Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Chap. xlvi. 1-15. Sacrifices for the Sabbath and New Moon, Freewill- Offerings, and Daily Sacrifices.

Vers. 1-7. Sacrifices for the Sabbath and New Moon. — As, according to ch. xlv. 17, it devolved upon the prince to provide and bring the sacrifices for himself and the house of

Israel; after tlie appointment of the sacrifices to be offered at the yearly feasts (eh. xlv. 18-25), and before the regulation of the sacrifices for the Sabbath and new moon (ch. xlvi. 4-7), directions are given as to the conduct of the prince at the offering of these sacrifices (ch. xlvi. 1-3). For although the slaughtering and preparation of the sacrifices for the altar devolved upon the priests, the prince was to be present at the offering of the sacrifices to be provided by him, whereas the people were under no obligation to appear before the Lord in the temple except at the yearly feasts.

Ver. 1. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, The gate of the inner court, which looks toward the east, shall be shut the six working days, and on the Sabbath it shall be opened, and on the day of the new moon it shall be opened. Ver. 2. And the prince shall come by the way to the porch of the gate from without, and stand at the posts of the gate, and the priests shall prepare his burntoffering and his peace-offerings, and he shall worship on the threshold of the gate and then go out; but the gate shall not be shut till the evening. Ver. 3. And the people of the land shall worship at the entrance of that gate on the Sabbaths and on the new moons before Jehovah. Ver. 4. And the burnt-offering which the prince shall offer to Jehovah shall consist on the Sabbath-day of six lambs without blemish and a ram without blemish; Ver. 5. And as a meat-offering, an ephah for the ram, and for the lambs as a meatoffering that which his hand may give, and of oil a hin to the ephah (of meal). Ver. G. A nd on the day of the new moon there shall be a bullock, a young ox icithout blemish, and six lambs and a ram without blemish; Ver. 7. And he shall put an ephah for the bullock and an ephah for the ram for the meat-offering, and for the lambs as much as his hand affords, and of oil a hin for the ephah. — Vers. 1-3 supply and explain the instructions given in ch. xliv. 1-3 concerning the outer eastern gate. As the east gate of the outer court (ch. xliv. 1), so also the east gate of the inner court was to remain closed during the six working days, and only to be opened on the Sabbaths and new moons, when it was to remain open till the evening. The prince was to enter this inner east gate, and to stand there and worship upon the threshold while his sacrifice was being prepared and offered. TJJBfai DJW!TTj Nis is to be taken as in eh. xliv. 3; but p" D, which is appended, is not to be referred to the entrance into the inner court, as the statement would be quite superfluous so far as this is concerned, since any one who was not already in the inner court must enter the gate-building of the inner court from without, or from the outer court. The meaning of H*1*? is rather that the prince was to enter, or to go to, the gate porch of the inner court through the outer east gate. There he was to stand at the posts of the gate and worship on the threshold of the gate during the sacrificial ceremony; and when this was over he was to go out again, namely, by the same way by which he entered (ch. xliv. 3). But the people who came to the temple on the Sabbaths and new moons were to worship nn3? i.e. at the entrance of this gate, outside the threshold of the gate. Kliefoth is wrong in taking nnQ in the sense of through the doorway, as signifying that the people were to remain in front of the outer east gate, and to worship looking at the temple through this gate and through the open gate between. For fcttfin *ty$n, this gate, can only be the gate of the inner court, which has been already mentioned. There is no force in the consideration which has led Kliefoth to overlook ^nn? and think of the outer gate, namely, that " it would be unnatural to suppose that the people were to come into the outer court through the outer north and south gates, whilst the outer east gate remained shut (or perhaps more correctly, was opened for the prince), and so stand in front of the inner court," as it is impossible to see what there is that is unnatural in such a supposition. On the other hand, it is unnatural to assume that the people, who, according to ver. 9, were to come through the north and south gates into the outer court at all the DHyiD to appear before Jehovah, were not allowed to enter the court upon the Sabbaths and new moons if they should wish to worship before Jehovah upon these days also, but were to stand outside before the gate of the outer court. The difference between the princes and the people, with regard to visiting the temple upon the Sabbaths and new moons, consisted chiefly in this, that the prince could enter by the outer east gate and proceed as far as the posts of the middle gate, and there worship upon the threshold of the gate, whereas the people were only allowed to come into the outer court through the outer north and south gates, and could only proceed to the front of the middle gate. — Vers. 4 sqq. The burnt-offering for the Sabbath is considerably increased when compared with that appointed in the Mosaic law. The law requires two yearling lambs with the corresponding meat-offering (Num. xxviii. 9); Ezekiel, six lambs and one ram, and in addition to these a meatoffering for the ram according to the proportion already laid down in ch. xlv. 24 for the festal sacrifices; and for the lambs, iT nriDj a gift, a present of his hand, — that is to say, not a handful of meal, but, according to the formula used in alternation with it in ver. 7, as much as his hand can afford. For "tt?K3 iT 3'feffi, see Lev. xiv. 30, xxv. 26. — It is different with the sacrifices of the new moon in vers. 6 and 7. The law of Moses prescribed two bullocks, one ram, and seven lambs, with the corresponding meat-offering, and a he-goat for a sin-offering (Num. xxviii. 11-15); the thorah of Ezekiel, on the contrary, omits the sin-offering, and reduces the burnt-offering to one bullock, one ram, and six lambs, together with a meat-offering, according to the proportion already mentioned, which is peculiar to his law. The first &wnn in ver. 6 is a copyist's error for

Vers. 8-12. On the Opening of the Temple for the People, and for the Voluntary Offerings of the Prince. — Ver. 8. And when the prince cometh, he shall go in by the way to the porch of the gate, and by its way shall he go out. Ver. 9. And ichcn the people of the land come before

Jehovah on the feast days, he who enters through the north gate to worship sliall go out through the south gate; and lie who enters through the south gate shall go out through the north gate: they shall not return through the gate through which they entered, but go out straight forward. Ver. 10. And the prince shall enter in the midst of tliem, when they enter; and when they go out, they shall go out (together). Ver. 11. And at the feast days and holy days the meat-offering shall be an ephah for the bullock, an ephah for the ram, and for the lambs what his hand may give, and of oil a hin for the ephah. Ver. 12. And when the prince prepares a voluntary burnt-offering or voluntary peace-offerings to Jehovah, they shall open the gate that looks to the east, and he sliall prepare his burnt-offerings and his peace-offering as he does on the Sabbath day; and when he has gone out they shall shut the gate after his going out. — The coming of the people to worship before Jehovah has been already mentioned in ver. 3, but only casually, with reference to the position which they were to take behind the prince in case any individuals should come on the Sabbaths or new moons, on which they were not bound to appear. At the high festivals, on the other hand, every one was to come (Deut. xvi. 16); and for this there follow the necessary directions in vers. 9 and 10, to prevent crowding and confusion. For the purpose of linking these directions to what comes before, the rule already laid down in ver. 2 concerning the entrance and exit of the prince is repeated in ver. 8. GHyio is supposed by the commentators to refer to the hijjh festivals of the first and seventh months (ch. xlv. 21 and 25); but Dnjto does not apply to the same feasts as those which are called DW in ver. 11, as we may see from the combination of D*an and DH^°- D*sn is the term applied to the greater annual feasts, as distinguished from the Sabbaths, new moons, and the day of atonement. The D^iOj on the contrary, are all the times and days sanctified to the Lord, including even the Sabbath (see the comm. on Lev. xxiii. 2). It is in this sense that DHJIiD is used here in ver. 9, and not D^n j because what is laid down concerning the entrance and exit of the people, when visiting the temple, is not merely intended to apply to the high festivals, on which the people were bound to appear before Jehovah, but also to such feast days as the Sabbaths and new moons, whenever individuals from among the people were desirous of their own free-will to worship before the Lord. The latter cases were not to be excluded, although, as ver. 10 clearly shows, the great feasts were principally kept in mind. For the entrance and exit of the prince in the midst of the people (ver. 10) apply to the great yearly feasts alone. The Chetib *W£ in ver. 9 is to be preferred to the easier Keri fcttP, and is not merely the more difficult reading, but the more correct reading also, as two kinds of people are mentioned, — those who entered by the north gate and those who entered by the south. Both are to go out walking straight forward; and neither of them is to turn in the court for the purpose of going out by the gate through which he entered. Even in ver. 10 *K!P is not to be altered, as Hitzig supposes, but to be taken as referring to the prince and the people. — In ver. 11, the instructions given in ch. xlv. 24, xlvi. 5, 7, concerning the quantities composing the meatoffering for the different feasts, are repeated here as rules applicable to all festal times. CHyiDIft D^FTp has been correctly explained as follows: " at the feasts, and generally at all regular (more correctly, established) seasons," cf. ch. xlv. 17. Only the daily sacrifices are excepted from this rule, other regulations being laid down for them in ver. 14. — Ver. 12. The freewill-offerings could be presented on any week-day. And the rules laid down in vers. 1 and 2 for the Sabbath-offerings of the prince are extended to cases of this kind, with one modification, namely, that the east gate, which had been opened for the occasion, should be closed again as soon as the sacrificial ceremony was over, and not left open till the evening, as on the Sabbath and new moon. nni3 is a substantive: the freewilloffering, which could be either a burnt-offering or a peaceoffering.

yearling lamb without blemish shalt thou prepare as a burntoffering daily for Jehovah: every morning shalt thou prepare it. Ver. 14. And a meat-offering shalt thou add to it every morning, a sixth of an ephah, and oil a third of a hin, to moisten the wheaten flour, as a meat-offering for Jehovah: let these be everlasting statutes, perpetually enduring. Ver. 15. And prepare the lamb, and the meat-offering, and the oil, every morning as a perpetual burnt- offering. — The preparation of the daily sacrifice is not imposed upon the prince, in harmony with ch. xlv. 17; it is the duty of the congregation, which the priests have to superintend. Every morning a yearling lamb is to be brought as a burnt-offering. The Mosaic law required such a lamb both morning and evening (Num. xxviii. 3, 4). The new tlwrah omits the evening sacrifice, but increases the meat-offering to the sixth of an ephah of meal and the third of a hin of oil, against the tenth of an ephah of meal and the fourth of a hin of oil prescribed by the Mosaic law (Num. xxviii. 5). Di, from DD-j, air. \ey., to moisten (cf. D'P'?"!, Song of Sol. v. 2). The plural nipn refers to the burnt-offering and meat-offering. Tpn is added to give greater force, and, according to the correct remark of Hitzig, appears to be intended as a substitute for CTnhni> in Lev. xxiii. 14, 21, 31. The repeated emphasizing of *i£33 "ip'sn shows that the silence as to the evening sacrifice is not a mere oversight of the matter, but that in the new order of worship the evening sacrifice is to be omitted. The Cheiib WW is to be retained, in opposition to the Keri «?£;

This brings to an end the new order of worship. The verses which follow in the chapter before us introduce two supplementary notices, — namely, a regulation pointing back to ch. xlv. 7-9, concerning the right of the prince to hand down or give away his landed property (vers. 16-18); and a brief description of the sacrificial kitchens for priests and people (vers. 19-21).

Vers. 1 G-18. On the Right of the Prince to dispose of his Landed Property. — Ver. 16. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, If the prince gives a present to one of his sons, it is his inheritance, shall belong to his sons; it is their possession, in an hereditary way. Ver. 17. But if he gives a present from his inheritance to one of his servants, it shall belong to him till the year of liberty, and then return to the prince; to his sons alone shall his inheritance remain. Ver. 18. And the prince shall not take from the inheritance of the people, so as to thrust them out of their possession; from his own possession he shall transmit to his sons, that no one of my people be scattered from his possession. -—According to ch. xlv. 7, 8, at the future division of the land among the tribes, a possession was to be given to the prince on both sides of the holy heave and of the city domain, that he might not seize upon a possession by force, as the former princes had done. The prince might give away portions of this royal property, but only within such limits that the design with which a regal possession had been granted might not be frustrated. To his sons, as his heirs, he might make gifts therefrom, which would remain their own property; but if he presented to any one of his servants a portion of his hereditary property, it was to revert to the prince in the year of liberty; just as, according to the Mosaic law, the hereditary field of an Israelite, which had been alienated, was to revert to its hereditarv owner (Lev. xxvii. 24, compared with xxv. 10-13). Th-e suffix in Srvnj (ver. 16) is not to be taken as referring to the prince, and connected with the preceding words in opposition to the accents, but refers to PJ3D K^K. What the prince gives to one of his sons from his landed property shall be his n^, i-e. his hereditary possession. This is expressed still more generally in the next clause: to his (the prince's) sons shall it (the land presented) belong as their iW]?, i.e. after the manner of an hereditary possession. On the other hand, what the prince presents to one of his servants shall not become hereditary in his case, but shall revert to the prince in the year of liberty, or the year of jubilee. The second half of ver. 17 reads verbally thus: u only his inheritance is it; as for his sons, it shall belong to them." — And as the prince was not to break up his regal possession by presents made to servants, so was lie (ver. 18) also not to put any one out of his possession by force, for the purpose, say, of procuring property for his own sons; but was to give his sons their inheritance from his own property alone. For n:^ compare ch. xlv. 8, and such passages as 1 Sam. viii. 14, xxii. 7. We shall return by and by to the question, how this regulation stands related to the view that the prince is the Messiah.

Vers. 19-24. The Sacrificial Kitchens for the Priests and for the People. — Ver. 19. And he brought me up the entrance by the shoulder of the gate to the holy cells for the priests, which looked to the north; and behold there ivas a place on the outermost side toward the west, Ver. 20. And he said to me, This is the place where the priests boil the trespassoffering and the sin-offering, where they bake the meat-offering that they may not need to carry it out into the outer court, to sanctify the people. Ver. 21. And he led me out into the outer court, and caused me to pass by the four corners of the court; and behold, in every corner of the court there was again a court, Ver. 22. In the four corners of the court were closed courts of forty cubits in length and thirty cubits in breadth; all four corner spaces had one measure, Ver. 23. And a row of stands vjas round about therein in all four, and boiling hearths were under the rows made round about. Ver. 24. And he said to me, These are the kitchen-house, where the servants of the house boil the slain - offering of the people, — In the list and description of the subordinate buildings of the temple, the sacrificial kitchens are passed over; and they are therefore referred to here again in a supplementary manner. Ewald has shifted vers. 19-24, and placed them after ch. xlii. 14, which would certainly have been the most suitable place for mentioning the sacrificial kitchens for the priests. But it is evident that they stood here originally, and not there; not only from the fact that in ver. 19a the passage to the holy cells (ch. xlii. 1 sqq.) is circumstantially described, which would have been unnecessary if the description of the kitchens had originally followed immediately after ch. xlii. 14, as Ezekiel was then standing by the cells; but also, and still more clearly, from the words that serve as an introduction to what follows, " he led me back to the door of the house" (ch. xlvii. 1), which are unintelligible unless he had changed his standing- place between ch. xlvi. 18 and xlvii. 1, as is related in ch. xlvi. 19 and 21, since Ezekiel had received the sacrificial tJiorah (ch. xliv. 5-xlvi. 18) in front of the house (ch. xliv. 4). If vers. 19-24 had originally stood elsewhere, so that ch. xlvii. 1 was immediately connected with ch. xlvi. 18, the transitionformula in ch. xlvii. la would necessarily have read very differently. — But with this section the right of the preceding one, vers. 16-18, which Ewald has arbitrarily interpolated in ch. xlv. between vers. 8 and 9, to hold its present place in the chapter before us as an appendix, is fully vindicated. — The holy cells (ver. 19) are those of the northern cell-building (chxlii. 1-10) described in ch. xlii. 1-14 (see Plate I. L). Kta©3 is the approach or way mentioned in ch. xlii. 9, which led from the northern inner gate to these cells (see Plate I. I); not the place to which Ezekiel was brought (Kliefoth), but the passage along which he was led. The spot to which he was conducted follows in rtoSPpn?X (the article before the construct state, as in ch. xliii. 21, etc.). &^n'3? ^ is appended to this "in the form of an apposition; and here nbt'v is to be repeated in thought: to those for the priests. rS niJbn belongs to nfaSFpn. There, i.e. by the cells, was a space set apart at the outermost (hindermost) sides toward the west (Plate I. Ji), for the boiling of the flesh of the trespass-offering and sin-offering, and the baking of the minchah, — that is to say, of those portions of the sacrifices which the priests were to eat in their official capacity (see the comm. on ch. xlii. 13). For the motive assigned in ver. 20b for the provision of special kitchens for this object, see the exposition of ch. xliv. 19. — In addition to these, kitchens were required for the preparation of the sacrificial meals, which were connected with the offering of the shelamim, and were held by those who presented them. These sacrificial kitchens for the people are treated of in vers. 20-24. They were situated in the four corners of the outer court (Plate I. N). To show them to the prophet, the angel leads him into the outer court. The holy cells (ver. 19) and the sacrificial kitchens for the priests (ver. 20) were also situated by the outside wall of the inner court; and for this reason Ezekiel had already been led out of the inner court, where he had received the sacrificial tliorah, through the northern gate of the court by the way which led to the holy cells, that he might be shown the sacrificial kitchens. When, therefore, it is stated in ver. 21 that " he led me out into the outer court," *3K^ can only be explained on the supposition that the space from the surrounding wall of the inner court to the way which led from the gate porch of that court to the holy cells, and to the passage which continued this way in front of the cells (Plate I. / and m), was regarded as an appurtenance of the inner court. In every one of the four corners of the outer court there was a (small) courtyard in the court. The repetition of 'nn yVppn i>ti has a distributive force. The small courtyards in the four corners of the court were rihDp? i.e. not " uncovered," as this would be unmeaning, since all courts or courtyards were uncovered; nor " contracted " (Bottcher), for "it?hj has no such meaning; nor " fumum exlialantia" as the Talmudists suppose; nor u bridged over " (Hitzig), which there is also nothing in the language to sustain; but in all probability atria clausa, i. e. muris cincta et januis clausa (Ges. Thes.), from ^\>; in Aram, ligavit; in Ethiop. clausit, obseravit januam. The word niy^prup is marked with puncta extraor dinar ia by the Masoretes as a suspicious word, and is also omitted in the Septuagint and Vulgate.

Bottcher and Hitzig have therefore expunged it as a gloss. But even Hitzig admits that this does not explain how it found its way into the text. The word is a Ilophal participle of WP, in the sense of cornered off, cut off into corners, and is in apposition to the suffix to Dnysnftpj — literally, one measure was to all four, the spaces or courtyards cut off in the corners. For this appositional use of the participle, compare 1 Kings xiv. 6. There is also a difference of opinion as to the meaning of the word "MD, which only occurs here and in Ex. xxviii. 17 sqq. and xxxix. 10, where it signifies " row," and not "enclosure" (Kliefoth). niTDj which follows, is evidently merely the feminine plural, from "VID, as HTp is also derived from "ftD, in the sense of "to encircle" (see the comm. on Ps. Ixix. 26). Consequently tid does not mean a covering or boundary wall, but a row or shelf of brickwork which had several separate shelves, under which the cooking hearths were placed. riv^aD, not kitchens, but cooking hearths; strictly speaking a partic. Piel, things which cause to boil. — Dvl^Eiri JV3, kitchen house. n^n VT"!?^ the temple servants, as distinguished from the servants of Jehovah (ch. xliv. 15, 16), are the Levites (ch. xliv. 11, 12). W$ is construed as in ch. xl. 17 and xli. 18, 19.

CHAP. XLVII. AND XLVIIT. BLESSING OF THE LAND OF CANAAN, AND DISTRIBUTION OF IT AMONG THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL.

After Ezekiel had seen the entrance of the glory of the Lord into the new temple, which was measured before his eyes, and had received the new tJiorah to be announced to the people concerning the service which Israel was to render to its God in the new sanctuary, a stream of living water was shown to him, proceeding from the threshold of the temple, flowing to the Arabah, and emptying itself into the Dead Sea, to fertilize the barren soil, and fill the salt water of the Dead Sea with vital power (ch. xlvii. 1-12); and finally, the command of the Lord is communicated to him concerning the boundaries of the holy land, its distribution among the twelve tribes of Israel, and the building of the holy city (ch. xlvii. 13-xlviii. 35).

When Jehovah shall have judged all the heathen in the valley of Jehoshaphat, and shall dwell as King of His people upon Zion His holy mountain, then will the mountains trickle with new wine, and the hills run with milk, and all the brooks of Judah flow with water; and a spring will proceed from the house of Jehovah, and water the Acacia valley. With these figures Joel (ch. iv. 18) has already described the river of salvation, which the Lord would cause to flow to His congregation in the time when the kingdom of God shall be perfected. This picture of the Messianic salvation shapes itself in the case of our prophet into the magnificent vision contained in the section before us.1 — Ver. 1. And he led me bach to the door of the house, and, behold, water flowed, out from under the threshold of the house toward the east, for the front side of the house icas toward the east; and the water flowed down from below, from the rigid shoulder of the house on the south of the altar. Ver. 2. And he led me out by the way of the north (jate, and caused me to go round about on the outside, to the outer gate of the way to the (gate), looking toward the east; and, behold, waters rippled for the right shoulder of the gate. Ver. 3. When the man went out toward the east, he had a measuring line in his hand, and he measured, a thousand cubits, and caused me to go through the water — water to the ankles. Ver. 4. And he measured a thousand, and caused me to go through the water — water to the knees; and he measured a thousand, and caused me to go through — water to the hips. Ver. 5. And he measured a thousand — - a river through which I could not walk, for the water was high, water to swim in, a river which could not be forded. Ver. 6. And he said to me, Hast thou seen it, son of man? and he led me back again by the bank of the river. Ver. 7. When I returned, behold, there stood on the bank of the river very many trees on this side and on that. Ver. 8. And he said to me, This water flows out into the eastern circle, and runs down into the plain, and reaches the sea; into the sea is it carried out, that the waters may become wholesome. Ver. 9. And it will come to pass, every living thing with vsJdch it swarms everywhere, whither the double river comes, will live, and there will be very many fishes; for when this water comes thither they will become wholesome, and everything will live whither the river comes. Ver. 10. And fishermen will stand by it, from Engedi to Eneglaim they will spread out nets; after their kind will there be fishes therein, like the fishes of the great sea, very many. Ver. 11. Its marshes and its swamps, they will not become wholesome, they will be given up to salt. Ver. 12. And by the river will all kinds of trees of edible fruit grow on its bank, on this side and on that; their leaves %o ill not wither, and their fruits will not fail; every moon they ivill bear ripe fruit, for its vmter flows out of its sanctuary. And their fruits will serve as food, and their leaves as medicine. From the outer court, where Ezekiel had been shown the sacrificial kitchens for the people (ch. xlvi. 21 sqq.), he is taken back to the front of the door of the temple house, to be shown a spring of water, flowing out from under the threshold of the temple, which has swollen in the short course of four thousand cubits from its source into a deep river in which men can swim, and which flows down to the Jordan valley, to empty itself into the Dead Sea. In vers. 1 and 2, the origin and course of this water are described; in vers. 3 and 5, its marvellous increase; in ver. 6, the growth of trees on its banks; in vers. 7—12, its emptying itself into the Arabah and into the Dead Sea, with the life-giving power of its water. — Ver. 1. The door of the house is the entrance into the holy place of the temple, and I^EO rviin the threshold of this door. n?^i?, not "in the east" (Ilitzig), for the following sentence explaining the reason does not require this meaning; but u toward the east" of the threshold, which lay toward the east, for the front of the temple was in the east, rinno is not to be connected with pjnsp, but to be taken by itself, only not in the sense of downwards (Hitzig), but from beneath, namely, down from the right shoulder of the house. Ti\ to flow down, because the temple stood on higher ground than the inner court. The right shoulder is the part of the eastern wall of the holy place between the door and the pillars, the breadth of which was five cubits (ch. xli. 1). The water therefore issued from the corner formed by the southern wall of the porch and the eastern wall of the holy place (see the sketch on Plate I.), and flowed past the altar of burnt-offering on the south side, and crossed the court in an easterly direction, passing under its surrounding wall. It then flowed across the outer court and under the pavement and the eastern wall into the open country, where the prophet, on the outside in front of the gate, saw it rippling forth from the right shoulder of that gate. That he might do this, he was led out through the north gate, because the east gate was shut (ch. xliv. 1), and round by the outside wall to the eastern outer gate, pn 7]"n is more minutely defined by pinn "W'^, and this, again, by BHjj n:)Br\ rpn9 " by the way to the (gate) looking eastwards." The air. Xey. D^BB, Piel of HDQj related to H33, most probably signifies to ripple, not to trickle. D)0 has no article, because it is evident from the context that the water was the same as that which Ezekiel had seen in the inner court, issuing from the threshold of the temple. The right shoulder is that portion of the eastern wall which joined the south side of the gate. — Vers. 3-5. The miraculous increase in the depth of the water. A thousand cubits from the wall, as one walked through, it reached to the ankles; a thousand cubits further, to the knees; a thousand cubits further, to the hips; and after going another thousand cubits it was impossible to wade through, one could only swim therein. The words D^DDK "»D are a brief expression for " there was water which reached to the ankles." DBS is equivalent to

Da, an ankle, not the sole of the foot. In 1 Chron. xi. 13, on the other hand, we have D^ DQ for DW DDX. The striking expression D*3"}3 D*0 for M"}3 *B may possibly have been chosen because B*?"^ *? had the same meaning as *D*D Dwi in Isa. xxxvi. 12 (Keri). The measuring man directed the prophet's attention (ver. 6) to this extraordinary increase in the stream of water, because the miraculous nature of the stream was exhibited therein. A natural river could not increase to such an extent within such short distances, unless, indeed, other streams emptied themselves into it on all sides, which was not the case here. He then directed him to go back a^ain risb>?X\ along; the bank, not " to the bank," as he had never left it. The purpose for which he had been led along the bank was accomplished after he had gone four thousand cubits. From the increase in the water, as measured up to this point, he could infer what depth it would reach in its further course. He is therefore now to return along the bank to see how it is covered with trees. *?3fflH3 cannot be explained in any other way than as an incorrect form for *3*?P3, though there are no corresponding analogies to be found.

In vers. 8-12 he gives him a still further explanation of the course of the river and the effect of its waters. The river flows out into •"UiDljjn n^Y^j the eastern circle, which is identical with HnM nwvJ, the circle of the Jordan (Josh. xxii. 10, 11), widens out into a broad, deep basin. ^^V!} is the deep valley of the Jordan, now called the Ghor (see the comm. on Deut. i. 1), of which Robinson says that the greater part remains a desolate wilderness. It was so described in ancient times (see Joseph.

*3tolj5n in ver. 18, and the sea of the Arabah in Deut. iii. 17,

B^Wntan n&WT7tt as an emphatic summing up of the previous statement concerning the outflow of the water, to which the explanation concerning its effect upon the Dead Sea is attached, and supply ^3 from the clause immediately preceding: u the waters of the river that have been brought out (come) to the sea, and the waters of the Dead Sea are healed." There is no need, therefore, for the emendation proposed by Hitzig, namely, D'N^riD Dn DVt bs. So much, however, is beyond all doubt, that ns*n is no other than the Dead Sea already mentioned. The supposition that it is the Mediterranean Sea (Chald., Ros., Ewald, and others) cannot be reconciled with the words, and has only been transferred to this passage from Zech. xiv. 8. N3"0 signifies, as in 2 Kings ii. 22, the healing or rendering wholesome of water that is injurious or destructive to life. The character of the Dead Sea, with which the ancients were also well acquainted, and of which Tacitus writes as follows: Lacus immenso ambitu, specie maris sapor e comiptior, gravitate odor is accolis pestifer, neque vento impellitur neque pisces aut suetas aquis volucres patitur (Hist. v. c. 6), — a statement confirmed by all modern travellers (cf. v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 61 sqq., and Robinson, Pliysical Geography of the Holy Land), — is regarded as a disease of the water, which is healed or turned into wholesome water in which fishes can live, by the water of the river proceeding from the sanctuary. The healing and life-giving effect of this river upon the Dead Sea is described in vers. 9 and 10. Whithersoever the waters of the river come, all animated beings will come to life and flourish. In ver. 9 the dual Bv>n: occasions some difficulty. It is not likely that the dual should have been used merely for the sake of its resemblance to D?p, as Maurer imagines; and still less probable is it that there is any allusion to a junction of the river proceeding from the temple at some point in its course with the Kedron, which also flows into the Dead Sea (Havernick), as the Kedron is not mentioned either before or afterwards. According to Kliefoth, the dual is intended to indicate a division which takes place in the waters of the river, that have hitherto flowed on together, as soon as they enter the sea. But this would certainly have been expressed more clearly. Hengstenberg takes the expression u double river " to mean a river with a strong current, and refers to Jer. 1. 21 in support of this. This is probably the best explanation; for nothing is gained by altering the text into D^ro (Ewald) or QvTO (Hitzig), as ^ does not require definition by means of a suffix, nor does the plural answer to the context. '131 "i^N"'5? '*? is to be taken in connection with Y^W] "1BW: " wherewith it swarms whithersoever the river comes;" though?K does not stand for /V after Gen. vii. 21, as Hitzig supposes, but is to be explained from a species of attraction, as in Gen. xx. 13. iWT is a pregnant expression, to revive, to come to life. The words are not to be understood, however, as meaning that there were living creatures in the Dead Sea before the health-giving water flowed into it; the thought is simply, that whithersoever the waters of the river come, there come into existence living creatures in the Dead Sea, so that it swarms with them. In addition to the P.SP, the quantity of fish is specially mentioned; and in the second hemistich the reason is assigned for the number of living creatures that come into existence by a second allusion to the health-giving power of the water of the river. The subject to ttlffVI, viz. the waters of the Dead Sea, is to be supplied from the context. The great abundance of fish in the Dead Sea produced by the river is still further depicted in ver. 10. Fishermen will spread their nets along its coast from Engedi to Eneglaim; and as for their kind, there will be as many kinds of fish there as are to be found in the great or Mediterranean Sea. *]jj py, i.e. Goat's spring, now Ain-Jidi, a spring in the middle of the west coast of the Dead Sea, with ruins of several ancient buildings (see the comm. on Josh. xv. 62, and v. Raumer, Pal. p. 188). DvJJJ py has not yet been discovered, though, from the statement of Jerome, u Engallim is at the beginning of the Dead Sea, where the Jordan enters it," it has been conjectured that it is to be found in Ain el-Feshkhah, a spring at the northern end of the west coast, where there are also ruins of a small square tower and other buildings to be seen (vid. Robinson's Palestine, II. pp. 491, 492), as none of the other springs on the west coast, of which there are but few, answer so well as this. WW is pointed without Mappik, probably because the Masoretes did not regard the il as a suffix, as the noun to which it alludes does not follow till afterwards. — Ver. 11 introduces an exception, namely, that notwithstanding this the Dead Sea will still retain marshes or pools and swamps, which will not be made wholesome (Ttiti® for flto, pools). An allusion to the natural character of the Dead Sea underlies the words. u In the rainy season, when the sea is full, its waters overspread many low tracts of marsh land, which remain after the receding of the water in the form of moist pools or basins; and as the water in these pools evaporates rapidly, the ground becomes covered with a thick crust of salt" (Robinson's Physical Geography, p. 215). OW rrop, they are given up to salt, i.e. destined to remain salt, because the waters of the river do not reach them. The light in which the salt is regarded here is not that of its seasoning properties, but, in the words of Hengstenberg, " as the foe to all fruitfulness, all life and prosperity, as Pliny has said (Hist. Nat. xxxi. c. 7: Omnis locus, in quo reperitur sal, sterilis est nihilque gignit") (cf. Deut. xxix. 22; Jer. xvii. 6; Zeph. ii. 9; Ps. cvii. 34). — In ver. 12 the effect of the water of the river upon the vegetation of the ground, already mentioned in ver. 7, is still further described. On its coast grow all kinds of trees with edible fruits (?3W? YV., as in Lev. xix. 23), whose leaves do not wither, and whose fruits do not fail, but ripen every month p!?, to produce first-fruits, i.e. fresh fruits; and &^5? distributive, as in Isa. xlvii. 13), because the waters which moisten the soil proceed from the sanctuary, i.e. " directly and immediately from the dwellingplace of Him who is the author of all vital power and fruitfulness" (Hitzig). The leaves and fruits of these trees therefore possess supernatural powers. The fruits serve as food, i.e. for the maintenance of the life produced by the river of water; the leaves as medicine (fUJVVI from *Ti""i = NSn> healing), i.e. for the healing of the sick and corrupt (eU Oepaireiavj Rev. xxii. 2). In the effect of the water proceeding from the sanctuary upon the Dead Sea and the land on its shores, as described in vers. 8-12, the significance of this stream of water in relation to the new kingdom of God is implied. If, then, the question be asked, what we are to understand by this water, whether we are to take it in a literal sense as the temple spring, or in a spiritual and symbolical sense, the complete answer can only be given in connection with the interpretation of the whole of the temple vision (ch. xl.-xlviii.). Even if we assume for the moment, however, that the description of the new temple, with the worship appointed for it, and the fresh division of Canaan, is to be understood literally, and therefore that the building of an earthly temple upon a high mountain in the most holy terumak of the land set apart for Jehovah, and a renewal of the bleeding sacrifices in this temple by the twelve tribes of Israel, when restored to Palestine from the heathen lands, are to be taken for granted, it would be difficult to combine with this a literal interpretation of what is said concerning the effect of the temple spring. It is true that in Volck's opinion " we are to think of a glorification of nature;" but even this does not remove the difficulties which stand in the way of a literal interpretation of the temple spring. According to ver. 12, its waters possess the life-giving and healing power ascribed to them because they issue from the sanctuary. But how does the possession by the water of the power to effect the glorification of nature harmonize with its issuing from a temple in which bullocks, rams, calves, and goats are slaughtered and sacrificed? — Volck is still further of opinion that, with the spiritual interpretation of the temple spring, u nothing at all could be made of the fishermen;" because, for example, he cannot conceive of the spiritual interpretation in any other way than as an allegorical translation of all the separate features of the prophetic picture into spiritual things. But he has failed to consider that the fishermen with their nets on the shore of the sea, once dead, but now swarming with fish, are irreconcilably opposed to the assumption of a glorification of nature in the holy land, just because the inhabitants of the globe or holy land, in its paradisaically glorified state, will no more eat fish or other flesh, according to the teaching of Scripture, than the first men in Paradise. When once the wolf shall feed with the lamb, the leopard with the kid, the cow with the bear, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox, under the sceptre of the sprout from the stem of Jesse, then will men also cease their fishing, and no longer slaughter and eat either oxen or goats. To this the Israelites will form no exception in their glorified land of Canaan. — And if even these features in the vision before us decidedly favour the figurative or spiritual view of the temple spring, the necessity for this explanation is placed beyond the reach of doubt by a comparison of our picture with the parallel passages. According to Joel iv. 18, at the time when a spring issues from the house of Jehovah and the vale of Shittim is watered, the mountains trickle with new wine, and the hills run with milk. If, then, in this case we understand what is affirmed of the temple spring literally, the trickling of the mountains with new wine and the flowing of the hills with milk must be taken literally as well. But we are unable to attain to the belief that in the glorified land of Israel the mountains will be turned into springs of new wine, and the hills into fountains of milk; and in the words of the whole Verse we can discern nothing but a figurative description of the abundant streams of blessing which will then pour over the entire land. And just as in Joel the context points indisputably to a non-literal or figurative explanation, so also does the free manner in which Zechariah uses this prophecy of his predecessors, speaking only of living waters which issue from Jerusalem, and flow half into the eastern (i.e. the Dead) sea, and half into the western (i.e. the Mediterranean) sea (Zech. xiv. 8), show that he was not thinking of an actual spring with earthly water. And here we are still provisionally passing by the application made of this feature in the prophetic descriptions of the glory of the new kingdom of God in the picture of the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. xxii. 1 and 2).

The figurative interpretation, or spiritual explanation, is moreover favoured by the analogy of the Scriptures. u Water," which renders the unfruitful land fertile, and supplies refreshing drink to the thirsty, is used in Scripture as a figure denoting blessing and salvation, which had been represented even in Paradise in the form of watering (cf. Gen. xiii. 10). In Isa. xii. 3, " and with joy ye draw water from the wells of salvation," *-he figure is expressly interpreted. And so also in Isa. xliv. 3, u I will pour water upon the thirsty one, and streams upon the desert; I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:" where the blessing answers to the water, the Spirit is named as the principal form in which the blessing is manifested, " the foundation of all other salvation for the people of God" (Hengstenberg). This salvation, which Joel had already described as a spring issuing from the house of Jehovah and watering the dry acacia valley, Ezekiel saw in a visionary embodiment as water, which sprang from under the threshold of the temple into which the glory of the Lord entered, and had swollen at a short distance off into so mighty a river that it was no longer possible to wade through. In this way the thought is symbolized, that the salvation which the Lord causes to flow down to His people from His throne will pour down from small beginnings in marvellously increasing fulness. The river flows on into the barren, desolate waste of the Ghor, and finally into the Dead Sea, and makes the waters thereof sound, so that it swarms with fishes. The waste is a figure denoting spiritual drought and desolation, and the Dead Sea a symbol of the death caused by sin. The healing and quickening of the salt waters of that sea, so fatal to all life, set forth the power of that divine salvation which conquers death, and the calling to life of the world sunk in spiritual death.

From this comes life in its creative fulness and manifold variety, as shown both by the figure of the fishermen who spread their nets along the shore, and br the reference to the kinds of fish, which are as manifold in their variety as those in the great I Bat life extends no further than the water <>f salvation Hows.

Wherever it cannot reach, the world continues to lie in death. The pools and swamps of the Dead Sea are still given up to Bait. And lastly, the water of salvation also possesses the power to produce trees with leaves and fruits, by which the life called forth from death can be sustained and cured of all diseases. This is the meaning, according to the express statement of the text, of the trees with their never withering leaves, upon the banks of the river, and their fruits ripening evevy month.

Chap. xJvii. 13-xlviii. 35. Boiuularics and Division of the Holy Land. Description of the City of God.

Chap, xlvii. 13-23. Boundaries of the Land to be divided among the Tribes of Israel. (See the map, Plate IV.) — Ver. 13. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, This is the boundary according to which ye shall divide the land among you for an inheritance, for Joseph portions. Ver. 14. And ye shall receive it for an inlieritance, one as well as another, because I lifted up my hand to give it to your fathers; and thus shall this land fall to you for an inheritance. Ver. 15. And this is the boundary of the land: toward the north side, from the great sea onwards by the way to Chetlon, in the direction of Zedad; Ver. 16. Hamathy Berotah, Sibraim, which is between the boundary of Damascus and the boundary of Hamath, the central Hater, which is on the boundary of Hauran, Ver. 17. And the boundary from the sea shall be Hazar-Enon, the boundary town of Damascus; and as for the north northwards, Hamath is the boundary. This, the north side. Ver. 18. And the east side between Hauran and Damascus and Gilead and the land of Israel, shall be the Jordan; from the boundary to the eastern sea ye shall measure. This, the east side, Ver. 19. And the south side toward the south; from Tamar to the water of strife, Kadesh, along the brook to the great sea. This, the south side toward the south. Ver. 20. And the west side; the great sea from the boundary to Ilamath. litis, the west side. Ver. 21. This land shall ye divide among you according to the tribes of Israel. Ver. 22. And it shall come to pass, ye shall divide it by lot among yourselves for an inheritance, and among the foreigners who dwell in the midst of you, who have begotten sons in the midst of you; they shall be to you like natives born among the sons of Israel; they shall cast lots with you for an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. Ver. 23. And it shall come to pass, in the tribe in ivhich the foreigner dwells, there shall ye give him his inheritance, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah.

The fixing of the boundary of the land which Israel was to divide in future according to its twelve tribes is commenced (vers. 13 and 14) and concluded (vers. 22 and 23) with certain general statements concerning the distribution. The introductory statements are attached to the heading " this is the boundary," which is therefore repeated in ver. 15. Hjj is evidently a copyist's error for nt? which is adopted by all the older translators, contained in some Codd., and demanded by TO in ver. 15. 7)33 stands here for the whole of the boundary of the land to be distributed; and "iC'tf which follows is an accusative, "according to which." — " According to the twelve tribes," — for all Israel is to return and dwell as one people of God under one prince in its own land (ch. xxxvi. 24 sqq., xxxvii. 21 sqq.). But the division among the twelve tribes is more precisely defined immediately afterwards by the clause abruptly appended, " Joseph portions," i.e. two portions for Joseph. There can be no doubt that this is the meaning of the words in accordance with Gen. xlviii. 22 and Josh. xvii. 14, 17. Hence the noticelike form of the expression, which should not be obliterated by pointing D^nn as a dual, Dvjn, If the land was to be divided by lot according to twelve tribes, and the tribe of Levi was to receive its portion from the terumah which was set apart,

Joseph must necessarily receive two hereditary portions for his sons Ephraim ami Manasseh, in accordance with the appointment of the patriarch in Gen. xlviii. 22. The commencement of ver. 14 is not at variance with this, as Hitzig imagines: for the words, u ye shall receive it for an inheritance, one as another," simply affirm, that of the twelve tribes reckoned by Israel in relation to the ^bn), all were to receive equal shares, the one as much as the other. As the reason for this command to divide the land, allusion is math' to the oath with which God promised to give this land to the fathers (cf. ch. xx. 28). — The definition of the boundaries commences with ver. 1"). In form it differs in many points from Num. xxxiv. 1-15, but in actual fact it is in harmony with the Mosaic definition. In Num. xxxiv. the description commences with the southern boundary, then proceeds to the western and northern boundaries, and closes with the eastern. In Ezekiel it commences with the northern boundary and proceeds to the east, the south, and the west. This difference may be explained in a very simple manner, from the fact that the Israelites in the time of Moses came from Egypt i.e. marching from the south, and stood by the south-eastern boundary of the land, whereas at this time they were carried away into the northern lands Assyria and Babylon, and were regarded as returning thence. Again, in Ezekiel the boundaries are described much more briefly than in Num. xxxiv., the northern boundary alone being somewhat more circumstantially described. The course which it takes is represented in a general manner in ver. 15 as running from the great sea, i.e. the Mediterranean, by the way to Chetlon, in the direction towrard Zedad. In vers. 16 and 17 there follow the places which formed the boundary. The starting-point on the Mediterranean Sea can only be approximately determined, as the places mentioned, Chetlon and Zedad, are still unknown. Not only Chetlon, but Zedad also, has not yet been discovered. The city of Sadad (Sudud), to the east of the road leading from Damascus to Hums (Emesa), which Robinson and Wetzstein suppose to be the same, lies much too far toward the east to be used in defining the boundary either here or in Num. xxxiv. 8 (see the comm. on Num. xxxiv. 8). Among the names enumerated in ver. 16, n»n is not the city of Hamah on the Orontes, which lay much too far to the north, but the kingdom of Hamatlij the southern boundary of which formed the northern boundary of Canaan, though it cannot be given with exactness. Berothah is probably identical with Berothai in 2 Sam. viii. 8, a city of the king of Zobah; but the situation of it is still unknown. Sibraim may perhaps be identical with Ziphron in Num. xxxiv. 9, which has also not yet been discovered, and is not to be sought for in the ruins of Zifran, to the north-east of Damascus, near the road to Palmyra; for that place could not form the boundary of Damascus and Hamath. The situation of the "central Hazer" has also not yet been determined. Hauran, on the boundary of which it stood, is used here in a more comprehensive sense than 'Avpavctis in Josephus and other Greek authors, and includes the later Auranitis, together with Gaulanitis (Golan) and Batanaea (Bashan), and probably also Ituraea, as only Damascus and Gilead are named in ver. 18 in addition to Hauran, on the east side of the Jordan; so that the whole tract of land between the territory of Damascus and the country of Gilead is embraced by the name Hauran. pin? Arab. ^ip-> is derived from the number of caves (lin, "nn) in that district, to which Wetzstein (Reiseber. p. 92) indeed raises the objection that with the exception of the eastern and south-eastern Hauran, where no doubt most of the volcanic hills have been perforated by troglodytes, the dwellings in caves are by no means common in that region. But the name may have originated in this eastern district, and possibly have included even that portion of Gilead which was situated to the north of the Jabbok, namely, Erbed and Suet, the true cave-country. For further remarks concerning these districts, see the comm. on Deut. Hi. 4 and 10.

The statement in ver. 17a, " the boundary from the sea shall be Hazar-Enon, the boundary of Damascus," cannot have any other meaning than that the northern boundary, which started from the Mediterranean Sea, stretched as far as Hazar-Enon, the frontier city of Damascus, or that Hazar-Enon formed the terminal point on the east, toward the boundary of Damascus, for the northern boundary proceeding from the sea. ^V tVn or (J*}! WJ (Num. xxxiv. 9), i.e. spring-court, we have endeavoured to identify in the comm. on Num. xxxiv. 3 with the spring Lebwehy which lies in the Bekda at the watershed between the Orontes and the Leontes; and the designation " the boundary of Damascus " suits the situation very well. Ver. lib has been aptly explained by Hitzig thus, in accordance with the literal meaning of the words, u and as for the north northwards, Hamatli is the boundary," which he further elucidates by observing that n^SJ is intended as a supplementary note to the boundary line from west to east, which is indicated just before. ps¥ nfcO nto is a concluding formula: " this, the north side." But n&o (here and vers. 18 and 19) is not to be altered into JIN?, after ver. 20 and the Syriac version, as Hitzig supposes, but to be explained, as ver. 18 clearly shows, on the supposition that Ezekiel had VrtDfl, " ye shall measure," floating before his mind, to which 'a lUtt, " and that the northern boundary," would form a correct logical sequel. — The eastern boundary is defined in ver. 18 in the same manner as in Num. xxxiv. 10—12, except that in the latter it is more minutely described above the Lake of Gennesaret by the mention of several localities, whereas Ezekiel only names the Jordan as the boundary. — DHjJ DNS, with supplementary remarks, is not to be taken as the predicate to the subject iT)'?, as Hitzig has correctly observed; for the meaning of HXQ does not allow of this. The explanation is rather this: as for the east side, between Hauran, etc. and the land of Israel, is the Jordan. Hauran, Damascus, and Gilead lie on the east side of the Jordan, the land of Israel on the west side. The striking circumstance that Ezekiel commences with Hauran, which lay in the middle between Damascus and Gilead, — Hauran, Damascus, and Gilead, instead of Damascus, Hauran, and Gilead, — may probably be explained from the fact that the Jordan, which he names as the boundary, for the sake of brevity, did not extend so far upwards as to the territory of Damascus, but simply formed the boundary of the land of Israel between Hauran and Gilead. 7*23D points back to the northern boundary already mentioned. From this boundary, the eastern terminal point of which was Hazar-Enon, they are to measure to the eastern sea, i.e. to the Dead Sea. — Ver. 19. The southern boundary toward the south is to proceed from Tamar to the water of strife, Kadesh, (and thence) along the brook to the great {i.e. Mediterranean) sea. Tamar, a different place from Hazazon- Tamarj called Engedi in ver. 10 (cf. 2 Chron. xx. 2), is supposed to be the Thamara (Qa/juapd),1 which was a day's journey on the road from Hebron to Aelam (Aelath, Deut. ii. 8; 1 Kings ix. 26), according to Eusebius in the Onomast. ed. Lars, p. 68, and had a Roman garrison; and Robinson (Pal. III. pp. 178 and 186 sqq.) accordingly conjectures that it is to be found in the ruins of Kurnub, which lie six hours' journey to the south of Milh, toward the pass of es-Sufdh. But this conjecture is bound up with various assumptions of a very questionable character, and the situation of Kurnub hardly suits the Tamar of our passage, which should be sought, not to the west of the southern point of the Dead Sea, but, according to the southern boundary of Canaan as drawn in Num. xxxiv. 3-5, to the south of the Dead Sea. The waters of strife of Kadesh (Num. xx. 1-13), in the desert of Zin, were near

1 Tbe statement runs thus: 'hiyirot.i Se t/.c Qctpxpcc kcj/hyi ^naruaoc Ma^j Y\fAipa.$ o'Bo'j/, d,7Ti6vT0)V cc7r6 X£/3/96ji/ tig Ai'ha.fi, Tjrtg vvu typovpiov tart ruv orpocriuT&>u. In Jerome: est et aliud castellum, miius diei itinere a Mampsis oppido separatum, pergentibus A'dlam de Chebron, ubi nunc romanum praesidium positum est. But on account of the Mu\pig (Mampsis), which is evidently a corruption, the passage is obscure. Robinson's conjecture concerning Thamara is founded upon the assumption that the reading should be MaA/?, and that this is the Malatha mentioned by later writers as the station of a Roman cohort

Kadesh-Barnea, which was in the neighbourhood of the spring Ain Kades, discovered hy Rowland to the south of Bir-Seba and KJialasa by the fore-courts of Jebel llelal, i.e. at the north-west corner of the mountain land of the Azazinxch (see the comm. on Num. x. 12, xii. 16, and xx. 16). Instead of nuno we have the singular TO^VO in ch. xlviii. 28, as in Num. xxvii. 14 and Deut. xxxii. 51. Hpna is to be pointed njrw, from 7T\\ with n he.; and the reference is to the brook of Egypt; the great wady el-Arish (PtvoKopovpa), along which the southern boundary of Canaan ran from Kadesh to the Mediterranean Sea (see the comm. on ch. xxxiv. 5). — Ver. 20. The Mediterranean Sea formed the western boundary. ^33?, i>e. from the southern boundary mentioned in ver. 19 till opposite (l"Db IV) to the coming to Ilamath, i.e. till opposite to the point at which one enters the territory of Ilamath (Hitzig), i.e. the spot mentioned in ver. 20 (? 17) as the commencement of the northern boundary in the neighbourhood of the promontory of esh- Shukah, between Byblus (Gebal) and Tripolis. — Ver. 21. This land they are to divide among them according to their tribes. With this remark, which points back to ver. 13, the definition of the boundaries is brought to a close. There is simply added in vers. 22 and 23 a further regulation concerning the foreigners living in Israel. The law of Moses had already repeatedly urged upon the Israelites affectionate treatment of them, and in Lev. xix. 34 the command is given to treat them like natives in this respect, and to love them. But the full right of citizenship was not thereby conceded to them, so that they could also acquire property in land. The land was given to the Israelites alone for an hereditary possession. Foreigners could only be incorporated into the congregation of Israel under the limitations laid down in Deut. xxiii. 2-9, by the reception of circumcision. But in the future distribution of the land, on the contrary, the Cna were to receive hereditary property like native-born Israelites; and in this respect no difference was to exist between the members of the people of God born of

Abraham's seed and those born of the heathen. At the same time, this right was not to be conferred upon every foreigner who might be only temporarily living in Israel, but to those alone who should beget sons in the midst of Israel, i.e. settle permanently in the holy land. The Kal V& is not to be altered into the Hipldl &%n, as Hitzig proposes, but is used in the sense of receiving by lot, derived from the Hipldl signification, u to apportion by lot."

Chap, xlviii. 1-29. Division of Canaan among the Tribes, and Boundary of the Terumah. — The division of the land, like the definition of the boundaries (ch. xlvii. 15), commences in the north, and enumerates the tribes in the order in which they were to receive their inheritances from north to south: first, seven tribes from the northern boundary to the centre of the land (vers. 1-7), where the heave for the sanctuary, with the land of the priests and Levites and the city domain, together with the prince's land on the two sides, was to be set apart (vers. 8^22; and secondly, the other five tribes from this to the southern boundary (vers. 23-29). Compare the map on Plate IV.

Ver. 1. And these are the names of the tribes: from the north end by the side of the way to Chetlon toward Hamath (and) Hazar-Enon the boundary of Damascus — toward the north by the side of Ilamath there shall east side, west side belong to him: Dan one (tribe-lot). Ver. 2. And on the boundary of Dan from the east side to the west side: Asher one. Ver. 3. And on the boundary of Asher from the east side to the west side: Naphtali one. Ver. 4. And on the boundary of Naphtali from the east side to the west side: Manasseh one. Ver. 5. And on the boundary of Manasseh from the east side to the west side: Ephraimone. Ver. 6. And on the boundary of Ephraim from the east side to the west side: Reuben one. Ver. 7. And on the boundary of Reuben from the east side to the west side: Judah one. Ver. 8. And on the boundary of Judah from the east side to the west side shall be the heave, which ye shall lift (heave) off, five and twenty thousand (rods) in breadth, and the length like every tribe portion from the east side to the west side; and the sanctuary shall be in the midst of it. Ver. 9. The heave which ye shall lift (heave) for Jehovah shall be jive and twenty thousand in length and ten thousand in breadth. Ver. 10. And to these shall the holy heave belong, to the priests, toward the north, five and twenty thousand; toward the ivest, breadth ten thousand; toward the east, breadth ten thousand; and toward the south, length jive and twenty thousand; and the sanctuary of Jehovah shall be in the middle of it. Ver. 11. To the priests, whoever is sanctified of the sons of Zadoh, who have kept my charge, who have not strayed with the straying of the sons of Israel, as the Levites have strayed, Ver. 12. To them shall a portion lifted off belong from the heave of the land; a most holy beside the territory of the Levites. Ver. 13. And the Levites (shall receive) parallel with the territory of the priests five and twenty thousand in length, and in breadth ten thousand; the whole length five and twenty thousand, and (the whole) breadth ten thousand, Ver. 14. And they shall not sell or exchange any of it, nor shall the first-fruit of the land pass to others; for it is holy to Jehovah. Ver. 15. And the five thousand which remain in the breadth along the five and twenty thousand are common land for the city for dwellings and for open space; and the city shall be in the centre of it. Ver. 16. And these are its measures: the north side four thousand five hundred, the south side four thousand five hundred, the east side four thousand five hundred, and the west side four thousand five hundred. Ver. 17. And the open space of the city shall be toward the north two hundred and fifty, toward the south two hundred and fifty, toward the east two hundred and fifty, and toward the west two hundred and fifty, Ver. 18. And the remainder in length parallel with the holy heave, ten thousand toward the east and ten thousand toward the west, this shall be beside the holy heave, and its produce shall serve the workmen of the city for food. Ver. 19. And as for the workmen of the city, they shall cultivate it from all the tribes. Ver. 20. The whole of the heave is five and twenty thousand by five and twenty thousand; a fourth of the holy heave shall ye take for the possession of the city. Ver. 21. And the remainder shall belong to the prince on this side and on that side of the holy heave and of the city possession; along the five and twenty thousand of the heave to^the eastern boundary, and toward the ivest along the five and twenty thousand to the western boundary parallel with the tribe portions, it shall belong to the prince; and the holy heave and the sanctuary of the house shall be in the midst. Ver. 22. Thus from the possession of the Levites (as) from the possession of the city shall that which lies in the midst of what belongs to the prince between the territory of Judah and the territory of Benjamin belong to the prince. Ver. 23. And the rest of the tribes are from the east side to the ivest side: Benjamin one. Ver. 24. And on the boundary of Benjamin from the east side to the west side: Simeon one. Ver. 25. And on the boundary of Simeon from the east side to the ivest side: Issachar one. Ver. 26. And on the boundary of Issachar from the east side to the west side: Zebulon one. Ver. 27. And on the boundary of Zebulon from the east side to the west side: Gad one. Ver. 28. And on the boundary of Gad on the south side toward the south, the boundary shall be from Tamar to the water of strife from Kadesh along the brook to the great sea. Ver. 29. This is the land which ye shall divide by lot for inheritance to the tribes of Israel; these are their portions, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah.

The new division of the land differs from the former one effected in the time of Joshua, in the first place, in the fact that all the tribe-portions were to extend uniformly across the entire breadth of the land from the eastern boundary to the Mediterranean Sea on the west, so that they were to form parallel tracts of country; whereas in the distribution made in the time of Joshua, several of the tribe-territories covered only half the breadth of the land. For example, Dan received his inheritance on the west of Benjamin; and the territories of half Manasseh and Asher ran up from the northern boundary of Ephraim to the northern boundary of Canaan; while Issachar, Naphtali, and Zebulon received their portions on the east of these; and lastly, Simeon received his possession within the boundaries of the tribe of Judah. And secondly, it also differs from the former, in the fact that not only are all the twelve tribes located in Canaan proper, between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea; whereas previously two tribes and a half had received from Moses, at their own request, the conquered land of Bashan and Gilead on the eastern side of the Jordan, so that the land of Canaan could be divided among the remaining nine tribes and a half. But besides this, the central tract of land, about the fifth part of the whole, was separated for the holy heave, the city domain, and the prince's land, so that only the northern and southern portions, about four-fifths of the whole, remained for distribution among the twelve tribes, seven tribes receiving their hereditary portions to the north of the heave and five to the south, because the heave was so selected that the city writh its territory lay near the ancient Jerusalem. — In vers. 1-7 the seven tribes which were to dwell on the north of the heave are enumerated. The principal points of the northern boundary, viz. the way to Chetlon and Hazar-Enon, the boundary of Damascus, are repeated in ver. 1 from ch. xlvii. 15, 17, as the starting and terminal points of the northern boundary running from west to east. The words n^n TT?S fix the northern boundary more precisely in relation to the adjoining territory; and in 'a v Vni the enumeration of the tribe-lots begins with that of the tribe of Dan, which was to receive its territory against the northern boundary.)b refers to the name pj which follows, and which Ezekiel already had in his mind. E*n D'Hjj 11N3 is constructed asyndetos; and nsa is to be repeated in thought before Djn: the east side (and) the west (side) are to belong to it, i.e. the tract of land toward its west and its east side. The words which follow, ^rnx ft, are attached in an anacoluthistic manner: " Dan (is to receive)

one portion," for u one shall belong to Dan." To "inx we are to supply in thought the substantive ^n, tribe-lot, according to ch. xlvii. 13. " The assumption that one tribe was to receive as much as another (yid. ch. xlvii. 14), leads to the conclusion that each tribe-lot was to be taken as a monas " (Kliefoth). In this way the names in vers. 2—7, with the constantly repeated 1HK, must also be taken. The same form of description is repeated in vers. 23—28 in the case of the five tribes placed to the south of the heave. — In the order of the several tribeterritories it is impossible to discover any universal principle of arrangement. All that is clear is, that in the case of Dan, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, and Ephraim, regard is had to the former position of these tribe-territories as far as the altered circumstances allowed. In the time of the Judges a portion of the Danites had migrated to the north, conquered the city of Laish, and given it the name of Dan, so that from that time forward Dan is generally named as the northern boundary of the land (e.g. as early as 2 Sam. iii. 10, and in other passages). Accordingly Dan receives the tract of land along the northern boundary. Asher and Naphtali, which formerly occupied the most northerly portions of the land, follow next. Then comes Manasseh, as half Manasseh had formerly dwelt on the east of Naphtali; and Ephraim joins Manasseh, as it formerly joined the western half Manasseh. The reason for placing Reuben between Ephraim and Judah appears to be, that Reuben was the first-born of Jacob's sons. The position of the terumah between Judah and Benjamin is probably connected with the circumstance that Jerusalem formerly stood on the boundary of these two tribes, and so also in the future was to skirt Benjamin with its territory. The other tribes had then to be located on the south of Benjamin; Simeon, whose territory formerly lay to the south; Issachar and Zebulon, for which no room was left in the north; and Gad, which had to be brought over from Gilead to Canaan.

In vers. 8-22, the terwnali, which has already been described in ch. xlv. 1—7 for a different purpose, is more precisely defined: first of all, in ver. 8, according to its whole extent — viz. twenty-five thousand rods in breadth (from north to south), and the length the same as any one (= every one) of the tribelots, i.e. reaching from the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea (cf. ch. xlv. 7). In the centre of this separated territory the sanctuary (the temple) was to stand. ^^21, the suffix of which refers ad sensum to p^n instead of ^9™j naa no^ *ne indefinite meaning "therein," but signifies "in the centre;" for the priests' portion, in the middle of which the temple was to stand, occupied the central position between the portion of the Levites and the city possession, as is evident from ver. 22. The circumstance that here, as in ch. xlv. 1 sqq., in the division of the terumah, the priests' portion is mentioned first, then the portion of the Levites, and after this the city possession, proves nothing so far as the local order in which these three portions followed one another is concerned; but the enumeration is regulated by their spiritual significance, so that first of all the most holy land for the temple and priests is defined, then the holy portion of the Levites, and lastly, the common land for the city. The command, that the sanctuary is to occupy the centre of the whole terumah, leads to a more minute description in the first place (vers. 9-12) of the priests' portion, in which the sanctuary was situated, than of the heave to be lifted off for Jehovah. In ver. 10, ^p.^?, which stands at the head, is explained by CTpnbp which follows. The extent of this holy terumah on all four sides is then given; and lastly, the command is repeated, that the sanctuary of Jehovah is to be in the centre of it. In ver. 11, B^JiJDn is rendered in the plural by the LXX., Chald. and Syr., and is taken in a distributive sense by Kimchi and others: to the priests whoever is sanctified of the sons of Zadok. This is required by the position of the participle between D^nbp and piTS *?.?? (compare 2 Chron. xxvi. 18, and for the singular of the participle after a previous plural, Ps. viii. 9). The other rendering, " for the priests is it sanctified, those of the sons of Zadok," is at variance not only with the position of the words, but also with the fact, namely, that the assignment to the priests of a heave set apart for Jehovah is never designated as B*lj?, and from the nature of the case could not be so designated. The apodosis to ver. 11a follows in ver. 12, where D'ons? is resumed in Drip, ironn is an adjective formation, derived from nipviri, with the signification of an abstract: that which is lifted (the lifting) from the heave, as it were u a terumah in the second potency " (for these formations, see Ewald, §§ 164 and 165). This terumiyali is called most holy, in contrast with the Levites' portion of the terumah, which was BHp (ver. 14). The priests' portion is to be beside the territory of the Levites, w7hether on the southern or northern side cannot be gathered from the*se words any more than from the definition in ver. 13: "and the Levites beside (parallel with) the territory of the priests." Both statements simply affirm that the portions of the priests and Levites were to lie side by side, and not to be separated by the town possession. — Vers. 13 and 14 treat of the Levites' portion: ver. 13, of its situation and extent; ver. 14, of its law of tenure. The seemingly tautological repetition of the measurement of the length and breadth, as "all the length and the breadth," is occasioned by the fact " that Ezekiel intends to express himself more briefly here, and not, as in ver. 10, to take all the four points of the compass singly; in 'all the length' he embraces the two long sides of the oblong, and in ' (all) the breadth ' the two broad sides, and affirms that • all the length,' i.e. of both the north and south sides, is to be twenty-five thousand rods, and ' all the breadth,' i.e. of both the east and west sides, is to be ten thousand rods" (Kliefoth). Ilitzig has missed the sense, and therefore proposes to alter the text. With regard to the possession of the Levites, the instructions eiven in Lev. xxv. 34 for the field of the Levites' cities — namely, that none of it was to be sold — are extended to the whole of the territory of the Levites: no part of it is to be alienated by sale or barter. And the character of the possession is assigned as the reason: the first-fruit of the land, i.e. the land lifted off (separated) as first-fruit, is not to pass into the possession of others, because as such it is holy to the Lord. The Chetib "taj! is the correct reading: to pass over, sc. to others, to non-Levites.

Vers. 15-18 treat of the city possession. As the terumah was twenty -five thousand rods in breadth (ver. 8), after measuring off ten thousand rods in breadth for the priests and ten thousand rods in breadth for the Levites from the entire breadth, there still remain five thousand rods %JB?>, in front of, i.e. along, the long side, which was twenty-five thousand rods. This remnant was to be bh> i.e. common (not holy) land for the city (Jerusalem). 2*fi D?, for dwelling-places, i.e. for building dwelling-houses upon; and BH???, for open space, the precinct around the city. The city was to stand in the centre of this oblong. Ver. 16 gives the size of the city: on each of the four sides, four thousand five hundred rods (the Bfcn, designated by the Masoretes as np N^1 3TD, has crept into the text through a copyist's error); and ver. 17, the extent of the open space surrounding it: on each side two hundred and fifty rods. This gives for the city, together with the open space, a square of five thousand rods on every side; so that the city with its precinct filled the entire breadth of the space left for it, and there only remained on the east and west an open space of ten thousand rods in length and five thousand rods in breadth along the holy terumah. This is noticed in ver. 18; its produce was to serve for bread, i.e. for maintenance, for the labourers of the city (the masculine suffix in nhiOSn refers grammatically to inian). By Tjn H21JJ Hitzig would understand the inhabitants of the city, because one cultivates a piece of land even by dwelling on it. But this use of "TO cannot be established. Nor are "VJjtfJ *TQjj the workmen employed in building the city, as Gesenius, Kavernick, and others suppose; for the city was not perpetually being built, so that there should be any necessity for setting apart a particular piece of land for the builders; but they are the working men of the city, the labouring class living in the city. They are not to be without possession in the future Jerusalem, but are to receive a possession in land for their maintenance. We are told in ver. 19 who these workmen are. Here lljjn is used collectively: as for the labouring class of the city, people out of all the tribes of Israel shall work upon the land belonging to the city. The suffix in inrnr points back to "irrian. The transitive explanation, to employ a person in work, has nothing in the language to confirm it. The fact itself is in harmony with the statement in ch. xlv. 6, that the city was to belong to all Israel. Lastly, in ver. 20 the dimensions of the whole terumah, and the relation of the city possession to the holy terumah, are given. noFinn"?3 is the whole heave, so far as it has hitherto been described, embracing the property of the priests, of the Levites, and of the city. In this extent it is twenty-five thousand rods long and the same broad. If, however, we add the property of the prince, which is not treated of till vers. 21-23, it is considerably longer, and reaches, as has been stated in ver. 8, to the boundaries of the land both on the east and west, the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, as the several tribeterritories do. But if we omit the prince's land, the space set apart for the city possession occupied the fourth part of the holy terumahy i.e. of the portion of the priests and Levites. This is the meaning of the second half of ver. 20, which literally reads thus: "to a fourth shall ye lift off the holy terumah for the city possession." This is not to be understood as meaning that a fourth was to be taken from the holy terumah for the city possession; for that would yield an incorrect proportion, as the twenty thousand rods in breadth would be reduced to fifteen thousand rods by the subtraction of the fourth part, which would be opposed to vers. 9 and 15. The meaning is rather the following: from the whole terumah the fourth part of the area of the holy terumah is to be taken off for the city possession, i.e. five thousand rods for twenty thousand. According to ver, 15, this was the size of the domain set apart for the city.

In vers. 2] '23 the situation and extent of the prince's possession are described. For ver. 21, trid, ch. xlv. 7. Tflfefi, the rest of the tevumiili, as it has been defined in ver. 8, reaching in length from the.Jordan to the Mediterranean. As the holy terumah and the city possession were only twenty-five thousand rods in length, and did not reach to the Jordan on the east, or to the sea on the west, there still remained an area on either side whose length or extent toward the east and west is not given in rods, but may be calculated from the proportion which the intervening terumah bore to the length of the land (from east to west). WvK and ^"'V, in front of, or along, the front of the twenty-five thousand rods, refer to the eastern and western boundaries of the terumah, which was twenty-five thousand rods in length. In ver. 21b the statement is repeated, that the holy terumah and the sanctuary were to lie in the centre of it, i.e. between the portions of land appointed for the prince on either side; and lastly, in ver. 22 it is still further stated, with regard to the prince's land on both sides of the terumah, that it was to lie between the adjoining tribe-territories of Judah (to the north) and Benjamin (to the south), so that it was to be bounded by these two. But this is expressed in a heavy and therefore obscure manner. The words "HMJ Tjina?W fcOb'jp, " in the centre of that which belongs to the prince," belong to "VJJH... runwoi and form together with the latter the subject, which is written absolutely; so that |0 is not used in a partitive, but in a local sense (from), and the whole is to be rendered thus: And as for that which lies on the side of the possession of the Levites, and of the possession of the city in the centre of what belongs to the prince, (that which lies) between the territory of Judah and the territory of Benjamin shall belong to the prince. Hitzig's explanation — what remains between Judah and Benjamin, from the city territory to the priests' domain, both inclusive, shall belong to the prince — is arbitrary, and perverts the sense. The periphrastic designation of the terumah bounded off between the prince's land by the two portions named together without a copula, viz. " possession of the Levites and possession of the city," is worthy of notice. This periphrasis of the whole by two portions, shows that the portions named formed the boundaries of the whole, that the third portion, which is not mentioned, was enclosed within the two, so that the priests' portion with the sanctuary lay between them. — In vers. 23-27 the rest of the tribes located to the south of the terumah are mentioned in order; and in vers. 28 and 29 the account of the division of the land is brought to a close with a repetition of the statement as to the southern boundary (cf. ch. xlvii. 19), and a comprehensive concluding formula.

If now we attempt, in order to form a clear idea of the relation in which this prophetic division of the land stands to the actual size of Canaan according to the boundaries described in ch. xlvii. 15 sqq., to determine the length and breadth of the terumah given here by their geographical dimensions, twentyfive thousand rods, according to the metrological calculations of Boeckh and Bertheau, would be 10*70 geographical miles, or, according to the estimate of the Hebrew cubit by Thenius, only 9*75 geographical miles.1 The extent of Canaan from Beersheba, or Kadesh, up to a line running across from Has esh-Shukah to the spring El Lebweh, is 3^ degrees, i.e. fifty geographical miles, ten of which are occupied by the terumah, and forty remain for the twelve tribe-territories, so that each

1 According to Boeckh, one sacred cubit was equal to 234^ Paris lines = 52862 millimetres; according to Thenius = 214£ P. 1. = 481-62 millira. Now as one geographical mile, the 5400th part of the circumference of the globe, which is 40,000,000 metres, is equivalent to 7407*398 metres = 22,803*290 old Paris feet, the geographical mile according to Boeckh is 14,012^ cubits = 2335^ rods (sacred measure); according to Thenius, 15,380£ cubits = 2563^ rods (s. m.), from which the numbers given in the text may easily be calculated.

tribe-lot would be 3^ geographical miles io breadth. If, now, we reckon three geographical miles as the breadth of each of the five tribe-lots to the south of the terumah, and as the land becomes broader toward the south a breadth of 3t geographical miles for the seven tribe-lots to the north, the terumah set apart in the centre of the land would extend from the site of Jerusalem to Dothan or Jenin. If, however, we take into consideration the breadth of the land from east to west in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, or where the Jordan enters the Dead Sea, Canaan is eleven geographical miles in breadth, whereas at Jenin it is hardly ten geographical miles broad. If, therefore, the length of the terumah (from east to west) was fully ten geographical miles, there would only remain a piece of land of half a mile in breadth on the east and west at the southern boundary, and nothing at all at the northern, for prince's land. We have therefore given to the terumah upon the map (Plate IV.) the length and breadth of eight geographical miles, which leaves a tract of two miles on the average for the prince's land, so that it would occupy a fifth of the area of the holy terumah, whereas the city possession covered a fourth. No doubt the breadth of the terumah from south to north is also diminished thereby, so that it cannot have reached quite down to Jerusalem or quite up to Jenin. — If, now, we consider that the distances of places, and therefore also the measurements of a land in length and breadth, are greater in reality than those given upon the map, on account partly of the mountains and valleys and partly of the windings of the roads, and, still further, that our calculations of the Hebrew cubit are not quite certain, and that even the smaller estimates of Thenius are possibly still too high, the measurements of the terumah given by Ezekiel correspond as exactly to the actual size of the land of Canaan as could be expected with a knowledge of its extent obtained not by trigonometrical measurement, but from a simple calculation of the length of the roads. — But this furnishes a confirmation by no means slight of our assumption, that the lengths and breadths indicated here are measured by rods and not by cubits. Reckoned by cubits, the terumah would be only a mile and a half or a mile and two-thirds in length and breadth, and the city possession would be only a third of a mile broad; whereas the prince's land would be more than six times as large as the whole of the terumah, — i.e. of the territory of the Levites, the priests, and the city, — thirteen times as large as the priests' land, and from thirty to thirty-two times as large as the city possession = proportions the improbability of which is at once apparent.

Vers. 30-35. Size, Gates, and Name of tiie City. — To complete the whole picture of the future land of Israel, what has been stated in vers. 15 and 16 concerning the size of the holy city is still further expanded here. — Ver. 30. And these are the outgoings of the city from the north side, four thousand and five hundred (rods) measurement. Ver. 31. And the gates of the city according to the names of the tribes of Israel: three gates toioard the north; the gate of Reuben one, the gate of Judah one, the gate of Levi one. Ver. 32. And on the east side four thousand five hundred (rods): and three gates; namely, the gate of Joseph one, the gate of Benjamin one, the gate of Dan one. Ver. 33. And to the south side, four thousand five hundred measurement: and three gates; the gate of Simeon one, the gate of Issachar one, the gate of Zebulon one. Ver. 34. To the west side, four thousand five hundred — their gates three; the gate of Gad one, the gate of Ashcr one, the gate of Naphtali one. Ver. 35. Round about, eighteen thousand (rods); and the name of the city: from henceforth Jehovah there. — The situation of the city of God within the terumah and its external dimensions have already been generally indicated in vers. 15, 16. Here the measurement of the several sides is specified with a notice of their gates, and this is preceded by the heading, " the outlets of the city." nN¥ifi; the outgoings

(not extensions, for the word never has this meaning) are the furthest extremities in which a city or a tract of land terminates; not outlets or gates, which are expressly distinguished from them, hut outgoing sides; hence the definition of the extent or length of the several sides is appended immediately afterwards. The enumeration commences, as above in the case of the land, with the north side. Each side lias three gates, so that the whole city has twelve, which hear the names of the twelve tribes, like the gates of the heavenly Jerusalem in Rev. x\i. 12, because it will he the city of the true people of God. Levi is included here, and consequently Ephraim and Manasseh are united in the one tribe of Joseph. The three sons of Leah commence the series with the northern gates. They also stand first in the blessimr of Moses in Deut. xxxiii. G-8: the firstborn in age, the first-born by virtue of the patriarchal blessing, and the one chosen by Jehovah for His own service in the place of the first-born. Then follow, for the eastern gates, the two sons of Rachel, according to their age (thus deviating from Deut. xxxiii. 12 and 13), and, along with them, the elder son of Rachel's maid; for the southern gates, the three other sons of Leah; and lastly, for the western gates, the three other sons of the maids. Being thus indicated by the names of its gates as the city of all Israel, the city itself receives a name, which exalts it into the city of God (Jehovah). But different explanations have been given of the words in ver. 35 which refer to this name. The allusion in Di*p and the meaning of nEC> are both disputed points. It is true that the latter literally means " thither; " but Ezekiel also uses it as synonymous with D^, " there," in ch. xxiii. 3 and xxxii. 29, 30, so that the assertion that riBE* never means " there" is incorrect. Eis», from day forward, equivalent to henceforward; but not henceforth and for ever, though this may be implied in the context. Whether Di'B be taken in connection with the preceding words, a the name of the city will henceforward be," or with those which follow, the name of the city will be, "henceforward

Jehovah there," makes no material difference so far as the thought is concerned, as the city can only bear the name from the time when Jehovah is n^'f, and can only bear it so long as Jehovah is nBB>. But so far as the question is concerned, whether HSP signifies thither or there in this passage, Havernick is of opinion, indeed, that the whole of Ezekiel's vision does not harmonize with the meaning " there," inasmuch as he separates temple and city, so that Jehovah does not properly dwell in Jerusalem, but, in the strictest and highest sense, in His sanctuary, and turns thence to Jerusalem with the fulness of His grace and love. But if Jehovah does not merely direct His love toward the city from afar off, but, as Havernick still further says, turns it fully toward it, causes His good pleasure to rest upon it, then He also rules and is in the city with His love, so that it can bear the name " Jehovah thither (there)." In any case, the interpretation, " Jehovah will from henceforth proceed thither, to restore it, to make it a holy city " (Kliefoth), is untenable; for the name is not given to Jerusalem when lying waste, but to the city already restored and fully built, which Ezekiel sees in the spirit. He has therefore before this turned His favour once more to Jerusalem, which was laid waste; and the name nfttt> nin^ given to the new Jerusalem, can only affirm that henceforward it is to be a city of Jehovah, i.e. that from this time forth Jehovah will be and rule in her. The rendering " Jehovah thither " does not answer to this, but only the rendering, " Jehovah will be there." Compare Isa. lx. 14, where Jerusalem is called the city of Jehovah, Zion of the Holy One in Israel, because the glory of Jehovah has risen over her as a brilliant lisiht.

Having now completed our exposition in detail, if we take a survey of the substance of the entire vision in ch. xl.-xlviii., on comparing it with the preceding prophecies of the restoration of Israel (oli. xxxiv.-xxxvii.), we obtain the following picture of the now constitution of the kingdom of God: — When the

Lord shall either the sons of Israel from their banishment among the heathen, and bring them back to Canaan, so that they shall dwell therein as a united people under the rule of His servant David, then shall they, on the fresh distribution of the land according to the full extent to which God promised it to the patriarchs, and indicated the boundaries thereof through Moses (ch. xlvii. 15-20), set apart the central portion of it as a heave for the sanctuary and His servants, the priests and Levites, as well as for the capital and its labourers, and also give to the prince a possession of his own on both sides of this heave. In the central point of the heave, which occupies a square space of twenty- five thousand rods in length and breadth, the temple is to stand upon a high mountain, and cover, with its courts, a space of five hundred cubits square; and round about it a space of five hundred rods on every side is to form a boundary between the holy and the common. The glory of Jehovah will enter into the temple and dwell therein for ever; and the temple, in its whole extent, will be most holy (ch. xliii. 1-12). Round about this the priests receive a tract of land of twenty-five thousand rods in length and ten thousand in breadth to dwell in as a sanctuary for the sanctuary; and by their side, toward the north, the Levites receive an area of similar size for dwelling-places; but toward the south, a tract of land of twenty-five thousand rods in length and five thousand rods in breadth is to be the property of the city; and in the centre of this area, the city, with its open space, is to cover a square of five thousand rods in length and breadth; and the rest of the land on both sides is to be given to the labourers of the city out of all Israel for their maintenance. The land lying on the eastern and western sides of the heave, as far as the Jordan and the Mediterranean, is to be the property of the prince, and to remain the hereditary possession of his sons (ch. xlv. 1-8, xlvi. 16-18, xlviii. 8-22). After the separation of this heave, which, with the prince's possession, covers about the fifth part of the whole extent of Canaan, the rest of the land on the north and south of the heave is to be divided into equal parts and distributed among the twelve tribes, so that every tribe-territory shall stretch from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, — seven tribes receiving their hereditary portions on the north of the heave and five on the south, whilst the foreigners having their permanent homes among the different tribes are to receive hereditary possessions like the native Israelites (ch. xlvii. 21-xlviii. 7, and xlviii. 23-29).

Israel, thus placed once more in possession of the promised land, is to appear with its prince before the Lord in the temple at the yearly feasts, to worship and to offer sacrifices, the provision of which is to devolve upon the prince at all festal seasons, for which purpose the people are to pay to him the sixtieth part of the corn, the hundredth part of the oil, and the two hundredth head from the flock every year as a heaveoffering. The sacrificial service at the altar and in the holy place is to be performed by none but priests of the family of Zadok, who kept the charge of the Lord faithfully when the people wandered into idolatry. All the other descendants of Levi are simply to discharge the inferior duties of the temple service, whilst uncircumcised heathen are not to be admitted into the temple any more, that it may not be defiled by them (ch. xliii. 13-xliv. 31, xlv. 8-xlvi. 15, and 19-24). When Israel shall thus serve the Lord its God, and walk in His commandments and statutes, it will enjoy the richest blessing from God. A spring of living water will issue from the threshold of the temple house, and, swelling after a short course into a mighty river, will flow down to the Jordan valley, empty itself into the Dead Sea, and make the water of that sea so wholesome that it will swarm with living creatures and fishes of every kind; and on the banks of the river fruit-trees will grow with never-withering leaves, which will bear ripe fruit for food every month, whilst the leaves will serve as medicine (ch. xlvii. 1-12).

As to the Messianic character of the substance of this whole virion, Jewish and Christian commentators are generally agreed; and the opinion which, according to Jerome, many of the Jews entertained, and which has been supported by the rationalistic expositors (Dathe, Eichhorn, Herder, Bottcher, and others), after the example of Grotius, — namely, that Ezekiel describes the temple of Solomon destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar as a model for the rebuilding of it after the return of the Jews from the captivity, — has not found much favour, inasmuch as, apart from all other objections to which it is exposed, it is upset by the fact that not only are its supporters unable to make anything of the description of the spring which issues from the threshold of the temple, flows through the land, and makes the waters of the Dead Sea sound, but they are also unable to explain the separation of the temple from the city of Jerusalem; as it would never have occurred to any Jewish patriot, apart from divine revelation, much less to a priest like Ezekiel, who claims such important prerogatives for the prince of the family of David in relation to the temple, to remove the house of Jehovah from Mount Zion, the seat of the royal house of David, and out of the bounds and territory of the city of Jerusalem. But even if we lay aside this view, and the one related to it, — viz. that the whole vision contains nothing more than ideal hopes and desires of better things belonging to that age, with regard to the future restoration of the destroyed temple and kingdom, as Ewald and others represent the matter, — as being irreconcilable with the biblical view of prophecy, the commentators, who acknowledge the divine origin of prophecy and the Messianic character of the vision in these chapters, differ very widely from one another with reference to the question how the vision is to be interpreted; some declaring themselves quite as decidedly in favour of the literal explanation of the whole picture as others in favour of the figurative or symbolico-typical view, which they regard as the only correct and scriptural one. — The latter view gained the upper hand at a very early period in the Christian church, so that we find it adopted by Ephraem Syrus, Theodoret, and Jerome; x and> it prevailed so generally, that Lud. Cappellus, for example, in his Trisagion s. templi Hierosol. tripl. delin. (in the apparat. bibl. of Walton, in the first part of the London Polyglot, p. 3), says: " In this passage God designs to show by the prophet that He no more delights in that carnal and legal worship which they have hitherto presented to Him; but that He demands from them another kind of worship very different from that, and more pleasing to Him (a spiritual worship, of which they have a type in the picture and all the rites of this temple, which differ greatly from those of Moses), and that He will establish it among them when He shall have called them to Himself through the Messiah. And that this spiritual worship is set before them in shadows and figures, there is not a Christian who denies; nor any Jew, unless prejudiced and very obdurate,

1 Ephraem Syrus, on ch. xli., not only interprets the windows of the temple and even the measuring rod allegorically, but says expressly: " It is evident that the rest of the things shown to the prophet in the building of the new temple pertain to the church of Christ, so that we must hold that the priests of that house were types of the apostles, and the calves slain therein prefigured the sacrifice of Christ." — Theod. indeed restricts himself throughout to a brief paraphrase of the words, without explaining every particular in a spiritual manner; but he nevertheless says expressly (at ch. xliii.) that we must ascend from the type to the truth, as God will not dwell for ever in the type; and therefore he repeatedly opposes the Judaeo-literal interpretation of Apollinaris, although he himself appears to take ch. xlviii. as simply referring to the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple in the time of Zerubbabel. — This explanation is expressly opposed by Jerome, as the opinion of ignorant Jews; and he observes, on the other hand, that " this temple which is now described, with the order of the priesthood and division of the land and its fertility, is much superior to that which Solomon built; whereas the one which was built under Zerubbabel was so small, and so unworthy of comparison with the earlier one, that they who had seen the first temple, and now looked on this, wept," etc. Under the type of the restoration of the city destroyed by the Babylonians, there is predicted futurae aedificatwnis Veritas.