was to be brought for a sin-offering, and the altar was to be cleansed from sin with this just as with the bullock on the first day; which implies that the sa'me ceremonial was to be observed with this sacrifice as with that of the sin-offering.
After the completion of the expiation a burnt-offering was to be presented to the Lord of a bullock and a ram (vers. 23 and 24). There is a difference of opinion as to the meaning of ^nfoa Ktsnp in these verses. Hitzig and Kliefoth suppose that the expiation was only completed on the second day, with the offering of the he-goat as a sin-offering. They both of them lay stress upon the fact that, on the one hand, in vers. 23 and 24 the offering of the burnt-offering is mentioned on the second day, and not on the first day also; and, on the other hand, in ver. 25, for the seven days of consecration, only the preparation of a he-goat for the sin-offering and the preparation of the two animals appointed for the burnt-offering are mentioned. Hitzig also adduces the fact that in ver. 26 there is no further reference to Kttn, but simply to "iSD and "IHD, and draws the conclusion from this, that the sin attaching to the altar was removed with two sin-offerings on two days, and then through seven days further by means of burnt-offerings the anger of God which followed the sin was appeased ("JS3), and the uncleanness or profane character of the altar was expunged ("into), so that the seven days of ver. 25 are not to be dated from ver. 19 onwards. According to this view, the consecration of the altar lasted nine days, and not seven, and the eighth day mentioned in ver. 27 would really be the tenth day, reckoning from the commencement of the consecration. To carry out this view, Hitzig is obliged to erase not only the ^nrnSDI of ver. 20, but also the first half of ver. 25 as glosses; a fact which carries its condemnation with it, as even the Septuagint furnishes no warrant for the erasure of ver. 25a. Moreover, the distinction which Hitzig draws between Ntsn on the one hand, and "1B3 and "intp on the other, is quite erroneous. Purification pnD) is never mentioned in the law as the effect produced by a burnt-offering. A sin-offering followed by a burntoffering is invariably prescribed for the removal of uncleanness; for " reconciliation and purification take place through the absolution effected by the sin-offering; and to such a sinoffering and its purifying operation the burnt-offering is then added to secure the good pleasure of God for that which has been already cleansed" (Kliefoth). — But we cannot regard even Kliefoth's view as well founded, namely, that on the first day a sin-offering alone was presented, and it was only from the second day onwards that a sin-offering and burnt-offering were presented, and this lasted for seven days, so that the consecration of the altar continued fully eight days, and on the ninth day (not the eighth, as stated in ver. 27) the regular use of the altar commenced. Kliefoth bases this conclusion principally upon the fact that vers. 19-21 attribute only the sinoffering of a bullock to the first day; and that, on the other hand, vers. 25 and 26 extend in all its details to seven days the very same ceremony as vers. 22—24 assign to the second day, whereas they do not contain a syllable to the effect that the sin-offering of the bullock was to be repeated every day, or that the sacrifices described in vers. 22-24 were also to be offered on the first day. The sinew of this demonstration consists in silentioj therefore; and this precarious basis of argument crumbles here, as in most other cases, as is evident from the words of ver. 26: u seven days shall ye reconcile the altar, and purify it." This perfectly general statement, which is not connected with ver. 25 by any Vav copul., or placed in subordination to it, affirms in the clearest manner that the consecration of the altar was to last seven days, neither more nor less; so that if these seven days are to be reckoned from the second day, the sin-offering of the bullock upon the first day must be deprived of its reconciling and purifying worth, in direct contradiction not only to ver. 20, according to which the altar was to be absolved and reconciled through the sin-offering of the bullock to be offered on the first day, but also to ver. 22, according to which they were to absolve the altar by the sinoffering of the he-goat, in just the same manner as they had absolved it by the sin-offering of the bullock (on the first day). To take the ~>S3 and int? in ver. 26 merely as the effect produced by the sacrifices mentioned in ver. 25, renders the nyiw D1^ standing at the head of ver. 26 an impossibility. Unless, therefore, we would impose upon the words of the prophet a gross contradiction, we must lay no stress either upon the fact that in ver. 23 the offering of the burnt-offering is not mentioned till after the direction concerning the sin-offering to be presented on the second day, or upon the circumstance that in ver. 25 the he-goat is mentioned as a sin-offering for all the seven davs, and no allusion is made to the fact that the sinoffering of the first day was a bullock. The former (the reference to the burnt-offering after the sin-offering of the second day) may be explained very simply, on the ground that the sin-offerings of the first two days are mentioned one after the other, because different animals were prescribed for the purpose, and then, first, the burnt-offerings, which were the same for every day. And it is obvious that the explanation is to be sought for in this formal arrangement, and not in the fact that only a sin-offering without a burnt-offering was to be presented on the first day, and consequently that the expression a on the second day " refers solely to the sin-offering of that day, from the words N^np ^nfca in ver. 23; since KtDnD cannot be understood in a different sense from that which it bears in ver. 226, the clause immediately preceding, i.e. must not be restricted to the sin-offering of the second day, but must be taken as referring to the sin-offerings of both the first and second days. The meaning of the words is therefore this: when the absolution by means of the sin-offering on the first and on the second day is ended, then shalt thou bring a burntoffering. But if this is the meaning of the words, the offering of the burnt-offering prescribed in ver. 23 does not fall so exclusively under the definition of time contained in the words a on the second day," as to warrant our assigning it to the second day alone, and concluding that no such offering was presented on the first day. There was no necessity for Ezekiel to express himself more clearly on this point, as there was no fear of any misunderstanding on the part of those who were acquainted with the law; since every Israelite who had been instructed in the law knew full well that no sin-offering could ever be presented without being followed by a burnt-offering, that in fact the burnt-offering was indispensable to the accomplishment of the n"3??, for which the sin-offering was presented. And in ver. 25 also, Ezekiel had no occasion to fear that the somewhat loose expression, u seven days shalt thou prepare a he-goat sin-offering for the day," would be misunderstood; as he had already stated that a bullock was to be taken for the sin-offering of the first day, and the period of seven days was so universally prescribed in the law for every act of consecration which lasted more than one day, that he would have indicated in a clearer manner any deviation from this rule. We therefore regard the change of the seven days devoted to#the consecration of the altar into eight as being just as groundless as that into nine, and adhere to the traditional explanation of these verses, namely, that the consecration of the altar lasted only seven days, and that on every one of these days a sinoffering and a burnt-offering were to be presented, the sinoffering on the first day being a bullock, and on the other days a he-goat, whilst the burnt-offerings were to consist on all seven days of a young ox and a ram. — With regard to the burntoffering, the direction given, that the priests are to throw or pour (^fen)? and not merely to strew or sprinkle, -salt upon it, is to be regarded as significant. According to Lev. ii. 13, salt was to be added to every |2")IJ (bloody or bloodless) sacrifice. The express allusion to the salting of these consecrating burnt-offerings, and also the choice of the verb Tr^»?> point to a copious strewing with salt for the purpose of giving greater intensity to the force of these sacrifices. On the significance of salt in relation to the sacrifices, see the comm. on Lev. ii. 13. The 1 attached to the Chetib VTO1 in ver. 26 is to be explained from the fact that the definition of the time D*o* Wlp is placed at the head absolutely. There is something bold in the application of the expression T K3B to the altar; since this expression arose from the ceremony peculiar to the consecrating sacrifice of the priests, namely, that the fat and fleshy portions of this sacrifice, which were intended partly for consumption upon the altar, and partly as a heave-offering for Jehovah, were to be given into the hands of the priests to be consecrated for the purpose of investing them symbolically with the gifts, which they were to offer in part to the Lord in the altar fire in the fulfilment of their official duties, and to receive in part for their service (see the comm. on Lev. viii. 25-29). Filling the hand of the altar, therefore, is equivalent to providing it with sacrificial gifts, so that it should never be without them. In this sense the symbolical act was connected with the completion of its consecration as a place of sacrifice. The Keri VJJ is incorrect, and ITJ the proper reading; inasmuch as even at the consecration7 of the priests, when the sacrificial portions were placed in the hands of the priests, 1J Op only is used, and not D]T (cf. Ex. xxix. 9; Lev. xxi. 10, etc.).
If we compare the directions given in the section before us concerning the consecration of the altar, with the consecration which was prescribed in Ex. xxix. for the altar of burntoffering in the tabernacle, and was fully carried out according to Lev. viii., we find the following points of difference: — (1) the anointing of the altar is wanting here; (2) at the consecration of the Mosaic altar a bullock (young ox) was prescribed as the sin-offering for all the seven days (Ex. xxix. 36), in Ezekiel for the first day only, and ja. he-goat for the rest; (3) the blood of this sin-offering is smeared upon the horns of the altar in the former consecration (Ex. xxix. 12; Lev. viii. 15), in the latter upon the horns and the corners of the walls, and npon the lower moulding round about; (4) the burnt-offering there consists in a ram every day, here in a bullock and a ram daily; (5) on the other hand, the ram offered as a sacrifice of consecration in the Mosaic ceremony, which was specially connected with the institution of the priests in their office, is omitted here, as the priests were already holding their office; so that the sacrifice of consecration mi^ht be said to be here absorbed into the burnt-offering. All essential differences therefore reduce themselves to the fact that in Ezekiel the anointing of the altar is wanting, and the sin-offering of the last six days is diminished by the selection of an inferior animal, in place of which the burnt-offering is considerably intensified by the demand of a bullock and a ram for this, the same thing being also indicated by the copious pouring of salt thereon. — For the symbolical meaning of these sacrifices, compare the commentary on Lev. viii. — The consecration of the altar was completed in seven days; and from the eighth day onwards the priests were to offer the regular sacrifices upon it (ver. 27); whereas at the Mosaic consecration of the altar and priests, the constant altar service of the priests was still further inaugurated by a solemn sacrifice on the eighth day (Lev. ix.). Burnt-offerings and peace-offerings are mentioned in ver. 27 instar omnium as being the principal and most frequent sacrifices, whilst sin-offerings and meat-offerings are implied therein.
Chap. xliv. Position of the different Classes of the People in relation to the New Sanctuary.
With the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering the way is opened for the congregation of Israel to appear in the sanctuary before the Lord, to serve Him with sacrifices. If, however, the use of the new house of God was to be in harmony with the holiness of the God who dwelt therein, it was requisite that still further directions should be given concerning the entering of the people into it, and the character of the servants of both the altar and the sanctuary. These directions follow in the chapter before us, — first, as to the place which the prince was to occupy at the service in the temple (vers. 1-3); secondly, as to the admission of foreigners and the appointment of Levites and priests for the service (vers. 4—16); and lastly, as to the conditions requisite for the administration of the priest's office, and the duties and privileges of that office (vers. 17-31).
Vers. 1-3. The Place of the Prince in the Sanctuary.
— Ver. 1. And he brought me hack by the way to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which looked toward the east; and it was shut. Yer. 2. And Jehovah said to me, This gate shall be shut, shall not be opened, and no one shall enter thereby; because Jehovah, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall be shut. Ver. 3. As for the prince, as prince he shall sit therein, to eat bread before Jehovah; from the way to the porch of the gate shall he go in, and from its way shall he go out. — From the inner court where Ezekiel had received the measurements of the altar of burnt-offering and the instructions concerning its consecration (ch. xliii. 5 sqq.), he is taken back to the east gate of the outer court, and finds this gate, which formed the principal entrance to the temple, closed. Jehovah explains this fact to him through the angel (fljrp "1DKS1 is to be understood according to ch. xliii. 6 and 7) thus: " this gate is to be shut, because Jehovah, the God of Israel, has entered into the temple thereby," as we have already learned from ch. xliii. 2. Only the prince, as prince, was allowed to sit in it for the purpose of holding sacrificial meals there. So far the meaning of the words is clear and indisputable. For there can be no doubt whatever that ver. 3 introduces a more precise statement concerning the closing of the gate; in other words, that the right of sitting in the gate to eat bread before Jehovah, which is conceded to the priest, is intended as an explanation, resp. modification and limitation, of the statement "WD iTrn (ver. 2). On the other hand, the more precise definition of the prerogative granted to the prince in ver. 3 is not quite clear, and therefore open to dispute. Such a prerogative is already indicated in the prominence expressly given to the prince, consisting partly in the fact that N'b>3nV)K is written first in an absolute form, and partly in the expression fc^n N"^, which is repeated in the form of a circumstantial clause, " prince is he," equivalent to " because he is prince, he is to sit there." N*b'j is neither the high priest, as many of the older commentators supposed, nor a collective term for the civil authorities of the people of Israel in the Messianic times (Havernick), but the David who will be prince in Israel at that time, according to ch. xxxiv. 23, 24, and xxxvii. 24. " To eat bread before Jehovah" signifies to hold a sacrificial meal at the place of the divine presence, i.e. in the temple court, and is not to be restricted, as Kliefoth supposes, to that sacrificial meal u which was held after and along with the bloodless sacrifices, viz. the minchoth, and the shew-breads, and the sweet loaves of the Passover." There is no authority in the usage of the language for this literal interpretation of the expression " to eat bread," for Drp 738 means in general to partake of a meal, compare Gen. xxxi. 54, etc., and especially Ex. xviii. 12, where Jethro " eats bread before God " with Aaron and the elders of Israel, that is to say, joins in a sacrificial meal composed of Dsn?? or slain-offerings. According to this view, which is the only one supported by usage, the prerogative secured to the &OPJ 0f the future is not " that of participating in the sacrificial meals (of the priests), which were to be held daily with the minchoth and shew-bread, in opposition to the law which prevailed before " (Kliefoth), but simply that of holding his sacrificial meals in the gate, i.e. in the porch of the gate, whereas the people were only allowed to hold them in the court, namely, in the vicinity of the sacrificial kitchens.
There is also a difference of opinion concerning the meaning of the second statement in ver. 3: " from the way of the porch of the gate shall he enter in, and thence shall he go out." The suffix in fen?? can only refer to BTiK, u from the way from which he came (entered), from this way shall he go out again." Hitzig follows the Rabbins, who understand the passage thus: u as the gate is to remain shut, he must go by the way to the porch which is directed inwardly, toward the court (ch. xl. 9). He must have gone into the outer court through the north or the south gate, and by the way by which he came he also went back again." But Kliefoth argues, in objection to this, that " if the prince was to eat the bread in the porch, the entrance through the south or the north gate would be of no use to him at all; as the gate which could be shut was at that door of the porch which was turned toward the outer court." Moreover, he affirms that it is not at all the meaning of the text that he was to eat the bread in the porch, but that he was to eat it in the gate-building, and he was to come thither DTiK!]"nD "tytfri, i.e. u from the place which served as a way to the gate porch, that is to say, the walk from the eastern entrance of the gate-building to the front of the porch, and from that was he to go out again." The prince, therefore, was " to go into the gate-building as far as the front of the porch through the eastern entrance, there to eat his bread before Jehovah, and to come out again from thence, so that the gate at the western side of the gate porch still remained shut." But we cannot regard either of these views as correct. There is no firm foundation in the text for Kliefoth's assertion, that he was not to eat the bread in the porch, but in the gate-building. It is true that the porch is not expressly mentioned as the place where the eating was to take place, but simply the gate (to); yet the porch belonged to the gate as an integral part of the gate-building; and if EJ1N SR^ is the way to the porch, or the way leading to the porch, the words, u by the way to the porch shall he enter in," imply clearly enough that he was to go into the porch and to eat bread there. This is also demanded bv the circumstances, as the meaning of the words cannot possibly be that the prince was to hold his sacrificial meal upon the threshold of the gate, or in one of the guardrooms, or in the middle of the gateway; and apart from the porch, there were no other places in the gate-building than those we have named. And again, the statement that the gate on the western side of the gate porch was to be shut, and not that against the eastern wall, is also destitute of proof, as Sftn D^iN, the way to the porch, is not equivalent to the way tl up to the front of the porch." And if the prince was to hold the sacrificial meal behind the inner gate, which was closed, how was the food when it was prepared to be carried into the gatebuilding? Through a door of one of the guard-rooms? Such a supposition is hardly reconcilable with the significance of a holy sacrificial meal. In fact, it is a question whether eating in the gate-building with the inner door closed, so that it was not even possible to look toward the sanctuary, in which Jehovah was enthroned, could be called eating nirv ^2?. — Hitzig's explanation of the words is not exposed to any of these difficulties, but it is beset bv others. At the outset it is chargeable with improbability, as it is impossible to see any just ground why the prince, if he was to hold the sacrificial meal in the porch of the east gate, should not have been allowed to enter through this gate, but was obliged to take the circuitous route through the south or the north gate. Again, it is irreconcilable with the analogous statements in ch. xlvi. According to ch. xlvi. 1 sqq., the east gate of the inner court was to be shut, namely, during the six working days; but on the Sabbath and on the new moon it was to be opened. Then the prince was to come by the way of the gate porch from without, and during the preparation of his sacrifice by the priests to stand upon the threshold of the gate and worship. This same thing was to take place when the prince desired to offer a freewill offering on any of the weekdays. The east gate was to be opened for him to this end; but after the conclusion of the offering of sacrifice it was to be closed again, whereas on the Sabbaths and new moons »t was to stand open till the evening (ch. xlvi. 12 compared with ver. 2). It is still further enjoined, that when offering these sacrifices the prince is to enter by the way of the gate porch, and to go out again by the same way (vers. 2 and 8); whereas on the feast days, on which the people appear before Jehovah, every one who comes, the priest along with the rest, is to go in and out through the north or the south gate (vers. 9 and 10). If, therefore, on the feast days, when the people appeared before Jehovah, the prince was to go into the temple in the midst of the people through the north or the south gate to worship, whereas on the Sabbaths and new moons, on which the people were not required to appear before the Lord, so that the prince alone had to bring the offerings for himself and the people, he was to enter by the way of the porch of the east gate, and to go out again by the same, and during the ceremony of offering the sacrifice was to stand upon the threshold of the inner east gate, it is obvious that the going in and out by the way of the porch of the gate was to take place by a different wray from that through the north or the south gate. This other way could only be through the east gate, as no fourth gate existed. — The conclusion to which this brings us, so far as the passage before us is concerned, is that the shutting of the east gate of the outer court was to be the rule, but that there were certain exceptions which are not fully explained till ch. xlvi., though they are hinted at in the chapter before us in the directions given there, that the prince was to hold the sacrificial meal in this gate. — The outer east gate, which was probably the one chiefly used by the people when appearing before the Lord in the earlier temple, both for going in and coming out, is to be shut in the new temple, and not to be made use of by the people for either entrance or exit, because the glory of the Lord entered into the temple thereby. This reason is of course not to be understood in the way suggested by the Rabbins, namely, that the departure of the Shechinah from the temple was to be prevented by the closing of the gate; but the thought is this: because this gateway had been rendered holy through tfye entrance of the Shechinah into the temple thereby, it was not to remain open to the people, so as to be desecrated, but was to be kept perpetually holy. This keeping holy was not prejudiced in any way by the fact that the prince held the sacrificial meal in the gate, and also entered the court through this gateway for the purpose of offering his sacrifice, which was made ready by the priests before the inner gate, and then was present at the offering of the sacrifice upon the altar, standing upon the threshold of the inner gate -building. DTiN!|T! "WH is therefore the way which led from the outer flight of steps across the threshold past the guard-rooms to the gate porch at the inner end of the gate-building. By this way the priest was to go into the gate opened for him, and hold the sacrificial meal therein, namely, in the porch of this gate. That the offering of the sacrifice necessarily preceded the meal is assumed as self-evident, and the law of sacrifice in ch. xlvi. first prescribes the manner in which the prince was to behave when offering the sacrifice, and how near to the altar he was to be allowed to go.
Vers. 4-16. The Position of Foreigners, Levites, and Priests in relation to the Temple and the Temple Service. — The further precepts concerning the approach to the sanctuary, and the worship to be presented there, are introduced with a fresh exhortation to observe with exactness all the statutes and laws, in order that the desecration of the sanctuary which had formerly taken place might not be repeated, and are delivered to the prophet at the north gate in front of the manifestation of the glory of God (vers. 4-8). — Ver. 4. And he brought me by the way of the north gate to the front of the house; and I looked, and behold the glory of Jehovah filled the house of Jehovah, and I fell down upon my face. Ver. 5. And Jehovah said to me, Son of man, direct thy heart and see with thine eyes and hear with thine ears all that I say to thee with regard to all the statutes of the house of Jehovah and all its laws, and direct thy heart to the entering into the house through all the exits of the house y Ver. 6. And say to the rebellious one, to the family of Israel, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Let it be sufficient for you, of all your abominations, 0 house of Israel, Ver. 7. In that ye brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to desecrate it, my house, when ye offered my food, fat and blood, and so they broke my covenant to all your abominations, Ver. 8. And so ye did not keep the charge of my holy things, but made them keepers of my charge for you in my sanctuary. — From the outer gate to which Ezekiel had been taken, simply that he might be instructed concerning the entering thereby, he is once more conducted, after this has been done^ by the way of the north gate to the front of the temple house, to receive the further directions there for the performance of the worship of God in the new sanctuary. The question, whether we are to understand by the north gate that of the outer or that of the inner court, cannot be answered with certainty. Hitzig has decided in favour of the latter, Kliefoth in favour of the former. The place to which he is conducted is fr^n *JST7^ ad faciem domus, before the temple house,so that he had it before his eyes, Le. was able to see it. As the gateway of the inner count was eight steps, about four cubits, higher than the outer court gate, this was hardly possible if he stood at or within the latter. n*3nf i.e. the temple house, could only be distinctly seen from the inner north gate. And the remark that it is more natural to think of the outer north gate, because the next thing said to the prophet has reference to the question who is to go into and out of the sanctuary, has not much force, as the instructions do not refer to the going in and out alone, but chiefly to the charge of *Jehovah, i.e. to the maintenance of divine worship. — At the fresh standing-place the glory of the Lord, which filled the temple, met the sight of the prophet again, so that he fell down and worshipped once more (cf. ch. xliii. 3, 5). This remark is not intended " to indicate that now, after the preliminary observations in cli. xliii. 13-xliv. 3, the true thorah commences " (Kliefoth), but to sbovv the unapproachable glory and holiness of the new temple. For yer. 5, see cb. xl. 4, xliii. 11, 12. In ver. 6 ^")P"^ is placed at the head in a substantive form for the sake of emphasis, and 7X"}^TT3 is appended in the form of an apposition. For the fact itself, see ch. ii. 8. D??"3! followed by I?, a sufficiency of anything, as in Ex. ix. 28, 1 Kings xii. 28, is equivalent to " there is enough for you to desist from it." The niziyin, from which they are to desist, are more precisely defined in ver. 6. They consisted in the fact that the Israelites admitted foreigners, heathen, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, into the sanctuary, to desecrate it during the offering of sacrifice. It is not expressly stated, indeed, that they admitted uncircumcised heathen to the offering of sacrifice, but this is implied in what is affirmed. The offering of sacrifice in the temple of Jehovah is not only permitted in the Mosaic law to foreigners living in Israel, but to some extent prescribed (Lev. xvii. 10, 12; Num. xv. 13 sqq.). It was only in the paschal meal that no Sag }3 was allowed to participate (Ex. xii. 43). To do this, he must first of all be circumcised (ver. 44). Solomon accordingly prays to the Lord in his temple- prayer that He will also hearken to the prayer of the foreigner, who may come from a distant land for the Lord's name sake to worship in His house (1 Kings viii. 4i sqq.). The reproof in the verse before us is apparently at variance with this. Raschi would therefore understand by "Oippa, Israelites who had fallen into heathen idolatry. Rosenmiiller, on the other hand, is of opinion that the Israelites were blamed because they had accepted victimas it libamina from the heathen, and offered them in the temple, which had been prohibited in Lev. xxv. 22. Htivernick understands by the sons of the foreigner, Levites who had become apostates from Jehovah, and were therefore placed by Ezekiel on a par with the idolatrous sons of the foreigner. And lastly, Ilitzig imagines that they were foreign traders, who had been admitted within the sacred precincts as sellers of sacrificial animals, incense, and so forth. All these are alike arbitrary and erroneous. The apparent discrepancy vanishes, if we consider the more precise definition of "UM *33, viz. u uncircumcised in heart and flesh." Their being uncircumcised in heart is placed first, for the purpose of characterizing the foreigners as godless heathen, who were destitute not only of the uncircumcision of their flesh, but also of that of the heart, i.e. of piety of heart, which Solomon mentions in his prayer as the motive for the coming of distant strangers to the temple. By the admission of such foreigners as these, who had no fear of God at all, into the temple during the sacrificial worship, Israel had defiled the sanctuary, WgflN is in apposition to the suffix to ftp?. The food of Jehovah (^np) is sacrifice, according to Lev. iii. 11, xxi. 6, etc., and is therefore explained by " fat and blood." V»S£, which the LXX. changed in an arbitrary manner into the second person, refers to the " foreigners," the heathen. By their treading the temple in their ungodliness they broke the covenant of the Lord with His people, who allowed this desecration of His sanctuary. 'rn3j?in~,>3?tf, in addition to all your abominations. How grievous a sin was involved in this is stated in ver. 8. The people of Israel, by their unrighteous admission of godless heathen into the temple, not only failed to show the proper reverence for the holy things of the Lord, but even made these haathen, so to speak, servants of God for themselves in His sanctuary. These last words are not to be understood literally, but spiritually. Allowing them to tread the temple is regarded as equivalent to appointing them to take charge of the worship in the temple. For WOW ")»$, see Lev. xviii. 30, xxii. 9, and the commentary on Lev. viii. 35.
The Lord would guard against such desecration of His sanctuary in the future. To this end the following precepts concerning the worship in the new temple are given. — Ver. 9. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall come into my sanctuary, of all the foreigners that are in the midst of the sons of Israel; Ver. 10. But even the Levites, who have gone away from me in the wandering of Israel, which rvandered away from me after its idols, they shall bear their guilt. Ver. 11. They shall be servants in my sanctuary, as guards at the gates of the house and serving in the house; they shall slay the burnt-offering and the slain-offering for the people, and shall stand before it to serve them. Ver. 12. Because they served them before their idols, and became to the house of.Israel a stumbling-block to guilt, therefore I have lifted my hand against them, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah, that they should bear their guilt. Ver. 13. They shall not draw near to me to serve me as priests, and to draw near to all my holy things, to the most holy, but shall bear their disgrace and all their abominations which they have done. Ver. 14. And so will I make them guards of the charge of the house with regard to all its service, and to all tJiat is performed therein. Ver. 15. But the priests of the tribe of Levi, the sons of Zadok, who have kept the charge of my sanctuary on the wandering of the sons of Israel from me, they shall draw near to me to serve me, and stand before me, offer to me fat and blood, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah. Ver. 16. They shall come into my sanctuary, and they draw near to my table to serve me, and shall keep my charge. — In order that all desecration may be kept at a distance from the new sanctuary, foreigners uncircumcised in heart and flesh are not to be admitted into it; and even of the Levites appointed for the service of the sanctuary according to the Mosaic law, all who took part in the falling away of the people into idolatry are to be excluded from investiture with the priests' office as a punishment for their departure from the Lord, and only to be allowed to perform subordinate duties in connection with the worship of God. On the other hand, the descendants of Zadok, who kept themselves free from all straying into idolatry, are to perform the specifically priestly service at the altar and in the sanctuary, and they alone. The meaning and design of the command, to shut out the foreigners uncircumcised in heart from all access to the sanctuary, are not that the intermediate position and class of foreigners living in Israel should henceforth be abolished (Kliefoth); for this would be at variance with ch. xlvii. 22 and 23, according to which the foreigners (0^3) were to receive a possession of their own in the fresh distribution of the land, which not only presupposes their continuance within the congregation of Israel, but also secures it for the time to come. The meaning is rather this: No heathen uncircumcised in heart, i.e. estranged in life from God, shall have access to the altar in the new sanctuary. The emphasis of the prohibition lies here, as in ver. 7, upon their being uncircumcised in heart; and the reason for the exclusion of foreigners consists not so much in the foreskin of the flesh as in the spiritual foreskin, so that not only the uncircumcised heathen, but also Israelites who were circumcised in flesh, were to keep at a distance from the sanctuary if they failed to possess circumcision of heart. The p before 'J |3";3 serves the purpose of comprehension, as in Gen. ix. 10, Lev. xi. 42, etc. (compare Eivald, § 310a). Not only are foreigners who are estranged from God to be prevented from coming into the sanctuary, but even the Levites, who fell into idolatry at the time of the apostasy of the Israelites, are to bear their guilt, i.e. are to be punished for it by exclusion from the rights of the priesthood. This is the connection between the tenth verse and the ninth, indicated by ES *3, which derives its meaning, truly (imo), yea even, from this connection, as in Isa. xxxiii. 21. tW/H are not the Levites here as distinguished from the priests (Aaronites), but all the descendants of Levi, including the Aaronites chosen for the priests' office, to whom what is to be said concerning the Levites chiefly applies. The division of the Levites into such as are excluded from the service and office of priests (1^3, ver. 13) on account of their former straying into idolatry, and the sons of Zadok, who kept aloof from that wandering, and therefore are to be the only persons allowed to administer the priests' office for the future, shows very clearly that the threat "they shall bear their guilt" does not apply to the common Levites, but to the Levitical priests. They are to be degraded to the performance of the inferior duties in the temple and at divine worship. The guilt with which they are charged is that they forsook Jehovah when the people strayed into idolatry. Forsaking Jehovah involves both passive and active participation in idolatry (cf. Jer. ii. 5). This wandering of the Israelites from Jehovah took place during the whole time that the tabernacle and Solomon's temple were in existence, though at different periods and with varying force and extent. Bearing the guilt is more minutely defined in vers. 11-13. The Levitical priests who have forsaken the Lord are to lose the dignity and rights of the priesthood; they are not, indeed, to be entirely deprived of the prerogative conferred upon the tribe of Levi by virtue of its election to the service of the sanctuary in the place of the first-born of the whole nation, but henceforth they are merely to be employed in the performance of the lower duties, as guards at the gates of the temple, and as servants of the people at the sacrificial worship, when they are to slaughter the animals for the people, which every one who offered sacrifice was also able to do for himself. Because they have already served the people before their idols, i.e. have helped them in their idolatry, they shall also serve the people in time to come in the worship of God, though not as priests, but simply in non-priestly occupations. The wTords ')y\ V1BJP non are taken from Num. xvi. 9, and the suffixes in
DrwsA and Dmc6 refer to Dy. jty 5>iBOD, as iu ch. vii. 19, xiv. 3, xviii. 30. T Kfe'J, not to raise the arm to smite, but to lift up the hand to swear, as in ch. xx. 5, 6, etc. Wi?'???V ntf£, to draw near to all my holy things. B^iJ. are not the rooms in the sanctuary, but those portions of the sacrifices which were sacred to the Lord. They are not to touch these, i.e. neither to sprinkle blood nor to burn the portions of fat upon the altar, or peiform anything connected therewith. This explanation is required by the apposition DHfihjJH ^IJ*^j which (in the plural) does not mean the most holy place at the hinder part of the temple, but the most holy sacrificial gifts (cf. ch. xlii. 13). nefa NL'0, as in ch. xvi. 52. In ver. 14 it is once more stated in a comprehensive manner in what the bearing of the guilt and shame was to consist: God would make them keepers of the temple with regard to the inferior acts of service. The general expression JV3H nio^'p 1D^ which signifies the temple service universally, receives its restriction to the inferior acts of service from 'til irnhy 73>j which is used in Num. iii. 26, iv. 23, 30, 32, 39, 47, for the heavy duties performed by the Merarites and Gershonites, in distinction from the mby of the Kohathites, which consisted in mDC'D "IE>^ tn'pn (Num. iii. 28) and *WO bnfca nrjxta nwy (Num. iv. 3). The priestly service at the altar and in the sanctuary, on the other hand, was to be performed by the sons of Zadok alone, because when the people went astray they kept the charge of the sanctuary, i.e. performed the duties of the priestly office with fidelity. Zadok was the son of Ahitub, of the line of Eleazar (1 Chron. v. 34, vi. 37, 38), who remained faithful to King David at the rebellion of Absalom (2 Sam. xv. 24 sqq.), and also anointed Solomon as king in opposition to Adonijah the pretender (1 Kings i. 32 sqq.); whereas the high priest Abiathar, of the line of Ithamar, took part with Adonijah (1 Kings i. 7, 25), and was deposed from his office by Solomon in consequence, so that now the high-priesthood was in the sole possession of Zadok and his descendants (1 Kings ii. 26, 27, and 35). From this attitude of Zadok toward David, the prince given by the Lord to His people, it may be seen at once that he not only kept aloof from the wandering of the people, but offered a decided opposition thereto, and attended to his office in a manner that was well-pleasing to God. As he received the high -priesthood from Solomon in the place of Abiathar for this fidelity of his, so shall his descendants only be invested with the priestly office in the new temple. For the correct explanation of the words in these verses, however, we must pay particular regard to the clause, cl who have kept the charge of my sanctuary." This implies, for example, that lineal descent from Zadok alone was not sufficient, but that fidelity in the service of the Lord must also be added as an indispensable requisite. In vers. 15b and 16 the priest] v service is described according to its principal functions at the altar of burnt-offering, and in the holy place at the altar of incense, ^rfe* is the altar of incense (see ch. xli. 22).
Vers. 17-31. Requisites for the Administration of the Priests' Office, and the Obligations and Privileges OF that Office. — Ver. 17. And it shall come to pass, when they go to the gates of the inner court, they shall put on linen clothes, and no wool shall lie upon them, wlien they serve in the gates of the inner court and serve toward the house. Ver. 18. JAncn turbans shall be upon their head, and linen drawers upon their hips: they shall not gird themselves in sweat. Ver. 19. And when they go out into the outer court, into the outer court to the people, they shall take off their clothes in which they have ministered, and put them in the holy cells, and put on other clothes, that they may not sanctify the people with their clothes. Ver. 20. And they shall not shave their head bald, nor let their hair grow freely; they shall cut the hair of their head, Ver. 21. And they shall not drink v:ine, no priest, when they go into the inner court. Ver. 22. And a widow and a divorced woman they shall not take as wives, but virgins of the seed of the house of Israel, and the widow who has become the widow of a priest they may take. Ver. 23. And they shall teach my people, make known to them the difference between holy and common, and between unclean and clean. Ver. 21. And they shall stand to judge concerning disputes; and they shall observe my laws and my statutes at all my feasts, and sanctify my Sabbaths. Ver. 25. And one shall not go to any corpse of a man to defile himself; only for father and mother, for son and daughter, for brother, sister who had no husband, may they defile themselves. Ver. 26. And after his purification shall they reel days more to him; Ver. 27. And on the day when lie comes to the holy place, into the inner court) to serve in the holy place^ he shall offer hi< sin-offering) is the saying of the Ltord Jehovah. — Ver. 28* And so shall it be with their inheritance, that J am their inheritance, lie shall I v them a possession in I offering, and the trespass-offering, these shall they eat, and everything banned in Israel shall belong to them, \ er. 30. And the firstlings of all the first-fruits of everything, and every heaveoffering of every tiling) of all uour heave-offerings, shall belon the priests; cuid the firstlinqs of all your around meal shall ye ■ to the priest, that a blessing may come down upon thy house. Ver. 31. No carrion nor anything t<>m i)i j> ■' fowl and of beast shall the priests eat. — To the directions, who are to perform the service in the new temple, there are appended corresponding instructions concerning the bodily condition in which this service is to be performed, as the bodily condition shadows forth the state of the soul, or the spiritual constitution of the servants of God. The dress prescribed in Ex. xxviii. for the priests to wear during the holy service had this signification. The same rule is here presupposed as still in force; and it is simply renewed and partially emphasized by the enumeration of some of the leading points. At the service at the altar and in the holy place the priests are to wear linen clothes, and, after the performance of the service, they are to tnke them off again when they go into the outer court (vers; 17—19). In the Mosaic law, B^, white byssus, or 13, white linen, is mentioned as the material used for the priests' clothing (Ex. xxviii. 39, 42); here the material is more distinctly designated as DW>J3, flax linen; and TO¥, animal wool, is expressly forbidden, the motive being assigned for this regulation, namely, that the priest is not to cause himself to sweat by wearing woollen clothing. Sweat produces uncleanness; and the priest, by keeping his body clean, is to show even outwardly that he is clean and blameless. With regard to the putting on and off of the official clothes, the new thorah accords with the Mosaic. For we cannot agree with Kliefoth, who detects a deviation in the fact that, according to Ex. xxviii. 43, the priests were to wear the official clothes only when they entered the tabernacle and when approaching the altar, and, according to Lev. vi. 4, xvi. 23, were to take them off when the service was ended; whereas, according to ver. 17 of the chapter before us, they were to put them on as soon as they entered the inner court, and were never to come before the people in the official costume. If, according to the Mosaic law, the priests were to go before the altar of burnt-offering in the court in their holy official dress, and not otherwise, they must have put on this dress on entering the court; for they could not wait till they were in front of the altar before they changed their clothes. For the expression Dyn 7K DNV does not imply that, according to Ezekiel, they were never to appear in the presence of the people in their official costume, as it does not mean " come before the people," but a go out to the people," or u walk among the people; " nor is this involved in the words 'ttl W*!K K7I, they shall not sanctify the people in their clothes (by their clothes). The latter by no means affirms that they are to sanctify the people by intercourse with them, but are not to do this in official costume; the meaning is simply that they are not to move among the people in the outer court while wearing their official clothes, that they may not sanctify them by their holy clothes. This sanctification cannot be understood in any other way than as analogous to the rule laid down in the law, that touching most holy sacrificial flesh would sanctify (Lev. vi. 11, 20), which Ezekiel repeats in ch. xlvi. 20, and which does not stand in anything like an isolated position in the law, but is also affirmed in Ex. xxix. 37 and xxx. 29 of the altar of burnt-offering and the vessels of the sanctuary. The same thing which applied to these vessels — namely, that their holiness passed from them to any one who touched them — is here predicated of the holy dresses of the priests; and the moving of the priests among the people in their holy clothes is forbidden, because such holiness, acquired bv contact with holy objects, imposed upon the person to whom it had passed the obligation to guard against all defilement (Lev. xxi. 1-8), which the people could not avoid in the ordinary relations of life, and thus a weakening or abolition of the distinction between things holy and common would inevitably have ensued. Bnpf? niX"? are the holy cell-buildings described in ch. xlii. 1—14. — To the clothing there is simply appended in ver. 20 the direction concerning the hair of the head, the natural covering of the head, in relation to which excess on either side is prohibited, either shaving the head bald or wearing the hair uncut. Both of these were forbidden to the priests in the law: shaving in Lev. xxi.."), and letting the hair grow freely in Lev. x. (>; and the latter was simply imposed upon the Nazarites for the period of their vow (Num. vi. 5). ET3 only occurs here; but its meaning, to cut the hair, is obvious from the context. — Ver. 21. The prohibition of the drinking of wine when performing service agrees with Lev. x. 9; on the other hand, the instructions concerning the choice of wives are sharpened in ver. 22, as that which only applied to the high priest in the law is here extended to all the priests. In fact, Ezekiel throughout makes no distinction between the high priest and the common priests. In Lev. xxi. 14, marrying a widow is only forbidden to the high priest, who was to marry a virgin of his own people, whereas no such restriction is laid down for the ordinary priests. Here, on the other hand, marrying a widow is forbidden to all the priests, marriage with the widow of a priest being the only one allowed. I^bs belongs to •"IJE<5*> "T.^j who has become the widow of a priest.1
1 The Rabbins (Targ. Talm. and Masor. according to their accentuation) have endeavoured to obliterate this distinction, by applying the first hemistich to the high priest alone, and explaining the second thus: " The widow, who is really a widow, the priest may take," interpreting jnbo by
In vers. 23 and 24 the general official duties of the priests are mentioned, viz. to teach the people, and to instruct them concerning the difference between the holy and the unholy, the clean and the unclean, as in Lev. x. 10 (cf. Deut. xxxiii. 10 and Ezek. xxii. 2G); also to administer justice in questions in dispute according to the rights of God, — a duty which had already been committed to the priests in its highest form in Deut. xvii. 8 sqq., xix. 17, and xxi. 5. S'H?Vy concerning, in the case of, matters in dispute. DS^'p "J^y, to stand to judge, i.e. to appear or act as judge (compare CipsbJ TOJin, to appoint or institute judges, in 2 Chron. xix. 5). The Keri tOQC'b? is a needless emendation after 2 Chron.. xix. 8. The Clietib ^pS^l, on the other hand, is a copyist's error for Viipsc^. Lastly, at all the feasts they are to observe the laws and statutes of Jehovah, that is to say, to perform all the priestly duties binding upon them at the feasts, and to sanctify the Sabbaths, not merely by offering the Sabbath sacrifices, but also by maintaining the Sabbath rest (cf. Lev. xxiii. 3). — In vers- 25-27 there follow regulations concerning defilement from the dead, and its removal. Ver. 25 is a simple repetition of Lev. xxi. 1—3. But the instructions concerning purification from defilement from the dead are sharpened, inasmuch as not only is the purification prescribed by the law (Num. xix. 1 sqq.), and which lasted seven days, required (this is meant by irnno), but a further period of seven days is appointed after these, at the expiration of which the presentation of a sin-offering is demanded before the service in the sanctuary can be resumed. By this demand for a heightened purification, the approach to a corpse permitted to the priests, which was prohibited to the high priest in the Mosaic law, even in the case of father and mother (Lev. xxi. 11), is tolerably equalized..
qnidam sacerdolum, or aliqui ex ordine sacerdotali, or ceteri mcerdotes. But this is contrary to the usage of the language, as pbft cannot possibly be understood in a partitive sense in this passage, where the priests generally are spoken of, and the plural ^np> follows.
For these duties and obligations of service the priests are to receive corresponding emoluments. These are treated of in vers. 28-31. Tlu v are not, indeed, to receive any share of the land as their property in time to come any more than in former times; but in the place of this Jehovah will be their property and possession, and give them the necessary room for their dwellings from His own property in the land (eh. xlv. 4), and let them draw their maintenance from His altar (yen. 29 and 36). The promise that Jehovah will be the n^n] and Hjn« of the priests is a simple repetition of the regulation in the law (Num. xviii. 20; Dent, xviii. 1, x. 9). So far as the construction in ver. 28a is concerned, the words en. n: ^S are really the subject to '& Q'"1? nj?,7!, which we are obliged to render obliquely, "the inheritance for them shall be, I am their inheritance." For the proposal of Hitzig to take the words from Qripnj *3K to the close of the verse as a parenthesis, and to regard W nn??n in ver. 29a as the subject to 'til nnvn, is untenable, not only on account of the great harshness which such a parenthesis would involve, but principally because these portions of the sacrifices and heave-offerings which belonged to the priest were not a "fty, and are never designated as n;C]J, inheritance, Le. property in land. Ver. 28 treats of the property in land, which God assigned to the Levites and priests under the Mosaic economy, by appointing them towns to dwell in, with meadows for the feeding of their cattle, within the territory of the other tribes, but would assign to them in future from the heave-offering set apart from the land for the sanctuary (ch. xlv. 4). It is not till vers. 29 and 30 that the means of support for the priests are spoken of. They are to be supported from the sacrifices and the tithes and first-fruits which Israel has to pay to Jehovah, as the lord of the land, and which He transfers to His servants the priests. For the priests' share of the meat-offering, sin-offering, and trespassoffering, see Lev. ii. 3, vi. 9, 11, 19, vii. 6, 7; for that which is put under the ban, Lev. xxvii. 21; for the first-fruits, Ex. xxiii. 19, xxxiv. 26, Deut. xviii. 4, Num. xviii. 13; for the rtoin, Num. xv. 19, xviii. 19; for the rtD*$ rWfifcn, Num. xv. 20, 21. In '131 n^Hp? a to cause a blessing to rest upon thy house," the individual Israelite is addressed. For the fact itself, see Mai. iii. 10. — To the enumeration of the means of support there is appended in ver. 31 an emphatic repetition of the command in Lev. xxii. 8, not to eat of any dead thing (i.e. anything that has died a natural death), or anything torn to pieces, either of birds or beasts, on account of its defiling (Lev. xvii. 15).
Chap. xlv. 1-17. The Holy Heave of the Land and the Heave-offerings of the People.
The determination of the means of support for the priesthood is followed still further by an explanation of the manner in which Jehovah will be their inheritance and possession; in other words, assign to the priests and Levites that portion of the land which was requisite for their abode. This is to be done by His causing a definite tract of land to be set apart for Himself, for the sanctuary, and for His servants, and for the capital, when the country is distributed among the tribes of Israel (vers. 1-8). On both sides of this domain the prince is also to receive a possession in land, to guard against all exaction on the part of the princes in time to come. And everywhere unrighteousness is to cease, just weight and measure are to be observed (vers. 9-12), and the people are to pay certain heaveofferings to provide for the sacrifices binding upon the prince (vers. 13-17).
Vers. 1-8. The Holy Heave from the Land. — Ver. 1. And when ye divide the land by lot for an inheritance, ye shall lift a heave for Jehovah as a holy (portion) from the land; five and twenty thousand the length, and the breadth ten (? twenty) thousand. It shall be holy in all its circumference round about. Ver. 2. Of this five hundred shall belong to the Holy by five hundred square round about, and fifty cubits open space thereto
V©r« I. -1 fa>(w (portion) of the land shall this be; to the the s of tht' sanctuary, shall it belong who draw near I
Jehovah, and it shall be to them th< nd a sanctuary for the sanctuary. Vei\ 5. And five and twenty thousand in length and ten thousand in breadth shall belong to the I the servants of the house, for a \ n ' them as gates to dwell in. Ver. 6. And at a possession for the city, ye sh ill give thousand in breadth and ft re and twenty thousand in length, parallel to the holy 1 it shall belong to the whole h
Israel. Ver. 7. And to the prina ve) on both i of the holy heave and of th< n of the city, along the holy wards and on the ■ wards, and i)i length parallel to one of the tribe-portions, from the western border to t) rn bor
Ver. 8. // shall belong to him as land, as a possession in Israel; and my princes shall no more oppress my people, but shall leave the land to the house of Israel according to its tribes. — The domain to be first of all set apart from the land at the time of its distribution among the tribes is called ROTO, heave, not in the general sense of the lifting or taking of a portion from the whole, but as a portion lifted or taken by a person from his property as an offering for God; for nenn comes from DHn which signifies in the case of the minchah the lifting of a portion which was burned upon the altar as »TOTK for Jehovah (see the comm. i a Lev. ii. 9). Consequently everything that was offered by the Israelites, either voluntarily or in consequence of a precept from the Lord for the erection and maintenance of the sanctuary and its servants, was called flWW (see Ex. xxv. 2 sqq., xxx. 15; Lev. vii. 14; Num. xv. 19, etc.). Only the principal instructions concerning the heave from the land are given here, and these are repeated in ch. xlviii. 8-22, in the section concerning the division of the land, and to some extent expanded there. The introductory words, " when ye divide the land by lot for an inheritance," point to this. (See the map on Plate IV.) ^BHj sc. Snia (Prov. i. 14), to cast the lot, to divide by lot, as in.Josh. xiii. 6. Then shall ye lift, set apart, a heave for Jehovah as a holy (portion) from the land, pan }o is to be closely connected with KHp, as shown by ver. 4. In the numbers mentioned the measure to be employed is not given. But it is obvious that cubits are not meant, as Bottcher, Hitzig, and others assume, but rods; partly from a comparison of ver. 2 with ch. xlii. 1G, where the space of the sanctuary, which is given here as 500 by 500 square, is described as five hundred rods on every side; and partly also from the fact that the open space around the sanctuary is fixed at fifty cubits, and in this case nt3N is added, because rods are not to be understood there as in connection with the other numbers. The correctness of this view, which we meet with in Jerome and Raschi, cannot be overthrown by appealing to the excessive magnitude of a Tefievosol twenty-five thousand rods in length and ten thousand rods in breadth; for it will be seen in ch. xlviii. that the measurements given answer to the circumstances in rods, but not in cubits. The Tl^ before and after the number is pleonastic: u as for the length, twenty-five thousand rods in length." Length here is the measurement from east to west, and breadth from north to south, as we may clearly see from ch. xlviii. 10. No regard, therefore, is paid to the natural length and breadth of the land; and the greater extent of the portions to be measured is designated as length, the smaller as breadth. The expression *1/K n"}?'y is a remarkable one, as O^N ^"}.^V. is constantly used, not only in vers. 3 and 5, but also in ch. xlviii. 9, 10, 13, 18. The LXX. have eiKoac xi\ia8a$, twenty thousand breadth. This reading appears more correct than the Masoretic, as it is demanded by vers. 3 and 5. For according to ver. 3, of the portion measured in ver. 1 twenty-five thousand rods in length and ten thousand in breadth were to be measured for the sanctuary and for the priests' land; and according to ver. 5, the Levites were also to receive twenty-five thousand rods in length and ten thousand in breadth for a possession. The first clause of ver. 3 is unintelligible if the breadth of the holy terumah is given in ver. 1 as only ten thousand rods, inasmuch as one cannot measure off from an area of twenty-five thousand rods in length and ten thousand rods in breadth another space of the same length and breadth. Moreover, ver. 1 requires the reading *)?** &*"{&}), as the " holy terumah " is not only the portion set apart for the sanctuary and the priests' land, but also that which was set apart for the Levites. According to. ch. xlviii. 14, this was also "holy to Jehovah;" whereas the portion measured off for the city was " common " (ch. xlviii. 15). This is borne out by the fact that in the chapter before us the domain appointed for the city is distinguished from the land of the priests and Levites by the verb wnPi (ver. 6), whilst the description of the size of the Levites' land in ver. 5 is closely connected with that of the land of the priests; and further, that in ver. 7, in the description of the land of the prince, reference is made only to the holy terumah and the possession of the city, from which it also follows that the land of the Levites is included in the holy terumah. Consequently ver. 1 treats of the whole of the Vhp nrpvin, i.e. the land of the priests and Levites, which was twenty-five thousand rods long and twenty thousand rods broad. This is designated in the last clause of the verse as a holy (portion) in its entire circumference, and then divided into two domains in vers. 2 and 3. — Ver. 2. Of this (HJDj of the area measured in ver. 1) there shall come, or belong, to the holy, i.e. to the holy temple domain, five hundred rods square, namely, the domain measured in ch. xlii. 15-20 round about the temple, for a separation between holy and common; and round this domain there is to be a BhJD, i.e. an open space of fifty cubits on every side, that the dwellings of the priests may not be built too near to the holy square of the temple building. — Ver. 3. nwn rnipn, this measure (i.e. this measured piece of land), also points back to ver. 1, and iP cannot be taken in any other sense than in njp (ver. 2). From the whole tract of land measured in ver. 1 a portion is to be measured off twenty-five thousand rods in length and ten thousand rods in breadth, in which the sanctuary, i.e. the temple with its courts, is to stand as a holy of holies. This domain, in the midst of which is the temple, is to belong to the priests, as the sanctified portion of the land, as the place or space for their houses, and is to be a sanctuary for the sanctuary, i.e. for the temple. Yer. 5. A portion equally large is to be measured off to the Levites, as the temple servants, for their possession. The Keri rWTJ is formed after the nvn of ver. 4, and the Chetib iW is indisputably correct. There is great difficulty in the last words of this verse, H3B7 B'"W, " for a possession to them twenty cells;" for which the LXX. give ai/rot? et? Kardo-^eaiv 7roXet? rod /caroLfcelv, and which they have therefore read, or for which they have substituted by conjecture, H3B6 D*")y. We cannot, in fact, obtain from the rib^'p D^feflJ of the Masoretic text anv meaning that will harmonize with the context, even if we render the words, as Rosen muller does, in opposition to the grammar, cum viginti cubiculis, and understand by nbjv capacious cell-buildings. For we neither expect to find in this connection a description of the number and character of the buildings in which the Levites lived, nor can any reason be imagined why the Levites, with a domain of twenty-five thousand rods in length and ten thousand rods in breadth assigned to them, should live together in twenty cell-buildings. Still less can we think of the "twenty cells" as having any connection with the thirty cells in the outer court near to the gatebuildings (ch. xl. 17, 18), as these temple cells, even though they were appointed for the Levites during their service in the temple, wfere not connected in any way with the holy terumali spoken of here. Hiivernick's remark, that lt the prophet has in his eye the priests' cells in the sanctuary, — and the dwellings of the Levites during their service, which were only on the outside of the sanctuary, were to correspond to these," is not indicated in the slightest degree by the words, but is a mere conjecture. There is no other course open, therefore, than to acknowledge a corruption of the text, and either to alter roB& D*~CT into rnC9 D^X?, as Hitzig proposes (cf. Num. xxxv. 2, 3; Josh, xxi. 2), or to take D'nSyp as a mistake for D^VE*: u for a possession to them as gates to dwell in," according to the frequent use of E'rW, gates, for D^P, cities, e.g. in what was almost a standing phrase, "the Levite who is in thy gates" ( = cities; Deut. xii. 18, xiv. 27, xvi. 11; cf. Ex. xx. 10; Dent. v. 14, etc.). In that case the faulty reading would have arisen from the transposition of B>y into y£>, and the change of 3 into 3.
Beside the holy terumah for sanctuary, priests, and Levites, they are also (ver. 6) to give a tract of twenty-five thousand rods in length and five thousand rods in breadth as the property of the city (i.e. of the capital). riDyp: parallel to the holy heave, i.e. running by the longer side of it. This portion of land, which was set apart for the city, was to belong to all Israel, and not to any single tribe. The more precise directions concerning this, and concerning the situation of the whole terumah in the land, are not given till ch. xlviii. 8-22. Here, in the present chapter, this heave is simply mentioned in connection with the privileges which the servants of the Lord and of His sanctuary were to enjoy. These included, in a certain sense, also the property assigned to the prince in ver. 7 as the head of the nation, on whom the provision of the sacrifices for the nation devolved, and who, apart from this, also needed for his subsistence a portion of the land, which should be peculiarly his own, in accordance with his rank. They were to give him as his property (the verb unn is to be supplied to K^J? from ver. 6) the land on this side and that side of the holy terumah and of the city-possession, and that in front (^B~?K) of these two tracts of land, that is to say, adjoining them, extending to their boundaries, '\2\ D^ DNQp, " from " (i.e.y according to our view, " upon ") the west side westward, and from (upon) the east side eastward; in other words, the land which remained on the eastern and western boundary of the holy terumah and of the city domain, both toward the west as far as the Mediterranean Sea, and toward the east as far as the Jordan, the two boundaries of the future Canaan. The further definition 'U1 niDVp 1Qk\ is not quite clear; but the meaning of the words is, that " the length of the portions of land to be given to the prince on the east and west side of the terumah shall be equal to the length of one of the tribe-portions," and not that the portions of land belonging to the prince are to be just as long from north to south as the length of one of the twelve tribepossessions. " Length " throughout this section is the extent from east to west. It is so in the case of all the tribe-territories (cf. ch. xlviii. 8), and must be taken in this sense in connection with the portion of land belonging to the prince also. The meaning is therefore this: in length (from east to west) these portions shall be parallel to the inheritance of one of the twelve tribes from the western boundary to the eastern. Two things are stated here: first, that the prince's portion is to extend on the eastern and western sides of the terumah as far as the boundary of the land allotted to the tribes, i.e. on the east to the Jordan, and on the west to the Mediterranean (cf. ch. xlviii. 8); and secondly, that on the east and west it is to run parallel (rrifty?) to the length of the separate tribe-territories, i.e. not to reach farther toward either north or south than the terumah lying between, but to be bounded by the long sides of the tribe-territories which bound the terumah on the north and south, sps is the accusative of direction; *ins? some one (cf. Judg. xvi. 7; Ps. lxxxii. 7). — In ver. 8, H5?^ with the article is to be retained, contrary to Hitzig's conjecture Y"]^: " to the land belonging to him as a possession shall it (the portion marked off in ver. 7) be to him." pN, as in 1 Kings xi. 18, of property in land. In ver. 8b, the motive for these instructions is given. The former kings of Israel had no land of their own, no domain; and this had driven them to acquire private property by violence and extortion. That this may not occur any more in the future, and all inducement to such oppression of the people may be taken from the princes, in the new kingdom of God the portion of land more precisely defined in ver. 7 is to be given to the prince as his own property. The plural, u my princes," does not refer to several contemporaneous princes, nor can it be understood of the king and his sons, i.e. of the royal family, on account of ch. xlvi. 16; but it is to be traced to the simple fact u that Ezekiel was also thinking of the past kings, and that the whole series of princes, who had ruled over Israel, and still would rule, was passing before his mind" (Kliefoth), without our being able to conclude from this that there would be a plurality of princes succeeding one another in time to come, in contradiction to ch. xxxvii. 25. — " And the land shall they (the princes) leave to the people of Israel " (1^3 in the sense of concedere; and H?^ the land, with the exception of the portion set apart from it in vers. 1-7). — The warning against oppression and extortion, implied in the reason thus assigned, is expanded into a general exhortation in the following verses.
Vers. 9-12. General Exhortation to observe Justice and Kighteousness in their Dealings. — Ver. 9. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Let it suffice you, ye princes of Israel: desist from violence and oppression, and observe justice and righteousness, and cease to thrust my people out of their possession, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah. Ver. 10. Just scales, and a just ephah, and a just bath, shall ye have. Ver. 11. The ephah and the bath shall be of one measure, so that the bath holds the tenth part of the homer, and the ephah the tenth part of the homer: after the homer shall its standard be. Ver. 12. And the shekel shall have twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall the mina be with you, — The exhortation in ver. 9 is similar to that in ch. xliv. 6, both in form and substance. As the Levites and priests are to renounce the idolatry to which they have been previously addicted, and to serve before the Lord in purity and holiness of life, so are the princes to abstain from the acts of oppression which they have formerly practised, and to do justice and righteousness; for example, to liberate the people of the Lord from the ftWJI-. ntfni is unjust expulsion from one's possession, of which Ahab's conduct toward Naboth furnished a glaring example (1 Kings xxi.). These acts of violence pressed heavily upon the people, and this burden is to be removed (?JJB &"}[}). In vers. 10-12 the command to practise justice and righteousness is expanded; and it is laid as a duty upon the whole nation to have just weights and measures. This forms the transition to the regulation, which follows from ver. 13 onwards, of the taxes to be paid by the people to the prince to defray the expenses attendant upon the sacrificial worship. — For ver. 10, see Lev. xix. 36 and Deut. xxv. 13 sqq. Instead of the hin (Lev. xix. 36), the bath, which contained six bins, is mentioned here as the measure for liquids. The na is met with for the first time in Isa. v. 10, and appears to have been introduced as a measure for liquids after the time of Moses, having the same capacity as the ephah for dry goods (see my Bibl. Archdol. II. pp. 139 sqq.). This similarity is expressly stated in ver. 11. Both of them, the ephah as well as the bath, are to contain the tenth of a homer (A^tr?, to carry, for ^???> to contain, to hold; compare Gen. xxxvi. 7 with Amos vii. 10), and to be regulated by the homer. Ver. 12 treats of the weights used for money. The first clause repeats the old legal provision (Ex. xxx. 13; Lev. xxvii. 25; Num. iii. 47), that the shekel, as the standard weight for money, which was afterwards stamped as a coin, is to contain twenty gerahs. The regulations which follow are very obscure: u twenty shekels, twenty-five shekels, fifteen shekels, shall the mina be to you." The mina, RJ&n, occurs only here and in 1 Kings x. 17; Ezra ii. 69; and Neh. vii. 71, 72, — that is to say, only in books written during the captivity or subsequent to it. If we compare 1 Kings x. 17, according to which three minas of gold were used for a shield, with 2 Chron. ix. 16, where three hundred (shekels) of gold are said to have been used for a similar shield, it is evident that a mina was equal to a hundred shekels. Now as the talent ("E?) contained three thousand (sacred or Mosaic) shekels (see the comm. on Ex. xxxviii. 25, 26), the talent would only have contained thirty minas, which does not seem to answer to the Grecian system of weights. For the Attic talent contained sixty minas, and the mina a hundred drachms; so that the talent contained six thousand drachms, or three thousand didrachms. But as the Hebrew shekel was equal to a hihpa^ixov, the Attic talent with three thousand didrachms corresponded to the Hebrew talent with three thousand shekels; and the mina, as the sixtieth part of the talent, with a hundred drachms or fifty didrachms, ought to correspond to the Hebrew mina with fifty shekels, as the Greek name fiva is unquestionably derived from the Semitic ^yo. The relation between the mina and the shekel, resulting from a comparison of 1 Kings x. 17 with 2 Chron. ix. 16, can hardly be made to square with this, by the assumption that the shekels referred to in 2 Chron. ix. 16 are not Mosaic shekels, but so-called civil shekels, the Mosaic half-shekel, the beka, V£3, having acquired the name of shekel in the course of time, as the most widelyspread silver coin of the larger size. A hundred such shekels or bekas made only fifty Mosaic shekels, which amounted to one mina; while sixty minas also formed one talent (see my Bill. ArchdoL II. pp. 135, 136). — But the words of the second half of the verse before us cannot be brought into harmony with this proportion, take them how we will. If, for example, we add the three numbers together, 20 + 25 + 15 shekels shall the mina be to you, Ezekiel would fix the mina at sixty shekels. But no reason whatever can be found for such an alteration of the proportion between the mina and the talent on the one hand, or the shekel on the other, if the shekel and talent were to remain unchanged. And even apart from this, the division of the sixty into twenty, twenty-five, and fifteen still remains inexplicable, and can hardly be satisfactorily accounted for in the manner proposed by the Rabbins, namely, that there were pieces of money in circulation of the respective weights of twenty, twenty-five, and fifteen shekels, for the simple reason that no historical trace of the existence of any such pieces can be found, apart from the passage before us.1 And the other attempts that have been made to explain the difficult words are not satisfactory. The explanation given by Cocceius and J. D. Michaelis (Supplem. ad lex, p. 1521), that three different minas are mentioned, — a smaller one of fifteen Mosaic shekels, a medium size of twenty shekels, and a large one of twentyfive, — is open to the objection justly pointed out by Bertheau, that in an exact definition of the true weight of anything we do not expect three magnitudes, and the purely arbitrary assumption of three different minas is an obvious subterfuge. The same thing applies to Hitzig's explanation, that the triple division, twenty, twenty-five, and fifteen shekels, has reference to the three kinds of metal used for coinage, viz. gold, silver,
1 It is true that Const. l'Empereur has observed, in the Discursus ad Lectorem prefixed to the Paraphrases Joseph. Jachiadae in Danielem, that " as God desired that justice should be preserved in all things, He noticed the various coins, and commanded that they should have their just weight. One coin, according to Jewish testimony, was of twenty shekels, a second of twenty-five, and a third of fifteen shekels; and as these together made one mina, according to the command of God, in order that it might be manifest that each had its proper quantity, He directed that they should be weighed against the mina, so that it might be known whether each had its own weight by means of the mina, to which they ought to be equal.'1 But the Jewish witnesses (Judaei testes) are no other than the Rabbins of the Middle Ages, Sal. Jarchi (Raschi), Dav. Kimchi, and Abrabanel, who attest the existence of these pieces of money, not on the ground of historical tradition, but from an inference drawn from this verse. The much earlier Targumist knows nothing whatever of them, but paraphrases the words thus: "the third part of a mina has twenty shekels; a silver mina, five and twenty shekels; the fourth part of a mina, fifteen shekels; all sixty are a mina; and a great mina (i.e. probably one larger than the ordinary, or civil mina) shall be holy to you; " from which all that can be clearly learned is, that he found in the words of the prophet a mina of sixty shekels. A different explanation is given by the LXX., whose rendering, according to the Cod. Vatic. (Tischendorf), runs as follows: xim tricot, ami copper, so that the gold mina was worth, or weighed, twenty shekels; the silver mina, twenty-five; and the copper mina, fifteen, — which has no tenable support in the statement of Josephus, that the shekel coined by Simon was worth four drachms; and is overthrown by the incongruity in the relation in which it places the gold to the silver, and both these metals to the copper. — There is evidently a corruption of very old standing in the words of the text, and we are not in possession of the requisite materials for removing it by emendation.
Vers. 13-17. The Heave-offerings of the People. — Ver. 13. This is the heave- offering which ye shall heave: The sixth part of the ephah from the homer of wheat, and ye shall give the sixth part of the ephah from the homer of barley; Ver. 14. And the proper measure of oil, from the bath of oil a tenth of the bath from the cor, which contains ten baths or a homer; for ten baths are a homer; Ver. 15. And one head from the flock from two hundred from the watered land of Israel, for
TTiUTZ XXI ff/xAO/, hiXOC K»l TTlVTTlKOVTOt. OliChOl V) /U.VOC, tOTOtl VfU'J ' and aCCOrding to the Cod. Al.: oi mvrt atx'Koi izivzi xoti oi Zexoc oixhoi Ztxoc xxi nttvtnxovtcc x.t.a. Boeckh (Metrol. Untersuch. pp. 54 sqq.) and Bertheau (Zur Gesch. der Iar. pp. 9 sqq.) regard the latter as the original text, and punctuate it thus: oi Trim* oixAot TiVTS, xoci oi Vikcl aixhoi Zixcc, xcel kzvty)- xovrct oixkot i) fxvSc, taroci vph, — interpreting the whole verse as follows: 14 the weight once fixed shall remain unaltered, and unadulterated in its original value: namely, a shekel shall contain ten gerahs; five shekels, or a five-shekel piece, shall contain exactly five; and so also a ten-shekel piece, exactly ten shekels; and the mina shall contain fifty shekels." But however this explanation may appear to commend itself, and although for this reason it has been adopted by Havernick and by the author of this commentary in his Bibl. Archaol, after a repeated examination of the matter I cannot any longer regard it as well-founded, but am obliged to subscribe to the view held by Hitzig and Kliefoth, " that this rendering of the LXX. carries on the face of it the probability of its resting upon nothing more than an attempt to bring the text into harmony with the ordinary value of the mina.1' For apart from the fact that nothing is known of the existence of five and ten shekel pieces, it is impossible to get any intelligible meaning from the words, that five shekels are to be worth five shekels, and ten shekels worth ten shekels, as it was self-evident that five shekels could not be worth either four shekels or six.
the meat- offering, and for the burnt-offering, and for the peaceofferings, to make atonement for them, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah. Ver. 16. All the people of the land shall be held to this heave-offering for the prince in Israel. Ver. 17. And upon the prince shall devolve the burnt-offerings, and the meat-offering, and the drink-offering at the feasts, the new moons, and the Sabbaths, at all the festivals of the house of Israel; he shall provide the sin-offering, and the meat-offering, and the burnt-offering, and the peace-offerings, to make atonement for the house of Israel. — The introductory precepts to employ just measures and weights are now followed by the regulations concerning the productions of nature to be paid by the Israelites to the prince for the sacrificial worship, the provision for which was to devolve on him. Fixed contributions are to be levied for this purpose, of wheat, barley, oil, and animals of the flock — namely, according to vers. 13-15, of corn the sixtieth part, of oil the hundredth part, and of the flock the two hundredth head. There is no express mention made of wine for the drinkoffering, or of cattle, which were also requisite for the burntoffering and peace-offering, in addition to animals from the flock. The enumeration therefore is not complete, but simply contains the rule according to which they were to act in levying what was required for the sacrifices. The word DJWW? in ver. 13 must not be altered, as Hitzig proposes; for although this is the only passage in which n$tr occurs, it is analogous to C^n in Gen. xli. 34, both in its formation and its meaning, u to raise the sixth part." A sixth of an ephah is the sixtieth part of a homer, ph, that which is fixed or established, i.e. the proper quantity. p?t?n ran is in apposition to jcwn (for the article, see the comm. on ch. xliii. 21), the fixed quantity of oil, namely of the bath of oil, — i.e. the measure of that which is to be contributed from the oil, and that from the bath of oil, — shall be the tenth part of the bath from the cor, i.e. the hundredth part of the year's crop, as the cor contained ten baths. The cor is not mentioned in the preceding words
(ver. 11), nor does it occur in the Mosaic law. It is another name for the homer, which is met with for the first time in the writings of the captivity (1 Kings v. 2, 25; 2 Chron. ii. 9, xxvii. 5). For this reason its capacity is explained by the words which are appended to "rt30: 'w D*n3n rnfeflf, from the cor (namely) of ten baths, one homer; and the latter definition is still farther explained by the clause, u for ten baths are one homer." — Ver. 15. ni?'^P, from the watered soil (cf. Gen. xiii. 10), that is to say, not a lean beast, but a fat one, which has been fed upon good pasture. WJvIj IBap indicates the general purpose of the sacrifices (yid. Lev. i. 4). — Ver. 16. The article in Dyn as in H3H in ver. 14.?N n\l to be, i.e. to belong, to anything — in other words, to be held to it, under obligation to do it;?V FPH (ver. 17), on the other hand, to be upon a person, i.e. to devolve upon him. In ^J?iD"?33 the feast and days of festival, which have been previously mentioned separately, are all grouped together, 'til riKBnn riK rto, to furnish the sin-offering, etc., i.e. to supply the materials for them.
So far as the fact is concerned, the Mosaic law makes no mention of any contributions to the sanctuary, with the exception of the first-born, the first-fruits and the tithes, which could be redeemed with money, however. Besides these, it was only on extraordinary occasions — e.g. the building of the tabernacle — that the people were called upon for freewill heave-offerings. But the Mosaic law contains no regulation as to the sources from which the priests were to meet the demands for the festal sacrifices. So far, the instructions in the verses before us are new. What had formerly been given for this object as a gift of spontaneous love, is to become in the future a regular and established duty, to guard against that arbitrary and fitful feeling from which the worship of God might suffer injury. — To these instructions there are appended, from ver. 18 onwards, the regulations concerning the sacrifices to be offered at the different festivals.
Chap. xlv. 18-xlvi. 15. Instructions concerning the Festal and Daily Sacrifices,
The series commences with the sin-offering's in the first month (ch. xlv. 18-20). Then follow the sacrifices at the Passover and feast of tabernacles (vers. 21-25), in connection with which a way and a standing-place in the temple are assigned to the prince and the people during the offering of these sacrifices (ch. xlvi. 1-3). After these we have the burntofferings on the Sabbaths and new moons (ch. xlvi. 4-7), and once more a direction with regard to their entrance and exit when the prince and the people come to the temple at the yearly festivals (vers. 8—10); also the meat-offerings at the feasts (ver. 11), to which there is appended a direction with regard to the freewill-offerings of the prince (ver. 12); and, finally, the instructions concerning the daily burnt-offering and meat-offering (vers. 13-15).
Vers. 18-20. The Sin-offerings in the Fikst Month. — Ver. 18. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, In the first (month), on the first of the month, thou shalt take a bullock, a young ox without blemish, and absolve the sanctuary. Ver. 19. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering, and put it upon the door-posts of the house, and upon the four corners of the enclosure of the altar, and upon the door-posts at the gate of the inner court. Ver. 20. And so shalt thou do on the seventh of the month, for the sake of erring men and of folly, that so ye mcy make atonement for the house. — The Mosaic law had prescribed for the new moons generally the sin-offering of a he-goat, in addition to the burnt-offerings and meat-offerings (Num. xxviii. 15); and, besides this, had also distinguished the new-moon's day of the seventh month by a special feast-offering to be added to the regular new-moon's sacrifices, and consisting of a sin-offering of a he-goat, and burnt-offerings and meat-offerings (Num. xxix. 2-6). This distinguishing of the seventh month by a special new-moon's sacrifice is omitted in E&ekiel; but in the place of it the first month is distinguished by a sin-offering to be presented on the first and seventh days. Nothing is said in vers. L8 20 about burnt-offerings for these days; but as the burnt-offering is appointed in ch. xlvi. 6, 7 for the new-moon's day without any limitation, and the regulations as to the connection between the meat-offering and the burnt-offerings are repeated in ch. xlvi. 11 for the holy days and feast days (O^W D*IH) generally, and the new-moon's day is also reckoned among the D^Jfto, there is evidently good ground for the assumption that the burntofferino- and meat-offering prescribed for the new moon in ch. xlvi. 6, 7 were also to be offered at the new moon of the first month. On the other hand, no special burnt-offering or meat-offering is mentioned for the seventh day of the first month; so that in all probability only the daily burnt-offering and meat-offering were added upon that day (ch. xlvi. 13 sqq.) to the sin-offering appointed for it. Moreover, the sin-offerings prescribed for the first and seventh days of the first month are distinguished from the sin-offerings of the Mosaic law, partly by the animal selected (a young bullock), and partly by the disposal of the blood. According to the Mosaic law, the sinoffering for the new moons, as well as for all the feast days of the year, the Passover, Pentecost, day of trumpets, day of atonement, and feast of tabernacles (all eight days), was to be a he-goat (Num. xxviii. 15, xxii. 30, xxix. 5, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38). Even the sin-offering for the congregation of Israel on the great day of atonement simply consisted in a he-goat (or two he-goats, Lev. xvi. 5); and it was only for the sin-offering for the high priest, whether on that day (Lev. xvi. 3), or when he had sinned so as to bring guilt upon the nation (Lev. iv. 3), or when the whole congregation had sinned (Lev. iv. 14), that a bullock was required. On the other hand, according to Ezekiel, the sin-offering both on the first and seventh days of the first month, and also the one to be brought by the prince on the fourteenth day of that month, i.e. on the day of the feast of Passover (ch. xlv. 22), for himself and for all the people, were to consist of a bullock, and only the sin-offering on the seven days of the feasts of Passover and tabernacles of a he-goat (ch. xlv. 23, 25). The Mosaic lawcontains no express instructions concerning the sprinkling of the blood of the sin-offering at the new moons and feasts (with the exception of the great atoning sacrifice on the day of atonement), because it was probably the same as in the case of the sin-offerings for the high priest and the whole congregation, when the blood was first of all to be sprinkled seven times against the curtain in front of the capporeth, and then to be applied to the horns of the altar of incense, and the remainder to be poured out at the foot of the altar of burnt-offering (Lev. iv. 6, 7, 17, 18); whereas, in the case of the great atoning sacrifice on the day of atonement, some of the blood was first of all to be sprinkled at or upon the front side of the capporeth and seven times upon the ground, and after that it was to be applied to the horns of the altar of incense and of the altar of burnt- offering (Lev. xvi. 15-17). But according to Ezekiel, some of the blood of the sin-offerings on the first and seventh days of the first month, and certainly also on the same days of the feasts of Passover and tabernacles, was to be smeared upon the posts of the house — that is to say, the posts mentioned in ch. xli. 21, not merely those of the fe^H, the door into the holy place, but also those of the BHp, the door leading into the most holy place, upon the horns and the four corners of the enclosure of the altar of burnt-offering (ch. xliii. 20), and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court. It is a point in dispute here whether ^>*nn "iy^ is only one door, and in that case whether the east gate of the inner court is to be understood as in ch. xlvi. 2 ("Wl1 n!^p), as Hitzig and others suppose, or whether ~>JK? is to be taken in a collective sense as signifying the three gates of the inner court (Kliefoth and others). The latter view is favoured by the collective use of the word HWO by itself, and also by the circumstance that if only one of the three gates were intended, the statement which of the three would hardly have been omitted (cf. ch. xlvi. 1, xliv. 1, etc.). — According to ver. 18, these sin-offerings were to serve for the absolving of the sanctuary; and according to ver. 20, to make atonement for the temple on account of error or follv. Both directions mean the same thing. The reconciliation of the temple was effected by its absolution or purification from the sins that had come upon it through the error and folly of the people. Sins njJB^a are sins occasioned by the weakness of flesh and blood, for which expiation could be made by sin-offerings (see the comm. on Lev. iv. 2 and Num. xv. 22 sqq.). itjW B*i*0, lit. away from the erring man, i.e. to release him from his sin. This expression is strengthened by "•nSD, away from simplicity or folly; here, as in Prov. vii. 7, as abstraction pro concrete, the simple man. — The great expiatory sacrifice on the day of atonement answered the same purpose, the absolution of the sanctuary from the sins of the people committed n^ac;n (Lev. xvi. 16 sqq.).
Vers. 21-25. Sacrifices at the Passover and Feast of Tabernacles. — Ver. 21. In the first (month), on the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall keep the Passover, a feast of a full week; unleavened shall be eaten. Ver. 22. And the prince shall prepare on that day for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock as a sin-offering. Ver. 23. And for the seven days of the feast he shall prepare as a burnt-offering for Jehovah seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily, the seven days, and as a sin-offering a he-goat daily. Ver. 24. And as a meat-offering, he shall prepare an ephah for the bullock, and an ephah for the ram, and a hin of oil for the ephah. Ver. 25. In the seventh (month), on the fifteenth day of the month, at the feast he shall do the same for seven days with regard to the sin-offering, as also the burnt -offering, and the meat-offering, as also the oil. — In the wrords, " shall the
Passover be to you," there lies the thought that the Passover is to be celebrated in the manner appointed in Ex. xii., with the paschal meal in the evening of the 14th Abib. — There is considerable difficulty connected with the following words, Jn &W fttyatPj which all the older translators have rendered " a feast of seven days." rnJDB> signifies periods of seven days or weeks. A feast of heptads of days, or weeks of days, cannot possibly mean a feast which lasted only seven days, or a week. nta^ jn is used elsewhere for the feast of weeks (Ex. xxxiv. 22; Deut. xvi. 10), because they were to reckon seven weeks from the second day of the Passover, the day of the sheaf of firstfruits, and then to keep the feast of the loaves of first-fruits, or the feast of harvest (Deut. xvi. 9). Kliefoth retains this wellestablished meaning of the words in this passage also, and gives the following explanation: If the words TOD^ Jn stood alone without CD*, it would mean that in future the Passover was to be kept like the feast of seven weeks, as the feast of the loaves of first-fruits. But the addition of EttpJ, which is to be taken in the same sense as in Dan. x. 2, 3, Gen. xxix. 14, etc., gives this turn to the thought, that in future the Passover is to be kept as a feast of seven weeks long, " a feast lasting seven weeks." According to this explanation, the meaning of the regulation is, " that in future not only the seven days of sweet loaves, but the whole of the seven weeks intervening between the feast of the wave-sheaf and the feast of the wave-loaves, was to be kept as a Passover, that the whole of the quinquagesima should be one Easter Jn, and the feast of weeks be one with the Passover." To this there is appended the further regulation, that unleavened bread is to be eaten, not merely for the seven days therefore, but for the whole of the seven weeks, till the feast of the loaves of first-fruits. This explanation is a very sagacious one, aad answers to the Christian view of the Easter-tide. But it is open to objections which render it untenable. In the first place, that D*DJ, when used in the sense of lasting for days, is not usually connected with the preceding
;— "r rvz-j' in ver. 23 unquestionably point back to rtf]D^:n D*D*. as there is no other way in which the article in -~~I ran he explained, just as KVin Dt'a in?er. 22 points back to the fournth day mentioned in ver. 21 as the time of thepesaeh feast.
It follows from this, however, that ~>%:' niyaw can only signify von days1 feast It is true that the plural rrtjQBf appears irreconcilable with this; for Kimchi's opinion, that rrijDB* is a singular, written with Cholem instead of Patachy is purely a lit of perplexity, and the explanation given by Gussetius, that Ezekiel speaks in the plural of weeks, 1 the reference is "to the institution of the PftSSOVer as an annual festival to be celebrated many times in the series of times and ages," is no better. The plural T\\$2p must rather be taken as a plural of genus, as in n>\ (Jen. xiii. 12 and Judg. xii. 7; [H3, Gen. xix. 29; or E':z, (Jon. xxi. 7, [sa. xxxvii. 3; so that Ezekiel speaks indefinitely of heptads of days, because he assumes that the fact is well known that the feast only lasted one heptad of days, as he expressly states in ver. 23. If this explanation of the plural does not commend itself, we must take rrtjQt? as a copyist's error for n^SE?, feast of a heptad of days, i.e. a feast lasting a full week, and attribute the origin of this copyist's error to the fact that njDBJ:n naturally suggested the thought of TiSyyy:n, feast of weeks, or Pentecost, not merely because the feast of Pentecost is always mentioned in the Pentateuch along with the feasts of Passover and tabernacles, but also because the onlv singular form of T\Syyy that we meet with elsewhere is 5ft3P (Dan. ix. 27), or in the construct state JDB> (Gen. xxix. 27), not T\$2V and HEM?.— The word ncari is used here as in Deut. xvi. 1, 2, so that it includes the seven days' feast of unleavened bread. The Niphal 73N.1 is construed with the accusative in the olden style: mazzoth shall men eat. — In vers. 22 and 23 there follow the regulations concerning the sacrifices of this festival, and first of all concerning the sinoffering to be presented on the fourteenth day, on the evening of which the paschal lamb was slaughtered and the paschal meal was held (ver. 22). The Mosaic legislation makes no allusion to this, but simply speaks of festal sacrifices for the seven days of mazzoth, the loth to the 21st Abib (Lev. xxiii. 5—8; Num. xxviii. 16-25), with regard to which fresh regulations are also given here. The Mosaic law prescribes for each of these seven days as burnt-offerings two bullocks, a ram, and seven yearling lambs, as a meat-offering; three-tenths of an ephah of meal mixed with oil for each bullock, two-tenths for the ram, and one-tenth for each lamb, and a he-goat for the sin-offering (Num. xxviii. 19-22). The new law for the feasts, on the other hand, also requires, it is true, only one he-goat daily for a sin-offering on the seven feast days, but for the daily burnt-offerings seven bullocks and seven rams each; and for the meat-offering, an ephah of meal and a hin of oil for every bullock and for every ram. In the new thorah, therefore, the burnt-offerings and meat-offerings are much richer and more copious, and the latter in far greater measure than the former. — Ver. 25. The same number of sacrifices is to be offered throughout the feast of seven days falling upon the fifteenth day of the seventh month. This feast is the feast of tabernacles, but the name is not mentioned, doubtless because the practice of living in tabernacles (booths) would be dropped in the time to come. And even with regard to the sacrifices of this feast, the new tlwraU differs greatly from the old. According to the Mosaic law, there were to be offered, in addition to the daily sin-offering of a he-goat, seventy bullocks in all as burnt-offerings for the seven days; and these were to be so distributed that on the first day thirteen were to be offered, and the number was to be reduced by one on each of the following days, so that there would be only seven bullocks upon the seventh day; moreover, every day two rams and fourteen yearling lambs were to be offered, together with the requisite quantity of meal and oil for a meat-offering according to the number of the animals (Num. xxix. 12-34). According to Ezekiel, on the other hand, the quantity of provision made for the sacrifices remained the same as that appointed for the feast of Passover; so that the whole cost of the burnt-offerings and meat-offerings did not reach the amount required by the Mosaic law. In addition to all this, there was an eighth day observed as a closing festival in the Mosaic feast of tabernacles, with special sacrifices; and this also is wanting in Ezekiel. — But the following is still more important than the points of difference just mentioned: Ezekiel only mentions the two yearly feasts of seven days in the first and seventh months, and omits not only the Pentecost, or feast of weeks, but also the day of trumpets, on the first of the seventh month, and the day of atonement on the tenth; from which we must infer that the Israel of the future would keep only the two first named of all the yearlv feasts. The correctness of this conclusion is placed beyond the reach of doubt by the fact that he practically transfers the feasts of the day of trumpets and of the day of atonement, which were preparatory to the feast of tabernacles, to the first month, by the appointment of special sin-offerings for the first and seventh days of that month (vers. 18-20), and of a sin-offering on the day of the paschal meal (ver. 22). This essentially transforms the idea which lies at the foundation of the cycle of Mosaic feasts, as we intend subsequently to show, when discussing the meaning and significance of the whole picture of the new kingdom of God, as shown in ch. xl.-xlviii.