EZEKIEL 45 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

Israel Fully Restored

1 “‘When you allot the land as an inheritance, you are to present to the Lord a portion of the land as a sacred district, 25,000 cubits[a] long and 20,000[b] cubits[c] wide; the entire area will be holy.

BARNES, "By lot - Not by casting lots, but by “allotment,” the several portions being assigned by rule Jos_13:6.

Oblation - The oblation (properly “heaveoffering”) was regarded as the Lord’s portion Lev_27:30. This “oblation” is given here as part of the provision made for the priests, and was probably in lieu of tithes Lev_27:30; Num_18:21, just as the prince had his definite portion of land instead of being supported by the contributions of the people. The priests and Levites had, in addition, the sacrifices (Eze_44:28, note). This provision for them, out of proportion in any actual arrangement, is no doubt intended to symbolize the reverence and honor due to God, and expressed by liberality to His services and His ministers. The Septuagint read “the breadth twenty thousand;” and those who adopt this, read Eze_45:3 “and from this” whole measure is to be deducted the priests’ special portion 25,000 from east to west, and 10,000 from north to south. Others, retaining the reading of the text, suppose the term oblation here to denote the portion assigned to the priests alone (as in Eze_48:9), and “of this measure” Eze_45:3 to mean not “deducted from this measure,” but “computed by this measure.” The King James Version rightly supplies “reeds,” since the precincts Eze_42:20 were 500 “reeds” square. 25,000 reeds =about 42 12 statute miles, 36 12 geographic miles.

CLARKE, "When ye shall divide by lot - That is, when on your repossessing your 1

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

GILL, "Moreover, when ye shall divide by lot the land, for inheritance,.... This is not to be understood literally of the division of the land of Israel; which agrees not with the division of it begun by Moses, and finished by Joshua, upon his conquest of it, and the introduction of the people of Israel into it; nor was such a division as this made when the Jews returned from Babylon; nor is there any reason to expect the like when they shall be converted in the latter day; nor is it meant typically of the heavenly inheritance, which saints obtain in Christ by lot, Eph_1:11, of which the earthly Canaan was a type; though some in this way interpret it: but since the whole vision respects the church of Christ on earth, it must be meant mystically and spiritually of the kingdom of Christ, and the settlement and establishment of it throughout the whole world, according to the allotment and determination of God; and they are a distinct and special people that are admitted into this state; it is by the distinguishing grace of God that they are taken into the Gospel church, and have a part and share in all the privileges and immunities of it. Ye shall offer an oblation unto the Lord, an holy portion of the land; which should be lifted up as the heave offering was, and dedicated to the Lord: this designs such persons who are separated from the world, and sanctified by the Spirit of God, who shall be brought by the ministers of the word to the Lord, as trophies of his efficacious and victorious grace, ascribing the whole glory of their conversion to him; and these shall present themselves, souls and bodies, a holy, living, and acceptable sacrifice to him; see Isa_66:20. The length shall be the length of five and twenty thousand reeds, and the breadth shall be ten thousand; the kind of measure is not expressed in the original, so that it is a question whether reeds or cubits are meant; some think the latter, and the rather, because mention is made of them, Eze_45:2, and it is added, and of this measure shall thou measure the length of five and twenty thousand; which, if understood of cubits, will greatly reduce the length and breadth of this holy portion of the land; wherefore it is best to take the largest measure, since that seems better to answer the design of the Holy Ghost in this passage; and the rather, since this measure is more proper to measure land with, and is that which the measurer is said to have in his hand, Eze_40:5, and besides, the measure of the sanctuary, said to be five hundred square, Eze_45:2 was measured with the measuring reed, and not the cubit, Eze_42:16, and which therefore must be supplied here; and a measuring reed being six cubits, by a cubit and a hand's breath, Eze_40:5, makes this portion of land to be more than six times larger than if it was supposed to be measured by the cubit; and twenty five thousand of this measure, according to Cornelius à Lapide, made five hundred miles, which was three times as large as the land of Canaan; that being, as Jerom (u) says, a hundred and sixty miles long, and forty six broad; and is a proof, that

2

the land of Canaan literally taken is not here meant; but the whole is designed to set forth the amplitude and large extent of the church of Christ in the world, in the times the vision refers to. This shall be holy in all the borders thereof round about; that is, this portion of land measured out, and distinguished from the rest: holiness of heart and life shall appear in all the subjects of Christ's kingdom, and members of his church, which becomes his house for ever.

HENRY 1-8, "Directions are here given for the dividing of the land after their return to it; and, God having warranted them to do it, would be an act of faith, and not of folly, thus to divide it before they had it. And it would be welcome news to the captives to hear that they should not only return to their own land, but that, whereas they were now but few in number, they should increase and multiply, so as to replenish it. But this never had its accomplishment in the Jewish state after the return out of captivity, but was to be fulfilled in the model of the Christian church, which was perfectly new (as this division of the land was quite different from that in Joshua's time) and much enlarged by the accession of the Gentiles to it; and it will be perfected in the heavenly kingdom, of which the land of Canaan had always been a type. Now, 1. Here is the portion of land assigned to the sanctuary, in the midst of which the temple was to be built, with all its courts and purlieus; the rest round about it was for the priests. This is called (Eze_45:1) an oblation to the Lord; for what is given in works of piety, for the maintenance and support of the worship of God and the advancement of religion, God accepts as given to him, if it be done with a single eye. It is a holy portion of the land, which is to be set out first, as the first-fruits that sanctify the lump. The appropriating of lands for the support of religion and the ministry is an act of piety that bids as fair for perpetuity, and the benefit of posterity, as any. This holy portion of the land was to be measured, and the borders of it fixed, that the sanctuary itself might not have more than its share and in time engross the whole land. So far the lands of the church shall extend and no further; as in our own kingdom donations to the church were of old limited by the statute of mortmain. The lands here allotted to the sanctuary were 25,000 reeds (so our translation makes it, though some make them only cubits) in length, and 10,000 in breadth-about eighty miles one way and thirty miles another way (say some); twenty-five miles one way and ten miles the other way, so others. The priests and Levites that were to come near to minister were to have their dwellings in this portion of the land that was round about the sanctuary, that they might be near their work; whereas by the distribution of land in Joshua's time the cities of the priests and Levites were dispersed all the nation over. This intimates that gospel ministers should reside upon their charge; where their service lies there must they live. 2. Next to the lands of the sanctuary the city-lands are assigned, in which the holy city was to be built, and with the issues and profits of which the citizens were to be maintained (Eze_45:6): It shall be for the whole house of Israel, not appropriated, as before, to one tribe or two, but some of all the tribes shall dwell in the city, as we find they did, Neh_11:1, Neh_11:2. The portion for the city was fully as long, but only half as broad, as that for the sanctuary; for the city was enriched by trade and therefore had the less need of lands. 3. The next allotment after the church-lands and the city-lands is of the crown-lands, Eze_45:7, Eze_45:8. Here is no admeasurement of these, but they are said to lie on the one side and on the other side of the church-lands

3

and city-lands, to intimate that the prince with his wealth and power was to be a protection to both. Some make the prince's share equal to the church's and city's share both together; others make it to be a thirteenth part of the rest of the land, the other twelve parts being for the twelve tribes. The prince that attends continually to the administration of public affairs must have wherewithal to support his dignity, and have abundance, that he may not be in temptation to oppress the people, which yet with many does not prevent that; but the grace of God shall prevent it, for it is promised here, My princes shall no more oppress my people; for God will make the officers peace and the exactors righteousness. Notwithstanding this, we find that after the return of the Jews to their own land the princes were complained of for their exactions. But Nehemiah was one that did not do as the former governors, and yet kept a handsome court, Neh_5:15, Neh_5:18. But so much is said of the prince in this mystical holy state, to intimate that in the gospel-church magistrates should be as nursing fathers to it and Christian princes its patrons and protectors; and the holy religion they profess, as far as they are subject to the power of it, will restrain them from oppressing God's people, because they are more his people than theirs. 4. The rest of the lands were to be distributed to the people according to their tribes, who had reason to think themselves well settled, when they had both the testimony of Israel and the throne of judgment so near them.JAMISON, "Eze_45:1-25. Allotment of the land for the sanctuary, the city, and the Prince.offer an oblation — from a Hebrew root to “heave” or “raise”; when anything was offered to God, the offerer raised the hand. The special territorial division for the tribes is given in the forty-seventh and forty-eighth chapters. Only Jehovah’s portion is here subdivided into its three parts:

(1) that for the sanctuary (Eze_45:2, Eze_45:3);(2) that for the priests (Eze_45:4);(3) that for the Levites (Eze_45:5).

Compare Eze_48:8-13.five and twenty thousand reeds, etc. — So English Version rightly fills the ellipsis (compare Note, see on Eze_42:16). Hence “cubits” are mentioned in Eze_45:2, not here, implying that there alone cubits are meant. Taking each reed at twelve feet, the area of the whole would be a square of sixty miles on each side. The whole forming a square betokens the settled stability of the community and the harmony of all classes. “An holy portion of the land” (Eze_45:1) comprised the whole length, and only two-fifths of the breadth. The outer territory in its distribution harmonizes with the inner and more sacred arrangements of the sanctuary. No room is to be given for oppression (see Eze_45:8), all having ample provision made for their wants and comforts. All will mutually co-operate without constraint or contention.

K&D 1-8, "The determination of the means of support for the priesthood is followed still further by an explanation of the manner in which Jehovah will be their inheritance and possession; in other words, assign to the priests and Levites that portion of the land which was requisite for their abode. This is to be done by His causing a definite tract of land to be set apart for Himself, for the sanctuary, and for His servants, and for the

4

capital, when the country is distributed among the tribes of Israel (Eze_45:1-8). On both sides of this domain the prince is also to receive a possession in land, to guard against all exaction on the part of the princes in time to come. And everywhere unrighteousness is to cease, just weight and measure are to be observed (Eze_45:9-12), and the people are to pay certain heave-offerings to provide for the sacrifices binding upon the prince (Eze_45:13-17).Eze_45:1-8

The Holy Heave from the Land. - Eze_45:1. And when ye divide the land by lot for an inheritance, ye shall lift a heave for Jehovah as a holy (portion) from the land; five and twenty thousand the length, and the breadth ten (? twenty) thousand. It shall be holy in all its circumference round about. Eze_45:2. Of this five hundred shall belong to the Holy by five hundred square round about, and fifty cubits open space thereto round about. Eze_45:3. And from this measured space thou shalt measure a length of five and twenty thousand, and a breadth of ten thousand, and in this shall be the sanctuary, a holy of holies. Eze_45:4. A holy (portion) of the land shall this be; to the priests, the servants of the sanctuary, shall it belong who draw near to serve Jehovah, and it shall be to them the place for houses and a sanctuary for the sanctuary. Eze_45:5. And five and twenty thousand in length and ten thousand in breadth shall belong to the Levites, the servants of the house, for a possession to them as gates to dwell in. Eze_45:6. And as a possession for the city, ye shall give five thousand in breadth and five and twenty thousand in length, parallel to the holy heave; it shall belong to the whole house of Israel. Eze_45:7. And to the prince (ye shall give) on both sides of the holy heave and of the possession of the city, along the holy heave and along the possession of the city, on the west side westwards and on the east side eastwards, and in length parallel to one of the tribe-portions, from the western border to the eastern border. Eze_45:8. It shall belong to him as land, as a possession in Israel; and my princes shall no more oppress my people, but shall leave the land to the house of Israel according to its tribes. - The domain to be first of all set apart from the land at the time of its distribution among the tribes is called תרומה, heave, not in the general sense of the lifting or taking of a portion from the whole, but as a portion lifted or taken by a person from his property as an offering for God; for תרומה comes from הרים, which signifies in the case of the minchahthe lifting of a portion which was burned upon the altar as אזכרה for Jehovah (see the comm. on Lev_2:9). Consequently everything that was offered by the Israelites, either voluntarily or in consequence of a precept from the Lord for the erection and maintenance of the sanctuary and its servants, was called תרומה (see Exo_25:2., Eze_30:15; Lev_7:14; Num_15:19, etc.). Only the principal instructions concerning the heave from the land are given here, and these are repeated in Eze_48:8-22, in the section concerning the division of the land, and to some extent expanded there. The introductory words, “when ye divide the land by lot for an inheritance,” point to this. (See the map on Plate IV.) הפיל, sc. גירל (Pro_1:14), to cast the lot, to divide by lot, as in Jos_13:6. Then shall ye lift, set apart, a heave for Jehovah as a holy (portion) from the land. מן is to be closely connected with קדש, as shown by Eze_45:4. In the numbers mentioned the measure to be employed is not given. But it is obvious that cubits are not meant, as Böttcher, Hitzig, and others assume, but rods; partly from a comparison of Eze_45:2 with Eze_42:16, where the space of the sanctuary, which is given here as 500 by 500 square, is described as five hundred rods on every side; and partly also from the fact that the open space around the sanctuary is fixed at fifty cubits, and in this case אמה

5

is added, because rods are not to be understood there as in connection with the other numbers. The correctness of this view, which we meet with in Jerome and Raschi, cannot be overthrown by appealing to the excessive magnitude of a τέμενος of twenty-five thousand rods in length and ten thousand rods in breadth; for it will be seen in Ezekiel 48 that the measurements given answer to the circumstances in rods, but not in cubits. The אר before and after the number is pleonastic: “as for the length, twenty-five thousand rods in length.” Length here is the measurement from east to west, and breadth from north to south, as we may clearly see from Eze_48:10. No regard, therefore, is paid to the natural length and breadth of the land; and the greater extent of the portions to be measured is designated as length, the smaller as breadth. The expression אשרה אלף is a remarkable one, as עשרת אלפים is constantly used, not only in Eze_45:3 and Eze_45:5, but also in Eze_48:9-10,Eze_48:13, Eze_48:18. The lxx have εἴκοσι χιλιάδας, twenty thousand breadth. This reading appears more correct than the Masoretic, as it is demanded by Eze_45:3 and Eze_45:5. For according to Eze_45:3, of the portion measured in Eze_45:1 twenty-five thousand rods in length and ten thousand in breadth were to be measured for the sanctuary and for the priests' land; and according to Eze_45:5, the Levites were also to receive twenty-five thousand rods in length and ten thousand in breadth for a possession. The first clause of Eze_45:3 is unintelligible if the breadth of the holy terumah is given in Eze_45:1 as only ten thousand rods, inasmuch as one cannot measure off from an area of twenty-five thousand rods in length and ten thousand rods in breadth another space of the same length and breadth. Moreover, Eze_45:1 requires the reading עשרים as the “holy terumah” is not only the portion set ,אלףapart for the sanctuary and the priests' land, but also that which was set apart for the Levites.

PETT, "Introduction

Chapter 45 The New Land and The New Vision.

What is written here appears at first sight to be simply an idealistic arrangement for the division of the land by lot at the return from exile, in a similar way to the Mosaic idealistic arrangements carried into fruition by Joshua (Numbers 26:52-56), which never became a full reality because of the failure of the people of Israel. In a sense therefore it may seem to parallel those. But there is a remarkable distinction. The arrangements suggested by Moses, and carried out by Joshua, were clearly connected to the land as it was, even though they failed in fulfilment because of the disobedience and halfheartedness of the people. But Ezekiel is here portraying something that did not apply to the land as it was or to what he knew were the intentions of God’s people. He is in fact deliberately describing in vision something that he knows will never literally be, but the principles of which he is certain will

6

one day be fulfilled.

Ezekiel was a visionary, but he was no fool. He knew that the vision of his fellow exiles, or at least those of them whose hearts were for Yahweh, was to return to the land, reoccupy it, and then rebuild Jerusalem and the temple on Mount Zion. (And that incidentally is also the view of those who believe in the establishing of a Millennium about what the Jews would do then).

But what Ezekiel describes here is nothing like that. His visions of the throne of God, and now his vision of the heavenly temple already established in the land, had made him recognise that what the house of Israel were planning to do was not satisfactory. He realised that they would once more become bogged down in the land and fall back into the old ritualism, if not the old idolatry. And when we read Ezra and Nehemiah we recognise that that really was the danger, and indeed what eventually happened.

So under God’s direction he lays out a plan for the future which points to something beyond that. He seeks to direct their hearts and minds to a more spiritual concept of the kingdom of God, a concept which would in fact in the end only find its fulfilment through the ministry of Jesus and in the everlasting kingdom.

What Ezekiel was seeking to convey, mainly passed the people by. For even God’s presence revealed among them in His heavenly temple did not finally move them to appreciate the heavenly nature of Ezekiel’s message. And that is why in the end they would even reject their Messiah because He proclaimed a heavenly kingship (Daniel 9:25-26 with Ezekiel 7:13-14; compare Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12). So careful consideration reveals a deeper meaning to his words than that which is apparent on the surface.

There is a clear suggestion in Ezekiel 45:1-5 that the twenty five thousand by twenty five thousand cubit area depicted is to be seen as a kind of enlarged ‘temple’, with the heavenly sanctuary as the most holy place, the ‘holy portion’ of the priests as an inner court, and the Levite and city areas as the outer court. This is the nearest that

7

Ezekiel, given the conceptions of that time, could get to a heavenly kingdom.

In the first place it is clear that the measurements are not to be taken absolutely literally. No one allocating land would do so in such a stark mathematical manner, for it takes no account of landscape and landmarks, and it is in absolute contrast to the allocating of the land in the book of Joshua. It is thus far more likely that the numbers are to be seen as conveying a specific but not literal message, and this is confirmed by the covenant significance of the numbers. It describes an area which is ‘foursquare’ in multiples of five (25000 by 25000 cubits), which surely indicates a kind of perfection within a covenant relationship.

We are not here dealing with the same situation as pictured earlier. The temple area in Ezekiel 42:20 was surrounded by what was ‘common’ or ‘profane’. But here it is to be surrounded by ‘the holy portion’. Thus the situations are to be seen as very different. The two descriptions are clearly conveying different lessons at different times, the one the stark holiness of the heavenly sanctuary in contrast to the world to which it had come before the people returned, the other the special holiness of a far wider area required by God once the people of God have returned to the land and have been re-accepted by Him.

The first thing that Ezekiel is in fact trying to convey is that from now on all concentration should be placed on a recognition of the heavenly temple ‘among them’ which is not directly connected with Jerusalem. In Ezekiel’s eyes Jerusalem was to be thrust aside as the special place where His people could meet with God. It was not totally condemned, but simply set aside. It was desanctified and made ‘ordinary’, and seen as to some extent peripheral. It was present there but seen only as the representative of ‘the whole house of Israel’ in the smallest section of the foursquare arrangement. And all the thoughts of the people were to be collected around the heavenly sanctuary situated on a mountain well away from Jerusalem, and not on ‘the city’ itself.

This is all evidenced by the fact that the heavenly temple, within its own wall, measuring five hundred cubits by five hundred cubits, is described as ‘most holy’ (Ezekiel 45:3), and an open space of fifty cubits broad is to be maintained around it,

8

to maintain this extreme holiness. Then it is surrounded by ‘the holy portion’ in which the priests, the sons of Zadok, dwell, with their hearts and thoughts towards the heavenly temple in their midst, acting as a barrier between it and the outside world.

This holy portion is then to be seen as adjacent with the Levite portion, which is in turn adjacent with the city portion which represents the whole house of Israel, making up the outer court. Or it may be seen as surrounded by the remainder, 1) a Levitical portion, 2) ‘the city’ which is for the whole house of Israel, 3) the portions for the Prince, and 4) the allocations to the tribes (not mentioned in this chapter). The whole idea is of a kind of enlarged sanctuary, with the temple being seen as ‘the inner sanctuary’, that which is ‘most holy’ (Ezekiel 45:3), the holy portion of the priests, being the inner court, and the remainder being the outer court, all with their attention concentrated on the heavenly sanctuary, in the latter case with a special place for the Prince within the outer court.

Ezekiel is beginning the process of wooing their hearts from the earthly to the heavenly, and turning their attention away from Jerusalem to the living God on His heavenly throne. He wants concentration on the Kingly Rule of God. It is the beginning of the process whereby ‘the land’ will cease to be important in itself except as it is fulfilled in a world associated with, and responding to, the heavenly temple, before finally itself being absorbed into that temple.

There is an intricacy about this which we shall consider while we look at the text, but the important lesson we must first face up to is that we must not misjudge Ezekiel and the revelation he received. He was a man of extraordinary vision. The last thing we must see in him is someone who was just mechanically mapping out a theoretical blueprint for some far off millennial kingdom. He had a much more vital message to give, and one closer to the hearts and present experience of God’s true people. He saw well beyond his times.

As we go on then we will make suggestions as to some of the ideas which may have been in Ezekiel’s mind. Sometimes they will overlap. For what he is trying to get over are ideas of which he has a deep appreciation, but which, because of the

9

limitation of the conceptions of the time, he had great difficulty in expressing. Whether this is so readers must judge for themselves.

Verses 1-4

The Allotment of the Sacred Portion.

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

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

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

As we suggested on Ezekiel 42:20, where no mention is made of a unit of 10

measurement we are probably to see it as meaning cubits, and this may be seen as confirmed by the mention of ‘cubits’ for the ‘open space’ around the sanctuary. So the size of ‘the holy portion’ is to be twenty five thousand by ten thousand cubits. These measurements for the holy portion stress the covenant aspect of the whole. Twenty five is five times five, ten is five times two. Both are ways of expressing five intensified. Thus the holy portion itself strongly stresses the covenant relationship between Yahweh and His people.

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

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

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

11

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

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

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

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

12

“ Nil desperandum Christo duce, et auspice Christo. ”

The length shall be.] {See Trapp on "Ezekiel 40:1"}

POOLE, "The portion of land for the sanctuary, Ezekiel 45:1-5, for the city, Ezekiel 45:6, and for the prince, Ezekiel 45:7,8. Ordinances for the prince, Ezekiel 45:9-25.

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

COKE, "Ezekiel 45:1. When ye shall divide by lot the land— The land was first 13

divided by lot under Joshua, a particular share of which was to be God's portion, as an acknowledgement of his sovereign dominion. See Lowth, Numbers 26:55 and the note on chap. Ezekiel 48:35 of this book. Instead of offer an oblation, Houbigant reads, set off a part; and so throughout the chapter; and cubits instead of reeds.

EBC, "THE RITUAL

Ezekiel 45:1-25; Ezekiel 46:1-24

IT is difficult to go back in imagination to a time when sacrifice was the sole and sufficient form of every complete act of worship. That the slaughter of an animal, or at least the presentation of a material offering of some sort, should ever have been considered of the essence of intercourse with the Deity may seem to us incredible in the light of the idea of God which we now possess. Yet there can be no doubt that there was a stage of religious development which recognised no true approach to God except as consummated in a sacrificial action. The word "sacrifice" itself preserves a memorial of this crude and early type of religious service. Etymologically it denotes nothing more than a sacred act. But amongst the Romans, as amongst ourselves, it was regularly applied to the offerings at the altar, which were thus marked out as the sacred actions par excellence of ancient religion. It would be impossible to explain the extraordinary persistence and vitality of the institution amongst races that had attained a relatively high degree of civilisation, unless we understand that the ideas connected with it go back to a time when sacrifice was the typical and fundamental form of primitive worship.

By the time of Ezekiel, however, the age of sacrifice in this strict and absolute sense may be said to have passed away, at least in principle. Devout Jews who had lived through the captivity in Babylon and found that Jehovah was there to them "a little of a sanctuary,". [Ezekiel 11:16] could not possibly fall back into the belief that their God was only to be approached and found through the ritual of the altar. And long before the Exile, the ethical teaching of the prophets had led Israel to appreciate the external rites of sacrifice at their true value.

14

"Wherewithal shall I come before Jehovah, Or bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before Him with burnt-offerings, With calves of a year old? Is Jehovah pleased with thousands of rams, With myriads of rivers of oil?"

"Shall I give my firstborn as an atonement for me, The fruit of my body as a sin-offering for my life? He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; And what does Jehovah require of thee, But to do justice and to love mercy, And to walk humbly with thy God?" [Ezekiel 11:16, Micah 6:6-8]

This great word of spiritual religion had been uttered long before Ezekiel, as a protest against the senseless multiplication of sacrifices which came in in the reign of Manasseh. Nor can we suppose that Ezekiel, with all his engrossment in matters of ritual, was insensible to the lofty teaching of his predecessors, or that his conception of God was less spiritual than theirs. As a matter of fact the worship of Israel was never afterwards wholly absorbed in the routine of the Temple ceremonies. The institution of the synagogue, with its purely devotional exercises of prayer and reading of the Scriptures, must have been nearly coeval with the second Temple, and prepared the way far more than the latter for the spiritual worship of the New Testament. But even the Temple worship was spiritualised by the service of praise and the marvellous development of devotional poetry which it called forth. "The emotion with which the worshipper approaches the second Temple, as recorded in the Psalter, has little to do with sacrifice, but rests rather on the fact that the whole wondrous history of Jehovah’s grace to Israel is vividly and personally realised as he stands amidst the festal crowd at the ancient seat of God’s throne, and adds his voice to the swelling song of praise."

How then, it may be asked, are we to account for the fact that the prophet shows such intense interest in the details of a system which was already losing its religious significance? If sacrifice was no longer of the essence of worship, why should he be so careful to legislate for a scheme of ritual in which sacrifice is the prominent feature, and say nothing of the inward state of heart which alone is an acceptable offering to God? The chief reason no doubt is that the ritual elements of religion were the only matters, apart from moral duties, which admitted of being reduced to a legal system, and that the formation of such a system was demanded by the circumstances with which the prophet had to deal. The time was not yet come when the principle of a central national sanctuary could be abandoned, and if such a

15

sanctuary was to be maintained without danger to the highest interests of religion it was necessary that its service should be regulated with a view to preserve the deposit of revealed truth that had ‘been committed to the nation through the prophets. The essential features of the sacrificial institutions were charged with a deep religious significance, and there existed in the popular mind a great mass of sound religious impression and sentiment clustering around that central rite. To dispense with the institution of sacrifice would have rendered worship entirely impossible for the great body of the people, while to leave it unregulated was to invite a recurrence of the abuses which had been so fruitful a source of corruption in the past. Hence the object of the ritual ordinances which we are about to consider is twofold: in the first place to provide an authorised code of ritual free from everything that savoured of pagan usages, and in the second to utilise the public worship as a means of deepening and purifying the religious conceptions of those who could be influenced in no other way. Ezekiel’s legislation has a special regard for the wants of the "common rude man" whose religious life needs all the help it can get from external observances. Such persons form the majority of every religious society; and to train their minds to a deeper sense of sin and a more vivid apprehension of the divine holiness proved to be the only way in which the spiritual teaching of the prophets could be made a practical power in the community at large. It is true that the highest spiritual needs were not satisfied by the legal ritual. But the irrepressible longings of the soul for nearer fellowship with God cannot be dealt with by rigid formal enactments. Ezekiel is content to leave them to the guidance of that Spirit whose saving operations will have changed the heart of Israel and made it a true people of God. The system of external observances which he foreshadows in his vision was not meant to be the life of religion, but it was, so to speak, the trellis-work which was necessary to support the delicate tendrils of spiritual piety until the time when the spirit of filial worship should be the possession of every true member of the Church of God.

Bearing these facts in mind, we may now proceed to examine the scheme of sacrificial worship contained in chapters 45 and 46. Only its leading features can here be noticed, and the points most deserving of attention may be grouped under three heads: the Festivals, the Representative Service, and the Idea of Atonement.

I. THE YEARLY FEASTS

16

The most striking thing in Ezekiel’s festal calendar [Ezekiel 14:18-23] is the division of the ecclesiastical year into two precisely similar parts. Each half of the year commences with an atoning sacrifice for the purification of the sanctuary from defilement contracted during the previous half. Each contains a great festival-in the one case the Passover, beginning on the fourteenth day of the first month and lasting seven days, and in the other the Feast of Tabernacles (simply called the Feast), beginning on the fifteenth day of the seventh month and also lasting for seven days. The passage is chiefly devoted to a minute regulation of the public sacrifices to be offered on these occasions, other and more characteristic features of the celebration being assumed as well known from tradition.

It is difficult to see what is the precise meaning of the proposed rearrangement of the feasts in two parallel series. It may be due simply to the prophet’s love of symmetry in all departments of public life, or it may have been suggested by the fact that at this time the Babylonian calendar, according to which the year begins in spring, was superimposed on the old Hebrew year commencing in the autumn. At all events it involved a breach with pre-exilic tradition, and was never carried out in practice. The earlier legislation of the Pentateuch recognises a cycle of three festivals-Passover and Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Harvest or of Weeks (Pentecost), and the Feast of Ingathering or of Tabernacles. In order to carry through his symmetrical division of the sacred year Ezekiel has to ignore one of these, the Feast of Pentecost, which seems to have always been counted the least important of the three. It is not to be supposed that he contemplated its abolition, for he is careful not to alter in any particular the positive regulations of Deuteronomy; only it did not fall into his scheme, and so he does not think it of sufficient importance to prescribe regular public sacrifices for it. After the Exile, however, Jewish practice was regulated by the canons of the Priestly Code, in which, along with other festivals, the ancient threefold cycle is continued, and stated sacrifices are prescribed for Pentecost, just as for the other two, Similarly, the two atoning ceremonies in the beginning of the first and seventh months, which are not mentioned in the older legislation, are replaced in the Priests’ Code by the single Day of Atonement on the tenth day of the seventh month, whilst the beginning of the year is celebrated by the Feast of Trumpets on the first day of the same month. {Cf. Leviticus 23:23-32;, Numbers 29:1-11}

But although the details of Ezekiel’s system thus proved to be impracticable in the circumstances of the restored Jewish community, it succeeded in the far more

17

important object of infusing a new spirit into the celebration of the feasts, and impressing on them a different character. The ancient Hebrew festivals were all associated with joyous incidents of the agricultural year. The Feast of Unleavened Bread marked the beginning of harvest, when "the sickle first was put into the corn." At this time also the firstlings of the flock and herd were sacrificed. The seven weeks which elapse till Pentecost are the season of the cereal harvest, which is then brought to a close by the Feast of Harvest, when the goodness of Jehovah is acknowledged by the presentation of part of the produce at the sanctuary. Finally the Feast of Tabernacles celebrates the most joyous occasion of the year, the storing of the produce of the winepress and the threshing-floor. [Deuteronomy 16:13] The nature of the festivals is easily seen from the events with which they are thus associated. They are occasions of social mirth and festivity, and the religious rites observed are the expressions of the nation’s heartfelt gratitude to Jehovah for the blessing that has rested on the labours of husbandman and shepherd throughout the year. The Passover with its memories of anxiety and escape was no doubt of a more sombre character than the others, but the joyous and festive nature of Pentecost and Tabernacles is strongly insisted on in the book of Deuteronomy. By these institutions religion was closely intertwined with the great interests of everyday life, and the fact that the sacred seasons of the Israelites’ year were the occasions on which the natural joy of life was at its fullest, bears witness to the simpleminded piety which was fostered by the old Hebrew worship. There was. however, a danger that in such a state of things religion should be altogether lost sight of in the exuberance of natural hilarity and expressions of social good-will. And indeed no great height of spirituality could be nourished by a type of worship in which devotional feeling was concentrated on the expression of gratitude to God for the bountiful gifts of His providence. It was good for the childhood of the nation, but when the nation became a man it must put away childish things.

The tendency of the post-exilic ritual was to detach the sacred seasons more and more from the secular associations which had once been their chief significance. This was done partly by the addition of new festivals which had no such natural occasion, and partly by a change in the point of view from which the older celebrations were regarded. No attempt was made to obliterate the traces of the affinity with events of common life which endeared them to the hearts of the people, but increasing importance was attached to their historic significance as memorials of Jehovah’s gracious dealings with the nation in the period of the Exodus. At the same time they take on more and more the character of religious symbols of the permanent relations between Jehovah and His people. The beginnings of this

18

process can be clearly discerned in the legislation of Ezekiel. Not indeed in the direction of a historic interpretation of the feasts, for this is ignored even in the case of the Passover, where it was already firmly established in the national consciousness. But the institution of a special series of public sacrifices, which was the same for the Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles, and particularly the prominence given to the sin-offering, obviously tended to draw the mind of the people away from the passing interest of the occasion, and fix it on those standing obligations imposed by the holiness of Jehovah on which the continuance of all His bounties depended. We cannot be mistaken in thinking that one design of the new ritual was to correct the excesses of unrestrained animal enjoyment by deepening the sense of guilt and the fear of possible offences against the sanctity of the divine presence. For it was at these festivals that the prince was required to offer the atoning sacrifice for himself and the people. Thus the effect of the whole system was to foster the sensitive and tremulous tone of piety which was characteristic of Judaism, in contrast to the hearty, if undisciplined, religion of the ancient Hebrew feasts.

II. THE STATED SERVICE

In the course of this chapter we have had occasion more than once to touch on the prominence given in Ezekiel’s vision to sacrifices offered in accordance with a fixed rubric in the name of the whole community. The significance of this fact may best be seen from a comparison with the sacrificial regulations of the book of Deuteronomy. These are not numerous, but they deal exclusively with private sacrifices. The person addressed is the individual householder, and the sacrifices which he is enjoined to render are for himself and his family. There is no explicit allusion in the whole book to the official sacrifices which were offered by the regular priesthood and maintained at the king’s expense. In Ezekiel’s scheme of Temple worship the case is exactly the reverse. Here there is no mention of private sacrifice except in the incidental notices as to the free-will offerings and the sacrificial meal of the prince, while on the other hand great attention is paid to the maintenance of the regular offerings provided by the prince for the congregation. This of course does not mean that there were no statutory sacrifices in the old Temple, or that Ezekiel contemplated the cessation of private sacrifice in the new. Deuteronomy passes over the public sacrifices because they were under the jurisdiction of the king, and the people at large were not directly responsible for them; and similarly Ezekiel is silent as to private offerings because their observance was assured by all the traditions of

19

the sanctuary. Still it is a noteworthy fact that of two codes of Temple worship, separated by only half a century, each legislates exclusively for that element of the ritual which is taken for granted by the other.

What it indicates is nothing less than a change in the ruling conception of public worship. Before the Exile the idea that Jehovah could desert His sanctuary hardly entered into the mind of the people, and certainly did not in the least affect the confidence with which they availed themselves of the privileges of worship. The Temple was there and God was present within it, and all that was necessary was that the spontaneous devotion of the worshippers should be regulated by the essential conditions of ceremonial propriety. But the destruction of the Temple had proved that the mere existence of a. sanctuary was no guarantee of the favour and protection of the God who was supposed to dwell within it. Jehovah might be driven from His Temple by the presence of sin among the people, or even by a neglect of the ceremonial precautions which were necessary to guard against the profanation of His holiness. On this idea the whole edifice of the later ritual is built up, and here as in other respects Ezekiel has shown the way. In his view the validity and efficiency of the whole Temple service hangs on the due performance of the public rites which preserve the nation in a condition of sanctity and continually represent it as a holy people before God. Under cover of this representative service the individual may draw near with confidence to seek the face of his God in acts of private homage, but apart from the regular official ceremonial his worship has no reality, because he can have no assurance that Jehovah will accept his offering. His right of access to God springs from his fellowship with the religious community of Israel, and hence the indispensable presupposition of every act of worship is that the standing of the community before Jehovah be preserved intact by the rites appointed for that purpose. And, as has been already said, these rites are representative in character. Being performed on behalf of the nation, the obligation of presenting them rests with the prince in his representative capacity, and the share of the people in them is indicated by the tribute which the prince is empowered to levy for this end. In this way the ideal unity of the nation finds continual expression in the worship of the sanctuary, and the supreme interest of religion is transferred from the mere act of personal homage to the abiding conditions of acceptance with God symbolised by the stated service.

Let us now look at some details of the scheme in which this important idea is embodied. The foundation of the whole system is the daily burnt-offering - the

20

tamid. Under the first Temple the daily offering seems to have been a burnt-offering in the morning and a meal-offering (minhah) in the evening, [2 Kings 16:15; cf 1 Kings 18:29; 1 Kings 18:36] and this practice seems to have continued down to the time of Ezra. [Ezra 9:5] According to the Levitical law it consists of a lamb morning and evening, accompanied on each occasion by a minhah and a libation of wine. [Numbers 28:3-8;, Exodus 29:38-42] Ezekiel’s ordinance occupies a middle position between these two. Here the tamid is a lamb for a burnt-offering in the morning, along with a minhah of flour mingled with oil; and there is no provision for an evening sacrifice. [Ezekiel 46:14-15] The presentation of this sacrifice on the altar in the morning, as the basis on which all other offerings through the day were laid, may be taken to symbolise the truth that the acceptance of all ordinary acts of worship depended on the representation of the community before God in the regular service. To the spiritual perception of a Psalmist it may have suggested the duty of commencing each day’s work with an act of devotion:-

"Jehovah, in the morning shalt Thou hear my voice;

In the morning will I set [my prayer] in order before Thee, and will look out."

The offerings for the Sabbaths and new moons may be considered as amplifications of the daily sacrifice. They consist exclusively of burnt-offerings. On the Sabbath six lambs are presented, perhaps one for each working-day of the week, together with a ram for the Sabbath itself (Smend). At the new moon feast this offering is repeated with the addition of a bullock. It may be noted here once for all that each burnt sacrifice is accompanied by a corresponding minhah, according to a fixed scale. For sin-offerings, on the other hand, no minhah seems to be appointed.

At the annual (or rather half-yearly) celebrations the sin-offering appears for the first time among the stated sacrifices. The sacrifice for the cleansing of the sanctuary at the beginning of each half of the year consists of a young bullock for a sin-offering, in addition of course to the burnt-offerings which were prescribed for the first day of the month. For the Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles the daily offering is a he-goat for a sin-offering, and seven bullocks and seven rams for a burnt-offering during the week covered by these festivals. Besides this, at Passover,

21

and probably also at Tabernacles, the prince presents a bullock as a sin-offering for himself and the people. We have now to consider more particularly the place which this class of sacrifices occupies in the ritual.

III. ATONING SACRIFICES

It is evident, even from this short survey, that the idea of atonement holds a conspicuous place in the symbolism of Ezekiel’s Temple. He is, indeed, the earliest writer (setting aside the Levitical Code) who mentions the special class of sacrifices known as sin- and guilt-offerings. Under the first Temple ceremonial offences were regularly atoned for at one time by money payments to the priests, and these fines were called by the names afterwards applied to the expiatory sacrifices. [2 Kings 12:17] It does not follow, of course, that such sacrifices were unknown before the time of Ezekiel, nor is such a conclusion probable in itself. The manner in which the prophet alludes to them rather shows that the idea was perfectly familiar to his contemporaries. But the prominence of the sin-offering in the public ritual may be safely set down as a new departure in the Temple service, as it is one of the most striking symptoms of the change that passed over the spirit of Israel’s religion at the time of the Exile.

Of the elements that contributed to this change the most important was the deepened consciousness of sin that had been produced by the teaching of the prophets as verified in the terrible calamity of the Exile. We have seen how frequently Ezekiel insists on this effect of the Divine judgment; how, even in the time of her pardon and restoration, he represents Israel as ashamed and confounded, not opening her mouth any more for the remembrance of all that she had done. We are therefore prepared to find that full provision is made for the expression of this abiding sense of guilt in the revised scheme of worship. This was done not by new rites invented for the purpose, but by seizing on those elements of the old ritual which represented the wiping out of iniquity, and by so remodelling the whole sacrificial system as to place these prominently in the foreground. Such elements were found chiefly in the sin-offering and guilt-offering, which occupied a subsidiary position in the old Temple, but are elevated to a place of commanding importance in the new. The precise distinction between these two kinds of sacrifice is an obscure point of the Levitical ritual which has never been perfectly cleared up. In the system of Ezekiel, however, we observe that the guilt-offering plays no part in

22

the stated service, and must therefore have been reserved for private transgressions of the law of holiness. And in general it may be remarked that the atoning sacrifices differ from others, not in their material, but in certain features of the sacred actions to be observed with regard to them. We cannot here enter upon the details of the symbolism, but the most important fact is that the flesh of the victims is neither offered on the altar as in the burnt-offering, nor eaten by the worshippers as in the peace-offering, but belongs to the category of most holy things, and must be consumed by the priests in a holy place. In certain extreme cases, however, it has to be burned without the sanctuary. {Cf. Ezekiel 43:21}

Now in the chapters before us the idea of sacrificial atonement is chiefly developed in connection with the material fabric of the sanctuary. The sanctuary may contract defilement by involuntary lapses from the stringent rules of ceremonial purity on the part of those who use it, whether priests or laymen. Such errors of inadvertence were almost unavoidable under the complicated set of formal regulations into which the fundamental idea of holiness branched out, yet they are regarded as endangering the sanctity of the Temple, and require to be carefully atoned for from time to time, lest by their accumulation the worship should be invalidated and Jehovah driven from His dwelling-place. But besides this the Temple (or at least the altar) is unfit for its sacred functions until it has undergone an initial process of purification. The principle involved still survives in the consecration of ecclesiastical buildings in Christendom, although its application had doubtless a much more serious import under the old dispensation than it can possibly have under the new.

A full account of this initial ceremony of purification is given in the end of the forty-third chapter, and a glance at the details of the ritual may be enough to impress on us the conceptions that underlie the process. It is a protracted operation, extending apparently over eight days. The first and fundamental act is the offering of a sin-offering of the highest degree of sanctity, the victim being a bullock and the flesh being burned outside the sanctuary. The blood alone is sprinkled on the four horns of the altar, the four corners of the "settle," and the "border": this is the first stage in the dedication of the altar. Then for seven days a he-goat is offered for a sin-offering, the same rites being observed, and after it a burnt-offering consisting of a bullock and a ram. These sacrifices are intended only for the purification of the altar, and only on the day after their completion is the altar ready to receive ordinary public or private gifts-burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. Now four expressions are used to denote the effect of these ceremonies on the altar. The most

23

general is "consecrate," literally "fill its hand" (Ezekiel 43:26)-a phrase used originally of the installation of a priest into his office, and then applied metaphorically to consecration or initiation in general. The others are "purify," "unsin," (the special effect of the sin-offering) and "expiate." Of these the last is the most important. It is the technical priestly term for atonement for sin, the reference being of course generally to persons. As to the fundamental meaning of the word, there has been a great deal of discussion, which has not yet led to a decisive result. The choice seems to lie between two radical ideas, either to "wipe out" or to "cover," and so render inoperative. But either etymology enables us to understand the use of the word in legal terminology. It means to undo the effect of a transgression on the religious status of the offender, or, as in the case before us, to remove natural or contracted impurity from a material object. And whether this is conceived as a covering up of the fault so as to conceal it from view, or a wiping out of it, amounts in the end to the same thing. The significant fact is that the same word is applied both to persons and things. It furnishes another illustration of the intimate way in which the ideas of moral guilt and physical defect are blended in the ceremonial of the Old Testament.

The meaning of the two atoning services appointed for the beginning of the first and the seventh month is now clear. They are intended to renew periodically the holiness of the sanctuary established by the initiatory rites just described. For it is evident that no indelible character can attach to the kind of sanctity with which we are here dealing. It is apt to be lost, if not by mere lapse of time, at least by the repeated contact of frail men who with the best intentions are not always able to fulfil the conditions of a right use of sacred things. Every failure and mistake detract from the holiness of the Temple, and even unnoticed and altogether unconscious offences would in course of time profane it if not purged away. Hence "for every one that erreth and for him that is simple" atonement has to be made for the house twice a year. The ritual to be observed on these occasions bears a general resemblance to that of the inaugural ceremony, but is simpler, only a single bullock being presented for a sin-offering. On the other hand, it expressly symbolises a purification of the Temple as well as of the altar. The blood is sprinkled not only on the "settle" of the altar, but also on the doorposts of the house, and the posts of the eastern gate of the inner court.

We may now pass on to the second application made by Ezekiel of the idea of sacrificial atonement. These purifications of the sanctuary, which bulk so largely in

24

his system, have their counterpart in atonements made directly for the faults of the people. For this purpose, as we have already seen, a sin-offering was to be presented at each of the great annual festivals by the prince, for himself and the nation which he represented. But it is important to observe that the idea of atonement is not confined to one particular class of sacrifices. It lies at the foundation of the whole system of the stated service, the purpose of which is expressly said to be "to make atonement for the house of Israel." Thus while the half-yearly sin-offering afforded a special opportunity for confession of sin on the part of the people, we are to understand that the holiness of the nation was secured by the observance of every part of the prescribed ritual which regulated its intercourse with God. And since the nation is in itself imperfectly holy and stands in constant need of forgiveness, the maintenance of its sanctity by sacrificial rites was equivalent to a perpetual act of atonement. Special offences of individuals had of course to be expiated by special sacrifices, but beneath all particular transgressions lay the broad fact of human impurity and infirmity; and in the constant "covering up" of this by a Divinely instituted system of religious ordinances we recognise an atoning element in the regular Temple service.

The sacrificial ritual may therefore be regarded as a barrier interposed between the natural uncleanness of the people and the awful holiness of Jehovah seated in His Temple. That men should be permitted to approach Him at all is an unspeakable privilege conferred on Israel in virtue of its covenant relation to God. But that the approach is surrounded by so many precautions and restrictions is a perpetual witness to the truth that God is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity and one with whom evil cannot dwell. If these precautions could have been always perfectly observed, it is probable that no periodical purification of the sanctuary would have been enjoined. The ordinary ritual would have sufficed to maintain the nation in a state of holiness corresponding with the requirements of Jehovah’s nature. But this was impossible on account of the slowness of men’s minds and their liability to err in their most sacred duties. Sin is so subtle and pervasive that it is conceived as penetrating the network of ordinances destined to intercept it, and reaching even to the dwelling-place of Jehovah Himself. It is to remove such accidental, though inevitable, violations of the majesty of God that the ritual edifice is crowned by ceremonies for the purification of the sanctuary. They are, so to speak, atonements in the second degree. Their object is to compensate for defects in the ordinary routine of worship, and to remove the arrears of guilt which had accumulated through neglect of some part of the ceremonial scheme. This idea appears quite clearly in Ezekiel’s legislation, but it is far more impressively exhibited in the

25

Levitical law, where different elements of Ezekiel’s ritual are gathered up into one celebration in the Great Day of Atonement, the most solemn and imposing of the whole year.

Hence we see that the whole system of sacrificial worship is firmly knit together, being pervaded from end to end by the one principle of expiation, behind which lay the assurance of pardon and acceptance to all who approached God in the use of the appointed means of grace. Herein lay the chief value of the Temple ritual for the religious life of Israel. It served to impress on the mind of the people the great realities of sin and forgiveness, and so to create that profound consciousness of sin which has passed over, spiritualised but not weakened, into Christian experience. Thus the law proved itself a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ, in whose atoning death the evil of sin and the eternal conditions of forgiveness are once for all and perfectly revealed.

The positive truths taught or suggested by the ritual of atonement are too numerous to be considered here. It is a remarkable fact that neither in Ezekiel nor in any other part of the Old Testament is an authoritative interpretation given of the most essential features of the ritual. The people seem to have been left to explain the symbolism as best they could, and many points which are obscure and uncertain to us must have been perfectly intelligible to the least instructed amongst them. For us the only safe rule is to follow the guidance of the New Testament writers in their use of sacrificial institutions as types of the death of Christ. The investigation is too large and intricate to be attempted in this place. But it may be well in conclusion to point out one or two general principles, which ought never to be overlooked in the typical interpretation of the expiatory sacrifices of the Old Testament.

In the first place atonement is provided only for sins committed in ignorance; and moral and ceremonial offences stand precisely on the same footing in the eye of the law. In Ezekiel’s system, indeed, it was only sins of inadvertence that needed to be considered. He has in view the final state of things in which the people, though not perfect nor exempt from liability to error, are wholly inclined to obey the law of Jehovah so far as their knowledge and ability extend. But even in the Levitical legislation there is no legal dispensation for guilt incurred through wanton and deliberate defiance of the law of Jehovah. To sin thus is to sin "with a high hand," and such offences have to be expiated by the death of the sinner, or at least his

26

exclusion from the religious community. And whether the precept belong to what we call the ceremonial or to the moral side of the law, the same principle holds good, although of course its application is one-sided; strictly moral transgressions being for the most part voluntary, while ritual offences may be either voluntary or inadvertent. But for wilful and high-handed departure from any precept, whether ethical or ceremonial, no atonement is provided by the law; the guilty person "falls into the hands of the living God," and forgiveness is possible only in the sphere of personal relations between man and God, into which the law does not enter.

This leads to a second consideration. Atoning sacrifices do not purchase forgiveness. That is to say, they are never regarded as exercising any influence on God, moving Him to Mercy towards the sinner. They are simply the forms to which, by Jehovah’s own appointment, the promise of forgiveness is attached. Hence sacrifice has not the fundamental significance in Old Testament religion that the death of Christ has in the New. The whole sacrificial system, as we see quite clearly from Ezekiel’s prophecy, presupposes redemption; the people are already restored to their land and sanctified by Jehovah’s presence amongst them before these institutions come into operation. The only purpose that they serve in the system of religion to which they belong is to secure that the blessings of salvation shall not be lost. Both in this vision and throughout the Old Testament the ultimate ground of confidence in God lies in historic acts of redemption in which Jehovah’s sovereign grace and love to Israel are revealed. Through the sacrifices the individual was enabled to assure himself of his interest in the covenant blessings promised to his nation. They were the sacraments of his personal acceptance with Jehovah, and as such were of the highest importance for his normal religious life. But they were not and could not be the basis of the forgiveness of sins, nor did later Judaism ever fall into the error of seeking to appease the Deity by a multiplication of sacrificial gifts. When the insufficiency of the ritual system to give true peace of conscience or to bring back the outward tokens of God’s favour is dwelt upon, the ancient Church falls back on the spiritual conditions of forgiveness already enunciated by the prophets.

"Thou desirest not sacrifice that I should give it,

Thou delightest not in burnt-offering.

27

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit:

A broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise." [Psalms 51:16-17]

Finally we have learned from Ezekiel that the idea of atonement is not lodged in any particular rite, but pervades the sacrificial system as a whole. Suggestive as the ritual of the sin-offering is to the Christian conscience, it must not be isolated from other developments of the sacrificial idea or taken to embody the whole permanent meaning of the institution. There are at least two other aspects of sacrifice which are clearly expressed in the ritual legislation of the Old Testament-that of homage, chiefly symbolised by the burnt-offering, and that of communion, symbolised by the peace-offering and the sacrificial feast observed in connection with it. And although, both in Ezekiel and the Levitical law, these two elements are thrown into the shade by the idea of expiation, yet there are subtle links of affinity between all three, which will have to be traced out before we are in a position to understand the first principles of sacrificial worship. The brilliant and learned researches of the late Professor Robertson Smith have thrown a flood of light on the original rite of sacrifice and the important place which it occupies in ancient religion. He has sought to explain the intricate system of the Levitical legislation as an unfolding, under varied historical influences, of different aspects of the idea of communion between God and men, which is the essence of primitive sacrifice. In particular he has shown how special atoning sacrifices arise through emphasising by appropriate symbolism the element of reconciliation which is implicitly contained in every act of religious communion with God. This at least enables us to understand how the atoning ritual with all its distinctive features yet resembles so closely that which is common to all types of sacrifice, and how the idea of expiation, although concentrated in a particular class of sacrifices, is nevertheless spread over the whole surface of the sacrificial ritual. It would be premature as well as presumptuous to attempt here to estimate the consequences of this theory for Christian theology. But it certainly seems to open up the prospect of a wider and deeper apprehension of the religious truths which are differentiated and specialised in the Old Testament dispensation, to be reunited in that great Atoning Sacrifice, in which the blood of the new covenant has been shed for many for the remission of sins.

28

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

Ezekiel 45:1-8

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

Ezekiel 45:1

Moreover, When ye shall divide by lot the land (literally, and in your causing the land to fall) for inheritance. As the territory of Canaan had been originally divided by lot among the twelve tribes after the conquest (comp. Numbers 26:55; Numbers 33:54; Joshua 13:6, etc.), this same method of allocating the soil amongst the new community should be followed on a second time taking possession of it after the exile. Currey believes the phrase, "divide by lot," "does not imply anything like casting lots, but is equivalent to our notion of allotment, the several portions being

29

assigned by rule." There is, however, little doubt "lots" were cast to determine, if not the actual size, at least the precise situation, of each tribe's territory (see Keil and 'Pulpit Commentary' on Numbers 26:54). That no such methodical distribution of Canaan ever took place, or for that matter could hays taken place amongst the returned exiles, should be proof sufficient that the prophet here moves in the region of the ideal and symbolical rather than of the real and literal. Ye shall offer an oblation—literally, lift up a heave offering (comp. Ezekiel 44:1-31 :80; Exodus 25:2, Exodus 25:3; Exodus 29:28; Exodus 30:13, Exodus 30:14; Le Exodus 7:14, 32; Exodus 22:12; Numbers 15:19; Numbers 18:24)—unto the Lord, an holy portion of the land; literally, a holy (portion) from the land. Very significantly, in the new partition of Palestine the Lord's portion should be the first to be marked off and solemnly dedicated to Jehovah for the purposes to be forthwith specified. Those who, like Wellhansen and Smend, perceive in this allotment of land to Jehovah, and therefore to the priests, a contradiction to Ezekiel 44:28, omit to notice first that Jehovah required some place on which his sanctuary might be erected, and the priests some ground on which to build houses for themselves; and secondly, that, so far as the priests were concerned, the laud was given by the people, not to them, but to Jehovah, and by him to them (comp. on Ezekiel 44:28). The exact site of this terumah, or "holy portion," is afterwards indicated (Ezekiel 48:8); meanwhile its dimensions are recorded. The length shall be the length of five and twenty thousand reeds, and the breadth shall be ten thousand. Whether "reeds" or "cubits" should be supplied after "thousand" has divided expositors. Bottcher, Hitzig, Ewald, Hengstenberg, and Smend decide for "cubits," principally on the grounds that "cubits" are mentioned in Ezekiel 44:2; that "cubits" have been the usual measure hitherto, even (as they contend) in Ezekiel 42:16; and that otherwise the dimensions of this sacred territory must have been colossal, in fact, out of all proportion to the Holy Land, viz. about 720 square miles. Havernick, Keil, Kliefoth, Currey, and Plumptre favor "reeds," chiefly for the reasons that in Ezekiel 42:2 "cubits" are specified, and are therefore to be regarded as exceptional; that the customary measuring instrument throughout has been a reed (see Ezekiel 40:5; Ezekiel 42:16); and that the dimensions, which Ezekiel designed should be colossal (comp. Ezekiel 40:2), correspond exactly with the measurements afterwards given in Ezekiel 48:1-35; if these he in reeds, but not if they be in cubits. As to the breadth of this terumah from east to west, Hitzig, Keil, Smend, Schroder, and Plumptre follow the LXX. ( εἴκοσι χιλιάδας) in substituting 20,000 for 10,000, considering that the space referred to in Ezekiel 48:3 appears as if meant to be taken from an already measured larger area, which could only be that of Ezekiel 48:1—the portion in Ezekiel 48:1 being the whole territory assigned to the priests and Levites, and that in Ezekiel 48:3 the allotment for the priests. Kliefoth, however, contends that no necessity exists for tampering with the text, and certainly if Ezekiel 48:1-4 be

30

regarded as descriptive of the priests' portion only, and מן in the phrase, "of this measure" ( ומן־חמדה הזאת), in Ezekiel 48:8 be rendered "according to"—a sense it may have (see Gesenius, sub voce), the supposed difficulty disappears. In this ease the demonstrative this in the last clause will refer to the priests' portion exclusively; in the former ease, to the whole portion of the priests and Levites. That Ezekiel 48:14 declares the Levites' portion to be "holy unto the land" does not prove it must have been included in the holy terumah of Ezekiel 48:1 Nor does this concession follow, as will appear, from Ezekiel 48:7.

2 Of this, a section 500 cubits[d] square is to be for the sanctuary, with 50 cubits[e] around it for open land.

BARNES, "The “sanctuary” here probably means the whole temple precincts.Suburbs - literally, as margin. To mark out more distinctly the sacred precincts, a vacant space of fifty cubits was left on all sides.

CLARKE, "Of this there shall be for the sanctuary - See the plan, A.

GILL, "Of this there shall be for the sanctuary,.... Or temple, the house before described in the preceding chapters: five hundred in length, and five hundred in breadth, square round about: that is, five hundred reeds square, as is manifest from Eze_42:16, and this denotes the largeness, perfection, and stability of the church of Christ, which the sanctuary was a

31

type of: and fifty cubits round about for the suburbs thereof; which were a void place of fifty cubits round about the sanctuary, measuring from the wall to that; this was done in reverence to the holy place, and to show that we should not rush hastily into the house of God, and church of Christ, but first pass through the suburbs or open place. Cubits being here mentioned, show that reeds are to be understood where the kind of measure is not expressed.

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:2 Of this there shall be for the sanctuary five hundred [in length], with five hundred [in breadth], square round about; and fifty cubits round about for the suburbs thereof.

Ver. 2. For the suburbs.] Which hath its name in Hebrew from its being severed from the city, and, as it were, cast out of it. It is better rendered, as in the margin, void places.

POOLE, " Of this whole consecrate portion of twenty-five thousand cubits long, or twelve miles and half, and ten thousand broad, or five miles and little more.

For the sanctuary; for a platform for the sanctuary, both house and courts.

Five hundred in length, with five hundred in breadth; five hundred cubits square, which is about one-fourth of a mile square.

Fifty cubits; which amount to twenty-nine yards and half a foot. This bears some proportion to the contents of that square, which is one quarter of a mile in each side; but fifty cubits suburb to that square, that should be supposed to have sides each a mile, a half, and half quarter long.

The suburbs thereof: place round about this the five hundred cubits square mountain of the house.

32

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

3 In the sacred district, measure off a section 25,000 cubits long and 10,000 cubits[f] wide. In it will be the sanctuary, the Most Holy Place.

GILL, "And of this measure shalt thou measure the length of five and twenty thousand, and the breadth of ten thousand,.... Not that the sense is, that of and according to the cubit measure last mentioned, this length and this breadth should be measured; but "after this measure", as Starckius renders it, and as the particle is rendered, Dan_11:23 and which Sanctius mentions; and Jerom seems to have understood it in this light: and the sense is, that after he had finished the measure of five hundred reeds square, and fifty cubits round, he should proceed to measure the rest of the twenty five thousand in length, and ten thousand in breadth: and in it shall be the sanctuary, and the most holy place; that is, in the midst

33

portion of land, consisting of the above measures, be the holy place, and the holy of holies; this is, but a further explanation of the two preceding verses.

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:3 And of this measure shalt thou measure the length of five and twenty thousand, and the breadth of ten thousand: and in it shall be the sanctuary [and] the most holy [place].

Ver. 3. The length of five and twenty thousand.] Here the same again is repeated, {as Ezekiel 45:1} and further is shown how this holy portion of ground was to be employed to the use of the priests.

POOLE, " Of, or by, or from this cubit measure, Ezekiel 45:2, shalt thou measure. So express, that indeed I wonder a dispute can arise; and this justifies the French version, which from this verse no doubt took the coudee, which they use in Ezekiel 45:1.

In it, in the centre or navel of this twenty-five thousand and ten thousand, shall the whole sanctuary, courts, temple, and holy of holies, or the oracle, be built.

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

34

4 It will be the sacred portion of the land for the priests, who minister in the sanctuary and who draw near to minister before the Lord. It will be a place for their houses as well as a holy place for the sanctuary.

GILL, "The holy portion of the land shall be for the priests, the ministers of the sanctuary,.... That is, the rest of it, which is not for the sanctuary, shall be for the use of the priests that minister in holy things in the sanctuary; either the ministers of the Gospel, who shall have a sufficient maintenance from the churches of Christ, as the priests had under the law: or it may be meant of all the saints, who are priests unto God, and serve and worship him in his sanctuary; who shall all be satisfied with the goodness and fatness of his house, the word and ordinances, and the blessings of grace conveyed by them: which shall come near to minister unto the Lord; these sons of Zadok, these faithful ones, in the worst of times; see Eze_44:15, and it shall be a place for their houses; in this large spot shall be many congregated churches, houses of the living God, where his priests and people dwell, and will be serving and praising him: and an holy place for the sanctuary; which may denote the church of God in general, as houses may do particular churches.

PETT, "Verse 4“It is a holy portion of the land. It shall be for the priests, for the ministers of the sanctuary, who come near to minister to Yahweh. And it shall be a place for their houses and a holy place for the sanctuary.”

Once again we have the stress on the fact that the holy sanctuary is surrounded by a ‘holy portion’ of land. It is ‘a holy place for the sanctuary’ (this is in such contrast to Ezekiel 42:20). And in this holy portion the priests are to build their houses, away

35

from the city, totally separated to Yahweh. In other words the hearts of the priests are to be totally wedded to the heavenly sanctuary with their lives centred on it. This is to be man’s ideal. It is incipiently pointing to the Kingly Rule of God. ‘Seek first His Kingly Rule and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33).

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:4 The holy [portion] of the land shall be for the priests the ministers of the sanctuary, which shall come near to minister unto the LORD: and it shall be a place for their houses, and an holy place for the sanctuary.

Ver. 4. And it shall be a place for their houses.] Ministers should he resident upon their charges, and as incumbent, dwell near, and as it were lean over their work.

POOLE, " The holy portion; the whole contents of twelve miles and half long, and five broad.

For the priests; sons of Zadok, who minister to the Lord, and others with them, who, though degraded from the priestly honour, yet lived upon priestly provision.

A place for their houses; in which twenty-three of twenty-four courses of priests may dwell conveniently, while the twenty-fourth minister at the temple, as by order they did.

And an holyplace; and how much God did reserve to himself for his dwelling is expressly mentioned. Thus God makes himself and what is his the inheritance and possession of the priests his servants, as he told them, Ezekiel 44:28.

PULPIT, "The holy portion of the land just defined (Ezekiel 45:3) should be reserved for the priests the ministers of the sanctuary, i.e. of the inner court, who were privileged to draw near to Jehovah in altar ministrations (comp. Ezekiel 44:15; Exodus 28:43; Exodus 30:20; Numbers 16:5, Numbers 16:40), as distinguished from

36

the Levites, who were only" ministry of the house" (Ezekiel 45:5), i.e. guardian, of the temple and assistants in its outer court services. As such this holy portion should serve the twofold purpose of providing- for the priests a place for their houses in which they might dwell, and an holy place for the sanctuary, in which they should minister.

5 An area 25,000 cubits long and 10,000 cubits wide will belong to the Levites, who serve in the temple, as their possession for towns to live in.[g]

BARNES, "For a possession for twenty chambers - literally, “For a possession twenty chambers,” possibly twenty out of the thirty chambers in the outer court Eze_40:17, and assigned for their use during residence in the sanctuary. The Septuagint reads “for cities to dwell in” (compare Num_35:2) which some adopt here.

GILL, "And the five and twenty thousand, of length, and ten thousand of breadth,.... This seems to be another portion of the land, distinct from the former, though of the same measure; see Eze_48:13, shall also the Levites, the ministers of the house, have for themselves; separate from the priests, to whom they ministered, and were as numerous; or more numerous, than they; this is still designed to set forth the largeness of the church, and the great numbers of its members, who will all be accommodated and supplied with good things: for a possession for twenty chambers; which some understand of twenty rows of chambers; by which may be meant particular congregated churches, as we have seen all along in this vision, erected for the better use and convenience of the saints in all places and parts of the world, where they are called.

37

PETT, "Verse 5“And twenty five thousand in length by ten thousand in breadth shall be to the Levites, the ministers of the house, for a possession to themselves, for twenty chambers.”

A further allocation of land is to be given to the Levites, of similar size to that given to the priests. This would seem to be seen by Ezekiel as south of the first holy portion (see Ezekiel 48:8), and would seem from Ezekiel 45:6 and Ezekiel 48:14 also to be a holy portion. The ‘twenty chambers’ presumably means twenty sets of living quarters and should therefore be thought of as twenty clusters of housing. Again there is a deliberate avoiding of the use of the term ‘city’ (as was also true with the priests). The usage is possibly also to tie this in with the idea of the outer ‘chambers’ in the heavenly temple, places for the use of temple servants. Thus another portion of land strongly expressing the covenant relationship is connected to the heavenly temple, although outside the holy portion.

POOLE, "As we render the words they are a little clouded, but as they are rendered in the French they are plainer: we read them as if the verse spake of the same twenty-five thousand long and ten thousand broad, which the priests have; but the French thus, there shall be other twenty-five thousand in length and ten thousand in breadth, which shall appertain to the Levites, who do the service of the house, with twenty chambers; so they have abroad in the country equal share with the priests, and in the outer court or courts about the house twenty chambers or rows of them in which to abide for their conveniences, when, in their courses, they attend the services they were to perform, as porters, singers, and attendants on the priests.

COKE, "Ezekiel 45:5. And the five and twenty thousand, &c.— And there shall be other five and twenty thousand of length, and ten thousand of breadth; and it shall be for the Levites, the ministers of the house, for them for a possession; twenty ranges of building: or, as some render the last clause, for cities to dwell in. See Archbishop Newcombe on this passage.

PULPIT, "A portion of similar dimensions should likewise be marked off for the Levites, for themselves, for a possession of twenty chambers; better, for a possession

38

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

6 “‘You are to give the city as its property an area 5,000 cubits[h] wide and 25,000 cubits long, adjoining the sacred portion; it will belong to all Israel.

BARNES, "This portion is to belong to the whole people, not to be subject to the encroachments made by the later kings of Judah Jer_22:13. The Levites’ portion 10,000 reeds, the priests’ portion 10,000 reeds, and the city portion 5,000 reeds. make in all 25,000 reeds from north to south. The measure of each of these portions from east to

39

west has been defined to be 25,000 reeds (Eze_45:1 note), and thus we have a square of 25,000 in all.

GILL, "And ye shall appoint the possession of the city, Which is something distinct from the house or temple, which was as the frame of a city, being so large, and consisting of so many parts, Eze_40:2 and seems also different from the city in Eze_48:30, the measures of the one and of the other not agreeing. Starckius thinks that this city prefigures the academies that should be among Christians, in which the priests or ministers of the word should teach those that came out of all parts unto them; but I am rather of opinion that the civil state of the people of God is here meant, as it will be in the spiritual reign of Christ; when all civil power and authority will not as yet be put down, only it will come into the hands of the saints, and be administered by Christian kings and princes. Five thousand broad, and five and twenty thousand long, over against the oblation of the holy portion; five thousand reeds in breadth are allowed less for the civil than the church state; and though they are contiguous, and there is a connection between them, yet are separate from each other; the material temple was in the city of Jerusalem; but the holy portion, in which the sanctuary shall be, is without the city, and the city over against that; hence John seems, to have borrowed his idea and language, "I saw no temple therein", Rev_21:22, though speaking of another city: the church and the world shall be no more mixed together; Christ's kingdom is not of this world, nor to be fixed on a civil establishment: it shall be for the whole house of Israel; they shall all be under one and the same form of government; I do not say they shall be all under one temporal king or prince; but all Christian kings and princes shall exercise the same kind of rule and government; so that, as their church state will be uniform, their civil state or polity will be alike.

PETT, "Verse 6

“And you will appoint the possession of the city five thousand broad, and twenty five long, side by side with the gift-offering of the holy portion. It shall be for the whole house of Israel.”

‘The city’ is also deliberately and specifically established outside ‘the holy portion’. To a people who thought of Jerusalem as ‘the holy city’ this would come as a jolt. It was no longer the holy city. It was for the people, and could only be seen as representing ‘the whole house of Israel’. But it was not for the chosen of Yahweh, for the priests or Levites, who had their own portions, and were to live outside the city, and need never enter it. However we look at it Jerusalem had been de-

40

sanctified and degraded, although still superior to territory outside the holy portion, something that has already been apparent elsewhere in Ezekiel.

It should be noted that for literalists this can only be in complete contradiction to the words of other prophets. However, once we recognise what Ezekiel is doing, turning thoughts from the earthly to the heavenly, it ceases to be so. What he is visualising is a holy portion of land connected with the heavenly temple, (which land can later be compared with the new Jerusalem), a land of holiness, away from any earthly city with its prospective earthly temple, a land where His own especially chosen ones will be with Him outside the camp.

The Old Testament constantly makes clear that cities are the source of a large part of the evil in the world, commencing with Cain’s encampment (Genesis 4:17), moving on to the tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9), and then on to Nineveh and Great Babylon, both of which are roundly condemned, along with other great cities. Now Ezekiel is attempting to cancel out the influence of ‘the city’. It is not condemned, but it is no longer central, nor is it seen as containing the heavenly temple. While it still symbolises the people as a whole, ‘the whole house of Israel’, it is as secondary to that which pertains to God. The people are being wooed away from concentrating on Jerusalem.

And yet the whole area now occupied in Ezekiel 45:1-5 is twenty five thousand by twenty five thousand, (five squared times a thousand by five squared times a thousand) also representing the perfect covenant relationship. As we have already seen, central to the area is the heavenly sanctuary, that which is most holy (Ezekiel 45:3), then there is ‘the holy portion’ of the priests, the sons of Zadok (Ezekiel 45:1), the equivalent of the inner court of the temple, which surround the heavenly temple; then there is the portion of the Levites; and then the portion of ‘the city’, this latter representing the whole lay house of Israel. These are all joined in unity in the covenant around the heavenly temple, turning the thoughts of all towards the heavenly temple at its centre. Israel is being wooed from earth to heaven. Given that Ezekiel did not appreciate fully the reality of a heavenly world available to redeemed man, or Jesus’ later conception of the Kingly Rule of God present among men, he was reaching to it as best he could. It was the nearest that he could get to such ideas, given the conceptual limitations of his time.

41

This area which lies foursquare and sums up the people of God at their various levels of commitment, with God at their centre, can then be compared with the city that lies foursquare in Revelation 21:16. That was a similar, although more advanced, conception. There it was described as the new heavenly Jerusalem, for the old Jerusalem was no longer a problem. But to Ezekiel Jerusalem was a problem. He wanted to get over the fact that it was no longer important except as representing the people of Israel and must not therefore be given prominence in any way. His thoughts were in the heavens, and especially on the heavenly temple. With our wider understanding of heavenly realities we recognise that he was feeling for the idea of the eternal kingdom.

So to repeat. Ezekiel 45:1-6 depict a foursquare area of land which is seen as temple-like. In its centre is what is most holy, the sanctuary. This is surrounded by the holy portion, which is like the inner court. And then on the outside are the Levites, and ‘the city’ which represents the people, comprising the outer court. Its size in multiples of five emphasises its strong relationship with the new everlasting covenant mentioned by Ezekiel earlier (Ezekiel 37:26) and central to it is its relationship with the heavenly temple of Yahweh, to which Ezekiel sees they must in some way become attached. It is the ideal kingdom of God, and it is of a heavenly nature.

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:6 And ye shall appoint the possession of the city five thousand broad, and five and twenty thousand long, over against the oblation of the holy [portion]: it shall be for the whole house of Israel.

Ver. 6. And ye shall appoint the possession of the city.] After the church service settled, and the ministry provided for. Aristotle’s (a) advice is πρωτον περι θειων επιμελει, first take care of divine things - that is the best policy.

It shall be for the whole house of Israel.] A rendezvous for them at festival times.

42

POOLE, " Appoint; order and measure out.

The possession; land to be a possession to the citizens of Jerusalem, and to be the contents of the city.

Five thousand broad, and five and twenty thousand long; about two miles and half broad, and twelve miles and half long, measured by the cubit, as Ezekiel 45:3 directs.

Over against the oblation of the holy portion: this must run along parallel in length with the holy portion, though but half its breadth.

For the whole house of Israel: as the chief and capital city, to which the tribes resort, it must be large enough to entertain them too; and was to be framed with twelve gates to twelve streets, for the twelve tribes, as Ezekiel 48:31. as Ezekiel 48:31 Ezekiel 48:31.

COKE, "Ezekiel 45:6. It shall be for the whole house of Israel— "This shall be the capital city, to which all the tribes shall resort upon the solemn festivals; which shall have twelve gates, according to the number of the twelve tribes of Israel." See Lowth, Revelation 11:1.

PULPIT, "In addition to the holy terumah for the priests and the portion for the Levites, should be marked off as the possession of the city a third tract of territory, five thousand (reeds) broad, and five and twenty thousand long, over against—rather, side by side with (Revised Version), "parallel to" (Keil)—the oblation of the holy portion. That is to say, it should lie upon the south, as the Levites' territory lay upon the north of the priests' portion. Adding the 10,000 reeds of breadth for the Levites' domain, the 10,000 for the priests' land, and the 5000 for the city quarter, makes a total breadth of 25,000 reeds; so that the tract in which all these were included was a square. That the portion for the city should be for the whole house of Israel implied that it should be communal property, belonging to no tribe in

43

particular, but to all the tribes together—in modern phrase should be "common good, ein Volksgut (Kliefoth), which should neither be confiscated by kingly rapacity (comp. Jeremiah 22:13) nor invaded by individual and private appropriation, but retained for the use of the inhabitants generally (see Ezekiel 48:18, Ezekiel 48:19).

7 “‘The prince will have the land bordering each side of the area formed by the sacred district and the property of the city. It will extend westward from the west side and eastward from the east side, running lengthwise from the western to the eastern border parallel to one of the tribal portions.

BARNES, "On either side of the 25,000 reeds a strip of land, running westward to the sea, eastward to the Jordan, formed the possession of the prince (see Eze_46:18note). For the other tribes the limits from west to east are the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan Eze_48:8.Eze_45:7

And the length shall be over against - Or, “and” in length “over against.”The definition of the prince’s territory was to prevent the oppressions foretold (1Sa_8:14 ff), described 2Ki_23:35, and reproved Jer. 22.

CLARKE, "A portion shall be for the prince - nasi, he who had the נשיאauthority of chief magistrate; for there was neither king nor prince among the Jews after the Babylonish captivity. For these allotments and divisions, see the plan, EE, FF, GG.

44

GILL, "And a portion shall be for the prince,.... Meaning not the civil magistrate; though he ought to be supported in his dignity and authority, and in such manner that he may be under no temptation to oppress his subjects; and who ought to be, and at this time will be, the protector of the Lord's people, both in their civil and church state; but the Prince Messiah, of whom see Eze_44:3, to whom God will divide a portion with the great; Jacob shall be his portion, the Heathen his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth his possession, Isa_53:12, on the one side and on the other side of the oblation of the holy portion, and of the possession of the city; on each side, both of the holy portion, in which are the sanctuary, the houses of the priests, and the chambers of the Levites, and also of the city for the house of Israel; so that his portion will lie, or he be placed, on each side both of the church state and civil state of the Lord's people, and so be the protector of both; he will be a wall of fire round about them, a covert and a hiding place for them; he will be near them, and they to him; he will be on every side of them, and preserve them from persecuting enemies, and false teachers; they shall enjoy his word, his ordinances, and Gospel ministers, and be kept in the utmost peace and prosperity of all kinds; he will protect and defend them, both in their civil and religious liberties, and none shall make them afraid. Before the oblation of the holy portion, and before the possession of the city; or rather, "over against" them (w), as it is rendered, Eze_41:15 so, as the possession of the city was over against the holy portion, the portion of the prince was to be over against them both: from the west side westward, and from the east side eastward; which explains on which sides of them it lay: and the length shall be over against one of the portions; that is, against everyone of the portions: from the west border unto the east border; now as there is no measure given to the portion of the prince, but the whole space eastward and westward is left for it, it shows the large extent of Christ's kingdom; that his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth; his Gospel shall be preached everywhere; the Spirit shall be poured down upon all flesh to make it successful; multitudes shall be everywhere converted, and churches set up in all places; the kingdoms of the world will become Christ's, even all the Pagan, Papal, and Mahometan nations; Christ will be King over all the earth, and his name shall be one; there will be but one religion everywhere, Psa_72:8. Some of the Jewish writers interpret this of the King Messiah, to whom they suppose is here allotted the thirteenth part of the land: so Kimchi says, "to Israel belong twelve parts or portions, and to the prince the thirteenth part; the portion of the prince is as the portion of one of the tribes in length and in breadth, excepting that within the inheritance of the prince should be an oblation,''

45

as in Eze_45:13, and Maimonides (x) says, "the King Messiah takes out of all lands, subdued by the Israelites, one part out of thirteen; and this thing is a statute for him and his sons for ever;'' which seems plainly to refer to this passage in Ezekiel; though there are some who understand him of any anointed king of Israel, as being his right: but the learned Selden (y) is of opinion that he is speaking of the King Messiah, and has respect to this distribution; and rightly observes, from the same author (z), that all that was subdued by him was his own, and he could dispose of it at his pleasure to his servants and soldiers.

JAMISON, "The prince’s possession is to consist of two halves, one on the west, the other on the east, of the sacred territory. The prince, as head of the holy community, stands in closest connection with the sanctuary; his possession, therefore, on both sides must adjoin that which was peculiarly the Lord’s [Fairbairn].

PETT, "Verse 7-8“And what is to belong to the prince will be on one side and on the other side of the holy gift and of the possession of the city, in front of the holy gift and the possession of the city on the west side westward and on the east side eastward, and in length comparable to one of the portions from the west border to the east border. As far as the land is concerned it will be to him for a possession in Israel. And my princes will no more oppress my people. But they will give the land to the house of Israel according to their tribes.”

The reference to ‘the prince’ need not necessarily refer to the prince of the house of David. It is neutral. It is to whoever will have the highest lay authority over Israel. But the vision of Israel would be that it did refer to the future successive princes of the house of David who would be God’s servants and shepherds. That was part of their dream, even though it seemingly failed. These princes are to have their own allotted territory in the land. And it will be their permanent inheritance (Ezekiel 46:16-18). But notice the stress on the fact that they are to have no other. While they will exercise some kind of secular authority in the land they are not depicted as overall despotic rulers. The aim is to guarantee security of tenure under God to all who possess land, so that no prince may appropriate it as Ahab did the land of Naboth (1 Kings 21:1-16).

The fact that this is placed here confirms that we are to see it as part of the overall 46

picture being painted in Ezekiel 45:1-9. And yet it is not a part of the specific 25000 by 25000 cubit section. On the other hand we must recognise that it does conclude the passage, although also acting as a bridge to what follows. So the picture already presented, which was complete in itself, is now being augmented by the territory of the prince, which is specifically seen as attached to both sides of that portion. The prince too must have His eyes on God.

So, to summarise again. In the total picture the holy portion belongs to God for the residence of His priests. Similarly with the Levite land. The city belongs to the people under God, (and so later, do the tribal lands). Now we learn that whoever is prince over them will also have his own lands, but also under God. That does not mean that he does not have some kind of jurisdiction within the whole land as the leading lay authority, but it emphasises that he was not to consider it as his own possession to do with as he will (see Isaiah 5:8). He was a prince of the people, not of the land. The land was God’s, and God is supreme.

The principle enunciated here is of vital importance. God’s prince is not to see himself as supreme ruler and lord of all the land, with divine rights to do as he will. He is to have his own lands, but must otherwise recognise the rights of priest and people to their land, all under God’s sovereign control. At the commencement of the monarchy under Saul, David and at first under Solomon, the favoured title for the king was ‘prince/war-leader’ (nagid). Yahweh was king, they were His prince/war-leaders. These princes however are to be nasi’, princes and chiefs, with not quite such high authority, and certainly not kings.

It is especially interesting that these princes have no land within the foursquare land surrounding the sanctuary. Under God’s inspiration Ezekiel saw that as uniquely God’s, and the earthly princes had no part in it. This supports our view that the central portion is somehow to be seen as heavenly. It was directly under God. However, the prince’s land was east and west of it, and bordered on it. Even though not in it, it has the closest possible connection with it on both sides, east and west. This is made clear. Their hearts must be towards God.

But the dimensions of the prince’s land are not so clear. They depend on

47

interpretation. The question is, what is the ‘length comparable to one of the portions, from the west border to the east border’. Chapter 48 makes clear that it in fact means from the Great Sea to the Jordan. So Ezekiel’s aim is to connect the prince with the foursquare section around the heavenly temple without him being an essential part of it, just as the prince is given an important though peripheral place in the temple (Ezekiel 44:3). The latter was so as to honour the prince and exalt his status given that he was unable to enter where only priests could go. Thus a similar idea is in mind here. There was no desire to make him prince of the ‘ideal’ foursquare area that belonged to the heavenly temple. It was only future revelation that would make known that the Prince to come was also to be the Great High Priest (interestingly although unconsciously foreshadowed in future ‘history’ when the high priest became also the leader of the people).

It need hardly be stated that these things never came literally into actuality. But then it was not expected that they would. The heavenly temple was not visible to all men, only visible by faith, and the parlous state of the land and of men’s faith would not be conducive to their fulfilment. The people of Ezekiel’s time were on the whole too motivated by the world to seek to fulfil such ideals. It became rather a vision of what would be in the future. And not a practical vision if taken literally. Israel were too wedded to their own ideas and to Jerusalem. But as a vision of a future kingdom with its root in the heavenly temple it was remarkable. And one day Jesus would come proclaiming, ‘the Kingly Rule of God is at hand’, both as a present invisible Kingly Rule on earth with its source in Heaven, and as an everlasting kingdom in a new Heaven and earth where God would be all. And Ezekiel’s vision would become a reality.

At the return from exile things might at first have seemed promising. Zerubbabel, grandson of King Jehoiachin (1 Chronicles 3:19; Matthew 1:12), became Israel’s Davidic prince, and there were certainly great expectations concerning him as we have already seen (Haggai 2:1-9; Haggai 2:20-23). But the people’ minds again became bogged down in Jerusalem, and after Zerubbabel, the history of the princes of the house of David, although not the names, is unknown. It is lost in the mist of the past possibly never to be known. Even when Israel was restored to independence for a while there appears to have been no serious intention of re-establishing the Davidic line, and certainly no princes thought in terms of fulfilling Ezekiel’s vision. To be fair it would have been difficult. They did not know where the heavenly temple was. All they had was a replica on earth. But nor was there the attitude of

48

heart which the vision required. It is true that they did not have the vision which was required to recognise it as referring to a heavenly kingdom, but they did know basically what they had to do, and that was to be obedient to the God of the covenant. And that they were not. Had they been the vision of the heavenly kingdom might have been brought home to the.

‘As far as the land is concerned it will be to him for a possession in Israel. And my princes will no more oppress my people. But they will give the land to the house of Israel according to their tribes.’ This is the final summary of what is initially to be expected of Israel’s rulers on the return from exile. They are to have their own possession within the land, but they are not to oppress the people. Rather they are to ensure that they receive land in accordance with their tribal numbers. Oppression was to be a thing of the past, and they must rule wisely in combination with the sons of Zadok in order to see the better land.

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:7 And a [portion shall be] for the prince on the one side and on the other side of the oblation of the holy [portion], and of the possession of the city, before the oblation of the holy [portion], and before the possession of the city, from the west side westward, and from the east side eastward: and the length [shall be] over against one of the portions, from the west border unto the east border.

Ver. 7. And a portion shall be for the prince.] See on Ezekiel 44:3. Understand it of the civil magistrate, who is lord keeper of both tables of the law, and ought to have a special care of the Church’s welfare. Here his portion is said to lie on both sides of the oblation of the holy portion; and [Song of Solomon 8:9] magistrates are required to hem ministers in with boards of cedar, i.e., to provide for their security, that they may be "without fear among them," as Timothy. [1 Corinthians 16:10]

POOLE, " A portion; though not said how much, it is likely it was near fourfold to that of the city, sanctuary, or the priests and Levites.

For the prince; the king, or supreme ruler. One half of the prince’s portion lay on the west side of those three already set out; the other half lay on the east side

49

thereof; so the portion of city, Levites, and priests lay in the middle of it.

Of the holy portion; of priests, and Levites, and sanctuary.

Before; it lay parallel, as broad as these three were broad, and so run on both sides in its breadth from north to south, and had its length as the other from east to west, as in this diagram.

The tribe of Judah’s portion from west to east.

The tribe of Benjamin’s portion from west to east.

Over against; what called now over against, or parallel, or by the side all along, is called before three times together. So now you have an exact square of 25,000 cubits laid out for God, the Levites, and city, which appears thus in the breadth:

10,000 for the priests. 10,000 for the Levites. 5,000 for the city.

And the length of each 25,000, that is, some twelve miles and half square.

And the prince’s portion embracing or bounding all at each end, as a guard and defence both of church and state, of religion and the civil rights, which may fairly be intimated by this assigning him his portion on each end of the other three.

PULPIT, "And a portion shall be (or, ye shall appoint) for the prince. As to situation, his portion should lie on both sides of the holy portion (or portions, i.e. of the priests and of the Levites; see Ezekiel 48:20-22), and of the possession, or portion, of the city; should stretch exactly in front or alongside of these, i.e. from

50

north to south; and should extend on the one side westward (to the Mediterranean), and on the other side eastward (to the Jordan). The concluding clause, And the length shall be over against ( לעמות, a plural form, occurring only here) one of the portions, from the west border unto the east border, though somewhat obscure, obviously imports that the prince's portion, on both sides of the holy terumah, should extend lengthwise, i.e. from east to west, along the side of one of the portions assigned to the tribes; in other words, should be bounded on the north and south by the tribal territories of Judah and Benjamin (see Ezekiel 48:22 ).

8 This land will be his possession in Israel. And my princes will no longer oppress my people but will allow the people of Israel to possess the land according to their tribes.

CLARKE, "My princes shall no more oppress my people - By exorbitant taxes to maintain profligate courts, or subsidize other powers to help to keep up a system of tyranny in the earth. The former princes even robbed the temple of God to give subsidies to other states.

GILL, "In the land shall be his possession in Israel,.... Or, "as for the land, it shall be his for a possession in Israel" (a); the people of the land shall be a people for possession, as in 1Pe_2:9 or a peculiar people of his throughout all Israel; all the spiritual Israel, whether Jew or Gentile, shall be Christ's possession and inheritance: and my princes shall no more oppress my people; neither ecclesiastical princes, as the Scribes and Pharisees formerly, nor civil magistrates; not the one with false doctrines, carnal rites and ceremonies; nor the other with heavy taxes, and rigorous exactions: and the rest of the land shall they give to the house of Israel according to

51

their tribes; the spiritual and mystical Israel, Jews and Gentiles, who shall now inherit the earth, and possess all temporal good things, as well as spiritual ones.

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:8 In the land shall be his possession in Israel: and my princes shall no more oppress my people; and [the rest of] the land shall they give to the house of Israel according to their tribes.

Ver. 8. And my princes shall no more oppress my people.] As Samuel foretold they would do, [1 Samuel 8:11-18] and accordingly they did. But in the Christian commonwealth it should be better, as indeed it was in the days of Constantine the Great, Valentinian, and Theodosius, - which three godly emperors called themselves the vassals of Christ, - and is now, blessed be God, among us at this day.

POOLE, " In the land; either in that portion of land set out for him, or, as it is added, in Israel, i.e. in the land of Israel.

My princes; who own my favour in their advancement, and my law in their government. All princes are in some sort God’s princes, but all do not regard God as sovereign Lord of them and their people; but God did raise up such at the return out of Babylon, who were and did recognise themselves God’s princes.

Shall no more oppress: both Ezekiel and other prophets did reprove the injustices, cruelties, and oppressive methods of the kings of Israel, and yet they took not off the yoke; but it shall be better after the days of Babylonish captivity are ended.

The rest; after God had his portion, which was that the priests and Levites had, after the city and the prince have theirs, the remainder is to be given to the people.

They; the persons that are officers appointed to divide the land.

52

The house of Israel; two tribes and ten tribes.

According to their tribes, to the number of the tribes, and their right; we must be restored to them, or they compensated with an equal value.

COKE, "Ezekiel 45:8. In the land, &c.— This shall be his possession of land in Israel. Ezekiel 45:16. Shall give this oblation for the prince] All the people of the land shall be obliged to give this present, or offering, to the prince; not, as some will have it, with the prince, for what the prince was to give follows after.

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

9 “‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: You have gone far enough, princes of Israel! Give up your violence and oppression and do what is just

53

and right. Stop dispossessing my people, declares the Sovereign Lord.

BARNES, "The princes are exhorted to execute judgment, and abstain from “exaction” (literally “ejection”) such as that of Naboth by Ahab 1Ki_21:19.

CLARKE, "Take away your exactions from my people - This is the voice of God to all the rulers of the earth.

Take away your exactions; do not oppress the people; they are mine. Abolish all oppressive taxes.

GILL, "Thus saith the Lord, let it suffice you, O princes of Israel,.... Christian kings and princes, for such there shall be in those times; and who will have large and ample salaries provided for them, as they should have to support their dignity; and with which they should be content, as they will be, and not encroach upon the properties of their subjects: remove violence and spoil; from your administration; the sense is, do not use violence, and exercise rapine and spoil, let these be far from you; seize not on the goods of your subjects, or spoil them of them by heavy taxes and impositions, or by vexatious lawsuits, and unjust sentences: and execute judgment and justice; between men; let everyone enjoy his own property; and when any matter of controversy arises about it, fairly hear and examine the case, and do justice: take away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord; such as had been exacted of them in former times by tyrannical and unjust princes: or, "your expulsions" (b); driving them from their houses, estates, fields, and vineyards; either by taking them away from them, and annexing them to their own, as Ahab did; or by levying such taxes upon them they could not pay, and so were obliged to leave their inheritances and possessions. This, and some following verses, contain rules for regulating the civil state of the people of God in the latter day; which did not take place upon the Jews' return from Babylon, as appears from Neh_5:15 but will be strictly observed by Christian princes in the latter day glory; see Isa_40:17.

54

HENRY 9-12, "We have here some general rules of justice laid down both for prince and people, the rules of distributive and commutative justice; for godliness without honesty is but a form of godliness, will neither please God nor avail to the benefit of any people. Be it therefore enacted, by the authority of the church's King and God, 1. That princes do not oppress their subjects, but duly and faithfully administer justice among them (Eze_45:9): “Let it suffice you, O princes of Israel! that you have been oppressive to the people and have enriched yourselves by spoil and violence, that you have so long fleeced the flock instead of feeding them, and henceforward do so no more.” Note, Even princes and great men that have long done amiss must at length think it time, high time, to reform and amend; for no prescription will justify a wrong. Instead of saying that they have been long accustomed to oppress, and therefore may persist in it, for the custom will bear them out, they should say that they have been long accustomed to it and therefore, as here, Let the time pass suffice, and let them now remove violence and spoil; let them drop wrongful demands, cancel wrongful usages, and turn out those from employments under them that do violence. Let them take away their exactions, ease their subjects of those taxes which they find lie heavily upon them, and let them execute judgment and justice according to the law, as the duty of their place requires. Note, All princes, but especially the princes of Israel, are concerned to do justice; for of their people God says, They are my people, and they in a special manner rule for God. 2. That one neighbour do not cheat another in commerce (Eze_45:10): You shall have just balances, in which to weigh both money and goods, a just ephah for dry measure of corn and flour, a just bath for the measure of liquids, wine, and oil; and the ephah and bathshall be one measure, the tenth part of a chomer, or cor, Eze_45:11. So that the ephah and bath contained (as the learned Dr. Cumberland has computed) seven wine gallons and four pints, and something more. An omer was but the tenth part of an ephah (Exo_16:36) and the one hundredth part of a chomer, or homer, and contained about six pints. The shekel is here settled (Eze_45:13); it is twenty jerahs, just half a Roman ounce, in our money 2s. 4 1/4d. and almost the eighth part of a farthing, as the aforesaid learned man exactly computes it. By the shekels the maneh, or pound, was reckoned, which, when it was set for a mere weight (says bishop Cumberland), without respect to coinage, contained just 100 shekels, as appears by comparing 1Ki_10:17, where it is said three manehs, or pounds, of gold, went to one shield, with the parallel place, 2Ch_9:16, where it is said 300 shekels of gold went to one shield. But when the maneh is set for a sum of money or coin it contains but sixty shekels, as appears here, where twenty shekels, twenty-five shekels, and fifteen shekels, which in all make sixty, shall be the maneh. But it is thus reckoned because they had one piece of money that weighed twenty shekels, another twenty-five, another fifteen, all of which made up one pound, as a learned writer here observes. Note, It concerns God's Israel to be very honest and just in all their dealings, very punctual and exact in rendering to all their due, and very cautious to do wrong to none, because otherwise they spoil the acceptableness of their profession with God and the reputation of it before men.

K&D, "Eze_45:9-12General Exhortation to Observe Justice and Righteousness in their Dealings. - Eze_45:9. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Let it suffice you, ye princes of Israel: desist from violence and oppression, and observe justice and righteousness, and cease to thrust my

55

people out of their possession, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah. Eze_45:10. Just scales, and a just ephah, and a just bath, shall ye have. Eze_45:11. The ephah and the bath shall be of one measure, so that the bath holds the tenth part of the homer, and the ephah the tenth part of the homer: after the homer shall its standard be. Eze_45:12.And the shekel shall have twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall the mina be with you. - The exhortation in Eze_45:9 is similar to that in Eze_44:6, both in form and substance. As the Levites and priests are to renounce the idolatry to which they have been previously addicted, and to serve before the Lord in purity and holiness of life, so are the princes to abstain from the acts of oppression which they have formerly practised, and to do justice and righteousness; for example, to liberate the people of the Lord from the ת גרושה .גרש is unjust expulsion from one's possession, of which Ahab's conduct toward Naboth furnished a glaring example (1 Kings 21). These acts of violence pressed heavily upon the people, and this burden is to be removed (הרים In Eze_45:10-12 .(מעל the command to practise justice and righteousness is expanded; and it is laid as a duty upon the whole nation to have just weights and measures. This forms the transition to the regulation, which follows from Eze_45:13 onwards, of the taxes to be paid by the people to the prince to defray the expenses attendant upon the sacrificial worship. - For Eze_45:10, see Lev_19:36 and Deu_25:13. Instead of the hin (Lev_19:36), the bath, which contained six hins, is mentioned here as the measure for liquids. The בת is met with for the first time in Isa_5:10, and appears to have been introduced as a measure for liquids after the time of Moses, having the same capacity as the ephah for dry goods (see my Bibl. Archäol. II pp. 139ff.). This similarity is expressly stated in Eze_45:11. Both of them, the ephah as well as the bath, are to contain the tenth of a homer (לשאת, to carry, for להכיל, to contain, to hold; compare Gen_36:7 with Amo_7:10), and to be regulated by the homer. Eze_45:12treats of the weights used for money. The first clause repeats the old legal provision (Exo_30:13; Lev_27:25; Num_3:47), that the shekel, as the standard weight for money, which was afterwards stamped as a coin, is to contain twenty gerahs. The regulations which follow are very obscure: “twenty shekels, twenty-five shekels, fifteen shekels, shall the mina be to you.” The mina, המנה, occurs only here and in 1Ki_10:17; Ezr_2:69; and Neh_7:71-72, - that is to say, only in books written during the captivity of subsequent to it. If we compare 1Ki_10:17, according to which three minas of gold were used for a shield, with 2Ch_9:16, where three hundred (shekels) of gold are said to have been used for a similar shield, it is evident that a mina was equal to a hundred shekels. Now as the talent (ככר) contained three thousand (sacred or Mosaic) shekels (see the comm. on Exo_38:25-26), the talent would only have contained thirty minas, which does not seem to answer to the Grecian system of weights. For the Attic talent contained sixty minas, and the mina a hundred drachms; so that the talent contained six thousand drachms, or three thousand didrachms. But as the Hebrew shekel was equal to a δίδραχμον, the Attic talent with three thousand didrachms corresponded to the Hebrew talent with three thousand shekels; and the mina, as the sixtieth part of the talent, with a hundred drachms or fifty didrachms, ought to correspond to the Hebrew mina with fifty shekels, as the Greek name μνᾶ is unquestionably derived from the Semitic מנה. The relation between the mina and the shekel, resulting from a comparison of 1Ki_10:17 with 2Ch_9:16, can hardly be made to square with this, by the assumption that the shekels referred to in 2Ch_9:16 are not Mosaic shekels, but so-called civil shekels, the Mosaic half-shekel, the beka, בקע, having acquired the name of shekel in the course of time, as the

56

most widely-spread silver coin of the larger size. A hundred such shekels or bekas made only fifty Mosaic shekels, which amounted to one mina; while sixty minas also formed one talent (see my Bibl. Archäol. II pp. 135, 136).But the words of the second half of the verse before us cannot be brought into harmony with this proportion, take them how we will. If, for example, we add the three numbers together, 20 + 25 + 15 shekels shall the mina be to you, Ezekiel would fix the mina at sixty shekels. But no reason whatever can be found for such an alteration of the proportion between the mina and the talent on the one hand, or the shekel on the other, if the shekel and talent were to remain unchanged. And even apart from this, the division of the sixty into twenty, twenty-five, and fifteen still remains inexplicable, and can hardly be satisfactorily accounted for in the manner proposed by the Rabbins, namely, that there were pieces of money in circulation of the respective weights of twenty, twenty-five, and fifteen shekels, for the simple reason that no historical trace of the existence of any such pieces can be found, apart from the passage before us.

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

57

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

PETT, "Verses 9-12God’s Word to the Princes of Israel (Ezekiel 45:9-25).

The Need For The Prince To Ensure Justice and Fair Weights and Measures .

‘Thus says the Lord Yahweh, “Let it be enough for you, O princes of Israel. Remove violence and spoil, and execute judgment and justice. Take away your evictions from my people,” says the Lord Yahweh. “You shall have just balances, and a just ephah, and a just bath. The ephah and the bath shall be of one measure, that the bath may contain the tenth part of a homer, and the ephah the tenth part of a homer. Their measure shall be in terms of the homer. And the shekel shall be twenty gerars. Twenty shekels plus twenty five shekels plus fifteen shekels shall be your maneh.”

This kind of cry was common among the prophets, for Israelite society brought dishonour on Yahweh and his covenant by their social behaviour. The princes of the future are to ensure righteousness in the land. They are to be satisfied with their

58

own land, and ensure proper justice throughout Israel. They are to prevent violence and looting, and to ensure that men receive true justice and right judgments, and that the poor are not evicted by the rich for no good reason (compare Leviticus 19:13-15; Isaiah 3:14-15; Amos 3:10; Amos 6:3-6; James 5:1-6). They are to ensure true and correct weights and measures, and honesty in monetary exchange (compare Leviticus 19:35-36; Deuteronomy 25:13-16; Proverbs 11:1; Amos 8:5; Micah 6:10-12). These latter were a continual problem. Ancient balances had a wide margin of error and it is rare archaeologically to find two weights that agree. It was simple therefore to cheat the poor and helpless.

A homer meant originally a donkey load and came to mean approximately 220 litres (just over 48 gallons). An ephah was a vessel large enough to hold a person (Zechariah 5:6-10), and was used for measuring cereals. The bath was used for measuring liquids. The latter two were to be equivalent measures, one tenth of a homer.

The sixty shekels to a maneh was in accordance with usage in Babylonia. There is evidence of a fifty shekel maneh in pre-exilic times (compare Genesis 23:15; Exodus 30:24; 1 Samuel 17:5; Numbers 31:50, which all seem to point to the existence of a fifty shekel maneh) which explains the need for Ezekiel’s detailed explanation.

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD Let it suffice you, O princes of Israel: remove violence and spoil, and execute judgment and justice, take away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord GOD.

Ver. 9. Let it suffice you.] Be content with your double portion, your so large a lot; and that ye may be so, hear the laws that I lay upon you: remove violence and spoil, execute judgment and justice; take away your exactions, &c.; see that ye have just balances and a just ephah. Let these things be done, or you will be quickly undone. Is it not enough to be above men, but you must needs be above mankind, as those princes would be that would not be under the law?

POOLE, " Princes are here in God’s name, and by advice from him he made them 59

princes, counselled, exhorted, and commanded.

Let it suffice; be content, aim not at more: he who gave no more can make this enough, and he will curse and blast what you indirectly, and by sinful, oppressive crafts, wrest from others.

Remove violence; put it far from yourselves, do not you use it, and so discountenance in others, that neither common subjects dare violate one another, nor your officers violate any of them.

Spoil; either the same as violence, or the effect of it, violent courses; rob the oppressed and spoil them.

Execute judgment; judge righteously, and they look the sentence be executed, for terror to the unjust, and relief of the oppressed.

And justice: this is added for emphasis, though the same thing.

Exactions; heavy taxes and impositions on estates or trade.

My people; whom I must, if you will not, right.

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

60

10 You are to use accurate scales, an accurate ephah[i] and an accurate bath.[j]

BARNES, "A general exhortation to honesty, expressed by true weights and measures (marginal references). This fitly introduces the strict regulation of quantities in the prescribed offerings.

CLARKE, "Ye shall have just balances - This appreciation of weights, measures, and money was intended to show them that they must not introduce those to which they had been accustomed in the captivity, but those which God had prescribed to their forefathers. See the notes on the parallel places.

GILL, "Ye shall have just balances,.... That is, take care that true weights and just measures be used in trade and commerce, that so one man may not impose upon and cheat another; which is the business of the civil magistrate to look after: and a just ephah, and a just bath; and not make the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit, as some did, Amo_8:5 the "ephah" was a measure for dry things, as wheat, barley, &c. and the "bath" for liquid things, as wine oil, &c. as Jarchi and Kimchi observe; see Lev_19:35.

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:10 Ye shall have just balances, and a just ephah, and a just bath.

Ver. 10. Ye shall have just balances.] Leviticus 19:35-36, Proverbs 11:1; Proverbs 16:11; Proverbs 20:10; Proverbs 20:23, Micah 6:10-11; {See Trapp on "Leviticus 19:35"} {See Trapp on "Leviticus 19:36"} {See Trapp on "Proverbs 11:1"} {See

61

Trapp on "Proverbs 16:11"} {See Trapp on "Proverbs 20:10"} {See Trapp on "Proverbs 20:23"} {See Trapp on "Micah 6:10"} {See Trapp on "Micah 6:11"} The gospel rule is, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." [Matthew 7:12] And, "Let no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter; because that the Lord is the avenger of all such"; and the civil magistrate is his minister, "a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" either by force or fraud. [Romans 13:4]

POOLE, " Ye; princes of Israel.

Shall have: though they were not traders to use, yet they must have, i.e. appoint, for to them as a privilege it appertains to appoint standards for measure among their subjects. Just balances, or weights and scales, by which to measure what is to he sold by weight, one and the same to all, that none buy by a greater and sell by a lesser. So Leviticus 19:35,36 Pr 11:1 16:11 Micah 6:10,11. So must the prince remove oppressive cheating by divers weights.

Ephah, to measure dry things, as corn, olives, dates, &c.

Bath: this was a measure of liquid things, as oil, wine, or water, and what each contained the next verse will acquaint us. s.

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

BI, "Ye shall have Just balances.God requires just dealingsThat our consciences may be enlightened and set right, we want a standard, like the standard weights and measures that are kept in the Tower of London, to which all the people in the little country villages may send up their yard measures, and their pint pots,

62

and their pound weights, and find out if they are just and true. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

11 The ephah and the bath are to be the same size, the bath containing a tenth of a homer and the ephah a tenth of a homer; the homer is to be the standard measure for both.

BARNES, "The ephah was in use for dry measure, the bath for liquid. The homer seems to have contained about 75 gallons (see Exo_29:40, note; Lev_19:36, note).

After the homer - i. e., according to the standard of the homer.

GILL, "The ephah and the bath shall be of one measure,.... The one held as much of dry things as the other of liquor; which, according to Bishop Cumberland, were seven wine gallons, four pints, and a little more: that the bath may contain the tenth part of an homer, and the ephah the tenth part of an homer; this "homer" must be carefully distinguished from another measure, called "omer", written without an "h", which was but the tenth part of an "ephah", Exo_16:36, the measure thereof shall be after the homer: "as the homer was", so should the ephah and bath be, just the tenth part of it.

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:11 The ephah and the bath shall be of one measure, that the bath may contain the tenth part of an homer, and the ephah the tenth part of an homer: the measure thereof shall be after the homer.

Ver. 11. The ephah and the bath shall be of one measure.] Of the same capacity,

63

only the ephah is the measure of dry things, and the bath of moist.

POOLE, " One shall contain as much as the other, the ephah shall contain as many gallons of dry, as the bath doth contain of liquid things.

An homer is commonly said to be thirty bushels, or near it. So that the ephah will be some three bushels, in dry things, and the bath sixty-four pints, or eight gallons, in liquid things.

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

12 The shekel[k] is to consist of twenty gerahs. Twenty shekels plus twenty-five shekels plus fifteen shekels equal one mina.[l]

BARNES, "The shekel - See the marginal reference.The “maneh” shall be of true weight, but it would seem that in Ezekiel’s time there were “manehs” of different value.

64

GILL, "And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs,.... This is a rule for money or coin; the shekel was a silver coin, and is generally reckoned about the value of two shillings and six pence of our money, so a gerah about three half pennies: Bishop Cumberland reckons the shekel more exactly at two shillings and four pence farthing, and a little more, and the gerah at eleven grains of silver; see Lev_27:25, twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh; these were several pieces of money; one was a twenty shekel piece, which according to the common account was fifty shillings of our money; another was a five and twenty shekel piece, which was three pounds, two shillings, and sixpence; and a third was a fifteen shekel piece, which was one pound thirteen and sixpence; and together made a maneh or pound, which consisted of sixty shekels, or seven pounds, ten shillings; by which the other pieces should be tried, whether they were of just weight: the sense of the whole is, that no adulteration of coin should be made, which is very prejudicial in civil affairs.

JAMISON, "The standard weights were lost when the Chaldeans destroyed the temple. The threefold enumeration of shekels (twenty, twenty-five, fifteen) probably refers to coins of different value, representing respectively so many shekels, the three collectively making up a maneh. By weighing these together against the maneh, a test was afforded whether they severally had their proper weight: sixty shekels in all, containing one coin a fourth of the whole (fifteen shekels), another a third (twenty shekels), another a third and a twelfth (twenty-five shekels) [Menochius]. The Septuagint reads, “fiftyshekels shall be your maneh.”

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:12 And the shekel [shall be] twenty gerahs: twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh.

Ver. 12. And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs] Exodus 30:13, Leviticus 27:25, Numbers 3:47.

Fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh.] Or, μνα, mina, pound weight.

POOLE, " Having laid down the standard for weight and measure in less valuable things, and that are sold for money, now the standard is set down for the current coin which passed among them, and the valuation of which was part of the prince’s prerogative. The first mentioned in the text is the shekel, which, saith the text, contained

65

twenty gerahs; now every gerah was one penny halfpenny English value: the shekel then was two shillings and sixpence. The twenty shekels was two pounds ten shillings, the fifteen shekels was one pound seventeen shillings and sixpence, and twenty-five was three pounds two shillings and six pence.

Maneh: some say it is one pound, and that the pound was either least, middle, or greatest, according as there were more or fewer shekels in it; the least or common pound was but seventeen shillings and sixpence; the next, which was the royal, was fifty shillings; and the greatest, or pound of the sanctuary, was sixty-two shillings and six pence.

PULPIT, "The shekel shall be twenty garahs. This ordained that the standard for money weights should remain as it had been fixed by the Law (Exodus 30:13; Le 27:25; Numbers 3:47). The "shekel" (or "weight," from שקל, "to weigh;" compare the Italian lira, the French livre out of the Latin libra, and the English Found sterling) was a piece of silver whose value, originally determined by weight, became gradually fixed at the definite sum of twenty "gerahs," beans, or grains (from גרר, "to roll"). The "gerah," value two pence, was the smallest silver coin; the "shekel," therefore, was forty pence, or 3s. 4d. Commentators are divided as to how the second half of this verse should be understood: twenty shekel, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels shall be your maneh. The "maneh" (or "portion," from מנה, "to be divided"), which occurs only here and in 1 Kings 10:17 ; Ezra 2:69; and Nehemiah 7:71, Nehemiah 7:72—"that is to say, only in books written during the Captivity or subsequent to it" (Keil)—was probably the same coin as the Greek rains ( μνᾶ), though its weight may have somewhat differed. A comparison of 1 Kings 10:17 with 2 Chronicles 9:16 shows that a maneh was equal to a hundred shekels, which cannot be made to harmonize with the statement in this verse without supposing either that an error has crept in through transcription, or that the chronicler has employed the late Greek style of reckoning, in which one mina is equivalent to a hundred drachmas. Again, the Hebrew and Attic talents, when ex-stained, fail to solve the problem as to how the text should be rendered. The Hebrew talent, ככר, contained 3000 sacred or Mosaic shekels according to Exodus 38:25, Exodus 38:26 ; and the Attic talon 60 minas, each of 100 drachmas, i.e. 6000drachmas, or 3000 drachmas, each of which again was equal to a Hebrew shekel. Hence the Attic mina must have been one-sixtieth part of 3000, i.e. 50 shekels, which

66

once more fails to correspond with Ezekiel's notation. What this notation is depends on how the clauses should be connected. If with "and," as Ewald, following the Targumists, thinks, Ezekiel is supposed to have ordained that in the future the maneh should be, not 50, but 60 shekels—the weight of the 'Babylonian mana ('Records of the Past,' 4.97, second series); only, if he so intended, one sees not why he should have adopted this roundabout method of expression instead of simply stating that henceforth the maneh should be sixty shekels If with "or," as Michaelis, Gesenius, Hitzig, and Hengstenberg prefer, then the prophet is regarded as asserting that in the future three manehs of varying values should be current—one of gold, another of silver, and a third of copper (Hitzig), or all of the same metal, but of different magnitudes (Michaelis); and this arrangement might well have been appointed for the future, although no historical trace can be found of any such manehs of twenty, twenty-five, and fifteen shekels respectively having been in circulation either among the Hebrews or among foreign peoples. Kliefoth pronounces both solutions unsatisfactory, but has nothing better to offer. Keil supposes a corruption of the text of old standing, for the correction of which we are as yet without materials. Bertheau and Havernick follow the LXX. (Cod. Alex.), οἱ πέντε σίκλοι πέντε καὶ δέκα σίκλοι δέκα καὶ πεντήκοντα σίκλοι ἡ μνᾶ ἐσται ὑμῖν, "The five shekel (piece) shall be five shekels, and the ten shekel (piece) shall be tea shekels, end fifty shekels shall your maneh be;" but Hitzig's judgment on this proposal, with which Kliefoth and Keil agree, will most likely be deemed correct, that "it carries on the face of it the probability of its resting upon nothing more than an attempt to bring the text into harmony with the ordinary value of the maneh."

13 “‘This is the special gift you are to offer: a sixth of an ephah[m] from each homer of wheat and a sixth of an ephah[n] from each homer of barley.

67

BARNES, "The offerings. to be made by the people through the prince for the service of the sanctuary. In the Mosaic Law the offerings for the sacrifices of the ordinary festivals were left to the free will of the people. Here they are reduced to regular order and the amounts ordained. In later days there were often shortcomings in these respects Mal_3:8. This is obviated, and regularity ensured in the new order of things. No mention is made of wine for the drink-offering, or of bullocks for the burnt-offering, so that the enumeration is not complete.

GILL, "This is the oblation that ye shall offer,.... Not at the dedication of the temple, to be built in time to come, as Kimchi thinks; nor for the daily sacrifices, as others; but for the maintenance of the priests, that is, the ministers of the Gospel; for here begin the rules for the right ordering of ecclesiastical affairs of those times: the sixth part of an ephah of an homer of wheat, and ye shall give the sixth part of an ephah of an homer of barley: this confirms that an "ephah" was for dry measure, of wheat and barley; and as it was the tenth part of an homer, a sixtieth part of an homer of wheat and barley was to be given for this service; that is, if a man had an homer of wheat or of barley, he was to give a sixtieth part of it for the use of the ministers of the Lord: the meaning is, that the people should give freely and liberally, according to their substance, for their support and maintenance,

HENRY 13-15, "Having laid down the rules of the righteousness toward men, which is really a branch off true religion, he comes next to give some directions for their religion towards God, which is a branch of universal righteousness.

I. It is required that they offer an oblation to the Lord out of what they have (Eze_45:13): All the people of the land must give an oblation, Eze_45:16. As God's tenants, they must pay a quit-rent to their great landlord. They had offered an oblation out of their real estates (Eze_45:1), a holy portion of their land; now they are directed to offer an oblation out of their personal estates, their goods and chattels, as an acknowledgement of their receivings from him, their dependence on him, and their obligations to him. Note, Whatever our substance is we must honour God with it, by giving him his dues out of it. Not that God has need of or may be benefited by any thing that we can give him, Psa_50:9. No; it is but an oblation; we only offer it to him; the benefit of it returns back to ourselves, to his poor, who, as our neighbours, are ourselves, or to his ministers who serve continually for our good.II. The proportion of this oblation is here determined, which was not done by the law of Moses. No mention is made of the title, but only of this oblation. And the quantum of this is thus settled: - 1. Out of their corn they were to offer a sixtieth part; out of every homer of wheat and barley, which contained ten ephahs, they were to offer the sixth part of one ephah, which was a sixtieth part of the whole, Eze_45:13. 2. Out of their oil (and probably their wine too) they were to offer a hundredth part, for this oblation; out of every cor, or homer, which contained ten baths they were to offer the tenth part of one bath, Eze_45:14. This was given to the altar; for in eery meat-offering there was flour mingled with oil. 3. Out of their flocks they were to give one lamb out of 200; that was

68

the smallest proportion of all, Eze_45:15. But it must be out of the fat pastures of Israel.They must not offer to God that which was taken up from the common, but the fattest and best they had, for burnt-offerings and peace-offerings: the former were offered for the giving of glory to God, the latter for the fetching in of mercy, grace, and peace, from God, and in our spiritual sacrifices these are our two great errands at the throne of grace; but, in order to the acceptance of both, these sacrifices were to make reconciliation for them. Christ is our sacrifice of atonement, by whom reconciliation is made, and to him we must have an eye in our sacrifices of acknowledgment.JAMISON 13-15, "In these oblations there is a progression as to the relation between the kind and the quantity: of the corn, the sixth of a tenth, that is, a sixtieth part of the quantity specified; of the oil, the tenth of a tenth, that is, an hundredth part; and of the flock, one from every two hundred.

K&D, "Eze_45:13-17The Heave-offerings of the People. - Eze_45:13. This is the heave-offering which ye shall heave: The sixth part of the ephah from the homer of wheat, and ye shall give the sixth part of the ephah from the homer of barley; Eze_45:14. And the proper measure of oil, from the bath of oil a tenth of the bath from the cor, which contains ten baths or a homer; for ten baths are a homer; Eze_45:15. And one head from the flock from two hundred from the watered land of Israel, for the meat-offering, and for the burnt-offering, and for the peace-offerings, to make atonement for them, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah. Eze_45:16. All the people of the land shall be held to this heave-offering for the prince in Israel. Eze_45:17. And upon the prince shall devolve the burnt-offerings, and the meat-offering, and the drink-offering at the feasts, the new moons, and the Sabbaths, at all the festivals of the house of Israel; he shall provide the sin-offering, and the meat-offering, and the burnt-offering, and the peace-offerings, to make atonement for the house of Israel. - The introductory precepts to employ just measures and weights are now followed by the regulations concerning the productions of nature to be paid by the Israelites to the prince for the sacrificial worship, the provision for which was to devolve on him. Fixed contributions are to be levied for this purpose, of wheat, barley, oil, and animals of the flock - namely, according to Eze_45:13-15, of corn the sixtieth part, of oil the hundredth part, and of the flock the two hundredth head. There is no express mention made of wine for the drink-offering, or of cattle, which were also requisite for the burnt-offering and peace-offering, in addition to animals from the flock. The enumeration therefore is not complete, but simply contains the rule according to which they were to act in levying what was required for the sacrifices. The word ששיתם in Eze_45:13 must not be altered, as Hitzig proposes; for although this is the only

passage in which ששה occurs, it is analogous to חמש in Gen_41:34, both in its formation and its meaning, “to raise the sixth part.” A sixth of an ephah is the sixtieth part of a homer. חק, that which is fixed or established, i.e., the proper quantity. הבת השמן is in apposition to השמן (for the article, see the comm. on Eze_43:21), the fixed quantity of oil, namely of the bath of oil-i.e., the measure of that which is to be contributed from the oil, and that from the bath of oil-shall be the tenth part of the bath from the cor, i.e., the hundredth part of the year's crop, as the cor contained ten baths. The cor is not mentioned in the preceding words (Eze_45:11), nor does it occur in the Mosaic law. It is another name for the homer, which is met with for the first time in the writings of the

69

captivity (1Ki_5:2, 25; 2Ch_2:9; 2Ch_27:5). For this reason its capacity is explained by the words which are appended to ר עשרת' :מכ הבתים from the cor (namely) of ten ,וגוbaths, one homer; and the latter definition is still further explained by the clause, “for ten baths are one homer.” - Eze_45:15. ממשקה, from the watered soil (cf. Gen_13:10), that is to say, not a lean beast, but a fat one, which has been fed upon good pasture. לכפר עליהם indicates the general purpose of the sacrifices (vid., Lev_1:4). - Eze_45:16. The article in העם, as in הבת ni sa ,העם ni in Eze_45:14. היה ,to be, i.e., to belong ,אלto anything - in other words, to be held to it, under obligation to do it; היה על (Eze_45:17), on the other hand, to be upon a person, i.e., to devolve upon him. In עדי בכל־מthe feast and days of festival, which have been previously mentioned separately, are all grouped together. 'עשה את rehtegot, to furnish the sin-offering, etc., i.e., to. 'החטאת וגוsupply the materials for them.

So far as the fact is concerned, the Mosaic law makes no mention of any contributions to the sanctuary, with the exception of the first-born, the first-fruits and the tithes, which could be redeemed with money, however. Besides these, it was only on extraordinary occasions - e.g., the building of the tabernacle - that the people were called upon for freewill heave-offerings. But the Mosaic law contains no regulation as to the sources from which the priests were to meet the demands for the festal sacrifices. So far, the instructions in the verses before us are new. What had formerly been given for this object as a gift of spontaneous love, is to become in the future a regular and established duty, to guard against that arbitrary and fitful feeling from which the worship of God might suffer injury. - To these instructions there are appended, from Eze_45:18onwards, the regulations concerning the sacrifices to be offered at the different festivals.

PETT, "Verses 13-16

The Oblations to be Paid to the Prince To Enable Him To Make The Necessary Sacrificial Offerings For The People (Ezekiel 45:13-16).

“This is the oblation that you shall offer, the sixth part of an ephah from a homer of wheat, and you shall give the sixth part of an ephah from a homer of barley, and the set portion of oil, of the bath of oil, shall be the tenth part of a bath out of the cor, which is ten baths, that is a homer, for ten baths are a homer. And one lamb of the flock out of two hundred, from the well watered pastures of Israel, for a meal offering, and for a whole (burnt) offering, and for peace offerings, to make atonement for them,” says the Lord Yahweh. “All the people of the land shall contribute to this oblation for the prince of Israel.”

70

In response to his activity in ensuring fair justice and trading the prince will receive a reasonable level of oblations. This will be composed of reasonable proportions of what is produced in the land. The purpose behind these will be to provide a set proportion of produce for the necessary sacrificial offerings, including meal offerings, whole (burnt) offerings and peace offerings for the purpose of making atonement for the people. For it will the prince’s responsibility to ensure the spiritual well-being of his people. Once again it is difficult to square this with ‘memorial’ offerings. These are required offerings in order to make atonement and cover the people’s sins before God.

The required oblation by the people to the prince was thus one-sixtieth of all grain produce, one hundredth of all oil produce, and one out of two hundred clean domestic animals.

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:13 This [is] the oblation that ye shall offer; the sixth part of an ephah of an homer of wheat, and ye shall give the sixth part of an ephah of an homer of barley:

Ver. 13. This is the oblation.] After order taken that both prince and people might have whereof to make oblations. [Ezekiel 45:9-12] Here follow laws concerning these matters also.

POOLE, " In the daily service, the morning and evening sacrifice, there must be wheat and barley flour.

Sixth part of an ephah; sixtieth part of an homer, about one half bushel, and one peck, and one quarter of a peck, and three pints, or near it; so some. Others abate the odd measures, and say the ephah was about our half bushel, as indeed it can be no more; if the homer were thirty bushels, the ephah a tenth part of the homer, that is, three bushels, the sixth part of the ephah amounts to four gallons, or half a bushel.

71

14 The prescribed portion of olive oil, measured by the bath, is a tenth of a bath[o] from each cor (which consists of ten baths or one homer, for ten baths are equivalent to a homer).

BARNES, "Eze_45:14Cor - Translated “measure” in 1Ki_5:11, ... Here it is a synonym of “homer.”

GILL, "Concerning the ordinance of oil, the bath of oil,.... This shows that the bath was for liquid measure; and as oil was a part of food with the Jews, as well as used in their offerings, a rule is given for the distribution of that to the Lord's ministers, that they may have everything convenient for them: ye shall offer the tenth part of a bath out of a cor; which was the same measure with the "homer", only another name for it, as follows: which is an homer of ten baths, for ten baths are an homer; so that if a man had an homer or ten baths of oil, he was to give a hundredth part of it for the use of the priests and Levites, or ministers of the word; a greater portion of wheat or barley is given than of oil, because there is a greater expense in families of the one than of the other.

K&D 14-17, "According to Eze_48:14, this was also “holy to Jehovah;” whereas the portion measured off for the city was “common” (Eze_48:15). This is borne out by the fact that in the chapter before us the domain appointed for the city is distinguished from the land of the priests and Levites by the verb תתנו (Eze_45:6), whilst the description of the size of the Levites' land in Eze_45:5 is closely connected with that of the land of the priests; and further, that in Eze_45:7, in the description of the land of the prince, reference is made only to the holy terumah and the possession of the city, from which it also follows that the land of the Levites is included in the holy terumah. Consequently Eze_45:1 treats of the whole of the תרומת ,i.e., the land of the priests and Levites ,קדש

72

which was twenty-five thousand rods long and twenty thousand rods broad. This is designated in the last clause of the verse as a holy (portion) in its entire circumference, and then divided into two domains in Eze_45:2 and Eze_45:3. - Eze_45:2. Of this (מזה, of the area measured in Eze_45:1) there shall come, or belong, to the holy, i.e., to the holy temple domain, five hundred rods square, namely, the domain measured in Eze_42:15-20 round about the temple, for a separation between holy and common; and round this domain there is to be a מגרש, i.e., an open space of fifty cubits on every side, that the dwellings to the priests may not be built too near to the holy square of the temple building. - Eze_45:3. המדה, this measure (i.e., this measured piece of land), also points back to Eze_45:1, and מן cannot be taken in any other sense than in מזה (Eze_45:2). From the whole tract of land measured in Eze_45:1 a portion is to be measured off twenty-five thousand rods in length and ten thousand rods in breadth, in which the sanctuary, i.e., the temple with its courts, is to stand as a holy of holies. This domain, in the midst of which is the temple, is to belong to the priests, as the sanctified portion of the land, as the place or space for their houses, and is to be a sanctuary for the sanctuary, i.e., for the temple. Eze_45:5. A portion equally large is to be measured off to the Levites, as the temple servants, for their possession. The Keri יהיה is formed after the והיה of Eze_45:4, and the Chetib יהיה is indisputably correct. There is great difficulty in the last words of this verse, עשרים for a possession to them twenty cells;” for which the“ ,לשכתlxx give αὐτοῖς εἰς κατάσχεσιν πόλεις τοῦ κατοικεῖν, and which they have therefore read, or for which they have substituted by conjecture, ערים We cannot, in fact, obtain .לשבתfrom the עשרים לשכת of the Masoretic text any meaning that will harmonize with the context, even if we render the words, as Rosenmüller does, in opposition to the grammar, cum viginti cubiculis, and understand by לשכת capacious cell-buildings. For we neither expect to find in this connection a description of the number and character of the buildings in which the Levites lived, nor can any reason be imagined why the Levites, with a domain of twenty-five thousand rods in length and ten thousand rods in breadth assigned to them, should live together in twenty cell-buildings. Still less can we think of the “twenty cells” as having any connection with the thirty cells in the outer court near to the gate-buildings (Eze_40:17-18), as these temple cells, even though they were appointed for the Levites during their service in the temple, were not connected in any way with the holy terumah spoken of here. Hävernick's remark, that “the prophet has in his eye the priests' cells in the sanctuary, - and the dwellings of the Levites during their service, which were only on the outside of the sanctuary, were to correspond to these,” is not indicated in the slightest degree by the words, but is a mere conjecture. There is no other course open, therefore, than to acknowledge a corruption of the text, and either to alter לשכת `srym עשרים into לערים _as Hitzig proposes (cf. Num_35:2-3; Jos ,לשבת21:2), or to take עשרים as a mistake for שערים: “for a possession to them as gates to dwell in,” according to the frequent use of שערים, gates, for ערים, cities, e.g., in what was almost a standing phrase, “the Levites who is in thy gates” (= cities; Deu_12:18; Deu_14:27; Deu_16:11; cf. Exo_20:10; Deu_5:14, etc.). In that case the faulty reading would have arisen from the transposition of עש into שע, and the change of ב into כ.

Beside the holy terumah for sanctuary, priests, and Levites, they are also (Eze_45:6) to give a tract of twenty-five thousand rods in length and five thousand rods in breadth as

73

the property of the city (i.e., of the capital). לעמת: parallel to the holy heave, i.e., running by the longer side of it. This portion of land, which was set apart for the city, was to belong to all Israel, and not to any single tribe. The more precise directions concerning this, and concerning the situation of the whole terumah in the land, are not given till Eze_48:8-22. Here, in the present chapter, this heave is simply mentioned in connection with the privileges which the servants of the Lord and of His sanctuary were to enjoy. These included, in a certain sense, also the property assigned to the prince in Eze_45:7 as the head of the nation, on whom the provision of the sacrifices for the nation devolved, and who, apart from this, also needed for his subsistence a portion of the land, which should be peculiarly his own, in accordance with his rank. They were to give him as his property (the verb תתנו is to be supplied to לנשיא from Eze_45:6) the land on this side and that side of the holy terumah and of the city-possession, and that in front (אל־פני) of these two tracts of land, that is to say, adjoining them, extending to their boundaries, 'מפאת ים , “from” (i.e., according to our view, “upon”) the west side westward, and from (upon) the east side eastward; in other words, the land which remained on the eastern and western boundary of the holy terumah and of the city domain, both toward the west as far as the Mediterranean Sea, and toward the east as far as the Jordan, the two boundaries of the future Canaan. The further definition ' וארת לעמ וגו is not quite clear; but the meaning of the words is, that “the length of the portions of land to be given to the prince on the east and west side of the terumah shall be equal to the length of one of the tribe-portions,” and not that the portions of land belonging to the prince are to be just as long from north to south as the length of one of the twelve tribe-possessions. “Length” throughout this section is the extent from east to west. It is so in the case of all the tribe-territories (cf. Eze_48:8), and must be taken in this sense in connection with the portion of land belonging to the prince also. The meaning is therefore this: in length (from east to west) these portions shall be parallel to the inheritance of one of the twelve tribes from the western boundary to the eastern. Two things are stated here: first, that the prince's portion is to extend on the eastern and western sides of the terumah as far as the boundary of the land allotted to the tribes, i.e., on the east to the Jordan, and on the west to the Mediterranean (cf. Eze_48:8); and secondly, that on the east and west it is to run parallel (ת to the length of the (לעמseparate tribe-territories, i.e., not to reach farther toward either north or south than the terumah lying between, but to be bounded by the long sides of the tribe-territories which bound the terumah on the north and south. אר is the accusative of direction; אחד, some one (cf. Jdg_16:7; Psa_82:7). - In Eze_45:8, לארץ with the article is to be retained, contrary to Hitzig's conjecture לארץ: “to the land belonging to him as a possession shall it (the portion marked off in Eze_45:7) be to him.” ארץ, as in 1Ki_11:18, of property in land. In Eze_45:8, the motive for these instructions is given. The former kings of Israel had no land of their own, no domain; and this had driven them to acquire private property by violence and extortion. That this may not occur any more in the future, and all inducement to such oppression of the people may be taken from the princes, in the new kingdom of God the portion of land more precisely defined in Eze_45:7 is to be given to the prince as his own property. The plural, “my princes,” does not refer to several contemporaneous princes, nor can it be understood of the king and his sons, i.e.,

74

of the royal family, on account of Eze_46:16; but it is to be traced to the simple fact “that Ezekiel was also thinking of the past kings, and that the whole series of princes, who had ruled over Israel, and still would rule, was passing before his mind” (Kliefoth), without our being able to conclude from this that there would be a plurality of princes succeeding one another in time to come, in contradiction to Eze_37:25. - “And the land shall they (the princes) leave to the people of Israel” (נתן in the sense of concedere; and הארץ, the land, with the exception of the portion set apart from it in Eze_45:1-7). - The warning against oppression and extortion, implied in the reason thus assigned, is expanded into a general exhortation in the following verses.

POOLE, " Now forasmuch as oil was always offered with the meat-offering, here is direction what quantity shall be used at each offering.

The bath of oil; which contained about twenty-four gallons, or very near it.

The tenth part; so the quantity of oil by this account will be two gallons, three pints, and a little more.

The cor; which is here said to be an homer: these were two names of one and the same measure, and described by the baths it contained.

15 Also one sheep is to be taken from every flock of two hundred from the well-watered pastures of Israel. These will be used for the grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the people, declares the Sovereign Lord.

75

GILL, "And one lamb out of the flock, out of two hundred,.... As provision is before made for bread and oil, so here for meat for the servants of the Lord: if a man had two hundred lambs in his flock, one of them was to be given to them; it may be observed, that this plainly refers to times when the Mosaic dispensation should be abrogated; not tithes of all things are to be given to the priests, as heretofore; only the sixtieth part of wheat and barley, the hundredth part of oil, and but one lamb of two hundred; and which denotes the moderate maintenance of Gospel ministers, with which they should be contented, and the people should not grudge to give; nothing extraordinary or extravagant being required of them: this lamb was to be taken out of the fat pastures of Israel; or, out of the watery places (c); out of those fields which were well watered, and produced good pasture, which fattened the sheep and lambs that were fed in them; and denotes that the best of the kind is to be given to the Lord, and to his servants, or for the support of his interest; not the lean and the lame, the halt and the blind, Mal_1:8, for a meat offering, and for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings; not that the lamb was given for all these; but the wheat and the oil for the meat offering, and the lamb for the burnt offering and peace offerings. The sense may be, that this provision of wheat and barley, oil and lambs, or the sufficient maintenance signified by them, was in the room of the meat offering, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, which fell to the share of the priests under the legal dispensation: to make reconciliation for them, saith the Lord God; either to this end, that the ministers of the Gospel, who have the word of reconciliation committed to them, might cheerfully and faithfully dispense it to the people; or that they, by these liberal and generous contributions of theirs to the maintenance of them, might testify that they have truly by faith received the atonement by the sacrifice of Christ.

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:15 And one lamb out of the flock, out of two hundred, out of the fat pastures of Israel; for a meat offering, and for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings, to make reconciliation for them, saith the Lord GOD.

Ver. 15. Out of the fat pastures.] Those that are well watered and most fruitful. God must have the very best of the best, and that on pain of a heavy curse. [Malachi 1:14]

76

POOLE, "This verse prescribes the proportion that is to he observed in bringing the lambs for daily sacrifice. They were bound to choose out of the best pastures of Israel the best and fattest lambs, one out of two hundred; so favourable was God to them in these cattle, taking so few out of so many. And these lambs were designed for to be offered with the meat-offering, either in expiatory sacrifices, or in eucharistical sacrifices: thus daily sacrifices kept up their peace with God.

16 All the people of the land will be required to give this special offering to the prince in Israel.

GILL, "All the people of the land shall give this oblation,.... None shall be exempted from it; all according to their capacity and ability shall contribute to the support of the ministry, and the service of religion: for the prince in Israel; not the high priest, nor the civil magistrate, but the Prince Messiah: or rather "to the prince in Israel" (d); what the people shall do in this way, they shall do it as to the Lord, freely and cordially, and for his honour and glory; and he will take it as done to himself; see Mat_10:41.

HENRY 16-17, "III. This oblation must be given for the prince in Israel, Eze_45:16. Some read it to the prince, and understand it of Christ, who is indeed the prince in Israel, to whom we must offer our oblations, and into whose hands we must put them, to be presented to the Father. Or, They shall give it with the prince; every private person shall bring his oblation, to be offered with that of the prince; for it follows (Eze_45:17). It shall be the prince's part to provide all the offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel. The people were to bring their oblations to him according to the foregoing rules, and he was to bring them to the sanctuary, and to make up what fell short out of his own. Note, It is the duty of rulers to take care of religion, and to see that the duties of it be regularly and carefully performed by those under their charge, and that nothing be wanting that is requisite thereto: the magistrate is the keeper of both tables; and it is a happy thing when those that are above others in power and dignity go

77

before them in the service of God.

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:16 All the people of the land shall give this oblation for the prince in Israel.

Ver. 16. For the prince,] i.e., Upon a levy made by the prince for that purpose. Of these oblations, prefiguring evangelical sacrifices, the use followeth, [Ezekiel 46:4] it being first premised what the prince should do over and above these offerings of wheat, barley, oil, and lambs.

POOLE, " The plain and summary meaning of this verse is, that this daily sacrifice should be, as for the people and the prince, so should it be provided by a common purse of prince and people, all should contribute to this charge. Though some think the people were to give this, and the prince to give a like share; and I know some think that this prince is the high priest, and that all the people, joining and contributing to this sacrifice, are here bound to bring it to the high priest.

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

17 It will be the duty of the prince to provide the burnt offerings, grain offerings and drink

78

offerings at the festivals, the New Moons and the Sabbaths—at all the appointed festivals of Israel. He will provide the sin offerings,[p] grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the Israelites.

BARNES, "Eze_45:17The people’s gifts were to be placed in the hands of the prince, so as to form a common stock, out of which the prince was to provide what was necessary for each sacrifice. Compare 1Ki_8:62; Ezr_7:17. The prince handed the gifts to the priests, whose part it was to sacrifice and offer. But the prominent part assigned to the prince in “making reconciliation for the sins of the people” seems to typify the union of the kingly and priestly offices in the person of the Mediator of the New covenant.

GILL, "And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings,.... Or, "upon the prince shall be the burnt offerings" (e); it shall lie upon him to provide them; who is not the high priest, as Jarchi; nor the civil magistrate or king, as Menachem; but Christ, who is both Prince and Priest; and whose sacrifice of himself is designed by these, and the other sacrifices after mentioned, of which the sacrifices were all typical; though he is but one, they many, his answers to them all, and is one for all; and though his is but once offered up, they often, because of the fulness of efficacy in the one, and the want of it in the other; and though in itself infinitely superior to these. Of the burnt offerings, and of their being typical of Christ; see Gill on Eze_40:39, and meat offerings, and drink offerings; the meat offerings, which were rather bread offerings, were made of fine flour, with oil poured, and frankincense put thereon, Lev_2:1 and were typical of Christ, compared to a corn of wheat dying in the earth, and bringing forth fruit, Joh_12:24 and to wheat as bruised and ground into fine flour, kneaded and baked, which may denote his various sufferings, and so made bread of; he being the true and living bread, which gives life to men. The "oil" poured upon this offering may signify the grace of the Spirit without measure on Christ; and the "frankincense" how savoury and acceptable he is to his people. The "drink offering" was of wine, which went along with other sacrifices, and was very acceptable to God; and may denote the blood of Christ, which is drink indeed; and his love expressed in shedding it, which is better than the choicest wine; both these are held forth, Christ's flesh, which is meat, and his blood, which is drink, in the ordinance of the supper,

79

administered by his priests, whom he furnishes with such offerings to set before his saints: in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, and in all solemnities of the house of Israel; in the feasts of the passover, tabernacle, and pentecost, which were all figures of Christ; of his being the passover sacrificed for us, of his tabernacling in our nature, and of the effusion of his Spirit; and the "new moons", and "sabbaths", and "solemn days", are only Old Testament phrases to express the times of New Testament worship; see Isa_66:23, as monthly days for the administration of the ordinance of the supper, and the Lord's day for the preaching of the word, and other parts of public worship; in all which the sacrifice of Christ, his blood, righteousness, and satisfaction, make a principal part: he shall prepare the sin offering; which also was a type of Christ; of which See Gill on Eze_40:39, and this, with the meat offering; and the burnt offering, of which before, were to be prepared by the prince himself, or our Lord Jesus Christ: and also the "peace offerings", or thank offerings (f); his own thank offerings for himself and his people; see Joh_11:41 and the thank offerings of them, or their sacrifices of praise, which become acceptable through him, Heb_13:15, and even himself, for whom the saints offer thanks to God, 2Co_9:15, and as the end of all the legal sacrifices was to make reconciliation for the house of Israel; so this is the end and use of the sacrifice of Christ, typified by them, to make peace for the Israel of God; which could not be made by them, by their obedience, repentance, or faith; and yet was necessary to their happiness, to their communion with God, and enjoyment of him; this Christ has made by his obedience, sufferings, and death, whereby he has fulfilled the law, satisfied justice, and made atonement for sin: this is all at his expense, and is meant by his "preparing" these offerings; which denotes his ready and cheerful engagement to become a sacrifice; his voluntary offering up himself unto God, or giving himself an offering and a sacrifice unto him; and also his furnishing his ministers with proper matter for their ministrations in all the solemn times and seasons thereof, which is the doctrine of his sacrifice and satisfaction, or salvation by a crucified Christ; and so as the people are to offer to their maintenance, Christ the Prince takes care to furnish them for their ministry.

PETT, "Verse 17

The Prince To Be Responsible To Ensure that the Offerings Are Offered.

“And it shall be the prince’s part to give the whole burnt offerings, and the meal offerings, and the libations (drink or oil offerings), in the feasts and in the new

80

moons and in the sabbaths, in all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel. He will prepare the sin offering, and the meal offering, and the whole burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make atonement for the house of Israel.”

The prince’s sacred duty is to ensure that the full basic sacrificial requirements for the people are carried out throughout the year at Israel’s wide-ranging feasts, including the new moons and sabbaths. This was probably ever seen as the Davidic kings’ duty, even though many of them did not fulfil it satisfactorily. This was why they were seen as priests after the order of Melchizedek (Psalms 110:4). This title had arisen because Jerusalem was the city of David and they had therefore inherited the royal priesthood of the city, named after its early priest king Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18). But as only the Levitical priests could actually offer these sacrifices and present them before Yahweh under the covenant, the duty of the prince/king was seemingly to ensure their provision, allocation and preparation ready for the sacrificial act. This is now dealt with in more detail.

Verses 17-25

The Prince’s Sacral Responsibilities (Ezekiel 45:17-25).

Ezekiel was aware what the limited role of the Prince would initially be on their return to the land. The land would be ruled by governors appointed by Persia, and the Prince could only therefore have a limited local role. But with regard to the cult he had full freedom under God. There he could express his authority without stirring trouble or being seen as a revolutionary. And it was to be his central purpose. What mattered above all was the relationship His people had with God.

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:17 And it shall be the prince’s part [to give] burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

81

Ver. 17. He shall prepare the sin offering.] Or, He shall offer, so some render it, and apply it to Christ. {so Ezekiel 45:22} This prince then is in addition a priest of the tribe of Judah. See Psalms 110:4, Hebrews 7:11-28; Hebrews 8:1-6. Non mirum quod hic haereant Iudaei; { a} here the Jews are puzzled.

POOLE, " The prince’s part; beside the share he gives to the daily sacrifice in the common charge, Ezekiel 45:16, the prince is bound also on solemnities to give sacrifices out of his own.

Burnt-offerings: see Le 1, where these are described. Meat-offerings rings: see Leviticus 2:1, &c. Drink-offerings: see Exodus 30:9 Numbers 15:24 the drink-offering was ever joined with the meat-offering, Numbers 29:11,16,19,22.

In the feasts; which he doth particularly recount, as new moons, &c.; of all particularly to treat would be too long.

He shall prepare: here lieth the main deciding circumstance, whether the secular or ecclesiastical prince be here intended. Some say this preparing is a sacerdotal act in order to offering; if so, it must be the high priest; but I think they mistake. This preparing is nothing more than on the prince’s charge, and by his care, to see that there be such beasts ready at hand as are required at such solemnities; and so it is the secular prince.

To make reconciliation: see Ezekiel 45:15.

For the house of Israel; all the people.

PULPIT, "The prince, as receiver-general of the people's offerings, should devote them to maintaining (literally, it should be upon him, and so form part of his duty to

82

maintain) the sacrificial worship of the new temple, in the feasts ( הגים, or joyous celebrations), and in the now moons, and in the sabbaths, and generally in all solemnities ( מועדים, or appointed times, hence festal seasons) of the house of Israel, that thereby he might make reconciliation (or, atonement) for the house of Israel. This combination of the kingly and priestly offices in the person of the prince (David) obviously typified the similar union of the same offices in David's Son (Christ).

18 “‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: In the first month on the first day you are to take a young bull without defect and purify the sanctuary.

BARNES, "Eze_45:18In the first day - If this is only a special Passover for the dedication, the prolongation of the festival may be compared with that under Solomon 2Ch_7:8. But it is more probably a general ordinance, and, in this case, we have an addition to the Mosaic ritual (compare Lev_23:5). Here the “first day” is marked by the rites of expiation, which are repeated on the seventh day Eze_45:20, for the purpose of including those who transgressed from ignorance rather than willfulness.

CLARKE, "Thou shalt take a young bullock - and cleanse the sanctuary -There is nothing of this in the Mosaic law; it seems to have been a new ceremony. An annual purification of the sanctuary may be intended.

GILL, "Thus saith the Lord God,.... Here begins the account of the times and seasons in which the above sacrifices should be prepared and offered; or that which was signified by them be held forth in the ministry of the word to the faith of God's people:

83

in the first month, in the first day of the month; the month Nisan, as Kimchi observes, who adds, "which is the month of redemption, in which Israel were redeemed out of Egypt, and in which they shall be redeemed in time to come:'' this month answers to part of our March and part of April; it was the first month in the year with the Jews for their ecclesiastical affairs; so that the first day of this month was New Year's Day: thou shall take a young bullock without blemish, and cleanse the sanctuary; or, "make a sin offering for it" (g); here the Jews are puzzled; since, according to the law of Moses, in the beginnings of their months, they were to offer a burnt offering of two young bullocks and a ram, &c. Num_28:11, whereas here only one bullock, and that a sin offering; wherefore R. Jochanan and R. Judah say, this must be left till Elijah comes to explain it; and as much at a loss are they how to account for it that Ezekiel should do this, whom they suppose to be the person spoken to; and therefore imagine this will be done by him after the resurrection, not being able to see that this shows the abrogation of the law of Moses; and that not the Prophet Ezekiel, but Christ the Prince and Priest, is here addressed; and whose sacrifice is designed by the young bullock without blemish; a type of him both in his strength and purity; and by which his sanctuary, his church and people, have all their sins expiated; and particularly the sins of the year past, this being represented as done on New Year's Day, which the annual atonement prefigured.

HENRY 18-20, "IV. Some particular solemnities are here appointed.1. Here is one in the beginning of the year, which seems to be altogether new, and not instituted by the law of Moses; it is the annual solemnity of cleansing the sanctuary. (1.) On the first day of the first month (upon new-year's day) they were to offer a sacrifice for the cleansing of the sanctuary (Eze_45:18), that is, to make atonement for the iniquity of the holy things the year past, that they might bring none of the guilt of them into the services of the new year, and to implore grace for the preventing of that iniquity, and for the better performance of the service of the sanctuary the ensuing year. And, in token of this, the blood of this sin-offering was to be put upon the posts of the gate of the inner court (Eze_45:19), to signify that by it atonement was intended to be made for the sins of all the servants that attended that house, priests, Levites, and people, even the sins that were found in all their services. Note, Even sanctuaries on earth need cleansing, frequent cleansing; that above needs none. Those what worship God together should often join in renewing their repentance for their manifold defects, and applying the blood of Christ for the pardon of them, and in renewing their covenants to be more careful for the future; and it is very seasonable to begin the year with this work, as Hezekiah did when it had been long neglected, 2Ch_29:17. They were here appointed to cleanse the sanctuary upon the first day of the month, because on the fourteenth day of the month they were to eat the passover, an ordinance which, of all Old Testament institutions, had most in it of Christ and gospel grace, and therefore it was very fit that they should begin to prepare for it a fortnight before by cleansing the sanctuary. (2.) This sacrifice was to be repeated on the seventh day of the first month, Eze_45:20. And then it was intended to make atonement for every one that errs, and for him that is simple.

84

Note, He that sins errs and is simple; he mistakes, he goes out of the way, and shows himself to be foolish and unwise. But here it is spoken of those sins which are committed through ignorance, mistake, or inadvertency, whether by any of the priests, or of the Levites, or of the people. Sacrifices were appointed to atone for such sins as men were surprised into, or did before they were aware, which they would not have done if they had known and remembered aright, which they were overtaken in, and for which, afterwards, they condemn themselves. But for presumptuous sins, committed with a high hand, there was no sacrifice appointed, Num_15:30. By these repeated sacrifices you shall reconcile the house, that is, God will be reconciled to it, and continue the tokens of his presence in it, and will let it alone this year also.JAMISON, "The year is to begin with a consecration service, not mentioned under

the Levitical law; but an earnest of it is given in the feast of dedication of the second temple, which celebrated its purification by Judas Maccabeus, after its defilement by Antiochus.

K&D 18-20, "The Sin-Offerings in the First MonthEze_45:18. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, In the first (month), on the first of the month, thou shalt take a bullock, a young ox without blemish, and absolve the sanctuary. Eze_45:19. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering, and put it upon the door-posts of the house, and upon the four corners of the enclosure of the altar, and upon the door-posts at the gate of the inner court. Eze_45:20. And so shalt thou do on the seventh of the month, for the sake of erring men and of folly, that so ye may make atonement for the house. - The Mosaic law had prescribed for the new moons generally the sin-offering of a he-goat, in addition to the burnt-offerings and meat-offerings (Num_28:15); and, besides, this, had also distinguished the new-moon's day of the seventh month by a special feast-offering to be added to the regular new-moon's sacrifices, and consisting of a sin-offering of a he-goat, and burnt-offerings and meat-offerings (Num_29:2-6). This distinguishing of the seventh month by a special new-moon's sacrifice is omitted in Ezekiel; but in the place of it the first month is distinguished by a sin-offering to be presented on the first and seventh days. Nothing is said in Eze_45:18-20 about burnt-offerings for these days; but as the burnt-offering is appointed in Eze_46:6-7 for the new-moon's day without any limitation, and the regulations as to the connection between the meat-offering and the burnt-offerings are

repeated in Eze_46:11 for the holy days and feast days (הגים עדים generally, and the (ומnew-moon's day is also reckoned among the עדים there is evidently good ground for ,מthe assumption that the burnt-offering and meat-offering prescribed for the new moon in Eze_46:6-7 were also to be offered at the new moon of the first month. On the other hand, no special burnt-offering or meat-offering is mentioned for the seventh day of the first month; so that in all probability only the daily burnt-offering and meat-offering were added upon that day (Eze_46:13.) to the sin-offering appointed for it. Moreover, the sin-offerings prescribed for the first and seventh days of the first month are distinguished from the sin-offerings of the Mosaic law, partly by the animal selected (a young bullock), and partly by the disposal of the blood. According to the Mosaic law, the sin-offering for the new moons, as well as for all the feast days of the year, the Passover, Pentecost, day of trumpets, day of atonement, and feast of tabernacles (all eight days), was to be a he-goat (Num_28:15; Num_22:30; Num_29:5, Num_29:11, Num_29:16,

85

Num_29:19, Num_29:22, Num_29:25, Num_29:28, Num_29:31, Num_29:34, Num_29:38). Even the sin-offering for the congregation of Israel on the great day of atonement simply consisted in a he-goat (or two he-goats, Lev_16:5); and it was only for the sin-offering for the high priest, whether on that day (Lev_16:3), or when he had sinned so as to bring guilt upon the nation (Lev_4:3), or when the whole congregation had sinned (Lev_4:14), that a bullock was required. On the other hand, according to Ezekiel, the sin-offering both on the first and seventh days of the first month, and also the one to be brought by the prince on the fourteenth day of that month, i.e., on the day of the feast of Passover (Eze_45:22), for himself and for all the people, were to consist of a bullock and only the sin-offering on the seven days of the feast of Passover and tabernacles of a he-goat (Eze_45:23, Eze_45:25). The Mosaic law contains no express instructions concerning the sprinkling of the blood of the sin-offering at the new moons and feasts (with the exception of the great atoning sacrifice on the day of atonement), because it was probably the same as in the case of the sin-offerings for the high priest and the whole congregation, when the blood was first of all to be sprinkled seven times against the curtain in front of the capporeth, and then to be applied to the horns of the altar of incense, and the remainder to be poured out at the foot of the altar of burnt-offering (Lev_4:6-7, Lev_4:17-18); whereas, in the case of the great atoning sacrifice on the day of atonement, some of the blood was first of all to be sprinkled at or upon the front side of the capporeth and seven times upon the ground, and after that it was to be applied to the horns of the altar of incense and of the altar of burnt-offering (Lev_16:15-17). But according to Ezekiel, some of the blood of the sin-offerings on the first and seventh days of the first month, and certainly also on the same days of the feasts of Passover and tabernacles, was to be smeared upon the posts of the house - that is to say, the posts mentioned in Eze_41:21, not merely those of the היכל, the door into the holy place, but also those of the קדש, the door leading into the most holy place, upon the horns and the four corners of the enclosure of the altar of burnt-offering (Eze_43:20), and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court. It is a point in dispute here whether שער החצר is only one door, and in that case whether the east gate of the inner court is to be understood as in Eze_46:2 מזוזת) as Hitzig and others suppose, or whether ,(השערשער rehtehw is to be taken in a collective sense as signifying the three gates of the inner court (Kliefoth and others). The latter view is favoured by the collective use of the word מזוזה by itself, and also by the circumstance that if only one of the three gates were intended, the statement which of the three would hardly have been omitted (cf. Eze_46:1; Eze_44:1, etc.).

According to Eze_45:18, these sin-offerings were to serve for the absolving of the sanctuary; and according to Eze_45:20, to make atonement for the temple on account of error or folly. Both directions mean the same thing. The reconciliation of the temple was effected by its absolution or purification from the sins that had come upon it through the error and folly of the people. Sins בשגגה are sins occasioned by the weakness of flesh and blood, for which expiation could be made by sin-offerings (see the comm. on Lev_4:2and Num_15:22.). מאיש lit., away from the erring man, i.e., to release him from his ,שגהsin. This expression is strengthened by מפתי, away from simplicity or folly; here, as in Pro_7:7, as abstractum pro concreto, the simple man. - The great expiatory sacrifice on the day of atonement answered the same purpose, the absolution of the sanctuary from the sins of the people committed בשגגה (Lev_16:16.).

86

PETT, "Verses 18-20

The Prince’s Responsibility For Cleansing the Sanctuary and The People at the New Year.

‘Thus says the Lord Yahweh, “In the first month, on the first day of the month, you will take a young bullock without blemish, and you will cleanse the sanctuary. And the priest will take of the blood of the sin offering and put it on the doorposts of the house, and on the four corners of the settle of the altar, and on the posts of the gate of the inner court. And so shall you do on the seventh day of the month for every one who errs and for every one who is ignorant. So shall you make atonement for the house.” ’

The first responsibility of the prince is to ensure the fitness for worship of the earthly sanctuary. Each new year’s day, that is of the ancient religious new year commencing around March/April at the new moon, this had to be cleansed by the sin offering of a young bullock without blemish on the first and seventh day. The priest would then take the blood of the bullock and put it on the doorposts of the house, that is of the sanctuary where the offering was made, and on the four corners of the settle of the altar (compare Ezekiel 43:20) on which the offering was offered, and on the posts of the gate of the inner court. This would cleanse the sanctuary for another year. That there would be such a sanctuary was clear from the building of the altar under Yahweh’s instructions (Ezekiel 43:18).

‘And so shall you do on the seventh day of the month for every one who errs and for every one who is ignorant.’ As with the cleansing of the altar (Ezekiel 43:26) this cleansing required a seven day period, although in this case not specifically daily. The sin offering, probably in both cases, was for sins of error (Leviticus 4:2; Leviticus 4:13; Leviticus 4:22; Leviticus 4:27; Numbers 15:22-29) and sins of ignorance (Leviticus 5:17) for the whole people. Both are in contrast with ‘sins with a high hand’ (Numbers 15:30). This was seemingly an innovation, a further reminder of their continual need to be cleansed from sin. It would be a constant

87

reminder in the future of how Israel had previously failed in their history to learn the lesson of the New Year sacrifice.

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:18 Thus saith the Lord GOD In the first [month], in the first [day] of the month, thou shalt take a young bullock without blemish, and cleanse the sanctuary:

Ver. 18. Thou shalt take.] Thou, O prince, shalt.

A young bullock.] One, and no more. Ut unitas singularis sacvificii Christi intimaretur.

POOLE, " In the first month of the year, every new-year’s day; or the first new-year’s day after the temple is built, a kind of feast of dedication: the former better agreeth with the following verses.

Thou shalt take; procure, either being out of his own flock, or buy with his money; this the prince must do.

A young bullock without blemish; such the law required, both for kind and quality, in what sacrifice, or on what occasion soever the sacrifice was offered.

And cleanse the sanctuary; that by this, offered according to the law, the temple might be cleansed.

PULPIT, "Ezekiel 45:18-25

These verses allude to the institution of a new feast-cycle, whose deviations from 88

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

Ezekiel 45:18

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

89

presence in it of erring men (verse 20).

19 The priest is to take some of the blood of the sin offering and put it on the doorposts of the temple, on the four corners of the upper ledge of the altar and on the gateposts of the inner court.

GILL, "And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering,.... An emblem of the blood of Christ, who was made sin for his people, and an offering for their sin; and which blood cleanses from all sin: and put it upon the posts of the house; of the house of God, the sanctuary or temple; upon everyone of the posts of it, which stood at the entrance into it. The Targum is "upon the threshold of the house:'' and upon the four corners of the settle of the altar; or four horns of it; see Eze_43:14, and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court; that is, of the temple: this is also a new rule or law about putting the blood of the sacrifice into these various places, of which nothing is said in the law of Moses; and shows that admission into the church of God, and the right participation of Christ, the altar, and the blessings of his grace, as well as entrance into heaven itself, are all through the blood of Christ.

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:19 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering, and put [it] upon the posts of the house, and upon the four corners of the settle of the altar, and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court.

90

Ver. 19. And put it upon the posts.] This and other ceremonies were not enjoined by the law of Moses. The Jews cannot tell what to say to it. They will not see that old things are past, and all things become new.

POOLE, " The priest: had the 17th and 18th verses intended by prince the high priest, there would have been no need of changing the phrase, or of mentioning the priest, it would have been enough to have said, And he shall; but in those verses the bringing and preparing is not priestly, but ascribed to the prince, as it would be to any other who offers a sacrifice to the Lord by the hand of the priest.

Shall take; carry with him in some vessel or other, from the place where the bullock was slain.

Of the blood of the sin-offering: see Leviticus 1:5 Ezekiel 43:20.

Upon the four corners of the settle: see Ezekiel 43:20.

Upon the posts; the blood of the sin-offering was to be put upon the posts of the temple door, and on the posts of the gate of the inner court, or that next to the temple.

PULPIT, "Ezekiel 45:19

The mode in which this act of purgation should be performed is next described. The blood of the sin offering should by the priest be put (not sprinkled) upon the posts of the house, i.e. upon the posts or pillars of the door connecting the holy place with the holy of holies (Ezekiel 41:21), and upon the four corners of the settle of the altar of burnt offering in the inner court (Ezekiel 43:14), and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court, not of the eastern gate only, as Hitzig suggests, but of all the three gates (Ezekiel 40:29, Ezekiel 40:33, Ezekiel 40:36). Compare Ezekiel 43:20, and the procedure in sin offerings under the Law, which directed that in certain eases part

91

of the blood should be put by the priest's finger upon the horns of the altar, and the rest poured out beside the bottom of the altar (Exodus 29:12; Le Exodus 4:7), while in other cases it should be sprinkled before the veil of the sanctuary (Le Ezekiel 4:6, Ezekiel 4:17), and on the great Day of Atonement seven times even on and before the mercy-seat, and on the altar of incense (Le Ezekiel 16:14, Ezekiel 16:18, Ezekiel 16:19).

20 You are to do the same on the seventh day of the month for anyone who sins unintentionally or through ignorance; so you are to make atonement for the temple.

GILL, "And so thou shall do the seventh day of the month,.... Of the first month Nisan; here is another new rule or law, as Kimchi owns, of which no mention is made in the law of Moses: for everyone that erreth, and for him that is simple: so shall ye reconcile the house; or, "expiate" it (h); make atonement for it; that is, for the house of God, the whole church, all his people; particularly for fallen believers, who have gone astray, either in principle or practice; through ignorance and simplicity, through the prevalence of corruption, the temptations of Satan, and the snares of this world; but are recovered again, and brought to repentance; to whom the doctrines of peace and reconciliation, of free and full pardon by the blood of Christ, and of atonement of all their sins by his sacrifice, are to be preached for the comfort and refreshment of their souls; and they are to be received into the church, having their consciences sprinkled by the blood of Christ; the same things being done on this day as on the first. Jarchi thinks these words are to be transposed thus, and ye shall reconcile, or "expiate the house from the man that erreth, and the simple one": quite contrary to the design of the text, which directs to the reception, and not the exclusion, of such persons.

JAMISON, "for him that is simple — for sins of ignorance (Lev_4:2, Lev_4:13, 92

Lev_4:27).

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:20 And so thou shalt do the seventh [day] of the month for every one that erreth, and for [him that is] simple: so shall ye reconcile the house.

Ver. 20. And so thou shalt.] This also is a new injunction, {see Ezekiel 45:19} and very comfortable to those that sin of passion or precipitancy. See 1 John 2:1-2.

POOLE, " The priest must offer the like sacrifice for cleansing the errors of the people, and reconciling them.

The seventh day; about a week before the passover.

For every one that erreth; for all the errors of all the house of Israel, in all that had erred through ignorance.

For him that is simple; that is, of weak intellectuals, half-witted, or a fool, as the word signifies; or, for one that was seduced.

Reconcile the house, i.e. cleanse, as Ezekiel 45:18, which legally or ceremonially was defiled by those errors done in the city or courts of the house, whither these persons might come, for it is not the temple itself, I suppose, that is here meant.

PULPIT, "The same ceremony should be repeated on the seventh day of the month, not on the first day of the seventh month, as Smend proposes, in accordance with the λήψῃ, and on the ground that "the seventh day of (the same) mouth" would have been in Hebrew בשבעה לחדש, as in Ezekiel 1:1; Ezekiel 30:20; at the same time admitting that בחדש is sometimes used (Numbers 10:11), though not (except in this verse) by Ezekiel. The sin offerings in question should be made for (or, on account

93

of, מן, "away from," expressing the reason why anything is done) every one that erreth, and for him that is simple, i.e. for such transgressors as should have gone aside from the straight path through ignorance or foolishness, the "simple" man being here, as in Proverbs 7:7 ; Proverbs 22:3; Proverbs 27:12, one easily enticed or persuaded to do evil. For such offenders the Law of Moses provided means of expiation (Le Proverbs 2:2, etc.; Proverbs 5:15; Numbers 15:27); for the presumptuous sinner, who despised the word of the Lord and violated his commandment, only one doom remained, to be cut off from among his people (Numbers 15:30; Deuteronomy 17:12).

21 “‘In the first month on the fourteenth day you are to observe the Passover, a festival lasting seven days, during which you shall eat bread made without yeast.

GILL, "In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month,.... Of the month Nisan, that day fortnight from the cleansing of the sanctuary; and that day week from the expiation of the house, and the recovery and reception of backsliders: ye shall have the passover; Christ the passover sacrificed for us; held forth in the ministry of the word, and in the ordinance of the Lord's supper; for the passover was a type of Christ: his purity and strength were signified by the lamb without blemish, a male of the first year; his separation to his office, his death, and the time of it, by the taking of this lamb from the flock some time before, and by slaying it between the two evenings; the manner of feeding on him, with fervent faith, and as a whole Saviour, attended with true repentance, and being willing also to suffer for him, by the lamb being eaten not raw, nor sodden, but roasted, and all of it, and with bitter herbs; and the security of his people by his blood from wrath and ruin, through the sprinkling it upon their consciences, by the sprinkling the blood of the passover on the lintel and door posts of the Israelites, which the Lord seeing passed by, and destroyed them not; and the new rules of keeping this passover, after observed, show that this respects not the type, but the antitype:

94

a feast of seven days; kept a whole week; and indeed Christ the passover is by faith to be lived upon throughout the week, as well as on Lord's days, and indeed in every week: unleavened bread shall be eaten; and not leavened; with reference to which the Gospel feast is to be kept, not with old leaven, with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, 1Co_5:7.

HENRY, "The passover was to be religiously observed at the time appointed, Eze_45:21. Christ is our passover, that is sacrificed for us. We celebrate the memorial of that sacrifice and feast upon it, triumphing in our deliverance out of the Egyptian slavery of sin and our preservation from the sword of the destroying angel, the sword of divine justice, in the Lord's supper, which is our passover-feast, as the whole Christian life is, and must be, the feast of unleavened bread. It is here appointed that the prince shall prepare a sin-offering, to be offered for himself and the people, a bullock on the first day (Eze_45:22) and a kid of the goats every other day (Eze_45:23), to teach us, in all our attendance upon God for communion with him, to have an eye to the great sin-offering, by which transgression was finished and an everlasting righteousness brought in. On every day of the feast there was to be a burnt-offering, purely for the honour of God, of no less than seven bullocks and seven rams, with their meat-offering, which were wholly consumed upon the altar, and yet no waste, Eze_45:23, Eze_45:24.

K&D 21-25, "Sacrifices at the Passover and Feast of TabernaclesEze_45:21. In the first (month), on the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall keep the Passover, a feast of a full week; unleavened shall be eaten. Eze_45:22. And the prince shall prepare on that day for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock as a sin-offering. Eze_45:23. And for the seven days of the feast he shall prepare as a burnt-offering for Jehovah seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily, the seven days, and as a sin-offering a he-goat daily. Eze_45:24. And as a meat-offering, he shall prepare an ephah for the bullock, and an ephah for the ram, and a hin of oil for the ephah. Eze_45:25. In the seventh (month), on the fifteenth day of the month, at the feast he shall do the same for seven days with regard to the sin-offering, as also the burnt-offering, and the meat-offering, as also the oil. - In the words, “shall the Passover be to you,” there lies the thought that the Passover is to be celebrated in the manner appointed in Ex 12, with the paschal meal in the evening of the 14th Abib. - There is

considerable difficulty connected with the following words, חג ת שבע which all the ,ימיםolder translators have rendered “a feast of seven days.” ת syad neves fo.” שבע signifies periods of seven days or weeks. A feast of heptads of days, or weeks of days, cannot possibly mean a feast which lasted only seven days, or a week. חג ת שבע is used elsewhere for the feast of weeks (Exo_34:22; Deu_16:10), because they were to reckon seven weeks from the second day of the Passover, the day of the sheaf of first-fruits, and then to keep the feast of the loaves of first-fruits, or the feast of harvest (Deu_16:9). Kliefoth retains this well-established meaning of the words in this passage also, and give the following explanation: If the words חג stood alone without ימים, it would mean that in future the Passover was to be kept like the feast of seven weeks, as the feast of the loaves of first-fruits. But the addition of ימים, which is to be taken in the same sense as

95

in Dan_10:2-3; Gen_29:14, etc., gives this turn to the thought, that in future the Passover is to be kept as a feast of seven weeks long, “a feast lasting seven weeks.” According to this explanation, the meaning of the regulation is, “that in future not only the seven days of sweet loaves, but the whole of the seven weeks intervening between the feast of the wave-sheaf and the feast of the wave-loaves, was to be kept as a Passover, that the whole of the quinquagesima should be one Easter חג, and the feast of weeks be one with the Passover.” To this there is appended the further regulation, that unleavened bread is to be eaten, not merely for the seven days therefore, but for the whole of the seven weeks, till the feast of the loaves of first-fruits. This explanation is a very sagacious one, and answers to the Christian view of the Easter-tide. But it is open to objections which render it untenable. In the first place, that ימים, when used in the sense of lasting for days, is not usually connected with the preceding noun in the construct state, but is attached as an adverbial accusative; compare שה ש in Dan_10:2-3, and שנתים ימים in Gen_41:1; Jer_28:3, Jer_28:11, etc. But a still more important objection is the circumstance that the words שבעת ימי החג in Eze_45:23 unquestionably point back to חג ת שבע החג as there is no other way in which the article in ,ימים ni elcitra eht h can be explained, just as ם בי ההוא in Eze_45:22 points back to the fourteenth day mentioned in Eze_45:21 as the time of the pesach feast. It follows from this, however, that ת שבעימים can only signify a seven days' feast. It is true that the plural ת שבע appears irreconcilable with this; for Kimchi's opinion, that ת שבע is a singular, written with Cholem instead of Patach, is purely a result of perplexity, and the explanation given by Gussetius, that Ezekiel speaks in the plural of weeks, because the reference is “to the institution of the Passover as an annual festival to be celebrated many times in the series of times and ages,” is no better. The plural ת שבע must rather be taken as a plural of genus, as in ערי, Gen_13:12 and Jdg_12:7; בהן, Gen_19:29; or בנים, Gen_21:7; Isa_37:3; so that Ezekiel speaks indefinitely of heptads of days, because he assumes that the fact is well known that the feast only lasted one heptad of days, as he expressly states in Eze_45:23. If this explanation of the plural does not commend itself, we must take ת שבע as a copyist's error for שבעת, feast of a heptad of days, i.e., a feast lasting a full week, and attribute the origin of this copyist's error to the fact that חג שבעת naturally suggested the thought of חג ת feast of weeks, or Pentecost, not merely because the ,שבעfeast of Pentecost is always mentioned in the Pentateuch along with the feasts of Passover and tabernacles, but also because the only singular form of ת שבע that we meet with elsewhere is שבוע (Dan_9:27), or in the construct state שבע (Gen_29:27), not שבעה and שבעת.

The word הפסח is used here as in Deu_16:1-2, so that it includes the seven days' feast of unleavened bread. The Niphal יאכל is construed with the accusative in the olden style: mazzoth shall men eat. - In Eze_45:22 and Eze_45:23 there follow the regulations concerning the sacrifices of this festival, and first of all concerning the sin-offering to be presented on the fourteenth day, on the evening of which the paschal lamb was slaughtered and the paschal meal was held (Eze_45:22). The Mosaic legislation makes no allusion to this, but simply speaks of festal sacrifices for the seven days of mazzoth, the 15th to the 21st Abib (Lev_23:5-8; Num_28:16-25), with regard to which fresh

96

regulations are also given here. The Mosaic law prescribes for each of these seven days as burnt-offerings two bullocks, a ram, and seven yearling lambs, as a meat-offering; three-tenths of an ephah of meal mixed with oil for each bullock, two-tenths for the ram, and one-tenth for each lamb, and a he-goat for the sin-offering (Num_28:19-22). The new law for the feasts, on the other hand, also requires, it is true, only one he-goat daily for a sin-offering on the seven feast days, but for the daily burnt-offerings seven bullocks and seven rams reach; and for the meat-offering, an ephah of meal and a hin of oil for every bullock, and for every ram. In the new thorah, therefore, the burnt-offerings and meat-offerings are much richer and more copious, and the latter in far greater measure than the former. - Eze_45:25. The same number of sacrifices is to be offered throughout the feast of seven days falling upon the fifteenth day of the seventh month. This feast is the feast of tabernacles, but the name is not mentioned, doubtless because the practice of living in tabernacles (booths) would be dropped in the time to come. And even with regard to the sacrifices of this feast, the new thorah differs greatly from the old. According to the Mosaic law, there were to be offered, in addition to the daily sin-offering of a he-goat, seventy bullocks in all as burnt-offerings for the seven days; and these were to be so distributed that on the first day thirteen were to be offered, and the number was to be reduced by one on each of the following days, so that there would be only seven bullocks upon the seventh day; moreover, every day two rams and fourteen yearling lambs were to be offered, together with the requisite quantity of meal and oil for a meat-offering according to the number of the animals (Num 29:12-34). According to Ezekiel, on the other hand, the quantity of provision made for the sacrifices remained the same as that appointed for the feast of Passover; so that the whole cost of the burnt-offerings and meat-offerings did not reach the amount required by the Mosaic law. In addition to all this, there was an eighth day observed as a closing festival in the Mosaic feast of tabernacles, with special sacrifices; and this also is wanting in Ezekiel. - But the following is still more important than the points of difference just mentioned: Ezekiel only mentions the two yearly feats of seven days in the first and seventh months, and omits not only the Pentecost, or feast of weeks, but also the day of trumpets, on the first of the seventh month, and the day of atonement on the tenth; from which we must infer that the Israeli of the future would keep only the two first named of all the yearly feasts. The correctness of this conclusion is placed beyond the reach of doubt by the fact that he practically transfers the feasts of the day of trumpets and of the day of atonement, which were preparatory to the feast of tabernacles, to the first month, by the appointment of special sin-offerings for the first and seventh days of that month (Eze_45:18-20), and of a sin-offering on the day of the paschal meal (Eze_45:22). This essentially transforms the idea which lies at the foundation of the cycle of Mosaic feasts, as we intend subsequently to show, when discussing the meaning and significance of the whole picture of the new kingdom of God, as shown in Ezekiel 40-48.JAMISON, "As a new solemnity, the feast of consecration is to prepare for the

passover; so the passover itself is to have different sacrifices from those of the Mosaic law. Instead of one ram and seven lambs for the daily burnt offering, there are to be seven bullocks and seven rams. So also whereas the feast of tabernacles had its own offerings, which diminished as the days of the feast advanced, here the same are appointed as on the passover. Thus it is implied that the letter of the law is to give place to its spirit, those outward rites of Judaism having no intrinsic efficacy, but symbolizing the spiritual truths of Messiah’s kingdom, as for instance the perfect holiness which is to characterize it. Compare 1Co_5:7, 1Co_5:8, as to our spiritual “passover,” wherein, at 97

the Lord’s supper, we feed on Christ by faith, accompanied with “the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” Literal ordinances, though not slavishly bound to the letter of the law, will set forth the catholic and eternal verities of Messiah’s kingdom.

PETT, "Verses 21-24

The Prince’s Responsibility for the Passover and The Feast of Tabernacles.

What is described clearly abbreviates ancient ceremonies already known, the full details of which did not need to be described. The point being made here is the Prince’s responsibility for them. The Passover lambs themselves would be eaten in their houses, but what is described here are the major sacrifices on behalf of the people.

“In the first month on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall have the passover, a feast of seven days. Unleavened bread shall be eaten. And on that day the prince will prepare for himself, and for all the people of the land, a bullock for a sin offering. And for the seven days he shall prepare a whole burnt offering to Yahweh, seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily the seven days. And a he-goat daily for a sin offering. And he shall prepare a meal offering, an ephah for a bullock and an ephah for a ram, and a hin of oil to an ephah.”

The Passover celebrated the deliverance from Egypt (Exodus 12-13). It was thus a suitable feast to emphasise once the New Exodus had taken place. Here again was deliverance from a far country. From now on Passover (including the seven day Feast of Unleavened Bread) would celebrate two deliverances. Note how Passover and Unleavened Bread are seen as one feast. Compare 2 Chronicles 30:1-27; 2 Chronicles 35:1-19. The public celebration of Passover in style appears regularly to have been the sign of a new beginning, as the people were reminded of what their covenant God had done for them.

There was to be a daily sin offering throughout the feast to deal with the sins of the 98

people, thus seven in all, and twice sevenfold whole burnt offerings offered in worship and praise and dedication daily, a sweet savour to Yahweh (Genesis 8:20-21; Leviticus 1:9; Leviticus 1:13), although these also included an atoning factor. Whole burnt offerings (literally ‘that which goes up’) were a very ancient form of sacrifice, offered long before the deliverance from Egypt (Genesis 8:20-21; Genesis 22:2). The whole of the offering was consumed by fire. Along with the whole burnt offerings a meal offering was offered.

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:21 In the first [month], in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.

Ver. 21. In the fourteenth day.] Upon that very day, not duly observed then by the Jews, was "Christ our passover sacrificed for us." [1 Corinthians 5:7]

POOLE, " In the first month; Nisan, which is part of March and part of April with us.

The fourteenth day; as was appointed of old by Moses, Exo 12 at large.

Ye shall have; have, and slay, for so Exodus 12:6.

The passover; the lamb, which was to be eaten with thanksgiving for God’s sparing the Jewish children, their first-born, when he slew the chief of the strength of Egypt, and for bringing the whole house of Israel out of Egypt.

A feast of seven days: see the institution, Exo 12.

Unleavened bread shall be eaten: though here is an ellipsis, yet the thing clearly speaks itself; through the whole feast unleavened bread was to be eaten under great

99

penalty, Exodus 12:18,19. These things no doubt concerned the returned captives, though they have a mystical meaning also.

PULPIT, "With the fourteenth day of the month, the day appointed by the Law of Moses for the killing of the Paschal lamb (Exodus 12:6), the Passover ( חפסה with the article, the well-known festival of that name) should commence. Though the selection of the lamb upon the tenth day of the first month is not specified, it may be assumed that this would be implied in the appointment of a Passover which should begin on the day already legalized by the Mosaic Torah. According to Wellhausen and Smend, the first mention of the Passover occurs in Deuteronomy 16:2, Deuteronomy 16:5, Deuteronomy 16:6, and the next in 2 Kings 23:22; but this can only be maintained by declaring Exodus 34:25, which occurs in the so-called "Book of the Covenant"—a pre-Deuteronomic work—"a gloss," and by relegating Exodus 12:1-51. to the "priest-code" for no other reason than that it alludes to the Passover (Exodus 12:11, Exodus 12:21, Exodus 12:27, Exodus 12:43)—a principle of easy application, and capable of being used to prove anything. Smend likewise regards it as strange that the Passover should be made to commence on the fourteenth of the month, and not, as the autumn feast, on the fifteenth (Exodus 12:25); and suggests that the original reading, which he supposes was the fifteenth, may have been corrected subsequently in accordance with the priest, code. But if the priest-cede was posterior to and modeled after Ezekiel. Why should it have ordained the fourteenth instead of that which its master recommended, viz. the fifteenth? A sufficient explanation of the differing dates in Ezekiel is supplied if Ezekiel, in fixing them, may be held to have followed the so-called priest-cede. A feast of seven days; literally, a feast of hebdomad of days ( חג שבעות ימים). By almost all interpreters this is understood to mean "a feast of a full week, the exact duration of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which began with the eating of the Paschal lamb (Exodus 12:8, Exodus 20-12:15 ; Le Exodus 23:6; Numbers 9:11; Deuteronomy 16:3, Deuteronomy 16:4). At the same time, it is frankly admitted that, to extract this sense from the words, שבעות must be changed into שבעת. As the words stand, they can only signify a feast of weeks of days. חג שבעות, in Exodus 34:22 and Deuteronomy 16:10, is applied to the Feast of Pentecost, which was called "a Feast of Hebdomads," from the seven weeks which intervened between the Passover and it. Hence Kliefoth, adhering to the legitimate sense of the expression, understands the prophet to say that the whole period of seven weeks between the first Passover and Pentecost should be celebrated in the new dispensation as a Feast of Unleavened Bread. In support of this Kliefoth cites a similar use of the word "days" in Genesis 29:14; Genesis 41:1; Deuteronomy 21:13; 2 Kings 15:13; Jeremiah 28:3, Jeremiah 28:11;

100

Daniel 10:2, Daniel 10:3; and certainly no objection can be taken to a Passover of seven weeks, if Ezekiel may be supposed to have been merely expressing analogically spiritual conceptions, and not furnishing actual legislation to be afterwards put in operation. Against this translation, however, Keil urges that the expression, "seven days of the feast" (verse 23), appears to mark the duration of the festival; but this is not so convincing as its author imagines, since the prophet may be held as describing, in verses 23, 24, the procedure of each seven days without intending to unsay what he had already stated, that the feast should continue seven weeks of days. A second objection pressed by Keil, that ימים "is not usually connected with the preceding noun in the construct state, but is attached as an adverbial accusative," as in the above-cited passages, is sufficiently disposed of by Kliefoth's statement that the punctuation might easily be altered so as to read שבעות . Upon the whole, while not free from difficulty, the view of Kliefoth seems best supported by argument.

22 On that day the prince is to provide a bull as a sin offering for himself and for all the people of the land.

GILL, "And upon that day,.... The fourteenth day of the month Nisan; the first day of the passover, as Kimchi observes: shall the prince prepare for himself, and for all the people of the land, a bullock for a sin offering; here everything again is new, as the above Jewish writer observes; no one circumstance according to the law of Moses; which shows that this respects Gospel times; when the law would be null and void, the types and shadows gone, and the antitype take place, Christ the sum of all; under the law, every family was to prepare a lamb for themselves; but here the prince is to prepare for himself, and all the people of the land; by that it was to be a lamb, here a bullock, and that for a sin offering; whereas not a bullock, but a goat, was used for a sin offering. Christ himself is this Prince, and who has prepared himself a sacrifice, even for himself, his church, which is mystically himself; and to make atonement for all those sins which he took upon

101

himself by imputation, and made his own; even for all his chosen people, and for all their sins: of his preparing this sacrifice, both to be offered up, and to be held forth in the ministry of the word; see Gill on Eze_45:17, and who is very fitly represented by a bullock for his labouriousness and strength, in bearing the sins of his people, when he became an offering for them.

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:22 And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock [for] a sin offering.

Ver. 22. Shall the prince prepare.] See Ezekiel 45:17.

POOLE, " Upon that day; upon the fourteenth day, on which the passover was slain.

The prince; as before, Ezekiel 45:17,18.

Prepare for himself, to expiate his own sins.

And for all the people: see Ezekiel 45:17, where the same is found.

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

102

23 Every day during the seven days of the festival he is to provide seven bulls and seven rams without defect as a burnt offering to the Lord, and a male goat for a sin offering.

BARNES, "Eze_45:23Comparing this with the daily sacrifices of the Paschal week Num_28:19-24, and those of the daily sacrifices of the week of the Feast of tabernacles (see Num_29:12...), it will be seen that here the covenant number seven is preserved throughout to indicate a perfect, in lieu of an imperfect, covenant with God.

GILL, "And seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt offering to the Lord,.... Which is as follows: seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily the seven days; that is, a bullock and a ram for each day: and a kid of the goats daily for a sin offering; all which were typical of Christ, signified by the "bullock", for his labour and patience; by the "ram", for his strength; and by the kid of the goats, for his likeness of sinful flesh, and having the sins of his people reckoned to him; which made him of ill savour to the justice and holiness of God, and for which he fell a sacrifice. This is also different from the law of Moses, which required two young bullocks, one ram, and seven lambs, Num_28:19 and therefore Jarchi confesses he knew not how to make this Scripture stand, or establish the sense of it.

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:23 And seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt offering to the LORD, seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily the seven days; and a kid of the goats daily [for] a sin offering.

103

Ver. 23. A burnt offering.] In token of self-denial.

POOLE, "After the first day’s offering, Ezekiel 45:22, or else after the fifteenth day was over, though first more likely. The prince at his own charge is to get ready day by day seven bullocks, seven rams, perfect without blemish, as the law required, and one kid each day of the seven; in all forty-nine bullocks, as many rams, and seven kids of the goats. These the priests were to offer to make atonement for the prince and his people.

PULPIT, "Ezekiel 45:23, Ezekiel 45:24

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

24 He is to provide as a grain offering an ephah for each bull and an ephah for each ram, along with a hin[q] of olive oil for each ephah.

GILL, "And he shall prepare a meat offering of an ephah for a bullock,.... Of the meat offering; see Gill on Eze_45:17, this was to consist of an ephah of fine flour; and for every bullock on each of the seven days of the passover was a meat offering of such a quantity to be made: and an ephah for a ram; a like quantity of fine flour was to be made into a meat offering for every ram on the same days: and an hin of oil for an ephah; to every ephah of fine flour was, to be allowed an hin

104

of oil, which, according to Bishop Cumberland, was a gallon and two pints, being the sixth part of an ephah or bath: here also, as Kimchi observes, will be an innovation in the offerings in future times, whether we will or not, he says; and Jarchi confesses his ignorance of these things; since, according to the law, three tenth parts of an ephah of fine flour were only allowed to make a meat offering for one bullock, and two tenth parts for a ram, Num_28:12, this may denote the more abundance of grace, and of the knowledge of Christ, under the Gospel dispensation, and especially in the latter day glory.

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:24 And he shall prepare a meat offering of an ephah for a bullock, and an ephah for a ram, and an hin of oil for an ephah.

Ver. 24. A meat offering.] Made of meal, in token of mortification, and submission to God in all things.

POOLE, " And he, the prince,

shall prepare a meat-offering; for the sacrifice was not entire without this, and the text proportions this also: for each

bullock one

ephah of fine flour, three bushels and one half with the seven bullocks of the first day; and so for the rams; that is, seven bushels every day for seven days together, according to the number of rams and bullocks.

An hin of oil: this was about one gallon and three quarters of a pint.

For an ephah; to each ephah of meal. To every of the seven there were

105

Seven bullocks, seven ephahs, and seven hins of oil,

Seven rams, seven ephahs, and seven hins of oil;

Forty-nine of each kind of the beasts in the space of the seven days, and ninety-eight ephahs and as many hins with them: a greatly and costly service.

25 “‘During the seven days of the festival, which begins in the seventh month on the fifteenth day, he is to make the same provision for sin offerings, burnt offerings, grain offerings and oil.

BARNES, "Eze_45:25The Feast of tabernacles (compare the marginal references). Some think that the other great festival, the Feast of Weeks, is intended.

CLARKE, "In the seventh month - He shall do at the feast of tabernacles the same things that he was desired to do on the passover. The prince should offer the same number of victims, of the same quality, and with the same ceremonies, as during the above seven days. The offerings were, sin-offerings, burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings.

GILL, "In the seventh month, in the fifteenth day of the month,.... The month Tisri, which answers to part of our September and October:

106

shall he do the like in the feast of the seven days; the feast of tabernacles, which began the fifteenth of Tisri, and was kept seven days; and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly, which is not here taken notice of: this feast was in commemoration of the Jews dwelling in tabernacles in the wilderness; and was typical of Christ's tabernacling in our nature, or of his incarnation; and which feast is to be kept in Gospel times, and particularly in the latter day, by believing in the incarnate Saviour, and in all the blessings flowing from his incarnation; and by attending the Gospel feast, his word and ordinances, which hold him forth as the only Saviour; See Gill on Zec_14:16, now, the same things are to be done at this feast as at the feast of the passover: according to the sin offering, according to the burnt offering, and according to the meat offering, and according to the oil: that is, so many bullocks and rams for the burnt offering, and a kid of the goats for the sin offering, as before; and the same quantity of fine flour and oil for the meat offering: this also is a new thing, as Kimchi observes; for, according to the law, the sacrifices at the feast of passover, and at the feast of tabernacles, were very different; and it might be further observed, that no notice is taken of the feast of pentecost, or first fruits; and the whole confirms what has been already observed, that this shows the abrogation of the Mosaic economy; and that these things are to be understood in a spiritual and evangelic sense.

HENRY, "3. The feast of tabernacles; that is spoken of next (Eze_45:25), and there is no mention of the feast of pentecost, which came between that of the passover and that of tabernacles. Orders are here given (above what were given by the law of Moses) for the same sacrifices to be offered during the seven days of the passover. See the deficiency of the legal sacrifices for sin; they were therefore often repeated, not only every year, but every feast, every day of the feast, because they could not make the comers thereunto perfect, Heb_10:1, Heb_10:3. See the necessity of our frequently repeating the same religious exercises. Though the sacrifice of atonement is offered once for all, yet the sacrifices of acknowledgement, that of a broken heart, that of a thankful heart, those spiritual sacrifices which are acceptable to God through Christ Jesus, must be every day offered. We should, as here, fall into a method of holy duties, and keep to it.

PETT, "Verse 25“In the seventh month, on the fifteenth day of the month, during the feast he will do the like for seven days, with regard to the sin offering, with regard to the whole burnt offering, with regard to the meal offering and with regard to the oil.”

In the seventh month, the agricultural new year, at the feast of tabernacles, the same process would be repeated.

107

TRAPP, "Ezekiel 45:25 In the seventh [month], in the fifteenth day of the month, shall he do the like in the feast of the seven days, according to the sin offering, according to the burnt offering, and according to the meat offering, and according to the oil.

Ver. 25. In the feast of the seven days,] i.e., Of tabernacles, wont to be of eight days. [Leviticus 23:34-35] Quam sunt nova omnia There are all thing new. Of Pentecost here is no mention at all.

POOLE, " The seventh month, according to their ecclesiastical account, Tisri, which answers to part of our August and September.

The fifteenth day; on that day the feast of tabernacles began, and it continued seven days.

Shall he, the prince, as before, Ezekiel 45:24, do the like, in every respect, for sacrifices, and all that belonged to them.

According to the sin offering, & c.: as was required at the passover, so at this feast also, and therefore you are referred to the particulars of that feast.

COKE, "Ezekiel 45:25. In the seventh month— "He shall do at the feast of tabernacles all the same things which have already been appointed for him to do on the passover."

REFLECTIONS.—1st, The division of the land here directed is very different from that made by Moses and Joshua, and the extent of the country divided vastly exceeds that ancient inheritance of God's Israel, the land of Canaan: this, therefore, may properly be referred to the kingdom of Christ, and his church, enlarged by the

108

vast accession of converts both of Jews and Gentiles.

1. The first portion is for God, his sanctuary in the midst, and around it the abode of the priests and Levites, with the land appropriated for their use; and this is considered as an oblation unto the Lord; for what is done to them for his sake, he accepts as done unto himself. Their residence is near the sanctuary, for there must their constant attendance be. A non-resident minister of Christ is a contradiction in terms.

2. The next portion is for the city, where the whole house of Israel, some at least of every tribe, dwelt: a figure of the Israel of God, united in one communion, and become one fold under one shepherd.

3. The portion of the prince is allotted him without: the admeasurement is not mentioned, but enough to maintain his dignity, and prevent the oppression of the people; which some interpret of the prince Messiah, whose dominion shall extend east and west, and who is around his church and people as a guard to protect them from the inroads of every enemy. (But see the Annotations).

4. The rest of the land is appointed for the tribes to inhabit, who, under the government of their prince Messiah, shall be safe and happy.

2nd, We have,

1. An injunction laid on the princes to avoid all oppression, and minister true judgment to the people, it being high time to put an end to the past scene of extortion and violence. Princes must remember that they are but men, and accountable to him from whom they have received their power; the abuse of which will in the end prove fatally ruinous to themselves.

2. The people must exercise uprightness in their dealings toward each other, and 109

particularly be conscientiously exact in their coins, weights, and measures. True piety towards God will ever produce honesty towards men.

3rdly, Particular directions are laid down for the service of God.

1. Respecting the oblations to be offered by all the people of the land: of their corn a sixtieth part; of their wine a hundredth; of their lambs one in two hundred, from the fattest pastures, must be offered, for the prince in Israel, or to the prince in Israel, the Lord Jesus, to whose honour these were devoted for the more immediate service of his church, and for whose sake they are accepted. Note; (1.) They who enjoy the blessings of God's providence are bound to honour him with a part of their abundance. (2.) Our oblations, prayers, and praises are then accepted, when the atoning blood of the Lamb has made the reconciliation, and opened for us a way to the throne of God.

2. Respecting their solemnities, which differed very much from the Mosaical institutions, and intimated a change in that dispensation:

[1.] On the first day of the year the sanctuary was to be cleansed by the blood of a sin-offering; and the same ceremony was to be repeated on the seventh day for him that had erred and was simple. Even sanctuaries on earth have need of the atoning blood; the purest societies of Christians must ever apply to the atoning blood; and we are bound every year, yea, every day, to beg the forgiveness of our negligences and ignorances, which, without the all-powerful intercession and oblation of the great high priest of our profession, Jesus Christ, must eternally destroy us.

[2.] On the fourteenth of Nisan the passover is to be kept, with the seven days of unleavened bread; and a bullock each day, offered for a sin-offering, prepared by the prince, with its meat and drink-offering; besides a kid of the goats each day for a sin-offering, and seven bullocks and rams for a burnt-offering. All which are typical of the Lord Jesus, who has prepared himself a sacrifice for us, and is our passover, by whose blood we have received the atonement, to whom we must have an eye in all our approaches to God, and on whom by faith we must feast, to the strengthening

110

and refreshing of our souls.

[3.] On the seventh month, the fifteenth day, the feast of tabernacles is ordered to be observed seven days, with the same sacrifices as before: all pointing to the great Redeemer, and directing us to him in and through whom alone all our services are accepted of God.

PULPIT, "Ezekiel 45:25

In the seventh month, i.e. in month of Tishri (1 Kings 8:2), in the fifteenth day of the month, shall he, i.e. the prince, as in Ezekiel 45:22, do the like in the feast of the seven days; or, in the feast shall he do the like the seven days (Revised Version). That is, the same sacrifices should be offered daily throughout the seven days of this feast as had been offered during the seven days of the former feast. That this feast was designed to represent the ancient Feast of Tabernacles can scarcely be doubted, though the practice of living in booths (Le Ezekiel 23:40-43) is not adverted to. Possibly this may have been omitted, as Keil remarks, "because the practice of living in booths would be dropped in the time to come" (see, however, Nehemiah 8:14-17), or, as Kliefoth observes, "because, when Ezekiel's Torah should come into operation, the people of God would be dwelling in the eternal tabernacles of which the booths of the Mosaic Torah were but the types." Nor are the deviations of Ezekiel's Torah from that of Moses, in respect of the daily offerings prescribed for this feast, fewer or of less importance than those which have been noted in connection with the Passover. Ezekiel's Torah prescribes for a burnt offering seven bullocks and seven rams daily, for a sin offering a he-goat daily, for a meat offering an ephah of flour with a hin of oil for each bullock and each ram daily; the Mosaic Torah, while retaining the he goat for a sin offering, required—for a burnt offering on the first day thirteen young bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs, and so on, diminishing by one bullock each day, till the seventh, when seven bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs should be sacrificed; and for a meal offering three-tenths of an ephah of flour for every bullock, and two-tenths of an ephah for every ram, and one-tenth of an ephah for each lamb, according to the number of bullocks, rams, and lambs for each day. In addition, the Mosaic celebration concluded with a solemn assembly with special sacrifices on the eighth day (see Le Ezekiel 23:34-36; Numbers 29:12-39), of which no mention is made in Ezekiel. Nor should it be overlooked that Ezekiel's Torah omits all reference to the other great festival that

111

figures in the Mosaic Torah, viz. that of Pentecost, or the Feast of Weeks, as well as to the Feast of Trumpets and the great Day of Atonement (see on verse 21), although Hengstenberg is of opinion that Ezekiel, having instanced the Passover and Tabernacles, the beginning and end of the feast-cycle already known to the Jews, designed that all the feasts which lay between should be included. Be this, however, as it may, to infer from the deviations in Ezekiel's Torah from that of Moses, as George, Vatke, Kuenen, Wellhausen, Smend, Robertson Smith, Cornill, and Driver have done, that the latter had no existence in the time of Ezekiel is, as Havernick observes, not only to render Ezekiel's representations completely unintelligible, but to beg the entire question between the newer criticism and the old faith. "How will one generally explain," asks Cornill, "that a Jerusalem priest sets up a Torah for the future, which completely ignores the priest.code (?), in all points remains far behind its requirements (?), and in a groping manner lays hold of the future, instead of appropriating to himself the finished system (i.e. of the, so-called priest code, supposing it to have then existed)? Why does Ezekiel require, in the cultus (which he sets up) so much less than Numbers 28:1-31 and Numbers 29:1-40.? Where, in Ezekiel is the high priest, who for the priest code is the center of the theocracy? Where is the great Day of Atonement of Leviticus 16:1-34.?" and so on. The answer to these interrogations is that Ezekiel did not intend to republish the Mosaic Torah, but to modify it so as to meet the requirements of the new era, or (perhaps better) to express more adequately the new conceptions of religion and worship he had been commissioned to set before his fellow-exiles; and that Ezekiel had a perfect right to deal in this way even with the Mosaic Torah, inasmuch as he distinctly claimed, in committing to writing the details of his temple- vision, to be acting under special Divine guidance (Ezekiel 43:10, Ezekiel 43:11; Ezekiel 44:5). Canon Driver admits that the argument from Ezekiel's deviations from the so-called priest-code in favor of the later origin of the latter, if "taken by itself, would not, perhaps, be a decisive one," and even adds that, "however doubtful it may be whether Ezekiel presupposes the completed priests' code, it is difficult not to conclude that he presupposes parts of it" ibid; p. 138). But if none of it existed before Ezekiel, then a counter-question to that of Cornill may be put, "How is it to be explained that the unknown author of the priests' code should have allowed himself to deviate so far from the arrangements which Ezekiel, a prophet acting under Jehovah's guidance, had established?" The natural reply is that when the priests' code was composed, Ezekiel's Torah did not exist. If the newer criticism believes that Ezekiel would not have deviated so largely as he has done from the rites prescribed in the priests' code had these been in operation and invested with authority, the newer criticism should explain how the priests' code came to deviate from the Torah of Ezekiel, which, if it was not then in actual operation, was at least invested with Divine authority. Is it not every way as logical to infer, from the deviations of the priests' code (supposing

112

it to be post-exilic) from the Torah of Ezekiel, that the author of the priests' code could not have known of the existence of Ezekiel's Torah, and therefore that it could not then have been in existence, as vice versa that Ezekiel had no acquaintance with the priests' code, and that therefore it had not in his day been composed? The impartial reasoner, with no theory to uphold, will recognize that the two arguments run exactly purpose.

113