Then he brought me back by the way of the outer gate of the sanctuary, which looks toward the east; and it was shut.
Parallel Translations
-
Then he brought me back by the way of the outer gate of the sanctuary, which looks toward the east; and it was shut.
-
Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut.
-
Then he brought me back the way of the outer gate of the sanctuary, which looketh toward the east; and it was shut.
Cross-references (10)
Passages linked to Ezekiel 44:1 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Ezekiel 43:1 Afterward he brought me to the gate, even the gate that looks toward the east.
- Ezekiel 40:6 Then he came to the gate which looks toward the east, and went up its steps. He measured the threshold of the gate, one reed wide; and the other threshold, one reed wide.
- Ezekiel 40:17 Then he brought me into the outer court. Behold, there were rooms and a pavement made for the court all around. Thirty rooms were on the pavement.
- Ezekiel 42:14 When the priests enter in, then they shall not go out of the holy place into the outer court, but they shall lay their garments in which they minister there; for they are holy. Then they shall put on other garments, and shall approach that which is for the people.”
- 2 Chronicles 4:9 Furthermore he made the court of the priests, the great court, and doors for the court, and overlaid their doors with bronze.
- 2 Chronicles 20:5 Jehoshaphat stood in the assembly of Judah and Jerusalem, in Yahweh’s house, before the new court;
- 2 Chronicles 33:5 He built altars for all the army of the sky in the two courts of Yahweh’s house.
- Ezekiel 43:4 Yahweh’s glory came into the house by the way of the gate which faces toward the east.
- Ezekiel 46:1 “ ‘The Lord Yahweh says: “The gate of the inner court that looks toward the east shall be shut the six working days; but on the Sabbath day it shall be opened, and on the day of the new moon it shall be opened.
- Acts 21:28-30 crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place. Moreover, he also brought Greeks into the temple, and has defiled this holy place!” For they had seen Trophimus, the Ephesian, with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple. All the city was moved and the people ran together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple. Immediately the doors were shut.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (19 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Eze 44:1 Then he brought me back the way…
Eze 44:1 Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it [was] shut.
Ver. 1. Then he brought me back.] From the east gate, which was found shut, to the north gate, where the prophet received large instructions. {Eze 44:4} Christ must be followed, though he seem to lead us in and out, backward and forward, as if we were treading a maze.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain Then; when the altar was measured, and directions given…
Then; when the altar was measured, and directions given for consecrating it at first, and for the perpetual use of it for future.
Back; from the inner court, where be had been viewing the altar, to the outer part of the same court, and to the east gate thereof: others say it was to the templegate eastward and that the temple is called
Read full note →
outward sanctuary, in respect of the holy of holies.
It was shut; when, or by whom, the prophet says not, but he found it shut.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain The prophet is here brought to review what he…
The prophet is here brought to review what he had before once surveyed; for, though we have often looked into the things of God, they will yet bear to be looked over again, such a copiousness there is in them. The lessons we have learned we should still repeat to ourselves. Every time we review the sacred fabric of holy things, which we have in the scriptures, we shall still find something new which we did not before take notice of. The prophet is brought a third time to the east gate, and finds it shut, which intimates that the rest of the gates were open at all times to the worshippers. But such an account is given of this gate's being shut as puts honour, 1. Upon the God of Israel. It is for the honour of him that the gate of the inner court, at which his glory entered when he took possession of the house, was ever after kept shut, and no man was allowed to enter in by it, Eze 44:2. The difference ever after made between this and the other gates, that this was shut when the others were open, was intended both to perpetuate the remembrance of the solemn entrance of the glory of the Lord into the house (which it would remain a traditional evidence of the truth of) and also to possess the minds of people with a reverence for the Divine Majesty, and with very awful thoughts of his transcendent glory, which was designed in God's charge to Moses at the bush, Put off thy shoe from off thy foot. God will have a way by himself. 2. Upon the prince of Israel, Eze 44:3. It is an honour to him that though he may not enter in by this gate, for no man may, yet, (1.) He shall sit in this gate to eat his share of the peace-offerings, that sacred food, before the Lord. (2.) He shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, by some little door or wicket, either in the gate or adjoining to it, which is called the say of the porch. This as to signify that God puts some of his glory upon magistrates, upon the princes of his people, for he has said, You are gods. Some by the prince here understand the high priests, or the sagan or second priest; and that he only was allowed to enter by this gate, for he was God's representative. Christ is the high priest of our profession, who entered himself into the holy place, and opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain Then he brought me back the way of the…
Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary,.... The prophet was brought by his divine guide, from the altar of burnt offerings, which stood before the house, where he had given him the dimensions of it, and the ordinances concerning it, to the temple or holy place, called the outward sanctuary, in distinction from the inward sanctuary, or holy of holies; and to one of the gates of it, which was a gate of the inner court:
and which looketh toward the east: the eastern gate, and was the same he had been at before, and therefore is said to be brought back the way of it; see Eze 43:1,
Read full note →
and it was shut; when he was there before, it was open; for he saw the glory of the Lord enter into the house by the way of it; but now it was shut, and for that reason, because he had entered into it; signifying, among other things, that he would never return, or remove from thence any more. The Misnic doctors (d) interpret this of one of the little doors to the great gate of the temple, that had two little doors, one in the north, the other in the south; that which was in the south no man ever entered in by, and this they say is understood here; but it is not a little door, but a gate here spoken of, and that the eastern one; of which more in the following verses.
(d) Misna Middot, c. 4. sect. 2.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain The appropriating the east-gate of the temple to the…
The appropriating the east-gate of the temple to the prince, ver. 1-3. A reproof to Israel for their former profanations of the sanctuary, and a caution, ver. 4-9. The degrading of one part of the Levites, and establishing of the family of Zadock in the priesthood, ver. 10-16. Laws and ordinances concerning the priesthood, ver. 17-31.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain This chapter gives an account of the glory of…
CHAPTER XLIV
This chapter gives an account of the glory of God having
Read full note →
returned to the temple, 14.
The Jews reproved for suffering idolatrous priests to pollute
it with their ministrations, 5-8.
Ordinances respecting the conduct of the priests, and the
maintenance due to them, 9-31.
NOTES ON CHAP. XLIV
Verse 1. The outward sanctuary] In opposition to the temple itself, which was the inner sanctuary.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Eze 44:1-2. Then he brought me back, &c. —…
Eze 44:1-2. Then he brought me back, &c. — From the altar to the gate belonging to the court of the priests, and leading to the outward court of the temple. All the courts were reckoned holy ground, and called sometimes by the name of the temple. And it was shut — After that the glory of the Lord had entered that way. Then saith the Lord, This gate shall be shut — Shall be generally kept shut; no man shall enter in by it — None of the common people: see chap. Eze 46:1. Because the Lord hath entered in by it — Namely, that glory which was the visible sign of God’s presence. This order was given, both to perpetuate the remembrance of the solemn entrance of the glory of the Lord into the house, and also to possess the minds of the people with a deep reverence for the Divine Majesty, and with very awful thoughts of his transcendent glory; which was also designed in God’s charge to Moses at the bush, Put off thy shoe from off thy foot.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain Outward sanctuary - The court of the priests, as…
Outward sanctuary - The court of the priests, as distinguished from the temple itself. This gate was reserved for the prince, to whom it was opened on certain days. Only a prince of the house of David might sit down in the priests’ court (compare Eze 46:1-2).
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain 1And he led me back the way of the…
CHAPTER 44
1And he led me back the way of the outer gate of the sanctuary that 2looks to the east; and it was shut. And Jehovah said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall go in through it; 3because Jehovah, the God of Israel, went in through it; thus it is shut. As to the prince, he [is] prince, he shall sit in it, to eat bread [food] before Jehovah; from the way of the [to the] porch of the gate shall he go in, and 4from its way shall he go out. And he brought me the way of the north gate before the house, and I looked, and behold, the glory of Jehovah filled 5the house of Jehovah; and I fell upon my face. And Jehovah said to me: Son of man, set thy heart, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of Jehovah, and all its laws [or: its whole law]; and thou settest [shalt set] thy heart to the approach of the house in [conjunction with] all the out-goings of the 6sanctuary. And thou sayest to the contumacy, to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Cease at last from all your abominations, O house 7of Israel, When ye brought sons of the outland, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary, to desecrate it, even My house; when ye offered My bread [My food] (through them), fat and blood, and they 8broke My covenant in addition to all your abominations. And [yea] ye have not kept the charge of My holy things, and [but] ye set [such, those] to keep My charge for you in My sanctuary. 9Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: A son of the outland, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall not come to My sanctuary; in respect of every son of the outland [shall it be said] that Isaiah 10 in the midst of the children of Israel. Nay, but the Levites who went far from Me when Israel went astray, who went astray from Me after their 11detestable idols, they bear their guilt; And they are servants in My sanctuary, sentinels at the gates of the house and servants of the house; they shall slay the burnt-offering and the slain-offering for the people, and they 12shall stand before them to serve them. Because they used to serve them before their detestable idols, and were to the house of Israel a stumbling-block of guilt, therefore have I lifted My hand over them,—sentence of the Lord Jehovah,—and they bear their guilt. 13And they shall not draw near to Me, to minister as priests to Me, and to draw near over all My holy things to the most holy place, and [but] they bear their reproach and their abominations 14which they did. And I have given them to be keepers of the charge 15of the house, for all its service and for all that is to be done in it. And [but] the priests the [these] Levites, the sons of Zadok, who kept the charge of My sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from Me, they shall come near to Me to minister unto Me, and stand before Me to offer unto Me fat 16and blood,—sentence of the Lord Jehovah. They shall come to My sanctuary, and they shall draw near to My table to minister unto Me, and to 17keep My charge. And it comes to pass, when they go to the gates of the inner court; they shall put on linen garments, and wool shall not come upon them when they minister in the gates of the inner court and at the house. 18Linen turbans shall be upon their heads, and linen breeches upon their loins; 19they shall not gird themselves in sweat. And on their going out to the outer court, to the outer court to the people, they shall put off their garments in which they minister [ministered], and lay them away [down] in the cells of holiness, and put on other garments; and they shall not sanctify the people in 20[with] their garments. And their head they shall not shave, nor suffer their 21locks to grow long; polling they shall poll their heads. And no priest shall 22drink wine when they go to the inner court. And a widow and a divorced woman shall they not take to themselves for wives; but maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, and the widow who was widow of a priest they may take. 23And they shall teach My people; what [the difference is] between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean, they shall make them 24know. And over [matters of] strife shall they stand to judge in My judgments, and judge them [so]; and My laws and Mine ordinances on all My festivals 25shall they keep; and My Sabbaths shall they hallow. And to a dead body of a man shall he not go to be defiled; but for father, and for mother, and for son, and for daughter, for brother, and for sister who had no husband, 26they may defile themselves. And after his cleansing they shall count to him 27seven days. And on the day of his coming to the sanctuary to the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin-offering,—sentence of 28the Lord Jehovah. And it is to them for an inheritance [namely], I am their inheritance; and a possession shall ye not give them in Israel, I am their 29possession. The meat-offering, and the sin-offering, and the guilt-offering, they shall eat it; and every devoted thing in Israel shall be theirs. 30And the first of all the firstlings of everything, and every oblation of all, out of all your oblations, shall be to the priests, and the first of your [ground] corn shall ye give to the priest, to bring down a blessing upon thy house. Whatever is carrion, or torn, whether of fowl or of beast, 31the priests shall not eat.
Read full note →
Eze_44:2. Sept.: ... ὁτι κυριος … εἰσελευσεται … κ. ἐσται κεκλεισμενη. Vulg.:—eritque clausa (3) principi. Princeps ipse—per viam portæ vestibuli ingredietur et per viam ejus—
Eze_44:3. Διοτι ὁ ἡγουμενος οὑτος … κατα τ. ὁδον αἰλαμ—
Eze_44:4. Κ. εἰσηγαγεν με … πληρης δοξης ὁ οἰκος—(Another reading: ואפל על־פני.)
Eze_44:5. ... ταξον εἰς τ. καρδιαν … κατα παντα … ἐν πασιν τοις ἁγιοις. Vulg.: … de universis ceremoniis in viis templi per omnes exitus—
Eze_44:7. ... κ παρεβαινετε τ. διαθηκην μου ἐν πασαις—(Another reading: את כל and תועבתיהם.)
Eze_44:8. ... κ. διεταξατε του φυλασσειν φυλακας—Vulg.: et non servastis præcepta … et posuistis custodes observationum mearum in—vobismet ipsis.
Eze_44:10. ἁλλ̓ ἠ οἱ—Vulg.: Sed et … qui longe recesserunt—
Eze_44:11. Vulg.: … æditui et janitores portarum—
Eze_44:12. ... και ἐγενετο τω οἰκω—
Eze_44:13. ... οὐδε του προσαγαγειν προς τα ἁγια υἱων Ἰσρ οὐδε προς τ. ἁγια τ. ἁγιων μου … τ. ἀτιμιαν αὐτων ἐν τη πλανησει ἡ ἐπλανηθησαν. Vulg.: … juxta sancta sanctorum (Another reading: אל כל.)
Eze_44:14. Κ. ταξουσιν αὐτους … ὁσα ἀν ποιησωσιν. (Another reading: לו.)
Eze_44:15. ... του προσφερειν μοι θυσιαν, στεαρ—
Eze_44:17. Sept.: ... ἀπο της πυλης … κ. ἐσω.
Eze_44:18. βια.
Eze_44:19. The words repeated are wanting in several manuscripts, and in the Sept., Syr., Vulg., Arab., and Chaldee.
Eze_44:20.—κ. τας κομας αὐτων οὐ μη ψιλωσουσιν, καλυπτοντες καλυψωσιν τας κεφαλας αὐτων. Vulg.:—neque comam nutrient, sed tondentes attondent capita sua.
Eze_44:23. ... κ. ἀνα μεσον καθαρου κ. ἀνα μεσον ἀκαθαρτου—
Eze_44:24. Κ. ἐπι κρισιν αἱματος . … τα δικαιωματα μου δικαιωσουσιν, κ. τα κριματα μου κρινουσιν, κ. τα νομιμα—Vulg.: … controversia, stabunt in judiciis meis et judicabunt;—(Another reading: למשפט.)
Eze_44:25. Κ. ἐπι ψυχην ἀνθρωπου οὐκ εἰσελευσονται—Vulg.: … ad mortuum hominem … quæalterum virum non habuerit,—
Eze_44:26. Another reading: יספר.
Eze_44:27. ... εἰσπορευωνται εἰς τ. αὐλην … προσοισουσιν ἱλασμον—Vulg.:—ut ministret mihi—
Eze_44:28. κ. ἐσται αὐτοις … Ἐγω … και—Vulg.: Non erit autem eis—
Eze_44:29. Κ. τας θυσιας—
Eze_44:30. Κ. ἀπαρχαι παντων κ. τα πρωτοτοκα παντων κ. τα ἀφαιρεματα παντα ὑμων ἐκ παντων τ. ἀπαρχων … κ. τα πρωτογεννηματα ὑμων—Vulg.: Et primitiva omnium primogenitorum et omnia libamenta ex omnibus quæ offeruntur … et primitiva ciborum vestrorum … ut reponat—
Eze_44:31. ... θνησιμαιον κ. θηριαλωτον—
EXEGETICAL REMARKS
Eze_44:1-3. The Prince in the East Gate
[As the preceding chapter had disclosed the purpose of God to re-occupy, and that for ever, this new temple, and had described the necessary means and rites of consecration in order to its being a source of blessing to His people, so the present chapter lays down regulations for preventing any new desecration of the house, such as might again compel God to withdraw His gracious presence. These regulations refer successively to the prince and the priesthood—the two classes through whom directly the former pollutions had been introduced into the house of God.—Fairbairn.—W. F.]
The prophet observed in the priests’ court (Eze_43:5) all that relates to the altar of burnt-offering. He is thence brought back, as we shall have to suppose, through the inner north or south gate the way to the outer east gate. It is not without significance that the east gate of the outer court (comp. Eze_43:12) is designated as “gate of the sanctuary, the outer one which,” etc. Looking into it from the court (not as Hitzig and Hengstenberg: from before the outer east gate, as Eze_43:1), Ezekiel perceived that it was shut (comp. Eze_40:11); and this, must the more astonish him, as this entrance to the sanctuary had been described to him in Ezekiel 40. as forming the rule for all the other gates of the temple. The fact, then, of its being closed demands an explanation, which also Jehovah (comp. on Eze_43:6-7) gives him in Eze_44:2. Since the whole vision points to the future, it is said first of all in reference thereto: This gate shall be shut (יִהְיֶה). Hence the closing shall continue for all futurity, as is again expressly confirmed by the statement: It shall not be opened, and strengthened by this other declaration: And no man (whoever he may be) shall go in through it,—in other words, by the exclusion of every one. When it is thereafter said: Because Jehovah, etc., the בִּי explains certainly the immediate present (וְהָיָה), the present closing of the gate, which, as we see in Eze_44:1, is the first thing treated of; but we shall have to draw upon it for the explanation for the future likewise, for this future has been announced as the continuance of the closing in the present. The way which the glory of Jehovah went (Eze_43:4) is thus a unique way, and will remain such, no man shall tread it henceforth; and this, when we look upon the fulfilment in Christ of all that had been written aforetime, reads like a Messianic prophecy, without its being necessary for us to suppose with the Church Fathers a direct reference to the virginity of Mary (fit porta Christi pervia, referta, plena gratia, transitque rex et permanet clausa ut fuit per sæcula). [The Rabbins have interpreted the closing of the gate to this effect: that the Shechinah shall no longer be able to come out, an idea which Lightfoot has transformed into the ever-during dwelling of the glory of God in the Christian Church; while Hengst. expresses it thus: that the glory of the impending revelation of the Lord “embodies” itself in the door’s remaining shut.]—When, after this quite universal explanation in respect to future and present of the shut east gate, Eze_44:3, by its very commencing with the absolute construction אֶת־הַנָּשִׂיא, directs attention to the prince, and, besides, gives as reason for what is to be said of him in reference to the east gate, ישֶׁב־בּוֹ, that is as much as to say: qua prince it belongs to him; then an exception from the rule just laid down, that is, an exceptional entering of the prince through this gate at certain times and for certain contingencies, is not to be supposed, especially as what is announced regarding him is not: יָבאֹ בוֹ, but simply: יֵשֶׁב־בּוֹ, that he shall sit in this gate, namely (comp. for the expression: to eat bread before God, Exo_18:12; Luk_13:26), to enjoy the sacrificial banquets. Of this place of the prince in the east gate, Hengst. exclaims: “How glorious must the entering Lord be, when the prince cannot be more highly honoured than by a place in the gate by which He entered!” Now, since according to Eze_44:1-2 the entrance through the east gate was closed to him, the way by which the prince arrived at his place of honour will necessarily have to be given, as is accordingly done; and this account is not to be interpreted, with Keil, of the outside stair over the threshold at the guardroom, and onward to the gate-porch at the inner end of the gate-structure. For such a way surely מִדֶּרֶךְ אוּלָם׳ would be a strange mode of expression! On the contrary, this mode of expression is quite conceivable when we consider the way of the prophet (Eze_44:1), who had been brought from the north or south to the east gate, and finds himself there on the side of the court west of the gate; and hence has the porch right before him, so that he will the more readily define from it the way of the prince into the gate (from its way he shall also go out), as the entering from the way of the porch of the gate forms self-evidently the contrast to an entering from the way of the gate without. Consequently, the prince has (as Hitzig rightly understands) to come through the outer north or south gate into the outer court, and to cross the same, in order to arrive at the place where he will sit, etc. Whether the gate-porch which thus lay on this side (toward the court) of the gate-barrier is meant to be given as the place for the banquets of the prince may be questioned; Hengstenberg recommends, as “specially” adapted for them, “the inner threshold immediately adjacent to the porch.” According to all this, the exception of the prince symbolizes merely, in its own way, the holiness of the sanctuary, the solemnity of drawing near to Jehovah and appearing before Him. It will no longer be as in the former temple, that any one (אִישׁ) will march straight to the sanctuary through the east gate; but the saints of God, His people sanctified for ever, will know how to honour the holiness of Him who sanctified them. ( “In the case of the tabernacle and its court there was only one entrance, from the east, through which all had to go,” Klief.) But it is significant that the civil head of the people (comp. on Eze_43:22), the prince, sits and eats in the east gate closed for every one, on the way which the glory of Jehovah went to fill the house (Eze_44:4), and there enjoys the fruit of that which has been provided. For the significance of the banquets has regard to the communion and friendly relation in which the participants stand to one another, and with the provider of the feast, who in the last resort is Jehovah—at least He participates therein in the sense of Rev_3:20; just as also the gladness and joy before the Lord, and even the joys of the kingdom of heaven, appear under the figure of a feast (Psa_23:5; Psa_36:9 [8]; Mat_8:11; Luk_14:15; Rev_19:9). We have in this the genuine gospel feature, which excels in glory the face of the law. So much the more, however, as regards the prince—who, as has been said, is rather a reflex of the people (comp. Eze_46:10), just as to them also the entrance to the temple has been opened by the setting in operation of the altar of burnt-offering (Eze_43:26)—must we avoid the interpretation which accentuates in him the David of Messianic times (Eze_34:23 sq., Eze_37:24). On this comp. also Eze_45:22; Eze_46:2; Eze_46:16. It would be better to insist with Hengst. on his “cheering” form, as opposed to the ceasing of the magisterial office in the exile, especially when his presence is so incidentally “presupposed.” But this prince ship, which makes orderly civil relations again obtain in Israel, had its post-exile appearance in Zerubbabel, for instance (Zechariah 4), and has at all events been perfected in the Messianic kingdom, even as to the side applicable here, which Isa_53:10 expresses thus: “The pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper through his hand;” while in Eze_44:11 he is said: “to see,” “to be refreshed;” and similarly Eze_44:12.
[ “In regard to the prince, it is impossible for us to think of any one but the royal head, as he is throughout spoken of as an individual, and in the next chapter is directed ‘to prepare for himself, and for all the people of the land,’ a sin-offering (Eze_45:22). So that the idea of Hävernick, that the word is used collectively for the rulers and presidents generally of the people, is quite untenable. And not less so is the opinion, that by the expression is simply to be understood the Messiah; for this is utterly irreconcilable with all the prescriptions given, and in particular with those requiring the presentation of sacrifices and sin-offerings for the prince. It is to be explained precisely as the whole delineation here, and in the preceding visions (Ezekiel 34-39), by viewing it as part of an ideal description of coming realities under the form and aspect of the old relations. And no more than we expect other parts of the vision to find their accomplishment under the gospel by a restoration of the carnal sacrifices and institutions of Judaism, should we look here for an actual prince to follow the regulations prescribed. Standing on the position he did, the prophet must speak of the future under the image of the past; and as it was by means of the earthly head of the Jewish state that many of the former corruptions had been introduced, he now shows how a repetition of such evils is to be guarded against in the future. Whether the kingly power should ever again be concentrated in one person, or should be shared by many, is of no moment as regards the substance of the truth here unfolded.” As for the connection between the prince and the east gate (Eze_44:1-3), “what could this import, but that the prince should feel he now occupied a place of peculiar nearness to God? As God’s vicegerent and deputy among the people, it became him to be the most distinguished representative in public life of God’s holiness, to tread the higher walks of spiritual communion and fellowship with Heaven, and stand pre-eminent in his zeal for the interests of truth and righteousness. Far now from usurping the authority that belonged to God, and abusing to selfish ends and purposes the power which was given by Him for higher ends, all authority and power in Israel should be exercised—if this divine ideal were reduced to practice—in a solemn feeling of subordination to God’s majesty, and with an unfeigned desire for His glory.”—Fairbairn’s Ezekiel, pp. 477, 478.—W. F.]
Eze_44:4-16 The Priests.
Eze_44:4. The outer north gate cannot be the one spoken of, for the prophet stands in the outer court before the porch of the east gate. He is brought אֶל־פְּנֵי הַבַּיִת, and so דֶּרֶךְ־שַׁעַר־הַצָּפוֹן, must be the way to the inner north gate, as this was also the way by which to get near to the temple-house.—Comp. for the rest on Eze_43:5; Eze_43:3. As there the filling of the house with the glory of Jehovah introduced the Thorah of the temple, especially the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering, which certainly forms also the transition to the temple - service, so here by a similar introduction, in which Eze_44:5 refers so far back as to Eze_40:4, the service before Jehovah is now introduced, and that with attentive regard to the personelle. Thus the two parts of the section, Ezekiel 40-46, are even formally-separated.—Jehovah, as in Eze_44:2.—The threefold demand upon the prophet, of which the first, which as the most inward strikes the key for the seeing and hearing, has its ground not exactly in the glory just now seen (Hengst.), but rather in what Jehovah will say to him, and in the abominations committed by Israel, to which it has reference.—What concerns the ordinances and laws of the house (comp. Eze_43:11-12) is certainly limited here by הַמִּקְדָּשׁ to the temple building proper, as is also indicated by the designation: house of Jehovah, repeated from Eze_44:4, so that the approach of the house with all the out-goings is to be understood in reference to the priests.
Eze_44:6. That the house of Israel is to be addressed (Eze_2:7) shows the more plainly how it had been represented by the priesthood of the past.—רַב־לָכֶם מִכָּל׳, literally: there is much to you from all your abominations, sufficient, enough for you, so that you may at last abstain (1Pe_4:3). Like priest, like people; but also, like people, like priest (Hos_4:9).
Eze_44:7, in this connection, in which the temple-house accessible to the priests alone is treated of, and priestly ministration is had regard to, can hardly refer to heathens or foreigners living amongst Israel (comp. for this Lev_17:10; Lev_17:12; Num_15:13 sq.; Exo_12:43-44; 1Ki_8:41 sq.), foreign merchants as sellers of sacrificial victims, etc., nor heathenized Israelites in general, but must be understood as referring to the introduction of priests, who, as the children of Israel were called “heathens” (גּוֹיִם) in Eze_2:3, were בְּנֵי־נֵכָר, instead of being sons of Jehovah’s house. In what sense the term employed is to be taken is shown by the next clause: uncircumcised in heart, which, if said of genuine born heathens, would be nonsense; whereas, said of Israelites, of the priests here, and conjoined with the following clause: and uncircumcised in flesh, it expresses exactly the same as Rom_2:25, when the περιτομη ἀκροβυστια γεγονεν,—when the direct opposite of the idea of the symbol realizes itself (comp. besides, Deu_30:6), the distinction also which the symbol denotes will disappear, the Jew has become heathen. Comp. also Eze_16:3; Zec_14:21 (Php_3:3). The expression: to be in My sanctuary, which more closely defines the בַּהֲבִיאֲכֶם as the bringing in to the priestly ministration, is still farther illustrated by the clause: to desecrate it, My house. When it is farther said: when ye offered לַחְמִי (in a manner, the daily bread of Jehovah, which is immediately explained to mean the sacrificial food as to its elements: fat and blood, for which comp. Num_28:2; Lev_3:11; Lev_21:6; Lev_21:8, etc.), this parallel phrase to: when ye brought to be in My sanctuary, etc., confirms the view that priests are meant who formed the pure contrast to the Israelitish priesthood according to its idea, and this the more plainly as וַיָּפֵרוּ (Eze_16:59; Eze_17:18-19) can scarcely be said of heathens as such, who were outside of the covenant; but when understood of such priests, it looks straight into the inmost relation, from which are derived the sanctuary, the service in it, and the sanctification of Israel. The interchange of ye and they is farther shown to be intentional by the next clause: in addition to all your abominations, inasmuch as not even the priests were correct, with whose holiness the people so frequently think they may venture to dispense with their own. Eze_44:8 accordingly goes on to reprimand such shameful priestly representation of the people in respect to the holy things (Eze_22:8) of Jehovah (comp. Eze_40:45-46). Of this Keil gives a superficial view, when he says that “the people, by unlawfully admitting ungodly heathen into the temple, had not only forgotten the reverence due to the holy things of God (!), but had also made for themselves these heathen, so to say (?), ministers of God in His sanctuary.” How can “permission to tread the temple” be “put on the same level,” even only “spiritually,” with “placing in the temple for superintending the worship”? What is meant flows, moreover, from the general statement, impossible to be understood except in its constant sense: And ye set (namely, such parties) … for you in My sanctuary. לָכֶם implies also the representation of the people by such keepers of the charge, which the sanctuary and the covenant of Jehovah with them bound Israel to keep. (Comp. 1Ki_12:31) HÄv.: “Not to serve God, but to serve your own sinful inclination.”
[Fairbairn: “The children of Israel are spoken of as doing all this, because the corrupt priesthood was inseparably connected with the sins of the people—the one continually acting and reacting on the other. And the corruption in the priesthood, it will be observed, is expressed as if persons had been put into the office who were not of the tribe of Levi, or even of the seed of Israel, but uncircumcised heathen. Not that literally persons of this description had been admitted into the priestly office; that did not take place, not even in the kingdom of Israel, where still the Israelites were employed, though not of the family of Aaron. But the prophet is viewing all in a spiritual light; he is reading forth the import of the outward transactions, as they appeared to the eye of God; and as in that respect the officiating priesthood had been no better than uncircumcised strangers, so he speaks of them as having actually been such.”—W. F.]
Eze_44:9. We have now, in condemnation of such profanation, Jehovah’s solemn declaration regarding the personelle of His service in future. In the first place, a simple negativing of what has been, that shall no longer be; hence כָּל־בֶּן־נֵכָר, to be understood in the same sense as in Eze_44:7; also the phrase: shall not come to, etc., corresponding to what has been previously said, is to be understood of priests, as: My sanctuary, proves beyond a doubt. But the summary winding up (לְכָל׳, Ewald, Gram. § 310a): that is in the midst of, etc., precludes, by the explanation it gives, every thought of genuine foreigners, or even of the גֵּרִים, strangers, Eze_47:22 sq. “Jewish heathen,” as Hengstenberg designates them, are most expressly excluded by this canon of church discipline, which begins at the house of God. To be a “son of Israel” is the first qualification which Jehovah demands for His priesthood, and this taken strictly explains likewise as antithesis thereto the son of the outland. Eze_44:10. כי אם׳ (a strong “but,” Ewald, Gram. p. 856), after the ample negativing Eze_44:9), introduces the position which makes everything perfectly clear that the discourse is to be concerning the tribe of Levi. This designation is given in the outset, because there will still take place a choix sur choix, a narrower election in respect of the Aaronites, the peculiarly priestly family, and a degradation of priests to be servants and assistants, like the Levites given as such to Aaron and his lineage (Numbers 3).—רָהַק (Eze_11:6; Eze_8:15), “to be away,” to depart from, Jer_2:5; Jer_2:8.—תָּעָה is: “to stagger” (Isa_28:7), in the wider signification: to go astray (Isa_53:6).—אֲשֶׁר׳ can explain “Israel’s going astray” (Eze_6:4), and then it is still people and priest taken together as formerly; and this is especially clear when אֲשֶׁר תָּעוּ׳, corresponding to the רָחֲקוּ אֲשֶׁר, makes it conformable to “Israel’s going astray.”—וְנָשְׂאוּ׳, Eze_14:10; Eze_16:52; Eze_16:58 (Hengst.: “they shall take their iniquity upon them”), the guilt to be borne will be made clear by the immediately following punishment. This idolatrous staggering had at different times seized hold of priest and people, sometimes more, sometimes less. Instead of allowing themselves to be dragged along by the people to active or even passive participation in the service of idols, they ought, from their office, to have restrained the people, Jer_2:8. Comp. moreover, Psa_16:4. [Hävernick thinks here of “even the old misdeeds of Levi, which will make themselves observable.”]
Eze_44:11. They shall not be excluded from all service in the sanctuary, but degraded from the functions of priests to those of simple Levites; as Rashi expresses it; “to do what strangers and servants and women can perform.” שָׁרַת is used also of priestly service; it is only פְּקֻּדָּה (the function for those discharging it) that with the words expressly added points to the gates of the house, although the word in itself is equivalent to מִשְׁמֶרֶת, מִששְׁמָר. It is still in respectful terms that these degraded priests are spoken of (it is not said: לַעֲבֹד אֶת־עֲבֹדַת, as is said of the Levites specifically, Num_16:9). They are porters and house-servants, yet in this at least they still represent the people, that they relieve them of the slaying of the victims; it is only with their “standing before them to serve them” that their being degraded to Levites becomes more marked (comp. Num_16:9), because now the punishment corresponding to the guilt is
Eze_44:12—to be mentioned; the guilt which they shall bear is characterized by the punishment for it in this way: what they were accustomed to do in the apostasy at the will of the people—and thus as a stumbling-block which caused to fall into guilt—is now officially imposed upon them.—Comp. on Eze_20:5-6; Eze_20:15; Eze_20:23; Eze_36:7.
Eze_44:13 hereupon expressly cuts them off from being priests as hitherto כָּהַן, the fuller stem of כּוּן, signifies: those who establish anything as it should be according to the divine ordinance, the people continuing always in their functions; according to others: those bending themselves, namely, doing homage to the Eternal; Num_16:10 of the priesthood, as distinguished from mere Levite service. ל is therefore antithesis to לְשָׁרְתָם, Eze_44:11. Farther details are given in what follows. By the appositional הַקָּדָשִׁים אֶל־קָדְשֵׁי, the expression: to draw near over all My holy things, is—as itself suggests, and the plural קָדְשֵׁי׳ (comp. Num_4:19) confirms—interpreted as referring to the eating of the most holy things (comp. on Eze_42:13), appertaining to the priests alone. For the rest, comp. Eze_16:52.
Eze_44:14 recapitulates and sums up the reproach and guilt to be borne, with respectful reference to their former priestly calling; hence שֹׁמְרֵי מִשְׁ׳, which mode of expression, however, receives its levitical limitation through לְכֹל עֲבֹדַתוֹ(comp. Num_16:9, Ezekiel 3).
Eze_44:15. Those likewise are called Levites who in contrast to the punishment of the former priests are all the more exalted as priests.—צָדוֹק, the son of Ahitub (1 Chron. 5:34 [1 chron6:8]), of the line of Eleazar (1Ch_24:1 sq.), was co-high priest with Abiathar of the line of Ithamar, in consequence of the twofold service of worship in David’s time, that at Jerusalem and that at Gibeon (1 Chronicles 16. [1Ch_16:17] 1Ch_16:39). After Abiathar had like Joab repeatedly attached himself to Adonijah, the pretender to the crown, and had brought about his own fall and banishment to Anathoth (1 Kings 2), Zadok was appointed by Solomon sole high priest, and with him the line of Eleazar again became the alone high-priestly one. We are not to go along with Hengstenberg when he, in order to interpret the sons of Zadok, goes back even to the relation of fatherhood in the Decalogue, and drags in the pope too as a holy father, simply to get a father-priest, after whom all priests (since 1 Kings 2) are to be designated as his sons, “even the unfaithful,” says Hengstenberg, “who were excluded in the foregoing passage” (!!). He hazards this contradiction to the connection in order to get the faithful priests first in Eze_48:11, and because he finds in Eze_43:19, instead of “sons of Zadok” (as in Eze_40:46), “that are of the seed of Zadok,” “the heads (!) of the high-priesthood, those who are of the high priest’s kindred (Act_4:6), officiating at the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering” (that is, it is incorrect to say that in the whole vision the high priest never meets us!). In Zadok we might indeed be reminded of Melchizedek, had not the very name Zadok ( “righteous”), and still more what is historically known of him, symbolized him as a type of the true priestly character. The faithful position which he had taken towards David he did not forsake towards Solomon, as Abiathar did (1Ki_1:7-8; 1Ki_1:25-26; 1Ki_2:22); he even anointed Solomon king over Israel. Consequently, in the theocratic (Messianic) signification of the kingdom of David and Solomon, Zadok kept himself precisely in the relation which is so significant for our vision (see Doct. Reflec.). Comp. also 1Sa_2:35.—[Fairbairn: “The promise of a priesthood of the house of Zadok entirely corresponded to the promise of a shepherd with the name of David. It simply indicated a race of faithful and devoted servants, in whom the outward and the inward, the name and the idea, should properly coincide,—a priesthood serving God in newness of spirit, not in the oldness of the letter, as the people whom they represented should also have become true Israelites, themselves a royal priesthood offering up spiritual sacrifices to the Lord. In truth, it is the raising up of a people who should be such a priesthood that is meant by the description, and the sons of Zadok came into notice only because in connection with them there was an historical ground for taking them as representatives of a right-hearted spiritual community.”—W. F.]—But as not all the children of Abraham are of his faith, so here the sons of Zadok are only those who kept, etc., who have kept and will keep themselves faithful to Me. Not until after this essential personal qualification for priest, is the formal and official service described: in general, the “drawing near,” etc. (Eze_40:46; Eze_43:19), in particular, the “standing before Me (in contrast to ‘before them,’ Eze_44:11) to offer unto Me (comp. Eze_44:7) fat,” etc., part of the service at the altar of burnt-offering.—Then in Eze_44:16 comes the treading of the dwelling in the holy place, especially the drawing near to the altar of incense (Eze_41:22), for which the name table is significantly retained. Finally, וְשָׁמְרוּ אֶת־מִשְׁמַרְתִי reverts to the starting-point in Eze_44:15, אֲשֶׁר שָׁמְרוּ׳.
Eze_44:17-31. Priestly Duties and Privileges
Eze_44:17 begins with the most external, the clothing; the duty in this respect will make the symbolized inward obligation the more apparent. The coming to the inner gates implies the intention of service at or in the sanctuary, and thereby involves the duty of putting on (פֵּשֶׁת, “flax”) linen garments, and this makes שֵׁשׁ, as already ordained by Moses, perfectly clear (comp. Exo_39:28; Exo_28:39 sq.; Lev_6:3 [10], Eze_16:4; Eze_16:23). The express prohibition of wool (צֶמֶר, what is “drawn together,” hanging together like vellus, ἐρος, εἰρος) gives additional emphasis to the linen, and makes the ministering in the gates of the inner court, that is, within them, and at the house, said of functions discharged within the house, the former in relation to the altar of burnt-offering, and the latter in relation to the altar of incense, still more distinctly prominent.
Eze_44:18, like Eze_44:17, refers to the priest’s garments; פְּאֵר is properly: “adornment,” diadem, which might suggest the special high-priestly מִצְנֶפֶת; the word, however, occurs rather in connection with מִגְבָּעֹת, Exo_39:28 ( “goodly bonnets”), and we have no warrant for supposing it is a special head-covering for priests in general. It is rather meant to be remarked that they are adorned (פְּאֵר is suggestive of floral ornaments), although with linen.—The covering for the loins (מִכְנְםֵי, plural or dual), reaching from high above the loins down to about the thigh (comp. Exo_28:42), forms the third of the four articles, as Bähr says, designed for the official dress of the priests (in accordance with “the symbolical place of Jehovah’s testimony and revelation”); while the injunction about “girding,” which, moreover, explains the sense and spirit of the whole linen dress, subjoins the אַבְנֵט, that is, girdle of the priests, as the fourth article. This was worn higher up toward the breast, as would then be confirmed by the added defining clause: not in sweat; which certainly will not bear the meaning: while they sweat, but according to Bähr is meant to imply: where they sweat. But בַּיָּןַע (יֶעַן), found only here, elsewhere זֵעָה, from זוּעַ: what is forced out by pressure or anguish) certainly means nothing but what has been said already: that no wool shall come upon them; for as the white linen makes the cleanness apparent, so sweat, so readily produced by woollen stuff, especially when forming a girdle and thus confining the body, is meant to be guarded against as uncleanness, and on the whole accordingly the holiness of the priests for the sanctification of the people to be signified. [Did the Septuagint mean too tight girding, or girding in violent haste?]
Eze_44:19. The repetition: to the outer court, is meant to strengthen the prohibition, which is particularly strong in our verse; to call attention to the distinction between the outer court and the inner, while both, however, are still only courts; and to the altar in the inner court, where the sanctification of the people willed by Jehovah has to take place. After this (comp. Eze_42:14) comes the laying aside of the priest’s official dress, and the laying of it down at the place suitable to the “holiness of Jehovah” (Eze_42:13), and the putting on of other garments, for the purpose of guarding against the thought of another sanctification than the God-ordained one by the way of sacrifice. Not in their garments, that is, it is not they, although they are priests, who are to sanctify the people (comp. Joh_17:19!). Consequently, the going out to the people is to be understood in reference to sanctification, and shows moreover that this outer court was for the people. Expositors generally refer here to Lev_6:11; Lev_6:20 (יקְדָּשׁ); Exo_29:37; Exo_30:29; comp. besides, Exo_28:43; Lev_6:4 [11], Eze_16:23. [That contact with the people defiles the priests when in their official dress, as Keil referring to Leviticus 21 supposes, is not said here.]
Eze_44:20 forbids, as already Lev_19:27; Lev_21:5, the shaving of the head smooth, as heathenish; censuring the Creator (!?), says Hengst.; according to Bähr, as mourning, a sign of fellowship with the dead, inasmuch as the hair is a proof of life and vigour of body. The Egyptian priests kept the head always close shaved. On the contrary, the priests of Israel are to bear their head high, as the mediators of an eternal life in holiness through grace.—פֶּרַע implies: “breaking forth,” “being on the top;” hence, the hair on the head. The covering for the head is treated of next to the garments for the body. Keil cites for שָׁלַח ( “to let loose”), as “to let grow freely,” Lev_10:6 and Num_6:5. But the first passage must not be so understood, and we need not suppose here, in accordance with the second, a prohibition of Nazaritism, but, as the markedly positive clause shows, the hair is simply to be kept short, to be polled. Comp. 1Co_11:14 sq. (Rev_9:8). (כָּסֹם is found only here.). On this Hengstenberg observes: “That which is the sign of a wild, disorderly man, who lets nature take its free course, might indeed be permitted to the Nazarite, in consequence of a vow undertaken for a time, in order thereby to typify his separation from the world; but not to the priest, whose duty it was to hold converse with the world, and adapt himself to society, to enter which with shorn hair was the custom even in Joseph’s time. The priest should be no separated person.” If flowing locks and the growth of hair generally is the sign of vigorous natural life, as the forbidden shaving also on its part symbolizes, then by forbidding the priest as representative of a holy people to let his locks grow long, the false positive, in addition to the false negative, is forbidden; the maxim that: every one is his own law (as every one his own devil), unbounded naturalism is forbidden. Neither annihilation nor yet glorification of nature, neither askesis unto death nor honouring of the flesh, but simply law, divine order, is the watchword for the servant of Jehovah. The sanctification treated of is neither heathenishly self-chosen, one’s own fabrication, self-sanctification, nor is it a natural holiness of one’s own, which needs not a sanctification in Jehovah’s way.
Eze_44:21. Although abstinence from wine is demanded, yet our passage has nothing to do with the Nazarite proper. His was a vow regulated by law; but always a free-will dedication pro tempore, where the man thus devoted himself to God with all his naturalism, just as he had grown up. That the priests are not to drink wine (Lev_10:9) is grounded on no temporary, formal separation from the world, is no drastic consecration, as in the case of the Nazarite, but is simply an emblem of what is seemly, of sobriety of soul, of the true spirit of a servant of God, who goes into the inner court,—the reason assigned for the prohibition.
Eze_44:22. From their manner of life in respect to drinking, and no doubt generally (Rom_13:14), the obligation of the priests turns to their married life. The injunction not to marry a widow (Lev_21:14; Lev_21:13) is extended here from the high priest to the whole body of priests, who in this respect then appear high-priestly, just as in Eze_43:12 everything upon the mountain round about was most holy. The ordinary priest also is not allowed to marry (Lev_21:7) אִשָּׁה גְּרוּשָׁה, a woman put away by her husband, of course with reason, because of guilt; one of this kind is classified as a factitious widow with those who are really widows. The permission to take a priest’s widow forms a pendant to the judgment pronounced on the daughter of a priest in Lev_21:9. For the rest, the verse relates to the priests’ being holy with reference to the holiness of Jehovah. [The Jewish Talmudic view limits the first part to the high priest, understanding מכּהֵן of the other priests: “Yet the widow who is (really) a widow, those who occupy the position of ordinary priests may take.”]
Eze_44:23 defines the official duties of the priests. יָרָה (Hiph.), “to spread out,” the hand, for example, to point to something, to teach, here the people, of whom Jehovah says: My people (Deu_17:10 sq., Eze_33:10; Lev_10:10); and above all to teach them the difference between, etc., for which comp. Eze_22:26. The priestly service, then, is to comprehend worship and doctrine, representation of the people before God, and representation of God before the people. (Comp. Mal_2:7) But above all, everything with an eye to sanctification.
Eze_44:24 gives in addition to this the court of judicature which they form in disputed cases (Deu_17:8 sq., Deu_19:17): עַל־רִיב, they are to stand over the confused and complicated points raised by the parties, and because they have the power to stand over them as judges, since they have to judge in My judgments, they will always find in the law of Jehovah what is right in every case. Qeri: לְמִשְׁפָּט, and Qeri: יִשׁפְּטֻהוּ, are both equally unnecessary. What this administration of justice is in civil life—it too being a sanctification of the people through the judgment of God—has its counterpart in church life, in the observance of all the laws and ordinances, on all the festivals of Jehovah, the key-note for which is given with the hallowing of the Sabbaths (comp. for the reverse, Eze_22:26), while at the same time we are told what is always the main matter in priestly ministration.
Eze_44:25 therefore shows how the priests have to keep themselves from defilement.—לֹא יָבוֹא individualizes, to speak exactly.—The exception (כִּי אִם) affects the same blood-relations as Leviticus 21. The exception of the high priest (Lev_21:10 sq.) is not noticed, just as there is no notice of the high priest in the whole book. Eze_44:26 is, according to Keil, the command to purify from uncleanness by the dead sharpened, inasmuch as he believes the seven days are appointed over and above the space of seven days prescribed by the law (Num_19:11 sq.), and finds this indicated in טָהֳרָתוֹ, in which he thinks he sees a compensation for the previously permitted coming of the priests to the dead, which in the law had been forbidden to the high priest even in the case of father or mother. Rather perhaps the number seven simply points the more strongly to holiness and sanctification. Hengstenberg, on the other hand, insists on the distinction between: having been cleansed, and: “cleansing,” which, he says, began with the beginning of the seven days (Numbers 19), seven days being the longest period which any uncleanness lasts. At all events it cannot be denied that Eze_44:27 still demands the offering of a sin-offering when the priest enters again on his ministry.
After the duties come now the privileges of the priests, what is to accrue to them for their service.—In Eze_44:28 we have, first of all, the fundamental condition known from the law (comp. Num_18:20; Deu_10:9; Deu_18:1), expressed first positively, then negatively, and finally once more positively; which the Israelite priestly consciousness received and retained in living and in dying. For, since the priests of Israel are no foreigners, no dominant race, but of Israel, like all their brethren, it would be natural, when Canaan was promised by God as נַחֲלָה to the people to whom they belonged, that to them also there should be a definite tribal territory for inheritance and possession (אֲחֻזָּה, something which one grasps and retains). But they represent Israel not as to the flesh but as to the spirit, as to the idea which from the outset makes of this people God’s peculiar possession, and thereby God their peculiar possession: “My” people, and I am Jehovah, “thy God.” Now, as the Lord already (Gen_15:1) says to Abraham, the father of all believers: I am thy very great reward, so this is to the priests for an inheritance, that I am their inheritance (נַחֲלָה), as Jehovah says. They are thereby in such a position that nothing more is to be given to them (לֹא־תִתְּנוּ לָהֶם), at least by their fellow-countrymen, to whom on the contrary they give an earnest of the ideality of their nationality, of the eternal inheritance, of the possession of Canaan in truth, in that they as matter of fact teach Israel its better self, its true aspiration, its eternal future. [Eze_44:28 does not, as Keil supposes, treat of cities to dwell in, with the houses and pasture-grounds belonging thereto, which in the Mosaic economy Jehovah assigns to the Levites and priests from His own peculiar possession in land; comp. Ezekiel 45]
Eze_44:29. On the contrary, they have their livelihood from the offerings, and in so far live from Jehovah’s hand. On the meat, sin, and guilt-offerings here mentioned, comp. in the law Lev_2:1-10; 1Co_9:13.—חֵרֶם ( “separating”) is what is devoted to Jehovah without possibility of redemption; for this comp. Lev_27:21; Lev_27:28.
Eze_44:30. בִּכּוּרִים are the first-fruits of tree-fruit and of corn (from בָּכַר, “to break forth”). Comp. Exo_23:19; Exo_34:26; Num_18:13; Deu_18:4.—תְּרוּמָה is said of parts of the offerings with reference to the ceremonial of heaving and waving, which likewise signified consecration to Jehovah. The Rabbins explain the word of the gift “separated” for the Lord; for thus it took place with all the first-fruits, sheaves as well as loaves. At all events, the heave-offering is in general whatever is according to precept or of free will lifted up for Jehovah as a consecrated gift to the sanctuary, indirectly to its ministers (Exo_25:2 sq., Eze_30:13 sq.; Num_15:19 sq., Eze_18:27 sq.). Comp. Eze_20:40.—עֲרִיסָה, used only in the plural, is supposed to be “groats,” or “peeled grain” (Gesenius), with which רֵאשִׁית does not well harmonize; hence Meier supposes grain-corn. Comp. Num_15:20 sq.—Everything mentioned in Eze_44:29 tends to sanctification; the heaving and waving in particular involved the thought, that in consequence of such gifts to the priest the blessing of God is brought down on the individual house. Hengstenberg translates: “and that thou mayest make blessing rest in thy house,” and cites Mat_15:4-5. Comp. Mal_3:10.
Eze_44:31 brings to a close what refers to the sustenance of the priests, mentioning the things to be excluded therefrom. נְבֵלָה, a dead body, what lies stretched out of men and beasts, cadaver. טְרֵפָה, “something torn off,” torn by wild beasts. Comp. Eze_4:14; Exo_22:30 [31]; Lev_22:8. Lev_17:15 marks this as defiling for any man, how much more so for the priests of Jehovah; so that by this the idea of holiness is exemplified. “Only what Jehovah gives to them and His sanctuary in offerings and dues, which, however, must never be unclean, shall accrue to them; and this at the same time forms the best transition to the awards which follow” (Ewald).
HOMILETIC HINTS
On Ch. 44
Eze_44:1 sq. “Blessed are they who walk under God’s guidance, whom He brings back as here to the principal gate toward the east” (Starck).—“God’s connection with mankind remains a secret” (Diedrich).—“The shut gate is the book sealed with seven seals, which only the victorious Lion of the tribe of Judah opens, and no one shuts (Rev_5:5). When we draw near to Him who is the Door of the sheepfold, He, because He is the only-begotten of the Father, will open unto us and show us the Father” (Œcol.).—“Christ needs no successor to figure as His vicar in the Church” (Berl. Bib.).—“But certainly in what follows a prerogative is indicated which pious princes, magistrates, and lords may have” (Cocc.).—“Our heart, too, should be shut to the world and the devil, when once the Holy God has entered into it, and His glory has swallowed up sin and misery in us” (Starke).—“Alas, if the door of heaven should be shut!” (Starck.)
Eze_44:3. The position of the prince in the sanctuary of the Lord.—Even the highest civil power has nothing to complete here, but only enjoys the fruits of the completed, perfect sacrifice of Christ.—Princedom and power in the light of the glory of Christ.—The Christian ruler and the rule of Christ.—Privileges and the corresponding responsibility.—“The nearer we are to the sanctuary, the more holy and godly ought we to be” (Starck).—The Christian ruler ought to be the Christian pattern to his people.—He is not to preach, just as it is not his office to offer sacrifice; but he is to nourish and protect the Church and avow its faith.—“Christ is the gate, the only gate; through Him the glory of God has entered into the Church. It also belongs to Him alone to speak the word of God. Hence even the prince is not allowed to enter the Church for the purpose of making his own discourses be heard there. For in the Church is the throne of Christ alone, and of no one else. What is said of the prince is rather this, that he ought to have a good conscience and joy before the Lord because of his princely office, which does not merely consist in this, that we live in peace and quiet under his sceptre, but also that the people may hear the word of God, and without fear offer to Him the sacrifices of their worship” (Cocc.). (Interpreting the prince as the Messiah: “No one knoweth the Father but the Son, who is from God, because He says: My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me” (Joh_4:34), (Œcol.)
Eze_44:4. “If the prophet here again falls to the ground before the glory of the Lord, have we not humbly to acknowledge and confess our frailty and weakness in presence of the divine mysteries? No plummet of the understanding sounds the abyss of the mysteries of God. Let us be content with what revelation presents to us” (after Jerome).—“God reveals His glory to His servants, especially when He calls on them to make known His will to the people, Act_18:9; Act_23:11” (Tüb. Bib.).—“Consider, O Christian, whether thou art what thou art called; whether thou hast God or some one else dwelling in thy heart; whether thou art full of glory or of worldliness, sensuality, and carnality!” (Starke.
Eze_44:5 sq. Divine things are not to be drowsily listened to, or drowsily engaged in.—In everything there must be heart—in seeing, in hearing, in doing.—Pectus theologum facit, not pathos.—The goings in and out of the sanctuary, a solemn consideration for every one, but especially for those who keep the charge of the sanctuary, whatever their rank in the service.—“The sin which still adheres to believers makes them often inattentive in the most necessary things; hence they need many a stirring up and putting in remembrance, 2Pe_1:13” (Starke).
Eze_44:6. Sinners make light of their doings; but God suddenly says: Enough.—“He who seeks to be saved out of this lost world must once for all have enough of it” (Starck).—The feeling of final surfeit of the world must, however, include aversion; for repentance is conversion, not so weariness of the world, disgust with the world, or such like.—There is a difference between the Israel after the flesh and the Israel after the Spirit.
Eze_44:7. “The false Israel gives the sacraments to the heathen, and elects heretics to office” (Diedrich).—I know thy works, saith the Lord, but of thy faithfulness I know nothing. Quite enough to remove the candlestick, although baptizing, marrying, and dispensing the Lord’s Supper still go on.—The so-called liberal clergy.—The voice of the people, the choice of the people, is not God’s voice, God’s choice, but frequently God’s judgment to the full.—Strange doctrine indicates an uncircumcised heart; and where that is, in spite of ordination and consistorial confirmation, and whatever else pertains to circumcision, there is nothing but the foreskin of a hireling, a thief, and a murderer of the sheep.—“Self-chosen divine service is an abomination to the Lord” (Starke).—The responsibility in the election of a pastor.—The outward discharge of the ministerial office, however exact, does not make a minister such as he should be according to God’s word,—A person baptized in due form may yet be no Christian alter the Spirit.
Eze_44:8. The false teachers, who please the spirit of the age and have the applause of the world.—What general can employ a soldier who is everything else, but no soldier? And the general superintendents [bishops, presbyteries] ordain year by year men who have got through their examinations and are of canonical age, but who are fitter for anything else than for being pastors.
Eze_44:9. “It is accordingly a token of the greatest decline of the Church when the wicked and manifest hypocrites are not only not expelled, but go freely in and out, and even have the ruling power” (Berl. Bib.).—The Church of the future of Jesus Christ, a pure church.
Eze_44:10 sq. The judgment on the priests of the sanctuary, already begun inwardly, is their evil conscience, that cripples all energy in presence of the world, and degrades them to the position of paid domestics; and outwardly too, for even men of the world have no respect for them, although they do not revile them as fanatics.—The false righteousness, which is not God’s righteousness, is also a detestable idol, behind which so many preachers commit adultery.—“Where there are ungodly teachers there is no want of ungodly hearers, Jer_5:31” (Starke).—The lower service in the sanctuary a question of conscience reaching into many a pastor’s life.—Degraded priests a mirror for pastors.
Eze_44:11. But even in the performance of subordinate service, where one originally stood higher, the grace of God may be with us, provided we let God’s humbling of us issue in conversion of heart, and look upon the punishment as a righteous recompense. It is not at all necessary that we should, as the world calls it, make a successful career in the clerical profession.—It is not natural gifts, but heartfelt piety, which decides as to the testimonials which the Lord grants, and as to capacity for office in His eyes.
Eze_44:12. Least of all should a preacher be a stumbling-block and cause of destruction to others. Yet the grace of God will still raise up from their fall even those who caused others to fall. Grace and always grace. Let us not despise the offer, let us not neglect the day of grace.—But there is no grace without self-judgment and self-condemnation.—The sins of the preacher in their consequences as regards the life of the community.—“A minister of the Church ought to be a pattern to the flock in doctrine and life, 1Ti_4:12; 2Ti_1:13; Tit_2:7” (Starck).The servant who knows his lord’s will and does it not shall receive a double amount of stripes.
Eze_44:13-14. The ignominy of failure in ministerial life: personal access to God is hindered, and the office becomes a torment.—“Wherein can they who have cause to be ashamed before others of their former doings, and have given much offence to others, complain of God that the first have become last, when God still finally receives and takes hold of them, although they do not attain to such a high position as otherwise they might have attained to, and which others have attained to? Should they not rather extol God’s exceeding great and undeserved mercy to them?” (Berl. Bib:)
Eze_44:15-16. The sons of Zadok are those who have neither received the mark of the beast in their hand nor in their forehead (Revelation 13).—“Faithful servants of God are highly esteemed in His sight, Psa_105:15” (Cr.).
Eze_44:16 sq. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God (Matthew 5).—“Sheep they ought to be, but neither to keep the sheep for the sake of the fleece, nor to enter in in sheep’s clothing” (Berl. Bib.).—“Let him who desires to be found at last among them that are clothed in white robes, be diligent to have a conscience void of offence, Act_24:15 sq.” (Starke).—The precepts according to the law should remind us that preachers particularly run within lists, as Paul writes of the Christians. What is fitting for any one else may yet be far from seemly in a preacher.—But it is just those who take things easy that speak most of their severe toil and the heavy labour they have to undergo.
Eze_44:19 sq. “Let them manifest their intimate fellowship with God and the glorious privileges over which their soul rejoices in a becoming walk and conversation. They are not to conform to the world, but to shine as lights among men (Php_2:15); while at the same time they are not to make a show of their inward life, lest the people from hypocrisy should imitate that to which their mind is a stranger” (Heim-Hoff.).—“They certainly should go among the people, but not seek to exalt themselves over the people because of their prerogatives, but to hold converse with them as brethren with brethren” (Cocc.). (Comp. on Eze_42:14.)—He who ministers at the sanctuary must never seem profane, nor a fop in his attire, nor comic in his speech, nor a man of the world in his transactions. He may seem ridiculous to the world, only never conformed to the world.—But the pretended sanctification through holy priests is also of the devil, for of God Christ is made to us sanctification, etc., and there is no other mediator than He the only Mediator between God and men.
Eze_44:20 sq. Seemly, but not remarkable either in defect or excess.—Men of extremes are unfit for the holy ministry.—“The spirit of believers is a spirit of power, and of love, and of a sound mind, 2Ti_1:7” (Berl. Bib.).
Eze_44:22. Ministers’ widows an exception among widows.—But this neither bids ministers marry, nor forbids their remaining unmarried, only the marriage ought to be a priestly one.—The spiritual side of the married state.
Eze_44:23. As their life, so above all their teaching ought to preserve the people from defilement, and train them to purity.
Eze_44:24. God’s word is God’s judgment, the righteous Judge, right law and upright judgment.—The servant of God as umpire in disputes. He must not be a party man, but stands over the parties.—The Sabbath in the pastor’s house also a subject for reflection.
Eze_44:25 sq. They who are the messengers, heralds, and representatives of an eternal life shall neither have their serenity disturbed by the death of believers, which is no death, nor their pure walk defiled by the life of the spiritually dead, which is no life.—“Have no fellowship with those who love dead works but hate the life of God” (Berl. Bib.).—We too are allowed to wipe our eyes, as God wipes away every tear from the eyes of His saints.—At Jehovah’s altar is peace and joy in the Holy Ghost (Psa_132:9; Psa_132:16).
Eze_44:28. “Why dost thou, O teacher, strive for a larger stipend and greater income? Knowest thou not that the Lord Himself will be thine inheritance and thy exceeding great reward, or wishest thou not that He should be so?” (Tüb. Bib.)—“All who have first the kingdom of God for their possession, are also truly priests. God feeds them wholly on what is hallowed, and he who will have a blessing in his house must evince love to them” (Diedrich).—What greater inheritance can there be than God, the Lord of all; and what greater possession than He who made, who sustains, and rules heaven and earth?—“So Christians ought not to endeavour after filthy lucre; they are not to have their portion in this world, but to have their home in heaven” (Œcol.).
Eze_44:31. “In God’s service there is no filthy lucre. The Lord purifies everything for them who eat with Him” (Diedrich).
DOCTRINAL REFLECTIONS ON CH. 40–46
1. Hävernick 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 Ezekiel’s 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, Ezekiel’s contemporaries, as we may well conceive, will chiefly come into consideration. Hence, above all, Ezekiel’s 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 Isaiah’s prophecy for the culmination of Ezekiel’s, in accordance with the office of this prophet to be the prophet of Jehovah’s holiness to obdurate Israel, —just as for the commencement Isaiah 6 is covered by Ezekiel 1—not 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 Ezekiel’s 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 Ezekiel’s subjectivity: (1) Already Villalpandus saw everywhere here only reminiscences of Solomon’s temple and of Solomon’s era, and consequently a similar line of thought to that in Ezr_3:12. Similarly Grotius, only that he reconciled the differences between Ezekiel’s 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 Ezekiel’s 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 Ewald’s 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 prophet’s 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: “Ezekiel’s 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) Böttcher 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.” Hengstenberg’s 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 world’s salvation, and Ezekiel was chosen to behold the temple of the future, divine wisdom and its purpose for the world, that is, the objective κατ̓ ἐξοχην 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 (נָגַד) 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 Solomon’s 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, Hävernick 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 δικαιωσις, 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 σημειον: Destroy (λυσατε) this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (ἐγερω), 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 σκιαν ἐχων των μελλοντων: the future σωμα is given in the σωμα του Χριστου (σωμα δε κατηρτισω μου, 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 (διακονια της δικαιοσυνης, του τνευματος); 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 τελος του νομου. 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. Hävernick 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 John’s 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 Jehovah’s 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 Lord’s 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., Clark’s 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 manifestations—household and state, labour and art, literature and culture—was 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 also—without 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 Ezekiel’s 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. Hofmann’s 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. Fairbairn’s classification of the views which have been held of Ezekiel’s 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 Solomon’s.” 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 Ezekiel’s 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 Christ’s 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, 1–3 and 8–11, 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 prophet’s communication, is confirmed by the substance of it—as 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 prophet’s 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 Robinson’s 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 prophet’s 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 prophet’s 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 Master’s 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 Church’s 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 Egypt’s 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 Israel’s past condition,—its temple, with every necessary accompaniment of sacredness and attraction—the symbol of the divine presence within—the ministrations and ordinances proceeding in due order without—the prince and the priesthood—everything, 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 fulness—not 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 Church’s 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 Jerusalem’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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 life—when 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 Ezekiel’s 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 Ezekiel’s visionary temple which, on the express warrant of Scripture, we apply to Solomon’s 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 God’s procedure in regard to it. By the divine glory being seen to leave the temple was symbolized the withdrawing of God’s 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 31:38–40: ‘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 God’s 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 Ezekiel’s plan, in John’s 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 God’s glory returned to it, bespoke God’s 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 Jehovah’s word, and with divine insight into His future purposes, he sees that that never can perish which carries in its bosom the element of God’s 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 Hävernick:—‘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 them’3 (Eze_47:13-23).”—Fairbairn’s Ezekiel, pp. 436–450.—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 χαι νυν ἐστιν (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 (ἡ σωτηρια) 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 Jehovah’s family, His house, εἰς τα ἰδια ἠλθε, Joh_1:11; Jehovah’s covenant with Israel is a marriage-covenant, Ezekiel 16.) The visibility of Jehovah’s 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 Ezekiel’s 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 Jehovah’s revelation in Israel, we must have got before us in the sanctuary the perspective to the end of God’s way with Israel and mankind in general, the vision of Israel fulfilling its destiny of being God’s 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 Jehovah’s 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. Hävernick 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.” Bähr, speaking of Solomon’s 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 Ezekiel’s description of the courts of the temple, which is, on the contrary, so exact and detailed, and would at least be plainer than what Bähr 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 Jehovah’s host, as the people under His most special guidance, still in some measure stamp this relation on the court of the tabernacle. In Solomon’s 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 people’s part in the sanctuary. But the Israel of the future, Ezekiel in fine would say, will be exactly and distinctly Jehovah’s possession. Hävernick (and Bähr 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 Ezekiel’s 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. Hävernick, against Böttcher, 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 Solomon’s temple forms the foil for the still future revelation of glory and the form it assumes. Ezekiel’s 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 Hävernick 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 Solomon’s 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 Hengstenberg’s 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 Solomon’s 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 Hävernick 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 Lord’s 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 μορφη θεου, in the simplicity and plainness of the whole and the parts, of an ἐν ὁμοιωματι ἀμθρωπων γωνομενος, a χενωσις, and ταπεινωσις 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 κατα πνευμα, and as κρισις, κριμα.
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 Hävernick makes them. With a touch of human nature, Hengstenberg connects the side chambers with Ezekiel’s 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 Hävernick, Ezekiel’s 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 Ezekiel’s vision considered æsthetically, Bähr’s 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, Solomon’s temple and the original tabernacle, will first find full expression in Ezekiel’s 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, æsthetically 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 Ezekiel’s vision and the fancy edifice, for example, the description of which is to be found in the younger Titurel (strophe 311–415, 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 æsthetics; but already in Solomon’s 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. “Solomon’s temple,” says Bähr, “cannot stand as a great work of art before the forum of the æsthetic.” Human art in general goes along with nature, hence its mainly heathenish, its cosmic (κοσμος, “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 Phœnician artists executed the building of Solomon’s temple (comp. for this the exhaustive critique of Bähr in the work quoted above, p. 250 sq.)—although (Krause, die drei ältesten Kunsturkunden der Freimaurer-brüderschaft, 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 Phœnician character, and the employment of table work coated with silver showed signs of Hither Asia in general, yet the Phœnician 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) “God’s house” is simply an enclosure of the congregation (οἰκο; ἐκκλησιας, των ἐκκλησιων οἰκος, domus ecclesiœ), 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 Solomon’s; and J. D. Michaelis held that his house in Göttingen was larger; whereas Hengstenberg ascribes to Solomon’s 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 Ezekiel’s 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 ἀνω τον νουν (Php_3:20; Col_3:1 sq.).
11. The designation of the temple in Ezekiel 43. as the place of Jehovah’s throne, etc., might make us suppose the existence of the ark of the covenant, unless its significance as (to borrow Bähr’s 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. Solomon’s 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 Solomon’s 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 Rashi’s 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 Israel’s 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 Jehovah’s 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 Ezekiel’s Christology (Introd. § 9) has the Messianic people principally in view.
12. Ezekiel’s 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, Hävernick, with whom many agree, speaks of Ezekiel’s “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. Hävernick 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: “Ezekiel’s 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 God’s 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 Ezekiel’s 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 Ezekiel’s representation of Jehovah’s service of the future, when Jehovah shall dwell for ever in His people. Comp. Eze_20:40. Ezekiel’s 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 Ezekiel’s 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” (Häv.). 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: ἐγω μεθʼ ὑμων πασας τας ἡμερας ἑως της συντελειας του αἰωνος (Mat_28:20), also its Apocalyptic significance, as John says before the close of his Revelation (Ezekiel 22): ναι ἐρχου, Κυριε ʼΙησου.
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 Jehovah’s 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” (Häv.). Accordingly, if they who are sanctified are perfected εἰς το διηνεκες by the προσφορα μια (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 Ezekiel’s 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 Solomon’s 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 Bähr 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 Ezekiel’s 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 prince’s 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 Hävernick gives to the נָשִׂיא, yet they do not sufficiently attend to what may be said in defence of Hävernick’s 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 נָשִׂיא, as indeed he is also called רֹעֶה. 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 הַנָּשִׂיא here, who comes into consideration quâ נָשִׂיא. Now if this must be granted, then it is only with justice that Hävernick observes that the designation נָשִׂיא 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 נָשִׂיא 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 Israel’s 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, Samuel’s 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 Israel’s hard-heartedness: ἀπ’ ἀρχης θε οὐ γεγονεν οὑτω. 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” (מֶלֶךְ) 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 מֶלֶךְ, from מָלַךְ, 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 מוֹשֵׁל, the tyrant, עָרִיץ, 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 Israel’s 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 David—so that Solomon’s 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 it—the 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 τυπος του μελλοντος 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 κεφαλη 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 Samuel’s 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 Jehovah’s 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 God’s 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 (כָּמֹנִי or כָּמוֹךָ, Deuteronomy 18), in whom, according to Peter, was the πνευμα Χριστου. 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 הַנָּשִׂיא,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 Hävernick 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 Ezekiel’s 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 Hengstenberg’s 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. Ezekiel’s 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 Jehovah’s 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. Zadok’s 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. Hävernick 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 Ezekiel’s 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 Solomon’s temple most richly displays it, symbolizes essentially the same as that which in the priesthood of the temple of Ezekiel’s 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 κυριακον, where, in the case of Israel, was the congregation of the people, the עֵדָה, the קָהֵל. 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 (בֵּין קֹדֶֹש לְחֹל) and sanctification (וּנֵין־טָמֵא לְטָהוֹר, 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), Israel’s 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. Hävernick 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. Bähr 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” (Bähr). 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 Bähr’s 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 Levi’s 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 (καταλυσαι), 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 prince’s 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” (Häv.). “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 Jehovah’s 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. Chiliasm—and 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 πας ʼΙσραηλ 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) ἐν δικαιοσυνη και ὁσιοτητι της ἀληθειας. What could be fulfilled according to the letter—which, however, is the expression borne by the spirit of fulfilment—has 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 ἐφθασε ἐπʼ αὐτους ἡ ὀργη εἰς τελος (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 εὐπεριστατος ἁμαρτια has to be laid aside, and (Jam_3:2) πολλαʼ πταιομεν ἁπαντες (comp. Eze_45:20). But to Ezekiel no other representation of the future could be given than in types of the sacred past of Israel—as 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 Ezekiel’s representation to paradise, to the first creation (comp. on Eze_36:35; Eze_16:53), to which there is a return in Christ through God’s 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]Hävernick, 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 (הַנָּשִׂיא) sits and eats in the east gate of the Highest, of Jehovah.
[5]“The final fulfilment comes with Christ and His kingdom; accordingly, the Lord’s Anointed, before whom the approved priest shall alway walk, is not Solomon, but David and David’s Son, whose kingdom shall endure for ever” (Keil).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain 1-3. The prophet is now conducted “to the outer…
THE SERVANTS OF THE SANCTUARY.
1-3. The prophet is now conducted “to the outer gate of the sanctuary” (R.V.), facing the east, which he had formerly seen open (Eze_43:1), but which was now shut because the glory of the Lord had entered into the house by this gate, which must henceforth be counted too sacred to be entered by any other. It is not impossible that the locked door signified also the abiding presence of him who should go out no more forever, but the former thought is emphasized by Ezekiel. The prince (see Eze_45:7, etc.), though not allowed to pass through this gateway, could enter the outer court through any of the other entrances and eat the sacrificial meal (Lev_2:3; Lev_23:6; Lev_24:9) in the porch or vestibule before this peculiarly sacred threshold.
Read full note →
It is for the prince; the prince — Either read with R.V., “As for the prince, he shall sit therein as prince,” or consider “The Prince” to be a heading which gives the content of the passage and which has accidentally slipped into the text (Peters, Journal of Biblical Literature, 12:48).
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain The altar being consecrated, the next thing is to…
XLIV.
The altar being consecrated, the next thing is to provide for the purity of the worship of which it is the centre. The pollutions of former times had been largely introduced by the princes, and by the Levites and priests; and these classes are therefore treated of in this chapter. Only three verses are here given to the prince, since he is to be spoken of at greater length hereafter, and the rest of the chapter is occupied with directions as to the exclusion of strangers, and the duties of the Levites and priests.
Read full note →
(1) The gate of the outward sanctuary.—This is better rendered, the outer gate of the sanctuary. The prophet had been in the inner court, or court of the priests, where the altar stood, and is now brought back to the eastern gate of the outer court. He finds it shut, as it was ordinarily to remain; but with the exceptions mentioned in Eze_44:3, and in Ezekiel 46
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain The prophet, having finished his account of the temple,…
The prophet, having finished his account of the temple, or place of worship, proceeds, in the second section of his vision (Ezekiel 44-46.), to set forth the culture, or ritual, to be performed in the temple; treating first of the several classes in the new community, and of their relation to the sanctuary; (Eze 44) next of the regulations to be observed in the maintenance of worship; (Eze 45) and, thirdly, of certain supplementary orders for the prince, the people, and the priests, when engaged in the solemnities of their religion. (Eze 46) In particular, the present chapter deals
(1) with the relation of the prince to the sanctuary (vers. 1-3);
Read full note →
(2) with that of the people, Levites, and priests (vers. 4-16); and
(3) with the duties and emoluments of the priests (vers. 17-31).
Vers. 1-3. The relation of the prince to the sanctuary.
The gate of the outward sanctuary, the outer gate of the sanctuary (Revised Version)which looketh toward the east. To this door the prophet was conducted back, by way of the inner north or south gate, from the inner court, in which he had received the measurements of the altar and the instructions for its consecration. (Eze_43:5) Whether Ezekiel stood upon the outside of this door as in Eze_43:1, or upon its inside, cannot as yet be determined; but in either ease he observed that it was shut again, whether on the east side towards the temple precincts, or on the west towards the outer court, is not mentioned, and cannot at this stage be decided. What led the seer to notice that the gate was closed was probably the circumstance that the last time he stood beside it it was open, (Eze_43:1) though proof cannot be given that he passed through it, (Eze_43:5) conjoined with the fact that it formed the principal entrance to the temple, and as such had been described to him and measured. (Eze_40:6)
HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON Vers. 1-3The prerogative of the prince.
The regulation prescribed in these verses is very remarkable, and is not free from difficulties. It appears that a peculiar sanctity attached to the eastern gate of the temple, owing to the fact that it was by this gate that the glory of the Lord entered, and by this same gate that the glory of the Lord had previously forsaken, the sacred precincts. To mark this sacredness, the gate was kept shut, and no one was permitted to pass through it, except the prince. He, as the head, the representative, the ruler, of Israel, was permitted to enter and to depart by this gate. And further, it was appointed that he should in this gateway eat bread whether by this be meant the meat offering or the showbread. This was a priestly privilege, but it seems to have been shared by the prince, who, after the return from the Captivity, was not only the representative of the consecrated people, but also the representative of the premised Messiah. This singular prerogative suggests to our minds certain principles which have a special application to a religious community and state.
I THE UNITY OF A RELIGIOUS AND CONSECRATED NATION IS PERSONIFIED IN A RELIGIOUS SOVEREIGN. David was not only the greatest of the Hebrew monarchs; he was the representative of the Hebrew monarchy and theocracy. In the prophets and in the later national religions literature, David appears as the ideal king, personifying the people of the covenant and foreshadowing the promised Messiah. And the" prince" of the people is, in this and other passages, regarded as the successor of the cherished son of Jesse. The prince is looked upon as worthy of his station, worthy of his illustrious and beloved predecessor. The true head of a great and religious people is that people"s representative, not only before man, but before God.
II THERE IS IMPLIED IN THIS PROVISION THE DIVINE ORIGIN AND CHARACTER OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY. There are some students of Scripture who find in the Word of God much relating to the authority of the Church, but who fail to remark the many assertions of the Divine authority of the state and of its officials and rulers. But it is very instructive for those in such a position to remark how, in this and similar passages, stress is laid upon the position and power of the prince. "The powers that be are ordained of God;" the state is as much Divine in its origin and sanction as is the Church. In the theocracy the monarch no doubt occupied a very special position. But religion certainly has for one of its functions the upholding of government as a Divine institution and of authority as a Divine principle. Independently of the form of government, and of the designation of the chief ruler of the state, it is for teachers of religion to follow the example of the scriptural writers in requiring justice from the governor and loyalty from the governed.
III THE OBLIGATION IS APPARENT THAT THOSE IN AUTHORITY SHOULD CULTIVATE AND PRACTICE TRUE RELIGION. It is taken for granted by the prophet that the prince will appreciate and will use the prerogative here described. Nevertheless, it is probable that some who occupied the highest position in the nation were far from being truly devout and pious men. In every age and country men are found who come short of the ideal of their station. This, however, does not affect the fact that the occupation of a high position, the primacy of a great people, imposes upon a man a peculiar obligation to honor God, the Fountain of all authority and the Judge of every earthly sovereign. He who leads a people should lead them in the ways of righteousness and of piety. T.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Vers. 1, 2The shut gate: reverence.
What is the true significance of this closure? Much has been made of it by fanciful exposition; but surely the true lesson is that which lies upon the surface, viz. that the closed gate would be a continual reminder that the people must reverently abstain from using the entrance through which the Most High himself had once passed. It was another symbolic utterance of the truth that we must "put off our shoes" when we stand on "holy ground." The fact that there was a closed gate in this visionary, this ideal temple, may not unfittingly suggest to us (though it cannot be said to teach us)
I THE WAY THAT IS BARRED. If we try to enter the kingdom of God by the way or the gate of:
1. A false independence; if we attempt to reach the saving and redeeming truth of God by our unaided intelligence, unwilling to learn of him who came to teach us, to be to us "the Wisdom of God, then we shall find no entrance there . (see Mat_18:3; 1Co_3:18) The same may be said of:
2. Unholy indul gence; and of:
3. The favorable opportunity in the future. Whoever seeks to enter the kingdom of Christ by these doers will find no open gate, but a barred way; he must enter by the way of childlike faith, of purity, of immediate decision. The closed gate may also suggest to us, by contrast
II THE OPENNESS OF THE KINGDOM. There is a very valuable and most precious sense in which no gate is shut that was ever open into the kingdom of God. No man, let him be who or what he may, let him have been anything whatever in the past, coming to the gate of the kingdom of Christ in sincere penitence and simple faith, will find it closed against him. By whatever path he may have approached, by whatever influences constrained, if he be earnestly desirous of seeking God and serving him, he will find himself before an open door. Christ himself"s the Door, and he is ever saying, "Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out." But the true lesson of the passage is
III THE CONSTANT DUTY OF REVERENCE IN THE WORSHIP AND SERVICE OF GOD. The shut gate said (in effect), "Where God has come, you may not enter; there must be another way for the feeble and sinful creature than that taken by the almighty and holy Creator; realize the immeasurable difference between yourself and him." It is well that there should be raised, now and again, the reminder that the Lord whom we serve is the Most High and the Most Holy One; that it becomes us to worship him and to speak for him in the spirit of deepest reverence; that if a "holy boldness" may be cultivated, an unholy irreverence is to be most sedulously shunned; that our dearest Friend is our Divine Lord, worthy of the profoundest homage our hearts can pay him, claiming the fullest subjection we can bring to his feet, as we worship in his house or work in his vineyard. C.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain Ezekiel 44
THE PRIESTHOOD
Ezekiel 44
Read full note →
IN the last chapter we saw how the principle of holiness through separation was exhibited in the plan of a new Temple, round which the Theocracy of the future was to be constituted, We have now to consider the application of the same principle to the personnel of the Sanctuary, the priests and others who are to officiate within its courts. The connection between the two is obvious. As has been already remarked, the sanctity of the Temple is not intelligible apart from the ceremonial purity required of the persons who are permitted to enter it. The degrees of holiness pertaining to its different areas imply an ascending scale of restrictions on access to the more sacred parts. We may expect to find that in the observance of these conditions the usage of the first Temple left much to be desired from the point of view represented by Ezekiels ideal. Where the very construction of the sanctuary involved so many departures from the strict idea of holiness it was inevitable that a corresponding laxity should prevail in the discharge of sacred functions. Temple and priesthood in fact are so related that a reform of the one implies of necessity a reform of the other. It is therefore not in itself surprising that Ezekiels legislation should include a scheme for the reorganisation of the Temple priesthood. But these general considerations hardly prepare us for the sweeping and drastic changes contemplated in the forty-fourth chapter of the book. It requires an effort of imagination to realise the situation with which the prophet has to deal. The abuses for which he seeks a remedy and the measures which he adopts to counteract them are alike contrary to preconceived notions of the order of worship in an Israelite sanctuary. Yet there is no part of the prophets programme which shows the character of the earnest practical reformer more clearly than this. If we might regard Ezekiel as a mere legislator we should say that the boldest task to which he set his hand was a reformation of the Temple ministry, involving the degradation of an influential class from the priestly status and privileges to which they aspired.
I.
The first and most noteworthy feature of the new scheme is the distinction between priests and Levites. The passage in which this instruction is given is so important that it may be quoted here at length. It is an oracle communicated to the prophet in a peculiarly impressive manner. He has been brought into the inner court in from of the Temple, and there, in full view of the glory of God, he falls on his face, when Jehovah speaks to him as follows:-
"Son of man, give heed and see with thine eyes and hear with thine ears all that I speak to thee concerning all the ordinances and all the laws of Jehovahs house. Mark well the [rule of] entrance into the house, and all the outgoings in the sanctuary. And say to the house of rebellion, the house of Israel: Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, It is high time to desist from all your abominations, O house of Israel, in that ye bring in aliens uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh to be in My sanctuary, profaning it, while ye offer My bread, the fat and the blood; thus ye have broken My covenant, in addition to all your (other) abominations; and ye have not kept the charge of My holy things, but have appointed them as keepers of My charge in My sanctuary. Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah, No alien uncircumcised in heart and flesh shall enter into My sanctuary, of all the foreigners who are amongst the Israelites. But the Levites who departed from Me when Israel went astray from Me after their idols, they shall bear their guilt, and shall minister in My sanctuary in charge at the gates of the house and as ministers of the house; they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and stand before them to minister to them. Because they ministered to them before their idols, and were to the house of Israel an occasion of guilt, therefore I lift My hand against them, saith the Lord Jehovah, and they shall bear their guilt, and shall not draw near to Me to act as priests to Me or to touch any of My holy things, the most holy things, but shall bear their shame and the abominations which they have committed. I will make them keepers of the charge of the house, for all its servile work and all that has to be done in it. But the priest-Levites, the sons of Zadok, who kept the charge of My sanctuary when the Israelites strayed from Me- they shall draw near to Me to minister to Me, and shall stand before Me to present to Me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord Jehovah. They shall enter into My sanctuary, and they shall draw near to My table to minister to Me, and shall keep My charge." {Eze_44:5-16}
Now the first thing to be noticed here is that the new law of the priesthood is aimed directly against a particular abuse in the practice of the first Temple. It appears that down to the time of the Exile uncircumcised aliens were not only admitted to the Temple, but were entrusted with certain important functions in maintaining order in the sanctuary (Eze_44:8). It is not expressly stated that they took any part in the performance of the worship, although this is suggested by the fact that the Levites who are installed in their place had to slay the sacrifices for the people and render other necessary services to the worshippers (Eze_44:2). In any case the mere presence of foreigners while sacrifice was being offered (Eze_44:7) was a profanation of the sanctity of the Temple which was intolerable to a strict conception of Jehovahs holiness. It is therefore of some consequence to discover who these aliens were, and how they came to be engaged in the Temple.
For a partial answer to this question, we may turn first to the memorable scene of the coronation of the young king Joash as described in the eleventh chapter of the Second Book of Kings (circa B.C. 837). The moving spirit in that transaction was the chief priest Jehoiada, a man who was honourably distinguished by his zeal for the purity of the national religion. But although the priests motives were pure he could only accomplish his object by a palace revolution, carried out with the assistance of the captains of the royal bodyguard. Now from the time of David the royal guard had contained a corps of foreign mercenaries recruited from the Philistine country; and on the occasion with which we are dealing we find mention of a body of Carians, showing that the custom was kept up in the end of the ninth century. During the coronation ceremony these guards were drawn up in the most sacred part of the inner court, the space between the Temple and the altar, with the new king in their midst (Eze_44:2). Moreover we learn incidentally that keeping watch in the Temple was part of the regular duty of the kings bodyguard, just as much as the custody of the palace (Eze_44:5-7). In order to understand the full significance of this arrangement, it must be borne in mind that the Temple was in the first instance the royal sanctuary, maintained at the kings expense and subject to his authority. Hence the duty of keeping order in the Temple courts naturally devolved on the troops that attended the kings person and acted as the palace guard. So at an earlier period of the history we read that as often as the king went into the house of Jehovah, he was accompanied by the guard that kept the door of the kings house. {1Ki_14:27-28}
Here, then, we have historical evidence of the admission to the sanctuary of a class of foreigners answering in all respects to the uncircumcised aliens of Ezekiels legislation. That the practice of enlisting foreign mercenaries for the guard continued till the reign of Josiah seems to be indicated by an allusion in the Book of Zephaniah, where the prophet denounces a body of men in the service of the king who observed the Philistine custom of "leaping over the threshold." {Zep_1:9 : cf. 1Sa_5:5} We have only to suppose that this usage, along with the subordination of the Temple to the royal authority, persisted to the close of the monarchy, in order to explain fully the abuse which excited the indignation of our prophet. It is possible no doubt that he had in view other uncircumcised persons as well, such as the Gibeonites, {Jos_9:27} who were employed in the menial service of the sanctuary. But we have seen enough to show at all events that pre-exilic usage tolerated a freedom of access to the sanctuary and a looseness of administration within it which would have been sacrilegious under the law of the second Temple. It need not be supposed that Ezekiel was the only one who felt this state of things to be a scandal and an injury to religion. We may believe that in this respect he only expressed the higher conscience of his order. Amongst the more devout circles of the Temple priesthood there was probably a growing conviction similar to that which animated the early Tractarian party in the Church of England, a conviction that the whole ecclesiastical system with which their spiritual interests were bound up fell short of the ideal of sanctity essential to it as a Divine institution. But no scheme of reform had any chance of success so long as the palace of the kings stood hard by the Temple, with only a wall between them. The opportunity for reconstruction came with the Exile, and one of the leading principles of the reformed Temple is that here enunciated by Ezekiel, that no "alien uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh" shall henceforth enter the sanctuary.
In order to prevent a recurrence of these abuses Ezekiel ordains that for the future the functions of the Temple guard and other menial offices shall be discharged by the Levites who had hitherto acted as priests of the idolatrous shrines throughout the kingdom (Eze_44:11-14). This singular enactment becomes at once intelligible when we understand the peculiar circumstances brought about by the enforcement of the Deuteronomic Law in the reformation of the year 621. Let us once more recall the fact that the chief object of that reformation was to do away with all the provincial sanctuaries and to concentrate the worship of the nation in the Temple at Jerusalem. It is obvious that by this measure the priests of the local sanctuaries were deprived of their means of livelihood. The rule that they who serve the altar shall live by the altar applied equally to the priests of the high places and to those in the Temple at Jerusalem. All the priests indeed throughout the country were members of a landless caste or tribe; the Levites had no portion or inheritance like the other tribes, but subsisted on the offerings of the worshippers at the various shrines where they ministered. Now the law of Deuteronomy recognises the principle of compensation for the vested interests that were thus abolished. Two alternatives were offered to the Levites of the high places: they might either remain in the villages or townships where they were known, or they might proceed to the central sanctuary and obtain admission to the ranks of the priesthood there. In the former case, the Lawgiver commends them earnestly, along with other destitute members of the community, to the charity of their well-to-do fellow townsmen and neighbours. If, on the other hand, they elected to try their fortunes in the Temple at Jerusalem, he secures their full priestly status and equal rights with their brethren who regularly officiated there. On this point the legislation is quite explicit. Any Levite from any district of Israel who came of his own free will to the place which Jehovah had chosen might minister in the name of Jehovah his God, as all his brethren the Levites did who stood there before Jehovah, and have like portions to eat. {Deu_18:6-8} In this matter, however, the humane intention of the law was partly frustrated by the exclusiveness of the priests who were already in possession of the sacred offices in the Temple. The Levites who were brought up from the provinces to Jerusalem were allowed their proper share of the priestly dues, but were not permitted to officiate at the altar. It is not probable that a large number of the provincial Levites availed themselves of this grudging provision for their maintenance. In the idolatrous reaction which set in after the death of Josiah the worship of the high places was revived, and the great body of the Levites would naturally be favourable to the reestablishment of the old order of things with which their professional interests were identified. Still, there would be a certain number who for conscientious motives attached themselves to the movement for a purer and stricter conception of the worship of Jehovah, and were willing to submit to the irksome conditions which this movement imposed on them. They might hope for a time when the generous provisions of the Deuteronomic Code would be applied to them; but their position in the meantime was both precarious and humiliating. They had to bear the doom pronounced long ago on the sinful house of Eli: "Every one that is left in thine house shall come and bow down to him (the high priest of the line of Zadok) for a piece of silver and a loaf of bread, and shall say, Thrust me, I pray thee, into one of the priests offices, that I may eat a morsel of bread." {1Sa_2:36}
We see thus that Ezekiels legislation on the subject of the Levites starts from a state of things created by Josiahs reformation, and, let us remember, a state of things with which the prophet was familiar in his earlier days when he was himself a priest in the Temple. On the whole he justifies the exclusive attitude of the Temple priesthood towards the newcomers, and carries forward the application of the idea of sanctity from the point where it had been left by the law of Deuteronomy. That law recognises no sacerdotal distinctions within the ranks of the priesthood. Its regular designation of the priests of the Temple is "the priests, the Levites"; that of the provincial priests is simply "the Levites." All priests are brethren, all belong to the same tribe of Levi; and it is assumed, as we have seen, that any Levite, whatever his antecedents, is qualified for the full privileges of the priesthood in the central sanctuary if he choose to claim them. But we have also seen that the distinction emerged as a consequence of the enforcement of the fundamental law of the single sanctuary. There came to be a class of Levites in the Temple whose position was at first indeterminate. They themselves claimed the full standing of the priesthood, and they could appeal in support of their claim to the authority of the Deuteronomic legislation. But the claim was never conceded in practice, the influence of the legitimate Temple priests being strong enough to exclude them from the supreme privilege of ministering at the altar. This state of things could not continue. Either the disparity of the two orders must be effaced by the admission of the Levites to a footing of equality with the other priests, or else it must be emphasised and based on some higher principle than the jealousy of a close corporation for its traditional rights. Now such a principle is supplied by the section of Ezekiels vision with which we are dealing. The permanent exclusion of the Levites from the priesthood is founded on the unassailable moral ground that they had forfeited their rights by their unfaithfulness to the fundamental truths of the national religion. They had been a "stumbling-block of iniquity" to the house of Israel through their disloyalty to Jehovahs cause during the long period of national apostasy, when they lent themselves to the popular inclination towards impure and idolatrous worship. For this great betrayal of their trust they must bear the guilt and shame in their degradation to the lowest offices in the service of the new sanctuary. They are to fill the place formerly occupied by uncircumcised foreigners, as keepers of the gates and servants of the house and the worshipping congregation; but they may not draw near to Jehovah in the exercise of priestly prerogatives, nor put their hands to the most holy things. The priesthood of the new Temple is finally vested in the "sons of Zadok"-i.e., the body of Levitical priests who had ministered in the Temple since its foundation by Solomon. Whatever the faults of these Zadokites had been-and Ezekiel certainly does not judge them leniently {Cf. Eze_22:26} - they had at least steadfastly maintained the ideal of a central sanctuary, and in comparison with the rural clergy they were doubtless a purer and better-disciplined body. The judgment is only a relative one, as all class judgments necessarily are. There must have been individual Zadokites worse than an ordinary Levite from the country, as well as individual Levites who were superior to the average Temple priest. But if it was necessary that in the future the interest of religion should be mainly confided to a priesthood, there could be no question that as a class the old priestly aristocracy of the central sanctuary were those best qualified for spiritual leadership.
In Ezekiels vision we thus seem to find the beginning of a statutory and official distinction between priests and Levites. This fact forms one of the arguments chiefly relied on by those who hold that the book of Ezekiel precedes the introduction of the Priestly Code of the Pentateuch. Two things, indeed, appear to be clearly established. In the first place the tendency and significance of Ezekiels legislation are adequately explained by the historical situation that existed in the generation immediately preceding the Exile. In the second place the Mosaic books, apart from Deuteronomy, had no influence on the scheme propounded in the vision. It is felt that these results are difficult to reconcile with the view that the middle books of the Pentateuch were known to the prophet as part of a divinely ordained constitution for the Israelite theocracy. We should have expected in that case that the prophet would simply have fallen back on the provisions of the earlier legislation, where the division between priests and Levites is formulated with perfect clearness and precision. Or, looking at the matter from the divine point of view, we should have expected that the revelation given to Ezekiel would endorse the principles of the revelation that had already been given. It is equally hard to suppose that any existing law should have been unknown to Ezekiel, or to suggest a reason for his ignoring it if it was known. The facts that have come before us seem thus, so far as they go, to be in favour of the theory that Ezekiel stands midway between Deuteronomy and the Priestly Code, and that the final codification and promulgation of the latter took place after his time.
It is nearer our purpose, however, to note the probable effect of these regulations on the personnel of the second Temple. In the book of Ezra we are told that in the first colony of returning exiles there were four thousand two hundred and eighty-nine priests and only seventy-four Levites. {Ezr_2:36-40} One man in every ten was a priest, and the total number was probably in excess of the requirements of a fully equipped Temple.
The number of Levites, on the other hand, would have been quite insufficient for the duties required of them under the new arrangements, had there not been a contingent of nearly four hundred of the old Temple servants to supply their lack of service. {Ezr_2:58} Again, when Ezra came up from Babylon in the year 458, we find that not a single Levite volunteered to accompany him. It was only after some negotiations that about forty Levites were induced to go up with him to Jerusalem; and again they were far outnumbered by the Nethinim or Temple slaves. {Ezr_8:15-20} These figures cannot possibly represent the proportionate strength of the tribe of Levi under the old monarchy. They indicate unmistakably that there was a great reluctance on the part of the Levites to share the perils and glory of the founding of the new Jerusalem. Is it not probable that the new conditions laid down by Ezekiels legislation were the cause of this reluctance? That, in short, the prospect of being servants in a Temple where they had once claimed to be priests was not sufficiently attractive to the majority to lead them to break up their comfortable homes in exile, and take their proper place in the ranks of those who were forming the new community of Israel? And ought we not to spare a moments admiration even at this distance of time for the public-spirited few who in self-sacrificing devotion to the cause of God willingly accepted a position which was scorned by the great mass of their tribesmen? If this was their spirit, they had their reward. Although the position of a Levite was at first a symbol of inferiority and degradation, it ultimately became one of very great honour. When the Temple service was fully organised, the Levites were a large and important order, second in dignity in the community only to the priests. Their ranks were swelled by the incorporation of the Temple musicians, as well as other functionaries; and thus the Levites are forever associated in our minds with the magnificent service of praise which was the chief glory of the second Temple.
II.
The remainder of the forty-fourth chapter lays down the rules of ceremonial holiness to be observed by the priests, the duties they have to perform towards the community, and the provision to be made for their maintenance. A few words must here suffice on each of these topics.
1. The sanctity of the priests is denoted, first of all, by the obligation to wear special linen garments when they enter the inner court, which is the sphere of their peculiar ministrations. Vestries were provided, as we have seen from the description of the Temple, between the inner and outer courts, where these garments were to be put on and off as the priests passed to and from the discharge of their sacred duties. The general idea underlying this regulation is too obvious to require explanation. It is but an application of the fundamental principle that approach to the Deity, or entrance into a place sanctified by His presence, demands a condition of ceremonial purity which cannot be maintained and must not be imitated by persons of a lower degree of religious privilege. A strange but very suggestive extension of the principle is found in the injunction to put off the garments before going into the outer court, lest the ordinary worshipper should be sanctified by chance contact with them. That both holiness and uncleanness are propagated by contagion is of the very essence of the ancient idea of sanctity; but the remarkable thing is that in some circumstances communicated holiness is as much to be dreaded as communicated uncleanness. It is not said what would be the fate of an Israelite who should by chance touch the sacred vestments, but evidently he must be disqualified for participation in worship until he had purged himself of his illegitimate sanctity.
In the next place the priests are under certain permanent obligations with regard to signs of mourning, marriage, and contact with death, which again are the mark of the peculiar sanctity of their caste. The rules as to mourning-prohibition of shaving the head and letting the hair flow dishevelled {Cf. Eze_24:17; Lev_10:5; Lev_21:5; Lev_21:10} -have been thought to be directed against heathen customs arising out of the worship of the dead. In marriage the priest may only take a virgin of the house of Israel or the widow of a priest. And only in the case of his nearest relatives-parent, child, brother, and unmarried sister-may he defile himself by rendering the last offices to the departed, and even these exceptions involve exclusion from the sacred office for seven days.
The relations of these requirements to the corresponding parts of the Levitical law are somewhat complicated. The great point of difference is that Ezekiel knows nothing of the unique privileges and sanctity of the high priest. It might seem at first sight as if this implied a deliberate departure from the known usage of the first Temple. It is certain that there were high priests under the monarchy, and indeed we can discover the rudiments of a hierarchy in a distribution of authority between the high priest, second priest, keepers of the threshold, and chief officers of the house. {Cf. 2Ki_12:11; 2Ki_13:14; 2Ki_25:18 Jer_20:1} But the silence of Ezekiel does not necessarily mean that he contemplated any innovation on the established order of things. The historical books afford no ground for supposing that the high priest in the old Temple had a religious standing distinguished from that of his colleagues. He was primus inter pares, the president of the priestly college and the supreme authority in the internal administration of the Temple affairs, but probably nothing more. Such an office was almost necessary in the interest of order and authority, and there is nothing in Ezekiels regulations inconsistent with its continuance. On the other hand, it must be admitted that his silence would be strange if he had in view the position assigned to the high priest under the law. For there the high priest is as far elevated above his colleagues as these are above the Levites. He is the concentration of all that is holy in Israel, and the sole mediator of the nearest approach to God which the symbolism of Temple worship permitted. He is bound by the strictest conditions of ceremonial sanctity, and any transgression on his part has to be atoned for by a rite similar to that required for a transgression of the whole congregation. {Lev_4:3; Lev_4:13; cf. Lev_16:6} The omission of this striking figure from the pages of Ezekiel makes a comparison between his enactments concerning the priesthood and those of the law difficult and in some degree uncertain. Nevertheless there are points both of likeness and contrast which cannot escape observation. Thus the laws of this chapter on defilement by a dead body are identical with those enjoined in Lev_21:1-3 (the "Law of Holiness") for ordinary priests; while the high priest is there forbidden to touch any dead body whatsoever. On the other hand Ezekiels regulations as to priestly marriages. seem as it were to strike an average between the restrictions imposed in the law on ordinary priests and those binding on the high priest. The former may marry any woman that is not violated or a harlot or a divorced wife; but the high priest is forbidden to marry any one but a virgin of his own people. Again, the priestly garments, according to Exo_28:39-42; Exo_39:27, are made partly of linen and partly of byssus (? cotton), which certainly looks like a refinement on the simpler attire prescribed by Ezekiel. But it is impossible to pursue this subject further here.
2. The duties of the priests towards the people are few, but exceedingly important. In the first place they have to instruct the people in the distinctions between the holy and the profane and between the clean and the unclean. It will not be supposed that this instruction took the form of set lectures or homilies on the principles of ceremonial religion. The. verb translated "teach" in Eze_44:23 means to give an authoritative decision in a special ease; and this had always been the form of priestly instruction in Israel. The subject of the teaching was of the utmost importance for a community whose whole life was regulated by the idea of holiness in the ceremonial sense. To preserve the land in a state of purity befitting the dwelling-place of Jehovah required the most scrupulous care on the part of all its inhabitants; and in practice difficult questions would constantly occur which could only be settled by an appeal to the superior knowledge of the priest. Hence Ezekiel contemplates a perpetuation of the old ritual Torah or direction of the priests even in the ideal state of things to which his vision looks forward. Although the people are assumed to be all righteous in heart and responsive to the will of Jehovah, yet they could not all have the professional knowledge of ritual laws which was necessary to guide them on all occasions, and errors of inadvertence were unavoidable. Jeremiah could look forward to a time when none should teach his neighbour or his brother, saying, Know Jehovah, because the religion which consists in spiritual emotions and affections becomes the independent possession of every one who is the subject of saving grace. But Ezekiel, from his point of view, could not anticipate a time when all the Lords people should be priests; for ritual is essentially an affair of tradition and technique, and can only be maintained by a class of experts specially trained for their office. Ritualism and sacerdotalism are natural allies; and it is not wholly accidental that the great ritualistic Churches of Christendom are those organised on the sacerdotal principle.
But, secondly, the priests have to act as judges or arbitrators in eases of disagreement between man and man (Eze_44:24). This again was an important department of priestly Torah in ancient Israel, the origin of which went back to the personal legislation of Moses in the wilderness. {Exo_18:25 ff} Cases too hard for human judgment were referred to the decision of God at the sanctuary, and the judgment was conveyed through the agency of the priest. It is impossible to overestimate the service thus rendered by the priesthood to the cause of religion in Israel; and Hosea bitterly complains of the defection of the priests from the Torah of their God as the source of the widespread moral corruption of his time. {Hos_4:6} In the book of Deuteronomy the Levitical priests of the central sanctuary are associated with the civil magistrate as a court of ultimate appeal in matters of controversy that arise within the community; and this is by no means a tribute to the superior legal acumen of the clerical mind, but a reassertion of the old principle that the priest is the mouthpiece of Jehovahs judgment That the priests should be the sole judges in Ezekiels ideal polity was to be expected from the high position assigned to the order generally; but there is another reason for it. We have once more to keep in mind that we are dealing with the Messianic community, when the people are anxious to do the right when they know it, and only cases of honest perplexity require to be resolved. The priests decision had never been backed up by executive authority, and in the kingdom of God no such sanction will be necessary. By this simple judicial arrangement the ethical demands of Jehovahs holiness will be made effective in the ordinary life of the community.
Finally, the priests have complete control of public worship, and are responsible for the due observance of the festivals and for the sanctification of the Sabbath (Eze_44:24).
3. With regard to the provisions for the support of the priesthood, the old law continues in force that the priests can hold no landed property and have no possession like the other tribes of Israel (Eze_44:28). It is true that a strip of land, measuring about twenty-seven square miles, was set apart for their residence; {2Ki_12:4-16} but this was probably not to be cultivated, and at all events it is not reckoned as a possession yielding revenue for their maintenance. The priests inheritance is Jehovah Himself, which means that they are to live on the offerings of the community presented to Jehovah at the sanctuary. In the practice of the first Temple this ancient rule appears to have been interpreted in a broad and liberal spirit, greatly to the advantage of the Zadokite priests. The Temple dues consisted partly of money payments by the worshippers; and at least the fines for ceremonial trespasses which took the place of the sin- and guilt-offerings were counted the lawful perquisites of the priests. Ezekiel knows nothing of this system; and if it remained in force down to his time, he undoubtedly meant to abolish it. The tribute of the sanctuary is to be paid wholly in kind, and out of this the priests are to receive a stated allowance. In the first place those sacrifices which are wholly made over to the Deity, and yet are not consumed on the altar, have to be eaten by the priests in a holy place. These are the meal-offering, the sin-offering, and the guilt-offering, of which more hereafter. For precisely the same reason all that is herem-i.e., "devoted" irrevocably to Jehovah-becomes the possession of the priests, His representatives, except in the cases where it had to be absolutely destroyed. Besides this they have a claim to the best (an indefinite portion) of the firstfruits and "oblations" (terumah) brought to the sanctuary in accordance with ancient custom to be consumed by the worshipper and his friends.
These regulations are undoubtedly based on pre-exilic usages, and consequently leave much to be supplied from the peoples knowledge of use and wont. They do not differ very greatly from the enumeration of the priestly dues in the eighteenth chapter of Deuteronomy. There, as in Ezekiel, we find that the two great sources from which the priests derive their maintenance are the sacrifices and the firstfruits. The Deuteronomic Code, however, knows nothing of the special class of sacrifices called sin-and guilt-offerings, but simply assigns to the priest certain portions of each victim, {Deu_18:3} except of course the burnt-offerings, which were consumed entire on the altar. The priests share of natural produce is the "best" of corn, new wine, oil, and wool, {Deu_18:4} and would be selected as a matter of course from the tithe and terumah brought to the sanctuary; so that on this point there is practically complete agreement between Ezekiel and Deuteronomy. On the other hand the differences of the Levitical legislation are considerable, and all in the direction of a fuller provision for the Temple establishment. Such an increased provision was called for by the peculiar circumstances of the second Temple. The revenue of the sanctuary obviously depended on the size and prosperity of the constituency to which it ministered. The stipulations of Deuteronomy 18, were no doubt sufficient for the maintenance of the priesthood in the old kingdom of Judah; and similarly those of Ezekiels legislation would amply suffice in the ideal condition of the people and land presupposed by the vision. But neither could have been adequate for the support of a costly ritual in a small community like that which returned from Babylon, where one man in ten was a priest. Accordingly we find that the arrangements made under Nehemiah for the endowment of the Temple ministry are conformed to the extended provisions of the Priestly Code. {Neh_10:32-39}
In conclusion, let us briefly consider the significance of this great institution of the priesthood in Ezekiels scheme of an ideal theocracy. It would of course be an utter mistake to suppose that the prophet is merely legislating in the interests of the sacerdotal order to which he himself belonged. It was necessary for him to insist on the peculiar sanctity and privileges of the priests, and to draw a sharp line of division between them and ordinary members of the community. But he does this, not in the interest of a privileged caste within the nation, but in the interest of a religious ideal which embraced priests and people alike and had to be realised in the life of the nation as a whole. That ideal is expressed by the word "holiness, " and we have already seen how the idea of holiness demanded ceremonial conditions of immediate access to Jehovahs presence which the ordinary Israelite could not observe. But "exclusion" could not possibly be the last word of a religion which seeks to bring men into fellowship with God. Access to God might be hedged about by restrictions and conditions of the most onerous kind, bat access there must be if worship was to have any meaning and value for the nation or the individual. Although the worshipper might not himself lay his victim on the altar, he must at least be permitted to offer his gift and receive the assurance that it was accepted. If the priest stood between him and God, it was not merely to separate but also to mediate between them, and through the fulfilment of superior conditions of holiness to establish a communication between him and the holy Being whose face be sought. Hence the great function of the priesthood in the theocracy is to maintain the intercourse between Jehovah and Israel which was exhibited in the Temple ritual by acts of sacrificial worship.
Now it is manifest that this system of ideas rests on the representative character of the priestly office. If the principal idea symbolised in the sanctuary is that of holiness through separation, the fundamental idea of priesthood is holiness through representation. It is the holiness of Israel, concentrated in the priesthood, which qualifies the latter for entrance within the inner circle of the divine presence. Or perhaps it would be more correct to say that the presence of Jehovah first sanctifies the priests in an eminent degree, and then through them, though in a less degree, the whole body of the people. The idea of national solidarity was too deeply rooted in the Hebrew consciousness to admit of any other interpretation of the priesthood than this. The Israelite did not need to be told that his standing before God was secured by his membership in the religious community on whose behalf the priests ministered at the altar and before the Temple. It would not occur to him to think of his personal exclusion from the most sacred offices as a religious disability; it was enough for him to know that the nation to which he belonged was admitted to the presence of Jehovah in the persons of its representatives, and that he as an individual shared in the blessings which accrued to Israel through the privileged ministry of the priests. Thus to a Temple poet of a later age than Ezekiels the figure of the high priest supplies a striking image of the communion of saints and the blessing of Jehovah resting on the whole people:-
"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
That they who are brethren should also dwell together!
Like the precious oil on the head,
That flows down on the beard,
The beard of Aaron,
That flows down on the hem of his garments-
Like the Hermon-dew that descends on the hills of Zion
For there hath Jehovah ordained the blessing,
Life for evermore." {Psalms 133}
PRINCE AND PEOPLE
Ezekiel 44-46, 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 ofrices. 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.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain THE RELATION OF PRINCE AND PRIESTS TO THE TEMPLE…
THE RELATION OF PRINCE AND PRIESTS TO THE TEMPLE (Chap. 44)
EXEGETICAL NOTES.—Eze_44:1. “The gate of the outward sanctuary”—the court of the priests as distinguished from the Temple itself. “This gate shall be shut”—shut to the people, but opened on certain days for the prince (chap. Eze_46:1), he holding the place of God in political concerns, as the priests do in spiritual. Only a prince of the House of David might sit down in the priests’ court. As a mark of respect to an Eastern monarch, the gate by which he enters is thenceforth shut to all other persons.
Read full note →
Eze_44:3. “It is for the prince.” The Rabbis understood this to be the Messiah; but this cannot be, as He would not be likely to offer a burnt-offering as the prince was required to do (chap. Eze_46:4). The prince must mean the civil ruler under Messiah: he represents Messiah, who entered heaven, the true Sanctuary, by a way that none other could. “Because the Lord nata entered in by it.” “How glorious must the entering Lord be when the prince cannot be more highly honoured than by a place in the gate by which He entered!”—Hengstenberg. “To eat bread before the Lord”—a custom connected with sacrifices (Gen_31:54; Exo_18:12; Exo_24:11; 1Co_10:18). According to the old law, these feasts belonged only to the priests; none of the rest of the congregation, not even the king, might partake of them: the new system gives to the prince a privilege which he did not before possess, he standing, as the representative of Messiah, in a higher position than the kings of old.
Eze_44:6. “The rebellious house of Israel.” The sins of the priesthood acted and reacted on one another: like priest, like people; and like people, like priest (Jer_5:31; Hos_4:9). God expostulates with His people in the seat of their former iniquity (Eze_44:4; chap. Eze_8:3).
Eze_44:7. “Strangers.” Here the people are taught that unfaithful priests uncircumcised in heart (Act_7:51), though of the true lineage, are regarded as strangers.
Eze_44:8. “Ye have set keepers”—according to your own pleasure, not My ordinances (Num_16:40; 1Ki_12:31).
Eze_44:10. “The Levites that are gone away far from Me.” The Levites as a body had remained true to the Temple-service at Jerusalem (2Ch_11:13). But individuals among them deserted to Israel. These apostate Levites shall bear their iniquities; they shall not be restored to their former rank and privileges.
Eze_44:11. “Yet they shall be ministers”—servants performing menial offices for the ministering priests—acting as porters, helping in the slaughter of the victims, but not as sacrificing priests. They shall not be excluded from all service in the Sanctuary, but degraded from the functions of priests to those of simple Levites. One may be a believer, and that, too, in a distinguished place, and yet lose some special honour—be acknowledged as pious, yet be excluded from some dignity. “Having charge at the gates.” Though standing as mere doorkeepers, it is in the house of God which hath foundations; whereas they who dwell with the wicked dwell in but shifting tents (Psa_84:10).
Eze_44:15. “The priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok.” The priests of the line of Ithamar were to be discharged from ministrations in the Temple because of their corruptions. Zadok, according to his name, which means righteous, and his line were to succeed, as they did not take part in the general apostasy to the same degree (1Ki_2:35; 1Ch_24:3). It indicated a race of faithful and devoted servants—a priesthood serving God in newness of spirit, not in the oldness of the letter, as the people whom they represented should also have become true Israelites, themselves a royal priesthood offering up spiritual sacrifices to the Lord.
Eze_44:17. “Clothed with linen garments.” Four vestments were worn by the ordinary priest—the linen breeches, the coat, the girdle, and the bonnet. The material of which they were made was linen, or, more accurately, byssus, the white shining cotton stuff of Egypt. These two qualities of the byssus are specially marked as characteristic, being symbolical of purity.
Eze_44:20. “Neither shall they shave their heads”—as mourners used to do, and as the Levitical priests were forbidden to do (Lev_21:1-5). The worshippers of the Egyptian idols Serapis and Isis shaved their heads—another reason why the priests of Jehovah are not to do so. “Nor suffer their locks to grow long”—as the luxurious, the barbarians, and soldier in warfare did.
Eze_44:21. “Neither shall any priest drink wine”—lest the holy enthusiasm of their devotion should be mistaken for inebriation, as in Peter’s case (Act_2:13; Act_2:15; Act_2:18).
Eze_44:23. “And they shall teach”—to spread out the hand, for example, to point to something, to teach. The priestly service is to comprehend worship and doctrine, representation of the people before God, and representation of God before the people—everything with an eye to sanctification.
Eze_44:24. “They shall stand in judgment.” There was in the second Temple a council of priests whose special duty it was to regulate everything connected with the Sanctuary.
Eze_44:28. “It shall be unto them for an inheritance.” The remains of the sacrifices were a chief source of the priests’ support. “I am their inheritance—possession”—something which one grasps and retains. Jehovah is the all-sufficing possession of His servants (Num_18:20; Deu_18:1).
Eze_44:30. “And every oblation”—offering, or heave-offering, whatever is according to precept, or of free will, lifted up for Jehovah as a consecrated gilt to the Sanctuary. “That he may cause the blessing to rest in thine house.” The heaving and waving of the offering involved the thought that in consequence of such gifts to the priest the blessing of God is brought down on the individual house.
Eze_44:31. “That priest shall not eat of anything that is dead of itself, or torn.” This was defiling for any man (Lev_17:15); how much more so for the priests of Jehovah! (Lev_22:8). Thus was the idea of holiness strictly enforced.
HOMILETICS
THE DIGNITY OF THE CIVIL RULES
(Eze_44:1-3.)
I. Arises from the exalted character of His regal functions. The king is the human representative of Divine justice, both in its administration and maintenance; he is God’s vicegerent and deputy. The word that describes his office indicates his power—King, Könning, Able-man. He is the summary of all that is great and noble in man. “Priest, teacher, whatsoever of earthly or of spiritual dignity we can fancy to reside in a man embodies itself here, to command over us, to furnish us with constant practical teaching, to tell us for the day and hour what we are to do.” He is a leader and guide of men, and must be lifted far beyond the suspicion of selfishness and partiality. He must rule in equity and righteousness, with an ear deaf to the flattery of the rich, and a hand ever ready to help the oppressed and poor. He must defend virtue among the weakest, and punish iniquity among the strongest. Every brave and honest endeavour to act the king adds new lustre to the dignity of the office. The king, like every other true man, is not above acting upon the advice—
“This above all: To thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the light the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.”
II. Distinguished by privileged access to the Divine Temple (Eze_44:1-3). The east gate, through which the glory of the Lord entered the Temple, was to be shut, to be a perpetual reminder of that signal honour paid to the building, and to induce a profound reverence for the Divine majesty. But the prince was permitted to enter the porch of that gate to indicate that his office brought him into nearer contact with God, and to give weight and authority to all his royal proceedings. It is necessary to surround and support the throne with the sanctions of Divine privilege in order to keep up the king to the loftiest standard of right and to give force to every act of justice in the kingly administration.
III. Maintained by spiritual communion and fellowship with the Divine Ruler. “He shall eat before the Lord” (Eze_44:3). The prince is permitted to enter the porch of the east gate that he may worship God. It is thus he is constantly reminded of his high duty and receives moral strength to act in harmony with the Divine standard. The higher we rise in the social scale the greater are our responsibilities, and the more need is there to seek Divine help to be faithful and true. The loftiest function of the king is to be the patron and protector of religion. He must seek power for his work at the same source to which the humblest believer is invited—in communion with God. The soul finds its greatest blessings in intense fellowship with the highest. Augustine once beautifully said, “Thou mayest seek after honours and not obtain them; thou mayest labour after riches and yet remain poor; thou mayest doat on pleasures and have many sorrows. But our God, of His supreme goodness, says, ‘Whoever sought Me and found Me not? Whoever desired Me and obtained Me not? Whoever loved Me and missed Me? I am with him that seeks Me. He hath Me already that wishes for Me; and he that loveth Me is sure of My love.’ ” Fellowship with God is the secret of power to govern righteously and to labour with pleasure and success.
LESSONS.—
1. The kingly office has grave responsibilities.
2. The highest honour of the king is to be the faithful servant of God.
3. The king must seek Divine grace to fulfil the duties of his office.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
Eze_44:1-3. “The spiritual truth to be learned here is, that our Messiah entered heaven, the true Sanctuary, by a way that none other could, on the ground of His own perfect holiness (Rom_1:4): all we must enter as sinners saved by grace. Through Him alone believers eat before the Lord in the communion of the Holy Supper, and shall hereafter experimentally realise that scripture, ‘Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God’ (Luk_14:15).”—Fausset.
Eze_44:1. “And it was shut.” The Glories of Heaven—
1. Are Divinely secured.
2. Are open to all penitent seekers.
3. Are inaccessible to the unbelieving.
—“Our heart too should be shut to the world and the devil when once the holy God has entered into it and His glory has swallowed up sin and misery in us. Alas! if the door of heaven should be shut!”—Lange.
Eze_44:3. “What could this import but that the prince should feel he now occupied a place of peculiar nearness to God? As God’s vicegerent and deputy among the people, it became him to be the most distinguished representative in public life of God’s holiness; to tread the higher walks of spiritual communion with heaven, and stand pre-eminent in his zeal for the interests of truth and righteousness. Far now from usurping the authority that belonged to God and abusing it to selfish ends, all authority and power in Israel should be exercised—if this Divine ideal were reduced to practice—in a solemn feeling of subordination to God’s majesty and with an unfeigned desire for His glory.”—Fairbairn.
—The Kingly Office—
1. Enjoys distinguished privileges.
2. Involves much anxious thought and onerous toil.
3. Needs the help of an earnest, practical piety.
—“The Christian ruler ought to be the Christian pattern of his people. He is not to preach, just as it is not his office to offer sacrifice; but he is to nourish and protect the Church and avow its faith. He ought to have a good conscience and joy before the Lord because of his princely office, which does not merely consist in this, that we live in peace and quiet under his sceptre, but also that the people may hear the Word of God and without fear offer to Him the sacrifices of their worship”—Lange.
HOMILETICS
A HOLY PRIESTHOOD
(Eze_44:4-31.)
I. Urged to fidelity by admonitions of former neglect.
1. Reminded of the lofty standard of Temple-service (Eze_44:4-5). Having seen the exalted position of the prince, the prophet is shown the character of the priesthood which is to minister in the glorious Temple. A vision of the Divine glory filling the house is again flashed upon him, and he is earnestly called upon to observe with special care the ordinances and laws of the priesthood and every minute detail of the Temple-ritual. The supreme holiness of Jehovah and the manifested splendour of His majesty demand a worship of the highest and purest order. He can be ministered unto acceptably only by a holy priesthood. The object of worship reacts upon the worshipper; and our conceptions of God must necessarily affect and mould the character of the worship we offer to Him. Our souls should be continually straining after enlarged views of God, that our worship may be intelligent, reverent, and holy.
2. The apostasy of priests and people is a desecration of the Temple (Eze_44:6-10). Priests and people had been unfaithful to covenant engagements and rebelled against the Divine laws. The corruption of the one class reacted upon the other, and their conjoint abominations polluted the holy Sanctuary. The old adage, “Like priest, like people,” is not less true than “Like people, like priest.” The priesthood is bound by its calling always to be ahead of the people in teaching and morality.
3. Unfaithful priests are deposed from the highest service (Eze_44:11-14). The Levites who were carried away with the idolatrous tendency of the times are degraded in their status. Yet their punishment is mixed with mercy. They were not utterly excluded from the Temple. While they were not allowed to take part in the more privileged acts of worship, they were permitted to perform inferior and menial duties. The goodness of God ever provides a way of recovery for the erring; and the humblest place in His Temple is a post of honour that should be appreciated the more it is undeserved.
II. Composed of those who have been faithful in time of trial (Eze_44:15-16). Amid the general defection the descendants of Zadok maintained their integrity, and they are promoted to honour; they become a type of the holy priesthood which is to occupy the highest place in the newly constituted Temple of the future. Trial is the test of character, and every resistance to evil is a strengthening of the moral fibre. The men who are to-day wielding the mightiest influence for good in Church and State are those who, in the midst of obscurity and misrepresentation, have remained true to their conscience and their God. As gold shines the brighter when submitted to the fiercest fire, so religious principle glows with a diviner lustre the more it is tried. Trial is the pathway to honour and fame.
III. Must observe the Divinely sanctioned laws of purity (Eze_44:17-27). The minute directions here given concerning the vestments and habits of the priests have a distinctly moral significance. They must wear linen garments, emblems of cleanliness and purity; they must not shave their heads—as mourners did—nor let their hair grow uncut—as persons unfit for active service—nor drink wine when engaged in Temple-service—lest they should be unfit for high spiritual emotions—nor do anything which under the outward restrictions of a symbolic ritual betokened a want of inward purity. The holiness that pervades the house of God must pervade the hearts and lives of those who are called to minister in its hallowed services. The spirit in which the holiest acts are done is a sample and pattern of the spirit in which every duty should be done (Luk_22:19; comp. Col_3:17).
IV. Assured of adequate maintenance (Eze_44:28-31). God takes care to make ample provision for those who work for Him. What they may lack in worldly affluence He makes up to them in the satisfying comfort of His presence and in the riches of His grace. Poverty has its temptations and anxieties, but it is powerless to harm the soul that has its inheritance in God. Let body and soul be wholly devoted to the service of God, and He will not fail to furnish all necessary supplies (Psa_37:3).
LESSONS.—
1. Priestly sins are aggravated because of the privileges and opportunities of the priestly office.
2. Priestly duties demand the loftiest purity.
3. The priest is a power for good only as he is faithful to the Divine law.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
Eze_44:4-31. “All who are engaged in the ministry should be blameless, sound in the faith, full of good works, exemplary in their lives, walking humbly before God and circumspectly in the sight of men. They should be especially careful in forming connections, and prudent in the management of their families, observing and teaching others to keep the statutes of the Lord. They should delight in every part of their sacred service, yet do all in humble reliance on Christ. Their wants should be supplied, so that they may not be obliged” to involve themselves in worldly cares and employments for a maintenance.”—Henry and Scott.
Eze_44:4-5. Divine Revelations—
1. Should be seen from different points of view. “Then brought he me the way of the north gate before the house” (Eze_44:4).
2. Overpower the earnest student with their splendour. “I looked, and behold the glory filled the house, and I fell upon my face” (Eze_44:4).
3. Boldly challenge the most minute and careful investigation. “Mark well all the ordinances, the entering in and every going forth of the sanctuary” (Eze_44:5).
Eze_44:4. “God reveals His glory to His servants, especially when He calls on them to make known His will to His people (Act_18:9; Act_23:11).”
Eze_44:5. “Divine things are not to be drowsily listened to or drowsily engaged in. In everything there must be heart—in seeing, in hearing, in doing.—The goings in and out of the Sanctuary a solemn consideration for every one, but especially for those who keep the charge of the Sanctuary, whatever their rank in the service.”—Lange.
Eze_44:6-14. God’s Treatment of Rebels.
1. Their sins are accurately recorded—rebellion (Eze_44:6), abominations (Eze_44:6-7), polluting the Sanctuary (Eze_44:7), idolatry (Eze_44:12), breaking of covenant (Eze_44:7), neglect of duty (Eze_44:8).
2. They are faithfully reproved (Eze_44:6-13).
3. They are made conscious of their evil doings. “They shall bear their iniquity” (Eze_44:10; Eze_44:12).
4. They suffer official degradartion (Eze_44:11; Eze_44:14).
Eze_44:7. “The voice of the people, the choice of the people, is not God’s voice, God’s choice, but frequently God’s judgment to the full.—Self-chosen Divine service is an abomina to the Lord.”—Lange.
Eze_44:8; Eze_44:14. “Ye have not kept the charge. But I will make them keepers of the charge.” The Divine Mercy—
1. Takes note of every act of unfaithfulness.
2. Does not fail to administer faithful reproof.
3. Does not utterly abandon the transgressor.
4. Is ever ready to restore the penitent.
Eze_44:8. “What general can employ a soldier who is everything else, but no soldier?”
Eze_44:9. “It is a token of the greatest decline of the Church when the wicked and manifest hypocrites are not only not expelled, but go freely in and out, and even have the ruling power.”—Lange.
Eze_44:10. “Where there are ungodly teachers there is no want of ungodly hearers (Jer_5:31). Degraded priests a mirror for pastors.”—Starke.
Eze_44:11. “Even in the performance of subordinate service, where one originally stood higher, the grace of God may be with us, provided we let God’s humbling of us issue in conversion of heart and look upon the punishment as a righteous recompense. It is not at all necessary that we should, as the world calls it, make a successful career in the clerical profession.”—Lange.
Eze_44:12. “The sins of the preacher in their consequences as regards the life of the community.”
Eze_44:13. “How great then was the love of the Lord Jesus to Peter and the rest of His disciples after His resurrection, as in sending them that sweet message (Mar_16:7), so in readmitting them to the work of the ministry after so foul a revolt! (Joh_20:21-23). And doth He not the very same still for His poor sinful servants who desire indeed to fear His name, but are oft overtaken in a fault through infirmity of the flesh?”—Trapp.
—“Let us beware of losing precious opportunities wherein we may have the honour of doing great things for God, such as Mark lost in leaving Paul and Barnabas in Pamphylia, and in not going forward to the glorious work through love of ease or fear of man; and such as the disciples lost in not affording Jesus at His request the sympathy of their prayers and tears, through drowsiness, in Gethsemane.”—Fausset.
—“The ignominy of failure in ministerial life: personal access to God is hindered, and the office becomes a torment.”—Lange.
Eze_44:15-16. Fidelity in God’s Service—
1. Commendable in times of general backsliding.
2. Attracts the Divine notice and approval.
3. Rewarded with special honour and blessing.
—“
1. The Lord takes notice of those who serve in His house, who are false and who are faithful in corrupt and apostatising times.
2. God takes pleasure in and honours those who are faithful and constant in His service.”—Greenhill.
—“The promise of a priesthood of the house of Zadok entirely corresponded to the promise of a shepherd with the name of David. It is the raising up of a people who should be themselves such a priesthood, and the sons of Zadok came into notice only because in connection with them there was an historical ground for taking them as representatives of a right-hearted spiritual community. All was to rise into a new and higher sphere, first the Kingdom of God itself, and then the people who enjoyed its distinctive privileges and experienced its blessings.”—Fairbairn.
Eze_44:16. “The precepts according to the law should remind us that preachers particularly run within lists, as Paul writes of the Christians. What is fitting for any one else may yet be far from seemly in a preacher.—But it is just those who take things easy that speak most of their severe toil and the heavy labour they have to Undergo.”—Lange.
Eze_44:17. “The reason is plain; wool is more apt than linen to contract dirt and breed insects; linen breeds none: besides, this is a vegetable and the other an animal substance. It was an ancient maxim that whatever was taken from a dead body was impure in matters of religion, and should not be permitted to enter into the Temple. The Egyptian priests always wore linen on their bodies and shoes of matting or rushes on their feet. The Mohammedans never write the Koran upon vellum or skin of any kind, as they would consider that as a defilement.”—A. Clarke.
Eze_44:17-24. “The various precepts respecting the purifications and the dress of the priests strikingly impress our minds with the great sanctity which God attaches to the ministry. The bodies of ministers must be preserved in sanctification and in honour. He who does the work and delivers the Word of God must habitually live the servant and friend of God. Nothing in his person, in his food, in his dress, or in his conduct must revolt the faithful against the Word and ordinances of the Lord. On the contrary, all about the priest must be inviting and calculated to recommend religion by a cloud of virtues and engaging qualities. If religion do not make ministers holy and happy, what hope can remain for the people?”—Sutcliffe.
Eze_44:19. “He who ministers at the Sanctuary must never seem profane, nor a fop in his attire, nor comic in his speech, nor a man of the world in his transactions. He may seem ridiculous to the world, only never conformed to the world.”—Lange.
Eze_44:20. “Seemly, but not remarkable either in defect or excess.—Men of extremes are unfit for the holy ministry.”
Eze_44:23-24. Ministerial Duty—
1. To point out the clear distinction between the false and the true. “They shall teach My people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern” (Eze_44:23).
2. To be just and impartial in controversy. “They shall judge according to My judgments” (Eze_44:24).
3. To observe and enforce obedience to the Divine laws. “They shall keep My laws and statutes and hallow My Sabbaths” (Eze_44:24).
Eze_44:23. “As their life, so, above all, their teaching ought to preserve the people from defilement and train them to purity.”
Eze_44:24. “The obligation to hallow the Sabbaths of the Lord is not done away with by the advent of Messiah; for here, in a passage which, in any fair interpretation, can only apply to Christian times, this obligation is expressly insisted on.”—Fausset.
—“God’s word is God’s judgment, the righteous Judge, right law and upright judgment.—The servant of God as umpire in disputes. He must not be a party man, but stands over the parties.”—Lange.
Eze_44:25. “They who are the messengers, heralds, and representatives of an eternal life shall neither have their serenity disturbed by the death of believers, which is no death, nor their pure life defiled by the life of the spiritually dead, which is no life.—We too are allowed to wipe our eyes, as God wipes away every tear from the eyes of His saints.”
Eze_44:28. God the Heritage of the Good—
1. Ensuring all necessary temporal good.
2. Supplying all sufficing spiritual blessing.
3. Cures all anxiety as to present and future maintenance.
—“All who have first the Kingdom of God for their possession are also truly priests. God feeds them wholly on what is hallowed, and he who will have a blessing in his house must evince love to them.”—Diedrich.
Eze_44:30. “That he may cause the blessing to rest in thine house.” Ministerial Maintenance a Source of Family Blessing—
1. As it is liberally devised.
2. As it is cheerfully bestowed.
3. As it is gratefully appreciated.
—“It is all in all to the comfort of any house to have the blessing of God upon it, and that blessing to rest in it; to dwell where we dwell and to extend to those who shall come after us. And the way to have the blessing of God upon our estates is to honour God with them, and to give Him and His ministers, Him and His poor, their share out of them. God blesses, He surely blesses the habitation of those who are thus just (Pro_3:33); and ministers, by instructing and praying for the families that are kind to them, should do their part towards causing God’s blessing to rest there.”—Benson.
Eze_44:31. “In God’s service there is no filthy lucre. The Lord purifies everything for them who eat with Him.”—Diedrich.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
F. W. Grant 1903 · Public Domain Section 4 (Eze 44:1-31).
Section 4 (Eze 44:1-31).
Regulations concerning those who minister in the Sanctuary
Read full note →
1. Now that all as to the Sanctuary and altar has been set in order we are given the regulations concerning the ministers of the Sanctuary. It is not surprising that in this connection we are again reminded of the divine glory, and also to find that there is an abiding witness to its entrance into the House and to the essential pre-eminence of Jehovah, in that none, not even the Prince, is to enter by the east gate through which Ezekiel saw the Glory enter.
In the past kings, priests, and people had fallen into the evil of treating Jehovah as though He was altogether like one of themselves. In their rebellion and idolatry He had become but one God among many, even though they might give Him first place in their Pantheon. In the theocracy of the future there shall be one Jehovah and His name one. His absolute supremacy will be acknowledged by all, and the evil of idolatry will be banished from the earth. So the majesty and distinctive glory of Jehovah is emphasized by the shutting of the East Gate by which He entered His House; no one may enter or go out by that gate.
Here a dignitary is introduced who has not been mentioned before -the Prince. He is privileged, as no other person, to occupy the porch of the east gate, sitting there to eat bread before Jehovah. But he does not pass through the gate, he enters by the porch and goes out by the same way. Thus the special sanctity of this gate would be impressed upon all, and particularly upon the Prince himself, reminding him of his subordinate place; the closed gate and the limited privilege of this person who appears to be the highest secular dignitary in the nation, teaching all of the supreme place of Jehovah. We may notice that the porch is at the end of the gate-building toward the west, facing the altar and the House.
This important personage, the Prince, is apparently one of the nation, not Christ Himself: his sons are spoken of (Eze 46:16) and he offers a sin-offering for himself (Eze 45:22). It seems clear that he occupies a representative position, yet neither the same as that of the high priest, of whom Ezekiel does not speak, nor that of the king as formerly known in Israel. He is not accorded the privileges nor the power of either. He seems to occupy an intermediary place between the people and the priesthood, since he is found among the former in their seasons of worship (Eze 46:10), not among the priests, nor privileged to enter the inner court, yet drawing nearer than the people themselves, since he may worship in the inner east gate which opens upon the inner court, while the people worship in the outer court as gathered at the door of this gate (Eze 46:2). But he is responsible to supply the various offerings at the feasts, the new moons, the sabbaths, in all the solemnities of the house of Israel, and he is therefore the recipient and holder of what the people offer for these occasions; and thus too the priesthood would look to him for the provision needed to carry on the national worship (Eze 45:13-22). Then he is given his own special portion in the land, and he is enjoined not to take any of the people’s inheritance (Eze 45:7-8; Eze 46:18; Eze 48:21-22). The Oblation and the Sanctuary are spoken of as in the midst of the Prince’s portion.
These considerations show that the Prince occupies quite a unique place in the history of Israel. It serves to emphasize the absolute character of the theocracy as to both kingly and high priestly rule. They are vested in the Messiah Himself, not in any mere man. Priests and kings of the past may have been types, but now the Antitype has come -the substance has replaced the shadow. This world to come of which this vision treats will not be in subjection to angels, but to Him to whom all things have been made subject according to God’s purpose, even Jesus (Heb 2:5-10). Angelic hosts will then attend the Son of Man (Mat 13:41; Mat 24:31; Mat 25:31; Joh 1:51; 2Th 1:7).
Returning to our chapter, we see then in the closure of the east gate a standing object-lesson teaching the sanctity and preeminence of Jehovah, showing that none, not even Prince or priests, are to be thought of as approaching in any measure an equality with God such as free access at the same gate might be construed to imply. Still in the privilege of the Prince to partake of a sacrificial feast in the porch of this gate we get an intimation of the connection of the saved nation and the glory of God which has hallowed this gate in a special manner, for in his place he is doubtless representative of the nation. His communion, and so that of the nation as seen in him, is with God whose glory entered by that gate and now dwells in His House in their midst -a holy, happy, salutary lesson.
We see too that all the worship would be conducted with faces westward. This furnishes an instructive contrast to what the prophet had seen in the entry of the temple as recorded in chapter 8 -twenty-five men with their backs to the temple and their faces toward the
east, worshipping the sun. In their evil course they had reversed God’s order. In how many things it is found that man’s thought is the very opposite of God’s, the sad consequence of departure and alienation through sin. How evident it is also that Satan’s constant aim is to induce the creature to turn its back upon God and have an idol of his own which is always another creature, for fallen man will have his god to be like himself, and groping in the moral darkness into which he has fallen he deifies his own lusts and passions and makes their gratification the chief feature of his worship. Every step of God’s advancing revelation through the ages has been to undo this lie which has wrapped itself around the heart and mind of man, blinding him to’ the light which he learns to hate because his deeds are evil, while for the same reason he loves the darkness. That revelation reached its meridian splendor in the coming of the Son, and now it is known beyond all possible question that in God is no darkness at all, that indeed He is light and love, not darkness and hate. He is One whose thoughts are as high above man’s as the heavens are above the earth. This lesson, to learn which brings the creature into its right place and therefore its real blessing, seems clearly suggested to us in what Ezekiel sets forth.
2. The prophet is now brought before the House by way of the north gate. This was the gate of sacrifice, as we have seen. Is not this significant? For only by the way of sacrifice can we be brought before the glory of God. This he beholds filling the House, and bows low in worship. Then Jehovah reveals to him the ordinances which follow, after which he is taken to view other parts of the sacred enclosure.How suggestive the order -sacrifice, worship, revelation.
It is instructive to note that the communication of these ordinances of service and worship, including the allotment of the heave-offering, the feasts and special solemnities, with instruction as to the ways of righteousness which become those who draw near to God, should be given in the light of the glory and in close relation to where the work of sacrifice is performed. Three important truths are thus brought together -the glory of God who is the Holy One, the work of redemption as set forth in the sacrifices, and the holy ways which are to characterize God’s people. Peter, setting before us. God’s holy character and government, enjoins us to walk in holiness and fear, forasmuch as we are redeemed by the precious blood of Christ (1Pe 1:14-19). Redeeming love in Christ has given perfect answer to the light which God is, in which all that we are and have done is searched out and manifested, and which according to holiness God must judge. Thus we who believe are made fit for the portion of the saints in light, and as thus accepted by God we are privileged to enter the holiest of all by the blood of Jesus. This being so, we are under the responsibility to behave ourselves according to the holy requirement of God our Father. Here His. government over us comes in, and only the more so since He has abounded toward us in such riches of grace.
God claims the attention of the whole man (ver. 5) -heart, eyes, ears; and note, it is the inner man first. The heart stands for the inner springs of man’s being and life. As from this organ of our physical frame the blood goes forth to energize the whole of the body’s wonderful structure, returning to it to be again prepared for continued work in the circulatory system, so in the spiritual realm we have, as we may say, man’s spirit and soul, the sea of his intellectual and emotional faculties which are manifested in his course of life. These are claimed by God, and as being under His control (other control can only result in spiritual death) there goes forth into the spiritual sphere, into all its paths of movement, of circulation, of feeling and emotion, that vital energy which makes us fit vessels for divine service. Then our vision (the eyes) will be full of that light which shines from the innermost Sanctuary enlightening the inner man; and one Voice will be heard, whose accents falling upon the multitudinous strings of our spiritual ears, send those vibrations of divine speech and harmony through our being which bring the desired response to the Master.
The prophet is told to mark well, literally, "set thine heart to," what Jehovah is making known. This is called for in view of the service he is to perform, that of communicating God’s mind to the people. It is well for us to remember that such occupation with what God may give is ever essential for the carrying out of any commission He may call upon us to fulfil. Purpose of heart is the necessary qualification for any servant of the Lord. One may possess much learning and great natural ability, be attractive in person and eloquent in speech, and yet useless, because the heart is not right, its purpose not formed in the secret place with God. If the inner man is under the power of divine things it is certain that the members of the outward man will be yielded in happy service to the holy and perfect will of God. God looks upon the heart, not upon the outward appearance, which may easily deceive.
The prophet is called to give whole-hearted attention to Jehovah’s Word. Apart from this he could not rightly perform his mission. Nor can we know how to rightly number our days and apply our hearts to wisdom apart from such attention to the Word of God. It alone provides a thorough furnishing of the man of God for every good work. Let us feed upon it, walk by it, preach it, serving others out of its treasuries, into which we daily enter with believing and worshiping hearts. Our hearts should stand in awe of that Word, while having joy in it as those who find great spoil (Psa 119:161-162).
Jehovah first reproves the house of Israel for their evil ways. They had forgotten His holy claims and defiled His house with their abominations. In view of this He established the ordinances which follow. By them they will be kept ever mindful of the past and of His own holiness, to safeguard which from all unlawful intrusion insures to them the fullest blessing and His own proper glory.
In earlier chapters of this book the prophet has told of Israel’s abominations (e.g., Eze 8:1-18; Eze 11:1-25), and many times have they been referred to as rebellious. Here they are so spoken of for the last time. This then is a word for the people of Ezekiel’s day, for when this new temple is built they will be no longer of such a character. This shows that God intended the new order of things to be established in the future, which the prophet was making known, to have a present effect upon the ways of the people. As they learned what God purposed for the day of glory, they were to already separate, themselves from past evils, which had come in through gross carelessness as to His honor and holiness. This, it may be said, is consistently God’s purpose in revealing the future. Those to whom it is revealed are responsible to walk in its light. God’s purpose as to future judgment or glory is His call to us to conduct ourselves now in a manner accordant with the revelation granted, and so to be witness to those around us of what we know is sure to come. This is the path of faith, for faith believing God’s testimony enters into fellowship with Him as to His purposes, and then judges of the present in the light of that secret which faith possesses, and which becomes its strength and comfort while waiting in the present. Thus we know that the day of the Lord is coming upon the ungodly world. It is not only a day of judgment but also the time of established righteousness and peace which Christ will bring in, and in which we shall have our part and place with Him. We are of the day, and not of this world’s present night. Hence we are to walk now as those who are of the day, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation -salvation out of the world which goes on to wrath (1Th 5:1-28). Whatever God has revealed in His prophetic Word is by no means for the gratification of curious minds, but so that he who believes it may walk with God in the present. By doing this we find practical deliverance from this present evil age, not being conformed to it, but transformed by the renewing of our minds in daily fellowship with God through His word of truth. So now Jehovah makes known by Ezekiel the order of things to obtain in the new Sanctuary and its service, that the people may learn therefrom and let the past suffice to have wrought abomination and rebellion.
Although these visions belong to a time still future, we see by the ministry of reproof and correction given in this chapter and the previous one (Eze 43:7-11; Eze 44:6-13), relating to the people and their rulers, both civil and religious, that God always has a present object in view in the revelations He gives. He brings the past into contrast with the future, that in the present practical sanctification may be realized in ceasing to do evil and learning to do well. Isaiah first describes the glory of the Millennial state, and then admonishes the people, saying, "House of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of Jehovah" (Isa 2:1-5).
In the first place provision is made to guard the Sanctuary from such profanation as had entered its precincts in the time of the kingdom. The evils that Jehovah rebukes had come in through unholy alliances with idolatrous neighbors, and by having hired foreigners to keep the charge of the gates. Such a state of things was aided by the close proximity to the temple of the king’s palace, so that the corruption of the royal house first seeped into the sacred enclosure of the first temple and then flooded it with wickedness, as in the days of Ahab and Manasseh. Balaam was made to give God’s thought concerning His people: "Lo, it is a people that shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations;" and he it was who later did his best to accomplish their mixture with the wicked nation of Moab. He could not curse, but becoming acquainted with God’s purpose, and being an enemy, he sought their overthrow by subtlety (Num 31:16). He snares them into evil associations, and God must deal in judgment. From this we learn what is meant by the doctrine of Balaam, and it shows one of the great wiles of the devil against which we must be on our guard. His constant effort is to effect mixture where God’s express mind is separation and purity. The admixture of Israel with the nations in her later history wrought her ruin, and brought the judgment of the Captivities and desolation. The admixture of the world and the Church, a greater evil, has wrought a correspondingly worse ruin. Scripture has especially warned us of this evil (2Co 6:11-18), so disastrous, whether in the individual or corporate sphere.
In this connection we may well consider Rev 2:14. It is one of those many instances in Scripture in which the things written afore-time for our admonition are taken up and made of present application. The doctrine of Balaam consisted, as we have seen, in the counsel he gave, directing the women of Moab and Midian to seduce the people of Israel into association with them in their idolatrous festivities, with which there was a practice of gross moral evil. Israel was caught in the snare of those friendly advances, which had behind them the enemy’s purpose to destroy the character of God’s people as called to "dwell alone," in separation to God, whose holy ways and worship had been revealed to them. Doubtless, the seduction was intended to deprive Israel of her distinctive position and favor with God, which Balaam had been forced to proclaim. God’s thought was that His people should be separate from all the abounding evil of the nations. Balaam’s doctrine was that a mixture should be effected between them. Fleshly lusts and false religious activities were the instruments used.
This history has been repeated in the relations established between the Church and the world. In the apostolic period idolatry touched every sphere of life. As a result, the early Christians of necessity withdrew largely from all the social and festive activities in which moral evil abounded, and in which they had formerly taken part (1Pe 4:1-4). This brought against them much persecution and evil-speaking. In those days, to partake of the idol sacrifices came to signify the recantation of Christianity.
But things changed; the world became friendly and sought association with the Church, who, like Israel, was snared into evil practices. The doctrine of mixture prevailed. This destroyed the true character and testimony of the Church in the world. Expansion by compromise with the idolatrous world became the policy of its leaders. Features and practices of heathendom were incorporated into its life, both publicly and privately. But today we do not think of this, because idolatry has passed away. Nevertheless it has its lesson for us. This same principle of mixture assailed the returned remnant in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, and wrought and caused them much sorrow. It is one of our great dangers, if not the greatest. The idol-feasts, with their open immorality, are not around us today; but there are still idols to keep from, and fleshly lusts from which to turn away. With the light and knowledge we have, whatever displaces God, or represents Him as different from what He is known to be as revealed in Christ, or that changes His truth, cannot be followed without some form of moral failure resulting. Truth refused, perverted, or neglected, is accompanied in some degree with moral laxity and spiritual decrepitude.
3. Returning to our chapter we find that the Levites, except the family of Zadok (ver. 15), are appointed to keep guard and do the service of the house, but are excluded from the priestly office. In the government of God they are shut out from this higher place because of their previous history. They had followed the people into idolatry, and were a stumbling-block of iniquity instead of resisting the incoming evil and instructing the people in the laws of the covenant under which they stood in relation to Jehovah. God requires that which is past; and in His ways of holy government such departure from His revealed and known will must be remembered in judgment, though those subject to it are personally safe. The day of loss and reward is certain, and this God’s grace does not set aside. The future will bring out results which flow from the past, for as we sow we reap. If our work is good we shall receive reward, if bad we shall suffer loss, though we ourselves are saved. This solemn lesson is seen in the case of the Levites. The past and its lessons would thus be kept before them as they fulfilled their service, and be a constant reminder to all the people of the nation’s past sin, in which the Levites had joined, ministering to them before their idols.
The same principle of righteous government finds illustration in the priests of Zadok’s line. They had remained faithful when Israel departed from Jehovah, and now in the day of Messiah’s kingdom they fill the nearest place. Past faithfulness meets its reward. Having previously spoken. of Zadok’s place in the nation’s history, we may without further remark consider the details now given regarding the priestly office.
The difference between the Levites and the priests is that the former stand before the people and minister to them, while the priests minister to Jehovah, stand before Him, and enter the Sanctuary. The holy privilege of going into God’s presence and of fellowship with Him at His table is characteristic of the priestly place.
There are twelve features in the regulations of this section, falling into four groups of three each. All have to do with the service and walk, in which there is to be a manifestation of truth and holiness in keeping with their Sanctuary privileges.
1. Regulations regarding their place and service in the Sanctuary.
1 Their sacred charge (ver. 15a).
2 Their holy service in this charge (vers. 15b, 16).
3 Their holy garments (vers. 17-19).
2. Regulations regarding their habits and relationships.
1 Their hair -moderation, no extremes (ver. 20).
2 Their abstinence -sobriety (ver. 21).
3 Their marriage -purity (ver. 22).
3. Regulations regarding their service toward the people.
1 Their work of teaching (ver. 23).
2 Their work of judgment (ver. 24a).
3 Their responsibility to observe and care for the order of divine worship (ver. 24b).
4. Regulations regarding their separation from defilement.
1 As to the dead (vers. 25-27).
2 As to inheritance (ver. 28).
3 As to their food (vers. 29-31).
The Sanctuary, then, is in their charge. This brings to them an access that others do not share, and with it a ministry peculiarly their own. The fat and the blood are specially mentioned, and then the table, for communion can only follow that of which the former elements speak.
The fat and the blood were especially reserved from all the offerings as being God’s own portion. Compare Lev 7:22-27. The fat is spoken of as the food of the offering, and as burnt for a sweet savor (Lev 3:16). It stands for that which is entirely consecrated to God in all that pertains to both the will and the energy of life, which is all given up to Him, even as the fat is all consumed on the altar. In this connection it is of interest to note, as another has done, that the word for ashes used in reference to the sacrifices "literally means ’fat.’ This has been thought to be because of the burning of the fat upon the altar, which would thus saturate the ashes. Be that as it may, the word is significant and suggestive. Ashes are the witness that the fire has done its work, the witness of an accomplished and accepted sacrifice. So we read in the margin of Psa 20:3, ’The Lord turn to ashes thy burnt sacrifice,’ translated ’accept,’ in explanation of the text. This witness of an accepted sacrifice is not a sign of sorrow, for which the word [generally translated ’ashes’] is used, [as also for] showing the emptiness and vanity of things (Est 4:1; Est 4:3; Job 2:8; Job 42:6; Isa 61:3, etc.; Isa 44:20). There is nothing worthless in connection with the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.
"The ashes of the sacrifice were first put on the east side of the altar, toward the sun-rising; they were then removed to a clean place outside the camp (Lev 4:12; Lev 6:10-11). Our blessed Lord’s body, after He had yielded up His life to God on the cross, was kept absolutely inviolate. The piercing of the spear was in fulfilment of Scripture, and furnished the evidence that He had actually died. But ’a bone of Him shall not be broken’ (Joh 19:33-37). So that precious body: (’A body hast Thou prepared Me,’ Heb 10:5) was not suffered to be treated as that of a criminal, but was judicially handed over to those who loved Him, wrapped in fragrant and costly perfume, and laid in a new grave hewn out of the rock (Joh 19:38-42; Luk 23:52-53). Does this not show in reality what was suggested in the ’fat ashes?’. . . The same unyielding judgment that had dealt with Him on the cross now demanded the fullest honor to Him, in judicial testimony to the acceptance of His sacrifice. The east side of the altar, the side of the sunrise, where the ashes were placed, is not only the witness of accepted sacrifice, but the pledge of resurrection. All this was ever before the Lord. He always linked His resurrection with His death (Mat 16:21). The ashes thus would speak of God’s acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice, giving full assurance to the believer of his acceptance." -Lectures on the Tabernacle, pp. 439-441, by S. Ridout.
This is an acceptance connected, therefore, with all the preciousness to God of which the fat speaks. So we may say the fat speaks of our blessed Lord Himself in His unreserved and perfectly acceptable devotion to God’s holy will, for the accomplishment of which He yielded up all the strength of His holy and perfect life in the work of the cross. Are not those words of Psa 22:1-31 significant of this? "Like water I am poured out, and My bones are all disjointed: My heart is like wax, it is melted in the midst of My bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and My tongue cleaveth to My jaws; and Thou hast laid Me in the dust of death. . . I may tell all My bones: they gaze, they stare upon Me."
What other language could more vividly depict the utter yielding up of all strength, of all fatness, in the work of sacrifice under the stroke of judgment? Truly this is the food of the offering, and a sweet savor to God. In it He finds His special portion and eternal delight.
Then there is the blood, it speaks of life, but laid down under judgment, given upon the altar to make atonement. No one was permitted to eat blood (Lev 3:17; Lev 17:10-14; Lev 19:26). Life essentially belongs to God, man has forfeited all claim to it through sin; but in connection with the sacrifices it speaks of Christ who became a Substitute for sinful men, and that the judgment sin required has been executed upon Him. As put upon the altar it declares the truth of acceptance, and provides the basis of worship for God’s people; as put upon the gate it marks the way of access into that blessing, and as put upon the House itself it shows what permits God to be with and dwell among His people, for it fully cleanses and atones in relation to all that would defile (Eze 43:20; Eze 45:19-20). The precious blood of Jesus cleanses from every sin. That precious blood gives us our access, for we are made nigh by it; it gives us our acceptance, for we are taken into favor in the Beloved in whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of offences; it enables God who is just to justify the ungodly who believe in Jesus; and in virtue of His work He will present His redeemed people faultless in the presence of God’s glory so that He will be found dwelling among them for eternity.
The next regulation refers to the clothing of the priests for entrance into God’s presence. They must be clothed in linen garments. No wool was permitted, nothing that would promote the exudation of nature, for this can have no place in His presence. That stands identified with man’s toil as a sinner (Gen 3:19). Linen we are familiar with as a symbol of righteousness, and of the righteousnesses of the saints, as in Rev 19:8. Whether we think of it in reference to our standing before God, what we are made in Christ, or the practical life of the believer, it is that which alone suits the holy presence of God. Such in fact are the garments of praise which should ever invest us as a holy priesthood. This alone rightly manifests His character, and on our part alone marks us as truly representing Him. Righteousness is the first feature of the kingdom of God (Rom 14:17). He who loves us and has washed us from our sins in His blood, has made us a kingdom, priests to His God and Father (Rev 1:5-6); and hence we are to follow righteousness (2Ti 2:22). We are to avoid evil, do good, seek and pursue peace, "because the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears toward their supplications; but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil. And who shall injure you if ye have become imitators of that which is good? But if also ye should suffer for righteousness’ sake, blessed are ye; but be not afraid of their fear, neither be troubled; but sanctify the Lord the Christ in your hearts" (1Pe 3:11-15). The righteous Lord loveth righteousness.
In no one like to the Lord Himself was the truth of the linen fully and perfectly displayed. So He is our example that we should follow in His steps.
Righteousness, we may say, is acting according to the place in which God has set us. As His righteousness in Christ, we are to be followers of Him as dear children. Thus in these verses we have been considering, we get first the place and its privileges (15, 16), then the responsibility to be clothed as befits that place, and to guard all as sanctified to the Lord.
In the second group of regulations, three important principles appear. That as to the hair shows how moderation is to mark those who present Jehovah’s offerings. They are to avoid extremes on the one side or the other. Neither undue severity nor fleshly looseness is to characterize their ways.
Hair occupies an important place in Scripture. In the case of the Nazarite it signifies lowly dependence upon God, the only proper creature-attitude, with withdrawal from the things of the flesh and its stimulus, so that action is not under such influences. In 1Co 11:1-34 it is used to show the relative place of man and woman in the divine order of creation -the short hair of the man indicating his headship and responsibility to rule, the long hair of the woman that of her place of dependence, yet helpfulness, without which the man is not complete. Thus we may see in it a sign of separation in devotedness to God, all that we are brought into subjection to His will, and so of obedience to His order for us in whatever sphere of relation we may be placed. It is evident that there may be that extreme asceticism which does dishonor to God’s creature, or on the other hand the turning of the grace of God into dissoluteness. It is needless to remark that neither is of God. It is the avoidance of such extremes that seems suggested in this ordinance as to the hair. It counsels true-hearted devotion to God in accordance with the obedience His Word enjoins, so that fleshly extremes are avoided on both sides.
Abstinence from wine in connection with their service in the inner court well accords with what we have just considered. It "plainly covers all fleshly stimulus, which prevents clear discernment of what is or is not according to the mind and nature of God. For us also who are called to walk in the light of God’s presence continually, this is not a casual, but a constant rule. The impulse of nature needs the restraint of Christ’s yoke; even where, as the apostle says, things are lawful to us, we must still not be brought under the power of any (1Co 6:12). And how easily do they acquire power!" It means the avoidance of all worldly, carnal methods, the love of the things of the world, in all that constitutes our place in worship and service as a holy and royal priesthood called to show forth the excellencies of Him who has brought us out of darkness into His marvelous light. We are to be controlled by that sober judgment which is formed in the Sanctuary. The psalmist might envy the ease, prosperity and power of the wicked when not in the current of God’s thoughts, but when he went into the Sanctuary then understood he their end (Psa 73:1-28). It is to such sobriety that the apostle exhorts -a sobriety of a spiritually sound mind, fleshly desires and passions held in restraint, the habits of life well regulated with discretion and moderation. Compare 1Ti 3:2; Tit 1:8; Tit 2:4; Tit 2:6; Tit 2:12; Rom 12:3; 1Pe 4:7; 2Co 5:13, sober, soberly, or sober-minded; Tit 2:2, temperate; ver. 5, discreet.
In the ordering of the marriage relation the purpose is to preserve purity of association. It comes as an added guard against yielding to the mere dictates of passion, or to acting in a careless, loose manner in forming the most sacred and important relation of human life. Compare Lev 21:7-14.
Thus in every way the habits and relationships of the priests are to constitute a good witness for God. The priest is to "show out of a good conversation his works with meekness and wisdom" (Jas 3:13). "But as He who hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation" (1Pe 1:15). Of course, we know that "conversation" means manner of life, and not merely our speech, though that is of itself an important factor.
The third group of regulations treats of priestly service toward the people. Let us not forget this order. To rightly fill priestly responsibility, to serve others in the work of teaching and judgment, we must first regulate our individual lives in accordance with the revealed mind of God. Here, as we know, Samson broke down, and how many another since his day! The apostle well understood this principle, and declares, "I buffet my body, and lead it captive, lest after having preached to others I should be myself rejected." This gives us a sober guiding principle. To love this present age results in forsaking the path of true service, as Demas did (2Ti 4:10); that is only a form of self-love which refuses to give place to that love which would make Christ everything and all; in other words, to henceforth live unto Him who loved us and died for us, so that the life we now live in the flesh has Him for its supreme object. Plainly to know how to discern for ourselves, and so teach others the difference between the holy and profane, the clean and unclean, we must live in the light of the Sanctuary and know how to use its balances. And again what else can fit for the judgment of that which is in controversy? Those who thus serve and would lead others to obey the divine order must themselves observe God’s holy laws and statutes, thus setting the example of obedience thereto. This is their responsibility, the foundation upon which the superstructure of priestly service must be built. When this is not so we may see the consequences depicted in the case of Eli’s sons (1Sa 2:12-30).
In the last part of this section we return to what relates to the walk of the priests. First, as regards defilement from the dead. Compare Lev 21:1-6. To be connected with it in even the permitted cases defiles, requiring proper cleansing and the presentation of a sin-offering. Thus death becomes the remedy for the defilement which death brings in as the penalty of sin. To this the cross bears witness. But it is clear that general or promiscuous defilement was to be sedulously watched against. There is defilement in death because it is the penalty of sin, and what we have here is given as an evidence of what is suited to God’s presence. The priestly place is viewed in that relation. Into His presence death and its defilement cannot come. Sin is inextricably linked with it, and so even Christ is forsaken when dying under its judgment. Only His death avails to bring poor helpless man into the life beyond its touch. And He so perfectly and completely met all the issues raised by sin and death that He could sit down in the presence of God -a witness, indeed, how all is removed from before God through that one sacrifice. Upon this depends all the exercise of power to take away sin by, judgment. So we may learn from this regulation that the one who enters God’s presence must be free from the touch of death, from the defilement it causes. As redeemed by the precious blood of Christ we are made free, and stand identified with the glorious resurrection-life of our Saviour and Great High Priest. Our priestly place as linked with Him is in the power of indissoluble life. The present practical effect of this is to be a godly care to avoid unnecessary contact with what death stands for -sin and its fruits; while when this comes in we must remember what becomes His presence, the cleansing which restores the disturbed communion and service. The governing principle is, "I will be sanctified in them that draw near to Me."
The subject of inheritance is next treated. "I am their inheritance . . . I am their possession." The priests have no inheritance, no possession in Israel. Compare Num 18:20; Deu 10:9; Deu 18:1. Is this a deprivation? Can it be that to be an heir of God, to have Him as one’s inheritance and possession? Rather it expresses the highest possible place of nearness and blessing in which what God is becomes the portion of those so blessed. What more than this gives God His rightful place? The whole man is lifted up to Him in whom all his resources are found, from whom all his expectation must come. It reminds us of the Christian place -heirs of God, joint-heirs with Christ, who is the appointed Heir of all things, and He in whom we have obtained an inheritance into which we are brought according to the riches of His grace and to the praise of
His glory. Now we joy in God, and rejoice in hope of His glory. Our city is of His building, our kingdom is of His preparation and giving.
Finally, the food of the priests is virtually all that is offered to Jehovah by the people -His portion becomes their’s.
"Because of the anointing, the most holy things were given them to eat, which was a special privilege of the priests. The same thing is true with regard to us. Whatever is precious in the offering of Christ, in every point of view -in His life and in His death; in that bread come down from heaven, contemplated in His life of devotedness and grace here below; and in His death for us -all is the food and nourishment of our souls, in that communion with God in which we ourselves are kept in our priesthood. The priests alone ate the holy things, and they ate them in a holy place. It is only in the sense of the presence of God, and under the efficacy of that oil which is not poured on flesh, that we can truly realize what is precious in the work of Christ" (Synopsis, Vol. 1, pp. 261, 262).
F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain 1. The outward eastern gate for the prince (Eze…
CHAPTER 44
1. The outward eastern gate for the prince (Eze 44:1-3)
Read full note →
2. The charge concerning the strangers and the rebellious tribes (Eze 44:4-14)
3. The charge concerning the priests, the sons of Zadok (Eze 44:15-27)
4. The inheritance of the priests (Eze 44:28-31)
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain The Status of the Prince, the Levites, and the…
The Status of the Prince, the Levites, and the Priests
v. 1. Then He brought me back the way of the gate of the outward Sanctuary which looketh toward the east, so that Ezekiel could observe it closely from the court; and it was shut, locked against all those who might desire to enter.
Read full note →
v. 2. Then said the Lord unto me, in explaining this unusual condition of affairs, This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, 43:4, therefore it shall be shut, so that the glory of the God of the Covenant would everlastingly dwell in the midst of His Church.
v. 3. It is for the prince, the ruler of the Lord’s people; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the Lord; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate and shall go out by the way of the same. It is evident that the prophecy here has Messianic conditions in mind, that we have here "an ideal description of coming realities under the form and aspect of the old relations. " The leaders of the Church of the New Testament were to refrain from all corruptions which brought destruction upon the Old Testament Israel.
v. 4. Then brought He me the way of the north gate before the house, that is, the inner north gate; and I looked, and, behold, the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord, as the prophet could see from his position near the Sanctuary; and I fell upon my face, once more overcome by the majesty of the divine glory.
v. 5. And the Lord said unto me, Son of man, mark well, literally, "direct thy heart," and behold with thine eyes and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of the Lord and all the laws thereof, Eze 43:11-12; and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the Sanctuary, the approach of the house of God by the priests as well as the way by which they left the place of their service.
v. 6. And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God, He who has unlimited power and authority, O ye house of Israel, they who bore the name of the faithful patriarch, let it suffice you of all your abominations, of which they surely had performed their fill and might now abstain, Cf 1Pe 4:3,
v. 7. in that ye have brought into My Sanctuary strangers, literally, "children of a stranger," uncircumcised in heart, knowing nothing of repentance and faith, and uncircumcised in flesh, not having even the outward badge of the covenant people, to be in My Sanctuary, for non-Israelites were not permitted to perform the functions of the priesthood, to pollute it, even My house, when ye offer My bread, the sacrificial food placed on the Temple altars, the fat and the blood; and they have broken My covenant because of all your abominations; for since the children of Israel permitted this infraction of the rules of the Lord, it was their act that brought about the desecration of the Sanctuary, and the abomination was laid to their charge.
v. 8. And ye have not kept the charge of Mine holy things, in treating the appointments of the Temple without the reverence which He demands; but ye have set keepers of My charge in My Sanctuary for yourselves, literally, "but ye appoint for keepers of My charge in My Sanctuary those," that is, such people, such men, as their representatives in performing the functions of their religious cult. Their worship, therefore, was not a service of God, but a service of their own inclination and thus altogether sinful. In condemnation of such practices the Lord now gives some definite rules concerning the service in His new Temple.
v. 9. Thus saith the Lord God, No stranger, uncircumcised in heart nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My Sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel. Only such as have, by repentance and faith, become fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God, are acceptable in his sight. Cf Eph 2:19-22.
v. 10. And the Levites that are gone away far from Me, when Israel went astray, joining the people in their apostasy, in spite of better knowledge, which went astray away from Me after their idols, in the idolatry which was Israel’s chief transgression; they shall even bear their Iniquity.
v. 11. Yet they shall be ministers in My Sanctuary, in charge of some minor services, having charge at the gates of the house, as porters and guards, and ministering to the house, thereby demoted from the rank and functions of priests to those of ordinary Levites; they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister unto them, no longer in positions of authority and influence, but in the station of porters.
v. 12. Because they ministered unto them before their idols and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity, instead of hindering their idolatrous endeavors; therefore have I lifted up Mine hand against them, saith the Lord God, and they shall bear their iniquity, by having their rank and position taken away from them. When men who are supposed to be leaders and guides of the people of the Lord promote idolatry and other acts of transgression, as in many recent instances, this fact aggravates their offense in a very decided manner.
v. 13. And they shall not come near unto Me to do the office of a priest unto Me, nor to come near to any of My holy things, the appointments used in the service of the Sanctuary, in the Most Holy Place, but they shall bear their shame and their abominations which they have committed.
v. 14. But I will make them keepers of the charge of the house, of a decidedly secondary rank, for all the service thereof and for all that shall be done therein. There is only one comforting thought in this section, namely, that one may be a believer, and that in a distinguished place, and yet lose some special honor, be acknowledged as pious, yet be excluded from some dignity. The sin is forgiven, but the consequences of the sin must often be borne throughout life.
v. 15. But the priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of My Sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from Me, remaining faithful in the midst of the general apostasy and therefore types of the true priestly character, they shall come near to Me to minister unto Me, in performing all the functions of the priesthood, and they shall stand before Me to offer unto Me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord God.
v. 16. They shall enter into My Sanctuary, being accorded this privilege with all those who are children of God in truth, and they shall come near to My table, namely, the altar of incense, to minister unto Me; and they shall keep My charge. The priests of the line of Ithamar were discharged from the office as priests of the Temple because of the corrupt manner in which they followed in the footsteps of the sons of Eli, against whom the same denunciation was uttered. Cf 1Sa 2:32-35. Zadok is the son of Ahitub of the line of Eleazar, 1Ch 6:37-38, who at the time of Absalom’s rebellion was faithful to David, 2Sa 15:24, and also anointed Solomon to be king over Israel, 1Ki 1:32, while the high priest Abiathar of the line of Ithamar took the part of the pretender Adonijah. Cf 1Ki 1:7-25. In consequence of this defection the office of the high priest was given to Zadok and his descendants. Cf 1Ki 2:26-35. When the Lord’s patience is exhausted, His punishment strikes the offenders with terrible force and lasting effect.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 to the outer sanctuary gate that faced east
to the outer sanctuary gate that faced east
"to the outer sanctuary gate on the east side of the temple"
Read full note →
it will not be opened
This can be translated in active form. AT: "no one will open it" (See: Active or Passive)
the God of Israel
See how you translated this in Ezekiel 8:4.
He will enter by way of the gate's portico and go out the same way
He will enter the courtyard through another gate and then sit in the portico of the east gate and eat.
portico
covering in front of an entrance with columns or posts for support. In this case, the portico opens into the courtyard and is between the entrance to the temple and the inside of the gate. See how you translated this in Ezekiel 8:16.
before Yahweh
"in front of Yahweh" or "in the presence of Yahweh"
translationWords
sanctuary
gate
face
Yahweh
God
Israel
rule
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 44:1-31 Now that the glory of the Lord had…
44:1-31 Now that the glory of the Lord had returned to the Temple, questions of access were critical. Who could approach this holy God? Like ch 43, this chapter is concerned with the Temple’s entrances and exits, as well as the duties and procedures associated with its use.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.