1And these are the names of the tribes: from the north end by the way of [toward] Hethlon, as one cometh to Hamath, Hazar-Enon, the border of Damascus northward to the border of Hamath, and they are to him the east2 side, the sea: Dan one. And on the border of Dan, from the east side to 3 the westward side: Asher one. And on the border of Asher, from the eastward 4 side to the westward side: Naphtali one. And on the border of Naphtali, from the eastward side to the westward side: Manasseh one.5 And on the border of Manasseh, from the eastward side to the westward 6 side: Ephraim one. And on the border of Ephraim, from the east side, and 7 to the westward side: Reuben one. And on the border of Reuben, from the 8 east side to the westward side: Judah one. And on the border of Judah, from the east side to the westward side, shall be the oblation which ye shall offer, five and twenty thousand in breadth, and the length as one of the tribe-portions from the eastward side to the westward side; and the sanctuary Isaiah 9 in the midst of it. The oblation which ye shall offer to Jehovah is in length 10 five and twenty thousand, and in breadth ten thousand. And to these, to the priests, shall the oblation of holiness be; northward five and twenty thousand, and seaward in breadth ten thousand, and southward in length five and twenty thousand; and the sanctuary of Jehovah is in the midst of it. 11 To the priests is the hallowed portion, [to those descending] from the sons of Zadok, who kept My charge, who went not astray when the sons of Israel 12 went astray, as the Levites went astray. And there is to them a heave-portion from the oblation of the land most holy, by the border [border district] of 13 the Levites. And the Levites [receive], over against the border of the priests, five and twenty thousand in length, and in breadth ten thousand; the whole length five and twenty thousand, and the breadth ten thousand. 14And they shall not sell of it, nor exchange, nor shall the first-fruits of the land pass 15 over [into another hand]; for [it is] holiness to Jehovah. And five thousand that are left in breadth before the five and twenty thousand that is profane, for 16 the city, for dwelling, and for open space; and the city is in its midst. And these are its measures: the north side four thousand and five hundred, and the south side four thousand and five hundred, and on the east side four thousand and five hundred, and the westward side four thousand and five 17 hundred. And there is an open space for the city, northward two hundred and fifty, and southward two hundred and fifty, and eastward two hundred and fifty, and westward two hundred and fifty. 18And the residue in length, over against the oblation of holiness, ten thousand eastward and ten thousand westward; and it is over against the oblation of holiness, and the produce 19 thereof is for food for the labourers of the city. And as to the labourers of 20 the city, they shall labour it out of all the tribes of Israel. The whole oblation is five and twenty thousand by five and twenty thousand: a fourth-part shall ye offer the oblation of holiness, for a possession of the city. 21And the residue [belongs] to the prince, on this side and on that of the oblation of holiness, and of the possession of the city, before the five and twenty thousand of the oblation unto the border eastward, and westward before the five and twenty thousand toward the westward border, over against the tribe-portions, [it belongs] to the prince; and the oblation of holiness and the sanctuary of the 22 house are in its midst. And [namely] from the possession of the Levites, from the possession of the city [from that] in the midst, shall be the prince’s, between the border of Judah and between the border of Benjamin—the prince’s it 23 shall be. And the rest of the tribes: from the eastward side to the westward 24 side: Benjamin one. And on the border of Benjamin, from the eastward 25 side to the westward side: Simeon one. And on the border of Simeon, from 26 the eastward side to the westward side: Issachar one. And on the border 27 of Issachar, from the eastward side to the westward side: Zebulon one. And on the border of Zebulon, from the eastward side to the westward side: Gad 28 one. And on the border of Gad, toward the south side, to the right is the border: from Tamar to the strife-waters of Kadesh is the inheritance [along the brook] to the great sea. 29This is the land which ye shall divide of the inheritance to the tribes of Israel, and these are their portions: sentence of the Lord Jehovah. 30And these are the out-goings of the city: on the north side, four thousand and five hundred by measure. 31And the gates of the city after the names of the tribes of Israel: three gates northward; the gate of 32 Reuben one, the gate of Judah one, the gate of Levi one. And on the eastward side four thousand and five hundred: and three gates; the gate of 33 Joseph one, the gate of Benjamin one, the gate of Dan one. And as to the southward side, four thousand and five hundred by measure: and three gates; the gate of Simeon one, the gate of Issachar one, the gate of Zebulon one. 34 As to the westward side, four thousand and five hundred: its gates three; 35 the gate of Gad one, the gate of Asher one, the gate of Naphtali one. Round about eighteen thousand: and the name of the city from that day: “Jehovah thither” (Jehovah Shammah).
Eze_48:17. Another reading:
åôàú×
instead of
åîôàú ÷ãéí
, and
åîôàú×
instead of
åôàúÎéîä
.
Eze_48:18.
ê
.
ἐóïíôáé áß ἀðáñ÷áé ô
.
ἁãéïõ
,
ê
.
ἑóôáé
. . .
ôïéò ἐñãáæïìåíïéò ôçí ðïëéí
. Vulg.: … erunt sicut primitiæ sanctuarii … fruges in panes his qui serviunt civitati.
Eze_48:20. Sept.: …
ἀöïñéåéôå áὐôïõ ôçí ἀðáñ÷çí
. . .
ἀðï ôçò êáôáó÷åóåùò ô
.
ðïëåùò
. Vulg.: Omnes primitiæ … in quadrum, separabuntur in primitias sanctuarii et in possessionem civitatis.
Eze_48:21. …
ἐê ôïõôïõ
,
ê
.
ἐê ôïõôïõ ἀðï ô
.
ἀðáñ÷ùí
. . .
ê
.
åἰò ô
.
êáôáó÷åóéí
. . .
êáôá ðñïóùðïí
. . .
÷éëéáäáò ìçêïò
,
ἑùò ôùí ὁñéùí ô
.
ðñïò èáëáóóáí
,
ê
.
ἐ÷ïìåíá ôùí ìåñéäùí ô
.
ἀöçãïõìåíïõ
· (Another reading:
òì âáåì
instead of
òã×
.)
Eze_48:28. …
ê
.
ἑùò ôùí ðñïò ëéâá
,
ê
.
ἐóôáé ὁñéá áὐôïõ ἀðï Èáéìáí ê
.
ὑäáôïò Âáñéìùè Êáäçò
,
êëçñïíïìéá
,
ἑùò èáëáóóçò
—(Another reading:
îôàú
pro
àì ôàú
;
òã îé×
;
òã äéí
.)
Eze_48:29. Another reading:
áðäìä
.
Eze_48:34. Another reading:
ùòøéí
.
Eze_48:35.
Êõêëùìá
. . .
Ê
.
ô
.
ὀíïìá ô
.
ðïëåùò
,
ðïëåùò
,
ἀö
ʼ
ἡò ἀí ἡìåñáò ãåíçôáé Êõñéïò ἐêåé ἐóôáé ô
.
ὀíïìê áὐôçò
.
EXEGETICAL REMARKS
Eze_48:1-29.—The Division of the Land among the Tribes, with the Separation of the Part to be separated.
Eze_48:1-7
.—The Seven Upper Tribe-portions.
The division of the land, like the fixing of the boundaries (Eze_47:15 sq.), begins in the north, inclining thence to the south. Hitzig denies the significance of the number seven here: “As the section itself regarding the Terumah is put in the middle, so his object is to move the central sanctuary, which must lie between Judah and Benjamin, but historically lay far nearer the south border than the north, as near indeed as possible to the centre, yet also toward the south.” Hengst., on the contrary, argues from the division of the number twelve into seven and five,—a division which often occurs also in the grouping of the Psalms, where “the sacred number seven is always the chief number, and five appears only as its supplement.” “Even upon the land,” says Häv., “is the character of pleasing to God to be stamped throughout.”
[“The territory to be divided being thus obviously viewed in an ideal light, the division itself is conducted in the same manner,—not as it ever could have taken place in the reality, but after rule and measure, in exact and regular portions, running alongside of each other the whole breadth from west to east, and standing in a common relation to the temple in the centre. Seven of the tribes have their portions on the north, on account of the greater stretch of the land in that direction with respect to the actual Jerusalem, and in the following order:—Dan, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, Reuben, Judah; the latter having its place close by the central portion on the north, as Benjamin had on its south. This honour appears to have been given to these two tribes in consideration of their relative historical superiority, having so long adhered to the temple and ordinances of God, when the others deserted them. Dan, on the contrary, was placed at the extreme north, on account of the low religious character of the tribe, precisely as John, in representing the whole elect Church by twelve thousand from the several tribes of Israel, leaves Dan out altogether (Revelation 7). As there were actually thirteen tribes, he finds his twelve times twelve by omitting Dan, whose idolatrous and semi-heathen character made it border morally, as it did locally, on the Gentiles. Here the two tribes of Joseph are thrown into one, to admit of Dan’s having a place, but it is still the lowest place in the ideal territory of a blessed world. With these exceptions, we can discern no specific grounds for the particular places assigned to the tribes respectively. The order on the south side was, Benjamin, Simeon, Issachar, Zebulon, Gad. But the. city, the temple, the prince, and priesthood, with their respective portions, being situated precisely in the middle, and not within the boundaries of any of the tribes, was intended to intimate that all were now to be regarded as having a common interest in them; and that the miserable and mischievous jealousies which had of old exercised so disastrous an influence, especially between Judah and Ephraim, should finally and for ever cease. All now should stand related as a united and compact brotherhood to the sanctuary of the Lord, from which, as a central fountainhead of life and blessing, there should continually stream forth manifestations of grace to all the people.”—Fairbairn’s Ezekiel, pp. 498, 499.—W. F.]
Eze_48:1. The starting-point: the north end, Eze_47:15.—The course goes from west to east; hence “Hethlon” and “Hamath,” and “Hazar-Enon” as the eastmost point. Hengst.: “from Hazar, etc., to the border,” etc., so that the northmost point is Hamath, Eze_47:17.—The words: and they are (pertain) to him, refer to the tribe immediately named, Dan.—
ôְàַúÎ÷ָãִéí äַéָּí
, Keil: asyndeton = the east side and the west, the tract toward both sides. Hitzig: “the east side of the sea,” that is, what lies east from the sea, namely, from the north end of this east side, from Hazar-Enon. Hengst.: “the east side, the west sea.” But he takes “him” as the ideal unity of the tribes as a whole, although Dan (he says) was specially in the prophet’s mind. At the division of the land under Joshua, Dan had, west of Benjamin, taken possession of only a part of the land’s breadth; but in the days of the Judges, Danites had pressed northward, and had named the conquered Laish Dan, so that Dan denoted the north border. Hengst. makes one of the prophet’s points of view to be to show the equality of all the tribes as “members of equal rank in the body of the people of God.” Thus in the case of the tribe allotments, and afterwards in the case of the gates, “the sons of the handmaids and of the wives, and those of the latter again among one another, were intentionally and skilfully intermixed (Rev_7:5-8), and Dan the son of the handmaid stands at the head, because there is with God no respect of persons: Israel is a brotherly people, in which no member may raise itself above another.”—
ãָּï àֶçָã
means: that Dan shall receive an inheritance, as Keil supplies
çֶëֶì
, from Eze_47:13. Klief.: “the single equal heritage for each tribe being considered as a monad.” Similarly in what follows; and always, in distinction from the former order of things, taking in the whole breadth of Canaan, “from the east side to the seaward side.”
Eze_48:2. Asher.
Eze_48:3. Naphtali.
Eze_48:4. Manasseh.
Eze_48:5. Ephraim.
Eze_48:6. Reuben.
Eze_48:7. Judah, who is thus preceded by three pair of tribes, the list of the seven upper tribes closing with him, just as from him the whole people received even their name. Keil observes: “Asher and Naphtali, who formerly occupied the most northern district, are ranged beside Dan; then follows Manasseh, since half-Manasseh formerly dwelt to the east of Naphtali; and Ephraim is ranged beside Manasseh, as formerly beside the western half-Manasseh. The reason for bringing in Reuben between Ephraim and Judah seems to be that Reuben was the firstborn of Jacob’s sons.”
Eze_48:8-22
. The Special Portion cut off from the Land
Eze_48:8 places, moreover, the Terumah on the border of Judah. “The normal condition of Israel is reached, according to which all the life of the whole land streams forth from its truly spiritual centre, and the unity of the whole community rests entirely upon the Lord Himself and His self-revelation in the midst of the people. In this way the fact also is explained that Judah dwells nearest the sanctuary, while Benjamin occupies a corresponding position on the south side of the temple. The reason of this is not so much the warlike character of these two tribes, as their attachment to the temple when the ten tribes revolted from it. Both tribes represent such a disposition, and the prophet’s higher spiritual point of view manifests itself in this division of the tribes, as differing essentially from the old division, inasmuch as this latter was determined principally by outward need and external relations” (Häv.). According to Bunsen, Judah lay sufficiently near the centre in order, with Ephraim, “to form the fulcrum of defence.” The Terumah, which refers us back to Eze_45:1 sq., is employed, according to Hengst., sensu latiori, including also the portion of the prince; it rather appears, however, to be denominated a parte potiori, as it is expressly said: and the sanctuary is in the midst of it, although the five and twenty thousand in breadth will comprehend all, if the clause: and the length as one (any one) of the tribe portions from the eastward side to the westward (seaward) side, is to be understood in accordance with Eze_45:7. Then, however, Eze_48:9, the oblation, as it is distinctively called, which ye shall offer to Jehovah, will not, like that: which ye shall offer, in Eze_48:8, be the Terumah in the special sense. The “sanctuary” in Eze_48:8 forms the transition to this specializing.—Thus also it cannot be misunderstood when in Eze_48:10the oblation of holiness (comp. on Ezekiel 45) is adjudged to the priests, for the sanctuary lies in their portion.—The clause: northward, etc., makes the upper boundary of this main division of the whole the same (25,000) in length, that is, from east to west, as the last-measured boundary southward. Westward and eastward, whereby the breadth is given, that is, in the direction from north to south, the measurement yields the same result in each case, 10,000.—
åְäָéָä× áְּúåֹëåֹ
fixes in some measure more exactly the
áְּúåֹëåֹ
of Eze_48:8, whose suffix Keil makes refer ad sensum to
çֵìֶ÷
, instead of to
úְּøåּîָä
, At all events,
áְּúåֹëåֹ
there is not = “therein” (Hitzig).
The expression: “in the midst,” refers, however, neither to one of the tribe-portions nor to the “oblation,” but to the priests’ portion, which the oblation bounds off on all sides. In our verse the suffix refers more definitely to the oblation of holiness in its length and breadth, which are given as to the four sides.
Eze_48:11. Kliefoth renders
äַîְ÷ֻãָּùׁ
, “the hallowed portion,” to the priests it shall belong. So also Rashi. Pual pass., as it is, can here denote nothing more suitably, especially as the suffix in the previous
áְּúåֹëåֹ
is thereby most easily explained. Most expositors, following the old translations, and influenced by Isa_13:3, render it in a plural sense; and similarly Kimchi takes it distributively: “he who is hallowed of the sons of Zadok.” The participle certainly lies inconveniently between
ìַëֹּçֲðִéí
and
îִáְּðֵé×
, but the plural in 2Ch_26:18 cannot decide in favour of the singular here, for the singular here would, as Hengst. grants, denote “the hallowed part as distinct from the unconsecrated part,”—a restriction which can no longer be introduced in the case of the sons of Zadok (comp. Eze_44:15 sq.), after they have been repeatedly represented as the hallowed priestly personelle. What does this saying of Hengstenberg’s mean: that they are sanctified “by their fidelity, by which they made their election sure”? It ought rather to be said that the part of the Terumah which is specially the Terumah—the “oblation of holiness” (as in Eze_48:10), or
äַîְ÷ֻãָּùׁ
, as is said here—belongs to those who are the priests of the future, namely, to the priests who are taken from the sons of Zadok, who kept, etc. (referring to the “sons of Zadok”); comp. Eze_44:15. The
îִ
denotes no selection or restriction among the sons of Zadok, but simply their descent, whence these priests are, with a reference back to what is contained on that subject in the previous chapters. [Keil’s objection in respect to
äַîְ÷ֻãָּùׁ
tells, moreover, against such a view as this: “to the priests it is consecrated,”—a view which indeed would correspond neither to the form of the text nor the facts of the case.] The mention of the going astray of the Levites, like whom the children of Israel went astray, shows, what hitherto is manifest throughout, namely, that the tribe of Levi, not the priestly family of Aaron, was intended; whereas Hengst., in order to have the necessary distinction and contrast, thinks of those who were “as a punishment desecrated (?), degraded, and reduced to mere Levites.” The meaning, on the contrary, is simply this: the sons of Zadok stood firm when the rest of Levi stumbled, and along with Levi, Israel. That some of the sons of Zadok also had gone astray, and in contrast to them the description here is given, is not the case.
Eze_48:12.
åְäָéְúָä ìָäֶí
, although no formal apodosis to Eze_48:11, most expressly confirms the view taken of Eze_48:11.—
úְּøåּîִéָּä
, as the following
îִï
likewise shows, is less a part (Klief.) of the oblation, than an abstraction therefrom; hence in a spiritual respect somehow in relation to the oblation, what is most holy in relation to the sanctuary; Keil correctly: “the offering from the oblation.” But this “Terumiah” from the “Terumah” is designated most holy because it is this in relation to the part which belongs to the Levites. Observe how the old ordinances as regards places are converted into ordinances in reference to persons, and thereby Jehovah’s relation comes out as a relation appearing in men. [Hengst.: “the heave-portion which fell to the priests is designated most holy, because it has God’s sanctuary in the midst of it, and belongs to His most eminent ministers, in distinction from the part of the Levites, which has only the second degree of holiness, and from that of the city, which has only the third” (?).] The closing definition:
àֶìÎâְּáåּì×
, not merely forms the transition to what follows, but also indicates that we have to imagine the priests’ portion as adjoining the south or the north side of the Levites’ portion.—In Eze_48:13, accordingly, this latter is expressed, as it had to be expressed in respect of the Levites, namely: that they are to have their appointed portion close to the border of the priests (
ìְòֻîַּú
). Hengst.: “In the description of the oblation, the prophet, for theological reasons, began with the middle portion, the priests’ part; it was then necessary to guard against the thought that the Levites’ part was separated by the city, or the city by the Levites’ part, from the sanctuary. The servants of the house, and likewise he inhabitants of the city, as constituting the holy assembly at the divine services, behoved to have the sanctuary as near as possible.” Comp. for the determination of the circumference, Eze_45:5. As to the repeated closing clause: the whole length, it will lose its appearance of tautology if we assume with Kliefoth that it is meant to express briefly the two lengths (north and south) and the two breadths (east and west), instead of going through the cardinal points one by one, as in Eze_48:10.
Eze_48:14. Comp. Lev_25:34. “It is regarded as the gift of first-fruits to Jehovah, to which the Lord has the sole right, and which thus may never come into the hands of another” (Häv.). “The ordinance applies naturally also to the priests, land, although it is expressly given only for the Levites’ part, because its holiness is less, so that the thought of its being saleable might more readily arise” (Hengst.).—
éַòֲáåֹø
(Qeri:
éַòֲáִéø
); the Kal is quite sufficient, there is no need of a Hiphil form.—That which is acknowledged as first-fruits of the land is holy to Jehovah. “Traffic is excluded where God is the landowner and the Levites only usufructuaries” (Hengst.). “This land is an offering; the heaving is one form for it, and the gift of first-fruits the other” (Klief.).
As in Eze_45:6, so now in Eze_48:15, the possession of the city comes after the land of the priests and Levites. Kliefoth observes, referring to Eze_40:2 (?), that the prophet beheld the city to the south; hence it lay south of the priests’ portion and the sanctuary, and so the Levites’ portion lay north of that of the priests. Ezekiel, he goes on to say, setting out as he does from the middle of the Terumah, does not, as in the division of the land among the tribes, follow the direction from north to south, but takes first the more central priests’ portion (Eze_48:9-12); but the fact that he then (Eze_48:13-14) describes the Levites’ portion, lying north of it, and thereafter takes up the city-possession, lying south of the priests’ portion, has its ground in this, that the portion of the Levites is also holy, whereas the portion of the city is profane. It is still simpler to take as motive for the order observed, besides the reference to Ezekiel 45., the connection of priests and Levites with the central sanctuary. In this way the Levites necessarily preceded the city. The five thousand are left when we subtract twice ten thousand in breadth (Eze_48:9; Eze_48:13) from five and twenty thousand in breadth, that is, from north to south (Eze_48:8).—
äַðּåֹúָø
is neuter, according to Hitzig; it is the particip. Niph. of
òַì ôְּðֵé
—
éָúַø
, before the side in question, namely, from east to west; this gives a third oblong, which, however, is only half the breadth of the two former.—
çåֹì
is profane, in contrast to the former “most holy” and “holy” of the portion of the priests and Levites. Philippson: “they are common land for the city, for dwellings, and for environs.” These five thousand are set apart generally for the city (
ìָòִéø
), and specially for dwellings and as precincts for free use, pasture, arable land, etc. As the city is the title for this portion of land, so the verse concludes by stating that the city is
áְּúåֹëֹä
. Hengst. makes the feminine suffix refer to the city in the wider sense (
ìָòִéø
), within which the city in the narrower sense lies. Kliefoth translates: “in the middle in it.” Since the city lies in the midst of the city-district, this makes it, as Klief. observes, lie right opposite the sanctuary in the south.
Eze_48:16 first subjoins the more exact statement in regard to the length from east to west, previously only indicated by
òַì ôְּðֵé
. The oblation affords it a front of five and twenty thousand; its measure, however, is such as to make a square of four thousand five hundred on each side, to which is added in Eze_48:17 an open space of two hundred and fifty on each of the four sides. The
ç֯îùׁ
found in the text, and left by the Masorites unpunctuated, is almost universally considered an error of transcription; Hengst., on the contrary, says: “It points to this, that the south side equally with the north side has 4500 cubits; five stands for: on the five, or: to the five,” etc. The length of the city-district (namely, city and free space), from east to west, amounts to 4500 + 250 + 250 = 5000, and to the same in breadth from north to south, so that the square in this respect occupies the entire breadth of the city-district, while it only comes to a fifth of the 25,000 in length from east to west. [“The small compass of the city district” (cubits!), observes Hengst., “wholly excludes the inhabitants from agriculture.”]
Eze_48:18 disposes of what remains of the length (Klief.: “in the length”) along the holy oblation, the section eastward and the section seaward, 10,000 each. “This is to remain over against the holy Terumah, that is, as a part of it, although it is assigned neither to the priests, nor the Levites, nor the city” (Klief.). Hengst. explains the phrase: “over against the holy oblation,” as indicating “that we are not to imagine that the Levitical part is shoved in between, whereby the holy oblation would be separated from its guardians.” The proventus, the
úְּðּåּàָä
of the
äַðּåֹúָø
, what of fruit the soil of these two districts yields, is destined for support (
ìְìֶçֶí
) for the labourers of the city. They are further described in Eze_48:19, where it is said of them:
éַòַáְãåּäåּ
(1) Häv.: “By these are not meant slaves, nor (as Kimchi) such as cultivate gardens and fields (against which there is the
äָòִéø
), but, as Gesenius puts it: those who perform service in building the city, which the prophet represents as an honourable office. The holy city as well as the temple belongs now to no single tribe, but to all Israel, so all the tribes take part in building and maintaining it, by workmen chosen for the purpose, who receive their support from land assigned to them situated in the immediate vicinity of the holy temple-district.” Hävernick makes
éַòַáְãåּäåּ
refer to
äַðּåֹúָø
, and the last thought of Eze_48:18 to be: “the residue of the city-district shall serve for support to the workmen, and they shall cultivate it, for which they shall be bound to the service of the city.” (2) Hengst. translates thus: “who serve the city;” and “can only understand by this a militia (!) that take the city in the midst,—military service is the only possible service on a large scale to a city,—and, as is so emphatically stated, are encamped as a guard beside the holy oblation with the temple.” “On the north side of the holy oblation are the Levites as the militia sacra (Num_4:23; Num_8:24); on the south side the ministers of the secular arm, which has to protect the Church.” “Adjoining the provision made for these servants on both sides is the domain of the prince (?!), who is to be considered the commander of these guards.” For
òָáַã
, in the sense of “military service,” Hengst. refers to Eze_29:20. But if ever an exposition has missed the mark, it is here. We hear the mounting of guard on the Berlin University Platz, and Hengst. must also mention Egypt as an example “of such military colonies endowed with land;” he comforts himself with the thought that this militia “is not to be gathered out of the lands of other lords, as formerly the Cherethites and Pelethites, but is to consist of such as are willing also to serve their Lord in this lower (!) sphere.” (3) Klief.: “The workmen of the city are the labouring class dwelling in it; in this city they are not to be destitute of possession, as is usual in the cities of men, therefore considerable portions of land are assigned to them for support; and to explain this Eze_48:19 subjoins, that from all the tribes of Israel (
òָáַã
, transitively with the accus.) they are to employ these in labour; namely, when they come from all parts of the land to the holy city to the feasts, and because the land in the capital gives employment to labourers,” etc. (4) Hitzig takes
òָáַã
as colere locum, of cultivating through residence = to inhabit: hence, “for the inhabitants of the city;” Eze_48:19 : “And as to the inhabitants of the city, people from all the tribes of Israel shall inhabit it.”—
äָòֹáֵã
, singular, stands as collective, “but the suffix in
éַòַáְãåּäåּ
does not refer to it, and to make it refer to
äַðּåֹúָø
would yield no suitable sense; hence we are to read:
éַòַáְãåּäָ
, and the reference to
òִéø
, which is certainly not of the common gender, is to be accepted.” As in Eze_48:18 the masculine suffix in
úְּáåּàָúֹä
refers to
äַðּåֹúָø
, so also does the suffix in
éòáãåּäåּ
. Ewald translates thus: “And every labourer of the city will cultivate it.” Neteler: “and as to the workman of the city, one will take him for workman out of,” etc.
Eze_48:20 sums up the whole, namely, of the previously described oblation, as a square of 25,000, i.e. inclusive of the possession of the city; and then describes the possession of the city as a fourth-part of the “oblation of holiness,” as the portions of the priests and Levites in the narrower sense are called, which have a breadth of 20,000, of which the 5000 of the possession of the city are a fourth. Philippson, on the other hand, translates thus: “In square form shall ye offer the holy oblation, together with the property of the city;” as similarly Ewald. And already Hävernick took
àֶìÎ
as: “in addition to the possession of the city.”
Eze_48:21; comp. Eze_45:7. The portion of the prince on both sides, east and west, of the “oblation” described in Eze_48:8 (25,000 from east to west).
àֶìÎôְּðֵé
, translated by Ewald: “close to;” by Hengst.: “over against;” by others: “along,” with reference to the east and west skirt of the Terumah, which was only 25,000 long. The position is described first eastward, and then, with some variations (instead of
àֶì
, now
òַì
, with omission of the “oblation;” instead of
òַãÎâְּáåּì
, now
òַìÎâּ×
), westward likewise; while in conclusion there is added: close to the tribe-portions. It is scarcely necessary to remark in explanation, that the prince’s portion abuts on the north (like the Levites’ portion) on the portion of Judah, on the south (like the possession of the city) on the portion of Benjamin. That which lies eastward and westward between Judah and Benjamin belongs to the prince, to whose domain the suffix in
áְּúåֹëֹä
֯
refers, namely, to
äַðּåֹúָø
.
Eze_48:22 describes the same object, only instead of eastward and westward, it is now from north to south; hence, setting out from the possession of the Levites, namely, in the north, and from the possession of the city.—The designation
áְּúåֹêְ
does not belong to
äָòִéø
(Keil), but stands as an asyndeton, like: possession of the Levites, and: possession of the city; and counts as the third the central part, namely, the portion of the priests, with the lately-mentioned temple-sanctuary, after mention has been made of the two outer parts. Thus, what is to be the prince’s domain extends from north to south, namely, on both sides (Eze_48:21); and when it is described as in the direction of north to south, it is represented as lying between the border of Judah and between the border of Benjamin. The question, moreover, of Ezekiel 45 is renewed here: rods? or cubits? Keil and Kliefoth reckon by rods, because, reckoned by cubits, “the prince’s land would be more than six times as large as the whole Terumah;” whereas, measuring by rods, the actual size of the land is in correspondence. Hengst. adduces the fifty stadia of Hecatæus in proof of the 18,000 cubits of Jerusalem.
Eze_48:23-29
.—The Five Lower Tribe-portions
Eze_48:23.—The rest of the tribes follow southward: first, Benjamin, which tribe opens the series on this side, as Judah closed it on the other. Three pairs precede Judah, and two pairs follow Benjamin: first, Eze_48:24, Simeon; thereafter; Eze_48:25, Issachar; then, Eze_48:26, Zebulon; and, finally, Eze_48:27, Gad.—For Eze_48:28 comp. on Eze_47:19.
Eze_48:29, a closing formula. Hengst.: “It is said of the inheritance, because a part of the whole was not to be distributed, but to be previously set apart as holy ground.”
[“The desire of giving due prominence to the sacred portions in the centre, leads the prophet again to enter into some statements regarding the Terumah, or oblation, and its subdivisions. Nothing of importance is added to what was said before, except that the 5000 rods apportioned out of the 25,000 square to the city is here laid off in a square of 4500, with the 250 all round for suburbs. This space for the city was not strictly holy ground, in the sense that the sacerdotal portions were, and hence it is called profane or common. But being thus immediately connected with the sacred portions, and standing apart from the individual tribes, the city built on it formed a fit and proper centre to the whole land—in its position and its structure the bean-ideal of a theocratic capital, encompassed by the most hallowed influences, and fitted to exert a uniting and healthful effect upon the entire community. Hence the prophet closes the description by the mention of some things regarding the city which might serve more deeply to impress the feeling of its being the suitable representative and common centre of the community. Itself occupying a central position, and immediately in front of the house of God, it was also to have twelve gates, bearing the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel; in token that all the family of faith had their representation in it, and, as if they were actually resident in it, stood before the Lord for the enjoyment of His favour and blessing. He specifies, again, the entire circumference of the city, 18,000 rods (between twenty and thirty miles), as a symbol of the immense numbers of the covenant-people under the new and better dispensation of the future, immeasurably transcending what had existed under the old. And to exhibit the character of the city itself as representative of the community at large, and indicative of its own relative position, it was to bear from that day, namely, from the period of the beginning of this new and better order of things, the honourable name of ‘Jehovah-Shammah’—not, as has been already stated, Jehovah-there, but Jehovah-thither, or thereupon. For it was in the temple, rather than in the city, that the Lord was represented as having His peculiar dwelling-place. But His eyes were to be ever from the temple toward the city, and again from the city toward the whole land. The manifestations of His love and goodness were to radiate from the chosen seat of the kingdom through all its borders; He in all, and all united and blessed in Him. So that the consummation of this vision substantially corresponds with the object prayed for by our Lord, when He sought respecting His people that they might be where He was, and that they might be all one, as He and the Father are one; He in them, and they in Him, that they might be made perfect in one.”—Fairbairn’s Ezekiel, pp. 499, 500.—W. F.]
Eze_48:30-35
.—The City as to Extent, Gates, and Name.
In continuation of Eze_48:15 sq., we have now in Eze_48:30the out-goings of the city, that is, the outlets, with evident reference to the gates; for “the boundary-lines marked out by walls” (Hengst.), “the extremities into which a city runs out” (Keil), are only such in virtue of the gates. The measure here on each of the four sides is 4500; comp. Eze_48:16.—The detailed account begins, as in the dividing of the land, and so with evident reference thereto, from the north.
Eze_48:31. The gates are designated after the names of the tribes of Israel. There are three gates to each side, hence twelve in all; comp. Rev_21:12. The naming does not follow the position of the tribe-district, and thus the omitted tribe of Levi appears here in the north, honoured by a gate named after it. The three sons of Leah (as Deuteronomy 33) are first mentioned; as Keil observes: “the first-born by age, the first-born in virtue of the patriarchal blessing, and the one chosen of Jehovah for His service instead of the first-born of Israel.” In Eze_48:32 the three east gates, where Joseph is named next after Levi, and comprehends in his name his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (“Rachel’s sons and the son of her handmaid,” Keil). In Eze_48:33 the three south gates bear the names of the other three sons of Leah; and, lastly, in Eze_48:34 the west gates are given, after the names of the other three sons of the handmaids, as Keil observes.
Eze_48:35. Then follows the close of the book; it closes with a name, with the symbolical name of the city, whose whole compass—doubtless calculated likewise in a symbolical point of view—is given as: 4 × 4500 = 18,000. Kliefoth remarks on this number, that it =Isaiah 12 × 1500; hence, a product of 12 by a multiple of 10. “The city of the people of God,” says he, “has now become the capital of the new world.” Neteler connects with it the millennial kingdom, saying: “A thousand years are with God as one day, and one day as a thousand years; hence the city is called the millennial kingdom” (!).—The name of the city is annexed to its whole circumference, just as before the gates named follow the statement of the extent. Thus it appears that the name of the city itself now expresses the same relation to Jehovah which the names of the gates did to the people of the covenant. Hitzig translates: “The name of the city is from that day: Jehovah there,” and understands this to mean: from the day of its being built. Hävernick makes the following excellent remarks on the whole connection: “Already in the foregoing the thought was made prominent, that Jerusalem should be the common property of all the tribes. Over against the temple, the place of the divine revelation is Jerusalem, the Church of God, living before and in Him. As such, it forms a closely knit together, indissoluble whole, a stately unity rooting itself in God. In order duly to set forth this thought, there is annexed to the division of the land among the individual tribes a consideration of the city itself. For that division is nothing less than an isolating or dissevering of the individual tribes; but forthwith the higher unity of the prophetic intuition, again embracing and knitting all firmly together, presents itself. The community is one accepted of God and hallowed to Him; standing itself in the presence of God, it forms the one true stem of the new Church, and has thereby reached its full destination. In the first place, the greatness of the community expresses itself to the prophet in the compass of the city; and then in its name, its quality, its holiness. ‘From that day,’ that is: henceforth for ever, Isa_43:13. The name itself is: ‘Jehovah thither,’ not: Jehovah shall dwell there. For Ezekiel distinguishes between temple and city: Jehovah does not properly dwell in Jerusalem, but, in the proper and highest sense, only in His sanctuary. Thence He looks toward Jerusalem, is turned thither with the fulness of His love and grace. What now makes Jerusalem a true city of God is the love entirely turned toward it, the good pleasure of God resting upon it,” etc. Hengst.:
îִéּåֹí
means: from the day when what is described will be so; it does not and cannot mean: “always,” and just as little can it mean: “from to-day.”
ùָׁîָּä
is not: “there,” but, as always: “thither.” But query Eze_23:3 in Ezekiel himself, if not Eze_32:29 sq. He explains the name from Deu_11:12. “This ‘Jehovah thither’ manifested itself in the most glorious manner in the appearing of Christ, in the many attempts He made to gather the children of Jerusalem, in His tears over Jerusalem. When, however, His own would not receive Him, then the ‘Jehovah thither,’ which had availed for the restored city five hundred years, passed over to the new people of God, the legitimate continuation of Israel and Jerusalem (Mat_21:43), to which Jesus had promised to be with them unto the end of the world.”—Kliefoth with right expresses himself against an alteration of the punctuation (
ùָׁîָּä
into
ùְׁîָäּ
, “and the name of the city is henceforth: Jehovah is its name”), and also against the idea that
ùָׁîָּä
can mean anything else than: “thither.” “But then the name purports that Jehovah will raise Himself up thither, toward the city, and will do so from the day, that is, from to-day, that this city and what depends upon it may come into being.”
In view of the total ruin of the people of God, the whole comfort of the prophet’s predictions, the full significance of his labours, is yet once more completely summed up in the last words of his ministry. Schmieder says: “Notwithstanding the irregularity of the natural boundaries, Ezekiel views the Holy Land as a rectangular, oblong quadrilateral, etc. The centre falls exactly at Sychar, where Jesus speaks to the woman of Samaria (John 4). Mount Gerizim is the site of the new temple, but the Holy City is at a distance of about five miles off; the place in which it is situated is ‘the place of Bethel.’ The revelation of John contains in its closing chapters cognate views, which presuppose and surpass, but do not exactly interpret Ezekiel.”
ADDITIONAL NOTE
[“Thus ends the marvellous vision of the prophet—alike marvellous whether we look to the lofty pattern (true in the spirit, though unavoidably wearing the garb of imperfect forms and shadowy relations) which it embodied of better things to come in God’s kingdom, or to the time chosen for presenting this to the Church of God. The cause of Heaven was then at its lowest ebb. The temple that had been, together with the kingdom it symbolized and represented, were laid in ruins; they were to be seen only in broken fragments and mournful dilapidations, as if smitten with the powerful curse of an irrecoverable perdition. Yet from the midst of these howling desolations, as from the very ‘suburbs of hell,’ the prophet ascends, with assured step, the mount of vision, and has there exhibited to his view, not, indeed, the very image of better things to come, but the ideal pattern after which the blessed and glorious future was to be fashioned. He even sees it as already present; and, with such imperfect materials of thought and utterance as then stood at his command, he gives it forth to the Church and the world as a thing which his own eyes had beheld, showing how God would certainly dwell with His people in a manner He had never done before—how He would at once immeasurably extend the sphere of His kingdom, and greatly elevate the condition of those who belonged to it—and how, through the copious effusions of His life-giving Spirit, the former imperfections should be done away, the most remote regions of the divine territory hallowed and blessed, and even the peculiar haunts of cursing and desolation made to rejoice and blossom like the rose.
‘O scenes surpassing fable, and yet true !
Scenes of accomplished bliss! which, who can see,
Though but in distant pro pect, and not feel
His soul refreshed with foretaste of the joy?’
“That such scenes should hare been described with such assured confidence, and at a time so deeply overspread with gloom, was indeed an ennobling triumph of faith over sight. It gave a most illustrious proof of the height in spiritual discernment, and far-reaching insight into the purposes of Heaven, which is sometimes imparted in the hour of greatest need, especially to the more select instruments of the Spirit’s working. And surely the children of the kingdom now must be chargeable with neglecting an important privilege, if they fail to profit by so inspiriting an example. Here the heart of
