. Earthly rivers do not thus broaden and deepen as they flow, except

by the accession of tributaries, and tributaries are out of the question

here. Thus it flows on, with its swelling volume of water, through “the

eastern circuit,” “down to the Arabah” (the trough of the Jordan and the

Dead Sea), and reaching the sea it sweetens its waters so that they teem

with fishes of all kinds like those of the Mediterranean. Its uninviting

shores become the scene of a busy and thriving industry; fishermen ply

their craft from Engedi to Eneglaim,(305) and the food supply of the

country is materially increased. The prophet may not have been greatly

concerned about this, but one characteristic detail illustrates his

careful forethought in matters of practical utility. It is from the Dead

Sea that Jerusalem has always obtained its supply of salt. The

purification of this lake might have its drawbacks if the production of

this indispensable commodity should be interfered with. Salt, besides its

culinary uses, played an important part in the Temple ritual, and Ezekiel

was not likely to forget it. Hence the strange but eminently practical

provision that the shallows and marshes at the south end of the lake shall

be exempted from the influence of the healing waters. “They are given for

salt.”(306)

We may venture to draw one lesson for our own instruction from this

beautiful prophetic image of the blessings that flow from a pure religion.

The river of God has its source high up in the mount where Jehovah dwells

in inaccessible holiness, and where the white‐robed priests minister

ceaselessly before Him; but in its descent it seeks out the most desolate

and unpromising region in the country, and turns it into a garden of the

Lord. While the whole land of Israel is to be renewed and made to minister

to the good of man in fellowship with God, the main stream of fertility is

expended in the apparently hopeless task of reclaiming the Judæan desert

and purifying the Dead Sea. It is an emblem of the earthly ministry of Him

who made Himself the friend of publicans and sinners, and lavished the

resources of His grace and the wealth of His affection on those who were

deemed beyond ordinary possibility of salvation. It is to be feared,

however, that the practice of most Churches has been too much the reverse

of this. They have been tempted to confine the water of life within fairly

respectable channels, amongst the prosperous and contented, the occupants

of happy homes, where the advantages of religion are most likely to be

appreciated. That seems to have been found the line of least resistance,

and in times when spiritual life has run low it has been counted enough to

keep the old ruts filled and leave the waste places and stagnant waters of

our civilisation ill provided with the means of grace. Nowadays we are

sometimes reminded that the Dead Sea must be drained before the gospel can

have a fair chance of influencing human lives, and there may be much

wisdom in the suggestion. A vast deal of social drainage may have to be

accomplished before the word of God has free course. Unhealthy and impure

conditions of life may be mitigated by wise legislation, temptations to

vice may be removed, and vested interests that thrive on the degradation

of human lives may be crushed by the strong arm of the community. But the

true spirit of Christianity can neither be confined to the watercourses of

religious habit, nor wait for the schemes of the social reformer. Nor will

it display its powers of social salvation until it carries the energies of

the Church into the lowest haunts of vice and misery with an earnest

desire to seek and to save that which is lost. Ezekiel had his vision, and

he believed in it. He believed in the reality of God’s presence in the

sanctuary and in the stream of blessings that flowed from His throne, and

he believed in the possibility of reclaiming the waste places of his

country for the kingdom of God. When Christians are united in like faith

in the power of Christ and the abiding presence of His Spirit, we may

expect to see times of refreshing from the presence of God and the whole

earth filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.

II

Ezekiel’s map of Palestine is marked by something of the same mathematical

regularity which was exhibited in his plan of the Temple. His boundaries

are like those we sometimes see on the map of a newly settled country like

America or Australia—that is to say, they largely follow the meridian

lines and parallels of latitude, but take advantage here and there of

natural frontiers supplied by rivers and mountain ranges. This is

absolutely true of the internal divisions of the land between the tribes.

Here the northern and southern boundaries are straight lines running east

and west over hill and dale, and terminating at the Mediterranean Sea and

the Jordan Valley, which form of course the western and eastern limits. As

to the external delimitation of the country it is unfortunately not

possible to speak with certainty. The eastern frontier is fixed by the

Jordan and the Dead Sea so far as they go, and the western is the sea. But

on the north and south the lines of demarcation cannot be traced, the

places mentioned being nearly all unknown. The north frontier extends from

the sea to a place called Hazar‐enon, said to lie on the border of Hauran.

It passes the “entrance to Hamath,” and has to the north not only Hamath,

but also the territory of Damascus. But none of the towns through which it

passes—Hethlon, Berotha, Sibraim—can be identified, and even its general

direction is altogether uncertain.(307)

From Hazar‐enon the eastern border stretches southward till it reaches the

Jordan, and is prolonged south of the Dead Sea to a place called Tamar,

also unknown. From this we proceed westwards by Kadesh till we strike the

river of Egypt, the Wady el‐Arish, which carries the boundary to the sea.

It will be seen that Ezekiel, for reasons on which it is idle to

speculate, excludes the transjordanic territory from the Holy Land.

Speaking broadly, we may say that he treats Palestine as a rectangular

strip of country, which he divides into transverse sections of

indeterminate breadth, and then proceeds to parcel out these amongst the

twelve tribes.

A similar obscurity rests on the motives which determined the disposition

of the different tribes within the sacred territory. We can understand,

indeed, why seven tribes are placed to the north and only five to the

south of the capital and the sanctuary. Jerusalem lay much nearer the

south of the land, and in the original distribution all the tribes had

their settlements to the north of it except Judah and Simeon. Ezekiel’s

arrangement seems thus to combine a desire for symmetry with a recognition

of the claims of historical and geographic reality. We can also see that

to a certain extent the relative positions of the tribes correspond with

those they held before the Exile, although of course the system requires

that they shall lie in a regular series from north to south. Dan, Asher,

and Naphtali are left in the extreme north, Manasseh and Ephraim to the

south of them, while Simeon lies as of old in the south with one tribe

between it and the capital. But we cannot tell why Benjamin should be

placed to the south and Judah to the north of Jerusalem, why Issachar and

Zebulun are transferred from the far north to the south, or why Reuben and

Gad are taken from the east of the Jordan to be settled one to the north

and the other to the south of the city. Some principle of arrangement

there must have been in the mind of the prophet, and several have been

suggested; but it is perhaps better to confess that we have lost the key

to his meaning.(308)

The prophet’s interest is centred on the strip of land reserved for the

sanctuary and public purposes, which is subdivided and measured out with

the utmost precision. It is twenty‐five thousand cubits (about 8‐1/3

miles) broad, and extends right across the country. The two extremities

east and west are the crown lands assigned to the prince for the purposes

we have already seen. In the middle a square of twenty‐five thousand

cubits is marked off; this is the “oblation” or sacred offering of land,

in the middle of which the Temple stands. This again is subdivided into

three parallel sections, as shown in the accompanying diagram. The most

northerly, ten thousand cubits in breadth, is assigned to the Levites; the

central portion, including the sanctuary, to the priests; and the

remaining five thousand cubits is a “profane place” for the city and its

common lands. The city itself is a square of four thousand five hundred

cubits, situated in the middle of this southmost section of the oblation.

With its free space of two hundred and fifty cubits in width belting the

wall it fills the entire breadth of the section; the communal possessions

flanking it on either hand, just as the prince’s domain does the

“oblation” as a whole. The produce of these lands is “for food to them

that ‘serve’ [_i.e._, inhabit] the city.”(309) Residence in the capital,

it appears, is to be regarded as a public service. The maintenance of the

civic life of Jerusalem was an object in which the whole nation was

interested, a truth symbolised by naming its twelve gates after the twelve

sons of Jacob.(310) Hence, also, its population is to be representative of

all the tribes of Israel, and whoever comes to dwell there is to have a

share in the land belonging to the city.(311) But evidently the

legislation on this point is incomplete. How were the inhabitants of the

capital to be chosen out of all the tribes? Would its citizenship be

regarded as a privilege or as an onerous responsibility? Would it be

necessary to make a selection out of a host of applications, or would

special inducements have to be offered to procure a sufficient population?

To these questions the vision furnishes no answer, and there is nothing to

show whether Ezekiel contemplated the possibility that residence in the

new city might present few attractions and many disadvantages to an

agricultural community such as he had in view. It is a curious incident of

the return from the Exile that the problem of peopling Jerusalem emerged

in a more serious form than Ezekiel from his ideal point of view could

have foreseen. We read that “the rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem:

the rest of the people also cast lots, to bring one of ten to dwell in

Jerusalem, the holy city, and nine parts in [other] cities. And the people

blessed all the men that willingly offered themselves to dwell at

Jerusalem.”(312) There may have been causes for this general reluctance

which are unknown to us, but the principal reason was doubtless the one

which has been hinted at, that the new colony lived mainly by agriculture,

and the district in the immediate vicinity of the capital was not

sufficiently fertile to support a large agricultural population. The new

Jerusalem was at first a somewhat artificial foundation, and a city too

largely developed for the resources of the community of which it was the

centre. Its existence was necessary more for the protection and support of

the Temple than for the ordinary ends of civilisation; and hence to dwell

in it was for the majority an act of self‐sacrifice by which a man was

felt to deserve well of his country. And the only important difference

between the actual reality and Ezekiel’s ideal is that in the latter the

supernatural fertility of the land and the reign of universal peace

obviate the difficulties which the founders of the post‐exilic theocracy

had to encounter.

This seeming indifference of the prophet to the secular interests

represented by the metropolis strikes us as a singular feature in his

programme. It is strange that the man who was so thoughtful about the

salt‐pans of the Dead Sea should pass so lightly over the details of the

reconstruction of a city. But we have had several intimations that this is

not the department of things in which Ezekiel’s hold on reality is most

conspicuous. We have already remarked on the boldness of the conception

which changes the site of the capital in order to guard the sanctity of

the Temple. And now, when its situation and form are accurately defined,

we have no sketch of municipal institutions, no hint of the purposes for

which the city exists, and no glimpse of the busy and varied activities

which we naturally connect with the name. If Ezekiel thought of it at all,

except as existing on paper, he was probably interested in it as

furnishing the representative congregation on minor occasions of public

worship, such as the Sabbaths and new moons, when the whole people could

not be expected to assemble. The truth is that the idea of the city in the

vision is simply an abstract religious symbol, a sort of epitome and

concentration of theocratic life. Like the figure of the prince in earlier

chapters, it is taken from the national institutions which perished at the

Exile; the outline is retained, the typical significance is enhanced, but

the form is shadowy and indistinct, the colour and variety of concrete

reality are absent. It was perhaps a stage through which political

conceptions had to pass before their religious meaning could be

apprehended. And yet the fact that the symbol of the Holy City is

preserved is deeply suggestive and indeed scarcely less important in its

own way than the retention of the type of the king. Ezekiel can no more

think of the land without a capital than of the state without a prince.

The word “city”—synonym of the fullest and most intense form of life, of

life regulated by law and elevated by devotion to a common ideal, in which

every worthy faculty of human nature is quickened by the close and varied

intercourse of men with each other—has definitely taken its place in the

vocabulary of religion. It is there, not to be superseded, but to be

refined and spiritualised, until the city of God, glorified in the praises

of Israel, becomes the inspiration of the loftiest thought and the most

ardent longing of Christendom. And even for the perplexing problems that

the Church has to face at this day there is hardly a more profitable

exercise of the Christian imagination than to dream with practical intent

of the consecration of civic life through the subjection of all its

influences to the ends of the Redeemer’s kingdom.

On the other hand we must surely recognise that this vision of a Temple

and a city separated from each other—where religious and secular interests

are as it were concentrated at different points, so that the one may be

more effectually subordinated to the other—is not the final and perfect

vision of the kingdom of God. That ideal has played a leading and

influential part in the history of Christianity. It is essentially the

ideal formulated in Augustine’s great work on the city of God, which ruled

the ecclesiastical polity of the mediæval Church. The State is an unholy

institution; it is an embodiment of the power of this present evil world:

the true city of God is the visible Catholic Church, and only by

subjection to the Church can the State be redeemed from itself and be made

a means of blessing. That theory served a providential purpose in

preserving the traditions of Christianity through dark and troubled ages,

and training the rude nations of Europe in purity and righteousness and

reverence for that by which God makes Himself known. But the Reformation

was, amongst other things, a protest against this conception of the

relation of Church to State, of the sacred to the secular. By asserting

the right of each believer to deal with Christ directly without the

mediation of Church or priest it broke down the middle wall of partition

between religion and every‐day duty; it sanctified common life by showing

how a man may serve God as a citizen in the family or the workshop better

than in the cloister or at the altar. It made the kingdom of God to be a

present power wherever there are lives transformed by love to Christ and

serving their fellow‐men for His sake. And if Catholicism may find some

plausible support for its theory in Ezekiel and the Old Testament

theocracy in general, Protestants may perhaps with better right appeal to

the grander ideal represented by the new Jerusalem of the Apocalypse—the

city that needs no Temple, because the Lord Himself is in her midst.

“And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of

heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great

voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and

He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself

shall be with them, and be their God.... And I saw no temple therein: for

the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had

no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of

God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.”(313)

It may be difficult for us amid the entanglements of the present to read

that vision aright—difficult to say whether it is on earth or in heaven

that we are to look for the city in which there is no Temple. Worship is

an essential function of the Church of Christ; and so long as we are in

our earthly abode worship will require external symbols and a visible

organisation. But this at least we know, that the will of God must be done

on earth as it is in heaven. The true kingdom of God is within us; and His

presence with men is realised, not in special religious services which

stand apart from our common life, but in the constant influence of His

Spirit, forming our characters after the image of Christ, and permeating

all the channels of social intercourse and public action, until everything

done on earth is to the glory of our Father which is in heaven. That is

the ideal set forth by the coming of the holy city of God, and only in

this way can we look for the fulfilment of the promise embodied in the new

name of Ezekiel’s city, Jehovah‐shammah,—

THE LORD IS THERE.

FOOTNOTES

1 Herodotus, i. 103‐106.

2 If the “thirtieth year” of ch. i. 1 could refer to the prophet’s age

at the time of his call, his birth would fall in the very year in

which the Law Book was found. Although that interpretation is

extremely improbable, he can hardly have been much more, or less,

than thirty years old at the time.

3 The opinion, once prevalent, that it was the Chaboras in Northern

Mesopotamia, where colonies of Northern Israelites had been settled

a century and a half before, has nothing to justify it, and is now

universally abandoned.

4 This, however, is not certain. Although Jeremiah’s property and

residence were in Anathoth, his official connection may have been

with the Temple in Jerusalem.

5 The passage xxxiii. 14‐26 is wanting in the LXX., and may possibly

be a later insertion. Even if genuine it would hardly alter the

general estimate of the prophet’s teaching expressed above.

6 Jer. xv. 4; 2 Kings xxiii. 26.

7 In the superscription of the book (ch. i. 1‐3) a double date is

given for this occurrence. In ver. 1 it is said to have taken place

“in the thirtieth year”; but this expression has never been

satisfactorily explained. The principal suggestions are: (1) that it

is the year of Ezekiel’s life; (2) that the reckoning is from the

year of Josiah’s reformation; and (3) that it is according to some

Babylonian era. But none of these has much probability, unless, with

Klostermann, we go further and assume that the explanation was given

in an earlier part of the prophet’s autobiography now lost—a view

which is supported by no evidence and is contrary to all analogy.

Cornill proposes to omit ver. 1 entirely, chiefly on the ground that

the use of the first person before the writer’s name has been

mentioned is unnatural. That the superscription does not read

smoothly as it stands has been felt by many critics; but the

rejection of the verse is perhaps a too facile solution.

8 Not “amber,” but a natural alloy of silver and gold, highly esteemed

in antiquity.

9 Cf. Exod. xxiv. 10: “like the very heavens for pureness.”

10 Duhm on Isa. xxx. 27.

11 _Bêth mĕri_, or simply _mĕrî_, occurring about fifteen times in the

first half of the book, but only once after ch. xxiv.

12 Klostermann.

13 In ch. iii. 12 read “As the glory of Jehovah arose from its place”

instead of “Blessed be the glory,” etc. (ברום for ברוך).

14 A somewhat similar episode seems to have occurred in the life of

Isaiah. See the commentaries on Isa. viii. 16‐18.

15 These verses (ch. iii. 22‐27) furnish one of the chief supports of

Klostermann’s peculiar theory of Ezekiel’s condition during the

first period of his career. Taking the word “dumb” in its literal

sense, he considers that the prophet was afflicted with the malady

known as _alalia_, that this was intermittent down to the date of

ch. xxiv., and then became chronic till the fugitive arrived from

Jerusalem (ch. xxxiii. 21), when it finally disappeared. This is

connected with the remarkable series of symbolic actions related in

ch. iv., which are regarded as exhibiting all the symptoms of

catalepsy and hemiplegia. These facts, together with the prophet’s

liability to ecstatic visions, justify, in Klostermann’s view, the

hypothesis that for seven years Ezekiel laboured under serious

nervous disorders. The partiality shown by a few writers to this

view probably springs from a desire to maintain the literal accuracy

of the prophet’s descriptions. But in that aspect the theory breaks

down. Even Klostermann admits that the binding with ropes had no

existence save in Ezekiel’s imagination. But if we are obliged to

take into account what _seemed_ to the prophet, it is better to

explain the whole phenomena on the same principle. There can be no

good grounds for taking the dumbness as real and the ropes as

imaginary. Besides, it is surely a questionable expedient to

vindicate a prophet’s literalism at the expense of his sanity. In

the hands of Klostermann and Orelli the hypothesis assumes a

stupendous miracle; but it is obvious that a critic of another

school might readily “wear his rue with a difference,” and treat the

whole of Ezekiel’s prophetic experiences as hallucinations of a

deranged intellect.

16 An ingenious attempt has been made by Professor Cornill to rearrange

the verses so as to bring out two separate series of actions, one

referring exclusively to the exile and the other to the siege. But

the proposed reading requires a somewhat violent handling of the

text, and does not seem to have met with much acceptance. The

blending of diverse elements in a single image appears also in ch.

xii. 3‐16.

17 The correspondence would be almost exact if we date the commencement

of the northern captivity from 734, when Tiglath‐pileser carried

away the inhabitants of the northern and eastern parts of the

country. This is a possible view, although hardly necessary.

18 Or, with a different pointing, “She changed My judgments to

wickedness.”

19 See ch. xxvii.

20 _Hammânim_—a word of doubtful meaning, however. The word for idols,

_gillûlîm_, is all but peculiar to Ezekiel. It is variously

explained as _block‐gods_ or _dung‐gods_—in any case an epithet of

contempt. The _ashērah_, or sacred pole, is never referred to by

Ezekiel.

21 In ver. 14 the true sense has been lost by the corruption of the

word Riblah into Diblah.

22 The reason may be that two different recensions of the text have

been combined and mixed up. So Hitzig and Cornill.

23 Amos viii. 2.

24 Cf. Luke xvii. 26‐30.

25 Ezekiel’s use of the divine names would hardly be satisfactory to

Renan. Outside of the prophecies addressed to heathen nations the

generic name אלהים is never used absolutely, except in the phrases

“visions of God” (three times) and “spirit of God” (once, in ch. xi.

24, where the text may be doubtful). Elsewhere it is used only of

God in His relation to men, as, _e.g._, in the expression “be to you

for a God.” אל שדי occurs once (ch. x. 5) and אל alone three times

in ch. xxviii. (addressed to the prince of Tyre). The prophet’s

word, when he wishes to express absolute divinity, is just the

“proper” name יהוה, in accordance no doubt with the interpretation

given in Exod. iii. 13, 14.

26 Of what nature this idolatrous symbol was we cannot certainly

determine. The word used for “image” (_semel_) occurs in only two

other passages. The writer of the books of Chronicles uses it of the

_asherah_ which was set up by Manasseh in the Temple, and it is

possible that he means thus to identify that object with what

Ezekiel saw (cf. 2 Chron. xxxiii. 7, and 2 Kings xxi. 7). This

interpretation is as satisfactory as any that has been proposed.

27 The nature of the cults is best explained by Professor Robertson

Smith, who supposes that they are a survival of aboriginal

totemistic superstitions which had been preserved in secret circles

till now, but suddenly assumed a new importance with the collapse of

the national religion and the belief that Jehovah had left the land.

Others, however, have thought that it is Egyptian rites which are

referred to. This view might best explain its prevalence among the

elders, but it has little positive support.

28 It has been supposed, however, that the sun‐worship referred to here

is of Persian origin, chiefly because of the obscure expression in

ver. 17: “Behold they put the twig to their nose.” This has been

explained by a Persian custom of holding up a branch before the

face, lest the breath of the worshipper should contaminate the

purity of the deity. But Persia had not yet played any great part in

history, and it is hardly credible that a distinctively Persian

custom should have found its way into the ritual of Jerusalem.

Moreover, the words do not occur in the description of the sun‐

worshippers, nor do they refer particularly to them.

29 Following the LXX.

30 It is noteworthy that in the dirge of ch. xix. Ezekiel ignores the

reign of Jehoiakim. Is this because he too owed his elevation to the

intervention of a foreign power?

31 Especially if we read ver. 12, as in LXX., “That he may not be seen

by any eye, and he shall not see the earth.”

32 By this name for Chaldæa Ezekiel seems to express his contempt for

the commercial activity which formed so large an element in the

greatness of Babylon (ch. xvi. 29 R.V.), perhaps also his sense of

the uncongenial environment in which the disinherited king and the

nobility of Judah now found themselves.

33 Jehoiakim.

34 The long line is divided into two unequal parts by a cæsura over the

end.

35 Mostly adopted from Cornill. The English reader may refer to Dr.

Davidson’s commentary.

36 This word is uncertain.

37 _Ezekiel_, p. 85.

38 Translating with LXX.

39 The exact force of the reflexive form used (_na’ ănêthi_, niphal) is

doubtful. The translation given is that of Cornill, which is

certainly forcible.

40 The same rule is applied to direct communion with God in prayer in

Psalm lxvi. 18: “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not

hear.”

41 See above, p. 97 f.

42 See below, pp. 179 f.

43 Ver. 33 may, however, be an interpolation (Cornill).

44 In ver. 41 the Syriac Version reads, with a slight alteration of the

text, “they shall burn thee in the midst of the fire.” The reading

has something to recommend it. Death by burning was an ancient

punishment of harlotry (Gen. xxxviii. 24), although it is not likely

that it was still inflicted in the time of Ezekiel.

45 “To eat upon the mountains” (if that reading can be retained) must

mean to take part in the sacrificial feasts which were held on the

high places in honour of idols. But if with W. R. Smith and others

we substitute the phrase “eat with the blood,” assimilating the

reading to that of ch. xxxiii. 25, the offence is still of the same

nature. In the time of Ezekiel to eat with the blood probably meant

not merely to eat that which had not been sacrificed to Jehovah, but

to engage in a rite of distinctly heathenish character. Cf. Lev.

xix. 20, and see the note in Smith’s _Kinship and Marriage in Early

Arabia_, p. 310.

46 In the striking passage ch. xiv. 12‐23 the application of the

doctrine of individual retribution to the destruction of Jerusalem

is discussed. It is treated as “an exception to the rule”

(Smend)—perhaps the exception which proves the rule. The rule is

that in a national judgment the most eminent saints save neither son

nor daughter by their righteousness, but only their own lives (vv.

13‐20). At the fall of Jerusalem, however, a remnant escapes and

goes into captivity with sons and daughters, in order that their

corrupt lives may prove to the earlier exiles how necessary the

destruction of the city was (vv. 21‐23). The argument is an

admission that the judgment on Israel was not carried out in

accordance with the strict principle laid down in ch. xviii. It is

difficult, indeed, to reconcile the various utterances of Ezekiel on

this subject. In ch. xxi. 3, 4 he expressly announces that in the

downfall of the state righteous and wicked shall perish together. In

the vision of ch. ix., on the other hand, the righteous are marked

for exemption from the fate of the city. The truth appears to be

that the prophet is conscious of standing between two dispensations,

and does not hold a consistent view regarding the time when the law

proper to the perfect dispensation comes into operation. The point

on which there is no ambiguity is that in the final judgment which

ushers in the Messianic age the principle of individual retribution

shall be fully manifested.

47 This is true whether (as some expositors think) the date in ch. xx.

is merely an external mark introducing a new division of the book,

or whether (as seems more natural) it is due to the fact that here

Ezekiel recognised a turning‐point of his ministry. Such visits of

the elders as that here recorded must have been of frequent

occurrence. Two others are mentioned, and of these one is undated

(ch. xiv. 1); the other at least admits the supposition that it was

connected with a very definite change of opinion among the exiles

(ch. viii. 1: see above, p. 80). We may therefore reasonably suppose

that the precise note of time here introduced marks this particular

incident as having possessed a peculiar significance in the

relations between the prophet and his fellow‐exiles. What its

significance may have been we shall consider in the next lecture,

see p. 174.

48 The verses xx. 45‐49 of the English Version really belong to ch.

xxi., and are so placed in the Hebrew. In what follows the verses

will be numbered according to the Hebrew text.

49 At three places the meaning is entirely lost, through corruption of

the text.

50 Cf. ch. xvii.

51 The reference is to the Messiah, and seems to be based on the

ancient prophecy of Gen. xlix. 10, reading there שֶׁלּה instead of

שִׁלה.

52 The word “covenant” is not here used.

53 Apart from the case of Jephthah, which is entirely exceptional, the

first historical instance is that of Ahaz (2 Kings xvi. 3).

54 There still remain the critical difficulties. What are the ambiguous

laws to which the prophet refers? It is of course not to be assumed

as certain that they are to be found in the Pentateuch, at least in

the exact form which Ezekiel has in view. There may have been at

that time a considerable amount of uncodified legislative material

which passed vaguely as the law of Jehovah. The “lying pen of the

scribes” seems to have been busy in the multiplication of such

enactments (Jer. viii. 8). Still, it is a legitimate inquiry whether

any of the extant laws of the Pentateuch are open to the

interpretation which Ezekiel seems to have in view. The parts of the

Pentateuch in which the regulation about the dedication of the

firstborn occurs are the so‐called Book of the Covenant (Exod. xxii.

29, 30), the short code of Exod. xxxiv. 17‐26 (vv. 19 f.), the

enactment connected with the institution of the Passover (Exod.

xiii. 12 f.), and the priestly ordinance (Numb. xviii. 15). Now, in

three of these four passages, the inference to which Ezekiel refers

is expressly excluded by the provision that the firstborn of men

shall be redeemed. The only one which bears the appearance of

ambiguity is that in the Book of the Covenant, where we read: “The

firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto Me; likewise shalt thou

do with thine oxen and thy sheep: seven days it shall be with its

dam, on the eighth day thou shalt give it to Me.” Here the firstborn

children and the firstlings of animals are put on a level; and if

any passage in our present Pentateuch would lend itself to the false

construction which the later Israelites favoured, it would be this.

On the other hand this passage does not contain the particular

technical word (_he’ebîr_) used by Ezekiel. The word probably means

simply “dedicate,” although this was understood in the sense of

dedication by sacrifice. The only passage of the four where the verb

occurs is Exod. xiii. 12; and this accordingly is the one generally

fixed on by critics as having sanctioned the abuse in question. But

apart from its express exemption of firstborn children from the

rule, the passage fails in another respect to meet the requirements

of the case. The prophet appears to speak here of legislation

addressed to the second generation in the wilderness, and this could

not refer to the Passover ordinance in its present setting. On the

whole we seem to be driven to the conclusion that Ezekiel is not

thinking of any part of our present Pentateuch, but to some other

law similar in its terms to that of Exod. xiii. 12 f., although

equivocal in the same way as Exod. xxii. 29 f.

In the text above I have given what appears to me the most natural

interpretation of the passage, without referring to the numerous

other views which have been put forward. Van Hoonacker, in _Le

Museon_ (1893), subjects the various theories to a searching

criticism, and arrives himself at the nebulous conclusion that the

“statutes which were not good” are not statutes at all, but

providential chastisements. That cuts the knot, it does not untie

it.

55 None of the interpretations of ver. 29 gives a satisfactory sense.

Cornill rejects it as “absonderlich und aus dem Tenor des ganzen

Cap. herausfallend.”

56 See Dillmann’s note on Lev. xxvii. 32, quoted by Davidson.

57 Reading במספר for במסרת with the LXX.

58 The transition ver. 39 is, however, very difficult. As it stands in

the Hebrew text it contains an ironical concession (a good‐natured

one, Smend thinks) to the persistent advocates of idolatry, the only

tolerable translation being, “So serve ye every man his idols, but

hereafter ye shall surely hearken to Me, and My holy name ye shall

no longer profane with your gifts and your idols.” But this sense is

not in itself very natural, and the Hebrew construction by which it

is expressed would be somewhat strained. The most satisfactory

rendering is perhaps that given in the Syriac Version, where two

clauses of our Hebrew text are transposed: “But as for you, O house

of Israel, if ye will not hearken to Me, go serve every man his

idols! Yet hereafter ye shall no more profane My holy name in you,”

etc.

59 It is not certain what is the exact meaning wrapped up in these

designations. A very slight change in the pointing of the Hebrew

would give the sense “_her_ tent” for Ohola and “_my_ tent in her”

for Oholibah. This is the interpretation adopted by most

commentators, the idea being that while the tent or temple of

Jehovah was in Judah, Samaria’s “tent” (religious system) was of her

own making. It is not likely, however, that Ezekiel has any such

sharp contrast in his mind, since the whole of the argument proceeds

on the similarity of the course pursued by the two kingdoms. It is

simpler to take the word Ohola as meaning “tent,” and Oholibah as

“tent in her,” the signification of the names being practically

identical. The allusion is supposed to be to the tents of the high

places which formed a marked feature of the idolatrous worship

practised in both divisions of the country (cf. ch. xvi. 16). This

is better, though not entirely convincing, since it does not explain

how Ezekiel came to fix on this particular emblem as a mark of the

religious condition of Israel. It may be worth noting that the word

אהלה contains the same number of consonants as שׂמרן (= Samaria,

although the word is always written שׂמרון in the Old Testament),

and אהליבה the same number as ירושלם. The Eastern custom of giving

similar names to children of the same family (like Hasan and Husein)

is aptly instanced by Smend and Davidson.

60 This word is of doubtful meaning.

61 Smend thinks that the illustration is explained by the secluded life

of females in the East, which makes it quite intelligible that a

woman might be captivated by the picture of a man she had never

seen, and try to induce him to visit her.

62 On these names of nations see Davidson’s Commentary, p. 168, and the

reference there to Delitzsch.

63 The words rendered in E.V., “thou shalt be laughed to scorn and had

in derision” (ver. 32), “and pluck off thy own breasts” (ver. 34),

are wanting in the LXX. The passage gains in force by the omission.

The words translated “break the sherds thereof” (ver. 34) are

unintelligible.

64 Although the text in parts of vv. 42, 43 is very imperfect.

65 On the reading here see above, p. 150.

66 The eighth verse, referring to the Sabbath and the sanctuary, is

rejected by Cornill on internal grounds, but for that there is no

justification. If the verse is retained, it will be seen that the

enumeration of sins corresponds pretty closely in substance, though

not in arrangement, with the precepts of the Decalogue.

67 Read with the LXX. מטּרה, instead of מטהרה, “purified.”

68 This appears to be the meaning of the simile in ver. 24; the

judgment is conceived as a parching drought, and the point of the

comparison is that its severity is not tempered by the fertilising

streams which should have descended on the people in the shape of

sound political and religious guidance.

69 Following the LXX. we should read “whose princes” (אשר נשיאיה) for

“the conspiracy of her prophets” (קשר נביאיה) in ver. 25.

70 Read עצים, “wood,” instead of עצמים, “bones” (Boettcher and others).

71 The words “except by fire” represent an emendation proposed by

Cornill, which may be somewhat bold, but certainly expresses an idea

in the passage.

72 Cf. Jer. xiii. 27: “Thou shalt not be pronounced clean, for how long

a time yet!”

73 _I.e._, as generally explained, bread brought by sympathising

friends, to be shared with the mourning household: cf. Jer. xvi. 7;

2 Sam. iii. 35. Wellhausen, however, proposes to read “bread of

mourners” (אֲנִשֻׁים for אֲנָשִׁים).

74 The words “and Seir” in ver. 8 are wanting in the true text of the

LXX., and should probably be omitted.

75 Isa. xvi. 6, xxv. 11; Jer. xlviii. 29, 42.

76 Rawlinson, _History of Phœnicia_.

77 Closing stanzas of _The Scholar Gipsy_.

78 Both Movers and Rawlinson make it the basis of their survey of

Tyrian commerce.

79 Babylon and Egypt are probably omitted because of the peculiar point

of view assumed by the prophet. They were too powerful to be

represented as slaves of Tyre, even in poetry.

80 E.V., “going to and fro.”

81 So Cornill, חוילה for רכלי ( = merchants).

82 See ch. xxvii. 6, where ivory is said to come from Chittim or

Cyprus.

83 The Hebrew text adds “purple, embroidered work, and byssus”; but

most of these things are omitted in the LXX.

84 The text of vv. 18, 19 is in confusion, and Cornill, from a

comparison with a contemporary wine‐list of Nebuchadnezzar, and also

an Assyrian one from the library of Asshurbanipal, makes it read

thus: “Wine of Helbon and Zimin and Arnaban they furnished in thy

markets. From Uzal,” etc. Both lists are quoted in Schrader’s

_Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament_, under this verse.

85 The latter half of this verse, however, is of very uncertain

interpretation. For full explanation of the archæological details in

this chapter it will be necessary to consult the commentaries and

the lexicon. See also Rawlinson’s _History of Phœnicia_, pp. 285 ff.

86 With a change of one letter in the Hebrew text, המלאה for אמלאה, as

in the LXX. and Targum.

87 Hebrew, _Tĕhôm_; Babylonian, _Tiamat_.

88 Psalm xxxvi. 6: cf. Gen. vii, 11.

89 _Contra Ap._, I. 21; _Ant._, X. xi. 1.

90 Cf. Hävernick against Hitzig and Winer, _Ezekiel_, pp. 436 f.

91 The same engineering feat was accomplished by Alexander the Great in

seven months, but the Greek general probably adopted more scientific

methods (such as pile‐driving) than the Babylonians; and, besides,

it is possible that the remains of Nebuchadnezzar’s embankment may

have facilitated the operation.

92 For the word גבוליך, rendered “thy borders,” Cornill proposes to

read זבולך, which he thinks might mean “thine anchorage.” The

translation is doubtful, but the sense is certainly appropriate.

93 Senir was the Amorite name of Mount Hermon, the Phœnician name being

Sirion (Deut. iii. 9). Senir, however, occurs on the Assyrian

monuments, and was probably widely known.

94 _Teasshur_ (read בִּחְאַשֻׁרִים instead of בַּת‐אַשׁוּרִים), a kind

of tree mentioned several times in the Old Testament, is generally

identified with the sherbîn tree.

95 Elishah is one of the sons of Javan (Ionia) (Gen. x. 4), and must

have been some part of the Mediterranean coast, subject to the

influence of Greece. Italy, Sicily, and the Peloponnesus have been

suggested.

96 The details of the description are nearly all illustrated in

pictures of Phœnician war‐galleys found on Assyrian monuments. They

show the single mast with its square sail, the double row of oars,

the fighting men on the deck, and the row of shields along the

bulwarks. In an Egyptian picture we have a representation of the

embroidered _sail_ (ancient ships are said not to have carried a

_flag_). The canvas is richly ornamented with various devices over

its whole surface, and beneath the sail we see the cabin or awning

of coloured stuff mentioned in the text.

97 See above, pp. 232 ff.

98 It is not clear whether the dirge is continued to the end of the

chapter, or whether vv. 33 ff. are spoken by the prophet in

explanation of the distress of the nations. The proper elegiac

measure cannot be made out without some alteration of the text.

99 Dan. x. 20, 21, xii. 1.

100 “The death of the uncircumcised”—_i.e._, a death which involves

exclusion from the rites of honourable burial; like burial in

unconsecrated ground among Christian nations.

101 Dean Church, _Cathedral and University Sermons_, p. 150.

102 “We have, indeed, a nominal religion, to which we pay tithes of

property and sevenths of time; but we have also a practical and

earnest religion, to which we devote nine‐tenths of our property,

and six‐sevenths of our time. And we dispute a great deal about the

nominal religion: but we are all unanimous about this practical one;

of which I think you will admit that the ruling goddess may be best

generally described as the ‘Goddess of Getting‐on,’ or ‘Britannia of

the Market.’ The Athenians had an ‘Athena Agoraia,’ or Athena of the

Market; but she was a subordinate type of their goddess, while our

Britannia Agoraia is the principal type of ours. And all your great

architectural works are, of course, built to her. It is long since

you built a great cathedral; and how you would laugh at me if I

proposed building a cathedral on the top of one of these hills of

yours, to make it an Acropolis! But your railroad mounds, vaster

than the walls of Babylon; your railroad stations, vaster than the

temple of Ephesus, and innumerable; your chimneys, how much more

mighty and costly than cathedral spires! your harbour‐piers; your

warehouses; your exchanges!—all these are built to your great

Goddess of ‘Getting‐on;’ and she has formed, and will continue to

form, your architecture, as long as you worship her; and it is quite

vain to ask me to tell you how to build to _her_; you know far

better than I.”—_The Crown of Wild Olive._

103 The “fiery stones” may represent the thunderbolts, which were

harmless to the prince in virtue of his innocence. It may be noted

that the “precious stones” that were his covering (ver. 13)

correspond with nine out of the twelve jewels that covered the high‐

priestly breastplate (Exod. xxviii. 17‐19), the stones of the third

row being those not here represented. This suggests that the

allusion is rather to bejewelled garments than to the plumage of the

wings of the cherub with whom the prince has been wrongly

identified.

104 Jer. xxv. 22, xxvii. 3.

105 Ezek. xxix. 6, 7: cf. Isa. xxxvi. 6 (the words of Rabshakeh). In

ver. 7 read כף, “hand,” for כתף, “shoulder,” and המעדת, “madest to

totter,” for העמדת, “madest to stand.”

106 This is probable according to the Hebrew text, which, however, omits

the number of the _month_ in ch. xxxii. 17. The Septuagint reads “in

the _first_ month”; if this is accepted, it would be better to read

the _eleventh_ year instead of the twelfth in ch. xxxii. 1, as is

done by some ancient versions and Hebrew codices. The change

involves a difference of only one letter in Hebrew.

107 Ch. xxxii. 17, following the LXX. reading.

108 Migdol was on the north‐east border of Egypt, twelve miles south of

Pelusium (Sin), at the mouth of the eastern arm of the Nile. Syene

is the modern Assouan, at the first cataract of the Nile, and has

always been the boundary between Egypt proper and Ethiopia.

109 Pathros is the name of Upper Egypt, the narrow valley of the Nile

above the Delta. In the Egyptian tradition it was regarded as the

original home of the nation and the seat of the oldest dynasties.

Whether Ezekiel means that the Egyptians shall recover only Pathros,

while the Delta is allowed to remain uncultivated, is a question

that must be left undecided.

110 Hebrew, “Cush, and Put, and Lud, and all the mixed multitude, and

Chub, and the sons of the land of the covenant.” Cornill reads,

“Cush, and Put, and Lud, and Lub, and all Arabia, and the sons of

Crete.” The emendations are partly based on somewhat intricate

reasoning from the text of the Greek and Ethiopic versions; but they

have the advantage of yielding a series of proper names, as the

context seems to demand. Put and Lud are tribes lying to the west of

Egypt, and so also is Lub, which may be safely substituted for the

otherwise unknown Chub of the Hebrew text.

111 Reading אלים, “strong ones,” instead of אלילים, “not‐gods,” as in

the LXX. The latter term is common in Isaiah, but does not occur

elsewhere in Ezekiel, although he had constant occasion to use it.

112 The cities are not mentioned in any geographical order. Memphis

(Noph) and Thebes (No) are the ancient and populous capitals of

Lower and Upper Egypt respectively; Tanis (Zoan) was the city of the

Hyksos, and subsequently a royal seat; Pelusium (Sin), “the bulwark

of Egypt,” and Daphne (Tahpanhes) guarded the approach to the Delta

from the East; Heliopolis (On, wrongly pointed Aven) was the famous

centre of Egyptian wisdom, and the chief seat of the worship of the

sun‐god Ra; and Bubastis (Pi‐beseth), besides being a celebrated

religious centre, was one of the possessions of the Egyptian

military caste.

113 It is only fair to say that the construction “a T’asshur, a cedar,”

or, still more, “a T’asshur of a cedar,” is somewhat harsh. It is

not unlikely that the word “cedar” may have been added after the

reading “Assyrian” had been established, in order to complete the

sense.

114 See Smend on the passage. Dr. Davidson, however, doubts the

possibility of this: see his commentary.

115 This use of the word “uncircumcised” is peculiar. The idea seems to

be that circumcision, among nations which like the Israelites

practised the rite, was an indispensable mark of membership in the

community; and those who lacked this mark were treated as social

outcasts, not entitled to honourable sepulture. Hence the word could

be used, as here, in the sense of unhallowed.

116 Cf. Isa. xiv. 18‐20: “All of the kings of the nations, all of them,

sleep in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast forth

away from thy sepulchre, like an abominable branch, clothed with the

slain, that are thrust through with the sword, that go down to the

stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden underfoot. Thou shalt not be

joined with them in burial,” etc.

117 The text of these verses (19‐21) is in some confusion. The above is

a translation of the reading proposed by Cornill, who in the main

follows the LXX.

118 LXX. מעולם for מערלם = “of the uncircumcised.”

119 “Shields,” a conjecture of Cornill, seems to be demanded by the

parallelism.

120 Jer. xliii. 8‐13; xliv. 12‐14, 27‐30; xlvi. 13‐26.

121 _Ant._, X. ix. 7.

122 _Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache_, 1878, pp. 2 ff. and pp. 87

ff.

123 _Ibid._, 1884, pp. 87 ff., 93 ff.

124 See Schrader, _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, III. ii., pp. 140 f.

125 The hypothesis of a joint reign of Hophra and Amasis from 570 to 564

(Wiedemann) may or may not be necessary to establish a connection

between the Babylonian inscription and that of Nes‐hor; it is

certain that Amasis began to reign in 570, and that Hophra is _not_

the Pharaoh mentioned by Nebuchadnezzar.

126 Jerusalem was taken in the fourth month of the eleventh year of

Zedekiah or of Ezekiel’s captivity. The announcement reached

Ezekiel, according to the reading of the Hebrew text, in the tenth

month of the twelfth year (ch. xxxiii. 21)—that is, about eighteen

months after the event. It is hardly credible that the transmission

of the news should have been delayed so long as this; and therefore

the reading “eleventh year,” found in some manuscripts and in the

Syriac Version, is now generally regarded as correct.

127 Jer. xxxix. 9.

128 It is possible, however, that the word _happālît_, “the fugitive,”

may be used in a collective sense, of the whole body of captives

carried away after the destruction of the city.

129 Ch. xxiv. 21‐24.

130 Chs. xvii. 22‐24, xxi. 26, 27.

131 See pp. 102 ff.

132 Cf. especially ch. xxii.

133 See below, pp. 318 f., and ch. xxviii.

134 Pointing the Hebrew text in accordance with the rendering of the

LXX.

135 This seems to me to be the clear meaning of Isaiah’s prophecy of the

Messiah in the beginning of the ninth chapter, although the contrary

is often asserted. Micah v. 1‐6 may, however, be an exception to the

rule stated above.

136 Ver. 25. The idea is based on Hosea ii. 18, where God promises to

make a covenant for Israel “with the beasts of the field, and the

birds of heaven, and the creeping things of the ground.” This is to

be understood quite literally: it means immunity from the ravages of

wild beasts and other noxious creatures. Ezekiel’s promise, however,

is probably to be explained in accordance with the terms of the

allegory: the “evil beasts” are the foreign nations from whom Israel

had suffered so severely in the past.

137 This is the sense of the expression מטע לשׂם in ver. 29 (literally

“a plantation for a name”). The LXX., however, read מטע שׁלם, which

may be translated “a perfect vegetation.” At all events the phrase

is not a title of the Messiah.

138 The word “men” in ver. 31 should be omitted, as in the LXX.

139 Cf. Amos ix. 11 f.; Hosea ii. 2, iii. 5; Isa. xi. 13; Micah ii. 12

f., v. 3.

140 1 Kings xii. 16 (cf. 2 Sam. xx. 1). It should be mentioned, however,

that the last clause in the LXX. is replaced by a more prosaic

sentence: “for this man is not fit to be a ruler nor a prince.”

141 Jer. xxxiii. 15‐17.

142 Cf. ch. xliii. 7, xlv. 8, xlvi. 16 ff.

143 Ch. xxxvii. 25.

144 “Das Königthum wird diese [the Davidic] Familie nicht wieder

erhalten, denn Ezechiel fährt fort: ‘Ich Iahwe werde ihnen Gott sein

und mein Knecht David wird _nâsî_ d. h. Fürst in ihrer Mitte sein.’

Also _nur ein Fürstenthum_ wird der Familie Davids in der besseren

Zukunft Israel’s zu Theil.”—STADE, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_,

vol. ii., p. 39.

145 Ch. xxxvii. 22‐24.

146 On the whole subject of the relation of the gods to the land see

Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, pp. 91 ff.

147 Josh. xxii. 19; 1 Sam. xxvi. 19; Hosea ix. 3‐5.

148 Ch. xxxvi. 13.

149 Ch. xxxvi. 30: cf. xxxiv. 29.

150 Gen. xxvii. 28, 39.

151 Numb. xiii. 32.

152 Isa. lxii. 4.

153 Vv. 18, 19. The words in brackets are wanting in the LXX.

154 Vv. 20, 22, 23.

155 James ii. 7.

156 Psalm xlii. 10.

157 Ch. xxxix. 23.

158 The phrase “cause you to walk” (ver. 27) is very strong in the

Hebrew, almost “I will bring it about that ye walk.”

159 The thirty‐seventh verse hardly bears the sense which is sometimes

put upon it: “I am ready to do this for the house of Israel, yet I

will not do it until they have learned to pray for it.” That is true

of spiritual blessings generally; but Ezekiel’s idea is simpler. The

particle “yet” is not adversative but temporal, and the “this”

refers to what follows, and not to what precedes. The meaning is,

“The time shall come when I will answer the prayer of the house of

Israel,” etc.

160 Chapter XXIII. below.

161 Cf. 1 Kings xvii.; 2 Kings iv. 13 ff., xiii. 21.

162 1 Thess. iv. 13 ff.

163 Isa. xxvi. 19.

164 Dan. xii. 2.

165 John v. 25: cf. vv. 28, 29.

166 Isa. vii. 8.

167 Chapter V., above.

168 Ch. xxxvi. 16‐38.

169 Ch. xxxvi. 21.

170 Chs. xviii. 23, xxxiii. 11.

171 See pp. 75 f. above.

172 Ch. vi. 8‐10.

173 Chs. xvi. 61‐63, xx. 43, 44, xxxvi. 31, 32.

174 Ch. xviii. 31.

175 Cf. Joel’s “Rend your heart, and not your garments” (Joel ii. 13).

176 Chs. xi. 19, xxxvi. 26, 27.

177 Chs. xxxvi. 27, xxxvii. 14.

178 Hosea xiv. 5.

179 Isa. xxxii. 15.

180 Chs. xi. 20, xxxvi. 27.

181 Rom. vii. 16.

182 Rom. viii. 2.

183 Jer. xxxi. 33.

184 Chs. vi. 9, xvi. 63, xx. 43, xxxvi. 31, 32.

185 Cf. ch. xxxix. 23.

186 See ch. xxxviii. 11, 12.

187 Ch. xxxviii. 19‐23.

188 Ch. xxxix. 23.

189 See E. Meyer, _Geschichte des Alterthums_, p. 558; Schrader,

_Cuneiform Inscriptions_, etc., on this passage.

190 Meshech and Tubal are the Moschi and Tibareni of the Greek

geographers, lying south‐east of the Black Sea. A country or tribe

Rosh has not been found.

191 Gomer (according to others, however, Cappadocia) and Togarmah (ver.

6).

192 Cush and Put (ver. 5).

193 Ver. 7. The LXX. reads “for me” instead of “unto them,” giving to

the word _mishmar_ the sense of “reserve force.”

194 The words of ver. 4, “I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy

jaws,” are wanting in the best manuscripts of the LXX., and are

perhaps better omitted. Gog does not need to be dragged forth with

hooks; he comes up willingly enough, as soon as the opportunity

presents itself (vv. 11, 12).

195 Isa. x. 7.

196 An actual parallel is furnished by the crowds of slave‐dealers who

followed the army of Antiochus Epiphanes when it set out to crush

the Maccabæan insurrection in 166 B.C.

197 In ver. 14 the LXX. has “he stirred up” instead of “know,” and gives

a more forcible sense.

198 Zeph. i.‐iii. 8; Jer. iv.‐vi.

199 Cf. besides the passages already cited, Isa. x. 5‐34, xvii. 12‐14;

Micah iv. 11‐13.

200 Ver. 21. LXX.: “I will summon against him every terror.”

201 ἱπποτοξόται (mounted archers) is the term applied to them by

Herodotus (iv. 46).

202 This translation, which is given by Hitzig and Cornill, is obtained

by a change in the punctuation of the word rendered “passengers” in

ver. 11: cf. the “mountains of Abarim,” Numb. xxxiii. 47, 48; Deut.

xxxii. 49.

203 “It shall stop the noses of the passengers” (ver. 11) gives no

sense; and the text, as it stands, is almost untranslatable. The

LXX. reads, “and they shall seal up the valley,” which gives a good

enough meaning, so far as it goes.

204 Ver. 26. The choice between the rendering “forget” and that of the

English Version, “bear,” depends on the position of a single dot in

the Hebrew. In the former case “shame” must be taken in the sense of

reproach (_schande_); in the latter it means the inward feeling of

self‐abasement (_schaam_). The forgetting of past trespasses, if

that is the right reading, can only mean that they are entirely

broken off and dismissed from mind; there is nothing inconsistent

with passages like ch. xxxvi. 31. It must be understood that in any

event the reference is to the future; “_after that_ they have borne”

is altogether wrong.

205 The beginning of the year is that referred to in Lev. xxv. 9, the

tenth day of the seventh month (September‐October). From the Exile

downwards two calendars were in use, the beginning of the sacred

year falling in the seventh month of the civil year. It was not

necessary for Ezekiel to mention the number of the month.

206 See pp. 318 f.

207 Cf. Davidson, _Ezekiel_, pp. liv. f.

208 See Prof. W. R. Smith, _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_, pp.

442 f.

209 See ver. 10, “let them measure the pattern”; ver. 11, “that they may

keep the whole form thereof.”

210 This last group is considered to be composed of several layers of

legislation, and one of its sections is of particular interest for

us because of its numerous affinities with the book of Ezekiel. It

is the short code contained in Lev. xvii.‐xxvi., now generally known

as the Law of Holiness.

211 This argument is most fully worked out by Wellhausen in the first

division of his _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_: I.,

“Geschichte des Cultus.”

212 It should perhaps be stated, even in so incomplete a sketch as this,

that there is still some difference of opinion among critics as to

Ezekiel’s relation to the so‐called “Law of Holiness” in Lev.

xvii.‐xxvi. It is agreed that this short but extremely interesting

code is the earliest complete, or nearly complete, document that has

been incorporated in the body of the Levitical legislation. Its

affinities with Ezekiel both in thought and style are so striking

that Colenso and others have maintained the theory that the author

of the Law of Holiness was no other than the prophet himself. This

view is now seen to be untenable; but whether the code is older or

more recent than the vision of Ezekiel is still a subject of

discussion among scholars. Some consider that it is an advance upon

Ezekiel in the direction of the Priests’ Code; while others think

that the book of Ezekiel furnishes evidence that the prophet was

acquainted with the Law of Holiness, and had it before him as he

wrote. That he was acquainted with its _laws_ seems certain; the

question is whether he had them before him in their present written

form. For fuller information on this and other points touched on in

the above pages, the reader may consult Driver’s _Introduction_ and

Robertson Smith’s _Old Testament in the Jewish Church_.

213 Gautier, _La Mission du Prophète Ezekiel_, p. 118.

214 The cubit which is the unit of measurement is said to be a

handbreadth longer than the cubit in common use (ver. 5). The length

of the larger cubit is variously estimated at from eighteen to

twenty‐two inches. If we adopt the smaller estimate, we have only to

take the half of Ezekiel’s dimensions to get the measurement in

English yards. The other, however, is more probable. Both the

Egyptians and Babylonians had a larger and a smaller cubit, their

respective lengths being approximately as follows:—

Common cubit: Egypt 17.8 in., Babylon 19.5 in.

Royal cubit: Egypt 20.7 in., Babylon 21.9 in.

In Egypt the royal cubit exceeded the common by a handbreadth, just

as in Ezekiel. It is probable in any case that the large cubit used

by the angel was of the same order of magnitude as the royal cubit

of Egypt and Babylon—_i.e._, was between twenty and a half and

twenty‐two inches long. Cf. Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_, pp.

178 ff.

215 See the plan in Benzinger, _Archäologie_, p. 394.

216 The outer court, however, is some feet higher than the level of the

ground, being entered by an ascent of seven steps; the height of the

wall inside must therefore be less by this amount than the six

cubits, which is no doubt an outside measurement.

217 Smend and Stade assume that it was a hundred and ten cubits long,

and extended five cubits to the west beyond the line of the square

to which it belongs. This was not necessary, and it would imply that

the _binyā_ behind the Temple, to be afterwards described, was

without a wall on its eastern side, which is extremely improbable.

(So Davidson.)

218 According to the Septuagint they were either five or fifteen in

number in each block.

219 From a later passage (ch. xlvi. 19, 20) we learn that in some recess

to the west of the northern block of cells there was a place where

these sacrifices (the sin‐, guilt‐, and meal‐offerings) were cooked,

so that the people in the outer court might not run any risk of

being brought in contact with them.

220 So in the LXX.

221 The actual building of the second Temple had of course to be carried

out irrespective of the bold idealism of Ezekiel’s vision. The

miraculous transformation of the land had not taken place, and it

was altogether impossible to build a new metropolis in the region

marked out for it by the vision. The Temple had to be erected on its

old site, and in the immediate neighbourhood of the city. To a

certain extent, however, the requirements of the ideal sanctuary

could be complied with. Since the new community had no use for royal

buildings, the whole of the old Temple plateau was available for the

sanctuary, and was actually devoted to this purpose. The new Temple

accordingly had two courts, set apart for sacred uses; and in all

probability these were laid out in a manner closely corresponding to

the plan prepared by Ezekiel.

222 It is not necessary to dwell on the third feature of the Temple

plan, its symmetry. Although this has not the same direct religious

significance as the other two, it is nevertheless a point to which

considerable importance is attached even in matters of minute

detail. Solomon’s Temple had, for example, only one door to the side

chambers, in the wall facing the south, and this was sufficient for

all practical purposes. But Ezekiel’s plan provides for two such

doors, one in the south and the other in the north, for no

assignable reason but to make the two sides of the house exactly

alike. There are just two slight deviations from a strictly

symmetrical arrangement that can be discerned; one is the washing‐

chamber by the side of one of the gates of the inner court, and the

other the space for cooking the most holy class of sacrifices near

the block of cells on the north side of the Temple. With these

insignificant exceptions, all the parts of the sanctuary are

disposed with mathematical regularity; nothing is left to chance,

regard for convenience is everywhere subordinated to the sense of

proportion which expresses the ideal order and perfection of the

whole.

223 Heb. xii. 14.

224 Heb. ix. 8‐10.

225 2 Kings xxiii. 9. The sense of the passage is undoubtedly that given

above; but the expression “unleavened bread” as a general name for

the priests’ portion is peculiar. It has been proposed to read, with

a change merely of the punctuation, instead of מַצּוֹת, מִצְוֹת =

“statutory portions,” as in Neh. xiii. 5.

226 1 Sam. ii. 36.

227 Cf. ch. xxii. 26.

228 Ezra ii. 36‐40.

229 Ezra ii. 58.

230 Ezra viii. 15‐20.

231 On this peculiar affinity between holiness and uncleanness see the

interesting argument in Robertson Smith’s _Religion of the Semites_,

pp. 427 ff. The passage Hag. ii. 12‐14 does not appear to be

inconsistent with what is there said. The meaning is that “very

indirect contact with the holy does not make holy, but very direct

contact with the unclean makes unclean” (Wellhausen, _Die Kleinen

Propheten_, p. 170).

232 Cf. ch. xxiv. 17; Lev. x. 6, xxi. 5, 10.

233 It is remarkable that neither here nor in Leviticus (ch. xxi. 1‐3)

is the priest’s wife mentioned as one for whom he may defile himself

at her death.

234 Cf. 2 Kings xii. 11, xxiii. 14, xxv. 18; Jer. xx. 1.

235 Hence it does not seem to me that any argument can be based on the

fact that a high priest was at the head of the returning exiles

either for or against the existence of the Priestly Code at that

date.

236 Lev. iv. 3, 13: cf. Lev. xvi. 6.

237 Exod. xviii. 25 ff.

238 Hosea iv. 6.

239 Cf. Deut. i. 17: “judgment is God’s.”

240 See below, p. 493.

241 2 Kings xii. 4‐16.

242 They also receive the best of the _arîsoth_, a word of uncertain

meaning, probably either dough or coarse meal. This offering is said

to bring a blessing on the household.

243 Deut. xviii. 3.

244 Deut. xviii. 4.

245 The regulations of the Priests’ Code with regard to the revenues of

the Temple clergy are most comprehensively given in Numb. xviii.

8‐32. The first thing that strikes us there is the distinction

between the due of the priests and that of the Levites. The absence

of any express provision for the latter is a somewhat remarkable

feature in Ezekiel’s legislation, when we consider the care with

which he has defined the status and duties of the order. It is

evident, however, that no complete arrangements could be made for

the Temple service without some law on this point such as is

contained in the passage Num. xviii. and referred to in Neh. x.

37‐39; and this is closely connected with a disposition of the

tithes and firstlings different from the directions of Deuteronomy,

and probably also from the tacit assumption of Ezekiel. The book of

Deuteronomy leaves no doubt that both the tithes of natural produce

and the firstlings of the flock and herd were intended to furnish

the material for sacrificial feasts at the sanctuary (cf. chs. xii.

6, 7, 11, 12, xiv. 22‐27). The priest received the usual portions of

the firstlings (ch. xviii. 3), and also a share of the tithe; but

the rest was eaten by the worshipper and his guests. In Numb.

xviii., on the other hand, all the firstlings are the property of

the priest (ver. 15), and the whole of the tithes is assigned to the

Levites, who in turn are required to hand over a tenth of the tithe

to the priests (vv. 24‐32). The portion of the priests consists of

the following items: (1) The meal‐offering, sin‐offering, and guilt‐

offering (as in Ezekiel); (2) the best of oil, new wine, and corn

(as in Deuteronomy) (ver. 12); (3) all the firstfruits (an advance

on Ezekiel) (ver. 13); (4) every devoted thing (Ezekiel) (ver. 14);

(5) all the firstlings (vv. 15‐18); (6) the breast and right thigh

of all ordinary private sacrifices (ver. 18: cf. Lev. vii. 31‐34)

(like Deuteronomy, but choicer portions); (7) the tenth of the

Levites’ tithe. It will be seen from this enumeration that the

Temple tariff of the Priestly law includes, with some slight

modification, all the requirements of Deuteronomy and Ezekiel,

besides the two important additions referred to above.

246 Psalm cxxxiii.

247 Chs. xlv. 7, 8, xlviii. 21, 22.

248 _I.e._, either the seventh year, as in Jer. xxxiv. 14, or the year

of Jubilee, the fiftieth year (Lev. xxv. 10); more probably the

former.

249 Amos viii. 5.

250 Ezek. xlv. 9, 10. In the translation of ver. 9 I have followed an

emendation proposed by Cornill. The sense is not affected, but the

grammatical construction seems to demand some alteration on the

Massoretic text.

251 In Exod. xxx. 13, Lev. xxvii. 25, Numb. iii. 47 (Priests’ Code) the

shekel of twenty geras is described as the “shekel of the

sanctuary,” or “sacred shekel,” clearly implying that another shekel

was in common use.

252 Ezek. xlv. 12, according to the LXX.

253 Prov. xi. 1.

254 Lev. xix. 35, 36.

255 Ezek. xlv. 13‐16.

256 The exact figures are, one part in sixty of cereal produce (wheat

and barley), one share in a hundred of oil, and one animal out of

every two hundred from the flock (ch. xlv. 13‐15).

257 Neh. x. 32, 33: cf. Ezek. xlv. 15.

258 Exod. xxx. 11‐16. Whether the third of a shekel in the book of

Nehemiah is a concession to the poverty of the people, or whether

the law represents an increased charge found necessary for the full

Temple service, is a question that need not be discussed here.

259 Ch. xlv. 17.

260 Ch. xlv. 22.

261 Lev. xvi. 11, 15.

262 2 Kings xvi. 15, 16.

263 Ch. xliv. 1‐3.

264 See ch. xlvi. 1‐12. The Syriac Version indeed makes an exception to

this rule in the case of the prince. Ver. 10 reads: “But the prince

in their midst shall go out by the gate by which he entered.” But

why the prince more than any other body should go back by the road

he came, or what particular honour there was in that, is a mystery;

and it is probable that the reading is an error originating in

repetition of ver. 8. The real meaning of the verse seems to be that

the prince must go in and out without the retinue of foreigners who

used to give _éclat_ to royal visits to the sanctuary.

265 Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, pp. 196 f.

266 Ch. xi. 16.

267 Micah vi. 6‐8.

268 Smith, _Old Testament in Jewish Church_, p. 379.

269 Ch. xlv. 18‐25.

270 Vv. 18‐20. In ver. 20 we should read with the LXX. “in the seventh

month, on the first day of the month,” etc.

271 Vv. 21‐25. Some critics, as Smend and Cornill, think that in ver. 14

we should read fifteenth instead of fourteenth, to perfect the

symmetry of the two halves of the year. There is no MS. authority

for the proposed change.

272 Smend.

273 Exod. xxiii. 14‐17 (Book of the Covenant, with which the other

code—Exod. xxxiv. 18‐22—agrees); Deut. xvi. 1‐17.

274 Cf. Lev. xxiii. 4‐44 (Law of Holiness); Numb. xxviii., xxix.

275 It is usual to speak of these ceremonies in Ezekiel as festivals.

But this seems to go beyond the prophet’s meaning. Only a single

sacrifice, a sin‐offering, is mentioned; and there is no hint of any

public assemblage of the people on these days. It was the priests’

business to see that the sanctuary was purified, and there was no

occasion for the people to be present at the ceremony. The

congregation would be the ordinary congregation at the new moon

feast, which of course did not represent the whole population of the

country. No doubt, as we see from the references below, the ceremony

developed into a special feast after the Exile.

276 Cf. Lev. xxiii. 23‐32; Numb. xxix. 1‐11.

277 Cf. Deut. xvi. 9, with Lev. xxiii. 10 f., 15 t. In the one case the

seven weeks to Pentecost are reckoned from the putting of the sickle

into the corn, in the other from the presentation of a first sheaf

of ripe corn in the Temple, which falls within the Passover week.

The latter can only be regarded as a more precise determination of

the former, and thus Unleavened Bread must have coincided with the

beginning of barley harvest.

278 Deut. xvi. 13.

279 Ch. xlv. 22.

280 Ch. xlvi. 12: cf. xliv. 3.

281 2 Kings xvi. 15: cf. 1 Kings xviii. 29, 36.

282 Ezra ix. 5.

283 Numb. xxviii. 3‐8; Exod. xxix. 38‐42.

284 Ch. xlvi. 13‐15.

285 Psalm v. 3, probably used at the presentation of the morning tamîd.

A more distinct recognition of the spiritual significance of the

_evening_ sacrifice is found in Psalm cxli. 2.

286 2 Kings xii. 17.

287 Cf. ch. xliii. 21.

288 Another explanation, however, is possible, and is adopted by Smend

and Davidson. Assuming that a burnt‐offering was offered on the

first day, and holding the whole description to be somewhat

elliptical, they bring the entire process within the limits of the

week. This certainly looks more satisfactory in itself. But would

Ezekiel be likely to admit an ellipsis in describing so important a

function? I have taken for granted above that the seven days of the

double sacrifice are counted from the “second day” of ver. 22.

289 Ver. 26.

290 טִהֵר (ver. 20).

291 הִטֵּא a denominative form from הֵטְא = sin (ver. 22).

292 כִּפֵּר (ver. 26).

293 See Smith, _Old Testament in Jewish Church_, p. 381.

294 Ch. xlv. 20.

295 Ch. xlv. 15, 17.

296 As distinguished from sins, בִּשִׁנָנָה, or through inadvertence.

See Numb. xv. 30, 31.

297 Psalm li. 16, 17.

298 See his Burnet Lectures on the _Religion of the Semites_, to which,

as well as to his _Old Testament in the Jewish Church_, the present

chapter is largely indebted.

299 Ch. xlvii. 1‐12.

300 Chs. xlvii. 13‐xlviii. 35.

301 Amos ix. 13.

302 Ch. xxxiv. 25‐29.

303 Rev. xxii. 1, 2.

304 Isa. viii. 6.

305 Engedi, “well of the kid,” is at the middle of the western shore;

Eneglaim, “well of two calves,” is unknown, but probably lay at the

north end. The eastern side is left to the Arabian nomads.

306 Ver. 11.

307 I do not myself see much objection to supposing that it leaves the

sea near Tyre and proceeds about due east to Hazar‐enon, which may

be near the foot of Hermon, where Robinson located it. In this case

the “entrance to Hamath” would be the south end of the _Beḳa’_,

where one strikes north to go to Hamath. This would correspond

nearly to the extent of the country actually occupied by the Hebrews

under the judges and the monarchy. The statement that the territory

of Damascus lies to the north presents some difficulty on any

theory. It may be added that Hazar‐hattikon in ver. 16 is the same

as Hazar‐enon; it is probably, as Cornill suggests, a scribe’s error

for נצרה ענון (the locative ending being mistaken for the article).

308 Smend, for example, points out that if we count the Levites’ portion

as a tribal inheritance, and include Manasseh and Ephraim under the

house of Joseph (as is done in the naming of the gates of the city),

we have the sons of Rachel and Leah evenly distributed on either

side of the “oblation.” Then at the farthest distance from the

Temple are the sons of Jacob’s handmaids, Gad in the extreme south,

and Dan, Asher, and Naphtali in the north. This is ingenious, but

not in the least convincing.

309 Ver. 18.

310 Vv. 31‐34. It is difficult to trace a clear connection between the

positions of the gates and the geographical distribution of the

tribes in the country. The fact that here Levi is counted as a tribe

and Ephraim and Manasseh are united under the name of Joseph

indicates perhaps that none was intended.

311 Ver. 19.

312 Neh. xi. 1, 2.

313 Rev. xxi. 2, 3, 22, 23.