Ezekiel
44
The prophet, having finished his account of the temple, or
place of
worship, proceeds, in the second section of his vision (chapters
44-46.), to
set
forth the culture, or ritual, to be performed in the temple; treating first
of
the several classes in the new community, and of their relation to the
sanctuary (here); next of the regulations to be observed in the
maintenance of worship (ch. 45.); and,
thirdly, of certain
supplementary orders for the prince, the people, and the priests, when
engaged in the solemnities of their religion (ch.
46.). In particular, the
present chapter deals
The Relation of the Prince to
the Sanctuary (vs. 1-3)
1 “Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward
sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut.
The gate of the
outward sanctuary, the outer gate of
the
sanctuary (Revised Version) — which looketh
toward the east. To this
door the prophet was conducted back, by way of the inner north or south
gate, from the inner court, in which he had received the measurements of
the
altar and the instructions for its consecration (ch.
43:5).
Whether Ezekiel stood upon the outside of this door as in (ibid. v, 1),
or
upon its inside, cannot as yet be determined; but in either case he
observed that it was shut — again, whether on the east side towards
the
temple precincts, or on the west towards the outer court, is not
mentioned,
and
cannot at this stage be decided. What led the seer to notice that the
gate was closed was probably the circumstance that the last time he stood
beside it it was open (ibid.), though proof cannot be given
that
he
passed through it (ibid. v. 5),
conjoined with the fact that it
formed the principal entrance to the temple, and as such had been
described to him and measured (ch.
40:6). (See photos in previous
chapter, ch. 43, this website – CY –
2017)
2 Then said the LORD unto me; This
gate shall be shut, it shall not
be opened, and no
man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the
God of
This gate shall be
shut, The prophet must
have noted this as
an important difference between the new sanctuary and the
old (whether
temple or tabernacle), in
which the east gate stood always open.
That the
gate of the new temple was to be closed only on the six
working days
Ewald mistakenly infers from ch. 46:1,
where he reads, after the Septuagint,
the outer instead of the inner court. But (ibid.) refers to the east gate of the
inner court. Of the east gate of the outer court it is
declared emphatically
that it shall not
be opened, neither shall any man enter
in by it, meaning
that it should be closed in perpetuity; and that not, as Abar-banel
and
Lightfoot have supposed, to express the idea that the glory of Jehovah
should no more depart from the temple, but abide in it forever, but to
inspire an exalted conception of the sanctity of the
“house”
and all its belongings, as Jehovah explained, Because the Lord, the God
of
The Shut Gate: Reverence (vs. 1-2)
What is the true significance of this closure? Much has
been made of it by
fanciful exposition; but surely the true lesson is that
which lies upon the
surface, viz. that the closed gate would be a continual
reminder that the
people must reverently abstain from using the entrance
through which the
Most High Himself had once passed. It was another symbolic
utterance of
the truth that we must “put off our shoes” when we stand,
as Moses, on
“holy ground.”
(Exodus 3:5) (My personal view is that this is the gate
which God left when He no longer dwelt among Israel and is
concreted
up until the Messiah will enter it in the end times. See ch. 43 - this
website - and the related comments there - CY - 2017) The fact that there
was a closed gate in this visionary, this ideal temple,
may not unfittingly
suggest to us (though it cannot be said to teach us):
by the way or the gate of:
Ø A false independence; if we attempt to reach the saving and
redeeming
truth of God by
our unaided intelligence, unwilling to learn of Him who
came to teach
us, to be to us “the Wisdom of God” (I Corinthians 1:24),
then we shall
find no entrance there (see Matthew 18:3; I Corinthians 3:18).
The same may be
said of:
Ø Unholy indulgence; and of:
Ø The favorable opportunity in the future. Whoever seeks to enter the
kingdom of
Christ by these doers will find no open gate, but a barred way;
he must enter
by the way of childlike faith, of purity, of immediate
decision. The
closed gate may also suggest to us, by contrast:
most precious sense in which no
gate is shut that was ever open into the
been anything whatever in the
past, coming to the gate of the kingdom of
Christ in sincere penitence and
simple faith, will find it closed against him.
By whatever path he may have
approached, by whatever influences
constrained, if he be earnestly
desirous of seeking God and serving Him, he
will find himself
before an open door. Christ Himself is
the Door, and He is
ever saying, “Him that cometh
unto me, I will in no wise cast out.”
(John 6:37) But the true lesson of the passage is:
AND SERVICE OF GOD.
The shut gate said (in effect), “Where God has
come, you may not enter; there
must be another way for the feeble and
sinful creature than that taken
by the Almighty and Holy Creator; realize the
immeasurable difference between
yourself and Him.” It is well that there
should be raised, now and again,
the reminder that the Lord whom we
serve is the Most
High and the Most Holy One; that it
becomes us to
worship Him and to speak for Him
in the spirit of deepest reverence; that if
a “holy boldness” may be
cultivated, an unholy irreverence is to be most
sedulously shunned; that our dearest Friend is our Divine Lord, worthy of
the profoundest homage our
hearts can pay Him, claiming the fullest
subjection we can bring to His
feet, as we worship in His house or work in
His vineyard.
3 “It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to
eat bread before
the LORD; he
shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and
shall go out by
the way of the same.” It is for the prince conveys an
erroneous impression, as if the edict, excluding all from passing through the
east outer gate, did not apply to the prince; but even for him the gate was not
to serve as a mode of
entrance into the temple, or, if so, only on exceptional
occasions (see on ch. 46:2), but
merely as a place to sit in. The Revised Version
accurately renders the words, As for the prince, he
shall sit therein as
prince, etc. That the
“prince” here alluded to (הַגָּשִׂיא) could not have been
the Prince David, i.e. the Messiah already spoken of
(ch. 34:23-24; 37:24),
but must have denoted the civic authorities of the new
community of
“the civil head of the theocracy,” Havernick
infers from ch. 45:8-9, where
the coming “prince” is contrasted with
their subjects, from the absence of some such
characteristic predicate as
“shepherd” or “king,” which would, he thinks, have been
attached to the word
“prince” had it been intended to designate Messiah, from
the prince’s offering
for himself a sin offering (ch.
45:22), from the allusion to his sons (ch.46:16),
and from what is recorded about his behavior in worship (ibid. v. 2); but
none of these statements concerning the “prince’ forbids
his identification
with Messiah, unless on the supposition that it was already
understood
Messiah should be a Divine-human Personage. This, however,
had not then
been so distinctly revealed as to be widely and accurately
known. Hence it
seems enough to say that while the “prince” would have his
highest
antitype in the Messiah, he would also have, though in a
lower and lesser
degree, an antitype in every righteous ruler (if ever there
should be such)
who might subsequently preside over
phrase, to eat
bread before the Lord, while referring in the first instance
to those sacrificial meals which, under the Law, commonly
accompanied
unbloody offerings, as the meat offerings (Leviticus 2:3), the shewbread
(Leviticus 24:9), and the unleavened leaves of the Passover
(Exodus 12:18;
Leviticus 23:6 Numbers 28:17; Deuteronomy 16:3), and could
only be partaken
of by the priests, in the second instance signified to
partake of sacrificial meals
in general, even of such as consisted of the portions of
flesh which were eaten
in connection with ordinary bloody offerings (Genesis
31:54; Exodus 18:12).
If, after Kliefoth, the former be
adopted as the import of the phrase here, then
the thought will be that in the new cultus
the prince should enjoy a privilege
which under the old was not possessed even by the king; if,
after Keil, the
second view be preferred, the sense will amount to this,
that under the
regulations of the future the prince should have the favor
accorded him
“of holding his sacrificial meals in the gate,” whereas the
people should only
be permitted to hold theirs “in the court,” or “in the
vicinity of the sacrificial
kitchens.” The way of the porch is mentioned as
the ingress and egress for the
prince; which implies that he should obtain access to the
outer court by
either the north or the south gate, since the outer door of
the east gate was
shut. This renders it probable that Ezekiel was himself
standing on the
outside of the east gate (see on v. 1).
The Prerogative of the Prince (vs. 1-3)
The regulation prescribed in these verses is very
remarkable, and is not free
from difficulties. It appears that a peculiar sanctity
attached to the eastern
gate of the temple, owing to the fact that it was by this
gate that the glory
of the Lord entered, and by this same gate that the glory
of the Lord had
previously forsaken, the sacred precincts. To mark this
sacredness, the gate
was kept shut, and no one was permitted to pass through it,
except the
prince. He, as the head, the representative, the ruler, of
permitted to enter and to depart by this gate. And further,
it was appointed
that he should in this gateway eat bread — whether by this
be meant the
meat offering or the showbread. This was a priestly
privilege, but it seems
to have been shared by the prince, who, after the return
from the Captivity,
was not only the representative of the consecrated people,
but also the
representative of the premised Messiah. This singular
prerogative suggests
to our minds certain principles which have a special
application to a
religious community and state.
PERSONIFIED IN A
RELIGIOUS SOVEREIGN. David was not only
the
greatest of the Hebrew monarchs;
he was the representative of the Hebrew
monarchy and theocracy. In the
prophets and in the later national religions
literature, David appears as the
ideal king, personifying the people of the
covenant and foreshadowing the promised
Messiah. And the “prince” of
the people is, in this and other
passages, regarded as the successor of the
cherished son of Jesse. The
prince is looked upon as worthy of his station,
worthy of his illustrious and
beloved predecessor. The true head of a great
and religious people is that
people’s representative, not only before man,
but before God.
AND CHARACTER OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY. There are some
students of Scripture who find
in the Word of God much relating to the
authority of the Church, but who
fail to remark the many assertions of the
Divine authority of the state
and of its officials and rulers. But it is very
instructive for those in such a
position to remark how, in this and similar
passages, stress is laid upon
the position and power of the prince. “The
powers that be are
ordained of God” (Romans 13:1),
the state is as much
Divine in its origin
and sanction as is the Church. In the
theocracy the
monarch no doubt occupied a very
special position. But religion certainly
has for one of its functions
the upholding of government as a
Divine
institution and
of authority
as a Divine principle. Independently of the
form of government, and of the designation
of the chief ruler of the state,
it is for teachers of religion to follow the
example of the scriptural writers
in requiring justice from the governor and
loyalty from the governed.
AUTHORITY SHOULD CULTIVATE
AND PRACTICE TRUE
RELIGION. It is taken
for granted by the prophet that the prince will
appreciate and will use the
prerogative here described. Nevertheless, it is
probable that some who occupied the highest position in the nation were
far from being truly devout and
pious men. In every age and country men
are found who come short of the
ideal of their station. This, however, does
not affect the fact that the
occupation of a high position, the primacy of a
great people, imposes upon a man
a peculiar obligation to honor God, the
Fountain of all
authority and the Judge of every
earthly sovereign. He who
leads a people should lead them
in the ways of righteousness and of piety.
The Shut Gate (vs. 2-3)
The “Golden Gate” at
looking towards the
traced by means of the form of the arches and carved work
embedded in a
line of wall. Tradition associates this now inaccessible
archway with the
gate which Ezekiel said should be shut till the Prince
passed through it.
There is a striking symbolism in Ezekiel’s description of
the shut gate.
(See photo in ch. 43, this
website – CY – 2017)
Ø The way to God was closed. Man once had free access to his Father. Sin
barred the door
and shut him out in the
waste.
Ø The way to life was closed. Cherubim with flaming swords, stood
between Adam
and the tree of life (Genesis 3:24). Fallen man cannot
recover his spiritual life; he has forfeited eternal life, and
it is beyond his
power to regain
it.
Ø The way to happiness was closed. The tree
of life stood in
Ø The way to heaven was closed. The door was shut against the foolish
virgins.
(Matthew 25:1-13) The bliss of futurity is denied to man in
his sin.
through the gate; therefore it
was to be closed against man. This suggests a
painful thought; where God is man may not be. The same idea was
prominent at Horeb,
when no man or beast was to come near the mount
while God descended upon it
(Exodus 19:13; Hebrews 12:20). There is a
natural feeling of the supreme
majesty of God that leads to a thought of
utter separateness. No being approaches Him in greatness or rank. The
Sovereign of all is alone in His
awful majesty. Yet we must not associate
vulgar ideas of pomp and
ceremony with God. He does not need the
artificial dignity of
separateness. He is necessarily
apart from us in SHEER
GREATNESS. But He desires
to be near to His children. The real secret of
the separateness IS
SIN! Man cannot come where God is because man is
sinful and God is holy.
alone, realizes the Messianic vision of Hebrew prophecy. He is the Prince
par excellence. Christ
has a right of access to God by reason of His
sinlessness, and by reason of His nature as “the Only Begotten of the
Father.” He has made a way to God by His intercession and His
sacrifice.
The door, long barred by sin, is
now opened by grace. First our Prince
goes through it, and Himself
realizes communion with God. But He does
not keep this as a rare
privilege for Himself alone. He is the “Firstborn
among many
brethren” (Romans 8:29); and He opens
the door of access
to God for all men. He leads all
His people to the tree of life, for “he that
hath the Son hath life” (I John 5:12). He gives
true blessedness to His
people. He unbars the golden gate of heaven. All who sleep in Jesus will
awake in the glorious
resurrection-life of which He is the Source and
Center who could say, “I am
the Resurrection and the Life” (John 11:25).
The Relations of the People, Levites, and Priests to the Sanctuary
(vs. 4-16)
4 “Then brought he me
the way of the north gate before the house:
and I looked,
and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house
of the LORD: and
I fell upon my face.” From the outside of the east gate of
the outer court the prophet was brought the way
of the north gate, but whether
of the outer or of the
inner is uncertain, and set down before
the house. On the
ground that the prophet
at his new station was in front of the temple, Hitzig,
Keil, and others
decide for the north gate of the inner court; whereas Kliefoth,
looking to the circumstance that the first communications
made to the
prophet at his new post concerned “the entering in of the
house,” and “the
going forth of the sanctuary,” prefers the north gate of
the outer court. But
at whichever of the gates the prophet was set down he
perceived a second
time (compare ch. 43:5) that the glory of the Lord filled the house
of the Lord, and this, perhaps, should cast the balance in favor of the
inner
court entrance, from which the interior of the “house”
could be more easily
seen.
Reverence (v. 4)
The prophet was brought “the way of the north gate before
the house,”
because it was thence that, on a previous occasion, he had
been directed to
gaze upon the provision for idolatrous worship which
aroused the
indignation of Jehovah. Instructions were about to be given
which would
be the means of preventing a repetition of the infamous
defilement of
God’s holy place which in times past had taken place within
the temple
precincts. And that a suitable impression might be made, “the
glory of the
Lord filled the house of the Lord.” It was upon this
occasion that the
prophet, filled with reverence and awe, fell upon his face.
Ø
When men revere
worldly greatness and splendor.
Ø
When men revere
idols and deities, which are nothing but the work
of their own hands and
the invention of their own minds.
was that felt and manifested by
Ezekiel in the presence of the glory of the
Lord.
Ø
The nature of
man is capable of true and profound reverence. There
is groveling and degrading
homage offered to men or to supposed
supernatural powers — homage not
worthy to be designated
reverence. But man has the capacity of honoring the
noblest and
the best; and this is among the sublimest capacities of his nature.
Ø
The attributes,
the character, of God deserve such reverence. The more
the Eternal is studied, as
manifested in His works and in His Word, the
more will it be felt that He is
the one fit Object of reverential regard and
worship. The admonition of the angel addressed to the
seer of the
Apocalypse was just and is
universally applicable, “Worship God!”
(Revelation 19:10; 22:9)
AND ADORATION. A
natural manifestation of reverence is that
accorded
in the text: “I
fell upon my face.” The attitude of the body and the expression
of the countenance are
the natural revelation of the deep
feelings of awe and
veneration. A more articulate expression is the
language of prayer and praise,
which must indeed always be inadequate, which yet may in all conceivable
circumstances be employed
by the
language are vain except as
the manifestation of the deep feelings of the
heart. Yet it is not
possible for men to have a just
view of God, to feel
aright towards Him, without presenting some audible or visible, some
manifest expression of such thought and emotion. Man
is both soul and
body, and the
movements, the attitudes, the utterances, of the bodily
nature are the
expressions of what is intellectual and spiritual.
Worship, to be acceptable, must be in
spirit and in truth (John 4:24), they
who are in the flesh will bow
in reverence or kneel in supplication, will
pour forth their gratitude
in song, and their faith and adoration in
petition
and in praise.
5 “And the LORD said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and
behold
with thine eyes, and hear with thine
ears all that I say unto thee
concerning all
the ordinances of the house of the LORD, and all
the laws thereof;
and mark well the entering in of the house, with
every going forth
of the sanctuary.” Having fallen on his face before the
renewed theophany, the prophet was summoned as once before (ch. 40:4), but
with greater emphasis
than before, to mark well, or
set his heart to observe, the
communications about to be made to him concerning all the ordinances of the
house of the Lord,
and all the laws thereof (see on ch. 43:11), more
especially
with regard to the persons who should have a right to
participate in its services.
The Attentive Consideration of Religious
Truth (v. 5)
Ezekiel was to mark well the minute directions which were
given to him
concerning the temple. He was not a builder, and there is
no reason to
think that he was expected to consider these matters with a
view to
carrying out the work of constructing the new temple. But
it was important
that he should attend to the suggestiveness of every
detail, because all that
was here set forth was symbolical of spiritual truth. The
smallest points of
this truth should be considered with exactness, while every
effort is made
to grasp and comprehend it in its vast length and breadth.
Great attention is required
for a man’s business if that is to be made
successful. Politics absorb
the thoughts of those who are much
engaged in them. Pleasure,
and what is called “sport” command
earnest attention. Is it right
that these things should occupy all a man’s
faculties, and that religion
should be treated in an off-hand style as not
worth much thought? Yet the
conduct of multitudes would suggest that
this supreme interest could be
sufficiently considered by occasional and
listless attendance at public
worship. But note how important it is.
Ø It concerns God. Surely He — Maker of all things, Ruler
of the universe,
“in
whom we live and move and have our being,” our Father and our God
— IS WORTHY of some thoughtful
attention.
Ø It concerns our duty. The chief thing to be thought of is what we ought
to do. To give
much attention to our worldly interests and pleasures, and
to treat our
duty with thoughtless indifference, is to show shameful
negligence of what is supremely important to us.
Ø It concerns our eternal welfare. Religion is a matter of life and death. Its
truth embraces
eternity. When the petty affairs of this brief life are
forgotten, its
mighty issues will still proceed to work our highest
blessedness or our utter destruction.
is not to be taken in with
indolent ease. A man cannot comprehend his
Bible at a
glance, as he would his newspaper. Religious truth requires
thought for several reasons.
Ø It is remote from our common experience. It should not be so; but sin
has
introduced an entirely different train of ideas. We require an effort to
bring thoughts
of religion vividly to mind.
Ø It is concerned with great mysteries. We can never understand it
perfectly; but
there is room in it for the explorations of the greatest minds.
We must never
forget, indeed, that its
most precious pearls are for simple,
childlike
minds; that God has
revealed to babes what He has hidden from
the wise
(Matthew 11:25). But who gives such absorbing attention to
what interests
them as children? We just
need the child’s whole-hearted
listening, as
when he drinks in a tale, every detail of which he pictures to
himself in
his fresh imagination. (“Verily I say unto you, Except ye be
converted,
and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the
kingdom of
heaven.” - Matthew 18:3)
We now come to the practical
point — How are we to give full attention to
this great subject?
Ø We must fix attention. “Mark well.” The mind tends to float
away from
difficult
subjects. The anchor to hold it is some keen interest. The love of
truth,
or, better, the love of Christ, should serve as such an anchor.
Ø We must look into truth. “And behold with thine
eyes, and ‘hear with
thine cars.” We must, so to speak, visualize truth. To
make it real we must
see it before
us. But first we
must look for it. (“Ask, and it shall be
given
you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto
you.” - Matthew 7:7) There is a seeing and hearing by
experience that
is better than
all indirect testimony. As soon as we thus come into personal
contact with truth it is likely to be interesting to
us. Then it is a real thing.
Above all, it
is well to follow the Greeks, who “would see Jesus,”
(John 12:21)
and by living experience to know Him for ourselves.
6 “And thou shalt say to the
rebellious, even to the house of
Thus saith the Lord GOD; O ye house of
your
abominations,” Let it suffice you of all your
abominations. It was not
without significance that at the north gate, which had
formerly been
represented as the scene of
should be reminded of those past iniquities of his
nation, and receive
instructions as to how the new community should be
preserved from
lapsing into similar transgressions.
A Sufficiency of Sin (v. 6)
sin is in excess of what it
should be, for no sin is permissible. How, then,
can there be such a thing as a
sufficiency of it? We may regard this as an
ironical idea, or as a thought
that is useful in the argumentum ad hominem –
(the fallacy
of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing
a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove
the truth of the statement or the
soundness of the argument.) It is as
though a man had said he must have some
sin, and now the question is
raised — Has he not had enough? Those who
sin greatly may be said to
have had more than enough — to have attained
what James calls “a superfluity of
naughtiness” (James 1:21). The
sufficiency of sin may be tested in three ways.
Ø By its magnitude. What more can the sinner desire? Would he still add
to his enormous pile of guilt? Surely no mortal man could crave a heavier
account.
Ø By its fruits. The pleasures of sin soon cloy, and the foolish slave of vice
has to turn
from one to another form of evil to whet his jaded appetite.
One would have
thought that he had got his surfeit. Is there yet more
pleasure
to be extracted from the rotten root of sin? Certainly the more
it is drawn
upon the
less really enjoyable are its products.
Ø By its penalties. All this sin must be paid for, and the time of reckoning
is
at hand. Is not the
sin already committed enough to have to answer for?
It will be a heavy
account as it is, if no more be added.
Ø It should not be increased. It is great enough; let us add no
more to it.
This awful tale
of guilt can never be met; it would be madness to proceed
still further
in piling up accusations against one’s self.
Ø It should be regarded with profound penitence. There are not many
things of which
the sinner is full. In
regard to his better nature he seems to
be a
helpless bankrupt. Indeed,
he has but one perfect thing — his sin. He
is rich only in
one commodity — wickedness. Surely
the consciousness of
such a state of
affairs should overwhelm him with grief and shame.
Ø It should be brought to God for pardon. Man cannot undo the past, nor
can he compensate
for the many misdeeds he has committed. Were his sin
but small, it
would still be impossible for him to atone for it. With a fullness
of sin to
account for, there can be no possibility for hope in man alone. But
great
as man’s sin is, THE
LOVE OF GOD IS GREATER! Heavy as is
his guilt, the
merits of Christ outweigh it all. Thanks be to God, the sufficiency
of man’s sin is
met by the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. The sin was great
to require the
death of the Son of God; but since Christ has died for it, the
SUPREME
WORK OF REDEMPTION has been accomplished. Even a
surfeit of past
sin is now no barrier to GOD’S
FULL PARDON of His
penitent
children.
7 “In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers,
uncircumcised
in heart, and
uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it,
even my house,
when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they
have broken my
covenant because of all your abominations.”
The special sin chargeable against
introduction into the sanctuary, while the priests were
engaged in sacrifice,
of strangers —
aliens (Revised Version); literally, sons of a stranger —
uncircumcised in
heart and uncircumcised in flesh, in express
contravention of Jehovah’s covenant. Ewald,
Havernick, Hengstenberg,
Schroder, and Currey restrict the
designation “strangers” to unfaithful and
unauthorized priests, who, as in the days of
under Jeroboam (I Kings 12:31; II Chronicles 11:15), may,
in the
confluence of idolatries that took place in
Ahaz (II Kings 16:3-4, 10-15; II Chronicles 28:2-4, 23-25) and
Manasseh (II Kings 21:2-7, 11, 15; II Chronicles 33:2-7),
have been
admitted to participate in the temple services; but Kliefoth, Delitzsch, Keil,
Smend, and Plumptre, with better
judgment, recognize in the “strangers”
foreigners who had not incorporated themselves with
to circumcision, but, though
dwelling in the midst of
uncircumcised heathen
in both heart and flesh. With regard to these
foreigners, the Law of Moses (Leviticus 17:8,10) enacted
that, by
accepting circumcision, they might become members of the Israelitish
commonwealth, but that without this they could not be permitted
to
partake of the Passover, the highest symbol of national and
religious unity
(Exodus 12:48-49). Nevertheless, it was open to them, on
giving a
certain measure of obedience to the Law (ibid. v. 19; 20:10; Leviticus 17:10, 12;
18:26; 20:2; 24:16, 22), to enter the sanctuary and present
all sorts of offerings
to Jehovah (Leviticus 17:8; Numbers 15:14, 29) Hence
been the admission of such “sons of the stranger” into the
sanctuary, but the
admission of them without insisting on the above specified
conditions, in other
words, the admission of such as not only lacked the bodily
mark of circumcision —
which would not have excluded them — but were destitute as
well of the first
elements of Hebrew piety, i.e. were as uncircumcised
in heart as they were in the
flesh. The sanctioning of such within the temple courts,
while Jehovah’s
bread, the fat and the blood, was being offered, i.e. while
sacrificial
worship was being performed, was not simply a desecration of the “house,”
but was an express violation
of the
covenant Jehovah had made with
with reference to these very “sons of the stranger.”
8 And ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things: but
ye have
set keepers of my
charge in my sanctuary for yourselves.”
Instead of having exercised a holy solicitude for the
purity of
the temple and the regularity of its rites, by keeping
strict watch over the
holy things of Jehovah, the house
of
set them, i.e. the
uncircumcised “strangers” above referred to, as keepers
of Jehovah’s charge in His sanctuary for themselves,
i.e. to please
themselves, irrespective altogether of Jehovah’s
enactments. From this it
has been argued, by Wellhausen, Smend, Driver, and others, that the
“strangers” above mentioned had been not only allowed
access to the outer
court as spectators or as worshippers while the priests
were offering
sacrifice, but admitted to the inner court as assistants to
the priests in their
altar duties, that this, the employment of these heathen
hierodules, had
been the special wickedness of which
henceforward these “foreign ministers” were to be thrust
out from their
offices, and their places supplied by the
about-to-be-degraded Levites. It is,
however, doubtful if the phrase, keepers of my charge in
the sanctuary,
can be made to signify more than has already been expressed
by the clause,
“to be in my
sanctuary… when ye offer my bread” (v. 7),
by which, as
Kliefoth and Keil explain,
“keepers of Jehovah’s charge,” i.e. observers of the
rites of worship
prescribed by him, though observers in their way, not in
his; if more can be
extracted from the words, then the most they can be
legitimately made to
affirm (as there is no mention of the inner court) is that
these “strangers,”
in addition to obtaining access to the outer court to
witness the sacrifices,
or perhaps offer such for themselves, had been more or less
frequently
employed in performing subordinate offices towards the
Levites, who were
the proper priests’ assistants, like the Gibeonites, whom Joshua (9:27)
made “hewers of wood
and drawers of water for the congregation and for
the altar of the
Lord unto this day,” and like the Nethinim, whom,
according to Ezra (8:20), David and the princes had given
for the service
of the Levites (see Delitzsch, Luthardt’s ‘Zeitschrift fur kirchliche
Wissenschaft,’ 1880, p. 283). (On the phrase, “to keep the charge of
Jehovah,” as
signifying to follow His directions or comply with His
prescriptions, see Numbers 9:23.) “In the sanctuary”
explains that the
prescriptions alluded to were those pertaining to the
sanctuary or to the
worship of Jehovah.
Religion by Proxy (v. 8)
The people had neglected their own duty in regard to the
worship of God,
and had appointed hirelings to discharge the sacred offices
in their stead.
This was a case of trying to practice religion by proxy. We
often see the
attempt made in various ways now, but it is doomed to
failure.
PROXY. There are now
many Jews in
more wealthy brethren in
themselves the merit of living and
dying in the
undergoing the irksome
experience of actual residence. In Roman Catholic
countries it is common to devote
a sum of money to the payment of the
priest who is to say so many
Masses on behalf of a person. Among
ourselves there is an unconfessed but common notion that the minister in
some way performs the offices of
religion on behalf of the people, who
stand by as idle spectators, and yet
enjoy the fruits of his vicarious service.
The development of elaborate
ritual and the cultivation of highly ornate
choral services tend in this
direction, by taking the acts of worship out of
the grasp of the people, and
consigning them to the clergy and choir.
Where this is not the case,
there is a common feeling that the mere
attendance at church when a
service is being conducted is of some religious
efficacy, the officiating
minister carrying on the real worship on behalf of
the congregation, which may be
listless and indifferent, so long as he
discharges his duty faithfully. Or
perhaps the religion by proxy is attempted
in the way of money payments.
The rich man who will make no moral
sacrifice, and who is unwilling
to worship God or serve Him, subscribes to
charities and Missionary
Societies, and consoles himself by the thought that
he is supporting religion and
other good works. He is not a pillar of the
church within the sacred
building, but he is a sort of buttress outside it. By
this indirect service of a money
payment he thinks to compound for his
irreligion. Lastly, living in a
Christian land, belonging to a Christian home,
and having Christian associates
are regarded as matters of some religious
value by people who possess no
real religion of their own. Thus they too
would be religious by proxy.
his own personal dealings with
God. There are such things as mediation,
intercession, and vicarious
sacrifices. The good mother is spiritually helpful
to her children. Christ’s righteousness,
His obedience, and His sacrifice are
for the good of the world. But
none of these things will compensate for
irreligion in those who would
avail themselves of their advantages.
Moreover, God looks to the
heart. Money gifts not offered by a grateful,
devout heart, but only paid in
fines to exonerate a man from the
consequences of his misdeeds and
negligence, are of no value whatever in
the sight of God. There is no
merit in helping the religion of other people if
no right motive inspires the action.
The very desire to be religious by proxy
reveals a wrong state of the
heart, for it shows that those people who
experience it have no love for God and no real inclination for religion. The
man whose heart is right with God
will not wish to be religious by proxy.
The son who has true affections
will have no inclination to pay a substitute
to take his place in the family
circle. When his heart is renewed the
Christian is most eager to be
near to God, for then worship is glad and
spontaneous.
Vs. 9-16. — Accordingly, that no such abuses might creep in to
desecrate the temple of the future, a new Torah was
promulgated
concerning the persons who should have a right to
participate in its
services. If the “prince” is omitted, the reason probably
was that a special
section is subsequently devoted to him (Ezekiel 46:1-8).
9 “Thus saith the Lord GOD; No
stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor
uncircumcised in
flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is
among the children
of
(or, alien), uncircumcised
in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter
into my sanctuary. The publication of this edict marked a clear advance upon
preceding legislation. The old Torah conceded right of
access to a
foreigner, though uncircumcised, on certain conditions (v.
7); this new
Torah would accord such right of access to a foreigner on
no conditions.
Even should he be circumcised in the flesh, unless he
possessed also that
which the bodily mark symbolized, viz. circumcision of
heart, he must
remain without. Does not this look as if Ezekiel were
posterior to the
priest-code, rather than vice versa, as Wellhausen contends?
The Exclusion of the Stranger (v. 9)
There was a strict exclusiveness about the Hebrew religion.
Only the
circumcised were to share in its privileges. In regard to
outward ordinances
and national distinctions, this exclusiveness is destroyed
by Christ, and His
gospel is free to Gentile as well as Jew, to the
uncircumcised as well as the
circumcised (Galatians 5:6). Nevertheless, in spite of the
new breadth
of Christianity, the ideas suggested by the old, narrow
exclusiveness still
obtain, though now only in spiritual relations.
PRIVILEGES OF RELIGION. It
matters not what nation he belongs to;
now we have to do with
spiritual, not national distinctions. Thus it is
possible that the Jew or the
Christian may be a stranger to God, while the
Gentile and one of a heathen
nation may really know and love God. But
where the distinction is it does
involve serious consequences. It is a
mistake to treat a Christian
nation as though all its citizens enjoyed the
favor of Heaven; and it is a
mistake to address a Christian congregation as
though all its members were
devout men and women. Now, so long as a
man is alienated
from God, he is excluded from all the highest blessings of
the gospel. The door of heaven is
shut against the hard, the worldly, the
impenitent. Surely some Church
discipline should be exercised in regard to
those whose alienation from God
is undisguised. To keep up the name of
Church-fellowship with people in
this unhappy condition is to delude them
with false hopes.
Even in the directions that
concern the old Jewish ritual this class is named
as well as that of the
uncircumcised in flesh. The one great question is as to
the state of a man’s
heart. The uncircumcised heart is
given up to sinful
naturalism. Pure human nature
should be fit for the presence of God, but
sinful human nature is not.
Unclean and degraded, it needs a spiritual
circumcision before it can be
accepted by God. In the state of sin man is
thus far from God, and so
excluded from the privileges of enjoying
heavenly Blessings. But the
estrangement that results from this sinful
condition involves a state of ignorance. Alienated from God, sinful man
does not know his loss. He is
out in the darkness, a heathen, though
bearing the Christian name.
HEART MAY BECOME TRUE PEOPLE OF GOD AND ENJOY THE
PRIVILEGE OF ACCESS TO GOD. The hindrance must first be
removed.
Ø There must be a change of heart. The mischief is in the heart; thither the
cure must be
brought. Thus the first thing is for a man to pray that God
would create in
him a clean heart (Psalm 51:10).
Ø This can only be brought about by a Divine renewal, which may be
called the circumcision
of the heart. God, and He only, can create, and we
need to be new
creatures in Christ Jesus.
Ø This may be realized through the gospel of Christ. He has come to call
in the
strangers. By His great all-embracing love He reconciles “them that
are
afar off” as well as “them
that are near” (Ephesians
2:17) There are
now no barriers
which the grace of Christ cannot break through. It only
remains for the
strangers and uncircumcised in heart to avail themselves
of that grace
by penitent confession of sin and active
trust in Christ.
Church-Worship Vital to the Soul (vs. 4-9)
As the heart is vital to the body, and sends its tide of
life to every organ in
the system, so the sanctuary is the central source of
spiritual life to the
human commonwealth. What the Church is, the home will be,
the town will
be, the nation will be. The guilt contracted by
fount of iniquity
whence defilement spread to every part of the body
politic. The sin of the sanctuary
was the sin of sins. On the other hand, the
sanctuary may be a
well-spring of salvation. The loftiest
expectations
cherished here God will satisfy. “This is my rest for ever; here
will I dwell.”
(Psalm 132:14) Here,
“he
that asks, receives.” “I looked, and, behold,
the glory of the Lord filled the house.” (v. 4)
mark well, and
behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears, all that I
say unto thee concerning
all the ordinances of the house.” Of
such moment
to human interests are these
laws and ordinances, that the prophet must
give concentrated attention to
the matter. Every faculty of soul must be
engaged to learn the
will of God, and to do it. There are
subtle bonds of
vital connection between the
human soul and temple-worship, which easily
escape the notice of the eye. To gain the good which God intends we must
prepare the heart and mind
beforehand. “Mark well the entering in of the
house” High expectation of
blessing should be raised. A state of mind free
from selfish care should be
fostered. As the photographer carefully
prepares his plate to receive a
faithful impression, so equally concerned
should we be to prepare our hearts for high and intimate converse with
God. Nor should we be unmindful how we depart from that august
Presence. What care is needed to
bury deep in our memory the truths we
have received! What care ought
there be to retain the anointing of holy
influence upon the soul!
INVISIBLE. To be
acceptable worshippers God required that they should
be circumcised in flesh and
circumcised in heart. The one was designed to
be the visible symbol of the
other. To circumcise the flesh would be
useless if there was not also the circumcision of the heart. The circumcision
of the flesh was instructive and
disciplinary — was a test of obedience. To
neglect this was a willful and
open breach of the covenant made with
useful; but if they remain only
forms — done without heart -
— they are barren of blessing to
men. As the race advances in religious
culture, simpler and fewer forms
will suffice. Men will be able to rise to
communion with God without the
intervention of rites. In the heavenly
home no temple is
found, for GOD HIMSELF IS THE TEMPLE,
and the redeemed have immediate access to His presence. But for the
present, visible ordinances are the best channels by which we can gain
fellowship with God.
the God of Israel demanded
internal purity as the condition of approaching
Him, He would have shut out the
whole race of men from His house. But His
high design is to create holy character among men, and every arrangement
of temple-worship has
purification for its end. The uncircumcised Gentiles
were allowed to enter an outer
court; the circumcised could have nearer
approach; an inner circle was
reserved for the children of Levi; and only
one of all the human race was
permitted to enter the holiest sanctuary —
the very presence-chamber of
Jehovah. In this way the world was taught
the value of moral purity. In
proportion to holiness of character is the
nearness of access to God, The
pure in heart shall see Him. Hence the
cardinal distinction between the
circumcised and the uncircumcised, which
God so wisely imposed. With that
man God dwells who has a humble and
contrite heart. (Isaiah
66:2) To promote moral purity is the
proper design
of Church-worship.
is to repel God in the act of
His most gracious approach to men. It is to
wound God in the tenderest part of His nature. Sacrilege has always been
counted a most heinous offence. To
secularize the temple is to destroy the
only ladder by which we can climb
to heaven. To trifle with religion is to
commit spiritual suicide. On this head our Lord asks, “If the light that is in
thee be darkness,
how great is that darkness!” (Matthew 6:23) As
new-fallen snow is among the
most beautiful of natural objects, so
tarnished snow is most offensive
to the eye. If the only fount of living
water be poisoned, how can the
life of men Be sustained? To abuse the
ordinances of the sanctuary is
to starve one’s own soul, is to make religion
obnoxious to our fellows, is to
insult Jehovah. This is man’s crowning sin —
“a sin unto
death.”
“Ye have not kept
the charge of mine holy things: but ye have set keepers
of my charge in my
sanctuary for yourselves." In the
eyes of God it was a
foul offence that the priests
had delegated their work to others — to
persons whom Jehovah had not
appointed and did not approve! It is
impossible for any man to devolve
his service for God upon another
person. God’s service cannot be
discharged by proxy. Just as no man can
transfer to another his talents,
or his qualities, or his position, so no man
can transfer his
responsibilities or his work. Already God
has supreme
claim to the
entire service of that man to whom I may wish to transfer my
task. Already he is under
tribute to serve the same Master. Moreover, by
abandoning my
service, I abandon my reward and my joy. Delegation of
service in God’s kingdom is
forbidden. “Each one of us must give account
of himself before
God.”
(Romans 14:12) Rightly
understood, service is
privilege. To serve is to reign.
The True Circumcision and the True Worshipper (v. 9)
Provisions such as this were no doubt of an educational
character, and
were intended to teach the Israelites the necessity and the
duty of holiness.
The consecrated nation was called to present to Jehovah a
pure offering.
The alien was denied the privileges appointed for the
Israelite; being
uncircumcised, and not a child of the covenant, he was forbidden access to
the holy place.
PRESENCE, FELLOWSHIP, AND FAVOR. The Lord’s holy temple was
the scene of the especial
manifestation vouchsafed by Jehovah to
The Divine presence, naturally
ubiquitous, was for a purpose localized.
Here was, so to speak, the point
of contact between the God of Israel and
His chosen people; the media of
communication being the sacrifices and
services ministered by the
consecrated priesthood. Here the acceptance and
good will of Jehovah were
sealed. They who conformed to Divine
appointments were ceremonially
justified and cleansed; and they who drew
near with hearts prepared to
receive a spiritual blessing were abundantly
rewarded.
AND THE EXCLUSION OF THE UNCIRCUMCISED AND THE
ALIEN, WERE SYMBOLICAL
OF THE SPIRITUAL CONDITIONS
OF ACCEPTABLE
WORSHIP. No one can suppose that there was
“favoritism” in the
treatment of worshippers by the just, impartial God;
we know that in every
nation those who wrought righteousness were
accepted. But so far as the
temple at
were regulations intended
to draw attention to the character of true worship,
and to the qualifications
of acceptable worshippers. No doubt impure
Israelites were admitted,
and just and benevolent aliens were excluded.
But ALL were taught the indispensable necessity of compliance with
Divine regulations, and of the possession of prescribed qualifications.
This provision was a
preparation for the introduction amongst men of a
higher and purer conception
of true holiness, that which is not ceremonial,
BUT REAL!
TYPE AND PROMISE OF THIS PREPARATORY DISPENSATION.
The religion of Christ lays
stress upon the new nature, the new heart, the
new birth, the
new life. It requires a cleansing, a
putting off of the old
nature, the circumcision of the
spirit. It requires a naturalization in the new
and Divine kingdom, a
citizenship such as no physical birth and no external
legislation can impart. A man must be born anew and
from above (John 3:7)
in order to enter into the
acceptable worship at
spiritual reality in order to be
applicable to the new dispensation.
SANCTUARY WERE AN ANTICIPATION OF THE TERMS OF
HEAVENLY CITIZENSHIP.
In this, as in so many passages; the
prophecies of Ezekiel point on
to the language of the Apocalypse, and the
reader of the New Testament
interprets these ancient declarations,
prescriptions, and promises in
the light of the closing book of the canon.
The ceremonial preparation
required of the Hebrew worshipper prefigured
the qualifications laid down as
a condition of admission into the celestial
temple. Into the abodes of immortal purity there enters nothing that
worketh abomination or maketh a lie. (Revelation 21:27)
The citizens
of the heavenly
privileges and occupations of
the city whose Builder and Maker is God.
10 “And the
Levites that are gone away far from me, when
astray, which
went astray away from me after their idols; they shall
even bear their
iniquity. 11 Yet they shall be ministers in my
sanctuary,
having charge at
the gates of the house, and ministering to the house: they
shall slay the
burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall
stand before them
to minister unto them. 12 Because they ministered
unto
them before their
idols, and caused the house of
therefore have I
lifted up mine hand against them, saith the Lord GOD,
and
they shall bear
their iniquity. 13 And they shall not come
near unto me, to do
the office of a
priest unto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things, in
the most holy place:
but they shall bear their shame, and their abominations
which they have
committed. 14 But
I will make them keepers of the charge
of the house, for
all the service thereof, and for all that shall be done therein.”
The
ordinance for the Levites. According to the so-called priest-code, the Levites
were Levi’s descendants, who were chosen by Jehovah for
service in the tabernacle
(Numbers 3:6-13; 16:9), to minister to the priests when
these sacrificed in the
tabernacle (ibid. ch.8:19;
18:6), and in particular to keep the charge of the tabernacle,
i.e. of the house and
all its vessels (ibid. ch.1:53), as
distinguished from the
charge of the sanctuary and of the altar, which pertained
to Aaron and his
sons alone as priests (ibid.
ch. 18:2-6, 23). The Deuteronomic
code,
says Wellhausen (‘Geschichte Israels,’ pp. 121, etc.), was unacquainted
with any such distinction between Levites and priests, who,
it is alleged,
composed one homogeneous body, the tribe of Levi, whose
members were
equally empowered to officiate at the altar (Deuteronomy
10:8), the
lower duties of the tabernacle having been performed by the
aforesaid
strangers, and the subordination of Levites to priests
having first been
suggested by Ezekiel (compare Smend, ‘Der Prophet Ezekiel,’ p. 361, “Der
unterschied zwischen Priestern
und Leviten ist hier im Enstehn
begriffen”), and first formally carried out alter the exile. This
theory,
however, cannot be admitted as made out in face of
(1)
Deuteronomy 18., which (v. 1) recognizes “the priests” and "the
Levites” as constituting “the whole tribe of Levi,” and (v. 3, 6)
distinguishes between “the priest” and “the Levite;”
(2) II Samuel 15:24, which associates with Zadok the priest, the Levites
as carriers of the ark;
(3) I Kings 8:4, in which the same distinction between the two bodies
is recognized;
(4) I and II Chronicles, passim, which attest the existence of priests and
Levites as separate temple officials in pre-exilic times; and
(5)
Ezra 1:5, 62; 3:8, 10; 6:20, which show that the
distinction, alleged
to have been first made by Ezekiel, was well known to the
first company of
exiles who returned under Zerubbabel
to
traced back to pre-exilic times (see Keil,
on Deuteronomy 18:1;
Curtiss’s ‘Levitical Priests,’ pp. 22,
etc.; Delitzsch, in Luthardt’s
‘Zeitschrift
fur kirchliche Wissensehaft,’ pp. 286, etc., aud
in Riehm’s ‘
Handworterbuch des Biblischen Alterthums,’ art. “Leviten;” Oehler, in
Herzog’s ‘Real-Encyclopadie,’
art. “Levi”).
The question, therefore, of which Levites Ezekiel speaks in
this verse, whether of
those whose duties were of a menial order or of those whose
functions partook of
a priestly character, is not difficult to resolve. It could
hardly have been the
former, since in vs. 11-14 Ezekiel’s Levites are
represented as about to be
degraded by being relegated to inferior tasks than those
they had formerly
performed; it must have been the latter, because in the
present verse they
are designated the Levites
that are gone away (or, went) far from me,
when Israel went
astray. Now, Israel’s apostasy from Jehovah and
declension towards idolatry began with Solomon’s unfaithfulness
(I Kings 11:4-8), and continued with greater or less
intensity in every
subsequent reign till the exile; it certainly cannot be
restricted, as Keil and
Currey propose, to Jeroboam’s conduct in setting up rival
sanctuaries in
Dan and
northern kingdom (ibid.
ch. 12:26-33). Nor is there room for doubting,
although historical notices of the fact are not abundant,
that in this
apostasy the priesthood largely led the way (Jeremiah 26:7,
11; II Kings
16:11-16; Zephaniah 1:4), becoming priests of the high
places,
ministering for the people at heathen altars, and so
causing them to fall into
iniquity (v. 12). Hengstenberg
and Plumptre suggest that the reason why
these apostate priests are now called Levites was to
intimate that they were
no more worthy of the priesthood, and were about to be
reduced to the
lower ministry of the Levites so called. Consequently,
under the new
Torah, those among the priests (who were also Levites) who
had been
guilty of this flagrant wickedness (i.e., says Delitzsch, all the Aaronides
who were not Zadokitos) would no more, either in themselves or their
descendants, be suffered to retain the priestly office, but would be
degraded to the status of ordinary Levites, and, like them,
should be
ministers in Jehovah’s sanctuary, having charge — or, oversight
(Revised Version) — at the gates of the house, and
ministering, to (or, in)
the house, i.e. in its courts, serving as keepers of the
charge of the house
(v. 14), as watchers at the gates of the house (v. 11), as
slaughterers of
the sacrificial victims (v. 11), but should not, like their
brethren who had
remained faithful, be allowed to do the office of a priest,
i.e. approach the
altar to offer sacrifice, or to enter into the holy place
(v. 13). In this way
they should bear their
iniquity (vs.
10,12) — a favorite expression in
the middle books of the Pentateuch (Exodus 28:38, 43;
Leviticus
5:1; 10:17; 20:19; Numbers 5:31; 18:1), but never occurring
in
Deuteronomy, and meaning “to be requited” on account of,
and make
expiation for, sin and their shame and their abominations, i.e. the shame
due to them for their abominations — a specially Ezekelian phrase
(compare ch.
16:52, 54; 32:30; 36:7).
Divine Discrimination (vs. 9-14)
The prophet is necessarily expressing himself in the terms
of the old
dispensation; and he declares, in God’s name, that no man who has not
received a right spirit (“uncircumcised in heart”), and that
no man who has
not
been admitted to the citizenship of the
(“uncircumcised in flesh”), can “enter the sanctuary” — can come
into
closest contact with, and render holiest service unto, the Lord
(see v. 9).
And he further declares that those of his people who had
grievously sinned
against Him by their guilty apostasy should be excluded from the
more
sacred offices of the priesthood; yet that they should be
admitted to the
humbler posts of guarding the doors, of slaying ‘the sacrificial
animals, and
of
ministering to those priests who were worthier than themselves (vs. 11, 14).
The general lesson we learn is that God deals with us
graciously
and
generously, but discriminately. He gives to all His children, but He does
not
give the same kind, nor does He give the same measure, to all; He is
merciful to the penitent, but He does not let His mercy obscure or
reduce His
righteousness. Those who have done serious wrong “bear
their iniquity”
(v. 10), they “bear their shame” (v. 13); and yet
they have their place
and
do their work in the day of restoration (see vs. 11, 14). In that
discrimination in:
all His creatures, to all His children; but He gives much more
to some than
He does to others. Herein is no
favoritism or injustice. It is simply the
presence of a most desirable variety; the conferring upon every one
more
than he deserves or can claim, and upon some a very large
inheritance of
good. Not any one of us is entitled to our being, or our
comforts, or our
powers; but God, in the fullness of His bounty, gives us these.
Shall we
complain because there are those to whom He has been even more
bountifully than He has to us? Shall we not rather rejoice and be
grateful
that He has not limited His love as He might well have done? In
fact,
although very much inequality here is due to our own poor use of wisdom,
much is due to the variety in the Divine distribution. To some He
gives more
vigorous health, a clearer or more active mind, a stronger will, a
fuller or
longer life. Surely gratitude and not complaint is the note of
the wise and
the good.
While there is no one who may not and who should not bring his
contribution to the cause of Christ and of man, it is clear that some
may do
a much higher and a much greater work than others can. To
some it is
given to guard the door only; to others to present the sacrifice
unto the
Lord. Some with a feeble
intelligence and a scanty knowledge may be quite
equal to a humble post; others with versatile and vigorous
powers and a
well-stored mind may render most important and vital service. And
there
are many degrees between the humblest and the highest office
in the
Christian ranks. Let every man feel that to be or to do anything for
Christ
is a joy and an honor; let those who are invited to the “chief seats” remind
themselves that they “have nothing which they have not received,”
and let
them do everything “as with the ability which God giveth.”
astray after their idols” were
to receive the Divine mercy; they were to be
restored to their place in the
admitted to service at and indeed in the sanctuary (see vs.
11, 14); but
they could not wholly regain what they had lost; some of their iniquity
(or
shame, v. 13) they would have to bear; at a certain point their
privileges
stopped. Now, in the
discrimination.
Ø There is mercy for those who have gone
furthest astray. Into
whatever
alienation
of heart, rejection by the mind, guiltiness of behavior, they have
wandered,
there
is forgiveness to be had in Jesus Christ.
(Psalm 130:4,7)
Ø The mercy of God means much. It means the absolute pardon of all past
sin; the
restoration of the soul to the favor and the friendship of God;
access,
full and free, to His praise, His throne, His table; liberty to serve
Him in the broad field of sacred usefulness.
Ø But there is some serious and necessary
qualification. They
who have
gone very
far into wrong-doing, or have spent many years in sinful
estrangement, must “bear their iniquity” in one sense — they must suffer
the
injury which their sin has wrought in the formation of evil habits
(mental or physical) which cannot be immediately cast forth;
in the loss of
reputation
which cannot be at once regained; in the enfeeblement of the
soul (or,
at any rate, the loss of strength and influence that might have been
acquired)
which has to be endured. Sin means some considerable measure
of absolutely irreparable loss.
15 “But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that
kept the charge of
my sanctuary when
the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall
come near to me
to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me
to offer unto me
the fat and the blood, saith the Lord GOD:
16 They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come
near to
my table, to
minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge.”
The
ordinance for the priests. That Ezekiel derived the phrase,
the priests the
Levites, from Deuteronomy
(17:9; 18:1; 24:8; 27:9) may
be granted without admitting that the Levites were all priests,
or
that the phrase had other import than that the priests
were, as the
Deuteronomist says, “sons of Levi”
(ch. 21:5; 31:9). The priesthood, at its
institution, having been entrusted to Aaron and his sons
(Exodus 27:20-21;
28:1-4; 29:9, 44; Numbers 3:10; 16:40; 18:7; 25:13), on
Aaron’s
death the high priesthood passed into the hands of Eleazar, his eldest
(living) son (Numbers 20:26-28), and after Eleazar’s death into those
of Phinehas, his eldest son
(Numbers 25:11-13). In the last days of the
judges, when the ark and tabernacle stood at
belonged to Eli, of the line of Ithamar
(compare I Samuel 14:3 and 22:20
with I Chronicles 24:3), in which line it continued till
the reign of
David, when it was held conjointly by Abiathar
(called also Ahimelech) of
the line of Ithamar, and Zadok of the line of Eleazar (II
Samuel 8:17; 20:25;
I Kings 4:4). This arrangement, however, Solomon eventually
overturned, by deposing the former for espousing Adonijah’s pretensions
to the throne (I Kings 1:7; 2:26), and from that time
forward till the
exile the high priesthood remained with Zadok
and his sons (I Kings 2:35;
I Chronicles 29:22). When, therefore, it is announced to
Ezekiel
that his vision-sanctuary should have as priests the sons of Zadok,
that
kept the charge of
Jehovah’s sanctuary, when the children of Israel
went astray from
Him; the first question that arises is
— To what does
this allude? Kliefoth holds it
cannot mean that, while
declined into idolatry, the Zadokite
priests remained faithful to the worship
of Jehovah, because the vision of
in ch. 8:16, revealed quite
clearly that the priesthood was as much
caught in the national apostasy as were the princes or the
people. Nor is
the language of the text perfectly satisfied by the view of
Havernick, Keil,
Delitzsch, and others, that it goes beck to Zadok’s
fidelity to the throne of
David at the time of Absalom’s
rebellion (II Samuel 15:24-29), a
fidelity exhibited also by Abiathar,
or to his adherence to Solomon in
preference to Adonijah (I Kings
1:8, 39), this time without Abiathar’s
concurrence, rather in the face of his opposition. In
neither of these
instances was Zadok’s fidelity
specially directed towards Jehovah’s
sanctuary, but concerned expressly and exclusively David’s
throne. Hence
the commendation of the Zadokites’
fidelity can only signify that, while the
priesthood as a body were corrupt like the people, there
were among them,
as among the people, some who, like Ezekiel, continued
steadfast to
Jehovah’s sanctuary; that these faithful few were Zadokites (see
ch.
48:11), and that to these should be entrusted the priesthood in
the new sanctuary. But, at this point, a second question starts
— Was it
intended to declare that the new priesthood should be Zadokites in body,
i.e. in respect of
lineal descent, or only in soul, i.e. in respect of moral and
religious excellence? The former is contended by Kuenen, Wellhausen,
Smend, and others, who see in the vision-sanctuary a plan of the
second, or
post-exilic, temple, and in its ordinances a program for
the establishment of
the Levitical hierarchy; but this
contention shatters itself on the fact that no
proof exists either that the second temple was constructed
after Ezekiel’s
as a model, or that those who served in it were exclusively
flesh and blood
Zadokites. The latter opinion, favored by Kliefoth,
appears the more
correct, that moral and spiritual resemblance to the sons
of Zadok should
form the first qualification for the priesthood in this
ideal sanctuary of the
future (see note at the end of ch.
48.).
The Degradation of the Levites (vs. 10-16)
From this interesting passage it would appear that there
was a time when
the Levites enjoyed free access to the altar, and were
allowed to serve as
priests before the Lord. But they had abused their
privileges in admitting
heathen people to the sacred enclosure, in doing their work
by proxy, in
even going aside to idolatry. Therefore they were degraded
from their high
functions — all of them except one family, that of Zadok. As the members
of this family had remained true, the priesthood was now
settled
exclusively on them, while the rest of the Levites were put
down to serve
in secondary offices in connection with the temple ritual.
unfaithful priest is deprived of
his rank and ministry. Of Judas it was said,
“His bishopric let
another take” (Acts 1:20). The
hireling may direct
the flock for a season to his
own advantage. Even the thief and the wolf
may be in office. We cannot
judge of a man’s character by his rank, nor can
we tell what is his position in
the eyes of God by observing his
ecclesiastical status. Much is expected of those to whom much has been
given. (Luke
12:48) Therefore
the disloyal servant who stands in a high
position will be most sternly
judged. His first penalty will be loss of office.
The man who had buried his
talent is deprived of it (Matthew 25:28).
HUMBLER DUTIES. The
Levites are not discharged; they are only put to
lower offices. God inflicts no
heavier penalties than are absolutely
necessary, He bears no grudge
against any of His servants. If we have failed
in a more honorable position, we
need not despair; there may be a lowly
work which we can still perform.
It must have been most painful for the
Levites to be thus forced to
take a lower place. Possibly at first they would
rather have given up the whole
temple service, and have devoted
themselves to secular pursuits.
It speaks well for them that they silently
confessed the justice of what
was done, and quietly took the lower place. It
is hard, like John the Baptist,
to step back and give way for a new man;
hard to say, “He
must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). But
he who has the cause of Christ
at heart will be willing to do anything for
the service of his Master. Many
would be willing to take the rank of
priests. The test is whether we
will obey when we are called to the more
humble work of the Levites.
BY THE EXALTATION OF THE
FAITHFUL. The loss of the Levites
is the gain of the family
of Zadok. The talent that is taken from the idle
servant is given to the
servant with ten talents. We may here
see a hierarchy
in the making. Merit and
practical utility lie at the foundation
of institutions
that have subsequently
become more formal. But merit and
utility should
always govern the appointment
to office. There is no higher honor
than to
have been true in a time of general
unfaithfulness.
Reward and Punishment on Earth (vs. 10-16)
According to rank and position in the Church is
responsibility. Example is
contagious. Treachery by a military officer is a graver sin
than treachery by
a soldier in the ranks. Pollution at the fount is a greater
evil than pollution
in a branch-stream. Disease in the heart is a more serious
matter than
disease in the skin or at the extremities. If the priests of God sanction
idolatry, the whole nation will follow suit, and the cause of
God is
betrayed. The sin of Judas lay in this — that he had been a
trusted friend
and companion of Jesus. God’s ministers hold responsible
posts.
race is mainly tempted to infidelity, but
the earlier generations of men were
tempted to idolatry. As
infidelity is now the ally of vice, so was and is
idolatry. Both chime in with the lower passions of human nature. In the
period preceding Ezekiel’s birth
every side false deities were
being set up. Idolatry was in the atmosphere.
A great opportunity opened to
the Levites. As ministers of Jehovah, set
apart for the service of religion,
they
should have stood in the gap and
raised barriers
against the inflowing tide of idolatry (ch. 22:30), the honor
of God was in their keeping. The
well-being of the nation rested with them.
They were the trustees of God’s
truth for the world. It was a testing-time. Men’s
favor or God’s — which would
they choose? Popularity for the moment or
enduring fidelity — which? Alas! they made a suicidal choice! They chose
the path of selfish ease. Like a
physician summoned to a critical case, they
too might have abated the raging
fever and saved the patient’s life. But
they had no
religious earnestness. They were mere
functionaries of a
system; and so long as duty was
light and a livelihood secure, religion
might take care of itself.
Honored with a tremendous trust, they proved
themselves unworthy and
faithless. Regard for God was lacking. Moral
prowess was lacking. They
drifted with the stream. Their sin was the
sowing of evil tares, which
developed into a harvest of misery and disaster.
the stress of temptation men can
either resist or yield. In no case is it a
necessity to succumb. Moral
principle in man has withstood the incoming
deluge of temptation, and it
always can. Unseen resources are on the side
of him who
steadfastly adheres to right. GOD is at his side.
("There hath
not temptation taken you but such as is
common to man: but God is
faithful, who will not suffer you to be
tempted above that ye are able;
but will with the temptation also make a way
to escape, that ye may be
able to bear it." (I Corinthians 10:13) So far as public
action went,
Elijah stood alone in the days
of Jezebel’s idolatry. In
Daniel stood erect as the sole
witness for Jehovah, and notable triumph
was his. Martin Luther was for
years the only champion of Bible truth on
the continent of
So, in the instance narrated
here, one family remained faithful. The sons of
Zadok were worthy sons of a worthy sire. A good name is a good
heritage,
and no better name can a man
wear than Zadok, i.e. “Righteousness.” If a
man trusts to his good name, he
is a fool; but if he lives up to a good name
— makes that his model — he is
wiser than Solomon. A rotten ship will
not survive the storm, though
she is named Impregnable. These sons of
Zadok were like Abdiel, “faithful among
the faithless found.” “They kept
the charge of the
sanctuary” when
backbone — some iron principle
in their blood. It is the basest cowardice
merely to go with the majority. Numbers are not the arbiter of truth or of
right. (This is a great sin in America because of the stock put
in polls of
what men think! CY - 2017)
Men who deserve the name inquire for
themselves, judge for
themselves, seek guidance from the Unerring
Source,
and act according to the result.
There was no external necessity to follow
the crowd of idolaters. ("Thou shalt
not follow a multitude to do evil" -
Exodus 23:2) The sons of Zadok resisted. So in every case a man’s
conduct is the outcome of his
own choice. (I recommend Proverbs
ch. 14 v. 14 - Spurgeon
Sermon - How a Man's Conduct Comes Home
to Him - this website - CY - 2017)
KINDS OF AWARD. It is
only the blindness of men that supposes that
God’s justice ever slumbers or
ever mistakes. God can patiently wait His
time, and can generously
forbear. Yet with perfect calmness He metes out
justice to every man. Touching
these Levites He declares, “they shall even
bear their
iniquity.” If any sensitiveness of
soul was left in them, they must
have been sorely pained, during
the seventy years of captivity, with the
self-conviction that their
unfaithfulness had been a main cause of Israel’s
disaster. Nor was this all. A
perpetual stigma was upon their name. An
everlasting degradation was
imposed on them and on their posterity. Their
children and their children’s
children through many generations were
involved in the disgrace and in
the deprivation of office. So far as it had
been an honor to be a Levite,
now it shall be reversed — it shall be a
dishonor. “They shall not come near unto
me, to do the office of a priest
unto me, nor to
come near to any of my holy things, in the most holy
place.” They had put God far away from them; it was simple
retribution
that God should forbid them to
come near to Him. Sin always bears its
own
NATURAL
FRUIT! Still,
judgment was tempered with mercy. They shall
not be entirely superseded. They
shall not be banished from the new temple.
Inferior office they may yet
fill; subordinate service they may yet perform.
And in their degraded rank they
shall learn that God’s service is
real honor;
that nearness to God is man’s
heaven. “They shall be ministers in my
sanctuary, having
charge at the gates of the house, and ministering to the
house; they shall
slay, the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people.”
But, on the other hand, special
honor is conferred on the loyal sons of
Zadok. “They shall come
near to me to minister unto me, and they shall
stand before
me... They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come
near to my
table,” etc. Here is unmistakable
promotion. “They had kept the
charge of the sanctuary;” now “they shall keep my
charge.” In other words,
“They shall be my treasures: I
will entrust my honor and all my precious
things unto them.” Their
fidelity is established; yea, is strengthened and
enlarged by this strain of
temptation. Their characters have come forth
from the furnace like burnished
gold. They shall be trusted in the heavenly
kingdom because they are
trustworthy. The omniscient eye of God does
not overlook the least
meritorious deed. High reward is in course of
preparation for the righteous. Men often deceive themselves with specious
hopes of escape. They often
deceive others with plausible semblances, they
can never deceive GOD!
Appointed Ministrations (vs. 15-16)
The priests were an essential element in the Mosaic system,
and their duties
were prescribed with a precise exactness. After the
Captivity, they still
fulfilled their appointed duties, although their relative
importance was
probably diminished, whilst the scribes became growingly
the religious
leaders and teachers of the people. In the dispensation of
the Spirit, the
priesthood, so far as it is perpetuated, has been widened
so as to include
the whole Christian congregation.
As the priesthood was instituted
by Divine wisdom, so the will and
pleasure of the great Head of
the Church is that the members of the
spiritual society should regard
themselves as called by God to the
fulfillment of varied duties as
His servants.
MINISTRY OF CHRIST THE HEAD. The Son of man came, not to be
ministered unto, but to
minister. (Matthew 20:28) The Lord was Himself
Servant of all, and those who
are His are summoned to follow the example
of Him who declared that He was among
His people as One who served.
(Luke 22:27)
sometimes taken for granted that
there are certain persons who minister to
their fellow-Christians, whilst
the rest simply receive and enjoy the
advantages of their services. But in reality there is no one member of the
true Church who
is not commissioned for some special work which it is
for him to do,
who has not some gifts and opportunities for serving his
fellow
disciples, for the edification of the body
of Christ.
WORLD. The Jewish
Church was restricted; the Christian Church has a
universal mission — a mission for the benefit of mankind. They who have
Christ’s Spirit will live as
disciples of Him who said, “I, if I be lifted up
from the earth,
will draw all men unto me.” (John 12:32)
TO GOD. With calling
and gifts and influence there is associated
responsibility. And this
responsibility is to Him who is the
one, only,
all-sufficient
Judge and Lord. From this
responsibility there is no escape;
and it must ever be the aim and
the hope of every Christian that he himself
and his work may be acceptable
and approved at last, when every man
shall have praise of God. (I Corinthians 4:5)
Fidelity and Its Reward (vs. 15-16)
We do not suppose that the statement respecting the sons of
Zadok is to be
pressed to historical exactitude. Their steadfastness is assumed
for the
purpose of exhortation, to point out the reward of fidelity in the
kingdom
of
God. We have:
no more patent fact before our eyes than that men do “go astray;’
they go
astray, like these Levites, from
God, from truth, from wisdom, from purity,
from their earlier convictions and their noble life. The frequency of the
fact
cannot dull our eyes to the extreme sadness of it. What
sadness was there
in the tone of the Master’s question, “Will ye also go away?” (John 6:67)
With what profound
regret do we now witness the descent or’ a human soul
from the heights of heavenly wisdom to the depths of disbelief or iniquity!
If we are asked to account for
it, we suggest three powerful temptations
which prove too strong for resistance.
Ø The fascinations of novelty; the love of looking at things in new lights or
of
treading new paths.
Ø The strength of the social current; the unconscious and (often) the
wholly
unreasonable deference we pay to the opinions of those around us.
It is difficult
to row against the stream of current thought and practice; it is
pleasant
to go with the tide, even though we suspect it is bearing us out to
the open
sea of uncertainty and unbelief.
Ø Concern for
our temporal interests;
for it often happens that a firm
adherence
to conviction means a painful parting, not only from friends, but
from the
source of “food and raiment.”
should be faithful even to the end. Fidelity is:
Ø Obligatory. We cannot leave the service of God or of truth without
breaking
the most sacred bonds, without laying ourselves open to self-
reproach and
doing that which we shall look back upon with shame and
sorrow.
We owe it to those who are coming up after us — especially to
our own
children — that we turn not our back on our old principles.
Ø Excellent. There is something honorable and admirable in a very high
degree in
a consistent and faithful life; not, of course, the unintelligent
repetition
of the old sounds, but the adherence, through good report and
evil
report, through storm and sunshine, to the vital principles we learned at
the feet
of Jesus Christ. The head that has grown white with the consistent
advocacy
and illustration of elevating and ennobling truth does wear a
glorious
crown.
Ø Attended with a large and a true reward. Steadfastness, as compared
with
vacillation or apostasy, not only commands the esteem of men, and
not only
enables its possessor to enjoy his own self-respect, but it secures
for him the abiding favor of God. God calls such men not only to the gate
or door
of the sanctuary; He bids them “enter into it,” and “come
near to
His
table,” to
“minister unto Him.” For them is reserved the closer
fellowship
and the more honorable and essential service. In the service of
Christ
fidelity not only aspires to the higher and better service of the
Master
and of mankind below, but it looks forward to an admission within
the blessed gates, and sitting down to the
“table” of the Lord in the
heavenly kingdom (Luke 22:30).
The Duties and
Emoluments of the Priests (vs. 17-31)
17 “And it shall come
to pass, that when they enter in at the gates of
the inner court,
they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no
wool shall come upon
them, whiles they minister in the gates of
the inner court,
and within.” Beginning with their attire when engaged in
temple service, this
verse states, in a general way, that the priests should be
clothed with linen
garments, as the
priests were under the Law (Exodus 28:40-43;
39:27-29; Leviticus 6:10), with this difference, that
whereas under the
Law the terms employed were שֵׁשׁ, the
white byssus of
“fine white linen,” here the word is פִּשְׁתֶּה, or “flax” — a difference which
assists newer critics to perceive in the so-called
priest-code a refinement on
Ezekiel, and therefore an evidence that the priest-code
arose later than
Ezekiel. But if the
so-called priest-code had already indicated that the linen
for priests’ garments should be of the finest quality,
Ezekiel may have felt
there was no occasion for him to use other than the generic
term for
“linen,” which פִעשׁתֶּה (pishteh) seems to have
been (compare Leviticus
13:47-48, 52, 59; Deuteronomy 22:11; Jeremiah 13:1). That
this
was so is suggested by the statement that no wool, צֶמֶר, “perhaps so
called from its being shorn off” (Gesenius),
should come upon them
whiles they
ministered in the gates of the inner court, or within the
court itself, or the house — the contrast being between
what was of
vegetable and what was of animal production. The reason for
the
prohibition of wool is hinted at in v. 18 — it was apt to
cause sweat, and
thus entail impurity; the clean white linen, on the other
hand, was designed
both for hygienic reasons and as an emblem of purity
(compare Revelation
19:8, 14).
18 “They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall
have
linen breeches
upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with
any thing that causeth sweat.” In particular the priests should have linen
bonnets upon their heads — literally, linen tires shall be upon their heads —
and linen breeches upon their loins. To infer from the use of מִגְבָּעות in
Leviticus 8:13
and of פְאֵר
here for the head-dress of the priests,
that
Ezekiel was composed before Leviticus, is not convincing. Smend explains
the latter term as the customary headdress of common
people, and the
former as a specially ornamental tiara or turban. Gesenius reverses this
meaning, making the former the ordinary round cap, and the
latter a tiara
(see for the former, Exodus 28:40; 29:9; 39:28; and for the
latter, (ibid.);
Isaiah 61:10; here ch. 24:17,
23). In addition, the priests should
not gird
themselves with
any thing that causeth sweat; literally, should not gird
themselves in, or with
sweat, which was another way of forbidding them to
wear woollen clothing, which
might cause them to sweat and so lead to
uncleanness.
19 “And when they go forth into the utter court, even into the
utter court to
the people, they
shall put off their garments wherein they ministered, and
lay them in the
holy chambers, and they shall put on other garments; and
they shall not
sanctify the people with their garments.”
When the priests
retired from the inner court, and before they passed into the outer court to
mingle with the people, they were enjoined to lay aside their official robes,
depositing them in the holy chambers already described (ch. 42:1-14), and to
put on other, i.e. their ordinary, clothes (compare Leviticus 6:11). The reason
for this injunction was
that they might not sanctify the
people (compare ch. 46:20)
through the people’s coming in contact with their garments. These, being
in a manner, i.e. ceremonially, holy, would impart
to the people a levitical
or ritualistic sanctity which would disqualify them, for a
time, at least, from
attending to the common duties of life, as under the Law
those were who
touched the sacrificial flesh (Leviticus 6:18, 27), the
altar (Exodus 29:37),
and the vessels of the sanctuary (Exodus 30:29).
20 “Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their
locks to grow
long; they shall
only poll their heads.” The next rubric concerned the mode in
which the priests should
wear their hair. It should neither be shaved nor worn
long, thus avoiding
excess on either side (compare for the first, Leviticus 21:5;
and for the second, Leviticus 10:6; 21:10, Revised
Version), but should
merely be polled. The obligation to let the hair grow
freely was imposed
upon the Nazarite only during the
period of his vow (Numbers 6:5).
The verb “to poll,” or “cut” (כָּסַם), occurs nowhere else. Smend
thinks
what is here denied to the priests collectively is in the
priest-code denied
solely to the high priest (Leviticus 21:10, Revised
Version; compare,
however, Leviticus 10:6, Revised Version), and discovers in
this a sign of the
later origin of Leviticus. Ezekiel’s raising the priesthood
as a body to the
rank of the high priest, of whom in connection with this
temple is no trace,
rather proves Ezekiel to have been later than Leviticus.
21 “Neither shall any priest drink wine, when they enter into
the inner
court.” The
prohibition of wine to the priests when engaged in temple
service accorded with Mosaic legislation (Leviticus 10:9).
Total abstinence at
other times was not enjoined.
22 “Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her
that is put
away: but they
shall take maidens of the seed of the house of
or a widow that
had a priest before.” As to marriage
(since the priests in
Ezekiel’s “house” were no more expected to be celibates than were those employed
about Moses’ tabernacle
or Solomon’s temple), they were forbidden to marry
widows (which
the Levitical priests were not, though the high
priest was) or
divorced women, and allowed to wed only virgins of the
house of
(the sole exception) widows of such as had been priests
(compare with the
priest-code, Leviticus 21:7, 13-14). Ezekiel’s enactment
discovers two
variations — first, that it does not formally forbid to the
priests marriage
with a harlot; and, second, that it sanctions marriage with
a priest’s widow.
But the first was implied in the prohibition of marriage
with an adulteress,
and the second was a sign of the higher sanctity of the
priesthood
belonging to Ezekiel’s temple. Hence, so far from
indicating the priority of
Ezekiel, it rather points to the priority of Leviticus.
23 “And they shall teach my people the difference between the
holy and
profane, and
cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.
24 And in controversy they shall stand in judgment; and they
shall judge
it according to
my judgments: and they shall keep my laws and my
statutes in all
mine assemblies; and they shall hallow my sabbaths.”
Among the priests’ official duties four things are
prescribed.
(1) The education of the people in the fundamental principles of their religion,
viz. that a distinction existed between the “holy” and “profane,” or “common,”
and in the practical application of that principle, the art of discerning between the
“unclean” and the “clean.” This duty had been laid upon the priests of Mosaism
(Leviticus 10:10; Deuteronomy 24:8; 33:10), but in the last years of the monarchy
had been neglected (Malachi 2:7-9).
(2) The administration of justice in all disputes arising out of and connected
with the practices of their religion. This office had pertained to the priests
under the Law (Numbers 5:14-31; Deuteronomy 17:8-13; 19:17-21; 21:5),
and
was exercised in pre-exilic times (Hosea 4:6; Micah 3:11; Isaiah 28:7;
Jeremiah 18:18), though not always in accordance with Jehovah s judgments.
That the juridical authority of the priests was purely of a moral kind (Wellhausen,
Smend), can be maintained only by rejecting II Chronicles 17:7-9 and 19:5-11
as unhistorical
(3)
The regulation of
all festal assemblies in accordance with the Divine
statutes. For errors in the celebration of these festivals, the priests should
be answerable, as they had always been; only under the new regime there
should be no errors.
(4) The hallowing of Jehovah’s sabbaths. This they should do both by
resting on the seventh day and by offering the sabbath sacrifices, the
shewbread, and the burnt offering; both of which things the priests under
the Law had been commanded to do (see Exodus 20:8-11; 31:13-17:
Leviticus 23:3; 24:8; Numbers 28:9), but had not done (here ch. 20:12-13,
20-21; 22:8; 23:28).
The Difference between the Holy and Profane
(v. 23)
with wholly fictitious
distinctions, and a most artificial line has been drawn
between what has been accounted
sacred and what has been regarded as
profane. But this is only the abuse
and the degeneracy of what should be
discovered in its high and true
condition as a genuine difference. The
formal distinctions of the
Jewish Law were all intended to symbolize moral
and spiritual differences. Some
of them were obviously concerned with
matters of common cleanliness
and decency; some had a more immediate
bearing on sanitary laws;
others, perhaps, were too suggestive of Jewish
exclusiveness or conventional
propriety; but even these latter regulations
could not but impress upon the
minds of thoughtful men the separateness
of true
holiness. The one real distinction is
moral. It is the line of
demarcation that separates sin
from righteousness. This, and not the
supposed distinction between the
secular and the sacred, is the real
difference between clean and
unclean. St. Peter was taught to call none of
the creatures of God common or
unclean (Acts 10:15). It is not they
that are so, but the uncleanness
is in us, in our use of them. “Unto the pure
all things are
pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is
nothing pure; but
even their mind and conscience is defiled” (Titus
1:15). Similarly, men make an
artificial distinction between sacred and
profane history. Coming from the
pen of a Josephus, the history of
profane; written by an
God in history beholds a
sacredness in it. To him who is
worldly and
untrue in heart
ALL THAT HE TOUCHES IS PROFANE!
EDUCATION. The priests were to teach the people the difference
between the clean and the
unclean. No doubt the elaborate external
regulations of the Jewish Law
required careful study, and men needed to
be thoroughly instructed in
regard to them, in order that they might avoid
even unconscious offences. This
was a necessary adjunct of a ceremonial
religion. A religion of law
needed lawyers for its priests. Now that system
is wholly swept away. We live in the glorious liberty of the sons of God,
and there is no
need for us to be instructed in elaborate rules of ceremonial
purification. Still, moral education is now needed, though in another
direction. Conscience
must be educated, so that it may be sensitive and
keen to discern
what is right, and separate
this from what is evil. This
education is not to be a
drilling in casuistry (the use of clever but unsound
reasoning, especially in relation to moral questions), which would be a return to
the old bondage of the Law; but it is to be an enlightening in
regard to the
great principles of Christian
righteousness, and still more a quickening of
the soul to feel the force of
those principles, and to apply them without
delay to every case as it
arises. It is important that the religious teaching of
children should be directed more
to this end. One great function of the
pulpit is to awaken men’s sense
of the
great distinction between sin and
purity. We live too much by compromise. We need to learn more of
the
absolute claims of
righteousness.
The Difference between the Holy and
Profane (v. 23)
It was one great office of the Jewish priesthood to
instruct the people to
discern between the unclean and the clean. No doubt this
office was often
discharged in a perfunctory manner; yet a valuable purpose
was answered
by the importance which the Israelites were thus encouraged
to attach to
obedience to the behests of the great King.
BETWEEN THE HOLY AND THE PROFANE. Such is the distinction
drawn in heathen communities, simply
in the interests of the priests
themselves, with no moral
bearing or intention.
BETWEEN THE HOLY AND THE PROFANE. Such was the difference
which was established by the Law
given by Moses to the Israelites, and
maintained by Divine command by
the instrumentality of the priests of
Jehovah.
THE HOLY AND THE
PROFANE. It
cannot be doubted that the
ceremonial differences were
intended to be the emblems of deeper and
more real distinctions of a
moral nature. In the Christian dispensation men
were early taught upon the
highest authority to call nothing common or
unclean. But whilst Christ
abolished distinctions, which were a means to an
end, which served a temporary
purpose of preparation, he emphasized
those distinctions which, in the
sight of a holy God, are real and important.
Especially was this the case
with the eternal difference between moral good
and evil, between what is in accordance with, and what is repugnant to,
the
nature, the
character, and the will of God. This distinction is one which the
Church of Christ is bound to
maintain, both by teaching and by conduct,
before a sinful and disobedient world.
25 “And they shall come
at no dead person to defile themselves: but for
father, or for
mother, or for son, or for daughter, for brother, or for
sister that hath
had no husband, they may defile themselves.
26 And after he is cleansed, they shall reckon unto him seven
days.
27 And in the day that
he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner
court, to
minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin offering,
saith the Lord
GOD.” Regulations are next given for preserving the
priesthood from
defilement through coming in contact with the dead, and for
removing such defilement in case of its having been
contracted. As under
the Law, so in the ideal constitution of Ezekiel, the
priests should not be at
liberty to contract ceremonial impurity through touching a
corpse except in
the case of near relations (compare Leviticus 21:1-4). That
neither in
Leviticus nor in Ezekiel is the priest’s wife among the
excepted is
surprising, and hardly to be explained, with Knobel, on the ground that a
wife is not a blood-relation, since according to the Divine
conception of
marriage husband and wife are one (Genesis 2:24), but
either by
holding, with Keil, that the
wife, who stands nearer her husband than any
of the relatives named, was viewed as included under the
phrase, “and for
his kin that is
near unto him” (Leviticus 21:2), or by
supposing it self-evident
that such defilement could not be avoided in the case of a
wife and
was therefore tacitly allowed. Smend,
as usual, finds signs of Ezekiel’s
priority to the priest-code, first in the circumstance that
Ezekiel regarded it
as perfectly natural that a priest should sorrow for his
wife (ch. 24:15-18),
which showed he had no acquaintance with Leviticus 21.; and
secondly, in the fact that Leviticus 21:11 prohibits
absolutely to the
high priest all contact with a corpse, which, it is argued,
betrays a greater
strictness than existed in the days of Ezekiel. But as the
prohibition in
Leviticus 21:11 applies only to the high priest, who in
Ezekiel’s temple
has no place, an argument as to which of the books had priority
of origin
cannot properly be founded on so insecure a basis. Knobel remarks on
Leviticus 21:1-4 that “among the Greeks, priests and
priestesses
remained at a distance from funerals (Plato, ‘De Legg.,’
12. p. 947); while
among the Romans ought the Flamen
dialis to touch no corpse (Gell.,
10:15), the augur perform no funeral rites (Tacit., ‘Ann.,’
1:31), and the
pontifex accompany no funeral procession (Die Cass., 56:31); not at
all
should he behold a dead body (Serv.,
‘Ad AEn.,’ 6:176),and in case he had
occasion to pronounce a funeral oration, a curtain should
hang between
him and the corpse.” As to the cleansing of a defiled
priest, that should be
conducted in accordance with the customary regulations
(compare Numbers
19.),with this difference — that on the termination of the
ordinary rites,
which extended over seven days, an additional seven days,
according to
Havernick and Keil (though Hengstenberg and Plumptre decide
for only
one heptade), should elapse, at
the end of which, on the presentation of a
sin offering, he should be restored to service in the inner
sanctuary.
Vs. 28-31 state the emoluments which should Be enjoyed by the
priests.
28 “And it shall be unto them for an inheritance: I am their
inheritance:
and ye shall give
them no possession in
The Authorized Version conveys the impression that the
first
portion of the priests’ sustenance should be derived from
the sin offering,
which is not mentioned till the following verse. And it shall be unto them
for an inheritance ought rather to be
rendered, and there shall be to them
(what shall be) for an inheritance; or more simply, and
they shall have an
inheritance (Revised
Version), which, it is next declared, as in the Law
(Numbers 18:20; Deuteronomy 10:9; 18:1-2), should be
Jehovah,
and not any territorial possession or tribal tract such as
should be assigned
to the other tribes (see Ezekiel 48.). Smend
thinks Ezekiel was scarcely
accurate in describing the priests as landless in the sense
intended by the
Deuteronomist and the priest-code, since in Ezekiel 45:4 they are, after
all, furnished with a plot of ground on which to build
their houses and erect
their sanctuary; whilst Wellhansen
(‘Gesehichte Israels,’ p.
165) holds the
priest-code to have somewhat romanced in adopting the same
language
about the Aaronides and Levites,
since, if they really did obtain forty-eight
cities, “what were these if not a lot and a land tract, and
that too a
comparatively great and important one?” Neither view stands
in need of
refutation.
Taking God as an Inheritance (v. 28)
The priests were to have no share in the partition of the
land. They were to
be supported by means of the sacrificial offerings of the
people; and in so
living they were said to take God for their Inheritance.
Viewing their
position from the lowest point of view, we have the thought
that they were
dependent on what was dedicated to God, as their livelihood
was derived
from God’s share of the produce of the land; a higher
consideration would
lead them to see that it was through God’s relation to His
people that they
received their maintenance; and the highest view to which
they could attain
would be to regard God Himself as their real Inheritance (Was He not
already their “Shield and exceeding Great Reward” ? - Genesis 15:1 –
CY –
2017) and the sacrificial offerings merely as
necessary means of
living. Let us see how God may be regarded as an
Inheritance and a Possession.
territory that one simply knows
of or beholds at a distance. We may believe
in God, and even look towards
Him from afar, and yet not think of having
any inheritance in Him. But it is possible to have more close relations with
Him.
Ø The inheritance is received as a birthright. The priests had a hereditary
claim on their
portion. All men are by nature children of God. By new
birth we
recover our original birthright. The
Christian is an heir of God.
(“....we are the children of
God: And if children, then heirs; heirs
of God,
and joint-heirs with Christ;” - Romans 7:16-17)
Ø The inheritance is received through death. One dies, and
another
receives his
inheritance. That was seen in Old Testament times in the
succession of
the priests. To us it is remarkable, as witnessed in the great
fact that Christ died to give us our heavenly inheritance.
take Him as our
Possession. There is thus a certain ownership in God
established. But in the most
complete way He owns us. How, then, can we
also own God? There is a
spiritual appropriation by which we personally
accept God as our God, and hold
to Him in faith. It is much to be able to
say from the heart, “O
God, thou art my God!” All religion
centers in
THAT EXPERIENCE! The priests were to enjoy special Divine privileges
in the Jewish system; all
Christians are now to own God as their peculiar
Possession. (For a different perspective, I recommend
Deuteronomy ch 32 v 9 – God’s Inheritance by Arthur Pink - this website
CY – 2017)
valued for what it gives, and on
its own account.
Ø When
God is our Inheritance, Divine blessings are our portion. A rich
inheritance
contains many treasures — acres of fertile soil, well-timbered
land, farms and
orchards, perhaps mines and houses. He who takes God for
his Portion has
all the wealth of God to supply his need. It is true he may
still receive
but little of this world’s goods; that is because God sees that it
is best for him
to be tried with poverty. But
he will have a true sufficiency.
If he trusts in
God, and does what is right, he has the promise that he shall
be fed (Psalm
37:3). Ultimately he will have great possessions. “All
things
are yours” (I
Corinthians 3:22-23).
Ø God is Himself the greatest Blessing for His people.
The inheritance
itself is more
valuable than all that it is the means of procuring for us. To
own God is to
be rich indeed. When
the Lord is our Portion we have a
wealth
of treasures for our souls. His presence, His love, His truth, His life,
He
Himself dwelling within, make those who own Him rich in the highest
good.
The Lord the Inheritance of His people (v.
28)
There was a special sense in which the Lord was the
Inheritance of the
Levites and priests among the sons of
them to compensate them for the lack of a territory such as
was
apportioned to the other tribes. Jehovah Himself undertook the care of
those who ministered in His sanctuary; He was their
Inheritance. This
declaration is suggestive of a wider truth, viz. that God is the Portion and
Inheritance of all His people.
AND SPIRITUAL, OF THOSE WHO TRUST IN HIM.
ALL WHO LOVE HIM.
SEEK AND SERVE HIM HERE.
profess themselves to be God’s
people to overcome the natural tendency to
be anxious and careful
concerning their temporal state and prospects. It
should encourage
them to set their affection upon things above
(Colossians 3:2), upon "the
true riches" (Luke 16:11). “Where your
treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matthew 6:21)
29 “They shall eat the meat offering, and the sin offering,
and the
trespass
offering: and every dedicated thing in
To the priests should be allocated, in addition, what
already
had been assigned them by the Law for their support, the
meat (or, meal)
offering, consisting of flour, corn, or bread (compare Leviticus
2:1-16;
6:16; Numbers 28:12-13), and the sin offering (see Leviticus 6:25-29; 7:6;
Numbers 18:9-10), and the trespass (or, guilt)
offering (compare Leviticus
7:28-38), and every dedicated (or, devoted) thing in
Numbers 18:14). The burnt offering is omitted, because it
was entirely consumed
upon the altar, with the exception of the hide or skin,
which under the Law became
a perquisite of the officiating priest (Leviticus 7:8).
That Ezekiel is silent about this,
while the requirement of Leviticus 7:30, that the priest
should obtain
the breast with the right shoulder of every fire offering,
goes beyond the
prescription of Deuteronomy 18:3, that the shoulder, two
cheeks, and
the maw should be the priest’s portion, is regarded by Wellhausen and
Smend as a proof that Ezekiel stands between Deuteronomy and the
priestcode.
But as Ezekiel does not condescend upon the particular
parts which
should be reserved from the fire offerings, it is
impossible to say whether
he held with the Deuteronomist or
the writer of the priest-code, supposing
them to be different; and, inasmuch as Leviticus 7:30
speaks of an
offerings, by fire that was first paid to Jehovah and by
Him afterwards
handed over to Aaron and his sons, while Deuteronomy 18:3
treats of
the dues which should be paid by the people directly to the
priests, it is
clear that both practices may have existed together instead
of the one (the
former) coming in as an advance upon the other (the
latter); see Keil on
Deuteronomy 18:3.
The Devoted Thing (29)
There were objects, both animate and inanimate, in
connection with the
worship and the sacrifices of the temple, which were in an
especial sense
dedicated and devoted to the Lord. By this provision,
spiritual instruction
was afforded, and religious reverence was encouraged. As in
the Christian
dispensation nothing is common or unclean, we are taught to
regard
everything that belongs to and is associated with the
Christian as
consecrated to the Lord.
IN VIRTUE OF WHAT THE LORD HAS DONE FOR HIM.
Ø
Everything is the
Lord’s gift. What have we that we did
not receive?
Ø
Everything is
redeemed by Christ, who, in giving Himself a ransom
for us, redeemed our
possessions and our powers unto Himself.
IN VIRTUE OF HIS CONSCIOUS SURRENDER AND DELIBERATE
CONSECRATION OF HIMSELF TO HIS REDEEMING GOD. The
dedication which the true
Christian has made of himself to his Savior is
unreserved.
“Yet if I
might make some reserve,
And duty did not call,
I love my
Lord with zeal so great
That I would give thee all!”
As it was foretold that upon the
bells of the horses should be inscribed,
“Holiness unto the
Lord,” so, as a matter of fact, should
the sincere
Christian devote to his Redeemer
all the common possessions, all the daily
opportunities, with which
ALL THAT THE CHRISTIAN OWNS AND DOES. Every Christian’s life
is dedicated, and all his
property and all his talents and influence are
devoted. He is not his own. Thus
the light of heaven is shed upon the
darkness of earth, and common things
are not without a glory, because
they are sanctified and ennobled
as used for the service and the praise of
God. (The purpose of Christianity is to sanctify
the secular. C. H.
Spurgeon)
30 “And the first of all the firstfruits
of all things, and every oblation of
all, of every
sort of your oblations, shall be the priest’s: ye shall also give
unto the priest
the first of your dough, that he may cause the blessing to
rest in thine house.” A
further portion of the priests’ emoluments is stated as
the first
of all the firstfruits of all things —
or, of everything (Revised
Version), as e.g. of corn, oil, must, and wool — and every oblation
(תְּרוּמָה) — or, heave offering — of all — or, of everything — with the
first of the people’s dough; or, coarse meal; which
again re-echoes the
provisions of the Law, the first of the firstfruits
being specified in Exodus
23:19; 34:26; Numbers 18:13; Deuteronomy 18:4; the
oblation, or
terumah (Hebrew), in Numbers
15:19; 18:19; and the dough, or coarse
meal, or groats, in Numbers
15:20-21. Ezekiel’s supposed
(Wellhausen, Smend)
silence as regards the firstlings of cattle, which in the
book of the covenant (Exodus 22:29) and in the Deuteronomist
(Deuteronomy 15:19) are to be eaten by the offerer, but in the priest-code
(Numbers 18:21) belong to the priests, is imaginary. The
first of
all the first-fruits of everything cannot surely mean of
everything except
cattle. If Ezekiel does not give the tenths of the tithes
to the priests, he still
assigns them to the sanctuary (see ch.
45:14).
Substantial Wealth (vs. 27-30)
In every part of the world there is hunger, more or less,
to possess land. By
long observation men have discovered that to possess land
is to possess
influence and honor among their fellow-men. Is not land
essential as the
foundation of the harvest-crops? And are not crops of corn
and fruit
essential to the life of men? Is not agriculture the
mainstay of a nation’s
well-being? Yet without land agriculture is impossible; is
it not therefore
reasonable that men should eagerly long to call the land
their own? On the
other hand, this anxiety chains down men’s thoughts to
inferior
occupations and to a provision for their inferior nature. Such anxiety tends
to draw away their attention from God and to weaken their
sense of pious
trust. In order to
counteract this disastrous tendency, God
appointed a
class of men whose business it should be to keep God
prominently before
the eyes of their fellow-men. These servants of God were precluded from
acquiring wealth. They were to be wholly employed in
fostering the
religious life in men. For their maintenance God provided
in a special
manner. These priests were designed to be models of human
life, patterns
of later Christians. God’s method for teaching the race is
this — viz., to set
down a good man in their midst, and to inspire others with the desire
to
imitate him. If one man can live and prosper by virtue of implicit and
practical faith in God, other men can. By diligent culture
of the land, God
has ordained that human life shall be sustained. Yet God is
not shut up to
this one system. “Man does not live by bread alone, but by
every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
(Matthew 4:4)
a blessing, but only a medium of
blessing. It is part of God’s system of
means. The land exists with a view to harvest. The harvest is produced
with a view to man’s bodily
life. Man’s bodily life is sustained with a view
to his spiritual
character. On the whole, it is best
that the land should be
appropriated to personal
possession. This secures that the land shall be
cultivated in the highest
degree, and that the crops shall be protected from
premature use. If all land
should remain as common property, there would
be lack of inducement to
cultivate it; there would be lack of inducement to
personal exertion; there would
be no check to extravagant waste. Personal
possession is
best for a community; yet it becomes a waste and an injury if
a man possesses more than he can
cultivate. God
gives not land to a man in
order that he may be
tyrannical, selfish, puffed up with overweening
conceit. This is a miserable perversion of
a Divine gift. Land is created for
cultivation. Cultivation of land
is designed for the support of human life.
And all the land in the world is
worth nothing to me except as it ministers
to the health and vigor of my
life.
MEANS. The best proof
that, He can do so is the fact that He has done so
on many occasions. It would be
the height of folly to suppose that God has
not made the wisest possible
arrangement for the well-being of men. Yet
if
men abuse the
arrangement and push God away from His rightful place,
God can alter His
system, and bring about His end by other agencies. He
sustained the life of Abraham,
gave him wealth and influence among men,
while, at the same time, he
refused to give him a rood (a unit of length
varying locally from 5 ½ to 8
yards) of land. He was the
Special Protector of the Hebrew nation; yet He led
them about the desert
for the lifetime
of a whole generation, where harvests could
not be
gathered, and where land was not
desired as a possession. Yet they lacked
not for food or
for clothing. GOD WAS TO THEM
BETTER THAN
all harvests. So Jesus Christ called away the twelve from their secular
pursuits; yet He did not suffer
them to want any good thing. Jesus Himself
preferred to have no encumbrance
of land or wealth. He freely chose the
state of poverty ("For
ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that,
though He was
rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through
His poverty might
be rich" (II Corinthians 8:9). To Him, living in such
intimate union with His Father,
landed possession would have been a
needless burden; yet, not only
were His own wants supplied, but He royally
spread a table for others. What
the Son did on earth was the visible effect
of his Father’s working.
He who forgets himself in
his generous kindness is not forgotten by
his fellows — is not forgotten
by God. The family of Zadok were
prohibited from being
landholders. Nevertheless, they shall not want.
“Every dedicated
thing in Israel shall be theirs.” “The
first of all the
firstfruits” shall be theirs.
God out-distances all His creatures in generously
rewarding faithful service. In
His book every item of devoted toil and
sacrifice is noted; for it ample
reward is preparing. Just as one grain of corn
will produce, in the harvest, a
hundred grains, so consecrated
service is
living seed — it shall produce splendid results. Did Abraham ever
regret his unswerving fidelity
to God? Does
made too great sacrifices of
himself for others? Has any one been
a loser
for serving God?
It almost savors of profanity to
propose such a question.
The true servants of God shall
enjoy the tribute due to God Himself.
Statesmen, under a mighty king,
are rewarded with a goodly share of the
revenue of the empire; so the
tribute paid into God’s temple, God
distributes among His priests.
For them who serve God well other men
labor. Other men till the ground
and prepare the produce. They who do the
highest work shall have the best
reward. Thus it was predicted, “Strangers
shall stand and
feed your flock, and the sons of the alien shall be your
ploughmen and your
vine-dressers; but ye shall be called the Priests of the
Lord.” (Isaiah 61:5-6)
Like many other good things, the name and the office
of the priest have been made a
curse. Yet a true priest — God’s servant to
mankind — is a very fount of
blessing. He is like salt in the earth —
a preserving and purifying
power. Wherever he comes he is a spring-season
of life and joy. He is to be well cared for, so “that
he may cause the
blessing to rest
in thine house.”
(v. 30)
PROPRIETORSHIP IN GOD.
“I
am their Inheritance... I am their
Possession.” An estate is not really ours because we call it ours. We
cannot
call anything ours unless it
becomes a part and parcel of ourselves. If it
adds to our character and our
strength, then, and only then, is it ours. The
land estate is
often the master of the man. He lives to improve it rather than
to be improved
by it. We possess property when we
really get some
advantage out of it. So is it
also with respect to God. If we make God our
Friend, we extract advantage
from Him. If we believe His promises and
open our souls to His vitalizing
grace, we are enriched from Him. God’s
wisdom becomes
our wisdom. His righteousness becomes our
righteousness.
His love becomes a fountain of love in us. We are
“partakers of the Divine nature.” (II
Peter 1:4) In
a very emphatic sense
God gives Himself to us. Every capacity in us may be
filled with God.
If we are fully God’s property, God is our Portion — our Inheritance.
This is transcendent
condescension, the sublimity of love.
it would have been a superfluity
if Jesus had been a Proprietor of wealth.
Of what advantage would it have
been for Him to possess fields, if He could
create a sufficient supply of
bread by the magic of command? Although the
poorest, he was yet the richest
of men. It is understood that he who
possesses the key of the bank
possesses the contents of the bank. If the
Creator be mine, if I can call
him “my Father,” then whatever His
creation
contains of good is mine also.
It is clear that I must, as a creature, be
dependent. Is it better to depend:
Ø
on law or on the Lawgiver?
Ø
on the cistern or on the Fount?
Ø
on blind circumstances
or Omniscient Wisdom?
Ø
on natural forces or
on the all-creative God?
My faith is founded in common
sense. God undertakes to be my Friend —
my Father. Then I am His child;
and "if
a son, then an heir — heir of God"
(Romans 8:17) “All things are yours, for ye are...
God’s." (II Corinthians
3:22-23)
31 “The priests shall not eat of any thing that is dead of
itself, or torn,
whether it be
fowl or beast.” The commandment of the Mosaic Law is here
renewed against eating
the flesh of any fowl or beast that had either died a
natural death or been
mangled in the killing (compare Leviticus 17:15; 22:8) —
a commandment
which, while enjoined specially upon the priests (Leviticus 22:8),
was
equally binding upon all (Deuteronomy 14:21).
A Good Minister of Jesus
Christ (vs. 17-31)
What the faithful priest was under the Law, that the “good
minister” is under
Christ (I Timothy 4:6). And while the form of service is altogether
different,
the
spirit should be the same. The ideal priest, as here delineated, is,
mutatis mutandis (used when comparing two or more cases or situations) making
necessary alterations while not affecting the main point at issue), the
true bishop or
pastor of the New Testament. The latter is:
PARTICULARS. The
priest was to carry out very minute instructions (see
vs. 17-20). The minister of Christ is freed from the
observance of such
particulars, but still he is to be regardful of the will of Christ in
everything.
He is to carry a Christian
temper and bearing everywhere. If in the view of
the Master there was a right and a wrong way of entering a room
and
taking a seat (see Luke 14:7-10), so may there be a right and a
wrong
way of entering a pulpit, or reading a chapter, or visiting a
cottage.
The priest was to avoid the
drinking of wine at or near the time of sacrifice
(v. 21). The true minister of Christ will:
Ø
shun everything in the
way of bodily indulgence which unfits him, and
Ø
study and practice
every habit, whether physical or mental, which will
qualify him, for the discharge of his sacred duties with the
utmost
efficiency.
In all domestic relations,
as husband and father (see I Timothy 3:1-5;
Titus 1:6). And in all his
relations with either sex it becomes him
to be a pattern of purity; not only shunning that which is
positively wrong
and guilty, that which is condemned in terms, but avoiding even the
approaches to evil in this direction, knowing the great importance
that he
should encourage all, more especially the young, in that
thorough purity (of
heart, of word, and of deed) without
which no character can be beautiful in
the sight of God.
RIGHTEOUSNESS.
(v. 23.) What the people have a right to look for
from their Christian teacher is:
Ø A full, clear, forcible declaration of
those truths which determine their
relation
to God, First of all, men want to be brought into a right relation
with Him;
until that is done it may be said that nothing is done; estranged
and separated from God, there is no rest or rightness for the human
heart.
Then comes:
Ø A clear enunciation of Christian morals;
such an exposition of duty that
men shall know and feel the distinction
between what is right and
what is
wrong in all their dealings with their
fellow-men, in all
their home relations,
in all the
varied spheres in which they move.. The minister of Christ is to
be, like
Noah, a “preacher of righteousness”, he is so to speak that those
who hear
him will be powerfully encouraged in every virtue, strongly
dissuaded
from every evil way and all unworthiness in temper and spirit.
One that delights in the worship
of God, that does not fail to use well the
privileges provided by the day and the house of the Lord, that finds his
chief and best inheritance
in God Himself; to whom the Fatherhood of
God and the
friendship and service of Jesus Christ are (and not merely
bring) an “exceeding great reward.” (Genesis 15:1) He
is to be a man who
can say that “for him to live is Christ” (Philippians 1:21), and
that,
conversely, to know and love and serve Christ is life indeed.
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition is helpful, please share
with others.