Lastly, in ver. 16, the windows and decorations of the gatebuildings are mentioned. rriEBK riwn, closed windows, is, no doubt, a contracted expression for B'DttK D^|X> \n?n (1 Kings vi. 4), windows of closed bars, i.e. windows, the lattice-work of which was made so fast, that they could not be opened at pleasure like the windows of dwelling-houses. But it is difficult to determine the situation of these windows. According to the words of the text, they were in the guard-rooms and in narivK and also nte^, and that "W^ n»>3s5s into the interior of the gatebuilding, i.e. going into the inner side of the gateway MD MD, round about, i.e. surrounding the gateway on all sides. To understand these statements, we must endeavour, first of all, to eet a clear idea of the meaning of the words D^K and rrittbx.
The first occurs in the singular??X, not only in vers. 14, 16, and ch. xli. 3, but also in 1 Kings vi. 31; in the plural only in this chapter and in ch. xli. 1. The second D^K or D^N is met with only in this chapter, and always in the plural, in the form rriD^X only in vers. 16 and 30, in other cases always B*B?*K, or with a suffix TO, after the analogy of rritfn in ver. 12 by the side of t^xn in vers. 7 and 16, Wl in ver. 10, andVWi or Ifcjn in vers. 21, 29, 33, 36, from which it is apparent that the difference in the formation of the plural (niD^tf and DVD^tf) has no influence upon the meaning of the word. On the other hand, it is evident from our verse (ver. 16), and still more so from the expression V3?&0 vsK? which is repeated in vers. 21, 24, 29, 33, and 36 (cf. vers. 26, 31, and 34), that D^H and DWN must signify different things, and are not to be identified, as Bottcher and others suppose. The word <K, as an architectural term, never occurs except in connection with doors or gates. It is used in this connection as early as 1 Kings vi. 31, in the description of the door of the most holy place in Solomon's temple, where ^NH signifies the projection on the door-posts, i.e. the projecting portion of the wall in which the door-posts were fixed. Ezekiel uses ^^ ^K in cli. xli. 3 in the same sense in relation to the door of the most holy place, and in an analogous manner applies the term Dy*K to the pillars which rose up to a colossal height at or by the gates of the courts (vers. 9, 10, 14, 21, 24, etc.), and also of the pillars at the entrance into the holy place (ch. xli. 1). The same meaning may also be retained inver. 16, where pillars (or posts) are attributed to the guard-rooms, since the suffix in WriK can only be taken as referring to D^nn. As these guard-rooms had doors, the doors may also have had their posts. And just as in ver. 14 ^*T?K points back to the ByX previously mentioned, and the singular is used in a collective sense; so may the <N ^K in ver. 16 be taken collectively, and referred to the pillars mentioned before. — There is more difficulty in determining the meaning of D^X (plural D%N or Htefc*), which has been identified sometimes with Dhs* sometimes with Dy'tt. Although etymologically connected with these two words, it is not only clearly distinguished from D^*?, as we have already observed, but it is also distinguished from DJia? by the fact that, apart from elf. xli. 15, where the plural ^??'N signifies the front porches in all the gate-buildings of the court, DJttt only occurs in the singular, because every gate-building had only one front porch, whereas the plural is always used in the case of BHS«*. So far as the form is concerned, B^X is derived from 7N; and since <^N signifies the projection, more especially the pillars on both sides of the doors and gates, it has apparently the force of an abstract noun, projecting work; but as distinguished from the? prominent pillars, it seems to indicate the projecting works or portions on the side walls of a building of large dimensions. If, then, we endeavour to determine the meaning of DJ*K more precisely in our description of the gatebuilding, where alone the word occurs, we find from ver. 30 that there were niftpx round about the gate-buildings; and again from vers. 16 and 25, that the DW had windows, which entered into the gateway; and still further from vers. 22 and 26, that when one ascended the flight of steps, they were *p.S&, " in front of them." And lastly, from vers. 21, 29, and 33, where guard-rooms, on this side and on that side, pillars (Q?N), and BV27X are mentioned as constituent parts of the gatebuilding or gateway, and the length of the gateway is given as fifty cubits, we may infer that the B^?**, with the guardrooms and pillars, formed the side enclosures of the gateway throughout its entire length. Consequently we shall not be mistaken, if we follow Kliefoth in understanding by D>Dpx those portions of the inner side walls of the gateway which projected in the same manner as the two pillars by the porch, namely, the intervening walls between the three guard-rooms, and also those portions of the side walls which enclosed the two thresholds on either side. For " there was nothing more along the gateway, with the exception of the portions mentioned," that projected in any way, inasmuch as these projecting portions of the side enclosures, together with the breadth of the guard-rooms and the porch, along with its pillars, made up the entire length of the gateway, amounting to fifty cubits. This explanation of the word is applicable to all the passages in which it occurs, even to vers. 30 and 31, as the exposition of these verses will show. — It follows from this that the windows mentioned in ver. 16 can only be sought for in the walls of the guard-rooms and the projecting side walls of the gateway; and therefore that fTBQvK?$\ is to be taken as a more precise definition of D^NnrrpK; " there were windows in the cjuard-rooms, and, indeed
(that is to say), in their pillars," i.e. by the side of the pillars enclosing the door. These windows entered into the interior of the gateway. It still remains questionable, however, whether these windows looked out of the guard-rooms into the court, and at the same time threw light into the interior of the gateway, because the guard-rooms were open towards the gateway, as Bottcher, Hitzig, Kliefoth, and others assume; or whether the guard-rooms had also a wall with a door opening into the gateway, and windows on both sides, to which allusion is made here. The latter is by no means probable, inasmuch as, if the guard-rooms wrere not open towards the gateway, the walls between them would not have projected in such a manner as to allow of their being designated as rriD7K. For this reason we regard the former as the correct supposition. There is some difficulty also in the further expression 3s2p n\3D; for, strictly speaking, there were not windows round about, but simply on both sides of the gateway. But if we bear in mind that the windows in the hinder or outer wall of the guard-rooms receded considerably in relation to the windows in the projecting side walls, the expression MD MD can be justified in this sense: u all round, wherever the eye turned in the gateway." rriECW 13, likewise in the projecting walls, sc. there were such windows. \2\ implies not only that there were windows in these walls, but also that they were constructed in the -same manner as those in the pillars of the guard-rooms. It was only thus that the gateway came to have windows round about, which went inwards. Consequently this is repeated once more; and in the last clause of the verse it is still further observed, that r& '**, i.*.j according to ver. 15, on the two lofty pillars in front of the porch, there were D*"itefl added, i.e. ornaments in the form of palms, not merely of palm branches or palm leaves. — This completes the description of the eastern gate of the outer court. The measuring angel now leads the prophet over the court to the other two gates, the north gate and the south gate. On the way, the outer court is described and measured.
Vers. 17-19. Tiie Outer Court described and measured.— Ver. 17. And he hd me into the outer court, and behold there were cells and pavement made round the court; thirty cells on the pavement, Ver. 18. And the pavement was by the side of the gates, corresponding to the length of the gates, (namely) the lower pavement. Ver. 19. And he measured the breadth from the front of the lower gate to the front of the inner court, about a hundred cubits on the east side and on the north side. — Ezekiel having been led through the eastern gate into the outer court, was able to survey it, not on the eastern side only, but also on the northern and southern sides; and there he perceived cells and ft&Tl, pavimentum, mosaic pavement, or a floor paved with stones laid in mosaic form (2 Chron. vii. 3; Esth. i. 6), made round the court; that is to say, according to the more precise description in ver. 18, on both sides of the gate-buildings, of a breadth corresponding to their length, running along the inner side of the wall of the court, and consequently not covering the floor of the court in all its extent, but simply running along the inner side of the surrounding wall as a strip of about fifty cubits broad, and that not uniformly on all four sides, but simply on the eastern, southern, and northern sides, and at the north - west and south - west corners of the western side, so far, namely, as the outer court surrounded the inner court and temple (see Plate I. b b b); for on the western side the intervening space from the inner court and templehouse to the surrounding wall of the outer court was filled by a special building of the separate place. It is with this limitation that we have to take Mp Mp. ^bv may belong either to nsyil ntoBO or merely to nfT"|, so far as grammatical considerations are concerned; for in either case there would be an irregularity in the gender, and the participle is put in the singular as a neuter. If we look fairly at the fact itself, not one of the reasons assigned by Kliefoth, for taking ^WV as referring to navn only, is applicable throughout. If the pavement ran round by the side of the gate-buildings on three sides of the court, and the cells were by or upon the pavement, they may have stood on three sides of the court without our being forced to assume, or even warranted in assuming, that they must of necessity have filled up the whole length on every side from the shoulder of the gate-building to the corner, or rather to the space that was set apart in every corner, according to ch. xlvi. 21-24, for the cooking of the sacrificial meals of the people. We therefore prefer to take ^OT as referring to the cells and the pavement; because this answers better than the other, both to the construction and to the fact. In ver. 18 the pavement is said to have been by the shoulder of the gates. D"nj?^ri is in the plural, because Ezekiel had probably also in his mind the two gates which are not described till afterwards. ^n^ the shoulder of the gate-buildings regarded as a body, is the space on either side of the gate-building along the wall, with the two angles formed by the longer side of the gatebuildings and the line of the surrounding wall. This is more precisely defined by Vn?pk fifty?, alongside of the length of the gates, i.e. running parallel with it (cf. 2 Sam. xvi. 13), or stretching out on both sides with a breadth corresponding to the length of the gate-buildings. The gates were fifty cubits long, or, deducting the thickness of the outer wall, they projected into the court to the distance of forty-four cubits. Consequently the pavement ran along the inner sides of the surrounding wall with a breadth of forty-four cubits. This pavement is called the lower pavement, in distinction from the pavement or floor of the inner court, which was on a higher elevation. All that is said concerning the T\)2U? is, that there were thirty of them, and that they were n3V~»n?K (see Plate T. C). The dispute whether?K signifies by or upon the pavement has no bearing upon the fact itself. As Ezekiel frequently uses?N for?V, and vice versa, the rendering upon can be defended; but it cannot be established, as Hitzig supposes, by referring to 2 Kings xvi. 17. If we retain the literal meaning of?K, at or against, we cannot picture to ourselves the position of the cells as projecting from the inner edge of the pavement into the unpaved portion of the court; for in that case, to a person crossing the court, they would have stood in front of (*?£?) the pavement rather than against the pavement. The prep. <>K, against, rather suggests the fact that the cells were built near the surrounding wall, so that the pavement ran along the front of them, which faced the inner court in an unbroken line. In this case it made no difference to the view whether the cells were erected upon the pavement, or the space occupied by the cells was left unpaved, and the pavement simply joined the lower edge of the walls of the cells all round. The text contains no account of the manner in which they were distributed on the three sides of the court. But it is obvious irom the use of the plural rfaK9, that the reference is not to thirty entire buildings, but simply to thirty rooms, as n3Bv does not signify a building consisting of several rooms, but always a single room or cell in a building. Thus in 1 Sam. ix. 22 it stands for a room appointed for holding the sacrificial meals, and that by no means a small room, but one which could accommodate about thirty persons. In Jer. xxxvi. 12 it is applied to a room in the king's palace, used as the chancery. Elsewhere fi3£? is the term constantly employed for the rooms in the court-buildings and side-buildings of the temple, which served partly as a residence for the officiating priests and Levites, and partly for the storing of the temple dues collected in the form of tithes, fruits, and money (via7. 2 Kings xxiii. 11; Jer. xxxv. 4, xxxvi. 10; 1 Chron. ix. 26; Neh. x. 38—40). Consequently we must not think of thirty separate buildings, but have to distribute the thirty cells on the three sides of the court in such a manner that there would be ten on each side, and for the sake of symmetry five in every building, standing both right and left between the gate-building and the corner kitchens. — In ver. 19 the size or compass of the outer court is determined. The breadth from the front of the lower gate to the front of the inner court was 100 cubits.
njinnnn ■Bfttfn, the gate of the lower court, i.e. the outer gate, which was lower than the inner. njinnnn is not an adjective agreeing with "W^, for apart from Isa. xiv. 31 "W is never construed as a feminine: but it is used as a substantive for *wn njinnnn^ the lower court, see the comm. on ch. viii. 3. V^pp denotes the point from which the measuring started, and V.?? "i>*nn the direction in which it. proceeded, including also the terminus: " to before the inner court," equivalent to a up to the front of the inner court." The terminal point is more precisely defined by prio^ from without, which Hitzig proposes to erase as needless and unusual, but without any reason. For, inasmuch as the gateways of the inner court were built into the outer court, as is evident from what follows, pnp simply affirms that the measuring only extended to the point where the inner court commenced within the outer, namely, to the front of the porch of the gate, not to the boundary wall of the inner court, as this wall stood at a greater distance from the porch of the outer court-gate by the whole length of the courtgate, that is to say, as much as fifty cubits. From this more precise definition of the terminal point it follows still further, that the starting-point was not the boundary-wall, but the porch of the gate of the outer court; in other words, that the hundred cubits measured by the man did not include the fifty cubits' length of the gate-building, but this is expressly excluded. This is placed beyond all doubt by vers. 23 and 27, where the distance of the inner court-gate from the gate (of the outer court) is said to have been a hundred cubits. — The closing words P^?ni D"H|9n have been very properly separated by the Masoretes from what precedes, by means of the Athnach, for they are not to be taken in close connection with 1BJ5 » nor are they to be rendered, " he.measured... toward the east and toward the north," for this would be at variance with the statement, " to the front of the inner court." They are rather meant to supply a further appositional definition to the whole of the preceding clause: " he measured from... a hundred cubits," relating to the east side and the north side of the court, and affirm that the measuring took place from gate to gate both on the eastern and on the northern side; in other words, that the measure given, a hundred cubits, applied to the eastern side as well as the northern; and thus they prepare the way for the description of the north gate, which follows from ver. 20 onwards.
Vers. 20-27. The North Gate and the South Gate of ttie Outer Court (1 Plate I. A). — The description of these two gate-buildings is very brief, only the principal portions being mentioned, coupled with the remark that they resembled those of the east gate. The following is the description of the north gate. — Ver. 20. And the gate, whose direction teas toward the north, touching the outer court, he measured its length and its breadth, Ver. 21. And its guard-rooms, three on this side and three on that, and its pillars and its wall-projections. It was according to the measure of the first gate, fifty cubits its length, and the breadth five and twenty cubits, Ver. 22. And its windows and its wall -projections and its palms were according to the measure of the gate, whose direction was toward the east; and by seven steps they went up, and its wall -projections were in front of it. Ver. 23. And a gate to the inner court was opposite the gate to the north and to the east; and he measured from gate to gate a hundred cubits. — With the measuring of the breadth of the court the measuring man had reached the north gate, which he also proceeded to measure now. In ver. 20 the words "W>T! to nj^nn are written absolutely; and in ver. 21 the verb n^n does not belong to the objects previously enumerated, viz. guard-rooms, pillars, etc., but these objects are governed by 10J, and n\i points back to the principal subject of the two verses, "W'n: it (the gate) was according to the measure... (cf. vers. 15 and 13). For the use of 2 in definitions of measurement, "25 n£^J" (by the cubit, sc. measured), as in Ex. xxvii. 18, etc., see Gesenius, § 120. 4,
Anm. 2. The u first gate" is the east gate, the one first measured and described. In ver. 22>b the number of steps is given which the flight leading into the gateway had; and this of course applies to the flight of steps of the east gate also (ver. 6). In ver. 22, TWOS is not to be regarded as doubtful, as Hitzig supposes, or changed into 3; for even if the windows of the east gate were not measured, they had at all events a definite measurement, so that it might be affirmed with regard to the windows of the north gate that their dimensions were the same. This also applies to the palm-decorations. With regard to the E^pa (ver. 21), however, it is simply stated that they were measured; but the measurement is not given. Drnsp (ver. 22, end) is not to be altered in an arbitrary and ungrammatical way into nwizby as Bottcher proposes. The suffix EH refers to the steps. Before the steps there were the C^D^N of the gate-building. This " before," however, is not equivalent to " outside the flight of steps," as Bottcher imagines; for the measuring man did not go out of the inside of the gate, or go down the steps into the court, but came from the court and ascended the steps, and as he was going up he saw in front (vis-a-vis) of the steps the D^Dp^K of the gate, i.e. the wall -projections on both sides of the threshold of the gate. In ver. 23 it is observed for the first time that there was a gate to the inner court opposite to the northern and the eastern gate of the outer court already described, so that the gates of the outer and inner court stood vis-a-vis. The distance between these outer and inner gates is then measured, viz. 100 cubits, in harmony with ver. 19&.
In vers. 24-27 the south gate is described with the same brevity. Ver. 24. And he led me toward the south, and behold there was a gate toward the southy and he measured its pillars and its vmll- projections according to the same measures. Ver. 25. And there weve windoivs in it and its wall- projections round about like those windows; fifty cubits was the lengthy and the breadth five and twenty cubits. Ver. 26. And seven steps were i.o ascent and its wall -projections in the front of them, and it had palm -work, one upon this side and one upon that on its pillars. Ver. 27. And there was a gate to the inner court toward the south, and he measured from gate to gate toward the south a hundred cubits. — This gate also was built exactly like the two others. The description simply differs in form, and not in substance, from the description of the gate immediately preceding. d?xn rfaB3, " like those measures," is a concise expression for " like the measures of the pillars already described at the north and east gates." For ver. 25, compare vers. 16 and 216; and for ver. 2Ga, vid. ver. 22b. Ver. 2Gb is clearly explained from ver. 1G6, as compared with ver. %. And lastly, ver. 27 answers to the 23d verse, and completes the measuring of the breadth of the court, which was also a hundred cubits upon the south side, from the outer gate to the inner gate standing opposite, as was the case according to ver. 19 upon the eastern side. Havernick has given a different explanation of ver. 27, and would take the measurement of a hundred cubits as referring to the distance between the gates of the inner court which stood opposite to each other, because in ver. 27 we have "WP in the text, and not "Wn JO; so that we should have to render the passage thus, " he measured from a gate to the gate toward the south a hundred cubits," and not u from the gate (already described) of the outer court," but from another gate, which according to the context of the verse must also be a gate of the inner court. But it is precisely the context which speaks decidedly against this explanation. For since, according to ver. 18, the measuring man did not take the prophet into the inner court, for the purpose of measuring it before his eyes, till after he had measured from (a) gate to the south gate of the inner court, the distance which he had previously measured and found to be a hundred cubits is not to be sought for within the inner court, and therefore cannot give the distance between the gates of the inner court, which stood opposite to one another, but must be that from the south gate of the outer court to the south gate of the inner. This is the case not only here, but also in ver. 23, where the north gate is mentioned. We may see how little importance is to be attached to the omission of the article in "W9 from the expression "W 7K "WSto in ver. 23, where neither the one gate nor the other is defined, because the context showed which gates were meant. Havernick's explanation is therefore untenable, notwithstanding the fact that, according to ver. 47, the size of the inner court was a hundred cubits both in breadth and length. — From the distance between the gates of the outer court and the corresponding gates of the inner, as given in vers. 27, 23, and 19, we find that the outer court covered a space of two hundred cubits on every side, — namely, fifty cubits the distance which the outer court building projected into the court, and fifty cubits for the projection of the gate-building of the inner court into the outer court, and a hundred cubits from one gate-porch to the opposite one (50 + 50 + 100 = 200).
Consequently the full size of the building enclosed by the wall (ch. xl. 5), i.e. of the temple with its two courts, may also be calculated, as it has been by many of the expositors. If we proceed, for example, from the outer north gate to the outer south gate upon the ground plan (Plate I.), we have, to quote the words of Kliefoth, " first the northern breadth of the outer court (D) with its two hundred cubits; then the inner court, which measured a hundred cubits square according to ch. xl. 47 (E)y with its hundred cubits; and lastly, the south side of the outer court with two hundred cubits more (D); so that the sanctuary was five hundred cubits broad from north to south. And if we start from the entrance of the east gate of the court (^1), we have first of all the eastern breadth of the outer court, viz. two hundred cubits; then the inner court (E) with its hundred cubits; after that the temple-buildings, which also covered a space of a hundred cubits square according to ch. xli. 13, 14, including the open space around them (G), with another hundred cubits; and lastly, the nrjTl (J), which was situated to the west of the temple-buildings, and also covered a space of a hundred cubits square according to ch. xli. 13, 14, with another hundred cubits; so that the sanctuary was also five hundred cubits long from east to west, or, in other words, formed a square of five hundred cubits."
Vers. 28-37. The Gates of the Inner Court. — (Via1. Plate I. B and Plate II. II.) — Ver. 28. And he brought me into the inner court through the south gate, and measured the south gate according to the same measures; Ver. 29. And its guard-rooms, and its pillars, and its wall-projections, according to the same measures; and there were windows in it and in its wall-projections round about: fifty cubits was the length, and the breadth five and twenty cubits. Ver. 30. And wall-projections were round about, the length five and twenty cubits, and the breadth five cubits. Ver. 31. And its wall-projections were toward the outer court; and there were palms on its pillars, and eight steps its ascending s. Ver. 32. And he led me into the inner court toward the east, and measured the gate according to the same measures; Ver. 33. And its guard-rooms, and its pillars, and its wall- projections, according to the same measures; and there were windows in it and its wall-projections round about: the length was fifty cubits, and the breadth five and twenty cubits. Ver. 34. And its wall-projections were toward the outer court; and there were palms on its pillars on this side and on that side, and eight steps its ascent. Ver. 35. And he brought me to the north gate, and measured it according to the same measures; Ver. 36. Its guard-rooms, its pillars, and its wall-projections; and there were windows in it round about: the length was fifty cubits, and the breadth five and twenty cubits. Ver. 37. And its pillars stood toward the outer court; and palms were upon its pillars on this side and on that; and its ascent was eight steps. — In ver. 27 the measuring man had measured the distance from the south gate of the outer court to the south gate of the inner court, which stood opposite to it. He then took the prophet through the latter (ver. 28) into the inner court, and measured it as he went through, and found the same measurements as he had found in the gates of the outer court. This was also the case with the measurements of the guard-rooms, pillars, and wall-projections, and with the position of the windows, and the length and breadth of the whole of the gate-building (ver. 29); from which it follows, as a matter of course, that this gate resembled the outer gate in construction, constituent parts, and dimensions. This also applied to both the east gate and north gate, the description of which in vers. 32-37 corresponds exactly to that of the south gate, with the exception of slight variations of expression. It is true that the porch is not mentioned in the case of either of these gates; but it is evident that this was not wanting, and is simply passed over in the description, as we may see from ver. 39, where the tables for the sacrifices are described as being in the porch (D^S3). There are only two points of difference mentioned in vers. 31, 34, and 37, by which these inner gates were distinguished from the outer. In the first place, that the flights of steps to the entrances to these gates had eight steps according to the closing words of the verses just cited, whereas those of the outer gates had only seven (cf. vers. 22 and 26); whilst the expression also varies, vyo being constantly used here instead of iriv'y (ver. 26). ni^y, from njy, the ascending, are literally ascents, i.e, places of mounting, for a flight of steps or staircase, vJJB, the plural of n5?y^, the ascent (not a singular, as Hitzig supposes), has the same meaning. The second difference, which we find in the first clause of the verses mentioned, is of a more important character. It is contained in the words, " and its B^?N (the projecting portions of the inner side-walls of the gateway) were directed toward the outer court" (?K and? indicating the direction). The interpretation of this somewhat obscure statement is facilitated by the fact that in ver. 37 v*N stands in the place of tfiW (vers. 31 and 34). v*K are the two lofty gatepillars by the porch of the gate, which formed the termination of the gate-building towards the inner court in the case of the outer gates. If, then, in the case of the inner gates, these pillars stood toward the outer court, the arrangement of these gates must have taken the reverse direction to that of the outer gates; so that a person entering the gate would not go from the flight of steps across the threshold to the guard-rooms, and then across the second threshold to the porch, but would first of all enter the porch by the pillars in front, and then go across the threshold to the guard-rooms, and, lastly, proceed across the second threshold, and so enter the inner court. But if this gate-building, when looked at from without, commenced with the porch-pillars and the front porch, this porch at any rate must have been situated outside the dividing wall of the two courts, that is to say, must have been within the limits of the outer court. And further, if the BW1^, or wall-projections between the guard-rooms and by the thresholds, were also directed toward the outer court, the whole of the gate-building must have been built within the limits of that court. This is affirmed by the first clauses of vers. 31, 34, and 37, which have been so greatly misunderstood; and there is no necessity to alter vW in ver. 37 into vsb&v in accordance with vers. 31 and 34. For what is stated in vers. 31 and 34 concerning the position or direction of the B*E>?^ also applies to the BysN; and they are probably mentioned in ver. 37 because of the intention to describe still further in ver. 38 what stood near the DyW. Kliefoth very properly finds it incomprehensible, " that not a few of the commentators have been able, in spite of these definite statements in vers. 31, 34, and 37, to adopt the conclusion that the gate-buildings of the inner gates were situated within the inner court, just as the gate-buildings of the outer gates were situated within the outer court. As the inner court measured only a hundred cubits square, if the inner gates had stood within the inner court, the north and south gates of the inner court would have met in the middle, and the porch of the east gate of the inner court would have stood close against the porches of the other two gates. It was self-evident that the gate-buildings of the inner gates stood within the more spacious outer court, like those of the outer gates. Nevertheless, the reason why the situation of the inner gates is so expressly mentioned in the text is evidently, that this made the position of the inner gates the reverse of that of the outer gates. In the case of the outer gates, the first threshold was in the surrounding wall of the outer court, and the steps stood in front of the wall; and thus the gate-building stretched into the outer court. In that of the inner gates, on the contrary, the second threshold lay between the surrounding walls of the inner court, and the gate-building stretched thence into the outer court, and its steps stood in front of the porch of the gate. Moreover, in the case of the east gates, for example, the porch of the outer gate stood toward the west, and the porch of the inner gate toward the east, so that the two porches stood opposite to each other in the outer court, as described in vers. 23 and 27." In ver. 30 further particulars respecting the B^?^ are given, which are apparently unsuitable; and for this reason the verse has been omitted by the LXX., while J. D. Michaelis, Bottcher, Ewald, Hitzig, and Maurer, regard it as an untenable gloss. Havernick has defended its genuineness; but inasmuch as he regards ^Bt'K as synonymous with D^iK, he has explained it in a most marvellous and decidedly erroneous manner, as Kliefoth has already proved. The expression MD MD, and the length and breadth of the rriDpx here given, both appear strange. Neither the length of twenty-five cubits nor the breadth of five cubits seems to tally with the other measures of the gatebuilding. So much may be regarded as certain, that the twenty-five cubits' length and the five cubits' breadth of the niDpx cannot be in addition to the total length of the gatebuilding, namely fifty cubits, or its total breadth of twenty-five cubits, but must be included in them. For the ntepx were simply separate portions of the side-enclosure of the gateway, since this enclosure of fifty cubits long consisted of wall-projections (nto^N), three open guard-rooms, and a porch with pillars. The open space of the guard-rooms was 3 X 6.= 18 cubits, and the porch was six cubits broad in the clear (vers. 7 and 8), and the pillars two cubits thick. If we deduct these 18+6+2 = 26 cubits from the fifty cubits of the entire length, there remain twenty-four cubits for the walls by the side of the thresholds and between the guard-rooms, namely, 2 X 5 = 10 cubits for the walls between the three guard-rooms, 2X6 = 12 cubits for the walls of the threshold, and 2 cubits for the walls of the porch; in all, therefore, twenty-four cubits for the ni^Dpx; so that only one cubit is wanting to give us the measurement stated, viz. twenty-five cubits. We obtain this missing cubit if we assume that the front of the wall-projections by the guardrooms and thresholds was a handbreadth and a half, or six inches wider than the thickness of the walls, that is to say, that it projected three inches on each side in the form of a moulding. — The breadth of the ntopx in question, namely five cubits, was the thickness of their wall-work, however, or the dimension of the intervening wall from the inside to the outside on either side of the gateway. That the intervening walls should be of such a thickness will not appear strange, if we consider that the surrounding wall of the court was six cubits thick, with a height of only six cubits (ver. 5). And even the striking expression MD TID becomes intelligible if we take into consideration the fact that the projecting walls bounded not only the entrance to the gate, and the passage through it on the two sides, but also the inner spaces of the gate-building (the guard-rooms and porch) on all sides, and, together with the gates, enclosed the gateway on every side. Consequently ver. 30 not only has a suitable meaning, but furnishes a definite measurement of no little value for the completion of the picture of the gate-buildings. The fact that this definite measure was not given in connection with the gates of the outer court, but was only supplemented in the case of the south gate of the inner court, cannot furnish any ground for suspecting its genuineness, as several particulars are supplemented in the same manner in this description. Thus, for example, the number of steps in front of the outer gates is first given in ver. 22, where the north gate is described. Still less is there to surprise us in the fact that these particulars are not repeated in the case of the following gates, in which some writers have also discovered a ground for suspecting the genuineness of the verse.
From the south gate the measuring man led the prophet (ver. 32) into the inner court toward the east, to measure for him the inner east gate, the description of which (vers. 33 and 34) corresponds exactly to that of the south gate. Lastly, he led him (ver. 35) to the inner north gate for the same purpose; and this is also found to correspond to those previously mentioned, and is described in the same manner. The difficulty which Hitzig finds in DHjjn ^Tj WW TOjrrta in ver. 32, and which drives him into various conjectures, with the assistance of the LXX., vanishes, if instead of taking D^n TfTi along with Wjsn nvnn as a further definition of the latter, we connect it with *?*??.1 as an indication of the direction taken: he led me into the inner court, the way (or direction) toward the east, and measured the gate (situated there). The words, when taken in this sense, do not warrant the conclusion that he had gone out at the south gate again. — TJM in ver. 35 is an Aramaic form for *W in vers. 32 and 28.
Vers. 38-47. The Cells and Arrangements for the Sacrificial Worshif by and in the Inner Court. —
Ver. 38. And a cell with its door was by the pillars at the gates; there they had to wash the burnt-offering. Ver. 39. And in the porch of the gate were two tables on this side and two tables on that, to slay thereon the burnt- offering, the sin-offering, and the trespass- offering. Ver. 40. And at the shoulder outside, to one going up to the opening of the gate toward the north, stood two tables; and at the other shoulder, by the porch of the gate, two tables. Ver. 41. Four tables on this side and four tables on that side, at the shoulder of the gate; eight tables on which they were to slaughter. Ver. 42. And four tables by the steps, hewn stone, a cubit and a half long, and a cubit and a half broad, and a cubit high; upon these they were to lay the instruments with which they slaughtered the burnt-offerings and other sacrifices. Ver. 43. And the double pegs, a span long, were fastened round about the house; but the flesh of the sacrifice was placed upon the tables. Ver. 44. And outside the inner gate were two cells in the inner court, one at the shoulder of the north gate, with its front side toward the south; one at the shoulder of the south gate, with the front toward the north. Ver. 45. And he said to me, Tliis cell, whose front is toward the south, is for the priests who attend to the keeping of the house; Ver. 46. A nd the cell whose front is toward the north is for the priests who attend to the keeping of the altar. They are the sons of Zadok, who draw near to Jehovah of the sons of Levi, to serve Him. Ver. 47. And he measured the court, the length a hundred cubits, and the breadth a hundred cubits in the square, and the altar stood before the house. — The opinions of modern commentators differ greatly as to the situation of the cells mentioned in ver. 38, since Bottcher and Hitzig have adjusted a text to suit their own liking, founded upon the Septuagint and upon decidedly erroneous suppositions. The dispute, whether Ey'NS is to be rendered in or by the &y% may be easily set at rest by the simple consideration that the Dv^ in front of the porch of the gate were pillars of two cubits long and the same broad (ver. 9), in which it was impossible that a room could be constructed. Hence the '"ISIS? could only be by (near) the pillars of the gate. To B y*W3 there is also added E^jfl^n (by the gates) in loose coordination (vid. Ewald, § 293e), not for the purpose of describing the position of the pillars more minutely, which" would be quite superfluous after ver. 9, but to explain the plural Dv^, and extend it to the pillars of all the three inner gates, so that we have to assume that there was a ^3^ by the pillars of all these gates (Plate I. 0). This is also demanded by the purpose of these cells, viz. " for the cleansing or washing of the burntoffering." As the sacrifices were not taken through one gate alone, but through all the gates, the Sabbath-offering of the prince being carried, according to ch. xlvi. 1, 2, through the east gate, which was closed during the week, and only opened on the Sabbath, there must have been a cell, not by the north gate alone (Bottcher, Havernick), or by the east gate only (Ewald, Hitzig), but by every gate, for the cleansing of the burnt-offering. Havernick, Hitzig, and others are wrong in supposing that Hptyn is a synecdochical designation applied to every kind of animal sacrifice. This is precluded not only by the express mention of the burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and trespass-offerings (ver. 39), and by the use of the word |2np in this sense in ver. 43, but chiefly by the circumstance that neither the Old Testament nor the Talmud makes any allusion to the washing of every kind of flesh offered in sacrifice, but that they merely speak of the washing of the entrails and legs of the animals sacrificed as burnt-offerings (Lev. i. 9), for which purpose the basins upon the mechonoth in Solomon's temple were used (2 Chron. iv. 6, where the term fni used in Lev. i. 9 is interpreted by the apposition M tfnj rfyyn nero-nK). A room at every gate (not by every pillar) was sufficient for this purpose. If there had been a ^S^? of this kind on each side of the gate, as many have assumed on symmetrical grounds, this would have been mentioned, just as in the case of the slaughtering-tables (vers. 39-42). The text furnishes no information as to the side of the doorway on which it stood, whether by the right or the left pillar. On the ground plan we have placed the one at the east gate, on the right side, and those by the north and south gates on the western side (Plate I. 0 0 0).
Moreover, according to vers. 39-41, there were twice two tables on each side, eight therefore in all, which served for slaughtering. Two pairs stood " in the porch of the gate," i.e.
in the inner space of the porch, one pair on this side, the other pair on that, i.e. on the right and left sides to a person entering the porch, probably near the wall (see Plate II. 11.//). The expression D^K BlTO?, to slaughter at the tables (vers. 39 and 40), stands for a to use when slaughtering " — that is, for the purpose of laying the slaughtered flesh upon. This is apparent from the fact itself in ver. 39. For the slaughtering was not performed within the front porch, but outside, and somewhere near it. The front porch of the gate-building was not a slaughter-house, but the place where those who entered the gate could assemble. The only purpose, therefore, for which the tables standing here could be used was to place the sacrificial flesh upon when it was prepared for the altar, that the priests might take it thence and lay it upon the altar. "U'tfn D;xn is to be understood as signifying the inner space of the porch; this is required by the antithesis in ver. 40, where two pair of tables outside the porch are mentioned. Two of these stood u by the shoulder outside to one going up to the gate opening, the northern" (Plate II. II. d d). The meaning of these not very intelligible words is apparent from the second half of the verse, which adds the correlative statement as to the two opposite tables. When it is said of these tables that they stood by the other shoulder (fl^^n P)n3rr?K) which the porch of the gate had, not only is "Wn nrjDp of the first hemistich more precisely defined hereby as the gate -porch, but njiasrn is also rendered intelligible, namely, that as it corresponds to rnnRn it is an adjective belonging to *ft3jl bxy " at the northern shoulder outside to a person going up the steps to the opening of the gate " (nynip, the outer side, in contrast to the inside of the porch, &?&?, ver. 39). The shoulder of the gate, or rather of the porch of the gate, is the side of it, and that the outer side. Consequently these four tables stood by the outer sides of the porch, two by the right wall and two by the left. In ver. 41, what has already been stated concerning the position of the tables mentioned in vers. 39 and 40 is summed up: Four tables stood on each side of the porch, two inside, and two against the outer wall, eight tables in all, which were used for slaughtering purposes. There is nothing strange in *W? ^ID^c as an abbreviated expression for "WH DpKp "IBW S|na? in ver. 40, as want of clearness was not to be feared after ver. 40. In addition to these there were four other tables (npnci, and four, ver. 42) of stone, from which it may be inferred that the four already mentioned were of wood. The four stone tables stood njiyp, i.e. at (near) the flight of steps (cf. fnjj *Dp, at the entrance to the city, Prov. viii. 3), and were of hewn square stones, as no doubt the steps also were (see Plate II. II. e e). It yields no sense whatever to render fwj " for the burnt-offering" (LXX. and others); and the expression ni?y in ver. 26 thoroughly warrants our translating n?iy? a flight of steps or staircase). These stone tables served as flesh - benches, on which the slaughtering tools were laid. Wl*g) Di??N belong together, the 1 being inserted " as if at the commencement of a new sentence after a pause in the thought" (cf. Prov. xxiii. 24, xxx. 28; Gen. xl. 9, Bottcher). It is not expressly stated, indeed, that these four tables were distributed on the two sides of the steps; but this may be inferred with certainty from the position of the other tables. Moreover, the twelve tables mentioned were not merely to be found at one of the gate-porches, but by all three of the inner gates, as was the case with the washing-cells (ver. 38), for sacrificial animals were taken to the altar and slaughtered at every gate; so that what is stated in vers. 39-42 with reference to one porch, namely, the porch of the east gate, to judge from njtesrn in ver. 40, is applicable to the porches of the south and north gates also.
In ver. 43 another provision for the slaughtering of the sacrificial animals is mentioned, concerning which the opinions of the older translators and commentators are greatly divided. But the only explanation that can be sustained, so far as both the usage of the language and the facts are concerned, is that adopted by the Chaldee, viz. n^3!T?i? ™ W? Pi?^ I$W|
Njrotpp 1V3, et uncini egrediebantur (longitudine) unius palmi defixi in columnis domus macelli, to which not only Bottcher, but Roediger (Ges. Thes. p. 1470) and Dietrich (Lex.) have given their adhesion. For IWWff, from riDP, to set or stand (act.), signifies stakes or pegs (in Ps. lxviii. 14, the folds constructed of stakes), here pegs a span long on the wall, into which they were inserted, and from which they projected to the length of a span. In the dual it stands for double pegs, forked pegs, upon which the carcases of the beasts were hung for the purpose of flaying, as Dav. Kimchi has interpreted the words of the Chaldee. The article indicates the kind, viz. the pegs required for the process of slaughtering. This explanation is also in harmony with the verb O^B, Hophal of fD, fastened, which by no means suits the rendering originated by the LXX., viz. ledges round the edge or the rim of the table. The only remaining difficulty is the word fp??, which Bottcher interprets as signifying " in the interior of the gate-porch and pillars " (Roediger, in interiore parte, nempe in ea atrii parte, ubi hostiae mactandae essent), on the just ground that the interior of the front porch could not be the place for slaughtering, but that this could only be done outside, either in front of or near the porch. But even in interiore parte atrii is not really suitable, and at all events is too indefinite for D^DID. It would therefore be probably more correct to render it " fastened against the house," i.e. to the outer walls of the gate-porch buildings, so that 1V3 would stand for buildings in the sense of n^3, although I cannot cite any passage as a certain proof of the correctness of this rendering. But this does not render the explanation itself a doubtful one, as it would be still more difficult to interpet r\)tt if D*nSB> were explained in any other way. MD MD refers to the three outer sides of the porch. The description of the slaughtering apparatus closes in ver. 436 with the words, u and upon the tables (mentioned in vers. 39-42) came the flesh of the offering." Q~)py1 the general word for sacrificial offerings, as in Lev. i. 2 sqq. In vers. 44-46 we have a description of cells for the officiating priests, and in vers. 45 and 46 two such cells are plainly mentioned according to their situation and purpose (vid. Plate I. F F). But it is impossible to bring the Masoretic text of ver. 44 into harmony with this, without explaining it in an arbitrary manner. For, in the first place, the reference there is to D'HB? Htifi??, cells of the singers; whereas these cells, according to vers. 45 and 46, were intended for the priests who performed the service in the temple-house and at the altar of burnt-offering. The attempt of both the earlier and the more recent supporters of the Masoretic text to set aside this discrepancy, by arguing that the priests who had to attend to the service in the temple and at the altar, according to vers. 45 and 46, were singers, is overturned by the fact that in the Old Testament worship a sharp distinction is made between the Levitical singers and the priests, i.e. the Aaronites who administered the priesthood; and Ezekiel does not abolish this distinction in the vision of the temple, but sharpens it still further by the command, that none but the sons of Zadok are to attend to the priestly service at the sanctuary, while the other descendants of Aaron, i.e, the Aaronites who sprang from Ithamar, are only to be employed in watching at the gate of the house, and other non-priestly occupations (ch. xliv. 10 sqq.). Consequently Ezekiel could not identify the priests with the singers, or call the cells intended for the officiating priests singers' cells. Moreover, only two cells, or cell-buildings, are mentioned in vers. 45 and 46, and their position is described in the same wrords as that of the cells mentioned in ver. 44, so that there can be no doubt as to the identity of the former and the altter cells. In ver. 44 the supposed singers' cells are placed at the north gate, with the front toward the south, which only applies, according to ver. 45, to the one cell intended for the priests who attended to the service in the holy place; and again, in ver. 44, another cell is mentioned at the east gate, with the front toward the north, which was set apart, according to ver. 46, for the priests who attended to the altar service. Consequently, according to our Masoretic text of the 44th verse, there would be first singers' cells (in the plural), and then one cell, at least three cells therefore; whereas, according to vers. 45 and 46, there were only two. And lastly, the T]X in ver. 416 can only be understood by our taking it in the sense of u another," in opposition to the usage of the language. For these reasons we are compelled to alter Dn*^ into COTM?, and "HB%j into nn^, after the LXX., and probably also D*!^ into Ei"nny and in consequence of this to adopt the pointing HtoBOj and to read |TOB instead of D^S. Further alterations are not requisite or indicated by the LXX., as the rest of the deviations in their text are to be explained from their free handling of the original. According to the text with these alterations, even in ver. 44 there are only two cells mentioned. They were situated " outside the inner gate." This definition is ambiguous, for you are outside the inner gate not only before entering the gate, i.e. while in the outer court, but also after having passed through it and entered the inner court. Hence there follows the more precise definition, " in the inner court." If, then, we read nn&c for "i^'tf, there follows, in perfect accordance with the fact, a more precise statement as to the situation of both the one and the other of these cells, nnx and "ins corresponding to one another. The second inN, instead of nnx? which is grammatically the more correct, is to be attributed to a constructio ad sensum, as the rri^p were not separate rooms, but buildings with several chambers. One cell stood by the shoulder (side) of the north gate, with the front (D^?) toward the south; the other at the shoulder of the south gate, with the front toward the north. They stood opposite to one another, therefore, with their fronts facing each other. Instead of the south gate, however, the Masoretic text has &*}$?} "W, the east gate; and ver. 46 contains nothing that would be expressly at variance with this, so that D^ijn could be defended in case of need. But only in case of need — that is to say, if we follow Kliefoth in assuming that it stood on the left of the gateway to persons entering through the east gate, and explaining the fact that its front turned toward the north, on the ground that the priests who resided in it were charged with the duty of inspecting the sacrifices brought through the east gate, or watching the bringing in of the sacrifices, so that this cell was simply a watchman's cell after all. Bat this assumption is founded upon a misinterpretation of the formula nansn n?.P^P "^^ to keep the keeping of the altar. This formula does not mean to watch and see that nothing unlawful was taken to the altar, but refers to the altar service itself, the observance of everything devolving upon the servants of the altar in the performance of the sacrificial worship, or the offering of the sacrifices upon the altar according to the precepts of the law. If, then, this duty was binding upon the priests who resided in this cell, it would have been very unsuitable for the front of the cell to be turned toward the north, in which case it would have been absolutely impossible to see the altar from the front of the cell. This unsuitability can only be removed by the supposition that the cell was built at the south gate, with the front toward the north, i.e. looking directly toward the altar. For this reason we must also regard D'Hjjn as a corruption of Di^n, and look for this second cell at the south gate, so that it stood opposite to the one built at the north gate. — All that remains doubtful is, whether these two cells were on the east or the west side of the south and north gates, a point concerning which we have no information given in the text. In our sketch we have placed them on the west side (yid. Plate I. F), so that they stood in front of the altar and the porch-steps. The concluding words of ver. 46, in which nan refers to the priests mentioned in vers. 45 and 46, state that in the new sanctuary only priests of the sons of Zadok were to take charge of the service at the altar and in the holy place; and this is still further expanded in ch. xliv. 10 sqq. — Finally, in ver. 47 the description of the courts is concluded with the account of the measure of the inner court, a hundred cubits long and the same in breadth, according to which it formed a perfect square surrounded by a wall, according to ch. xlii. 10. The only other observation made is, that it was within this space that the altar of burntoffering stood, the description of which is given afterwards in ch. xliii. 13sqq. (see Plate I. 77).
Chap. xl. 48, 49. The Temple-porch (See Plate III. A). — The measuring angel conducts the prophet still farther to the porch of the temple, and measures its breadth and length. — Ver. 48. And he led me to the porch of the house, and measured the pillar of the porch, five cubits on this side and five cubits on that side; and the breadth of the gate, three cubits on this side and three cubits on that side. Ver. 49. The length of the porch was twenty cubits, and the breadth eleven cubits, and that by the steps by which one went up; and columns were by the pillars, one on this side and one on that side. — ivsn is the temple in the more restricted sense of the word, the temple-house, as in 1 Kings vi. 2, etc.; and Dps, the porch before the entrance into the holy place (cf. 1 Kings vi. 3). The measurements in vers. 48 and 49, which are apparently irreconcilable with one another, led the LXX. to the adoption of arbitrary interpolations and conjectures in ver. 49,1 in accordance with which Bottcher, Hitzig, and others have made corrections in the text, which have a plausible justification in the many artificial and for the most part mistaken interpretations that have been given of the text. The measures in ver. 49a are perfectly plain, namely, the length of the porch twenty cubits, and the breadth eleven cubits; and there is no question to? ny-fcZiv o^sxoCTtaooipau, koci WtofAiQiS rq$ Gvpocg toD ccixdifx, -Kyiy/jiv vpiuu tv&iv koc\ %v\-fcZiv rpiuu 'ivQtu. Kui to ^ijxo? toD ot\\ocp. 'Ttnyjuv UKoat xocl to ivpog TftiftZiv ZuiheKX' xocl ticl ^ixoc chvocfiaQpav oivtfioctvov inr avro x.r.'h.
that these measurements are to be understood in the clear, that is to say, as referring to the internal space, excluding the sidewalls, as in the case of the holy place, the most holy place, and the inner court. The only question is whether the length signifies the dimension from east to west, i.e. the distance which had to be traversed on entering the temple, and therefore the breadth, the extent from north to south; or whether we are to understand by the length the larger dimension, and by the breadth the smaller, in which case the measurement from north to south, which formed the breadth of the house, would be designated the length of the porch, and that from east to west the breadth. Nearly all the commentators have decided in favour of the latter view, because, in the porch of Solomon's temple, the length of twenty cubits was measured according to the breadth of the house. But the fact has been overlooked, that in 1 Kings vi. 3 the length given is more precisely defined by the clause, " in front of the breadth of the house.' ' There is no such definition here, and the analogy of the building of Solomon's temple is not sufficient in itself to warrant our regarding the construction of the porch in the temple seen by Ezekiel as being precisely the same; since it was only in the essential portions, the form of which was of symbolical significance (the holy place and the most holy), that this picture of a temple resembled the temple of Solomon, whereas in those which were less essential it differed from that temple in various ways. At the very outset, therefore, the more probable assumption appears to be, that just as in the case of the holy place and the holy of holies, so also in that of the porch, we are to understand by the length, the distance to be traversed (from east to west), and by the breadth, the extension on either side (i.e. from south to north). If, then, we understand the measurements in ver. 49 in this way, the measures given in ver. 48 may also be explained without any alterations in the text. The measuring of the pillar of the porch on either side, and of the gate on this side and that (ver. 48), is sufficient of itself to lead to the conclusion that the front turned toward a person entering is the breadth from south to north. This breadth presented to the eye a pillar on this side and one on that, — two pillars, therefore, each five cubits broad (c c), and a breadth of £ate 0f three cubits on this side and three on that, six cubits in all (/>), that is to say, a total breadth (k — k) of 5 + 3"f3 + 5=16 cubits. The only thing that can surprise one here is the manner in which the breadth of the gate is defined: three cubits on this side and that, instead of simply six cubits. But the only reason in all probability is, that the pillars on either side are mentioned just before, and the gate of six cubits' breadth consisted of two halves, which had their hinges fastened to the adjoining pillars, so that each half was measured by itself from the pillar to which it was attached. The breadth of front mentioned, viz. sixteen cubits, agrees very well with the breadth of the porch inside, i.e. eleven cubits (m — m), for it allows a thickness of two cubits and a half for each side wall (a), and this was sufficient for the walls of a porch. The pillars, which were five cubits broad on the outer face, were therefore only half that breadth (2^ cubits) in the inner side within the porch, the other two cubits and a half forming the side wall. All the particulars given in ver. 48 may be explained in this way without any artifice, and yield a result the proportions of which are in harmony with those of the entire building. For the porch, with an external breadth of sixteen cubits, was half as broad as the house, which had a breadth of twenty cubits in the clear, and side walls of six cubits in thickness (ch. xli. 5), so that when measured on the outside it was 6 4~ 20 ~f 6 = 32 cubits broad. The breadth of the interior also is apparently perfectly appropriate, as the porch was not intended either for the reception of vessels or for the abode of individuals, but was a simple erection in front of the entrance into the holy place, the door of which (d) was ten cubits broad (ch. xli. 2), that is to say, half a cubit narrower on either side than the porch-way leading to it. And lastly, the length of the porch was also in good proportion to the holy place, which followed the porch; the porch being twenty cubits long, and the holy place forty cubits. If we add to this the front wall, with a thickness of two cubits and a half, corresponding to that of the side walls, we obtain an external length of twenty-two cubits and a half for the porch. In front were the steps by which one went up to the porch (I). It is generally supposed that there were ten steps, the 1BW after HvV©3 being changed into IBW (ten) after the example of the LXX. But however this alteration may commend itself when the facts of the case are considered, ten steps in front of the porch answering very well to the eight steps before the gateway of the inner court, and to the seven steps in front of the gateway of the outer court, it is not absolutely necessary, and in all probability is merely a conjecture of the Seventy, who did not know what to do with "HWC, and possibly it is not even correct (see at cb. xli. 8). The words "»Bk rri^sni can be attached without difficulty to the preceding account of the breadth: " the breadth was eleven cubits, and that at the steps by which they went up to it," i.e. when measured on the side on which the flight of steps stood. If the words are taken in this way, they serve to remove all doubt as to the side which is designated as the breadth, with special reference to the fact that the porch of Solomon's temple was constructed in a different manner. The number of steps, therefore, is not given, as was also the case with the east gate of the outer court (ch. xl. 6), because it was of no essential importance in relation to the entire building. The last statement, "and there were columns by the pillars on this side and on that," is free from difficulty, although there is also a difference of opinion among the commentators as to the position of these columns. D^p*i}n points back to E&K 7N (ver. 48). The preposition 7K does not imply that the columns stood close to the pillars, and had the form of half-columns, but simply that they stood near the pillars (see Plate III. K\ like the columns Jachin and Boaz in Solomon's temple, to which they correspond.
Chap. xli. 1-4. The Inner Space of the Temple (see Plate III. B and C). — Ver. 1. And lie led me into the temple, and measured the pillars, six cubits breadth on this side and six cubits breadth on that side, with regard to the breadth of the tent. Ver. 2. And the breadth of the door was ten cubits; and the shoulders of the door, five cubits on this side, and five cubits on that: and he measured its length, forty cubits; and the breadth, twenty cubits. Ver. 3. And he went within and measured the pillar of the door, two cubits; and the door, six cubits; and the breadth of the door, seven cubits. Ver. 4. And he measured its length, twenty cubits; and the breadth, twenty cubits, toward the temple; and said to me, This is the holy of holies. — Vers. 1 and 2 give the measurements of the holy place. Wfl is used here in the more restricted sense for the nave of the temple, the holy place (B), without the porch and the holy of holies (cf. 1 Kings vi. 17). The measuring commences with the front (eastern) wall, in which there was the entrance door. This wall had pillars (e e) of six cubits breadth on either side (on the right hand and the left), and between the pillars a door (d) ten cubits broad, with door-shoulders (e e) of five cubits on this side and that (ver. 2a). These measurements (6 + 6 + 10 4~ 5 "I" 5) yield for the front wall a total breadth of thirty-two cubits. This agrees with the measurements which follow: twenty cubits, the (internal) breadth of the holy place, and six cubits the thickness of the wall (e) on either side (ver. 5). The only remaining difficulty is in the very obscure words appended, snkn nrn, in which Ewald and Hitzig propose to alter frisn into ^?, because the LXX. have substituted rod alXdfjb, but without making any improvement, as ^Kn is still more inexplicable. Kliefoth, after examining the various attempts to explain these words, comes to the conclusion that no other course is left than to take /[}'&?} as signifying the inner space of Ezekiel's temple, consisting of the holy place and the holy of holies, which was the same in the entire building as the tabernacle had been, — viz. the tent of God's meeting with His people, and which is designated as?[}$ to show the substantial identity of this space and the tabernacle. The clause s\}kn 3nh is thus attached to the preceding double nfeD (i.e. to the measurement of the two pillars bounding the holy space), in an elliptical manner, in the following sense: " he measured the breadth of the pillars, on this side and that, which marked off the breadth of the tent, on the outside, that is to say, of the inner space of the holy place which resembled the tabernacle; " so that this clause formed a loose apposition, meaning, " with regard to the breath of the tent." nriQn nisro are the walls on both sides of the door (e e), between the door and the boundary pillars. — The internal length and breadth of the holy place are the same as in the holy place of Solomon's temple (1 Kings vi. 2, 17). — Vers. 3 and 4 refer to the holy of holies (c). " He went within." We have N:n (for Ktoj) and not W2N (ver. 1), because the prophet was not allowed to tread the most holy place, and therefore the angel went in alone. JW35 is defined in ver. 4 as the holy of holies. The measurements in ver. 3 refer to the partition wall between the holy place and the most holy (g). nnan?*!}, the pillar-work of the door, stands for the pillars on both sides of the door; and the measurement of two cubits no doubt applies to each pillar, denoting, not the thickness, but the breadth which it covered on the wall. There is a difficulty in the double measurement which follows: the door six cubits, and the breadth of the door seven cubits. As the latter is perfectly clear, and also apparently in accordance with the fact, and on measuring a door the height is the only thing which can come into consideration in addition to the breadth, we agree with Kliefoth in taking the six cubits as a statement of the height. The height of six cubits bears a fitting proportion to the breadth of seven cubits, if there were folding-doors; and the seven is significant in the case of the door to the holy of holies, the dwelling of God. The Seventy, however, did not know what to do with this text, and changed HIES yiV nnsn arh into ra? eVw/xi'Sa?
rov OvpdiifiaTo^ TTV)yjMv fcVitt eudev koX evOev, in which they have been followed by Bottcher, Hitzig, and others. But it is obvious,at once that the Seventy have simply derived these data from the measurements of the front of the holy place (ver. 2), and have overlooked the fact, that in the first place, beside the measure of the nnan rriDTQ, i.e. iircofiiBe^ rov ttvXcoyo?, the nnsn nrh? or breadth of the door, is also expressly measured there, whereas here, on the contrary, it is preceded bv nri?r} alone, without 2rh; and secondly, as the measurement of the Dy'K given in ver. 1 indicates their breadth (from south to north), in the present instance also the measure ascribed to the nnssn T'N can only refer to the breadth of the >*K, and not to its thickness (from east to west). But if we explain the first clause of ver. 3 in this manner, as both the language and the fact require, the reading of the LXX. is proved to be a false correction, by the fact that it yields a breadth of twenty-two or twenty-four cubits (24-2 + 6+7 + 7), whereas the holy of holies, like the holy place, was only twenty cubits broad. The dimensions of the holy of holies also correspond to the space covered by the holy of holies in Solomon's temple (1 Kings vi. 20). The expression b*nn wi«, "toward the holy place," is to be explained by the supposition that the measuring angel, after he had proceeded to the western end of the holy of holies for the purpose of measuring the length, turned round again to measure the breadth, so that this breadth lay " toward the holy place."
Vers. 5-11. The Wall and the Side-Building. — Ver. 5. And he measured the wall of the house six cubits, and the breadth of the side storey four cubits round the house round about, Ver. 6. And of the side-rooms there ivere room upon room three, and that thirty times, and they came upon the wall, which the house had by the side-rooms round about, so that they were held, and yet they were not held in the wall of the house. Ver. 7. And it spread out, and was surrounded upwards more and more to the side-rooms, for the enclosure of the house went upivards more and more round about the house; therefore the house received breadth upwards; and so the lower ascended to the upper after the proportion of the central one. Ver. 8. And 1 saw in the house a height round about, with regard to the foundations of the side-rooms a full rod, six cubits to the joint. Ver. 9. The breadth of the wall, which the side storey had on' the outside, was five cubits, and so also what was left free was by the side-chamber building of the house. Ver. 10. And between the cells was a breadth of twenty cubits round the house round about. Ver. 11. And the door of the side-chamber building led toward what was left free, one door toward the north and one door toward the south, and the breadth of the space left free was five cubits round about. — From the interior of the sanctuary the measuring man turned to the outer work, and measured, first of all, the wall of the house (ver. 5), i.e. the wall commencing with the pillars in the front (ver. 1), which surrounded the holy place and the holy of holies on the north, the west, and the south (e). This was six cubits thick. He then measured the breadth of the VpV i.e. of the building consisting of three storeys of side-rooms, which was erected against the north, west, and south sides of the sanctuary (/i). For V?)> signifies not only a single side-room, but collectively the whole range of these side-chambers, the entire building against the sides of the temple house, called ]W in 1 Kings vi. 5, 6, with which y?5ffi (ver. 8) is also used alternately there (see the comra. on 1 Kings vi. 5). — The breadth of the side-building was four cubits in the clear, that is to say, the space from the temple wall to the outer wall of the side-building (/), which was five cubits thick (ver. 9), and that uniformly all round the temple. — The further particulars concerning the side-rooms in vers. 6 and 7 are very obscure, so that they can only be made perfectly intelligible by comparing them with the description of the similar building in Solomon's temple. According to this, ver. 6a is to be taken thus: u and as for the side-rooms, there were room upon room (7N for by) three, and (that) thirty times," and understood as signifying that there were three side-rooms standing one above another, and that this occurred thirty times, so that the side-building had three storeys, each containing thirty rooms (chambers), so that there were thirty times three rooms standing one above another (Jih h). There is no necessity, therefore, for the transposition of V)bv M&B* into tfbv\ D^tf, which Bottcher, Hitzig, and Havernick have adopted from the LXX., because of their having taken PN in the sense of against, room against room thirty, and that three times, which yields the same thought, no doubt, but not so clearly, inasmuch as it remains indefinite whether the three times thirty rooms were above one another or side by side. Nothing is said about the distribution of the thirty rooms in each storey; but it is very probable that the distribution was uniform, so that on each of the longer sides, i.e. against the northern and southern walls of the temple, there were twelve rooms, and six against the shorter western wall. The northern and southern walls were sixty cubits, plus six cubits the thickness of the wall, plus four cubits the breadth of the side building against the western wall (60 + 6+4), in all therefore seventy cubits, or, deducting five cubits for the thickness of the outer wall at the front of the building, sixty-five cubits long; and the western wall was 20 + 2 X 6 (the thickness of the side wall), i.e. thirty-two cubits long. If, therefore, we fix the length of each side-room at 4^ cubits, there remain five cubits against the western wall for the seven party walls required, or five-sevenths of a cubit for each, and against the northern and southern walls eleven cubits for party walls and staircase, and reckoning the party walls at four-sevenths of a cubit in thickness, there are left four cubits and a seventh for the space for the stairs, quite a sufficient space for a winding staircase. — The clauses which follow relate to the connection between these side-rooms and the temple house. "Vp? niK2, they were coming (going) upon the wall. 2 Nto; generally intrare in locum, here, on account of what follows, to tread upon the wall; that is to say, they were built against the wall in such a manner that the beams of the floors of the three storeys rested on the temple wall on the inner side, i.e. were held or borne by it, but not so as to be- inserted in the wall and held fast thereby. The only way in which this could be effected was by so constructing the temple wall that it had a ledge at every storey on which the beams of the side storeys could rest, i.e. by making it recede half a cubit, or become so much thinner on the outer side, so that if the thickness of the wall at the bottom was six cubits, it would be five cubits and a half at the first storey, five cubits at the second, and four and a half at the third. In this way the side-rooms were supported by the temple wall, but not in such a manner that the beams laid hold of the walls of the sanctuary, or wrere dovetailed into them, which would have done violence to the sanctity of the temple house; and the side storeys appeared as, what they should be, an external building, which did not interfere with the integrity of the sanctuary. That this is the meaning of the words is rendered certain by a comparison with 1 Kings vi. 6, where the ledges on the temple wall are expressly mentioned, and the design of these is said to be nVVpa Thtf sri?:£, that the beams might not be fastened in the walls of the house, to which the last words of our verse, *V3n Tpa DWK With refer. Kliefoth's rendering of Tj33 rriN3, " they went against the wall," is grammatically untenable, as Kin with 2 does not mean to go against anything. rrijpa?? IVa? 1IPK, which the (temple) house had toward the siderooms. MD T2D round about, i.e. on all three sides of the temple. The peculiarity of the storeys, arising from this resting upon the temple, is described in ver. 7, of which different explanations have been given, but the general meaning of which is that it occasioned a widening of the side-rooms proceeding upwards from storey to storey, as is plainly stated in 1 Kings vi. 6. The words moil mmi are not to be taken together, as expressing one idea, viz. " it spread round about "
(Do Wette), but contain two different assertions, which are more precisely defined in what follows by the substantives 3 DID and 3rh. Neither "Nj? nor V^f? is to be taken as the subject; but the verbs are to be regarded as impersonal: " there spread out and surrounded," i.e. a widening and a surrounding took place. The double »v$?p has been correctly explained by Bochart, viz. u by continued ascending," i.e. the higher one went the more extension and compass did one find, with regard to, i.e. according to the measure of, the side-rooms or side-storeys. TO;V? belongs to •"^Vf??, and is added for the purpose of defining more precisely how the widening took place, not gradually, but at each storey; for " these nijfof are the three rooms standing one above another, spoken of in ver. 6" (Kliefoth). This statement is explained, and the reason assigned, in the clause introduced with *3, the meaning of which depends upon the explanation of the word 3D^D. This word may mean a way round, and a surrounding. The Rabbins, whom Havernick follows, under^ stand by 3D1D a winding staircase, the Dvv mentioned in 1 Kings vi. 8, which led from the lower storey to the upper ones. This is decidedly wrong; for apart from the question whether this meaning can be grammatically sustained, it is impossible to attach any rational meaning to the words, u a winding staircase of the house was upwards more and more round about the house," since a winding staircase could never run round about a building seventy cubits long and forty cubits broad, but could only ascend at one spot, which would really give it the character of a winding staircase. Bottcher's explanation is equally untenable: " for the winding round of the interior was upwards more and more round and round inwards." For, in the first place, JT3H does not mean the interior, and JV37 does not mean inwards; and secondly, "winding round" is not equivalent to an alteration of form in the shape of the rooms, through which those in the bottom storey were oblongs running lengthwise, those in the central storey squares, and those in the third oblongs running inwards, which Bottcher imagines to have been the case. It would be much easier to adopt the explanation of Kliefoth and others, who take 3D^D in the sense of a way round, and regard it as signifying a passage running round the house in the form of a gallery, by which one could walk all round the house, and so reach the rooms in the upper storeys. This, as Kliefoth still further remarks, was the reason why the surrounding of (circuit round) the house was greater the higher one ascended, and also the reason why it became wider up above in the upper storeys, as the words, " therefore the breadth of the house increased upwards," affirm. In these words Kliefoth finds a distinct assertion " that there is no foundation for the assumption that the widening upwards was occasioned by the receding of the temple walls; but that the widening of the building, which took place above, arose from the passages round that were attached to the second and third storeys, and that these passages ran round the building, and consequently were attached to the outside in the form of galleries." But we are unable to see how this can be distinctly asserted in the words nTtfD? JV27 2t}\ Even if 1V3«?, in connection with SCnDj signified the side-building, including the temple house, the only thought contained in the words would be, that the side-building became broader at each storey as you ascended, i.e. that the breadth of the side-building increased with each storey. But even then it would not be stated in what manner the increase in breadth arose; whether in consequence of the receding of the temple wall at each storey, or from the fact that the side-rooms were built so as to project farther out, or that the side-storeys were widened by the addition of a passage in the form of a gallery. And the decision in favour of one or other of these possibilities could only be obtained from the preceding clause, where it is stated that 3D1D rvan went round about the side-building, and that in favour of the last. But, in the first place, the assumption that rpnn and TP^b denote the side-building, to the exclusion of the temple house, is extremely harsh, as throughout the whole section rv?n signifies the temple house; and in ver, G rvs? is used again in this sense. If we understand, however, by IVan ncno a passage or a surrounding all round the temple house, the words bv no means imply that there were outer galleries running round the side-rooms. In the second place, it is extremely harsh to take SDID in the sense of a passage round, if the preceding H3D3 is to signify surrounded. As 3D1D takes up the word "19PJ again, and u precisely the same thing is signified by the two verbs '"^pr. n:?rH M by the substantives 3rh and 2D^D afterwards," we cannot render ruD3 by surrounded, and 2D1E by a passage round. If, therefore, 20)0 signified a passage, a gallery running round the building, this would necessarily be expressed in the verb '"9??, which must be rendered, u there went round," i.e. there was a passage round, more and more upwards, according to the measure of the storeys. But this would imply that the passage round existed in the case of the bottom storey also, and merely increased in breadth in the central and upper storeys. Now a gallery round the bottom storey is shown to be out of the question by the measurements which follow. From this we may see that the supposition that there were galleries on the outside round the second and third storeys is not required by the text, and possibly is irreconcilable with it; and there is not even a necessity to adduce the further argument, that Kliefoth's idea, that the entire building of three storeys was simply upheld by the outer wall, without any support to the beams from the wall of the temple, is most improbable, as such a building would have been very insecure, and useless for the reception of any things of importance. We therefore take 2p: and 3fiD in the sense of surrounded and surrounding. In this case, ver. 7 simply affirms that the surrounding of the house, i.e. the side-building round about the temple house, became broader toward the top, increasing (more and more) according to the measure of the storeys; for it increased the more in proportion to the height against the temple house, so that the house became broader as you ascended.
To this there Is appended by means of \2\ the last statement of the verse: " and so the lower ascended to the upper after the measure of the central one." This clause is taken by the majority of the commentators to mean: thus they ascended from the lower to the upper after the central one. But many have observed the folly of an arrangement by which they ascended a staircase on the outside from the lower storey to the upper, and went from that into the central one, and have therefore followed the LXX. in changing \y\ into |^ and HjfaTO into rufrJFB, tc and from the lower (they ascended) to the upper through the central one.', But there is no apparent necessity for these alterations of the text, as the reading in the text yields a good sense, if we take njinnnn as the subject to n?J£: and thus the lower storey ascended to the upper after the measure of the central one, — a rendering to which no decisive objection can be urged on the ground of the difference of gender (the masc. »%£)• 151 affirms that the ascent took place according to the mode of widening already mentioned.
In the 8th verse we have a further statement concerning the side-rooms, as we may see from the middle clause; but it has also been explained in various ways. Bottcher, for example, renders the first clause thus: u and I saw what the height round about was in an inwardly direction;" but this is both grammatically false and senseless, as T\*2l? does not mean inwardly, and u in an inwardly direction " yields no conceivable sense. Kliefoth adopts the rendering: u I fixed my eyes upon the height round about to the house; " but this is also untenable, as H&n does not mean to fix the eyes upon, in the sense of measuring with the eyes, and in this case also the article could hardly be omitted in the case of Hji, The words run simply thus: u I saw in the house a height" = an elevation round about. What this means is shown in the following words: the side-rooms had foundations a full rod, i.e. the foundation of the rooms was a full rod (six cubits) high. rrilD^D is not a substantive Jiilp^D, but a participle Pual nftBJD; and the Keri is substantially correct, though an unnecessary correction; fe for Nvp (compare ch. xxviii. 16, w ^or •?)• *^ne side-building did not stand on level ground, therefore, but had a foundation six cubits high. This is in harmony with the statement in ch. xl. 49, that they ascended by steps to the temple porch, so that the temple house with its front porch was raised above the inner court. As this elevation was a full rod or six cubits, not merely for the side-building, but also for the temple porch, we may assume that there were twelve steps, and not ten after the LXX. of ch. xl. 49, as half a cubit of Ezekiel's measurement was a considerable height for steps. — The expression which follows, "six cubits "TJW,'1 is obscure, on account of the various ways in which rUPXM may be understood. So much, however, is beyond all doubt, that the words cannot contain merely an explanation of the length of the rod measure: " six cubits (measured) to the wrist," because the length of the rod has already been fixed in ch. xl. 5, and therefore a fresh definition would be superfluous, and the one given here would contradict that of ch. xl. 5. ^2fX signifies connection or joint, and when applied to a building can hardly mean anything else than the point at which one portion of the building joins on to the other. Havernick and Kliefoth therefore understand by T2TX the point at which one storey ends and another begins, the connecting line of the rooms standing one above another; and Havernick takes the clause to be a more precise definition of 'Xfl rvnD^D, understanding by DilD^D the foundations of the rooms, Le. the floors. Kliefoth, on the other hand, regards the clause as containing fresh information, namely, concerning the height of the storeys, so that according to the statement in this verse the side-building had a foundation of six cubits in height, and each of the storeys had also a height of six cubits, and consequently the whole building was twenty-four cubits high, reckoning from the ground. So much is clear, that ni*1D*D does not signify the floors of the rooms, so that Havernick' s explanation falls to the ground. And Kliefoth's view is also open to this objection, that if the words gave the height of the storeys, and therefore supplied a second measurement, the copula 1 could hardly fail to stand before them. The absence of this copula evidently leads to the conclusion that the " six cubits" '"y>*N are merely intended to furnish a further substantial explanation as to the foundation, which was a full rod high, the meaning of which has not yet been satisfactorily cleared up, as all the explanations given elsewhere are still further from the mark.
In ver. 9 there follow two further particulars with reference to the side-building. The wall of it without, i.e. on the outside (/), was five cubits thick or broad, and therefore one cubit thinner than the temple wall. The njtt in the side-building was just the same breadth. In the clause beginning with 1BW the measure (five cubits) given in the first clause is to be repeated, so that we may render \ by "and also" and must take the words in the sense of "just as broad." nap, the Hophal participle of n^n? to let alone, in the case of a building, is that portion of the building space which is not built upon like the rest; and in ver. 11, where it is used as a substantive, it signifies the space left open by the sides of the building (Plate 1. 1). The Chaldee rendering is P^ intf, locus relictus. rriy?¥ JVn is an adverbial or locative accusative: against the house of side-chambers, or all along it; and JV|? "itw is an appositional explanation: "which was to the temple," i.e. belonged to it, was built round about it. — Consequently there is no necessity for any alteration of the text, not even for changing JV3 into r? in order to connect together ver. 96 and ver. 10 as one clause, as Bottcher and Hitzig propose; though all that they gain thereby is the discrepancy that in vers. % and 10 the space left open between the side - rooms against the temple house and between the cells against the wall of the court is said to have been twenty cubits broad, whereas in ver. 12 the breadth of this munndch is set down as five cubits. — There follows next in ver. 10 the account of the breadth between the temple-building and the cells against the wall of the inner court, and then in ver. 11 we have further particulars concerning the side-building and the space left open, nto^pn (ver. 10) are the cell buildings, more fully described in ch. xlii. 1 sqq., which stood along the wall dividing the inner court from the outer on the west of the north and south gates of the inner court, and therefore opposite to the temple" house (Plate I. L L). To the expression, " and between the cells there was a breadth," there has to be supplied the correlative term from the context, namely, the space between the nap and the niSttv had a breadth of twenty cubits round about the house, i.e. on the north, west, and south sides of the temple house. — The description of this space closes in ver. 11 wit,h an account of the entrances to the side-building. It had a door toward the space left open, i.e. leading out into this space, one to the north and one to the south (Plate III. i £), and the space left open was five cubits broad round about, i.e. on the north, west, and south sides of the temple - building. naran Dipp? the place of that which remained open, i.e. the space left open.
If, then, in conclusion, we gather together all the measurements of the temple house and its immediate surroundings, we obtain (as is shown in Plate I.) a square of a hundred cubits in breadth and a hundred cubits in length, exclusive of the porch. The temple (G) was twenty cubits broad in the inside (ver. 2); the wall surrounding the sanctuary was six cubits (ver. 5), or (for the two walls) 2 x 6 = 12 cubits. The side-buildings being four cubits broad in the clear on each side (ver. 5), make 2x4 = 8 cubits. The outside walls of these buildings, five cubits on each side (ver. 9), make 2 X 5 = 10 cubits. The n3D (i), five cubits round about (ver. 11), makes 2 X 5 = 10 cubits. And the space between this and the cells standing by the wall of the court (e-g-h-f), twenty cubits round about (ver. 10), makes 2 X 20 = 40 cubits. The sum total therefore is 20 -f- 12 + 8 + 10 + 10 + 40 = 100 cubits, in perfect harmony with the breadth of the inner court given in ch. xl. 47. The length was as follows: forty cubits the holy place, and twenty cubits the holy of holies (vers. 2 and 4); the western wall, six cubits; the side-rooms on the west, four cubits; and their wall, five cubits; the njD, on the west, five cubits; and the space to the cells, twenty cubits; in all, 40+20+6 + 4 + 5 + 5 + 20 = 100 cubits, as stated in ver. 13. The porch and the thickness both of the party-wall between the holy place and the most holy, and also of the front (eastern) wall of the holy place, are not taken into calculation here. The porch is not included, because the ground which it covered belonged to the space of the inner court into which it projected. The partywall is not reckoned, because it was merely a thin wooden partition, and therefore occupied no space worth notice. But it is difficult to say why the front wall of the holy place is not included. As there was no room for it in the square of a hundred cubits, Kliefoth assumes that there was no wall whatever on the eastern side of the holy place, and supposes that the back wall {i.e. the western wall) of the porch supplied its place. But this is inadmissible, for the simple reason that the porch was certainly not of the same height as the holy place, and according to ch. xl. 48 it had only sixteen cubits of external breadth; so that there would not only have been an open space left in the upper portion of the front, but also an open space of two cubits in breadth on either side, if the holy place had had no wall of its own. Moreover, the measurement both of the pillars on both sides of the front of the /3*n (ver. 1), and of the shoulders on both sides of the door (ver. 2), presupposes a wall or partition on the eastern side of the holy place, which cannot be supposed to have been thinner than the side- walls, that is to say, not less than six cubits in thickness. We are shut up, therefore, to the conjecture that the forty cubits' length of the holy place was measured from the door-line, which was ten cubits broad, and that the thickness of the door-shoulders on the two sides is included in these forty cubits, or, what is the same thing, that they were not taken into account in the measurement. The objection raised to this, namely, that the space within the holy place would thereby have lost a considerable portion -of its significant length of forty cubits, cannot have much weight, as the door-shoulders, the thickness of which is not reckoned, were only five cubits broad on each side, and for the central portion of the holy place, which was occupied by the door, and was ten cubits broad, the length of forty cubits suffered no perceptible diminution. Just as the pillars of the door of the holy of holies with the party -wall are reckoned in the 40+20 cubits' length of the sanctuary, and are not taken into consideration; so may this also have been the case with the thickness of wall of the door-shoulders of the holy place. The measurements of the space occupied by the holy place and holy of holies, which have a symbolical significance, cannot be measured with mathematical scrupulosity.
Vers. 12-14. The Separate Place, and the External Dimensions of the Temple. — Ver. 12. And the building at the front of the separate place was seventy cubits broad on the side turned toward the west, and the wall of the building five cubits broad round about, and its length ninety cubits. Ver. 13. And he measured the {temple) house: the length a hundred cubits; and the separate place, and its building, and its walls: the length a hundred cubits. Ver. 14. And the breadth of the face of the (temple) house, and of the separate place toward the east, a hundred cubits. — The explanation of these verses depends upon the meaning of the word rnfe. According to its derivation from "i]3, to cut, to separate, <"nT3 means that which is cut off, or separated. Thus rnja pK is the land cut off, the desert, which is not connected by roads with the inhabited country. In the passage before us, rnt3 signifies a place on the western side of the temple, i.e. behind the temple, which was separated from the sanctuary (Plate I. J), and on which a building stood, but concerning the purpose of which nothing more definite is stated than we are able to gather, partly from the name and situation of the place in question, and partly from such passages as
1 Chron. x$vi. 18 and 2 Kings xxiii. 11, according to which, even in Solomon's temple, there was a similar space at the back of the temple house with buildings upon it, which had a separate way out, the gate lw£\ namely, that " this space, with its buildings, was to be used for the reception of all refuse, sweepings, all kinds of rubbish, — in brief, of everything that was separated or rejected when the holy service was performed in the temple, — and that this was the reason why it received the name of the separate place " (Kliefoth). The building upon this space was situated iTnT3rr\)B vK, in the front of the gizrah (that is to say, as one approached it from the temple); and that E*n"?]"n DNS, on the side of the way to the sea, i.e. on the western side, sc. of the temple, and had a breadth of* seventy cubits (from north to south), with a wall round about, which was five cubits broad (thick), and a length of ninety cubits. As the thickness of the wall is specially mentioned in connection with the breadth, we must add it both to the breadth and to the length of the building as given here; so that, when looked at from the outside, the building was eighty cubits broad and a hundred cubits long. In ver. 13& this length is expressly attributed to the separate place, and (i.e. along with) its building, -and the walls thereof. But the length of the temple house has also been previously stated as a hundred cubits. In ver. 14 the breadth of both is also stated to have been a hundred cubits, — namely, the breadth of the outer front, or front face of the temple, was a hundred cubits; and the breadth of the separate place D^i?? toward the east, i.e. the breadth which it showed to the person measuring on the eastern side, was the same. If, then, the building on the separate place was only eighty cubits broad, according to ver. 12, including the walls, whilst the separate place itself was a hundred cubits broad, there remains a space of twenty cubits in breadth not covered by the building; that is to say, as we need not hesitate to put the building in the centre, open spaces of ten cubits each on the northern and southern sides were left as approaches to the building on both sides (K), whereas the entire length of the separate place (from east to west) was covered by the building. — All these measurements are in perfect harmony. As the inner court formed a square of a hundred cubits in length (ch. xl. 47), the temple house, which joined it on the west, extended with its appurtenances to a similar length; and the separate place behind the temple also covered a space of equal size. These three squares, therefore, had a length from east to west of three hundred cubits. If we add to this the length of the buildings of the east gates of the inner and outer courts, namely fifty cubits for each (ch. xl. 15, 21, 25, 29, 33, 36), and the length of the outer court from gate to gate a hundred cubits (ch. xl. 19, 23, 27), we obtain for the whole of the temple building the length of five hundred cubits. If, again, we add to the breadth of the inner court or temple house, which was one hundred cubits, the breadths of the outer court, with the outer and inner gate-buildings, viz. two hundred cubits on both the north and south sides, we obtain a total breadth of 100 + 200 + 200 = 500 (say five hundred) cubits; so that the whole building covered a space of five hundred cubits square, in harmony with the calculation already made (at ch. xl. 24-27) of the size of the surrounding wall.
Vers. 15-26. Summary Account of the Measurement, the Character, and the significant Ornaments of the projecting Portions of the Temple Building. — Ver. 15. And thus he measured the length of the building in the front of the separate place which was at the bach thereof, and its galleries on this side and that side, a hundred cubits, and, the inner sanctuary, and the porches of the court; Ver.. 16. The thresholds, and the closed xoindows, and the galleries round about all three — opposite to the thresholds was wainscoting wood round about, and the ground up to the windows; but the windows were covered — Ver. 17. {The space) above the doors, both to the inner temple and outside, and on all the wall round about, within and without,