Chapter XXX: Renewal And Allotment Of The Land. Chapters xlvii., xlviii (2)

108 Migdol was on the north‐east border of Egypt, twelve miles south of
Pelusium (Sin), at the mouth of the eastern arm of the Nile. Syene
is the modern Assouan, at the first cataract of the Nile, and has
always been the boundary between Egypt proper and Ethiopia.

109 Pathros is the name of Upper Egypt, the narrow valley of the Nile
above the Delta. In the Egyptian tradition it was regarded as the
original home of the nation and the seat of the oldest dynasties.
Whether Ezekiel means that the Egyptians shall recover only Pathros,
while the Delta is allowed to remain uncultivated, is a question
that must be left undecided.

110 Hebrew, “Cush, and Put, and Lud, and all the mixed multitude, and
Chub, and the sons of the land of the covenant.” Cornill reads,
“Cush, and Put, and Lud, and Lub, and all Arabia, and the sons of
Crete.” The emendations are partly based on somewhat intricate
reasoning from the text of the Greek and Ethiopic versions; but they
have the advantage of yielding a series of proper names, as the
context seems to demand. Put and Lud are tribes lying to the west of
Egypt, and so also is Lub, which may be safely substituted for the
otherwise unknown Chub of the Hebrew text.

111 Reading אלים, “strong ones,” instead of אלילים, “not‐gods,” as in
the LXX. The latter term is common in Isaiah, but does not occur
elsewhere in Ezekiel, although he had constant occasion to use it.

112 The cities are not mentioned in any geographical order. Memphis
(Noph) and Thebes (No) are the ancient and populous capitals of
Lower and Upper Egypt respectively; Tanis (Zoan) was the city of the
Hyksos, and subsequently a royal seat; Pelusium (Sin), “the bulwark
of Egypt,” and Daphne (Tahpanhes) guarded the approach to the Delta
from the East; Heliopolis (On, wrongly pointed Aven) was the famous
centre of Egyptian wisdom, and the chief seat of the worship of the
sun‐god Ra; and Bubastis (Pi‐beseth), besides being a celebrated
religious centre, was one of the possessions of the Egyptian
military caste.

113 It is only fair to say that the construction “a T’asshur, a cedar,”
or, still more, “a T’asshur of a cedar,” is somewhat harsh. It is
not unlikely that the word “cedar” may have been added after the
reading “Assyrian” had been established, in order to complete the
sense.

114 See Smend on the passage. Dr. Davidson, however, doubts the
possibility of this: see his commentary.

115 This use of the word “uncircumcised” is peculiar. The idea seems to
be that circumcision, among nations which like the Israelites
practised the rite, was an indispensable mark of membership in the
community; and those who lacked this mark were treated as social
outcasts, not entitled to honourable sepulture. Hence the word could
be used, as here, in the sense of unhallowed.

116 Cf. Isa. xiv. 18‐20: “All of the kings of the nations, all of them,
sleep in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast forth
away from thy sepulchre, like an abominable branch, clothed with the
slain, that are thrust through with the sword, that go down to the
stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden underfoot. Thou shalt not be
joined with them in burial,” etc.

117 The text of these verses (19‐21) is in some confusion. The above is
a translation of the reading proposed by Cornill, who in the main
follows the LXX.

118 LXX. מעולם for מערלם = “of the uncircumcised.”

119 “Shields,” a conjecture of Cornill, seems to be demanded by the
parallelism.

120 Jer. xliii. 8‐13; xliv. 12‐14, 27‐30; xlvi. 13‐26.

121 _Ant._, X. ix. 7.

122 _Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache_, 1878, pp. 2 ff. and pp. 87
ff.

123 _Ibid._, 1884, pp. 87 ff., 93 ff.

124 See Schrader, _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, III. ii., pp. 140 f.

125 The hypothesis of a joint reign of Hophra and Amasis from 570 to 564
(Wiedemann) may or may not be necessary to establish a connection
between the Babylonian inscription and that of Nes‐hor; it is
certain that Amasis began to reign in 570, and that Hophra is _not_
the Pharaoh mentioned by Nebuchadnezzar.

126 Jerusalem was taken in the fourth month of the eleventh year of
Zedekiah or of Ezekiel’s captivity. The announcement reached
Ezekiel, according to the reading of the Hebrew text, in the tenth
month of the twelfth year (ch. xxxiii. 21)—that is, about eighteen
months after the event. It is hardly credible that the transmission
of the news should have been delayed so long as this; and therefore
the reading “eleventh year,” found in some manuscripts and in the
Syriac Version, is now generally regarded as correct.

127 Jer. xxxix. 9.

128 It is possible, however, that the word _happālît_, “the fugitive,”
may be used in a collective sense, of the whole body of captives
carried away after the destruction of the city.

129 Ch. xxiv. 21‐24.

130 Chs. xvii. 22‐24, xxi. 26, 27.

131 See pp. 102 ff.

132 Cf. especially ch. xxii.

133 See below, pp. 318 f., and ch. xxviii.

134 Pointing the Hebrew text in accordance with the rendering of the
LXX.

135 This seems to me to be the clear meaning of Isaiah’s prophecy of the
Messiah in the beginning of the ninth chapter, although the contrary
is often asserted. Micah v. 1‐6 may, however, be an exception to the
rule stated above.

136 Ver. 25. The idea is based on Hosea ii. 18, where God promises to
make a covenant for Israel “with the beasts of the field, and the
birds of heaven, and the creeping things of the ground.” This is to
be understood quite literally: it means immunity from the ravages of
wild beasts and other noxious creatures. Ezekiel’s promise, however,
is probably to be explained in accordance with the terms of the
allegory: the “evil beasts” are the foreign nations from whom Israel
had suffered so severely in the past.

137 This is the sense of the expression מטע לשׂם in ver. 29 (literally
“a plantation for a name”). The LXX., however, read מטע שׁלם, which
may be translated “a perfect vegetation.” At all events the phrase
is not a title of the Messiah.

138 The word “men” in ver. 31 should be omitted, as in the LXX.

139 Cf. Amos ix. 11 f.; Hosea ii. 2, iii. 5; Isa. xi. 13; Micah ii. 12
f., v. 3.

140 1 Kings xii. 16 (cf. 2 Sam. xx. 1). It should be mentioned, however,
that the last clause in the LXX. is replaced by a more prosaic
sentence: “for this man is not fit to be a ruler nor a prince.”

141 Jer. xxxiii. 15‐17.

142 Cf. ch. xliii. 7, xlv. 8, xlvi. 16 ff.

143 Ch. xxxvii. 25.

144 “Das Königthum wird diese [the Davidic] Familie nicht wieder
erhalten, denn Ezechiel fährt fort: ‘Ich Iahwe werde ihnen Gott sein
und mein Knecht David wird _nâsî_ d. h. Fürst in ihrer Mitte sein.’
Also _nur ein Fürstenthum_ wird der Familie Davids in der besseren
Zukunft Israel’s zu Theil.”—STADE, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_,
vol. ii., p. 39.

145 Ch. xxxvii. 22‐24.

146 On the whole subject of the relation of the gods to the land see
Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, pp. 91 ff.

147 Josh. xxii. 19; 1 Sam. xxvi. 19; Hosea ix. 3‐5.

148 Ch. xxxvi. 13.

149 Ch. xxxvi. 30: cf. xxxiv. 29.

150 Gen. xxvii. 28, 39.

151 Numb. xiii. 32.

152 Isa. lxii. 4.

153 Vv. 18, 19. The words in brackets are wanting in the LXX.

154 Vv. 20, 22, 23.

155 James ii. 7.

156 Psalm xlii. 10.

157 Ch. xxxix. 23.

158 The phrase “cause you to walk” (ver. 27) is very strong in the
Hebrew, almost “I will bring it about that ye walk.”

159 The thirty‐seventh verse hardly bears the sense which is sometimes
put upon it: “I am ready to do this for the house of Israel, yet I
will not do it until they have learned to pray for it.” That is true
of spiritual blessings generally; but Ezekiel’s idea is simpler. The
particle “yet” is not adversative but temporal, and the “this”
refers to what follows, and not to what precedes. The meaning is,
“The time shall come when I will answer the prayer of the house of
Israel,” etc.

160 Chapter XXIII. below.

161 Cf. 1 Kings xvii.; 2 Kings iv. 13 ff., xiii. 21.

162 1 Thess. iv. 13 ff.

163 Isa. xxvi. 19.

164 Dan. xii. 2.

165 John v. 25: cf. vv. 28, 29.

166 Isa. vii. 8.

167 Chapter V., above.

168 Ch. xxxvi. 16‐38.

169 Ch. xxxvi. 21.

170 Chs. xviii. 23, xxxiii. 11.

171 See pp. 75 f. above.

172 Ch. vi. 8‐10.

173 Chs. xvi. 61‐63, xx. 43, 44, xxxvi. 31, 32.

174 Ch. xviii. 31.

175 Cf. Joel’s “Rend your heart, and not your garments” (Joel ii. 13).

176 Chs. xi. 19, xxxvi. 26, 27.

177 Chs. xxxvi. 27, xxxvii. 14.

178 Hosea xiv. 5.

179 Isa. xxxii. 15.

180 Chs. xi. 20, xxxvi. 27.

181 Rom. vii. 16.

182 Rom. viii. 2.

183 Jer. xxxi. 33.

184 Chs. vi. 9, xvi. 63, xx. 43, xxxvi. 31, 32.

185 Cf. ch. xxxix. 23.

186 See ch. xxxviii. 11, 12.

187 Ch. xxxviii. 19‐23.

188 Ch. xxxix. 23.

189 See E. Meyer, _Geschichte des Alterthums_, p. 558; Schrader,
_Cuneiform Inscriptions_, etc., on this passage.

190 Meshech and Tubal are the Moschi and Tibareni of the Greek
geographers, lying south‐east of the Black Sea. A country or tribe
Rosh has not been found.

191 Gomer (according to others, however, Cappadocia) and Togarmah (ver.
6).

192 Cush and Put (ver. 5).

193 Ver. 7. The LXX. reads “for me” instead of “unto them,” giving to
the word _mishmar_ the sense of “reserve force.”

194 The words of ver. 4, “I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy
jaws,” are wanting in the best manuscripts of the LXX., and are
perhaps better omitted. Gog does not need to be dragged forth with
hooks; he comes up willingly enough, as soon as the opportunity
presents itself (vv. 11, 12).

195 Isa. x. 7.

196 An actual parallel is furnished by the crowds of slave‐dealers who
followed the army of Antiochus Epiphanes when it set out to crush
the Maccabæan insurrection in 166 B.C.

197 In ver. 14 the LXX. has “he stirred up” instead of “know,” and gives
a more forcible sense.

198 Zeph. i.‐iii. 8; Jer. iv.‐vi.

199 Cf. besides the passages already cited, Isa. x. 5‐34, xvii. 12‐14;
Micah iv. 11‐13.

200 Ver. 21. LXX.: “I will summon against him every terror.”

201 ἱπποτοξόται (mounted archers) is the term applied to them by
Herodotus (iv. 46).

202 This translation, which is given by Hitzig and Cornill, is obtained
by a change in the punctuation of the word rendered “passengers” in
ver. 11: cf. the “mountains of Abarim,” Numb. xxxiii. 47, 48; Deut.
xxxii. 49.

203 “It shall stop the noses of the passengers” (ver. 11) gives no
sense; and the text, as it stands, is almost untranslatable. The
LXX. reads, “and they shall seal up the valley,” which gives a good
enough meaning, so far as it goes.

204 Ver. 26. The choice between the rendering “forget” and that of the
English Version, “bear,” depends on the position of a single dot in
the Hebrew. In the former case “shame” must be taken in the sense of
reproach (_schande_); in the latter it means the inward feeling of
self‐abasement (_schaam_). The forgetting of past trespasses, if
that is the right reading, can only mean that they are entirely
broken off and dismissed from mind; there is nothing inconsistent
with passages like ch. xxxvi. 31. It must be understood that in any
event the reference is to the future; “_after that_ they have borne”
is altogether wrong.

205 The beginning of the year is that referred to in Lev. xxv. 9, the
tenth day of the seventh month (September‐October). From the Exile
downwards two calendars were in use, the beginning of the sacred
year falling in the seventh month of the civil year. It was not
necessary for Ezekiel to mention the number of the month.

206 See pp. 318 f.

207 Cf. Davidson, _Ezekiel_, pp. liv. f.

208 See Prof. W. R. Smith, _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_, pp.
442 f.

209 See ver. 10, “let them measure the pattern”; ver. 11, “that they may
keep the whole form thereof.”

210 This last group is considered to be composed of several layers of
legislation, and one of its sections is of particular interest for
us because of its numerous affinities with the book of Ezekiel. It
is the short code contained in Lev. xvii.‐xxvi., now generally known
as the Law of Holiness.

211 This argument is most fully worked out by Wellhausen in the first
division of his _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_: I.,
“Geschichte des Cultus.”

212 It should perhaps be stated, even in so incomplete a sketch as this,
that there is still some difference of opinion among critics as to
Ezekiel’s relation to the so‐called “Law of Holiness” in Lev.
xvii.‐xxvi. It is agreed that this short but extremely interesting
code is the earliest complete, or nearly complete, document that has
been incorporated in the body of the Levitical legislation. Its
affinities with Ezekiel both in thought and style are so striking
that Colenso and others have maintained the theory that the author
of the Law of Holiness was no other than the prophet himself. This
view is now seen to be untenable; but whether the code is older or
more recent than the vision of Ezekiel is still a subject of
discussion among scholars. Some consider that it is an advance upon
Ezekiel in the direction of the Priests’ Code; while others think
that the book of Ezekiel furnishes evidence that the prophet was
acquainted with the Law of Holiness, and had it before him as he
wrote. That he was acquainted with its _laws_ seems certain; the
question is whether he had them before him in their present written
form. For fuller information on this and other points touched on in
the above pages, the reader may consult Driver’s _Introduction_ and
Robertson Smith’s _Old Testament in the Jewish Church_.

213 Gautier, _La Mission du Prophète Ezekiel_, p. 118.

214 The cubit which is the unit of measurement is said to be a
handbreadth longer than the cubit in common use (ver. 5). The length
of the larger cubit is variously estimated at from eighteen to
twenty‐two inches. If we adopt the smaller estimate, we have only to
take the half of Ezekiel’s dimensions to get the measurement in
English yards. The other, however, is more probable. Both the
Egyptians and Babylonians had a larger and a smaller cubit, their
respective lengths being approximately as follows:—

Common cubit: Egypt 17.8 in., Babylon 19.5 in.
Royal cubit: Egypt 20.7 in., Babylon 21.9 in.

In Egypt the royal cubit exceeded the common by a handbreadth, just
as in Ezekiel. It is probable in any case that the large cubit used
by the angel was of the same order of magnitude as the royal cubit
of Egypt and Babylon—_i.e._, was between twenty and a half and
twenty‐two inches long. Cf. Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_, pp.
178 ff.

215 See the plan in Benzinger, _Archäologie_, p. 394.

216 The outer court, however, is some feet higher than the level of the
ground, being entered by an ascent of seven steps; the height of the
wall inside must therefore be less by this amount than the six
cubits, which is no doubt an outside measurement.

217 Smend and Stade assume that it was a hundred and ten cubits long,
and extended five cubits to the west beyond the line of the square
to which it belongs. This was not necessary, and it would imply that
the _binyā_ behind the Temple, to be afterwards described, was
without a wall on its eastern side, which is extremely improbable.
(So Davidson.)

218 According to the Septuagint they were either five or fifteen in
number in each block.

219 From a later passage (ch. xlvi. 19, 20) we learn that in some recess
to the west of the northern block of cells there was a place where
these sacrifices (the sin‐, guilt‐, and meal‐offerings) were cooked,
so that the people in the outer court might not run any risk of
being brought in contact with them.

220 So in the LXX.

221 The actual building of the second Temple had of course to be carried
out irrespective of the bold idealism of Ezekiel’s vision. The
miraculous transformation of the land had not taken place, and it
was altogether impossible to build a new metropolis in the region
marked out for it by the vision. The Temple had to be erected on its
old site, and in the immediate neighbourhood of the city. To a
certain extent, however, the requirements of the ideal sanctuary
could be complied with. Since the new community had no use for royal
buildings, the whole of the old Temple plateau was available for the
sanctuary, and was actually devoted to this purpose. The new Temple
accordingly had two courts, set apart for sacred uses; and in all
probability these were laid out in a manner closely corresponding to
the plan prepared by Ezekiel.

222 It is not necessary to dwell on the third feature of the Temple
plan, its symmetry. Although this has not the same direct religious
significance as the other two, it is nevertheless a point to which
considerable importance is attached even in matters of minute
detail. Solomon’s Temple had, for example, only one door to the side
chambers, in the wall facing the south, and this was sufficient for
all practical purposes. But Ezekiel’s plan provides for two such
doors, one in the south and the other in the north, for no
assignable reason but to make the two sides of the house exactly
alike. There are just two slight deviations from a strictly
symmetrical arrangement that can be discerned; one is the washing‐
chamber by the side of one of the gates of the inner court, and the
other the space for cooking the most holy class of sacrifices near
the block of cells on the north side of the Temple. With these
insignificant exceptions, all the parts of the sanctuary are
disposed with mathematical regularity; nothing is left to chance,
regard for convenience is everywhere subordinated to the sense of
proportion which expresses the ideal order and perfection of the
whole.

223 Heb. xii. 14.

224 Heb. ix. 8‐10.

225 2 Kings xxiii. 9. The sense of the passage is undoubtedly that given
above; but the expression “unleavened bread” as a general name for
the priests’ portion is peculiar. It has been proposed to read, with
a change merely of the punctuation, instead of מַצּוֹת, מִצְוֹת =
“statutory portions,” as in Neh. xiii. 5.

226 1 Sam. ii. 36.

227 Cf. ch. xxii. 26.

228 Ezra ii. 36‐40.

229 Ezra ii. 58.

230 Ezra viii. 15‐20.

231 On this peculiar affinity between holiness and uncleanness see the
interesting argument in Robertson Smith’s _Religion of the Semites_,
pp. 427 ff. The passage Hag. ii. 12‐14 does not appear to be
inconsistent with what is there said. The meaning is that “very
indirect contact with the holy does not make holy, but very direct
contact with the unclean makes unclean” (Wellhausen, _Die Kleinen
Propheten_, p. 170).

232 Cf. ch. xxiv. 17; Lev. x. 6, xxi. 5, 10.

233 It is remarkable that neither here nor in Leviticus (ch. xxi. 1‐3)
is the priest’s wife mentioned as one for whom he may defile himself
at her death.

234 Cf. 2 Kings xii. 11, xxiii. 14, xxv. 18; Jer. xx. 1.

235 Hence it does not seem to me that any argument can be based on the
fact that a high priest was at the head of the returning exiles
either for or against the existence of the Priestly Code at that
date.

236 Lev. iv. 3, 13: cf. Lev. xvi. 6.

237 Exod. xviii. 25 ff.

238 Hosea iv. 6.

239 Cf. Deut. i. 17: “judgment is God’s.”

240 See below, p. 493.

241 2 Kings xii. 4‐16.

242 They also receive the best of the _arîsoth_, a word of uncertain
meaning, probably either dough or coarse meal. This offering is said
to bring a blessing on the household.

243 Deut. xviii. 3.

244 Deut. xviii. 4.

245 The regulations of the Priests’ Code with regard to the revenues of
the Temple clergy are most comprehensively given in Numb. xviii.
8‐32. The first thing that strikes us there is the distinction
between the due of the priests and that of the Levites. The absence
of any express provision for the latter is a somewhat remarkable
feature in Ezekiel’s legislation, when we consider the care with
which he has defined the status and duties of the order. It is
evident, however, that no complete arrangements could be made for
the Temple service without some law on this point such as is
contained in the passage Num. xviii. and referred to in Neh. x.
37‐39; and this is closely connected with a disposition of the
tithes and firstlings different from the directions of Deuteronomy,
and probably also from the tacit assumption of Ezekiel. The book of
Deuteronomy leaves no doubt that both the tithes of natural produce
and the firstlings of the flock and herd were intended to furnish
the material for sacrificial feasts at the sanctuary (cf. chs. xii.
6, 7, 11, 12, xiv. 22‐27). The priest received the usual portions of
the firstlings (ch. xviii. 3), and also a share of the tithe; but
the rest was eaten by the worshipper and his guests. In Numb.
xviii., on the other hand, all the firstlings are the property of
the priest (ver. 15), and the whole of the tithes is assigned to the
Levites, who in turn are required to hand over a tenth of the tithe
to the priests (vv. 24‐32). The portion of the priests consists of
the following items: (1) The meal‐offering, sin‐offering, and guilt‐
offering (as in Ezekiel); (2) the best of oil, new wine, and corn
(as in Deuteronomy) (ver. 12); (3) all the firstfruits (an advance
on Ezekiel) (ver. 13); (4) every devoted thing (Ezekiel) (ver. 14);
(5) all the firstlings (vv. 15‐18); (6) the breast and right thigh
of all ordinary private sacrifices (ver. 18: cf. Lev. vii. 31‐34)
(like Deuteronomy, but choicer portions); (7) the tenth of the
Levites’ tithe. It will be seen from this enumeration that the
Temple tariff of the Priestly law includes, with some slight
modification, all the requirements of Deuteronomy and Ezekiel,
besides the two important additions referred to above.

246 Psalm cxxxiii.

247 Chs. xlv. 7, 8, xlviii. 21, 22.

248 _I.e._, either the seventh year, as in Jer. xxxiv. 14, or the year
of Jubilee, the fiftieth year (Lev. xxv. 10); more probably the
former.

249 Amos viii. 5.

250 Ezek. xlv. 9, 10. In the translation of ver. 9 I have followed an
emendation proposed by Cornill. The sense is not affected, but the
grammatical construction seems to demand some alteration on the
Massoretic text.

251 In Exod. xxx. 13, Lev. xxvii. 25, Numb. iii. 47 (Priests’ Code) the
shekel of twenty geras is described as the “shekel of the
sanctuary,” or “sacred shekel,” clearly implying that another shekel
was in common use.

252 Ezek. xlv. 12, according to the LXX.

253 Prov. xi. 1.

254 Lev. xix. 35, 36.

255 Ezek. xlv. 13‐16.

256 The exact figures are, one part in sixty of cereal produce (wheat
and barley), one share in a hundred of oil, and one animal out of
every two hundred from the flock (ch. xlv. 13‐15).

257 Neh. x. 32, 33: cf. Ezek. xlv. 15.

258 Exod. xxx. 11‐16. Whether the third of a shekel in the book of
Nehemiah is a concession to the poverty of the people, or whether
the law represents an increased charge found necessary for the full
Temple service, is a question that need not be discussed here.

259 Ch. xlv. 17.

260 Ch. xlv. 22.

261 Lev. xvi. 11, 15.

262 2 Kings xvi. 15, 16.

263 Ch. xliv. 1‐3.

264 See ch. xlvi. 1‐12. The Syriac Version indeed makes an exception to
this rule in the case of the prince. Ver. 10 reads: “But the prince
in their midst shall go out by the gate by which he entered.” But
why the prince more than any other body should go back by the road
he came, or what particular honour there was in that, is a mystery;
and it is probable that the reading is an error originating in
repetition of ver. 8. The real meaning of the verse seems to be that
the prince must go in and out without the retinue of foreigners who
used to give _éclat_ to royal visits to the sanctuary.

265 Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, pp. 196 f.

266 Ch. xi. 16.

267 Micah vi. 6‐8.

268 Smith, _Old Testament in Jewish Church_, p. 379.

269 Ch. xlv. 18‐25.

270 Vv. 18‐20. In ver. 20 we should read with the LXX. “in the seventh
month, on the first day of the month,” etc.

271 Vv. 21‐25. Some critics, as Smend and Cornill, think that in ver. 14
we should read fifteenth instead of fourteenth, to perfect the
symmetry of the two halves of the year. There is no MS. authority
for the proposed change.

272 Smend.

273 Exod. xxiii. 14‐17 (Book of the Covenant, with which the other
code—Exod. xxxiv. 18‐22—agrees); Deut. xvi. 1‐17.

274 Cf. Lev. xxiii. 4‐44 (Law of Holiness); Numb. xxviii., xxix.

275 It is usual to speak of these ceremonies in Ezekiel as festivals.
But this seems to go beyond the prophet’s meaning. Only a single
sacrifice, a sin‐offering, is mentioned; and there is no hint of any
public assemblage of the people on these days. It was the priests’
business to see that the sanctuary was purified, and there was no
occasion for the people to be present at the ceremony. The
congregation would be the ordinary congregation at the new moon
feast, which of course did not represent the whole population of the
country. No doubt, as we see from the references below, the ceremony
developed into a special feast after the Exile.

276 Cf. Lev. xxiii. 23‐32; Numb. xxix. 1‐11.

277 Cf. Deut. xvi. 9, with Lev. xxiii. 10 f., 15 t. In the one case the
seven weeks to Pentecost are reckoned from the putting of the sickle
into the corn, in the other from the presentation of a first sheaf
of ripe corn in the Temple, which falls within the Passover week.
The latter can only be regarded as a more precise determination of
the former, and thus Unleavened Bread must have coincided with the
beginning of barley harvest.

278 Deut. xvi. 13.

279 Ch. xlv. 22.

280 Ch. xlvi. 12: cf. xliv. 3.

281 2 Kings xvi. 15: cf. 1 Kings xviii. 29, 36.

282 Ezra ix. 5.

283 Numb. xxviii. 3‐8; Exod. xxix. 38‐42.

284 Ch. xlvi. 13‐15.

285 Psalm v. 3, probably used at the presentation of the morning tamîd.
A more distinct recognition of the spiritual significance of the
_evening_ sacrifice is found in Psalm cxli. 2.

286 2 Kings xii. 17.

287 Cf. ch. xliii. 21.

288 Another explanation, however, is possible, and is adopted by Smend
and Davidson. Assuming that a burnt‐offering was offered on the
first day, and holding the whole description to be somewhat
elliptical, they bring the entire process within the limits of the
week. This certainly looks more satisfactory in itself. But would
Ezekiel be likely to admit an ellipsis in describing so important a
function? I have taken for granted above that the seven days of the
double sacrifice are counted from the “second day” of ver. 22.

289 Ver. 26.

290 טִהֵר (ver. 20).

291 הִטֵּא a denominative form from הֵטְא = sin (ver. 22).

292 כִּפֵּר (ver. 26).

293 See Smith, _Old Testament in Jewish Church_, p. 381.

294 Ch. xlv. 20.

295 Ch. xlv. 15, 17.

296 As distinguished from sins, בִּשִׁנָנָה, or through inadvertence.
See Numb. xv. 30, 31.

297 Psalm li. 16, 17.

298 See his Burnet Lectures on the _Religion of the Semites_, to which,
as well as to his _Old Testament in the Jewish Church_, the present
chapter is largely indebted.

299 Ch. xlvii. 1‐12.

300 Chs. xlvii. 13‐xlviii. 35.

301 Amos ix. 13.

302 Ch. xxxiv. 25‐29.

303 Rev. xxii. 1, 2.

304 Isa. viii. 6.

305 Engedi, “well of the kid,” is at the middle of the western shore;
Eneglaim, “well of two calves,” is unknown, but probably lay at the
north end. The eastern side is left to the Arabian nomads.

306 Ver. 11.

307 I do not myself see much objection to supposing that it leaves the
sea near Tyre and proceeds about due east to Hazar‐enon, which may
be near the foot of Hermon, where Robinson located it. In this case
the “entrance to Hamath” would be the south end of the _Beḳa’_,
where one strikes north to go to Hamath. This would correspond
nearly to the extent of the country actually occupied by the Hebrews
under the judges and the monarchy. The statement that the territory
of Damascus lies to the north presents some difficulty on any
theory. It may be added that Hazar‐hattikon in ver. 16 is the same
as Hazar‐enon; it is probably, as Cornill suggests, a scribe’s error
for נצרה ענון (the locative ending being mistaken for the article).

308 Smend, for example, points out that if we count the Levites’ portion
as a tribal inheritance, and include Manasseh and Ephraim under the
house of Joseph (as is done in the naming of the gates of the city),
we have the sons of Rachel and Leah evenly distributed on either
side of the “oblation.” Then at the farthest distance from the
Temple are the sons of Jacob’s handmaids, Gad in the extreme south,
and Dan, Asher, and Naphtali in the north. This is ingenious, but
not in the least convincing.

309 Ver. 18.

310 Vv. 31‐34. It is difficult to trace a clear connection between the
positions of the gates and the geographical distribution of the
tribes in the country. The fact that here Levi is counted as a tribe
and Ephraim and Manasseh are united under the name of Joseph
indicates perhaps that none was intended.

311 Ver. 19.

312 Neh. xi. 1, 2.

313 Rev. xxi. 2, 3, 22, 23.