Ezekiel · Chapter 46

Verses 2, 3. The prince shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate without — The prince shall go through the outer gate of that court, and so pass to the inner gate, where he may see the whole service performed at the altar. And shall stand by the post of the gate — That is, by the entrance of the gate, where there was a seat prepared for him: see note on Ezekiel 44:2. And the priests shall prepare his burnt-offering — Or, offer his burnt-offering, as the original word often signifies. And he shall worship at the threshold of the gate — By bowing his head, bowing down his face to the ground, or falling down upon the ground, as the posture of divine worship is elsewhere described. But the gate shall not be shut until the evening — Because the people were to pay their solemn worship in the same place, as is prescribed in the following verse. Likewise the people shall worship at the door of this gate — Here the inner porch of the east gate is assigned for their station, who came to present themselves before the Lord upon the solemn festivals, and they were to come no further into the inner court.

V. 3. In the sabbaths-Both weekly and other holy days, which are called sabbaths.

Verses 2, 3. The prince shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate without — The prince shall go through the outer gate of that court, and so pass to the inner gate, where he may see the whole service performed at the altar. And shall stand by the post of the gate — That is, by the entrance of the gate, where there was a seat prepared for him: see note on Ezekiel 44:2. And the priests shall prepare his burnt-offering — Or, offer his burnt-offering, as the original word often signifies. And he shall worship at the threshold of the gate — By bowing his head, bowing down his face to the ground, or falling down upon the ground, as the posture of divine worship is elsewhere described. But the gate shall not be shut until the evening — Because the people were to pay their solemn worship in the same place, as is prescribed in the following verse. Likewise the people shall worship at the door of this gate — Here the inner porch of the east gate is assigned for their station, who came to present themselves before the Lord upon the solemn festivals, and they were to come no further into the inner court.

Verse 4. The burnt-offerings that the prince shall offer] The chief magistrate was always obliged to attend the public worship of God, as well as the priest, to show that the civil and ecclesiastical states were both under the same government of the Lord; and that no one was capable of being prince or priest, who did not acknowledge God in all his ways. It is no wonder that those lands mourn, where neither the established priest nor the civil magistrate either fear or love God. Ungodly priests and profligate magistrates are a curse to any land. In no country have I found both so exemplary for uprightness, as in Britain.

Verses 4, 5. The burnt-offering that the prince shall offer, &c. — It was the prince’s part to provide sacrifices for the sabbaths and other festivals: see Ezekiel 45:17. But this was a new ordinance; and the number of the beasts that were to be offered, and the proportions of the meat and drink-offerings, are different here from those prescribed in the law, as will appear by comparing the fourth, sixth, seventh, and fourteenth verses of this chapter, with Numbers 28:9-12, 15. And the meat-offering for the lambs as he shall be able to give — The Hebrew is, According to the gift of his hand; that is, as much as he shall think sufficient.

4-7. Instead of two lambs for a burnt offering the prince in this new and ideal commonwealth shall offer six on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9), and instead of two tenths of an ephah of flour mingled with oil for a meat and drink offering (ibid.) an entire ephah is required and a bin of oil (about 1½ gals.) to each ephah of flour (about 9 gals.). The amount of flour for each lamb is left to the liberality of his hand (verses 5, 7). The offering at the new moons, however, is less than the Levitical law required (Numbers 28:11-15), and the sin offering is entirely omitted. The divergences between the directions of Ezekiel and the Pentateuchal law are as yet inexplicable, as we are too little acquainted with the sacrificial symbolism to explain them. To declare that this law was later than Ezekiel and based upon his legislation does not remove the difficulty; for such small changes as these could not have been made without sufficient reason, and we cannot now know what that reason was; though we may be pretty confident that in the Hebrew ritual, as in that of other nations, each act of the priest and each sacrifice had some definite religious meaning. (Compare Ezekiel 43:11, 12.)

Verses 4, 5. The burnt-offering that the prince shall offer, &c. — It was the prince’s part to provide sacrifices for the sabbaths and other festivals: see Ezekiel 45:17. But this was a new ordinance; and the number of the beasts that were to be offered, and the proportions of the meat and drink-offerings, are different here from those prescribed in the law, as will appear by comparing the fourth, sixth, seventh, and fourteenth verses of this chapter, with Numbers 28:9-12, 15. And the meat-offering for the lambs as he shall be able to give — The Hebrew is, According to the gift of his hand; that is, as much as he shall think sufficient.

4-7. Instead of two lambs for a burnt offering the prince in this new and ideal commonwealth shall offer six on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9), and instead of two tenths of an ephah of flour mingled with oil for a meat and drink offering (ibid.) an entire ephah is required and a bin of oil (about 1½ gals.) to each ephah of flour (about 9 gals.). The amount of flour for each lamb is left to the liberality of his hand (verses 5, 7). The offering at the new moons, however, is less than the Levitical law required (Numbers 28:11-15), and the sin offering is entirely omitted. The divergences between the directions of Ezekiel and the Pentateuchal law are as yet inexplicable, as we are too little acquainted with the sacrificial symbolism to explain them. To declare that this law was later than Ezekiel and based upon his legislation does not remove the difficulty; for such small changes as these could not have been made without sufficient reason, and we cannot now know what that reason was; though we may be pretty confident that in the Hebrew ritual, as in that of other nations, each act of the priest and each sacrifice had some definite religious meaning. (Compare Ezekiel 43:11, 12.)

4-7. Instead of two lambs for a burnt offering the prince in this new and ideal commonwealth shall offer six on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9), and instead of two tenths of an ephah of flour mingled with oil for a meat and drink offering (ibid.) an entire ephah is required and a bin of oil (about 1½ gals.) to each ephah of flour (about 9 gals.). The amount of flour for each lamb is left to the liberality of his hand (verses 5, 7). The offering at the new moons, however, is less than the Levitical law required (Numbers 28:11-15), and the sin offering is entirely omitted. The divergences between the directions of Ezekiel and the Pentateuchal law are as yet inexplicable, as we are too little acquainted with the sacrificial symbolism to explain them. To declare that this law was later than Ezekiel and based upon his legislation does not remove the difficulty; for such small changes as these could not have been made without sufficient reason, and we cannot now know what that reason was; though we may be pretty confident that in the Hebrew ritual, as in that of other nations, each act of the priest and each sacrifice had some definite religious meaning. (Compare Ezekiel 43:11, 12.)

Verse 7. According as his hand shall attain unto] According to his ability, to what the providence of God has put in his hand, i.e., his power. This proportion of offerings is different from that prescribed by the Mosaic law, Numbers 15:4-12.

4-7. Instead of two lambs for a burnt offering the prince in this new and ideal commonwealth shall offer six on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9), and instead of two tenths of an ephah of flour mingled with oil for a meat and drink offering (ibid.) an entire ephah is required and a bin of oil (about 1½ gals.) to each ephah of flour (about 9 gals.). The amount of flour for each lamb is left to the liberality of his hand (verses 5, 7). The offering at the new moons, however, is less than the Levitical law required (Numbers 28:11-15), and the sin offering is entirely omitted. The divergences between the directions of Ezekiel and the Pentateuchal law are as yet inexplicable, as we are too little acquainted with the sacrificial symbolism to explain them. To declare that this law was later than Ezekiel and based upon his legislation does not remove the difficulty; for such small changes as these could not have been made without sufficient reason, and we cannot now know what that reason was; though we may be pretty confident that in the Hebrew ritual, as in that of other nations, each act of the priest and each sacrifice had some definite religious meaning. (Compare Ezekiel 43:11, 12.)

Verses 8-10. He shall go in by the porch of that gate — To go in at the eastern gate was the privilege of the prince and the priests only; the people were to enter in by the north or south gates, as is mentioned in the following verse. He that entereth in by the way of the north gate, shall go out by the way of the south, &c. — These words imply the reason why the people were not to come in at the east gate, because, there being no passage or thoroughfare out of the temple westward, if they had entered in at the east gate, they must have returned back the same way they came in, which would have occasioned a vast throng and hinderance, considering the multitude that came to the temple. And perhaps this order was also designed to take away any superstitious distinction between the several gates of the temple, by commanding that every one should go out the opposite way to that by which he came in, whether it were toward the north or south. And the prince in the midst of them — The prince shall pay the same attendance upon God’s worship with the people, since all men are equal in the sight of God.

8-10. Even the way by which the prince and people shall enter and depart from the sacrificial gateway has a religious significance the full import of which we cannot now catch. (See note verses 4-7.) To suppose that this regulation was merely to avoid a throng is to go contrary to the analogy of similar regulations in all other ancient rituals. The ordinary text (verse 10) seems to declare that the prince and people should enter and leave the place of sacrifice at the same time — which would compel the prince to meet the entire throng as he attempted to leave by the same gate at which he had entered the temple (verse 8). Perhaps the Syriac is correct in reading, as quoted by Davidson, “But the prince in their midst, by the gate at which he came in shall he go out.” The fact of the inner gate being left open after the prince had completed his acts of worship (verse 2) would suggest the probability that other worshipers (“the people”) were to pass by the sacred doorway and look upon the sacrifices after the prince had left the temple. It seems improbable that the prince and the people should have been put upon such an equality as the A.V. would indicate, and especially improbable that the prince should have been compelled by the law to beat against the crowd when he attempted to leave the sacred place (verses 8, 10, A.V.).

V. 9. Go forth over against it-Perhaps, only to prevent all jostling and confusion.

Verse 9. He that entereth in by the way of the north, &c.] As the north and the south gates were opposite to each other, he that came in at the north must go out at the south; he that came in at the south must go out at the north. No person was to come in at the east gate, because there was no gate at the west; and the people were not permitted to turn round and go out at the same place by which they came in; for this was like turning their backs on God, and the decorum and reverence with which public worship was to be conducted would not admit of this. Besides, returning by the same way must have occasioned a great deal of confusion, where so many people must have jostled each other, in their meetings in different parts of this space.

Verses 8-10. He shall go in by the porch of that gate — To go in at the eastern gate was the privilege of the prince and the priests only; the people were to enter in by the north or south gates, as is mentioned in the following verse. He that entereth in by the way of the north gate, shall go out by the way of the south, &c. — These words imply the reason why the people were not to come in at the east gate, because, there being no passage or thoroughfare out of the temple westward, if they had entered in at the east gate, they must have returned back the same way they came in, which would have occasioned a vast throng and hinderance, considering the multitude that came to the temple. And perhaps this order was also designed to take away any superstitious distinction between the several gates of the temple, by commanding that every one should go out the opposite way to that by which he came in, whether it were toward the north or south. And the prince in the midst of them — The prince shall pay the same attendance upon God’s worship with the people, since all men are equal in the sight of God.

8-10. Even the way by which the prince and people shall enter and depart from the sacrificial gateway has a religious significance the full import of which we cannot now catch. (See note verses 4-7.) To suppose that this regulation was merely to avoid a throng is to go contrary to the analogy of similar regulations in all other ancient rituals. The ordinary text (verse 10) seems to declare that the prince and people should enter and leave the place of sacrifice at the same time — which would compel the prince to meet the entire throng as he attempted to leave by the same gate at which he had entered the temple (verse 8). Perhaps the Syriac is correct in reading, as quoted by Davidson, “But the prince in their midst, by the gate at which he came in shall he go out.” The fact of the inner gate being left open after the prince had completed his acts of worship (verse 2) would suggest the probability that other worshipers (“the people”) were to pass by the sacred doorway and look upon the sacrifices after the prince had left the temple. It seems improbable that the prince and the people should have been put upon such an equality as the A.V. would indicate, and especially improbable that the prince should have been compelled by the law to beat against the crowd when he attempted to leave the sacred place (verses 8, 10, A.V.).

Verse 10. And the prince in the midst of them] Even he shall act in the same way: he must also go straight forward, and never turn his back to go out at the same gate by which he entered. The prince and the people were to begin and end their worship at the same time.

Verses 8-10. He shall go in by the porch of that gate — To go in at the eastern gate was the privilege of the prince and the priests only; the people were to enter in by the north or south gates, as is mentioned in the following verse. He that entereth in by the way of the north gate, shall go out by the way of the south, &c. — These words imply the reason why the people were not to come in at the east gate, because, there being no passage or thoroughfare out of the temple westward, if they had entered in at the east gate, they must have returned back the same way they came in, which would have occasioned a vast throng and hinderance, considering the multitude that came to the temple. And perhaps this order was also designed to take away any superstitious distinction between the several gates of the temple, by commanding that every one should go out the opposite way to that by which he came in, whether it were toward the north or south. And the prince in the midst of them — The prince shall pay the same attendance upon God’s worship with the people, since all men are equal in the sight of God.

8-10. Even the way by which the prince and people shall enter and depart from the sacrificial gateway has a religious significance the full import of which we cannot now catch. (See note verses 4-7.) To suppose that this regulation was merely to avoid a throng is to go contrary to the analogy of similar regulations in all other ancient rituals. The ordinary text (verse 10) seems to declare that the prince and people should enter and leave the place of sacrifice at the same time — which would compel the prince to meet the entire throng as he attempted to leave by the same gate at which he had entered the temple (verse 8). Perhaps the Syriac is correct in reading, as quoted by Davidson, “But the prince in their midst, by the gate at which he came in shall he go out.” The fact of the inner gate being left open after the prince had completed his acts of worship (verse 2) would suggest the probability that other worshipers (“the people”) were to pass by the sacred doorway and look upon the sacrifices after the prince had left the temple. It seems improbable that the prince and the people should have been put upon such an equality as the A.V. would indicate, and especially improbable that the prince should have been compelled by the law to beat against the crowd when he attempted to leave the sacred place (verses 8, 10, A.V.).

11, 12. When the prince, in addition to the sacrifices required by law, brings a personal “freewill offering” (compare Exodus 35:29; Leviticus 22:23) he shall enter the temple just as on the Sabbath and new moons, but the gate shall be closed immediately upon his departure, instead of remaining open until evening, as in the other cases (verse 2), for the accommodation of other worshipers interested in the sacrifices. (See note preceding; in regard to the offerings in verse 11, see note on verses 4-7.)

Verses 12-14. Now when the prince shall prepare a voluntary offering — The foregoing verses gave directions about the sacrifices the prince was enjoined to offer upon solemn days; this gives directions concerning his free-will, or voluntary offerings, concerning which see Leviticus 22:18,

21. Upon these occasions the eastern gate was to be opened for the prince; but then, as soon as the service was over, and he was gone out, the gate was to be shut, because that gate was not to stand open, but only on the sabbath and festival days. Thou shalt daily prepare — The LXX. read, He shall prepare, or make, a burnt-offering, &c., as also all the ancient versions, except the Chaldee. He shall prepare it every morning — The daily evening sacrifice is generally supposed to be here implied, according to the prescription of the law, Numbers 28:3. The sixth part of an ephah, &c. — In Numbers 28:5, the proportion required is the tenth part of an ephah, and the fourth part of a hin of oil. By a perpetual ordinance unto the Lord — The law of the passover is called a perpetual ordinance, Exodus 12:17; and likewise the ordinances about the first-fruits. Leviticus 23:14. The Hebrew word, µlw[, is used in each of these places; but it does not always denote perpetuity in a strict sense, but only a long period, or succession of time.

11, 12. When the prince, in addition to the sacrifices required by law, brings a personal “freewill offering” (compare Exodus 35:29; Leviticus 22:23) he shall enter the temple just as on the Sabbath and new moons, but the gate shall be closed immediately upon his departure, instead of remaining open until evening, as in the other cases (verse 2), for the accommodation of other worshipers interested in the sacrifices. (See note preceding; in regard to the offerings in verse 11, see note on verses 4-7.)

Verse 13. Thou shalt prepare it every morning.] The evening offering is entirely omitted, which makes an important difference between this and the old laws. See Exodus 29:31-46.

Verses 12-14. Now when the prince shall prepare a voluntary offering — The foregoing verses gave directions about the sacrifices the prince was enjoined to offer upon solemn days; this gives directions concerning his free-will, or voluntary offerings, concerning which see Leviticus 22:18,

21. Upon these occasions the eastern gate was to be opened for the prince; but then, as soon as the service was over, and he was gone out, the gate was to be shut, because that gate was not to stand open, but only on the sabbath and festival days. Thou shalt daily prepare — The LXX. read, He shall prepare, or make, a burnt-offering, &c., as also all the ancient versions, except the Chaldee. He shall prepare it every morning — The daily evening sacrifice is generally supposed to be here implied, according to the prescription of the law, Numbers 28:3. The sixth part of an ephah, &c. — In Numbers 28:5, the proportion required is the tenth part of an ephah, and the fourth part of a hin of oil. By a perpetual ordinance unto the Lord — The law of the passover is called a perpetual ordinance, Exodus 12:17; and likewise the ordinances about the first-fruits. Leviticus 23:14. The Hebrew word, µlw[, is used in each of these places; but it does not always denote perpetuity in a strict sense, but only a long period, or succession of time.

13-15. Instead of two lambs a day, one in the morning and one in the evening (Exodus 29:38-42; Numbers 28:1-8), the daily morning offering shall be one “yearling lamb without blemish,” and instead of one tenth ephah of meal one sixth is here required, and instead of one fourth bin of oil one third is here necessary “to moisten” (R.V.) the “meal” (R.V.) offering. Why no evening offering was made and why these seemingly unimportant differences are found between the two legislations cannot now be explained. (See note verses 4-7.)

Verses 12-14. Now when the prince shall prepare a voluntary offering — The foregoing verses gave directions about the sacrifices the prince was enjoined to offer upon solemn days; this gives directions concerning his free-will, or voluntary offerings, concerning which see Leviticus 22:18,

21. Upon these occasions the eastern gate was to be opened for the prince; but then, as soon as the service was over, and he was gone out, the gate was to be shut, because that gate was not to stand open, but only on the sabbath and festival days. Thou shalt daily prepare — The LXX. read, He shall prepare, or make, a burnt-offering, &c., as also all the ancient versions, except the Chaldee. He shall prepare it every morning — The daily evening sacrifice is generally supposed to be here implied, according to the prescription of the law, Numbers 28:3. The sixth part of an ephah, &c. — In Numbers 28:5, the proportion required is the tenth part of an ephah, and the fourth part of a hin of oil. By a perpetual ordinance unto the Lord — The law of the passover is called a perpetual ordinance, Exodus 12:17; and likewise the ordinances about the first-fruits. Leviticus 23:14. The Hebrew word, µlw[, is used in each of these places; but it does not always denote perpetuity in a strict sense, but only a long period, or succession of time.

13-15. Instead of two lambs a day, one in the morning and one in the evening (Exodus 29:38-42; Numbers 28:1-8), the daily morning offering shall be one “yearling lamb without blemish,” and instead of one tenth ephah of meal one sixth is here required, and instead of one fourth bin of oil one third is here necessary “to moisten” (R.V.) the “meal” (R.V.) offering. Why no evening offering was made and why these seemingly unimportant differences are found between the two legislations cannot now be explained. (See note verses 4-7.)

13-15. Instead of two lambs a day, one in the morning and one in the evening (Exodus 29:38-42; Numbers 28:1-8), the daily morning offering shall be one “yearling lamb without blemish,” and instead of one tenth ephah of meal one sixth is here required, and instead of one fourth bin of oil one third is here necessary “to moisten” (R.V.) the “meal” (R.V.) offering. Why no evening offering was made and why these seemingly unimportant differences are found between the two legislations cannot now be explained. (See note verses 4-7.)

Verses 16-18. If the prince give a gift, &c. — By these verses we learn, that even gifts, or legacies of lands, could only be granted till the year of jubilee, except to a person’s own heirs; for at that period all such gifts or grants devolved again to the original possessors, or their heirs. It shall be his to the year of liberty — That is, of jubilee, called the year of liberty, because it freed men’s persons from the service of their masters, and their estates from any engagements by which the right of them was transferred from their proper owners. After it shall return to the prince — Or to his heirs, if he be dead. But his inheritance shall be his sons’ for them — Or, his inheritance shall belong to his sons; it shall be theirs so as not to be alienated. The prince shall not take of the people’s inheritance — As Ahab did, 1 Kings 21:16. That my people be not scattered — Lest, being turned out of their own, they be forced to wander up and down the country for a livelihood.

16-18. These regulations protecting the sons of the prince prove that Ezekiel thought of him as a civil officer. The old interpreters who tried to make every phrase concerning the prince point to a coming heavenly Messiah were wrong. That every ceremonial act of the prince, king, and priests, in the Hebrew, as in every other ancient ritual, was intended to teach some religious lesson cannot be doubted; but what these lessons were must be determined by the symbolic language of the age and not by pressing our Christian conceptions into the Old Testament law (note 43:10, 11). The property of the prince (Ezekiel 45:7, 8) if given to a servant must revert back to the prince at the “year of release” (probably the fiftieth, the year of jubilee, Leviticus 25:10; 27:24; though it is possibly the seventh, the year of release from debts, Jeremiah 34:14; Deuteronomy 15:12). But the gifts of the prince to his sons should be theirs forever: “as for his inheritance, it shall be for his sons” (R.V., verse 17). The prince must not, however, take any of the people’s lands in order to increase the inheritance of the royal princes (verse 18; compare 1 Kings 21). The rights of each Hebrew citizen to a portion of the land were sacredly guarded by the old law (Leviticus 25:23; Numbers 26, 27).

V. 17. His inheritance-Whatever lands of the prince are given to servants, shall at the year of Jubilee revert to the sons of the prince. For them-And to theirs after them.

Verse 17. To the year of liberty] That is, to the year of jubilee, called the year of liberty, because there was then a general release. All servants had their liberty, and all alienated estates returned to their former owners.

Verses 16-18. If the prince give a gift, &c. — By these verses we learn, that even gifts, or legacies of lands, could only be granted till the year of jubilee, except to a person’s own heirs; for at that period all such gifts or grants devolved again to the original possessors, or their heirs. It shall be his to the year of liberty — That is, of jubilee, called the year of liberty, because it freed men’s persons from the service of their masters, and their estates from any engagements by which the right of them was transferred from their proper owners. After it shall return to the prince — Or to his heirs, if he be dead. But his inheritance shall be his sons’ for them — Or, his inheritance shall belong to his sons; it shall be theirs so as not to be alienated. The prince shall not take of the people’s inheritance — As Ahab did, 1 Kings 21:16. That my people be not scattered — Lest, being turned out of their own, they be forced to wander up and down the country for a livelihood.

16-18. These regulations protecting the sons of the prince prove that Ezekiel thought of him as a civil officer. The old interpreters who tried to make every phrase concerning the prince point to a coming heavenly Messiah were wrong. That every ceremonial act of the prince, king, and priests, in the Hebrew, as in every other ancient ritual, was intended to teach some religious lesson cannot be doubted; but what these lessons were must be determined by the symbolic language of the age and not by pressing our Christian conceptions into the Old Testament law (note 43:10, 11). The property of the prince (Ezekiel 45:7, 8) if given to a servant must revert back to the prince at the “year of release” (probably the fiftieth, the year of jubilee, Leviticus 25:10; 27:24; though it is possibly the seventh, the year of release from debts, Jeremiah 34:14; Deuteronomy 15:12). But the gifts of the prince to his sons should be theirs forever: “as for his inheritance, it shall be for his sons” (R.V., verse 17). The prince must not, however, take any of the people’s lands in order to increase the inheritance of the royal princes (verse 18; compare 1 Kings 21). The rights of each Hebrew citizen to a portion of the land were sacredly guarded by the old law (Leviticus 25:23; Numbers 26, 27).

Verses 16-18. If the prince give a gift, &c. — By these verses we learn, that even gifts, or legacies of lands, could only be granted till the year of jubilee, except to a person’s own heirs; for at that period all such gifts or grants devolved again to the original possessors, or their heirs. It shall be his to the year of liberty — That is, of jubilee, called the year of liberty, because it freed men’s persons from the service of their masters, and their estates from any engagements by which the right of them was transferred from their proper owners. After it shall return to the prince — Or to his heirs, if he be dead. But his inheritance shall be his sons’ for them — Or, his inheritance shall belong to his sons; it shall be theirs so as not to be alienated. The prince shall not take of the people’s inheritance — As Ahab did, 1 Kings 21:16. That my people be not scattered — Lest, being turned out of their own, they be forced to wander up and down the country for a livelihood.

16-18. These regulations protecting the sons of the prince prove that Ezekiel thought of him as a civil officer. The old interpreters who tried to make every phrase concerning the prince point to a coming heavenly Messiah were wrong. That every ceremonial act of the prince, king, and priests, in the Hebrew, as in every other ancient ritual, was intended to teach some religious lesson cannot be doubted; but what these lessons were must be determined by the symbolic language of the age and not by pressing our Christian conceptions into the Old Testament law (note 43:10, 11). The property of the prince (Ezekiel 45:7, 8) if given to a servant must revert back to the prince at the “year of release” (probably the fiftieth, the year of jubilee, Leviticus 25:10; 27:24; though it is possibly the seventh, the year of release from debts, Jeremiah 34:14; Deuteronomy 15:12). But the gifts of the prince to his sons should be theirs forever: “as for his inheritance, it shall be for his sons” (R.V., verse 17). The prince must not, however, take any of the people’s lands in order to increase the inheritance of the royal princes (verse 18; compare 1 Kings 21). The rights of each Hebrew citizen to a portion of the land were sacredly guarded by the old law (Leviticus 25:23; Numbers 26, 27).

Verse 19. He brought me thorough the entry] The prophet had entered by the north gate of the court of the priests, where he had seen, a little before, the glory of the Lord, and where he had received all those directions from Ezekiel 44:4, 5, to this chapter. From that gate, (see plan Q.) See Clarke “Ezekiel 48:35”, he entered the vestibule by a gate which was by the side of the apartments of the priests, which were along this aisle, (see S.) See Clarke “Ezekiel 48:35”, to the right of the vestibule towards the west. At the extremity of a row of chambers, he remarked, at the west, the place where they boiled the flesh of the sin-offerings, (see T.) See Clarke “Ezekiel 48:35”. They did not boil there the flesh of all sorts of victims, there were other kitchens appointed for that, (see PP:) See Clarke “Ezekiel 48:35”, but that only which could not be eaten but in the outer court, and by the priests which were sanctified; such were the parts of the offerings for sins of commission and ignorance, and the offerings of flour with which they were accompanied.

Verses 19, 20. He brought me through the entry — A private passage, Ezekiel 42:9, which led to the priests’ chambers, which were on the north side of the inner court, and are described Ezekiel 40:44, 46. There was a place on the two sides westward — Or, on their sides westward; that is, there was an enclosure on the west side of these chambers. This is the place where the priest shall boil the trespass-offering — The flesh of the sacrifices, which were to be eaten, was to be boiled, except the flesh of the passover. Where they shall bake the meat-offering — According to the directions given Leviticus 2:4-7. That they bear them not into the outer court, to sanctify the people — The flesh of those sacrifices, and the remainder of the meat-offering, were accounted most holy; and consequently, according to the law, were supposed to convey some kind of holiness to those that touched them: see note on Ezekiel 44:19.

19-24. The kitchens of the priests are now described. “Then he brought me through the entry,… and behold, there was a place on the hinder part westward” (R.V.). See L in chart facing page 209. The kitchens where the priests prepared their own meals from the sacrificial offerings (Ezekiel 44:29) were at the west ends of the inner court. Nothing was allowed to pass from this inner court to the outer, for ceremonial and practical reasons. (See note Ezekiel 44:11-19.) In the “outer court” (verse 21, R.V.), in each of the four corners were the kitchens in which the other offerings of the people were boiled or baked by the Levites (Ezekiel 44:11, 12; Leviticus 8:31; see M of chart facing page 209). It is almost universally recognized that these closing paragraphs of this strange prophecy cannot be taken literally. “But,” says Dr. Terry, “if the last two chapters are explained as ideal pictures, so must the others be, for they are all parts of one great symbolic vision.… What, then, is the real import of these concluding chapters? Our answer is that, like the corresponding conclusion of John’s Apocalypse, this vision of the restored and perfected temple, service, and land symbolizes the perfected kingdom of God and his Messiah.… Of the times and the seasons of the completion of the Messianic kingdom Ezekiel utters no definite word. Like the descent of the new Jerusalem in the visions of John (Revelation 21:2), which was seen after the overthrow of Gog and Magog and their innumerable host (Revelation 20:8, 9), this final glorification of Israel also follows the overthrow of the last enemies. This is the only natural, logical, and pictorial order consistent with the grand ideal of triumph. This interpretation of the symbolism necessarily excludes all Jewish carnal theories of a literal restoration of Jerusalem and the Jewish state. The notion prevalent among some schools of Second Adventists, that at Christ’s second coming Jerusalem and the temple will be rebuilt and become the throne center of the kingdom of the Messiah, is inconsistent with a rational interpretation of the prophets and the spiritual nature of the kingdom of Christ” (Apocalyptics).

V. 20. The outer court-Where the people were.

Verse 20. The trespass-offering] Part of this, and of the sin-offering, and the flour-offering was the portion of the priests. See Numbers 18:9, 10.

Verses 19, 20. He brought me through the entry — A private passage, Ezekiel 42:9, which led to the priests’ chambers, which were on the north side of the inner court, and are described Ezekiel 40:44, 46. There was a place on the two sides westward — Or, on their sides westward; that is, there was an enclosure on the west side of these chambers. This is the place where the priest shall boil the trespass-offering — The flesh of the sacrifices, which were to be eaten, was to be boiled, except the flesh of the passover. Where they shall bake the meat-offering — According to the directions given Leviticus 2:4-7. That they bear them not into the outer court, to sanctify the people — The flesh of those sacrifices, and the remainder of the meat-offering, were accounted most holy; and consequently, according to the law, were supposed to convey some kind of holiness to those that touched them: see note on Ezekiel 44:19.

19-24. The kitchens of the priests are now described. “Then he brought me through the entry,… and behold, there was a place on the hinder part westward” (R.V.). See L in chart facing page 209. The kitchens where the priests prepared their own meals from the sacrificial offerings (Ezekiel 44:29) were at the west ends of the inner court. Nothing was allowed to pass from this inner court to the outer, for ceremonial and practical reasons. (See note Ezekiel 44:11-19.) In the “outer court” (verse 21, R.V.), in each of the four corners were the kitchens in which the other offerings of the people were boiled or baked by the Levites (Ezekiel 44:11, 12; Leviticus 8:31; see M of chart facing page 209). It is almost universally recognized that these closing paragraphs of this strange prophecy cannot be taken literally. “But,” says Dr. Terry, “if the last two chapters are explained as ideal pictures, so must the others be, for they are all parts of one great symbolic vision.… What, then, is the real import of these concluding chapters? Our answer is that, like the corresponding conclusion of John’s Apocalypse, this vision of the restored and perfected temple, service, and land symbolizes the perfected kingdom of God and his Messiah.… Of the times and the seasons of the completion of the Messianic kingdom Ezekiel utters no definite word. Like the descent of the new Jerusalem in the visions of John (Revelation 21:2), which was seen after the overthrow of Gog and Magog and their innumerable host (Revelation 20:8, 9), this final glorification of Israel also follows the overthrow of the last enemies. This is the only natural, logical, and pictorial order consistent with the grand ideal of triumph. This interpretation of the symbolism necessarily excludes all Jewish carnal theories of a literal restoration of Jerusalem and the Jewish state. The notion prevalent among some schools of Second Adventists, that at Christ’s second coming Jerusalem and the temple will be rebuilt and become the throne center of the kingdom of the Messiah, is inconsistent with a rational interpretation of the prophets and the spiritual nature of the kingdom of Christ” (Apocalyptics).

V. 21. A court-A smaller court made up on the outer sides with the walls of the greater square, and on the inside made with two walls, the one forty cubits long, the other thirty cubits broad.

Verses 21-24. Behold, in every corner of the court there was a court — At every corner, where the side walls met in right angles, there was another little court. There were courts joined of forty cubits long, &c. — These little courts were in the shape of an oblong square, joined with inner walls to the outside walls of the greater court. The marginal reading, made with chimneys, gives a sense which very well agrees with the uses for which the courts were designed. There was a row of buildings round about in them — Namely, on the inside of these courts. Then said he, These are the places, &c. — As there was a place in the inner court for boiling the trespass and sin-offering, verses 19, 20; so these boiling-places might be appointed for boiling the peace-offerings, which were esteemed inferior in holiness to those above mentioned, and therefore, perhaps, were dressed by the Levites, or inferior ministers; whereas the former were boiled by the priests in the court properly belonging to them.

Verse 21. In every corner of the court there was a court. The LXX read aule micra, a little court, which relieves the idea, by defining the nature of the courts. These courts were open to the heavens, having no roof.

19-24. The kitchens of the priests are now described. “Then he brought me through the entry,… and behold, there was a place on the hinder part westward” (R.V.). See L in chart facing page 209. The kitchens where the priests prepared their own meals from the sacrificial offerings (Ezekiel 44:29) were at the west ends of the inner court. Nothing was allowed to pass from this inner court to the outer, for ceremonial and practical reasons. (See note Ezekiel 44:11-19.) In the “outer court” (verse 21, R.V.), in each of the four corners were the kitchens in which the other offerings of the people were boiled or baked by the Levites (Ezekiel 44:11, 12; Leviticus 8:31; see M of chart facing page 209). It is almost universally recognized that these closing paragraphs of this strange prophecy cannot be taken literally. “But,” says Dr. Terry, “if the last two chapters are explained as ideal pictures, so must the others be, for they are all parts of one great symbolic vision.… What, then, is the real import of these concluding chapters? Our answer is that, like the corresponding conclusion of John’s Apocalypse, this vision of the restored and perfected temple, service, and land symbolizes the perfected kingdom of God and his Messiah.… Of the times and the seasons of the completion of the Messianic kingdom Ezekiel utters no definite word. Like the descent of the new Jerusalem in the visions of John (Revelation 21:2), which was seen after the overthrow of Gog and Magog and their innumerable host (Revelation 20:8, 9), this final glorification of Israel also follows the overthrow of the last enemies. This is the only natural, logical, and pictorial order consistent with the grand ideal of triumph. This interpretation of the symbolism necessarily excludes all Jewish carnal theories of a literal restoration of Jerusalem and the Jewish state. The notion prevalent among some schools of Second Adventists, that at Christ’s second coming Jerusalem and the temple will be rebuilt and become the throne center of the kingdom of the Messiah, is inconsistent with a rational interpretation of the prophets and the spiritual nature of the kingdom of Christ” (Apocalyptics).

Verses 21-24. Behold, in every corner of the court there was a court — At every corner, where the side walls met in right angles, there was another little court. There were courts joined of forty cubits long, &c. — These little courts were in the shape of an oblong square, joined with inner walls to the outside walls of the greater court. The marginal reading, made with chimneys, gives a sense which very well agrees with the uses for which the courts were designed. There was a row of buildings round about in them — Namely, on the inside of these courts. Then said he, These are the places, &c. — As there was a place in the inner court for boiling the trespass and sin-offering, verses 19, 20; so these boiling-places might be appointed for boiling the peace-offerings, which were esteemed inferior in holiness to those above mentioned, and therefore, perhaps, were dressed by the Levites, or inferior ministers; whereas the former were boiled by the priests in the court properly belonging to them.

19-24. The kitchens of the priests are now described. “Then he brought me through the entry,… and behold, there was a place on the hinder part westward” (R.V.). See L in chart facing page 209. The kitchens where the priests prepared their own meals from the sacrificial offerings (Ezekiel 44:29) were at the west ends of the inner court. Nothing was allowed to pass from this inner court to the outer, for ceremonial and practical reasons. (See note Ezekiel 44:11-19.) In the “outer court” (verse 21, R.V.), in each of the four corners were the kitchens in which the other offerings of the people were boiled or baked by the Levites (Ezekiel 44:11, 12; Leviticus 8:31; see M of chart facing page 209). It is almost universally recognized that these closing paragraphs of this strange prophecy cannot be taken literally. “But,” says Dr. Terry, “if the last two chapters are explained as ideal pictures, so must the others be, for they are all parts of one great symbolic vision.… What, then, is the real import of these concluding chapters? Our answer is that, like the corresponding conclusion of John’s Apocalypse, this vision of the restored and perfected temple, service, and land symbolizes the perfected kingdom of God and his Messiah.… Of the times and the seasons of the completion of the Messianic kingdom Ezekiel utters no definite word. Like the descent of the new Jerusalem in the visions of John (Revelation 21:2), which was seen after the overthrow of Gog and Magog and their innumerable host (Revelation 20:8, 9), this final glorification of Israel also follows the overthrow of the last enemies. This is the only natural, logical, and pictorial order consistent with the grand ideal of triumph. This interpretation of the symbolism necessarily excludes all Jewish carnal theories of a literal restoration of Jerusalem and the Jewish state. The notion prevalent among some schools of Second Adventists, that at Christ’s second coming Jerusalem and the temple will be rebuilt and become the throne center of the kingdom of the Messiah, is inconsistent with a rational interpretation of the prophets and the spiritual nature of the kingdom of Christ” (Apocalyptics).

V. 23. A row of building-A range of building on the inside of the walls of the lesser courts. Four-Four courts in the four corners.

Verse 23. It was made with boiling places] These were uncovered apartments, where they kept fires for dressing those parts of the peace-offerings, which were made in the temple by individuals through a principle of devotion. On these their families and their friends feasted; and portions were sent to the poor, the widows, and the orphans. And thus the spirit of devotion was the means of preserving the spirit of mercy, charity, and benevolence in the land. How true is that word, “Godliness is profitable for all things.”

EZEKIEL

Verses 21-24. Behold, in every corner of the court there was a court — At every corner, where the side walls met in right angles, there was another little court. There were courts joined of forty cubits long, &c. — These little courts were in the shape of an oblong square, joined with inner walls to the outside walls of the greater court. The marginal reading, made with chimneys, gives a sense which very well agrees with the uses for which the courts were designed. There was a row of buildings round about in them — Namely, on the inside of these courts. Then said he, These are the places, &c. — As there was a place in the inner court for boiling the trespass and sin-offering, verses 19, 20; so these boiling-places might be appointed for boiling the peace-offerings, which were esteemed inferior in holiness to those above mentioned, and therefore, perhaps, were dressed by the Levites, or inferior ministers; whereas the former were boiled by the priests in the court properly belonging to them.

19-24. The kitchens of the priests are now described. “Then he brought me through the entry,… and behold, there was a place on the hinder part westward” (R.V.). See L in chart facing page 209. The kitchens where the priests prepared their own meals from the sacrificial offerings (Ezekiel 44:29) were at the west ends of the inner court. Nothing was allowed to pass from this inner court to the outer, for ceremonial and practical reasons. (See note Ezekiel 44:11-19.) In the “outer court” (verse 21, R.V.), in each of the four corners were the kitchens in which the other offerings of the people were boiled or baked by the Levites (Ezekiel 44:11, 12; Leviticus 8:31; see M of chart facing page 209). It is almost universally recognized that these closing paragraphs of this strange prophecy cannot be taken literally. “But,” says Dr. Terry, “if the last two chapters are explained as ideal pictures, so must the others be, for they are all parts of one great symbolic vision.… What, then, is the real import of these concluding chapters? Our answer is that, like the corresponding conclusion of John’s Apocalypse, this vision of the restored and perfected temple, service, and land symbolizes the perfected kingdom of God and his Messiah.… Of the times and the seasons of the completion of the Messianic kingdom Ezekiel utters no definite word. Like the descent of the new Jerusalem in the visions of John (Revelation 21:2), which was seen after the overthrow of Gog and Magog and their innumerable host (Revelation 20:8, 9), this final glorification of Israel also follows the overthrow of the last enemies. This is the only natural, logical, and pictorial order consistent with the grand ideal of triumph. This interpretation of the symbolism necessarily excludes all Jewish carnal theories of a literal restoration of Jerusalem and the Jewish state. The notion prevalent among some schools of Second Adventists, that at Christ’s second coming Jerusalem and the temple will be rebuilt and become the throne center of the kingdom of the Messiah, is inconsistent with a rational interpretation of the prophets and the spiritual nature of the kingdom of Christ” (Apocalyptics).

Verses 21-24. Behold, in every corner of the court there was a court — At every corner, where the side walls met in right angles, there was another little court. There were courts joined of forty cubits long, &c. — These little courts were in the shape of an oblong square, joined with inner walls to the outside walls of the greater court. The marginal reading, made with chimneys, gives a sense which very well agrees with the uses for which the courts were designed. There was a row of buildings round about in them — Namely, on the inside of these courts. Then said he, These are the places, &c. — As there was a place in the inner court for boiling the trespass and sin-offering, verses 19, 20; so these boiling-places might be appointed for boiling the peace-offerings, which were esteemed inferior in holiness to those above mentioned, and therefore, perhaps, were dressed by the Levites, or inferior ministers; whereas the former were boiled by the priests in the court properly belonging to them.

19-24. The kitchens of the priests are now described. “Then he brought me through the entry,… and behold, there was a place on the hinder part westward” (R.V.). See L in chart facing page 209. The kitchens where the priests prepared their own meals from the sacrificial offerings (Ezekiel 44:29) were at the west ends of the inner court. Nothing was allowed to pass from this inner court to the outer, for ceremonial and practical reasons. (See note Ezekiel 44:11-19.) In the “outer court” (verse 21, R.V.), in each of the four corners were the kitchens in which the other offerings of the people were boiled or baked by the Levites (Ezekiel 44:11, 12; Leviticus 8:31; see M of chart facing page 209). It is almost universally recognized that these closing paragraphs of this strange prophecy cannot be taken literally. “But,” says Dr. Terry, “if the last two chapters are explained as ideal pictures, so must the others be, for they are all parts of one great symbolic vision.… What, then, is the real import of these concluding chapters? Our answer is that, like the corresponding conclusion of John’s Apocalypse, this vision of the restored and perfected temple, service, and land symbolizes the perfected kingdom of God and his Messiah.… Of the times and the seasons of the completion of the Messianic kingdom Ezekiel utters no definite word. Like the descent of the new Jerusalem in the visions of John (Revelation 21:2), which was seen after the overthrow of Gog and Magog and their innumerable host (Revelation 20:8, 9), this final glorification of Israel also follows the overthrow of the last enemies. This is the only natural, logical, and pictorial order consistent with the grand ideal of triumph. This interpretation of the symbolism necessarily excludes all Jewish carnal theories of a literal restoration of Jerusalem and the Jewish state. The notion prevalent among some schools of Second Adventists, that at Christ’s second coming Jerusalem and the temple will be rebuilt and become the throne center of the kingdom of the Messiah, is inconsistent with a rational interpretation of the prophets and the spiritual nature of the kingdom of Christ” (Apocalyptics).