1And when ye allot [divide] the land as inheritance, ye shall make an oblation to Jehovah, a holiness from the land; the length five and twenty thousand and the breadth ten thousand; holiness [is] it in all its border round 2about. Of this shall be [come, belong] to the sanctuary five hundred by five hundred, a square round about; and fifty cubits of environs for it round 3about. And from [according to] this measure shalt thou measure a length of five and twenty thousand and a breadth of ten thousand, and in it shall be 4the sanctuary, the most holy place. Holiness from the land is this; for the priests, the ministers of the sanctuary shall it be, who draw near to minister to Jehovah; and it is to them a place for houses, and a holy place for the 5sanctuary. And five and twenty thousand in length and ten thousand in breadth shall be [belong] to the Levites, the ministers of the house, to them 6for a possession, twenty chambers. And as a possession of the city ye shall give five thousand in breadth, and in length five and twenty thousand, beside [running along] the oblation of holiness; it shall be for the whole house of Israel 7And for the prince: adjoining the oblation of holiness on both sides and the possession of the city, before the oblation of holiness and before the possession of the city, on the west side westward, and on the east side eastward, and the length, beside [running along] one of the [tribal] portions from the west border 8to the east border. It shall be land to him for a possession in Israel; and My princes shall no more oppress My people; and [but] the land shall they give to the house of Israel according to their tribes. 9Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Enough for you, O princes of Israel; remove [put away] violence and rapine, and do judgment and justice, take away your expulsions from My people,—sentence of the Lord Jehovah. 10Ye shall have just balances, and a just ephah, and a just bath. 11The ephah and the bath shall be of one measure; that the bath may contain [amount to] the tenth of the homer, and the ephah a tenth of the homer; its measure shall be after the homer. 12And the shekel [shall be] twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh. 13This is the oblation which ye shall make: the sixth of the ephah from the homer of wheat, and ye shall six the ephah 14from the homer of barley. And the ordinance of the oil: the bath of oil [what is to be offered as bath from the oil shall be] the tenth of the bath out of the cor, 15[which is] ten baths, a homer; for ten baths are a homer. And one sheep [or goat] out of the flock, from two hundred from the watered [land] of Israel, for the meat-offering, and for the burnt-offering, and for peace-offerings, to atone for [to cover] them,—sentence of the Lord Jehovah. 16All the people of 17the land, they shall be [held] to this oblation for the prince in Israel. And upon the prince shall be the burnt-offerings, and the meat-offering, and the drink-offering, on the feasts, and on the new moons, and on the Sabbaths, in all the festal seasons of the house of Israel; he shall prepare the sin-offering, and the meat-offering, and the burnt-offering, and the peace-offerings, to atone for [to cover] the house of Israel. 18Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: In the first [month], on the first of the month, thou shalt take a bullock, a young steer, without blemish, and cleanse the sanctuary: 19And the priest takes of the blood of the sin-offering, and puts it upon the posts of the house, and upon the four corners of the ledge of the altar, and upon the posts of 20the gate of the inner court. And so shalt thou do on the seventh of the month for the erring man and for the fool, and ye atone for the house. 21In the first [month], on the fourteenth day of the month, shall the passover be to you, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten [one shall eat22mazzoth]. And the prince brings on this day for himself and for the whole 23people of the land a bullock as a sin-offering. And the seven days of the feast he shall bring as a burnt-offering to Jehovah seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish, daily the seven days; and as a sin-offering a kid of the 24goats for the day [daily]. And as a meat-offering he shall offer an ephah for a bullock, and an ephah for a ram, and of oil an hin for the ephah. 25In the seventh [month], on the fifteenth day of the month, in the feast he shall bring just such [offerings] seven days, as the sin-offering, as the burnt-offering, and as the meat-offering, and as the oil.
Eze_45:1. Sept.: ...
ἀðáñ÷çí
…
ê
.
åὐñïò åἰêïóé ÷éëéáäáò
—(The second or the first
àøê
is omitted in the various manuscripts.)
Eze_45:2. ...
åἰò ἁãéáóìá
…
äéáóôçìá áὐôùí
—Vulg.: Et erit ex omni parte sanctificatum … in suburbana ejus—
Eze_45:14. Sept: ...
êïôõëçí ἐëáéïõ ἀðï ôùí äåêá êïôõëùí
,
ὁôé ïἱ äåêá êïôõëïé åἰóéí ãïìïñ
. Vulg.: … batus olei, decima pars cori est; et decem bati corum faciunt, quia decem bati implent corum.
Eze_45:15.
Ê
.
ðñïâáôïí ἑí ἀðï ô
.
äåêá ðñïâáôùí ἀöáéñåìá ἐê ðáóùí ôùí êáôñéùí ô
.
Ἱóñ
.—Vulg.: Et arietem unum de grege ducentorum, de his quæ nutriunt Israel—
Eze_45:17.
Ê
.
äéá ôïõ ἀöçãïõìåíïõ ἐóôáé
—(Other readings:
äòåìä
and
åáëì îåòãé
.)
Eze_45:18. ...
ëçøåóèå
.
Eze_45:19. Another reading:
îæåæåú
.
Eze_45:20. ...
ἐí ô
.
ìçíé ôù ἑâäïìù ìéê ôïõ ìçíïò ëçøç ðáῤ ἑêáóôïõ ἀãíïïõôïò ê
.
ἀðï íçðéïõ
, Vulg.: … qui ignoravit et errore deceptus est—
Eze_45:22. ...
ὐðåñ áὐôïõ ê
.
ὑðåñ ô
.
ïἰêïõ ê
.
ὑðåñ ðáíôïò ô
.
ëáïõ ô
.
ãçò
Eze_45:23. ...
ê
.
èõóéáí
. (24)
Ê
.
ðåììá ôù ìïó÷ù
Eze_45:24. Vulg.: Et sacrificium ephi per vitulum—
Eze_45:25. ...
ðïéçóåéò êáôá ôá áὐôá
…
ê
.
êáèùò ôï ìáíáá
—Vulg.: … sicut supra dicta sunt—
EXEGETICAL REMARKS
Eze_45:1-9. The Oblation of Holiness, the Land of the Levites, the Possession of the City, and the Portion of the Prince
That Jehovah is the inheritance and possession of His priests (Eze_44:28) is a reality even for this world, as godliness in like manner has the promise “of the life that now is.” In order to give form to this truth, Eze_45:1 connects what follows with the preceding.—
äִôִּéì
, from
ðָôַì
, signifies: “to make to fall,” and is used peculiarly of the lot (Eze_24:6); but when nothing suggests this, and when
ìְ
is not prefixed to the word, it is to be taken in its general sense, and
áְּðַçֲìָä
, cum
áְּ
essentiœ, is to be understood as meaning: to divide in general. Comp. Psa_16:6. (The reference to the time immediately after the Babylonian servitude, hitherto maintained by Hengstenberg, must now, as we may well conceive, be abandoned; and so then he makes the prophet travel to Utopia, etc.)—
úָּøִéîåּ úְøåּîָä
(Hiphil of
øåּí
, referring to what was done in the case of the peace or thank-offerings with the shoulder of the victim—the waving with the breast) has here the more general signification, although not that of: “to present a present,” nor that of: “to offer an offering,” but that of: to consecrate, to hallow to the Lord (
ìַéäåָֹä
), which, moreover, was the meaning of the ceremony of heaving on high as well as of the heaving up upon the altar. Comp. also on Eze_44:30. For details see on Ezekiel 48.—Holiness (corresponding to Jehovah) from the land, and thus separated, “partly for sacred and partly at least for higher, more general purposes” (Bunsen); but see the intended use in what follows.—The word length is repeated, perhaps on account of the significant number mentioned for the first time, or because the natural length of the land is not to be regarded, but by length reference is meant to be made to that which is forthwith so called in the vision, the extension from east to west, and so the repetition is not exactly pleonastic. Whether rods (Jerome, Rashi, Häv.) or cubits (Ewald, Hitzig, Hengst.) are meant, is not said. The supporters of both interpretations appeal to Eze_42:16 sq.; hence compare what is said there.—The express mention, too, of cubits in Eze_45:2 is pressed into the service of both parties. Those who hold for rods say: Thus rods are always meant in what goes before, because here cubits are excepted; those who contend for cubits reply: Thus in what goes before, too, as everywhere in the case of all the large measurements, cubits are to be understood, otherwise rods would need to be expressly named. That cubits are mentioned first in Eze_45:2, Hengstenberg explains from “the unexpectedly small measure there, so that one might easily think of a larger scale.” Böttcher, moreover, adduces against the measurement by rod which he calculates would give 40 German [about 900 English] square miles (?), i.e. almost the tenth of the whole land, the colossal disproportion to the statements elsewhere, especially as to the temple, which measures only 500 cubits square. Keil, on the other hand, maintains that Ezekiel 48 with its proportions corresponds throughout to the
ôåìåíïò
of 25,000 rods in length and 10,000 rods in breadth. Comp. therefore Ezekiel 48.—The breadth trends from north to south (Eze_48:10).—Keil finds
òֲùָׂøָä àֶìֶó
for 10,000 surprising, for which, he observes,
òֲùְׂøֶú àֲìָôִéí
is constantly used in Eze_45:3; Eze_45:5, and in Ezekiel 48. He therefore prefers the 20,000 of the Sept., giving is additional reasons for this, that the part mentioned in Eze_45:3 is to be measured off from what was measured in Eze_45:1; also that the Levites of Eze_45:5 are to be considered, whose possession is likewise “Terumah of holiness” (Eze_48:14 sq.), as is plain from other passages of our chapter; Eze_45:1 comprehends the land of the priests and of the Levites [25,000 and 20,000], which Eze_45:2-3 divide into two districts.—Finally, the character of the oblation, because to Jehovah, is again insisted on, and that in respect of all its border round about.
Eze_45:2, after this general statement, marks-off from the above-mentioned (
îִïֶּä
) the sanctuary described and measured in Ezekiel 40, that is, the 500 cubits square forming the temple edifice, or, as Keil, in accordance with his view of Eze_42:15 sq.: the 500 square rods pertaining to the sacred enclosures of the temple. But as he adds: “there is still to be around this enclosure, which separates between the sacred and the common, a free space of fifty cubits on each side to keep the priests’ dwellings from being built too near to the sacred square of the temple buildings,” how, we ask, does he leave this latter entirely out of account!?—
îִâְøָùׁ
, comp. on Eze_27:28. “A free space of 50 cubits to a sanctuary of 500 rods would be much too small. It was evidently intended to be an interspace between the house of God and the houses of the priests” (Hengst.).
Eze_45:3.
îִïÎäַîִּãָּä äַåֹּàú
is not the same as
îִåֶּä
in Eze_45:2; for if so, this distinct and different mode of expression would not have been chosen, which, as it refers to the measuring of the sanctuary, so it designates as the sanctuary the temple building, and not the “sacred enclosure of the temple.” Keil needs 10,000 rods more in Eze_45:1, because he makes
äַîִּãָּä äַåֹּàú
here = “this measured piece of land.”
îִïÎ
, as modified by
äַîִּãָּä
, which has had always hitherto to be translated “measure,” denotes that from which the prophet has to take the measure, and is therefore entrusted with the “measuring” (
úָּîåֹã
, as it is expressly said); it had, indeed, been measured before him in Ezekiel 40. The temple building, just referred to in Eze_45:2 as the principal part, is normal for the whole oblation, which as such is again referred to in Eze_45:3, where also the centrality of the temple, already indicated by the phrase: and in it shall be the sanctuary, is distinctly denoted by the epithet: most holy, pointing to Eze_43:12. After that the holiness, the separation from the land for the holy purpose (for Jehovah, for His sanctuary) of the land of which the oblation consists (
äåּà
), with (Eze_45:3) the sanctuary in it (inclusive of the courts), has been again insisted on. Eze_45:4 treats now of the area in question in its relation to the priests, who, as hitherto (Eze_40:46; Eze_42:13; Eze_44:15)—here, however, with a view to the sanctuary and its central position—are described, both as respects their official functions and their dwelling-places. Since they are such, since this is their official calling, it is befitting to assign to them the holiness from the land as a place for houses, explained in the clause following to be: a holy place for the sanctuary, so that this latter defines the priests’ houses to be a dependency of the sanctuary, just as similarly in Eze_43:12 the whole was even called most holy (Eze_45:3 here). The last clause of the verse is commonly taken as indicating a second use for the area of the oblation, namely, for the temple, a superfluous repetition. The mention of houses is in harmony with the law, in which the thirteen cities for the priests (Joshua 21) likewise come into consideration simply as regards the houses in them. From that which is His own through the oblation Jehovah gives to the priests as His ministers, and as ministers of the sanctuary in the neighbourhood, the space necessary for dwellings (just as in Ezekiel 45 the necessaries of life). This is an arrangement which doubtless is to be taken in connection with the entire division of the land, but differs from that laid down in Numbers 35, so that it will have to be understood from the idea meant to be illustrated (Doct. Reflec. 19).
Still more surprising is the new arrangement in Eze_45:5, where an area equal to that occupied by the sanctuary and priests’ houses is assigned to the Levites as ministers of the house (Eze_44:11 sq.), without any farther description, while the priests were described (Eze_45:4) as ministers of the sanctuary, making thus a marked difference between them; and this distinction of the Levites is also marked by the phrase: to them for a possession; for the next verse goes on to speak likewise of a possession of the city, although this latter is “given” (comp. on the other hand 54:2–8,
ìֹàÎúִúְּðåּ
), and does not simply belong (
éäéä
), and
ìָäֶí ìַàֲçֻæָּä
stands evidently opposed to the
åּîִ÷ְãָּùׁ ìַîִּ÷ְãָּùׁ
of ver 4. But this area will be different from the one demanded in general in Eze_45:1, although the Levites too belong to the ministers of the Lord, and the twenty chambers correspond very little to a special landed possession of the extent mentioned. Keil includes the land of the Levites in Eze_45:1; but indeed with his 20,000 rods in breadth there, of which 10,000 fall to the priests and the sanctuary, he has still a breadth of 10,000 rods left for the Levites. Hengst. on the other hand says: “Along with the priests the Levites receive a portion of land of like extent; then follows the district of the holy city with the same length, and a breadth of 5000 cubits; so that the whole portion marked off in advance for priests, Levites, and city is in breadth as in length 25,000 cubits.”—Instead of
éִäְéֶä
, the Qeri reads:
éäָéָä
.—The words
òֶùְׁøִéí ìְùָֹׁëú
formed a difficulty to the LXX., who perhaps imagined the text to be
òָøִéí ìָùֶׁáֶú
. The chambers, instead of the thirty-five Levitical cities of Moses with pasturage, form, as regards the expression, no difficulty; they are very suitable diminutives of the “houses” of the priests. The priests have houses, the Levites as inferiors only chambers, which possibly may mean ranges of cells (Rosenm.) or courts, with one-twentieth of the pasturage for each. Keil, who cannot understand the Masoretic text, and holds
òֶùְׂøִéí
to be a corruption of
ùְׁòָøéí
, reads:
ìָùֶׁáֶú
, by which, however, he obtains only “gates (! !) as dwellings” for the Levites, understanding indeed the “gates” as equivalent in meaning to cities. Hengst. calls them the barracks of the Levites; the departure from the ordinance of Moses, according to which the Levites dwelt scattered through the whole land, is so much the more surprising.
Eze_45:6. The land of the Levites could be properly oblation only if it were the same portion of land as that of the priests and the sanctuary, or if the reading in Eze_45:1 be 20,000 rods in breadth. Hence Hengst. limits the oblation to the sanctuary and the priests’ portion. Only “in the wider sense” does he make it include also the portion of the Levites and the circuit of the city; it may include even the portion of the prince (he says), “since the prince acts as the minister of God.” The structure of the clause in Eze_45:5 speaks in favour of a special area of 10,000 in breadth as Levites’ land; and so does the consideration that by such a possession in land the so much greater number of cities than of priests’ cities, which according to the ordinance of Moses belonged to them, is perhaps given expression to. Comp. besides on Eze_48:20. But however much the definition in Eze_45:5 : to them for a possession, indicates a special pertion of Levites’ land outside of the Terumah ( “oblation”) demanded in Eze_45:1, yet the possession of the city lies still farther outside, as likewise
úִּúְּðåּ
seems to separate it even from the land of the Levites. The city is the capital of the land. Its area has the same length as that hitherto given (25,000), but differs in breadth, which therefore is mentioned first; we have in this respect 10,000 + 10,000 + 5000 = 25,000. The possession of the city “is to be distinguished from the city itself, which (Eze_48:16) is square, the length being equal to the breadth” (Hengst.). The length of this possession runs along the oblation of holiness, by which designation is meant specially the land of the priests and the sanctuary. Its destined purpose, for the whole house of Israel, shows that it is to belong to no single tribe merely. Comp. Ezekiel 48.
The transition to
ìַðָּùִׂéà
in Eze_45:7 is mediated by the whole house of Israel in Eze_45:6, of which the prince is the civil head and representative.—Either a kind of protasis to which Eze_45:8 forms the apodosis, or we may supply: “ye shall give,” from Eze_45:6.—
îִæֶּä åּîִæֶּä
= on both sides, so that the oblation of holiness, which certainly may here include the land of the Levites, and the possession of the city lie between, running before these from north to south, so that seen from the west side what is westward as far as the Mediterranean Sea, seen from the east side what lies east as far as the Jordan is to belong to the prince; just as
åְàֹøֶêְ
explains that as to the length, that is from west to east, the territory shall run the same length with one, i.e. any one of the portions of the tribes, shall neither go beyond nor fall short of any single tribal portion. Jerome remarks that the prince received for himself a whole tribal portion, with the exclusion, however, of the land of the sanctuary, the priests, the Levites, and the city; but in return he has not only the duty of protecting the square in question, but also the honour of possessing on his territory whatever is holy pertaining to the nation.
Eze_45:8.
ìָàָøֶõ
, more exactly defined by
ìַàֲçֻæָּä
: the land described in Eze_45:7 shall be the land assigned to him for a possession in Israel. The reason for this arrangement follows:
åְìֹà×
. The former state of things, in which no landed possession, no crown estate, was allotted to them qua princes, had tempted them to misuse of their power, to acquire for themselves possessions.—My princes corresponds to My people; hence those who will in future have princely power over the people. This My applied to both parties contains at the same time the divine sentence on the former princes, who may be considered persons as little conscious of their high and responsible position as of the significance of Israel. Instead of taking to themselves, they are rather to give to the house of Israel, that is, to leave in possession, and also, if need be, to restore. The phrase: according to their tribes, shows what land is meant. [Fairbairn: “That the whole ground for the priesthood, the prince, and the people of the city was to form together a square, betokened the perfect harmony and agreement which should subsist between these different classes, as well as the settled order and stability which should distinguish the sacred commonwealth, in which they held the highest place. That the priesthood were to occupy what was emphatically holy ground, was a symbol of the singular degree of holiness which should characterize those who stood in their official position the nearest to the Lord. And that the prince was to have a separate possession assigned him was to cut off all occasion for his lawlessly interfering with the possessions of the people, and to exhibit the friendly bearing and upright administration which was to be expected of him (Eze_45:8). And not only must he personally abstain from all oppressive behaviour, but as the divinely constituted head of a righteous commonwealth, he must take effective measures for establishing justice and judgment throughout the whole. Particular examples are given of this in regard to the using of just weights and measures in the transactions of business (Eze_45:9-12).”—W. F.]
Eze_45:9 concludes what specially regards the princes, by whose conduct in good and in bad a mirror and example was held up to the people, while at the same time it solemnly introduces the more general regulations which follow in regard to judgment and justice in trade and commerce.—The subject in Eze_44:6 was the people with reference to the priesthood, here it is the prince in reference to the people; as there holiness and sanctification, so here judgment and justice. (Jerome interprets
øַá×
let this tribe-like possession suffice you!) What has already taken place far too often is now so much the more enough, as all natural temptation has been taken away by the assigning of domains (Eze_45:7 sq.).—(
ùַׁãַã ùֹׁã
) is virtually the same as
çָîָñ
, a violent mode of acting, misuse of power, only stronger, because the consequence thereof: “devastation,” is implied in the word, as in the corresponding justice the exercise of judgment is manifested. Hengstenberg thinks: the direct address shows that representatives or descendants of the princes who had formerly committed injustice were also in exile.—
âְּøֻùָׁä
is expulsion of the lawful possessor from his property, as in 1 Kings 21.—The burden which this was to the community, the pressure which thereby was inflicted on Israel, is depicted in the words:
äָøִéîåּ îֵòַì×
. “The political parties especially,” observes Hengstenberg, “gave occasion for the confiscations.” Comp. besides, 1Sa_8:14.
Eze_45:10-12
. Justice in Common Life
The transition which is made by Eze_45:10 shows what an example for the community the conduct of the prince may be in evil and ought to be in good.—( “Princes have in all times attempted to take advantage of their subjects by alteration of coinage and weights,” Philippson.)—
îְùׁæְðַéִí
dual, denotes the two scales of the balance, from
àָæַï
, “to make ready,” “to fix;” in reference to the way this can be done, “to weigh,” to determine the weight.—
(
àֶôָּä
)
àֶéôַä
, according to Josephine in Greek, a measure about the same as a Berlin bushel [about 1 1/12; bushels English]; see Gesen. Lexicon. In the same way as the ephah for dry goods, the
áַּú
was used for liquids, as Delitzsch observes on Isa_5:10. This measure occurs first in the days of the kings, and from Josephus’ calculation it might contain somewhat more than 33 Berlin quarts [about 7 gallons English],
Eze_45:11 now begins to discuss what is right as to measure (
úֹּëֶï
, pensum, Exo_5:18), that which the ephah and bath are to represent, in order clearly to set forth exactness in trade and commerce as the divine characteristic of the people, as their holiness in ordinary life. Eze_45:10 is expounded and illustrated by examples.—
ìָùֵׂàú
Rashi explains by
ìָ÷ַçַú
, “to bear” = to hold, to contain. The
çֹîֶø
(a heap collected together) shall be the measure, the norm, for ephah and bath, as the greatest dry goods measure, commonly called “cor” from the time of the kings, and (from Josephus) estimated at a little more than 15 Berlin pecks [about 600 English pints].
Eze_45:12 proceeds to speak of the standard for money, the shekel. An exactly weighed and hence definite (small) pound of silver, called by the Rabbins “rock” in distinction from the gerah, which they called “little stone,” is the oldest biblical standard of value, originally, in barter a weight, afterwards a coin, like the drachma among the Greeks and the as among the Romans. The value doubtless affixed by common agreement of the dealers to the ordinary shekel before the time of Moses cannot now be determined; but originating probably in Babylon, and coming through the Phœnicians, the word meets us also in Greek (
óéêëïò
,
óéãëïò
).—
âֵּøָä
is what is “made small,” hence grain as a small piece, like “grain” (a weight), from granum; Gesenius supposes it to be the carob bean (
êåñáôéïí
), which the Greeks, Romans, and Arabians used as the smallest weight, in the same way as barley and pepper-corns have been so used,—the smallest biblical silver coin.—After the value of the shekel has been thus defined from the parts it contains (comp. Exo_30:13; Lev_27:25; Num_3:47), there may perhaps, as Cocceius and J. D. Michaelis think, be three different kinds of shekel given, a larger, an intermediate, and a smaller. Hengstenberg better: “the maneh, probably of foreign origin, which explains its rare and late occurrence, is stated at a threefold value,” according to its different worth in the several countries from which it came. The normal maneh = 20 shekels, corresponding to the 20 gerahs, stands first.—
îָðֶä
(1Ki_10:17; Ezr_2:69; Neh_7:71-72), from a comparison of the first passage—in which Hengstenberg, indeed, prefers to read
îֵàåֹú
instead of
îָðּéí
—with 2Ch_9:16, it appears that a maneh is equal to 100 shekels, a result usually reconciled with our passage by saying that civil shekels, that is, Mosaic half-shekels, are intended to be meant in 2 Chronicles 9, since the
áֶּ÷ַò
in the course of time became as shekel the widest spread large silver piece. But still 100 such shekels, or 50 Mosaic ones, by which Ezekiel reckons, would not be 20 + 25 + 15, the numbers given here, added together = 60 shekels; and besides, the three divisions and the putting of the 20 first remain unexplained! Hence Keil infers a very ancient corruption of the text. Hitzig, accepting like Hengstenberg three manehs, the only reasonable interpretation of the present text, supposes computation in gold, silver, and copper; that is, a gold, a silver, and a copper maneh. The Chaldee paraphrast, on the other hand, took the 60 shekels as the extraordinary value of the happy Messianic age (
åîðé øáà ÷åãùà éäé ìëåï
). The interpretation of the LXX., accepted by Boeckh (Metrol. Unters.) and Bertheau (Gesch. der Isr.), gives the following very insignificant proposition: The 5-shekel weight shall be to you 5 shekels, and the 10-shekel weight 10, and 50 shekels shall be a maneh.
Eze_45:13-17
. The Oblation of the People
As formerly it was from the prince to the people, so now it is what the people have to render to the prince. The foregoing fixing of measures forms the transition, and the designation
äַúְּøåּîָä
in Eze_45:13, taken from Eze_45:1 sq., is also an intermediate link. The oblation is offered to Jehovah as being set apart for purposes of worship. It is to be the sixtieth part of wheat and barley.
ùִׁùָּׁä
, to divide into six parts, hence here: to take off the sixth part.
Eze_45:14.
çֹ÷ äַùֶּׁîֶï
is the ordinance of the oil, what the law of the oblation is to be in respect to the oil; namely, as explained by the apposition:
äַáַּú äַùֶּׁîֶï
, which Hengstenberg makes a parenthesis, and paraphrases thus: “the bath is the measure for the oil,”—the quantity taken from the bath of oil shall be the tenth part of it. The cor (1Ki_5:2 [4:22]; 2Ch_2:9 [10], 27:5), for dry goods and liquids, a post-Mosaic name of a measure; and hence it is not only added that the cor is ten baths, but also that it is the same as the homer, for ten baths (Eze_45:11) make a homer. [Hengst.: homer without doubt the native name; cor introduced from the Aramaic during or after the exile.] Thus the tenth of the bath is as regards the oil the hundredth part of the harvest.—Wine (specifically for the drink-offering) is not mentioned; small cattle however are
Eze_45:15—(the “oblation” in their case is to be one out of two hundred, and that one to come from fat pastures, to be well fed), but not oxen. The enumeration, says Keil, is not complete, but contains only the norm for levying the contributions; as Hengstenberg expresses himself: to serve as proof that the regulations here “do not bear the character of an actual tax,” but are only by way of example and outline. Philippson remarks: “This impost appears intended to serve as substitute for the tithes prescribed by Moses, which are not mentioned here.”—
îַùְׁ÷ֶä
is “a watered district,” like Gen_13:10; a significant allusion: Israel after their return to their own land will be as richly blessed as ever the valley of Jordan was before its devastation.
Eze_45:16 consigns this oblation to the princes.—
éִäְéåּ àֶì×
, they are to see to it that they render it. The prince is hereby on the one hand enabled to provide for the service of worship, as on the other his representation of the people is made manifest. Hengstenberg holds the amount of this oblation to be too great, and barley moreover was not used in worship, unless we understand that “the other expenses for the general good” were to be included.
Eze_45:17. Instead of
äָéָä àֶì
, which applies to all the people, we have now
äָéָä òַì
, that which concerns the prince only; on him it shall be incumbent. First, the things incumbent upon him are enumerated, and then is added what he has to do (
äåּàÎéַòֲùֶׂä
), namely, as is obvious from his very position, that he shall defray the material expenses of worship, and in so far perform it. He is indeed “governor of the feast,” but not “officiator in presenting the atoning sacrifice on the feast days,” with a priestly dignity, such as Umbreit attributes to him.
éַòֲùֶׂä
may simply be: cause to be done (Eze_46:2). Hävernick again well observes: “Thus there arises a beautiful contrast to the former state of matters. Instead of violent exactions, harsh oppression, infamous tyranny, and mutual injustice and disloyalty, comes a settled order of things, conscientious gifts of the people which are holy gifts. The prince appears as the theocratic head, who truly cares for the weal and safety of Israel, who supports in the liveliest and demands in the strongest manner the close communion of the people with their God; not only administering justice, but also caring for the most sacred interests of the people,” etc.
Eze_45:18-20
. The Sin-offering in the First Month
A solemn introduction: Thus saith, etc.—( “Taking occasion from the thought in Eze_45:17, the prophet now portrays, as a new, solemn cycle of feasts begins in Israel, what also the prophets elsewhere announce regarding the sacred festivals in the Messianic period, e.g.Isa_66:23; Zec_14:16,” Häv.) The whole mode of expression in Eze_45:18, as well as the comparison of Eze_43:18 sq. (of the difference between that and this), and the connection with what follows,—all this compels us to reject the view given by Hengstenberg, that corresponding to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offerings, we have to regard the consecration of the sanctuary as a solemnity occurring only once. Hengstenberg compares the seven days’ solemnity in the case of Solomon’s temple (2Ch_7:8), and the fresh consecration of the temple under Hezekiah (2Ch_29:18 sq.), but especially the consecration of the tabernacle on the first day of the first month in Exodus 40. Besides what we have said already, the following consideration tells against this view. Surely we may suppose a difference between these sanctuaries built by men, like the altar of burnt-offerings (
áְּéåֹí äֵòָùׂåֹúåֹ
), and the divine temple beheld by Ezekiel, when its consecration in this sense had already taken place by the coming in of the divine glory (Eze_43:2 sq.). The solemnity here ordained on the first and seventh days of the month (Nisan, Eze_45:21) is a yearly returning one, as is shown also by the reference in Eze_45:20 to continual recurrence. Num_28:11 sq. shows that the beginning of every month is to be solemnized, and Numbers 29 that there is to be additionally a special solemnity on the first day of the seventh month. On this comp. Ezekiel 46—The cleansing of the sanctuary is effected here through a young bullock, instead of the goat prescribed by Moses for the new moon,—an augmentation of the sin-offering as to the victim, just as in Eze_45:19 through the process which accomplishes the cleansing. The posts of the house (Eze_41:21) refer to the sanctuary (Eze_45:18), without distinction in respect to its two divisions, the altar of burnt-offerings and the gate (doubtless collective for all the three gates, for if only the east gate were meant, specific mention of it would hardly be omitted) of the inner court.
Eze_45:20, however, explains in direct terms that this cleansing of the sanctuary on the first and seventh days of the first month takes place from the ground (
îִï
), the cause which, in view of the holiness of the house, may be found in
àִéùׁ ùֹׁâֶä
, that is: the erring, frail man, and
ôְּúִé
, either: folly, or, abstr. pro concreto: the fool (properly, the man open to every impression, easily led astray). The two designations are distinguished as actus and potentia, the occasional act and the natural disposition; but it has been rightly remarked that both denote sins of weakness. [Keil wrongly interprets
îִï
Ó
“from, away from,” setting him free from his sin; for this neither agrees with the immediately following
åְëִôַּøְúֶּí àֶúÎäַáַּéִú
, nor can it be found in the
åְëֵï úַּòֲùֶׂä
, which refers back to Eze_45:19.] “Thus shall the year, newly consecrated by such a beginning, most truly present the appearance of a holy year. At the same time this is the preparation for the feast of the passover in Eze_45:21” (Häv.). Since the great day of atonement (Lev_16:16 sq.) had the same end in view as the very expressive and augmented solemnity ordained here on the first day of the month, the single yearly day of atonement is otherwise quite passed over, and thus there is ground for the opinion that the solemnity here is meant to express the idea of the day of atonement for the worship of the future.
Eze_45:21-25
. The Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles
Eze_45:21. The chief fundamental feast of Israel, the beginning of the feast-cycle, as afterwards its close, so that with the passover and the feast of tabernacles the whole circle of feasts in the narrower sense is either embraced (Häv.), or decreed as the annual feasts of the future (Keil). Comp. the original institution of the feast of the passover in Exodus 12.—
çַâ ùְׁáֻòåֹú
, to which is here added
éָîִéí
, is: feast of seven days, because it always lasted seven days (comp. Num_28:17), so that the “continuous” feast is denoted, but not, as Hengst.: “in contrast to the feast of consecration,” but rather implying that in this connection recurring feasts are spoken of. The old translations render the designation simply: “a feast of seven days”; the addition:
éָîִéí
, will at least distinguish it as seven-dayed from the “feast of weeks” (
çַâ ùְׁáֻòåֹú
), celebrated later at the close of harvest. Kliefoth, on the other hand, supposes that in future the passover will be held as a feast of seven weeks, which lasts seven weeks; and so not merely the seven days of unleavened bread, but the whole seven weeks will be passover—the feast of weeks shall be one with the passover. The ordinance regarding the
îַöּåֹú
relates (he holds) to the whole seven weeks up to the feast of first-fruits. See the refutation of this in Keil on the passage. The seven days of the feast in Eze_45:23 also tell very plainly what is meant. Comp. on Deuteronomy 16.
Eze_45:22 exhibits the prince in the charge imposed upon him (
äåּàÎéַòֲùֶׂä
, here
åְòָùָׂä
).—
áַּéּåֹí äַäåּà
).—is the above-mentioned fourteenth day of the first month, the feast-day proper (
äַôֶּñַç
), on the evening of which the paschal lamb was slain and eaten.—The sin-offering precedes, whereas in Numbers 28 it follows after. In this way the idea of the day of atonement pervades also the passover of the future (for himself and for the whole people of the land). The victim, too, of the sin-offering on the first feast-day proper is not a goat, but a bullock! For the seven following days of the mazzoth there are ordained
Eze_45:23—as a burnt-offering, instead of the two bullocks of Moses, seven bullocks, and instead of the one ram in the law, here seven rams, all without blemish,
ìַéּåֹí
, “for the day,” each of the seven days; and only the one goat as daily sin-offering is retained from the law of Moses. This enhancement of the feast-offerings, 49 bullocks and 49 rams as burnt-offering, is additional proof of an element which has already repeatedly shown itself, to wit, Israel’s state of grace for the future. In reference to the passover Hengstenberg observes: “That precisely the grace of redemption sealed by this festival was to receive so rich an accession by the events of the future.” The seven lambs of the first year ordained in the law are omitted by Ezekiel; we might say, because the Lamb of God, who is the fulfilment of this feast, will be sufficient in the Messianic times. But, as only befits the symbolized idea meant to be made prominent, the meat-offering
Eze_45:24—accompanying the burnt-offering surpasses even the measure of the latter. In the law there are to each bullock only three-tenths of an ephah of flour mingled with oil, two-tenths to the ram, and only one-tenth to each of the seven lambs; here a whole ephah, namely of flour, is appointed for each bullock and each ram, finally of oil one
äִéï
(Eze_4:11).
Eze_45:25 describes the feast of tabernacles, the feast (
áֶּçָâ
) falling on the 15th day of the 7th month, so designated because not expressed by name. Keil and Kliefoth assign as the reason for its not being named: “wi
