Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - Ezekiel 47:1 - 47:23
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eze_47:1
Having completed his survey of the sacrificial kitchens in the outer court (Eze_46:19-24), the prophet was once more conducted by his guide to the door of the house, or of the temple in the strict sense, i.e. of the sanctuary. There he perceived that waters issued (literally, and behold waters issuing) from under the threshold of the house, i.e. of the temple porch (see Eze_40:48, Eze_40:49; and comp. Eze_9:3), eastward, the direction having been determined by the fact that the forefront of the house stood or was toward the east. He also noticed that the waters came down (or, descended)—the temple having been situated on higher ground than the inner court—from under the threshold, from the right side of the house—literally, from the shoulder (comp. Eze_40:18, Eze_40:40, Eze_40:41; Eze_41:2, Eze_41:26; Eze_46:1-24 :29) of the house, the right. The two clauses are not to be conjoined as by Hengstenberg, Ewald, and Smend, as if they meant, from underneath the right side of the house; but kept distinct, to indicate the different features which entered into the prophet's picture. The first was that the waters issued forth from under the threshold of the house; the second, that they proceeded from the right side or shoulder of the house, i.e. from the corner where the south wall of the porch and the east wall of the temple joined (see Eze_41:1); the third, that the stream flowed on the south side of the altar, which stood exactly in front of the temple perch (see Eze_40:47), and would have obstructed the course of the waters had they issued forth from the perch doorway instead of from the comer above described.
Eze_47:2
As the prophet could not follow the stream's course by passing through the east inner gate, which was shut on the six working days (Eze_46:1), or through the east outer gate, which was always shut (Eze_44:1), his conductor led him outside of the inner and outer courts by the north gates (literally, to the north (outer) gate), and brought him round by the way without unto the outer gate by the way that looketh eastward. This can only import that, on reaching the north outer gate, the prophet and his guide turned eastward and moved round to the east outer gate. The Revised Version reads, by the way of the gate that looketh toward the east; but as the east outer gate was the terminus ad quem of the prophet's walk, it is better to translate, to the gate looking eastward. When the prophet had arrived thither, he once more beheld that there ran out—literally, trickled forth ( îÀôÇëÄÌéí occurring here only in Scripture, and being derived from ôÈëÇä , "to drop down," or "weep")—waters. Obviously these were the same as Ezekiel had already observed. On (literally, from) the right side; or, shoulder. This, again, signified the corner where the east wall of the temple and the south wall of the gate joined.
Eze_47:3
Having emerged from the corner of the east outer gate in drops, the stream, which had not swollen in its passage across the outer court and under the temple wall, speedily exhibited a miraculous increase in depth, and therefore in volume. Having advanced eastward along the course of the stream an accurately measured distance of a thousand cubits (about one-third of a mile), the prophet's guide brought, or caused him to pass, through the waters, when he found that they were to the ankles; or, were waters of the ankles, as the Chaldee, Syriac, Vulgate, Keil, Kliefoth, Ewald, and Smend translate, rather than "water of the foot-soles," as Gesenius and Havernick render, meaning," water that hitherto had only been deep enough to wet the soles." The ὕδωρ ἀφέσεως , or "water of vanishing," of the LXX,, is based on the idea of "failing," "ceasing," "coming to an end," which appears to be the root-conception of (see Gen_47:15, Gen_47:16; Psa_77:9; Isa_16:4).
Eze_47:4
At a second and a third distance of a thousand cubits the same process was repeated when the waters were found to be first waters to the knees, and secondly waters to (or, of) the loins. The unusual expression, îÇéÄí áÄÌøÀëÈÌéí , instead îÅé , as in the similar expressions before and after, may have been chosen, Keil suggests, in order to avoid resemblance to the phrase, îÅéîÅé øÇâÀìÇéÄí in Isa_36:12 (Keri)—not a likely explanation. Havernick describes it simply as an instance of bold emphasis. Schroder breaks it up into two clauses, thus: "waters, to the knees they reach." Smend changes îÇéÄí into îÅé .
Eze_47:5
After a fourth distance of a thousand cubits, the waters had risen, or, lifted themselves up (comp. Job_8:11, in which the verb is used of a plant growing up), and become waters to swim in—literally, waters of swimming ( ùÈÒçåÌ occurs only here; the noun öÀôÈä only in Eze_32:6)—a river that could not be passed over, on account of its depth. The word ðÈçÇì was applied either to a river that constantly flowed from a fountain, as the Amen, or to a winter torrent that springs up from rain or snow upon the mountains, and disappears in summer like the Kedron, which had seldom any water in it (see Robinson's 'Bibl. Res.,' 1.402). That Ezekiel's river broadened and deepened so suddenly, and apparently without receiving into it any tributaries, clearly pointed to miraculous action.
Eze_47:6
Then he … caused me to return to the brink of the river. The difficulty lying in the word "return" has given rise to a variety of conjectures. Hengstenberg supposes the prophet had made trial of the river's depth by wading in (perhaps up to the neck), and that the angel caused him to return from the stream to the bank According to Hitzig, the measuring had taken place at some distance from the stream, and the prophet, having come up to his guide from the bank after making trial of the water's depth, was Once more conducted back to the river's brink. Havernick conceives the sense to be that the prophet, having accompanied the angel to the point where the stream debouched into the Dead Sea was led back to the riverbank. All difficulty, however, vanishes if, either with Schroder we refer åÇéÀùÄÑáÅðÄé to a mental returning, as if the import were that the angel, having ascertained that the prophet had "seen" the river's course, now told him to direct his attention to the bank, or, with Keil and Kliefoth, translate òÇì by "along" or "on" rather than "to." As the prophet had been led along or on the river's bank to see the increasing breadth and depth of the water, so was he now "caused to return" along or on the same bank to note the abundance of the foliage with which it was adorned.
Eze_47:7
Now when I had returned áÀÌùÑåÌáÅðÄé is by the best interpreters, after Gesenius, regarded as an incorrect form for áÀÌùÑåÌáÄé (literally, in my returning), though Schroder adheres to the transitive sense of the verb, and translates," when I had turned myself," and Hitzig takes the suffix ðÄé as a genitive of possession, and renders, "when he came back with me." In any case, on the return journey the prophet observed that at (or, on) the bank (or, lip) of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other. Hitzig supposes the trees had not been there when the prophet made the down journey, but sprang up when he had turned to his guide (Eze_47:6), and stood with his back to the river. Kliefoth's conclusion is better, that the trees had been there all the while, but that the prophet's attention had not been directed to them. The luxuriant foliage of this vision reappears in that of the Apocalyptic river (Rev_22:2).
Eze_47:8
Toward the east country ( äÇ÷ÇÌãÀîåÉðÈä àÆìÎäÇâÀÌìÄéìÈä ); literally, the east circle, in this case probably "the region about Jordan" (Jos_22:10, Jos_22:11), above the Dead Sea, where the valley or ghor widens out into a bread basin, equivalent to ëÄÌëÇÌã äÇéÇøÀãÅÌï (Gen_13:10). The LXX. render, or τὴν Γαλιλαίαν , designing by this, however (presumably), only to Graecize the Hebrew word âÀÌìÄéìÈä as they do with the term äÈòÇøÈáÈä , desert, or, plain, which they translate by τὴν Ἀραβίαν . The Arabah signified the low, sterile valley into which the Jordan runs near Jericho, in which are the Dead Sea (hence called "the sea of the Arabah," Deu_3:17; Deu_4:49), and the brook Kedron, or "river of the Arabah" (Amo_6:14), and which extends as far south as the head of the Elanitic gulf. The whole region is described by Robinson ('Bibl. Res.,' 2.596) as one of extreme desolation—a character which belonged to it in ancient times (Josephus, 'Wars,' 3.10. 7; 4.8. 2). The part of this Arabah into which the waters flowed was situated north of the sea, clearly not the Mediterranean, but the Dead Sea, "the sea of the Arabah," as above stated, and the "eastern sea" as afterwards named (Eze_47:18), into which they ultimately flowed. The clause, which being brought forth into the sea, may either be connected with the proceeding words or formed into an independent sentence. Among those who adopt the former construction a variety of renderings prevails. The LXX. reads, "(And the water) comes to the sea ( ἐπὶ τὸ ὕδωρ τῆς διεκβολῆς ), to the sea of the pouring out," i.e. the Dead Sea, into which the river debouches. With this Havernick agrees, rendering, "to the sea of that outflow." Ewald reads, "into the sea of muddy waters," meaning the Dead Sea. Kimchi, "into the sea where the waters are brought forth," i.e. the ocean (the Mediterranean), whoso waters go forth to encompass the world. Hengstenberg, Kliefoth, Keil, and Currey, who adopt the latter construction, borrow áÈàåÌ from the antecedent clause, and translate, "To the sea (come or go) the waters that have been brought forth;" with which accords the Revised Version. The last words record the effect which should be produced by their entering into the sea. The waters shall be healed, i.e. rendered salubrious, from being hurtful (comp. Exo_15:23, Exo_15:25; 2Ki_2:22). The translation of the LXX; ὑγιάσει τὰ ὕδατα , is inaccurate. The unwholesome character of the Dead Sea is described by Tacitus: "Lucius immenso ambitu, specie maris sapore corruptior, gravitate odoris accolis pestifer, neque vento impellitar neque pisces ant suetas aquis volucres patitur" ('Hist.,' 5.6). Yon Raumer writes, "The sea is celled Dead, because there is in it no green plant, no water-fowl in it, no fish, no shell. If the Jordan carry fish into it, they die." "According to the testimony of all antiquity and of most modern travelers," says Robinson ('Bibl. Res.,' 2.226), "there exists within the waters of the Dead Sea no living thing, no trace, indeed, of animal or vegetable life. Our own experience goes to confirm the truth of this testimony. We perceived no sign of life within the waters."
Eze_47:9
The nature of the healing is next described as an impartation of such celebrity to the waters that everything that liveth, which moveth—better, every living creature which swarmeth (comp. Gen_1:20, Gen_1:21; Gen_7:21)—whitherseover the rivers (literally, the two rivers) shall come, shall live. The meaning cannot be that everything which liveth and swarmeth in the sea whither the rivers come shall live, because the Dead Sea contains no fish (see above), but whithersoever the rivers come, there living and swarming creatures of every kind shall spring into existence, shall come to life and flourish. The dual form, ðÇçÂìÇéÄí , has been accounted for by Maurer, as having been selected on account of its resemblance to îÇéÄí ; by Hävernick and Currey, as pointing to the junction of another river, the Kedron (Hävernick), the Jordan (Currey), with the temple-stream before the latter, should fall into the sea; by Kliefoth, as alluding to a division of the river waters after entering the sea; by Neumann and Schroder, as referring to the waters of the sea and the waters of the river, which should henceforth be united; and by Hengstenberg, with whom Keil and Plumptre agree, as a dual of intensification (as in Jer_1:1-19 :21), signifying "double river," with allusion to its greatness, or the strength of its current. None of these interpretations is free from objection; though probably, in default of better, the last is best. Ewald changes the dual into ðÇçÀìÈí , a singular with a suffix, while Hitzig makes of it a plural; but neither of these devices is satisfactory. As a further evidence that the waters of the sea should be healed by the inflowing into them of the waters of the river, it is stated that the sea should thereafter contain a very great multitude of fish (literally, and the fish will be very many), of which previously it contained none. The next clauses supply the reason of this abundance of fish, because these waters (of the river) shall—or, are (Revised Version) come thither—(into the waters of the sea), for (literally, and) they, the latter, shall be (or, are) healed, and everything shall live (or, connecting this with the foregoing clause, and everything shall be healed, and live) whithersoever the river cometh—the river, namely, that proceedeth from the temple.
Eze_47:10
As another consequence of the inflowing of this river into the Dead Sea, it is stated that the fishers (rather, fishers, without the article) should stand upon its banks, from Engedi, even unto Englaim; there shall be a place to spread forth nets. The Revised Version more correctly renders, fishers shall stand by it; from Engedi even unto Eneglaim, shall be a place for the spreading of nets; or, more literally, a place of spreading, out for nets (comp. Eze_26:5). Engedi, òÅéï âÆÌãÄé , meaning "Fountain of the kid;" originally styled Hazezon-Tamar (2Ch_20:2), now called 'Ain Jidy (Robinson,' Bibl. Res.,' 2.214), was situated in the middle of the west coast of the Dead Sea, and not at its southern extremity, as Jerome supposed. Englaim, òÅéï òÆâÀìÇéÄí , signifying "Fountain of two calves," was located by Jerome, who cars it En Gallim, at the northern extremity of the Dead Sea, and is usually identified with the modern 'Ain Feshkhah, or "Fountain of mist," at the northern end of the west coast, where the ruins of houses and a small tower have been discovered (Robinson, 'Bibl. Res.,' 2.220). Ewald cites Isa_15:8 to show that Englaim was on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea, which, Smend notes, was given up by the prophet to the sons of the East.
Eze_47:11
The miry places thereof and the marshes thereof âÀáÈéÈàå , "its pools and sloughs" (comp. Isa_30:14, where the term-signifies a reservoir for water, or cistern), were the low tracts of land upon the borders of the Dead Sea, which in the rainy season, when its waters overflowed, became covered with pools (see Robinson, 'Bibl. Res.,' 2.225). These, according to the prophet, should not be healed, obviously because the waters of the temple-river should not reach them, but should be given to salt. When the waters of the above-mentioned pools have been dried up or evaporated, they leave behind them a deposit of salt (see Robinson, 'Bibl. Res.,' 2.226), and Canon Driver, following Smend, conceives that the above-named miry places and marshes in the vicinity of the Dead Sea were to be allowed to remain as they were on account of the excellent salt which they furnished. (On the supposed (!) excellence of the salt derived from the Dead Sea, Thomson's 'Land and the Book,' p. 616, may be consulted.) If this, however, were the correct import of the prophet's words, then the clause would describe an additional blessing to be enjoyed by the land, viz. that the temple-river would not be permitted to spoil its "salt-pans;" but the manifest intention of the prophet was to indicate a limitation to the life-giving influence of the river, and to signify that places and persons unvisited by its healing stream would be abandoned to incurable destruction. "To give to salt" is in Scripture never expressive of blessing, but always of judgment (see Deu_29:23; Jdg_9:47; Psa_107:34; Jer_17:6; Zep_2:9).
Eze_47:12
The effect of the river upon the vegetation growing on its banks is the last feature added to the prophet's picture. Already referred to in Eze_47:7, it is here developed at greater length. The "very many trees" of that verse become in this all trees, or every tree for meat, i.e. every sort of tree with edible fruit (comp. Le 19:23), whose leaf should not fade or wither, and whose fruit should not be consumed or finished, i.e. should not fail, but continue to bring forth new fruit, i.e; early or firstfruits, according to his (or, its) months; or, every month; the ìÀ in ìÈçÁãÈùÄÑéí being taken distributively, as in Isa_47:13 (compare ìÇéåÉí , "every day," in Eze_46:13). This remarkable productivity, the prophet saw, was due, not so much to the fact that the tree roots sucked up moisture from the stream, as to the circumstance that the waters which they drank up issued out of the sanctuary. To the same circumstance were owing the nutritive and medicinal properties of their fruit and leaves respectively. The picture in this verse is unmistakably based on Gen_2:9, and is as clearly reproduced by the Apocalyptic seer in Rev_22:2. On this whole vision the remarks of Thomson, in 'The Land and the Book', are worthy of being consulted.
Eze_47:13-23
The boundaries of the land, and the manner of its division.
Eze_47:13
Thus saith the Lord. The usual formula introducing a new Divine enactment (comp. Eze_43:18; Eze_44:9; Eze_45:9, Eze_45:18; Eze_46:1, Eze_46:16). This. âÅä is obviously a copyist's error for æÆä , which the LXX; the Vulgate, and the Targum have substituted for it; the change seems demanded by the complete untranslatability of âÅä , and by the fact that åÀæÆä âÀÌáåÌì recurs in Eze_47:15. The border, whereby ye shall inherit the land; or, divide the land for inheritance (Revised Version). The term âÀÌáåÌì , applied in Eze_43:13, Eze_43:17 to the border of the altar here signifies the boundary or limit of the land. (For the verb, comp. Num_32:18; Num_34:13; Isa_14:2.) According to the twelve tribes. This presupposed that at least representatives of the twelve tribes would return from exile; but it is doubtful if this can be proved from Scripture to have taken place, which once more shows that a literal interpretation of this temple-vision cannot be consistently carried through. Smend observes that the word commonly employed in the priest-cede to denote "tribes" is îÇèÌåÉú (Num_26:55; Num_30:1; Num_31:4; Num_33:54; Jos_14:1; Jos_21:1; Jos_22:14), which is never used by Ezekiel, who habitually selects, as here, the term ùÀÑáÈèÄéí (Eze_37:19; Eze_45:8; Eze_48:1), which also was not unknown to the priest-cede (Exo_39:14; Num_18:2; Jos_13:29; Jos_21:16; Jos_22:9, Jos_22:10, Jos_22:11, Jos_22:13). That is to say, if the priest-cede existed before Ezekiel, he had the choice of both terms, and selected shebhet; whereas if Ezekiel existed before the priest-cede, and prepared the way for it, the author of the latter rejected Ezekiel's word shebhet, and adopted another perfectly unknown to the prophet. This fact appears to point to a dependence of Ezekiel on the priest-cede rather than of the priest-cede on Ezekiel. Joseph shall have two portions; rather, Joseph portions, as çÂáÈìÄéí is not dual. Yet that two were intended is undoubted (see Gen_48:22; Jos_17:14, Jos_17:17).
Eze_47:14
Ye shall inherit it, one as well as another; literally, a man as his brother—the customary Hebrew phrase for "equally" (see, however, 2Sa_11:25). The equal participants were to be tribes, not the families, as in the Mosaic distribution (Num_33:54). Had the earlier principle of allotment been indicated as that to be followed in the future, it would not have been possible to give the tribes equal portions, as some tribes would certainly have a larger number of families than others. Nevertheless, the division was to be equal among the tribes, which shows it was rather of an ideal than of an actual distribution the prophet was speaking. Then what they should divide amongst themselves was to be the land concerning which Jehovah had lifted up his hand—a peculiarly Ezekelian phrase (see Eze_20:5, Eze_20:6, Eze_20:15, Eze_20:23, Eze_20:28, Eze_20:42), signifying "to swear" (comp. Gen_14:22; Deu_33:1-29 :40)—to give it unto their fathers (see Gen_12:7; Gen_18:8; Gen_26:3; Gen_28:13). That the land was not divided after this fashion among the tribes that returned from exile is one more attestation that the prophet's directions were not intended to be literally carried out.
Eze_47:15
The north boundary. And this shall be the border of the land toward the north side. The Revised Version follows Kliefoth and Keil in detaching the last clause from the preceding words, and reading. This shall be the border of the land: on the north side. From the great sea, the Mediterranean, by the way of Hethlon, as men go to (or, unto the entering in of) Zedad. The former of these places (Chethlon), which is again mentioned in Eze_48:1, has not yet been identified, though Currey suggests for the "way," "the defile between the ranges of Lebanus and Antilibanus, from the sea to Hamath." The latter (Zedad) Wetstein and Robinson find in the city of Sadad (Sudud), east of the road leading from Damascus to Humo (Emesa), and therefore west of Hamath; but as Hamath in all probability lay to the east of Zedad, this opinion must be rejected.
Eze_47:16
The four names here mentioned belong to towns or places lying on the road to Zedad, and stretching from west to east. Hamath, called also Hamath the Great (Amo_6:2), situated on the Orontes, north of Hermon and Antilibanus (Jos_13:5; Jdg_3:3), was the capital of a kingdom to which also belonged Riblah (2Ki_23:33). Originally colonized by the Canaanites (Gen_10:18), it became in David's time a flourishing kingdom under Toi, who formed an alliance with the Hebrew sore-reign against Hadadezer of Zoba (2Sa_8:9; 1Ch_18:9). It was subsequently conquered by the King of Assyria (2Ki_18:34). Winer thinks it never belonged to Israel; but Schurer cites 1Ki_9:19 and 2Ch_8:3, 2Ch_8:4 to show that at least in Solomon's reign it was temporarily annexed to the empire of David's son. In Ezekiel's chart the territory of united Israel should extend, not to the town of Hamath, but to the southern boundary of the land of Hamath. Berothah was probably the same as Berothai (2Sa_8:8), afterwards called Chun (1Ch_18:8), if Chun is not a textual corruption. The town in question cannot be identified either with the modern Beirut on the Phoenician coast (Conder), since it must have lain west of Hamath, and therefore at a considerable distance from the sea; or with Birtha, the present day El-Bir, or Birah, on the east bank of the Euphrates, which is too far east; or with the Galilaean Berotha, near Kadesh (Josephus), as this is too far south; but must be sought for between Hamath and Damascus, and most likely close to the former. Sibraim, occurring here only, may, on the other hand, be assumed to have lain nearer Damascus, and may, perhaps, be identified with Ziphron (Num_34:9), though the site of this town cannot be where Wetstein placed it, at Zifran, north-east of Damascus, and on the road to Palmyra. Smend compares it with Sepharvaim (2Ki_17:24). Damascus was the well-known capital of Syria (Isa_7:8), and the principal emporium of commerce between East and West Asia (Eze_27:18). Its high antiquity is testified by both Scripture (Gen_14:15; Gen_15:2) and the cuneiform inscriptions, in which it appears as Dimaski and Dimaska. Hazar-hatticon; or, the middle Hazar, was probably so styled to distinguish it from Hazar-enan (verse 17). (On the import of Hatticon, see Exo_26:28 and 2Ki_20:4, in both of which places it signifies "the middle.") The word Hazar ( çÂöÇø ), "an enclosure," or "place fenced off," was employed to denote villages or townships, of which at least six are mentioned in Scripture (see Gesenius, 'Lexicon,' sub voce). Hauran, Αὐρανῖτις (LXX.), "Cave-land," so called because of the number of its caverns, was most likely designed to designate "the whole tract of land between Damascus and the country of Gilead" (Keil).
Eze_47:17
The northern boundary is further defined as extending from the sea, i.e. the Mediterranean on the west, to Hazar-enan, or the "Village of fountains," in the east, which village again is declared to have been the border, frontier city (Keil), at the border (Revised Version) of Damascus, and as having on the north northward the border or territory of Hamath. The final clause adds, And this is the north side, either understanding åÀàÅú , with Gesenius, as equivalent to αὐτός , ipse, "this same," or with Hitzig and Smend, after the Syriac, substituting for it here and in Eze_47:18, Eze_47:19 åàÉú as in Eze_47:20; though Hengstenberg and Keil prefer to regard àÅú as the customary sign of the accusative, and to supply some such thought as "ye see" (Hengstenberg), or "ye shall measure" (Keil), which Eze_47:18 shows was in the prophet's mind. Compared with the ancient north boundary of Canaan (Num_34:7-9), this appointed by Ezekiel's Torah for the new land shows a marked correspondence.
Eze_47:18
The east boundary. And the east side ye shall measure from Hauran, etc. The Revised Version, after Keil and Kliefoth, translates, And the east side, between Hauran and Damascus and Gilead, and the land of Israel, shall be (the) Jordan; from the (north) border unto the east sea shall ye measure. Smend offers as the correct rendering, The east side goes from between Hauran and Damascus, and from between Gilead and the land of Israel, along the Jordan, from the border unto the east sea. In any case, by this instruction, first the land of Israel was defined as the territory lying west of the Jordan, and secondly its boundary should extend from the last-named north border at its easternmost point, Hazar-enan, down the Jordan valley to the Dead Sea. The practical effect of this would be to cut off the lands which in the earlier division (Num_34:14, Num_34:15) had been assigned to Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. Otherwise the boundary hero given corresponds with that traced in Numbers, though the latter is more minute. Hengstenberg, however, thinks the prophet cannot have intended to assert that the new Israel should not possess the land of Gilead as a frontier in the future as formerly, as in that case he would have been at variance, not only with preexisting Scripture (comp. Psa_60:7; Mic_7:14; Jer_1:19; Zec_10:10), but with subsequent history.
Eze_47:19
The south boundary. This should begin where the east boundary terminated, viz. at Tamar, "Palm tree." Different from Hazezon-Tamar, or Engedi (Eze_47:10; 2Ch_20:2), which lay too far up the west side of the sea, Tamar can hardly be identified either with the Tamar of 1Ki_9:18 near Tadmor in the wilderness, or with the Thamara ( Θαμαρά ) of Eusebius between Hebron and Elath, supposed by Robinson to he Kurnub, six hours south of Milh, towards the pass of Es-Sufah, since this was too distant from the Dead Sea The most plausible conjecture is that Tamar was "a village near the southern end of the Dead Sea" (Currey). Proceeding westward, the southern boundary should reach to the waters of strife in Kadesh; better, to the waters of Meribotk Kadesh. These were in the Desert of Sin, near Kadesh-Barnea (Num_20:1-13), which, again, was on the road from Hebron to Egypt (Gen_16:14). The exact site, however, of Kadesh-Barnea is matter of dispute; Rowland and Keil find it in the spring 'Ain Kades, at the north-west corner of the mountain-land of Azazimeh, which stretches on the south of Palestine from the south-south-west to the north-north-east, and forms the watershed Between the Mediterranean and the Arabah valley. Delitzsch and Conder seek it in the neighborhood of the Wady-el-Jemen, on the south-east side of the above watershed, and on the road from Mount Hot. Robinson ('Bibl. Rea,' 2.582) discovers it in 'Ain-el-Weibeh, not far from Petra. A writer (Sin; Smend?) in Riehm ('Handworterbuch des Biblischen Alterthums,' art. "Kades") pleads for a site on the west side of the Azazimeh plateau, and in the vicinity of the road by Shur to Egypt. Leaving Kadesh, the boundary should continue to the river, or, brook, of Egypt, and thence extend to the great sea, or Mediterranean. The punctuation of âÇçÂìÈä , which makes the word signify "lot,' must be changed into ðÇçÀìÈä , so as to mean "river," since the reference manifestly is to the torrent of Egypt, the Wady-el-Arish, on the borders of Palestine and Egypt, which enters the Mediterranean near Rhinocorura ( Ῥινοκόρουρα ). In Num_34:5 it is called the river of Egypt. And this is the south side southward (see on Num_34:17). The correspondence between this line and that of the earlier chart (Num_34:4, Num_34:5) is once more apparent.
Eze_47:20
The western boundary. This, as in Num_34:6, should be the great sea from the border, i.e. the southern boundary last mentioned (Num_34:19), till a man come over against Hamath; literally, unto (the place which is) over against the coming to Hamath; i.e. till opposite the point (on the coast) at which one enters the territory of Hamath (comp. Jdg_19:10; Jdg_20:43).
Eze_47:21-23
The geographical boundaries of the land having been indicated, general directions are furnished as to the manner of its distribution.
(1) It should be partitioned among the tribes as tribes rather than among the families of Israel (see on Eze_47:13).
(2) The division of the territory should be made by lot. This is pointed to by the use of çÈìÇ÷ (from çÅìÆ÷ , "a smooth stone"), which signifies "to divide by lot."
(3) The strangers who should sojourn amongst the tribes and beget children amongst them should inherit equally with Israelites who should be born in the country.
(4) The inheritance of the stranger should be assigned him in the tribe where he sojourned. Of these regulations the last two were an advance on the earlier Mosaic legislation with regard to "strangers," or âÅÌøÄéí , who were to be treated with affectionate kindness (Exo_22:21; Exo_23:9; Le 19:34; Deu_1:16; Deu_24:14), admitted to offer sacrifice (Le Eze_17:8, Eze_17:10, Eze_17:13), and even allowed to partake of the Passover on submitting to circumcision (Exo_12:48), but on no account permitted to hold property in land (Le 25:47-55). But if the priest-code was later than Ezekiel, why should it have receded from the freer and more liberal spirit of Ezekiel? If progressive development can determine the relative ages of two documents, then Ezekiel, which accords equal rights to Jew and Gentile in the new Israel, and thus anticipates that breaking down of the middle wall of partition which has taken place under the gospel (Joh_10:16; Rom_2:10, Rom_2:11; Rom_9:24; Gal_3:8-14, Gal_3:28; Eph_2:14-16), should be posterior to the priest-code, which shows itself to be not yet emancipated from the trammels of Jewish exclusivism. At the same time, Ezekiel's Torah does not grant equal rights with native-born Israelites to "strangers" indiscriminately, or only to those of them who should have families, as Hitzig suggests, in reward for their increasing the population, but to such of them as should permanently settle in the midst of Israel, and show this by begetting children, and in this manner "building houses" for themselves. Kliefoth justly cautions against concluding from the prophet's statement that the time in which the prophet's vision realizes itself will necessarily be one in which marrying and begetting children will take place; and with equal justice points out that the number of Israel, especially when swelled up by an influx of Gentiles, will be so great (comp. verse 10) as to render their settlement within the narrow boundaries of the land an impossibility—in this circumstance finding another indication that the prophet's language was intended to be symbolically, not literally, interpreted.
NOTE.—On the boundaries of the land. Smend thinks
(1) that in respect of the north boundary, Ezekiel and the priest-code contradict the older source of the Pentateuch, which does not permit the territory of Asher to extend so far north as Hamath (see Jos_19:24-31; and comp. Jdg_1:31);
(2) that never at any time did Israelites dwell so far north as at the entering in of Hamath;
(3) that this extension of the land northwards was intended as a compensation for the withdrawment of the territory east of the Jordan; and
(4) that in dividing among tribes rather than among families Ezekiel deviates from both the Jehovistic tradition and the priest-code.
But
(1) if the above-cited passages do not extend Asher's territory beyond Tyre, Gen_15:18, which critics assign to the Elohist, one of the authors of J.E; the so-called prophetical narrative of the Hexateuch, and Exo_23:31, which, according to the same authorities, formed part of the commonly styled book of the covenant, expressly mention the great river Euphrates as the north boundary of the land, while the same is recognized by the Deuteronomist (11:24; Exo_19:8).
(2) 1Ki_4:24; 1Ki_8:65; and 2Ki_14:25 show that in the time of Solomon the boundaries of the land reached as far north as Hamath.
(3) As it was not originally contemplated by the Mosaic distribution to take immediate possession of the east Jordan land (Num_34:10-12), and this was only granted to Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh on their entreaty (Num_32:33-42), no ground existed why its withdrawal should be compensated for.
(4) If Ezekiers division of the land according to tribes rather than families shows that it existed prior to the priest-code, then the same argument should demonstrate its prior existence to J.E; which throughout as-stones the principle of division according to families.
(5) If Ezekiel preceded the priest-code, it will require some explanation to understand, first, why the author of the latter should have followed the comparatively uncertain Jehovistic tradition rather than the definite arrangements made by a prophet whom he regarded as practically the originator of his faith; and secondly, why he should have so materially altered that prophet's land-boundaries and tribe-dispositions.
I. THE BLESSING OF THE WATERS. In a dry land streams of water are most highly valued. Their banks, fringed with green, tell a pleasing story of the life and fertility that they bring wherever they flow. The blessings of the gospel are like living waters.
1. Cleansing. God has opened a fountain for all uncleanness.
2. Life. Christ gives the water of life. Without his grace our souls are parched and perishing.
3. Refreshment. The water is continually flowing; it is no stagnant pool. The life which it first quickens is daily fed by its invigorating supplies. The good Shepherd leads his flock by the still waters for repeated cheering and refreshing.
4. Beauty. Where the water flows the land is green and fair. The beauty of holiness springs up by the channel of Christ's grace.
5. Fruitfulness. There grow by the water fruit-bearing trees. Christian fruitfulness springs from the ever fresh supplies of Christ's grace.
II. THE SOURCE OF THE WATERS.
1. From God. The stream issues from the temple where God visits the earth and has his typical dwelling. It is he who sends forth the life-giving flood. We have the gospel of the grace of God. From him, and him alone, comes our salvation.
2. By sacrifice. The stream is to flow from under the altar on which sacrifices are offered. God's grace is given to us in Christ, and by means of his great atoning sacrifice. Christ especially claimed to give living waters (Joh_4:10). It is by his death that we live. From his cross the stream now flows for the healing of the nations.
3. Through worship. The temple had to be built, the altar set up, and the services duly conducted. We receive grace through faith when we yield our hearts and lives to Christ.
III. THE COURSE OF THE WATERS.
1. Outflowing. They rise in the temple; but they are not shut up in the sacred enclosure; they flow out for the good of the people. The gospel rose in Judaism, and passed out to the Gentile world. The grace of Christ is for the people generally, chiefly for those who thirst and faint for need of it.
2. Increasing. The small stream becomes a mighty river. "He giveth more grace." The blessings of Christ increase with time. The more we know of him, and the longer we follow him, the more of his grace flows to us. The gospel widens its area as it flows down the ages. The tiny stream, represented by the upper room at Jerusalem, becomes the mighty river of Christendom. As the area of influence widens, the grace of Christ comes in ever more and more abundant supplies, so that there is enough for all.
Eze_47:8-11
I. THE GRACE OF CHRIST FLOWS TO THE MOST DEAD AND DEGRADED PEOPLE. The Dead Sea may be taken to represent the world in its sin, or that portion of mankind that is most sunken and worthless. The temple waters were not confined to the bracing heights of Jerusalem. They could not contain themselves in those upland regions. Their quantity was so great that they could not but overflow and pour themselves down through the wilderness. Christ cannot keep his rich gifts for a few rare, saintly souls already safely gathered into the Church. They are for the world, chiefly for the world in its sin and desolation. The gathering flood cannot rest till it finds the low level of the Dead Sea. Christ can have no satisfaction till his gospel has reached the most sinful and fallen creatures in the world.
II. THE GRACE OF CHRIST BRINGS PURIFICATION AND HEALING.
1. Purification The Dead Sea is charged with salts; the stream is represented as washing these away, or in some manner transforming them. Some great cleansing is needed to purge the earthy mixture out of the hearts and lives of man. Christ brings waters in which the foulest may wash and be clean.
2. Healing. The strong brine of the Dead Sea is fatal to all life. If fish come down in the Jordan they must perish as soon as they reach the fatal lake. To the bather the waters are so pungent that they produce agonizing sensations in the eyes, and the taste of them is unendurable. Enclosed by the bluest of hills, steaming with tropical heat, the dull and heavy waters produce a scene of noxious beauty—like the charm of the snake, like the fascination of sin. But the gospel brings healing to the poisoned sea of human life, as the temple flood was imagined to bring it to the Dead Sea.
III. THE PURIFICATION AND HEALING OF THE GRACE OF CHRIST BEAR FRUIT IN LIFE. The purged sea is to team with fish, and fishermen are to spread their nets on its now neglected shores. Before Christ comes men are dead in trespasses and sins. He brings life for the dead, and wherever his gospel goes it introduces this life to the world. Even intellectual, social, and political life are energized by Christianity. The strongest, keenest, freshest life of the world is found in Christendom. Those lands which were once Christian, and have since lost the religion of the Christ, have sunk back to semi-barbarism; e.g. North Africa. The best nourishment for the highest life of man in all its branches is found in the New Testament. When Christ is received, life is strong, rich, and fruitful.
Eze_47:12
II. THE NUMBER AND VARIETY OF THEM. "All trees for meat," etc.
1. They are numerous. Many Christian agencies cluster about the gospel of Christ. There is abundance of life and energy here. However many may seek for grace from Christ, there is enough for all.
2. They are of various kinds. Thus they are suited to different orders of minds, to different circumstances and needs, and to different good ends. There is a rich variety in the blessings of the gospel, like the variety of nature, in which many kinds and species contribute to the general well-being of the whole.
III. THEIR PERENNIAL FRESHNESS.
1. They are evergreen. Most earthly comforts fade and pass away in course of time. Human good things are subject to shifting seasons. The fickle, changeful, transient character of the comforts of this world should drive us to the everlasting refuge of the Rock of Ages and the never-fading freshness of the trees of life. God's grace never fails. The blessings that spring from Christianity are independent of the fluctuations of outward life. It is possible to enjoy the green leaf in the garden of the Lord when all around is bare and desolate in wintry death.
2. Their fruit comes continuously. "It shall bring forth new fruit every month."
(1) The fruit-season in the kingdom of heaven is all the year round. Here we are often made to distinguish between the time of seed-sowing—which may be one of tears—and that of the joyous harvest. It is not so with the heavenly trees of life. They bear fruit in "the winter of our discontent." There is never a time when we may not seek and find some comfort and satisfaction in Christ.
(2) These blessings come again and again as fresh gifts from God: New fruit. We are not to be satisfied with the grace of the past; grace comes anew to God's people.
IV. THE GREAT SERVICE THEY RENDER.
1. They supply food. "The fruit thereof shall be for meat." Thus God nourishes the interior life of his people with heavenly fruit. Excluded from the earthly Eden, they can eat of the better fruit of the unseen and spiritual paradise. Souls live on Christ, the heavenly Manna. His flesh is meat indeed.
2. They give medicine. "And the leaf thereof for medicine." We need spiritual healing as well as feeding—healing from the bite of the serpent sin, from the crushing blow of adversity, from all that makes heart and soul sick. This too is provided in the grace of Christ the "good Physician." Balm of Gilead may fail us, but the Divine Herbalist has decoctions from the leaves of the tree of life that cure all soul ailments.
Eze_47:13
I. THE BLESSINGS OF THE FATHER DESCEND TO THE CHILDREN. Joseph had proved himself the best as well as the greatest of the sons of Jacob. He had returned good for evil to his cruel, murderous brothers, and had been the means of bringing blessing to all his father's household. He was now blessed in the blessing of his children. There is no better way of rewarding good parents than by prospering their children. We may see God's favor descending in line from generation to generation of them that fear him.
II. JUSTICE IS NOT THE SAME AS EQUALITY. It might seem to be unjust to the rest of the tribes that Joseph's descendants should be reckoned as two tribes. But it is not always right and fair to give exactly the same to every one. Equal partition may mean great wrong. Justice takes account of merit; some deserve more than others. It takes note of need; some require more than others. It has reference to capacity; some can use more than others. It is not just to reward the faithless as much as the faithful servant, nor to give to the giant as small a meal as to the dwarf, nor to entrust to the man of small mind as much responsibility as to one of large powers. Joseph's tribes may have deserved, have needed, or have been capable of using, more territory than any of the other tribes. They were more numerous in population.
III. THERE IS NO INJUSTICE WHERE NO ONE IS WRONGED. Provision was made for the double share of Joseph by giving to one of his tribes the portion that would have fallen to the lot of Levi, who was provided for out of the sacrificial offerings and the sacred cities whose inheritance was the Lord. Thus when it is granted that sacrifices should be made and tithes paid for religious purposes, we may conclude that there was a portion to spare. The ten tribes were not robbed to give to Ephraim or Manasseh, No injustice was done to those laborers of our Lord's parable who had toiled all day when the eleventh-hour laborers received equal wages; for the former had had full pay, all they had agreed for, and the heavier rate of the payment given to the latter was dependent only on the generosity of the master, who, having satisfied all due claims, had a right to do as he would with his own (Mat_20:15). Angels have no right to envy God's grace to men, for angels have their due. We have no right to begrudge to any people whatever favor God may show them. He does not rob us.
IV. GOD PROVIDES FOR INDIVIDUALS, AND NOT MERELY FOR COMMUNITIES. Ephraim and Manasseh, the two tribes of Joseph, were equal in population to the other tribes, if not more numerous. Therefore, the individual members of these two tribes received no more than their brethren in other tribes. Caring for man and not for communities, God was fair in giving most land to the most populous branch of the family of Jacob. His blessings now are for separate souls.
V. GREAT TRUSTS BRING GREAT RESPONSIBILITIES. The man of five talents does his duty in getting five more, while he of two talents does his equally in getting but two more. With double territory the two tribes of Joseph were expected to furnish a proportionately large supply of men for the national defense. Much is expected of those to whom much has been given. Specially privileged Christian people may rest assured that specially important duties have been laid upon them.
Eze_47:21
II. THE DIVISION WAS CLEAR AND DEFINITE. There were exact confines, and it was a criminal offence for any one to remove his neighbor's landmark (Deu_19:14). We ought to have no doubt as to our portion in life. Occasionally we may see a desolate, ruinous house—part of an estate in chancery, the ownership of which is disputed; on the other hand, we hear of claimants to estates who find it difficult to obtain what they urge is their own property. But in the region of personal religion each should see what is his portion and mission for the world.
III. THE DIVISION INCLUDED A PORTION FOR EVERY ISRAELITE. It was so carefully made that the most insignificant family should not be overlooked. There should be a share for every one in the produce of our great fruitful earth. Centers of population may be overcrowded, but the earth is not yet full. Foll