Ezekiel
45
From the sustenance of the priests (Ezekiel 44:29-31), the
new Torah
naturally passes in the present chapter to the maintenance of the
temple
service as a whole, setting forth in the first section of the
chapter (vs. 1-8)
the
portions of land that should be allotted respectively to the sanctuary,
i.e. for the temple
buildings, and the priests’ and Levites’ houses (v. 1-5),
to
the city and its inhabitants, that they might be able to discharge their
religious and civil obligations on the one hand to the temple, and
on the
other hand to the state (v. 6), and to the prince to enable him
to support
himself and meet the charge of those public offerings which were
required
of
him as the head of the community (vs. 7-8); in the second section
(vers.
9-17) dealing with the oblations the people should make to the
prince for this purpose, reminding the prince, on the one hand,
that these
should not be levied from the people by extortion (v. 9), and the
people,
on
the other, that these should be delivered to the prince with honesty
(vs. 10-16), and both that a
certain part of the prince’s revenue from the
people’s oblations should be devoted to the furnishing of offerings
for the
solemnities of the house of
instituting a new feast-cycle, beginning with a Passover in the first
(vs. 18-24)
and
ending with a Feast of Tabernacles in the seventh (v. 25) month.
The Portions of Land that should be allotted to the
Sanctuary,
the City, and the Prince (vs. 1-8)
1 “Moreover,
when ye shall divide by lot the land for inheritance, ye
shall offer an oblation unto the LORD, an
holy portion of the land:
the length shall be the length of five and
twenty thousand reeds,
and the breadth shall be ten thousand. This
shall be holy in all the
borders thereof round about.” Moreover, When
ye shall divide by lot the land
(literally, and in your
causing the land to fall) for inheritance. As the territory of
conquest (compare Numbers 26:55; 33:54; Joshua 13:6, etc.), this
same method of allocating the soil amongst the new
community should be
followed on a second time taking possession of it after the
exile. Currey
believes the phrase, “divide by lot,” does not imply
anything like casting
lots, but is equivalent to our notion of allotment, the
several portions being
assigned by rule. There is, however, little doubt “lots” were cast to
determine, if not the actual size, at least the precise
situation, of each
tribe’s territory (see Keil and ‘Pulpit
Commentary’ on Numbers 26:54).
That no such methodical distribution of
matter could have taken place amongst the returned exiles, should
be proof
sufficient that the prophet here moves in the region of the
ideal and
symbolical rather than of the real and literal. Ye shall offer an oblation —
literally, lift up a heave offering (compare ch. 44:30; Exodus 25:2-3; 29:28;
30:13-14; Leviticus 7:14, 32; 22:12; Numbers 15:19; 18:24)
— unto the Lord,
an holy portion of
the land; literally, a holy (portion)
from the land. Very
significantly, in the new partition of
first to be marked off and solemnly dedicated to Jehovah for
the purposes to be
forthwith specified. Those
who, like Wellhansen and Smend,
perceive in this
allotment of land to Jehovah, and therefore to the priests, a contradiction
to
ch. 44:28, omit to notice first that Jehovah required some
place on which His
sanctuary might be erected, and the priests some ground on
which to build
houses for themselves; and secondly, that, so far as the
priests were
concerned, the land was given by the people, not to them, but to
Jehovah,
and
by Him to them (ibid. ). The exact
site of this terumah, or “holy portion,”
is
afterwards indicated (ch. 48:8); meanwhile its
dimensions are recorded.
The length shall
be the length of five and twenty thousand reeds, and the
breadth shall be ten thousand. Whether “reeds” or “cubits” should be supplied
after “thousand” has divided expositors. Bottcher,
Hitzig, Ewald, Hengstenberg,
and Smend decide for “cubits,”
principally on the grounds that “cubits” are
mentioned in v. 2; that “cubits” have been the usual measure
hitherto,
even (as they contend) in ch. 42:16; and that
otherwise the dimensions of this
sacred territory must have been colossal, in fact, out of all
proportion to the
or 42.5 miles, × 10,000 reeds, or 17 miles, = 722.5 square
miles).
Havernick, Keil, Kliefoth,
Currey, and Plumptre favor
“reeds,” chiefly for
the
reasons that in v. 2 “cubits” are specified, and are
therefore to be
regarded as exceptional; that the customary measuring
instrument
throughout has been a reed (see ch. 40:5;
42:16); and that the dimensions,
which Ezekiel designed should be colossal (compare ch. 40:2), correspond
exactly with the measurements afterwards given in Ezekiel 48., if
these be in reeds,
but
not if they be in cubits. As to the breadth of this terumah
from east to west,
Hitzig, Keil, Smend,
Schroder, and Plumptre
follow the Septuagint (εἴκοσι χιλιάδας
–
eikosi chiliadas – twenty
thousand) in substituting 20,000 for 10,000,
considering
that the space referred to in v. 3 appears as if meant to be taken from an
already
measured larger area, which could only be that of v. 1 — the
portion in v. 1 being
the
whole territory assigned to the priests and Levites, and that in v. 3 the
allotment
for
the priests. Kliefoth,
however, contends that no necessity exists for tampering
with the text, and certainly if vs. 1-4 be regarded as descriptive of the
priests’
portion only, and מִן
in the phrase, “of this measure” (וּמִן־חַמִּדָּה הַזּלֺאת),
in
v. 8 be rendered “according to” — a sense it may have (see Gesenius,
sub voce), the
supposed difficulty disappears. In this case the
demonstrative this in the last clause will refer to the
priests’ portion
exclusively; in the former case, to the whole portion of the priests
and
Levites. That ch. 48:14 declares
the Levites’ portion to be “holy unto the land”
does not prove it must have been included in the holy terumah
of v. 1 Nor does
this concession follow, as will appear, from v. 7.
2 “Of this
there shall be for the sanctuary five hundred in length, with
five hundred in breadth, square round
about; and fifty cubits round
about for the suburbs thereof.” Of this district, either of 25,000 × 10,000,
or
25,000 × 20,000 reeds, according to the view taken of v. 1, there should be
measured off for the sanctuary five hundred in length, with five hundred
in
breadth. The supplement here also, Keil,
Kliefoth, Plumptre, and
others consider
to
be “reeds,” since obviously the whole temple with its precincts is
intended
(ch.
42:16-20), though Hengstenberg and Schroder prefer “cubits,”
holding the sanctuary to be the temple buildings enclosed
within the outer
court well (ch. 40.). The free space
of fifty cubits round about for
the suburbs (or, open places)
thereof seems to indicate that
the larger
area was that alluded to by the prophet. That the term מִגְדָשׁ. occurs
more
frequently in the so-called priest-code (Leviticus 25:34; Numbers
35:2-5, 7;
Joshua 14:4; 21:2-3, 8, 11, 13, etc.) and in the Chronicles (I
Chronicles 5:16;
6:35, 37; 13:2; II Chronicles 11:14; 31:19) than in Ezekiel
(see ch. 27:28; 48:15,17)
is
a fact; but on this fact cannot be founded an argument for the priority of
Ezekiel,
since it rather points to Ezekiel’s acquaintance with such “suburbs”
in connection
with priestly and Levitical
cities.
3 “And of
this measure shalt thou measure the length of five
and
twenty thousand, and the breadth of ten
thousand: and in it shall be
the sanctuary and the most holy place.” And of this measure shalt thou
measure. As above explained (v. 1), if מִן “of,” be taken as equivalent to “from,”
i.e. deducted from, then
the whole
“measure”
in v. 1 must have been 25,000 ×
20,000 reeds; but if, as Ewald translates, it may signify “after,” “according to,”
then the text in v. 1 will not require to be altered (see on v. 1), and the
present
verse will be merely a reiteration of the statement in v. 1 that the
priests’ portion
should be 25,000 × 10,000 reeds, preparatory to the
additional notification
that in it should be the sanctuary
and the most holy place, or
rather, the
sanctuary which is
most holy (Revised Version). The exact position of the
sanctuary in the priests’ portion is afterwards
stated to have been in the
midst (see ch. 48:8).
4 “The
holy portion of the land shall be for the priests the ministers of
the sanctuary, which shall come near to
minister unto the LORD:
and it shall be a place for their houses,
and an holy place for the
sanctuary.” The holy portion of the land just defined (v. 3) should be
reserved for the priests
the ministers of the sanctuary,
i.e. of the inner
court, who were privileged to draw near to Jehovah in altar
ministrations
(compare ch.
44:15; Exodus 28:43; 30:20; Numbers 16:5, 40),
as
distinguished from the Levites, who were only “ministry of the
house” (v. 5), i.e. guardian,
of the temple and assistants in its outer court
services. As such this holy portion should serve the
twofold purpose of
providing for the priests a
place for their houses in which they might
dwell, and an holy
place for the sanctuary, in which they should minister.
5 “And the
five and twenty thousand of length, and the ten thousand
of breadth shall also the Levites, the
ministers of the house, have
for themselves, for a possession for twenty
chambers.”
A portion of similar dimensions should likewise be marked
off
for
the Levites, for themselves, for a
possession of twenty chambers;
better, for a possession unto themselves for twenty chambers
(Revised
Version). Ewald, Hitzig, and Smend, as usual,
follow the Septuagint -
εἰς κατάσχεσινπόλεις
τοῦ κατοικεῖν
– eis kataschesinpoleis tou katoikein –
for a possession of twenty chambers), and amend the text after
Numbers 35:2; Joshua 21:2, so as to read “cities (עָרִים); to dwell
in;”
and with them Keil agrees, only substituting “gates” (שְׁעָרִים) instead
of “cities.” Kliefoth and Curroy retain the word “chambers” as in the text,
and
think the “chambers” and the “land” were two distinct possessions of
the
Levites, the chambers having been within (see ch.
40:17-18) as
the land was without the sanctuary. Rosenmüller,
Havernick,
Hengstenberg,
and Schroder decide for “chambers,” or “courts,”
rows of
dwellings standing outside the sanctuary as the priests’
chambers were
located within. Havernick
supposes that along with these, which were
obviously designed to be employed when the Levites were on
duty, there
may have been other Levitical
towns and dwellings, Hengstenberg
conceives them as having been “barracks for the Levites,
the inhabitants of
which used the twentieth part of the land assigned to them
as pasturage.”
Unfavorable to the first view is the fact that it requires
the text to be
altered. Against the second is its awkward dividing of the
verse and
unexpected interjection of a reference to cells within the
sanctuary while
speaking of the land without. The third, while not free
from difficulty as
taking לְשָׁכֹת to be equivalent to “cell-buildings,” is perhaps the best.
Devotement and Consecration (vs. 1-5)
In the ideal kingdom there was to be a certain portion of
the land devoted
to
sacred objects — to the sanctuary of Jehovah and to the residence of his
ministers. This was called “a holy portion;” it was “an
oblation unto the
Lord.” Thus in the
very heart of the metropolis, in the most commanding
situation, on the very best possible site, there was an abiding
witness of the
presence and the claims of God, and a continual recognition of and
response to those claims on the part of the nation. In a country as
Christian
as
ours the towers and spires of our sanctuaries, rising heavenward under
every sky, standing strong and even thick among the homes and
the shops
and
counting-houses of town and city, bear their testimony that God is
remembered, that Jesus Christ is honored and worshipped by the people
of
the
land. But better than this devotement of land and this building of
sanctuaries, good as that is, is the consecration of heart and life to
the
Person and the service of the Redeemer. The first and essential step in this
act
is:
recognition that we are not our
own, but His; that He claims us in virtue of
His surpassing love and His
supreme sacrifice; that He has “bought us with
the price” of His own blood (I
Corinthians 6:20). And the free and full
surrender of ourselves to
Himself; the hearty and definite acceptance of Him
as our Divine Teacher, Lord, and. Friend; so that in the
future it is the will
of Christ, not our own will, that will be the determining
power within us.
This surrender or consecration
of self necessarily includes:
SERVICE.
Being His, in the deepest thought of our mind and the strongest
feeling of our heart and the most deliberate choice of our will,
we can
withhold nothing from Him.
Ø
Not merely will one
day in seven be given to worship in
His sanctuary,
but all the hours of all our days will be spent as in His
presence and to
His praise.
Ø
Not only shall we sing
some psalms and utter some prayers “unto the
Lord,” but we shall use
every faculty we possess, both of mind and
sense, with the view OF PLEASING AND OF HONORING HIM!
And beyond this, or we might
say, implied and included in this, is:
HIS SERVICE.
This includes:
Ø
The holding and the
spending of all that we have in the spirit of
obedience, having regard to His will in all that we do with our
substance.
Ø
The assignment of some
serious proportion of our means to the cause of
God and of
man, of religion and of humanity. What
that proportion shall
be, and what form it shall take — land, money, time, labor —
is left to
the individual conscience. There is no prescription in the New
Testament.
We are called unto liberty; but
we are sacredly and happily bound to give
all we can for SUCH A SAVIOUR, in such
a cause.
6 “And ye
shall appoint the possession of the city five thousand
broad, and five and twenty thousand long, over
against the oblation
of the holy portion: it shall be for the
whole house of
In addition to the holy terumah for the priests and the portion
for
the Levites, should be marked off as the
possession of the city a third
tract of territory, five
thousand (reeds) broad, and
five and twenty
thousand long, over against — rather, side by side with (Revised
Version), “parallel to” (Keil) — the oblation of the holy portion. That is
to say, it should lie upon the south, as the Levites’
territory lay upon the
north of the priests’ portion. Adding the 10,000 reeds of
breadth for the
Levites’ domain, the 10,000 for the priests’ land, and the
5000 for the city
quarter, makes a total breadth of 25,000 reeds; so that the
tract in which all
these were included was a square. That the portion for the
city should be
for the whole house
of
property, belonging to
no tribe in particular, but to all the tribes together
— in modern phrase should be “common good, ein Volksgut (Kliefoth),
which should neither be confiscated by kingly rapacity (compare
Jeremiah
22:13) nor invaded by individual and private appropriation,
but retained for
the
use of the inhabitants generally (see ch. 48:18-19).
7 “And a
portion shall be for the prince on the one side and on the
other side of the oblation of the holy
portion, and of the possession
of the city, before the oblation of the
holy portion, and before the
possession of the city, from the west side
westward, and from the
east side eastward: and the length shall be
over against one of the
portions, from the west border unto the east
border.”
And a portion
shall be (or, ye shall appoint) for the prince.
As to situation, his portion should lie on both sides of
the holy portion (or
portions, i.e. of the priests and of the Levites; see ch. 48:20-22),
and of the possession, or portion, of the city; should
stretch exactly in front
or alongside of these, i.e. from north to south; and
should extend on the
one side westward (to the
(to the
against (לְעֻמות, a plural form, occurring only here) one of the portions,
from the west border
unto the east border, though somewhat
obscure,
obviously imports that the prince’s portion, on both sides
of the holy
terumah, should extend lengthwise, i.e. from east to west,
along the side of
one of the portions assigned to the tribes; in other words,
should be
bounded on the north and south by the tribal territories of
Benjamin (see ch.
48:22).
The Prince’s Portion (v. 7)
In the division of the land and its produce, while care was
taken for the
maintenance of the priesthood by means of the sacrifices, arrangements
were also made for the support of the government by assigning a certain
portion to “the prince.” Christ, as “Prince
of Peace,” the Head of the
spiritual kingdom, has a
right to claim His portion in all that we
possess.
PRINCE. All that we have should be devoted
to Christ, and nothing used
except as He may be pleased with the purpose to which it is
directed. In all
our daily pursuits, if we are true Christians, we should not
forget that
Christ owns us, and therefore
owns all our property. But it is not enough
to allow this truth and even endeavor to act upon it. As the
idea of the
sacredness of all days is sometimes pleaded in excuse for the misuse
of
Sunday, so the notion that all
we have belongs to Christ may be used as a
plea for escaping from all direct acts of sacrifice on behalf
of His cause. But
we have to remember that our Master claims a portion for His
immediate
use. Some of our time
should be devoted to Christ’s work, some of our
money to the furtherance of His kingdom among men. What we give to a
missionary society should be considered as especially a part of the
Prince’s
portion. Does the Prince have
all that is due to Him in this way?
we give wisely to the cause of Christ is not wasted as a
merely ceremonial
oblation. It is not like a sacred libation which is spilt for no
practical
purpose. The money and
labor spent in the cause of Christ should bear fruit
in advancing His cause. By the economy of
left to Christ’s people. If they
do not give their Prince His portion, the
rights of the kingdom will be crippled, and its progress among men
will be
hindered. Great and rich as He is,
Christ has graciously condescended to
make the spread of His kingdom on earth depend on the gifts and
labors of
Christian men
and women. ("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)
Thus we may say the Prince needs
His portion.
grow impatient at the claims of princes, whom they consider to
be idle and
useless. But some princes have their missions in the world. Christ
came to
do a great work. He was no indolent Prince, only eager to
clutch at His
dues, and giving His people nothing in return. Christ has given
Himself
for His people. He has now ascended up on high, to give gifts
to men
(Ephesians 4:8). When we give
Him anything, we are only returning
some portion of what we first received from Him, only rendering
to Him
what is His own. If we would measure Christ’s claim upon us, we
must be
able to tell how great was
His condescension in coming to this world, how
tremendous was His sacrifice in His death on the cross, and how glorious
are the blessings which He bestows on his people.
8 “In the
land shall be his possession in
no more oppress my people; and the rest of
the land shall they give
to the house of
oppress my people. That
and
exactions of her kings, from Solomon downwards, as Samuel had predicted
she
would (I Samuel 8:10-18), was matter of history (see I Kings 12:4,10-11;
II Kings 23:35), and was perhaps partly explained, though
not justified, by
the fact that the kings had no crown lands assigned them
for their support.
This excuse,
however, for regal tyranny should in future cease, as a
sufficient portion of land
should be allocated to the prince and his
successors, who accordingly
should give, or leave, the
rest of the land to
the house of
not show, as Hengstenberg
asserts, that “under the ideal unity of the prince
in Ezekiel, a numerical plurality is included,” and that
“these who
understand by the prince merely the Messiah must here do
violence to the
text;” but simply, as Kliefoth
explains, that Ezekiel was thinking of
past kings, and contrasting with them the rulers
future, without affirming that these should be many or one (see on
ch. 44:3).
Princes not Oppressors (v. 8)
In the apportionment of the restored and newly occupied
territory there
was
need for a display of a just and equitable spirit. That there was some
danger of another and contrary spirit is evident from the admonition
here
addressed by the prophet in the name of the Lord to those in power
and
authority.
might in violation of the principles of righteousness; either:
Ø
against the personal
liberty, or
Ø
against the property and possessions, of the oppressed.
the desire of personal enrichment, aggrandizement, or power,
to attain
which the rights of another are treated as of no account.
of the obscure, the impoverished, the friendless, that they
abstain from
oppression, for the simple reason that it is not in their power; they
may be
oppressed, but they cannot be oppressors. But those in high station,
especially princes, whose power is arbitrary and unchecked, have many
opportunities of wronging their subjects and inferiors. In a country
like our
own, where public rights are secured, and where the monarch
acts of
necessity within constitutional limits, it is not easy to understand
how in
other states of society the poor and uninfluential
may be at the mercy of the
great.
that the distinctions obtaining amongst men are to a large
extent accidental
and artificial. It is for the
welfare of society that certain individuals should
be entrusted with power; when that power is abused, the very purpose of
such distinctions is violated. The law of Him who is King of kings, and the
principles of whose government are justice and mercy, is opposed to
the
exercise of political power in an unrighteous and inconsiderate
manner.
manner in the passage before us: “My princes shall no more oppress
my
people.” The fact that
both superior and inferior, both governors and
subjects, are the Lord’s, is adduced as the strongest argument
against
oppression. If both alike are the Lord’s, the
unreasonableness is apparent
of one class treating the other with harshness and
injustice. In fact, religion
is here, as elsewhere, the
true guide of human conduct, the true corrective
of human ills. Let men first consider their obligations to the Giver of
all,
their responsibility to the Ruler of all, and such considerations
will preserve
them from wronging those who
are, with them, subjects of the same
Sovereign and children of the
same Father. All alike are His,
and there is a
community of interest amongst all who acknowledge a common
allegiance
and a common indebtedness. In
such a case, oppression is not only
unrighteous, it is
unreasonable and monstrous.
Human Oppression (v. 8)
“My princes shall no more oppress my people.” God is now upon the
throne (see Ezekiel 43:7), and there is no room for an earthly
sovereign. The highest ruler is the “prince;” but that word
stands for
human authority and power, whatever be the name by which it is
indicated.
The promise has a reflex significance; it points to the
evils which had been
in
past times. And
escaped the common doom of oppression at the hand of its kings and
princes. Many and sad are the
sorrows which this poor world of ours has
endured at the hand of those who should have lived TO BLESS and not
TO CURSE IT! The view, or review, is melancholy in the last
degree;
surely it is only too true that —
“Man’s
inhumanity to man
Makes
countless ages mourn.”
Ø
Impressment. The children of
forewarned of this evil (I Samuel 8:11-17).
Ø
Taxation. It was not long before the land groaned beneath the weight
of the sovereign’s levies.
Ø
Robbery of individual right, and invasion of individual liberty. It needs
but to mention the case of David’s sad defection from right,
and Ahab’s
senseless covetousness and weak yielding to his truculent queen, to
be
reminded how kings, even of
dearest rights. And if we extend the meaning of the word “prince”
to
any one in authority, or in power, or in possession, we think
at once of
the terrible oppressions, in this worst form, that have:
o
dishonored the
lands,
o
darkened the homes,
and
o
blighted the lives
of men
under every sky and in every age of the world.
Ø
Violence.
truth? It is a shameful abuse of
power. It is nothing less than a man taking
from the hand of God the power
or opportunity which He gave him in order
that he might use for the good, the elevation, the happiness
of his kind, and
turning that power into an instrument of mischief and of sorrow. It is a
heartless and shameless
exaggeration by a man of his own personal
importance, as if his comfort were
everything, and an equally heartless and
shameless disregard of the wishes and the wants, the joys and the
sorrows,
the hearts and the homes of other people. It is a guilty perversion of the
purpose and debasement of the gift of God.
Father of all human spirits see
one of His children wronging, oppressing a
number of his fellows, weighting them with grievous burdens or
robbing
them of the essential rights of their manhood or their
womanhood, without
deep, Divine indignation and sorrow (see Exodus 3:7; II Kings 13:4; 14:26;
Isaiah
1:23-24; 49:25; Jeremiah 22:17; Hosea 4:18; and here, ch.
22:27)?
The time shall come when princes and powers “shall no more oppress.”
When Jesus Christ shall exercise
His benignant sway over all nations, when
His spirit of righteousness and
of love shall fill the hearts and regulate the
lives of men, then the hard hand of oppression will be taken off
every
shoulder; the cruel exactions shall cease; the spirit of the
Christian poet will
prevail, when he says —
“I would
rather be myself the slave
And wear
the bonds than fasten them on him;”
cruelty shall give place to kindness, and selfishness to considerateness; and
instead of men asking — How much can I get out of the multitude to
fill
my purse and serve my purpose? they
will ask — What can I do to
enlighten, to enrich, to elevate, to bless?
The Oblations of the People to the Prince for the Sanctuary
(vs. 9-17)
9 “Thus saith the Lord GOD; Let it suffice you, O princes of
remove violence and spoil, and execute
judgment and justice, take
away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord GOD.”
In continuation of the foregoing thought, the princes of
first are reminded that whatever they should obtain from
the people for the
sanctuary was not to be extorted from them by violence and
spoil (compare
ch. 7:11,23; 8:17; Jeremiah 6:7; 20:8; Habakkuk 1:3) or by
exactions — literally, expulsions, or drivings
of persons out of their
possessions, such as had been practiced on Naboth
by Ahab (I Kings 21.)
— but levied with judgment and justice, which,
besides, should regulate
their whole behavior towards their subjects (compare II Samuel
8:15;
Jeremiah 23:5; 32:25).
10 “Ye
shall have just balances, and a just ephah, and a
just bath.”
The exhortation addressed to the princes to practice
justice
and judgment now extends itself so as to include their subjects,
who are
required, in all their commercial dealings, to have just balances
and just
measures — a just ephah for dry goods, and a just bath for
liquids
(compare the prescriptions in
Leviticus 19:35-36 and Deuteronomy
25:13-16,
and
contrast the practices in Hosea 12:7; Amos 8:5; Micah 6:10-11; see also
Proverbs 16:11).
Just
Balances (v. 10)
The princes of
exaction of taxes. The older prophets often had occasion to
denounce the
oppression and robbery of the people by the princes. After the
chastisement
of
the Captivity, the restored people should be well treated by a better
order of princes. But when the rulers set an example of using just balances,
the
people may be required to follow.
is possible to represent the spirituality of religion as so
extremely ethereal
that it has no contact with the commonplace facts of daily
life. There is a
subtle temptation to antinomianism in the highest pretensions of
holiness.
But the scriptural view of
religion keeps it in close relations with plain
every-day morality. The saintliness that is too refined to
condescend to
questions of truth and honesty is pure hypocrisy. The Christian should be
first just and true;
let him then add whatever other graces he may attain to.
But to neglect these duties is
to leave the most fundamental parts of
morality unestablished. The airy
pinnacles of rapturous devotion that shoot
up so high in the heavens rest on an insecure foundation when
these
essential duties are neglected.
CHRISTIAN PEOPLE. In some quarters there seems to be a tacit
understanding that it is impossible to be quite true and
straightforward. A
certain amount of laxity is said to be permitted by “the custom of
the
trade.” This evil is glaringly apparent in regard to those goods
that are
exported to foreign nations. The worthless shoddy and the sized
calico that
wealthy English firms send abroad advertise to the world the
hypocrisy of
English
Christianity. It is hard for the missionary to urge the heathen to
embrace the gospel when the merchant offers to them these things as
specimens of its products. It is vain
to urge that competition is so fierce as
to make an honest course ruinous to these who would pursue
it. It is better
to be a bankrupt than to be a thief. But experience shows that dishonest
trading does not pay in the long run. Its character is certain to
be
discovered, and then confidence is destroyed and the trade checked.
On the
other hand, there are well-known houses that have grown rich and
prosperous on their ascertained fairness in supplying good wares by
honest
measures.
WICKED. This is
the case where incorrect measures are used. The
measures are intended to represent a certain standard, of which
they come
short. There is the pretence of giving good measure. This is
worse than the
offering of a short quantity without the show of testing it. The
highwayman
who meets a man openly and demands his purse is no hypocrite.
But the
business man who uses false measures is passing himself off as
honest
while he is acting as a thief. The shame of lying is added
to the crime of
stealing. There is an abuse
of confidence, for the well-known measure is
supposed to represent a certain quantity. The deceitfulness of this
conduct
utterly degrades the miserable man who fattens for a while on its
ill-gotten
gains, only to reap in the end certain ruin in the next world,
if not in this.
Piety and Equity (v. 10)
“Ye shall have just balances.” Devotion, when divorced from morality, is
worth nothing in the sight of God. Men have thought and taught
that the
one
thing that God (or the gods) required was to be reverently approached
by
His adherents, and to receive their numerous offerings (see Micah 6:6-7).
But His disciples did not so learn Moses, and we have not
so
learned Christ. Under Him we have come to understand that every
good
tree must bring forth good fruit, and that it is he who doeth righteousness
that is righteous. In this great matter of equity between man and man it is
difficult to over-estimate its religious importance. By error and failure
therein we separate ourselves from God; by rectitude and
fidelity therein
we commend ourselves to His loving favor.
We take the injunction as
covering more ground than the words themselves express; and we
look,
therefore, at:
means, of course, more especially — Be fair in your dealings
when you
trade one with another; but it also means — Do what is just and
upright in
all your relations; do sound and thorough work at the
carpenter’s bench,
and at the forge, when you build the house or dig the garden
or plant the
field; be true and faithful to your scholars, to your people, to
your clients,
to your constituents, in the schoolroom, or the pulpit, or
the court, or the
House of
Commons. Do what you undertake to do;
be what you profess to
be; be honest, sincere, faithful in every sphere in which you
move.
beholding the evil and the good;” but if they could overlook anything they
would not fail to observe whether men did or did not do justice
to their
fellows. If we suppose that there are some things respecting which
God is
indifferent, among these, assuredly, is not the question
whether we do or
leave undone what we have promised to do. From the formal
compact,
carefully drawn and solemnly ratified between the sovereign and the
nation,
down to the word of promise made by the tradesman or the
seamstress, all
our human dealings and undertakings are the object of the
Divine regard.
“I have seen” (Exodus 3:7) is a sentence we should do well to hear at
all
times and in every place when we covenant with men.
Ø
Approval or displeasure. We may make quite sure
that, when we are
acting unfairly or unfaithfully in any relationship whatever,
however we
may be gathering money or reaping honor, we are laying up
a large
measure of Divine disapproval; the “anger of the Lord is kindled
against us.” (II
Samuel 24:1) But when we are acting conscientiously
and equitably:
however we may be disregarded and passed by on the
part of our fellows, we are enjoying the favor of
our Lord.
Ø
Reward or penalty. Faithfulness will bring
o
our own
self-respect;
o
the esteem of those
whom we serve;
o
the consolidation of
our Christian character;
o
commendation and
promotion in the day of Divine recompense
(Luke 19:17).
Unfaithfulness will have to bear a penalty corresponding to this:
o
the loss of
self-respect,
o
public reprobation,
o
degradation of
character, and
o
Divine condemnation
in the future.
11 “The ephah and the bath shall be of one measure,
that the bath may
contain the tenth part of an homer, and the
ephah the tenth part of
an homer: the measure thereof shall be
after the homer.”
The ephah (a word of Egyptian origin) and the bath shall be
of one measure. That is, each was to be the tenth part of an homer (see
Leviticus 27:16; Numbers 11:32), or cor
(כֹר
- κόρος – koros - measure –
I Kings 4:22; Luke 16:7), which appears to have contained
about seventy-five
gallons, or thirty-two pecks. The homer (or, cheroot)
is to be distinguished
from the omer of Exodus 16:36, which was the tenth
part of an ephah.
12 “And
the shekel shall be twenty gerahs: twenty shekels,
five and twenty
shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh.” The shekel shall be twenty garahs.
This ordained that the standard for money weights should remain
as it had been fixed
by
the Law (Exodus 30:13; Leviticus 27:25; Numbers 3:47). The “shekel”
(or “weight,” from שָׁקַל - “to weigh;” compare the Italian lira, the French
livre out of the Latin libra, and the English Found sterling) was a piece
of
silver whose value, originally determined by weight, became
gradually
fixed at the definite sum of twenty “gerahs,”
beans, or grains (from גָּרַר -
“to roll”). The “gerah,” value two pence, was the smallest silver coin; the
“shekel,” therefore, was forty pence, or 3s. 4d.
Commentators are divided
as
to how the second half of this verse should be understood: twenty
shekel, five and twenty
shekels, fifteen shekels shall be your maneh.
The “maneh” (or “portion,” from מָנָה -“to be divided”), which occurs only
here and in I Kings 10:17; Ezra 2:69; and Nehemiah 7:71-72 — “that is to
say,
only in books written during the Captivity or subsequent to it” (Keil) — was
probably the same coin as the Greek mina (μνᾶ - mna – a certain weight),
though its weight may have somewhat differed. A comparison of
I Kings 10:17 with II Chronicles 9:16 shows that a maneh was equal to a
hundred shekels, which cannot be made to harmonize with the
statement in
this verse without supposing either that an error has crept
in through
transcription, or that the chronicler has employed the late
Greek style of
reckoning, in which one mina is equivalent to a hundred
drachmas. Again,
the
Hebrew and Attic talents, when examined, fail to solve the problem as
to how the text should be rendered. The Hebrew talent, כִּכָּר, contained
3000 sacred or Mosaic shekels according to Exodus 38:25-26;
and the
Attic talon 60 minas, each of 100 drachmas, i.e. 6000
drachmas, or 3000
drachmas, each of which again was equal to a Hebrew shekel.
Hence the
Attic mina must have been one-sixtieth part of 3000, i.e.
50 shekels, which
once more fails to correspond with Ezekiel’s notation. What
this notation
is depends on how the clauses should be connected. If with “and,” as
Ewald, following the Targumists,
thinks, Ezekiel is supposed to have
ordained that in the future the maneh
should be, not 50, but 60 (20 + 25 -
1- 15) shekels — the weight of the ‘Babylonian mana (‘Records of the
Past,’ 4:97, second series); only, if he so intended, one
sees not why he
should have adopted this roundabout method of expression
instead of
simply stating that henceforth the maneh
should be sixty shekels If with
“or,” as Michaelis, Gesenius, Hitzig, and Hengstenberg prefer, then the
prophet is regarded as asserting that in the future three manehs of varying
values should be current — one of gold, another of silver,
and a third of
copper (Hitzig), or all of the
same metal, but of different magnitudes
(Michaelis); and this arrangement
might well have been appointed for the
future, although no historical trace can be found of any
such manehs of
twenty, twenty-five, and fifteen shekels respectively
having been in
circulation either among the Hebrews or among
foreign peoples. Kliefoth
pronounces both solutions unsatisfactory, but has nothing
better to offer.
Keil supposes a corruption of the text of old standing, for the
correction of
which we are as yet without materials. Bertheau
and Havernick follow the
Septuagint. (Cod. Alex.), Οἱ πέντε σίκλοι πέντε
καὶ δέκα σίκλοι δέκα
καὶ
πεντήκοντα σίκλοι
ἡ μνᾶ ἐσται
ὑμῖν – Hoi pente sikloi
pente kai deka sikloi
deka kai pentaekonta sikloi hae mna estai
humin - “The five shekel (piece)
shall be five shekels, and the ten shekel (piece)
shall be tea shekels, end
fifty shekels shall your maneh be;” but Hitzig’s judgment on this
proposal,
with which Kliefoth and Keil agree, will most likely be deemed correct,
that “it carries on the face of it the probability of its
resting upon nothing
more than an attempt to bring the text into harmony with
the ordinary
value of the maneh.”
Religion the Parent of Morality (vs. 9-12)
It is certain that God feels an active interest in all the
covenants of man.
The same authority that requires love to God requires love for
our
neighbors, equal in strength to
love for self. True religion is not
sublimely
indifferent to the details of home and mercantile life. It designs to
make
every home a nursery for the Church, every shop an arena for the
victories
of
faith. Every commercial transaction bears a testimony either for God
or
against Him.
SOCIETY. Like the
sun in the heavens, religion exerts the benignest
influence on men of every rank and station. It teaches the monarch
humility
and self-restraint. It teaches princes to live for others. It
teaches
magistrates the value of equity and justice. It teaches merchants
principles
of honesty and truthfulness. It cares for the poorest and the
meanest among
men; inspires them with the spirit of industry; casts a halo
of beauty over
the lowliest lot. Nothing that appertains to man is too
insignificant for the
notice of true religion. For every stage in life, from childhood
to old age,
religion has some kindly ministration. For every circumstance it
affords
some succor. It superadds
dignity to the prince. It gives a kingly bearing to
the peasant. It links all
classes (when unhindered) in true and blissful
harmony (and when it
don’t) – CY – 2017). Tyranny on the one
hand,
and insubordination on the other, are equally
obnoxious to religion.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN LIFE. We cannot go into any
assembly of
men for whatever purpose they meet, where we are excused from
manifesting the principles and the spirit of true religion. Whether we
meet
for gaining knowledge, or for industrial toil, or for political
action, or for
commercial pursuits, RELIGION CLAIMS
TO PRESIDE over all our
thoughts and plans and deeds. The
shop and the mart are capacious fields
for the daily exercise of Christian virtues — fields exquisitely suited
for the
growth and ripening of the noblest qualities. Courage can only be
developed
in presence of strife
and peril; so our religious virtues can only be
strengthened in an atmosphere of temptation. If a man is not pious and
faithful and truthful in his commercial transactions, he will not be pious and
faithful anywhere. This is
his test; and woe be to the man who succumbs in
the strife!
ACTIONS. “Ye
shall have just balances.” The shekel and the homer were
to be fixed standards. If fraud
be allowed to creep into our commercial
scales and measures, the fraud
will corrupt every transaction. The
very
heart of the mercantile system will be poisoned. Villany secreted here
would spread as from a center to the
whole circumference of commerce. It
is supremely important that men establish right standards
of speech and
conduct. If the exchange is to prosper, it must (like the
throne) be
established IN RIGHTEOUSNESS! Over the portals of every shop, on
the beam of every balance, engraved on every coin, ought the
maxim to run
in largest capitals, “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to
you, do ye
even so to them!” (Matthew 7:12)
13 “This
is the oblation that ye shall offer; the sixth part of an ephah
of
an homer of wheat, and ye shall give the
sixth part of an ephah of
an homer of barley: 14
Concerning the ordinance of oil, the bath of oil,
ye shall offer the tenth part of a bath out
of the cor, which is an homer of
ten baths; for ten baths are an homer: 15 And one
lamb out of the flock,
out of two hundred, out of the fat pastures of
and for a burnt offering, and for peace
offerings, to make reconciliation
for them, saith the
Lord GOD.”
The offerings the people’ should present are next
specified.
(1) Of wheat, the sixth part of an ophah
of (out, of, or from) an homer;
i.e. the sixtieth part of
an homer, equal to about one-tenth of a bushel (v. 13).
(2) Of barley, the
same (ibid.).
(3) Of oil, a tenth part of a bath out of the cor, or
homer of ten Baths,
i.e. the hundredth
part of every homer, equal to a little more than half a
gallon (v. 14).
(4) Of the flock, one lamb or kid (שֶׂה, meaning either) out
of the flock,
out of two hundred,
out of the fat — or well-watered (see Genesis 13:10)
— pastures of
worst, but always the best. These oblations should be made for the
maintenance of the necessary sacrificial worship in the new
temple, for the
meal, burnt, and peace or thank offerings that should there
be presented to
make reconciliation or atonement for the house of
Compared with the offerings prescribed by the Law of Moses,
these
discover important variations.
(1) Of flour, the Law
demanded one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour with a
lamb (Exodus 29:40), with a ram two-tenths (Numbers 15:6), with
a
bullock three-tenths (ibid. v. 9); of
wheat and of barley Ezekiel’s
Torah requires
one-sixteenth of an ephah for each, i.e. one-third in
all.
(2) Of oil, the
Mosaic ordinance was, with a lamb should be presented
one-fourth of a hin, i.e. one-twenty-fourth
of a bath; with a ram, one-third of a
hin, i.e. one-eighteenth of a bath; with a bullock
one-half of a hin, i.e. one-twelfth
of a bath. Ezekiel’s ordinance was in every case one-tenth
of a bath.
(3) Of animals, the Pentateuchal legislation left the necessary victims,
whether rams, goats, or bullocks, to be provided by the offerers at their
own free-will, stipulating as compulsory only the firstborn
of the flocks and
herds (Exodus 13:2, 12; 22:29-30; Leviticus 27:26; Numbers 3:13;
8:17;
Deuteronomy 15:19), the first ripe fruits of the earth
(Exodus 22:29;
Numbers 18:12), and the tithes, or tenths, of seed, fruit,
the herd and flock
(Leviticus 27:30-33); the Ezekelian
omits the latter, but ordains in lieu of the
former that one animal out of every two hundred in every flock
shall be obligatory
on
Jehovah’s worshippers. Thus the demands of Ezekiel’s Torah surpass those of
the
earlier or Mosaic Torah in quantity as well as quality. That these demands are
definitely specified does not prove they should partake rather of the
nature of a tax
than of a free-will offering. That they were not to be
regarded as taxes is
shown by the absence of any allusion to penalties for
neglect of payment;
that they were designed to be looked upon as free-will
offerings is plain
from the circumstance that Jehovah never supposes for a
moment that
these generous offerings will be withheld; and perhaps all
that is really
signified by them is that the
liberality of Jehovah’s people in the future age
should greatly exceed that which had been practiced at any
former time.
Systematic Giving (vs. 13-15)
Very elaborate regulations were drawn up to determine the
several
proportionate gifts of various kinds which were to be made by the
Israelites. These regulations were after the manner of the times, and
in
accordance with the spirit of the Jewish Law. A larger freedom
appertains
to
the Christian era, and we are not now required to make our offerings
according to any definite proportion fixed for us by authority. But
we are
not
therefore to conclude that there is to be no system or method in our
giving for Christian or charitable objects. We are left to make
our own
system. No one is to say what his brother should do. But each is
responsible to his Master to do what he feels to be right. Thus Paul
says, “Let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him”
(I Corinthians 16:2).
GIVING. People
who live up to if not beyond their incomes find it
impossible to spare any considerable amount for objects outside the
range
of their private expenses. But
if the money to be contributed for such
objects were set aside from the first, it would be forthcoming, just
as the
rent money is forthcoming. Christ’s portion
is His due, and provision
should certainly be made for this, whatever may remain over for other
objects. That can be done
by a man setting aside a portion of his income
as sacred for his Master’s use.
without method or consideration rarely know how little they give.
There
are pitiable creatures, who feel as though they were being
bled every time a
coin is extracted from them for some good object. They remember
the
disagreeable operation long after, and it makes so deep an impression
on
them that, when it comes to be repeated, they imagine that they
are always
giving. If they were always
giving this would be no hard thing; for are they
not always receiving?
But if these people deliberately considered the claims
of the best objects, and then determined to assign a portion
of their income
to meet those claims, they could not put down the miserable
sum their
contributions now amount to, unless they were devoid of all Christian
principle.
charity may be very generous, but it is likely to be foolish and
misdirected.
A more thoughtful method would
lead to a more just apportioning of the
funds that are contributed. It is not right that the cause of Christ
should
depend on irregular
gushes of liberality. There may be less
scope for
sentiment in a methodical manner of giving, but there will be more
practical
utility.
TREATED IN A WRONG SPIRIT. One danger is that it should
degenerate into a mechanical routine, like the payment of taxes. Then all
heart and soul will vanish out of it. Another danger is that it may generate
ostentatiousness, since the left hand may know too well what the right
hand does. A third danger is that this system of giving may
harden the heart
in regard to new claims. The systematic giver often fortifies
himself against
the most pathetic appeals by the reply that he has reached the
end of his
charitable fund. Such an answer is unworthy of one who has a
Christian
heart of sympathy. The remedy is to be found in regarding the
fixed
amount to be given as a minimum, never as a maximum.
Religion a Practical Thing (vs. 13-15)
In the infancy of the world outward symbol was more needed
for the
religious instruction of men than it is today. In the sacred
ceremonies of the
temple every man had a part to take. Religious truth can better
be
impressed upon the mind when outward action accompanies inward
sentiment. Religion requires the loyalty and service of the entire
man; and if
convictions of religious duty can be wrought into the soul, it is
cheaply
purchased by the devotement of our wealth to God. No cost is too
great by
which we can gain adequate appreciation of our indebtedness to
God.
God’s requirements and our advantage are identical; they
are interwoven
like light and heat in solar rays.
“meat offerings, and burnt offerings, and peace offerings.” Each of these
had a distinct meaning, and represented a distinct need of
man. In true
religion there enters the sentiment of reverential homage,
gratitude for gifts
received, acknowledgment of transgression, application for larger
blessing,
vows of fresh service, intercession on behalf of others.
Offerings for
ourselves, for our household, for the nation, are suitable; and in desiring
the good of others, our benevolent nature expands, we get a
larger good
ourselves. The expansion
of the soul is real gain.
OFFERINGS.
Wheat, barley, lambs, heifers, oil, were to be the staple of
the people’s offerings. It
is of the first importance that men should feel that
God is the
Creator and Giver of all good. We are
absolutely dependent on
His bounty. To live in the
hourly realization of this dependence is blessing
unspeakable. Nor can any
arrangement better promote this end than the
regular offering of such things as God has conferred. We owe to Him our
ALL, OUR ENTIRE
POSSESSIONS! But He graciously accepts
a
part as acknowledged tribute, and gives in return a substantial
blessing
upon the remainder. Best of all, He uses our gift as a channel
through which
to pour new blessing and joy into our own souls. Our
spontaneous
offerings foster the growth of faith
and love and spiritual aspiration. “It
is
more blessed to give than to receive.” (Acts
20:35)
OUR PROSPERITY.
The man that supposes God to be an austere
Taskmaster is a precipitant
blunderer. He has grossly missed the truth. God
does not require gigantic offerings. He requires gifts simply
proportionate
to our possessions. The gift of ten thousand pounds may be in
the balance
of righteousness only a paltry and selfish deed. The giver
may be seeking
only self-interests or human fame. The gift of a farthing may win
the smile
of Jehovah. The magnitude of our offering is measured by the
motive that
prompts it, the end sought, and the residue that remains.
According to this
spiritual calculation, the woman who gave all she had gave
transcendently
more than the rich donors of golden shekels. (Mark
12:41-44) The offering
of our heart’s warm love is the noblest tribute which God
appreciates (“my
son give me thine heart” –
Proverbs 23:26), and unless our gifts are the
outflow and manifestation of our love, they are rejected as
worthless, they are
like smoke in one’s eyes. “...that which is highly esteemed among men
is
abomination in the sight of God.”
(Luke 16:15)
MEN. The end of
such offerings among the Jews was “to make
reconciliation for them, saith the Lord God.” Yet we shall grossly err if
we
look upon this as a commercial bargain. Reconciliation
with God cannot be
purchased with gold, or tithes, or animal sacrifices. Reconciliation is
the
outcome of God’s grace; but
to bestow it upon rebellious men
indiscriminately would be a waste and a crime. The
grace that has
originated reconciliation must
prepare men’s hearts to possess it. This
omnipotent kindness of God moves the sinner’s heart to repentance.
His
desire for God’s friendship expresses itself in prayer and in
substantial
offerings. To obtain such a heavenly boon he is willing to make any
sacrifice. Such good does his conscience perceive to dwell in God’s
favor
that obedience to His will is a
delight, a very luxury to the soul. As
a child
finds a delicious joy in pleasing its parent, and runs
cheerfully to do that
parent’s will, so the repentant man loyally responds to God’s
commands,
and at the altar of sacrifice implores to be reconciled. To
have God as his
Friend is his supreme desire,
his supreme good. “In His favor is life, His
loving-kindness is better than life.”
(Psalms 30:5; 63:3)
Reconciliation (v. 15)
The relations between
between the race of man and the same righteous Ruler and Judge.
The
sacrifices and priesthoods, the services and festivals, of the Mosaic
economy have all a spiritual significance, and are typical of
spiritual and
Christian realities. Turning from the local and temporary circumstances,
and
regarding only the abiding, permanent, and universal truths suggested
by
the term “reconciliation,” we remark:
to be found in the estrangement
of the human race from God, in that
rebellion which is both serious in itself and universal in extent,
in the
displeasure of Him who is justly offended with the repudiation of His
claims
and the rejection of His authority.
favor is essential to man’s welfare. God stands in no need of aught upon
man’s part. The requirements and necessity are on the human
side; but the
advances and the provision must be upon the Divine side. The
question is
— Is God willing to be
reconciled with sinful, rebellious, guilty man? There
is no equality between the parties to the transaction. It is God’s part to
bestow, and man’s to receive.
APPOINTED MEDIATOR. It is
observable that, in the arrangement
prescribed in the prophetic book, the prince and the priest both took
part
in the work of reconciliation. The oblation of the people was
handed to the
prince, and he gave it to the priests, who duly presented it. The
kingly and
sacerdotal offices had accordingly each a part in the work of
reconciliation.
This typifies the
union of the two offices in the Person of
the great
Reconciler, the Son of God. In Him were combined the
functions of the
high priest with the functions of the king. The more the character and the
offices of Christ are studied, the more is it apparent that He
combined in
Himself all the qualifications
needed for the fulfillment of the atoning work,
for making reconciliation for the sins of the people.
ARE SACRIFICIAL. The
sacrifices required under the old covenant were
minutely prescribed; but their importance lay, not only in the
moral truths
which they symbolized, but in the
great Sacrifice which was to be offered
up for all mankind, and
not for
but a true and spiritual reconciliation was to be brought
about. Christ
offered Himself for us.
Whether we consider:
Ø
the vast numbers
of those whose acceptance and well-being is secured,
Ø
the completeness
of the harmony effected, or
Ø
the everlasting
duration of the peace secured,
we cannot but admit that the sacrifice offered on
was not provided in vain. The
nation of the saved is brought into harmonious
relations with THE LORD OF
ALL! Rebellion is at an
end, and an
affectionate loyalty reigns for ever in place of discord and
disobedience.
16 “All
the people of the land shall give (literally, shall
be for) this oblation
(or, terumah) for the
prince in
to
the ordinary civil magistrate, Hengstenborg founds on
this an argument in
support of state Churches: “This is also the general doctrine,
that the magistrate
shall take first of all from the taxes levied the means for the
proper observance
of
Divine worship.” But if the oblations above referred to were not properly taxes,
and
if the prince was not properly an earthly sovereign of the ordinary type, this
argument falls to the ground.
17 “And it
shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, and meat
offerings, and drink offerings, in the
feasts, and in the new moons,
and in the sabbaths,
in all solemnities of the house of
shall prepare the sin offering, and the
meat offering, and the burnt
offering, and the peace offerings, to make
reconciliation for the
house of
should devote them to maintaining (literally, it should
be upon him, and so
form part of his duty to maintain) the sacrificial worship
of the new temple,
in the feasts (הַגִּים, or joyous celebrations), and in the now moons, and
in the sabbaths, and generally in
all solemnities (מועָדִים, or appointed
times, hence festal seasons) of the house of
Ezra 7:17), that thereby he might make reconciliation (or, atonement) for
the
house of
the person of the prince (David) obviously
typified the
similar union of the same offices in David’s Son (Christ).
Vs. 18-25. — These verses allude to the institution
of a new feast-cycle,
whose deviations from that of the Pentateuch will be best
exhibited in the
course of exposition. Whether three festivals are referred
to or only two is
debated by expositors. Fairbairn,
Havernick, Ewald, Keil, Schroder, and
Plumptre decide for three:
1.
the festival of the
new year (vs. 18-20),
2.
the Passover (vs.
21-24), and
3.
the Feast of Tabernacles (v. 25).
Kliefoth, Smend, and Curtsy find only two
a Passover and a Feast of Tabernacles.
Hengstenberg sees in the solemnities of the first and seventh days of the
new
year a special consecration service for the new temple, not to be
repeated, corresponding to the dedication of the tabernacle on the
first day
of
the first month (Exodus 40:1, 17), or of the Solomonic
temple in the
seventh month (I Kings 8:2; II Chronicles 7:8), and in imitation
of
which the post-exilic temple was dedicated, probably on the
first day of the
year (Ezra 6:16-22). Against the notion of a special dedication service,
however, stand the facts
the glory of the Lord (ch. 43:4);
and
or both from every one of the three cited dedications.
Between the two other views the difference is slight. If
the festival of the new year
(vs. 18-20) was distinct from the
Passover, it was still, by the ritual of the seventh
and
fourteenth days of the first month (vs. 20, 22), so closely connected
with the Passover as practically to form a preparation for
and introduction
to it. Then the circumstance that the proper ceremonial for
the new moon
is
afterwards described (ch.46:6) favors the proposal to regard the
rites in vs. 18-20 as a part of the Passover festival; while
this view, if
adopted, will explain the omission from v. 25 of all mention of
the Feast
of
Trumpets on the first day of the seventh month (Leviticus 23:24;
Numbers 29:1), and of the great Day of Atonement on the
tenth day of
the
seventh month (Leviticus 23:27; Numbers 29:7), with which the
autumn festival was usually preceded, by showing that in
lieu of these a
sacrificial observance had been prefixed to the Passover on
the first and
seventh days of the first month. Smend’s
theory, that “Ezekiel’s feast-calendar
divides the ecclesiastical year into two halves, each of
which
begins with a reconciliation ceremony (or expiatory sacrifice) on
the first
days of the first and seventh months respectively,” would
lend confirmation
to the above view, were it not that the theory in question
is based on an
alteration of the text in v. 20 (see Exposition).
18 “Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the first
month, in the first day of the month,
thou shalt take a
young bullock without blemish, and cleanse the sanctuary:”
Thus saith the Lord God. The usual solemn introduction prefixed to Divine
enactments (compare v. 9; ch. 43:19; 44:6,
9; 46:1, 16). In the first month, in
the
first day of the month (compare Genesis 8:13). That the first month, Abib, was
intended is apparent from v. 21, compared with Exodus 12:2; Numbers
9:1.
Under the Mosaic Torah, the Passover began on the tenth day
of the first month
by
the selection of a lamb (Exodus 12:3-6), corresponding to which the
great Day of Atonement in the seventh month fell upon the
tenth day
(Leviticus 23:27). In the Torah of Ezekiel, the ceremonies
introducing and
leading up to the Passover should begin with the first day
of the month, as
under the Law the Feast of Trumpets on the first day of the
seventh mouth
practically began the solemnities which culminated in the
Feast of
Tabernacles. A
young bullock without blemish should form the sacrificial
offering on this first day of the year, according to the
ordinance published
by Ezekiel; that promulgated by the Hebrew lawgiver
appointed for new
moons generally, in addition to the burnt and meat
offerings, a he-goat for
a
sin offering (Numbers 28:15), and particularly for the first day of the
seventh month, in addition to the regular burnt and meat
offerings, one
young bullock, one ram, and seven lambs for a burnt
offering, meat
offerings of flour and oil for each of these animals, and a
he-goat for a sin
offering (Numbers 29:2-6). The object for which the Mosaic
offerings
were presented was to make atonement for the worshippers;
the Ezekelian
sacrifices should stand in more immediate relation to the
place of worship,
and
be designed to cleanse the sanctuary
from such defilement, to be
afterwards mentioned, as might be contracted from the
presence in it of
erring men (v. 20).
19 “And the
priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering, and put it
upon the posts of the house, and upon the
four corners of the settle
of the altar, and upon the posts of the
gate of the inner court.”
The mode in which this act of purgation should be performed
is next described. The blood of the sin offering should by
the priest be put
(not sprinkled) upon the posts of the house, i.e. upon the posts or pillars
of
the door connecting the holy place with the holy of holies (ch.
41:21),
and upon the four corners
of the settle of the altar of burnt
offering in the inner court (ch. 43:14), and upon the posts of the
gate of the inner
court, not of the eastern
gate only, as Hitzig suggests,
but
of all the three gates (ch. 40:29, 33, 36). Compare ch. 43:20, and the
procedure in sin offerings under the Law, which directed that in
certain cases
part of the blood should be put by the priest’s finger upon the horns of the
altar, and the rest poured out beside the bottom of the altar
(Exodus 29:12;
Leviticus 4:7), while in other cases it should be sprinkled
before the veil
of
the sanctuary (ibid. vs. 6, 17), and
on the great Day of Atonement
seven times even on and before the mercy-seat, and on the altar
of incense
(Leviticus 16:14, 18-19).
20 “And so
thou shalt do the seventh day of the month for every
one
that erreth, and for
him that is simple: so shall ye reconcile the house.”
The same ceremony should be repeated on the seventh day of
the month, not on the
first day of the seventh month, as Smend
proposes,
in
accordance with the λήψῃ - laepsae - and on the ground
that “the seventh
day
of (the same) mouth” would have been in Hebrew בְּשִׁבְעָה לֶחֹדֶשׁ, as in
ch.
1:1; 30:20; at the same time admitting that בַּחֹדֶשׁ is
sometimes
used (Numbers 10:11), though not (except in this verse) by Ezekiel.
The sin offerings in question should be made for (or, on
account of, מִן
-
“away from,” expressing the reason
why anything is done) every one that
erreth, and for him that is simple, i.e. for such transgressors as should
have gone aside from the straight path through ignorance or
foolishness,
the
“simple” man being here, as in
Proverbs 7:7; 22:3; 27:12, one easily
enticed or persuaded to do evil. For such offenders the Law
of Moses
provided means of expiation (Leviticus 2:2, etc.; 5:15; Numbers
15:27);
for the presumptuous sinner, who
despised the word of the Lord
and violated
His commandment, only one doom remained, to
be cut off
from among His people (Numbers 15:30; Deuteronomy 17:12).
Sanctity of Time and Place (vs. 18-20)
Human life on earth is conditioned by time and place. It is
a necessity of
our
existence here that we should occupy some definite place. It is a
necessity that we should live during some duration of time. We are
cradled
amid outward circumstance. Until the soil has matured its powers, it is
molded and modified by external surroundings. What these are, the
character of the man, in great measure, will be.
RELIGION. A man’s personal piety must be nourished in
secret — by
meditation, faith, and prayer. But a man is not an
isolated creature. He is
related on many sides to others. He is part of a family, part of a
community. Therefore his religion must have a public aspect, and
must
influence all his relationships. His religion is helped by mutual
action and
reaction. It is fostered by common
beliefs, common sympathies, common
worship. The
meeting-place between man and man is also the meeting place
between men and God. Scarce any man
will rise above the level of
religious life prevailing in the sanctuary. Here men’s souls
are fed and
nourished and vitalized.
What the sanctuary is the home will be, the nation
will be, the world will be. If the fountain be clear and
abundant in its flow,
the streams will be full and clear also. The future of our world hangs
upon
our sanctuary-worship. (excerpt from The Pulpit Commentary on
Ezekiel 45:18-20)(This looks bad for the world if it is hoping in the
reports I hear about “millenials”! CY – 2017)
PURE. So
subtle and insidious is the working of sin, that it insinuates a
way into the house of God. Base and selfish motives disfigure the beauty of
our worship. Worldliness clogs the wheels of the soul, and
prevents it from
running in the way of holy duty. The priests and ministers of God
are liable
to temptation’s defiling touch. The channel of communication
between
heaven and men may become choked with avarice and earthly
ambition.
The face of God may be hidden by
the mists and clouds of human unbelief.
The ears of men may become deaf
to the soft whispers of God’s voice. Sin
in the sanctuary may be so subtle as to remain undetected.
Our knowledge
of God and of his will is so partial and imperfect that even
good men sin
through ignorance and error and inadvertence. Hence arises the
need for
the re-purification of the sanctuary. No means are to be
neglected by which
men’s minds can be more deeply impressed with the need of
purity. No
expenditure is waste by which the souls of men can be cleansed and
ennobled. Our very tears of repentance must be washed. The fountain
of
truth and piety must he kept sweet.
FIRST MOMENTS OF OUR TIME. The holiest work must be the work
first done. The dawn of the new year is
the most fitting time for this sacred
service. Just as every part of the nation is hallowed for God by
the
hallowing of a particular spot, so the whole year is hallowed by the
consecration to God of its first moments. God’s claim to every part of
our
nature and of our possessions must be practically yielded; and we
admit the
obligation by bringing the first fruit of our fields, the best of our
flocks, the
central spot of our territory, the first moments of the year. It
is by giving
that we gain. None have been
losers by giving freely unto God. That
which
we thus give we really possess.
The Erring and the Simple (v. 20)
The sacrifices under the Law of Moses were not intended for
presumptuous, high-handed sins of the worst kind (see Numbers 15:30;
Deuteronomy 17:12). They were designed for the less grave offences,
more especially for transgressions of the ceremonial law. Here we have an
injunction requiring a general, and not individual, offering to be
rendered
on
behalf of those who had been inadvertently led into error, or who, by
reason of mental simplicity, had failed to recognize their duty,
and had
therefore left it undone. It was valuable as recognizing the
responsibility of
the
nation for those of its members who were less well able to take care of
themselves, and it suggests to us our Christian duty to seek, for their
sake
as
much as for our own, to guide or to restore them.
very variously endowed, some having inclinations and faculties
of which
others are not conscious at all, but our minds are of very
different
gradations in general capacity. Between that of the man just above
imbecility and that of the greatest poet, or statesman, or organizer,
how
immeasurable the distance! There is quite a considerable company of the
imbecile; these have been, in some countries, singularly regarded
as in close
connection with the supernal powers, and treated with peculiar regard
on
that account. Otherwise and elsewhere they are usually the
objects of a
good-natured tolerance. But above these and below the men and women of
average intelligence are “the simple” — those who can acquire but
very
little learning, study how they may; who soon lose their way in
reasoning,
and are easily worsted in dispute; who cannot look far ahead,
and may be
readily taken advantage of by the unscrupulous; who cannot discern
dangers ahead, and are specially open to the attacks of the enemy.
become “the erring,” whose error is due to
their simplicity. But it is not all
the simple who err, nor are all the erring to be found among the
simple.
There are those who
leave the strait path without that excuse — men and
women who are possessed of the ordinary intelligence and have
received a
very fair measure of instruction and Christian influence, who
are found in
paths of folly. Some temptation has proved too strong for them. And if
they are not among the flagrantly immoral, yet is there, in
their case, a
deviation from the straight line of truthfulness, or of purity, or
of sobriety,
or of reverence, or of the becoming and the consistent — a
deviation which
detracts seriously from the worth and beauty of their character,
and which
makes their best friends concerned or even alarmed about them.
THESE.
Ø
To guide and guard. Those on whom God has conferred greater power,
and who can consequently see more clearly where evil lies and
where
danger begins, should esteem it their most sacred and bounden
duty to
befriend, to preserve, to save, those who are feebler and more exposed.
We have our powers, no doubt,
that we may take care of ourselves, that
we may secure and enrich ourselves. But this is only one
part, and it is
quite a small part, of our duty and of our opportunity. We live
to love
and bless. God has made
us what we are and given us what we have,
for the express purpose that we may serve those who are
around us,
and more particularly those who are nearly related to us, by
defending
them when they are assailed, by timely warning against attack,
by
arming them for the evil hour, by encouraging them in the midst
of
the battle when they are distressed, by enabling them to make
the
most of the resources which they possess. By wise direction and
strengthening companionship many a simple soldier has been enabled,
on moral as well as material fields, to fight a brave and
faithful battle,
and to win the victory and the crown.
Ø
To restore. “Ye who are spiritual restore such a one” (Galatians
6:1).
Here is not only a sacred
duty, but a very high privilege. To win a
fortune, to establish “a house” or a family, to build up a great
reputation, to rise to conspicuous eminence, — this is laudable,
honorable, attractive enough, or at least it may be so. But there
are
things which are higher and better than these. And of these
nobler
things there are few that rank higher in the estimate of Christ
or will
give our own hearts deeper satisfaction in the calmer and truer
moments
of our life than the act of restoration. To lead our erring
brother or
sister back again from the highway or the byway of evil into the
road
of rectitude, into the path of life, — this is emphatically
and
pre-eminently the Christian thing to do; it is to reduce to action
the
Divine instruction, “As
my Father hath sent me, even so send I
you.” (John 20:21)
21 “In the
first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have
the passover, a
feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.”
With the
fourteenth day of the month, the day appointed by
the
Law of Moses for the killing of the Paschal lamb (Exodus 12:6),
the Passover (חַפָסַה with the article, the well-known festival of that
name) should commence. Though the selection of the lamb
upon the tenth
day of the first month is not specified, it may be assumed
that this would be
implied in the appointment of a Passover which should begin
on the day
already legalized by the Mosaic Torah. According to Wellhausen and
Smend, the first mention of the Passover occurs in Deuteronomy
16:2, 5-6,
and
the next in II Kings 23:22; but this can only be maintained by
declaring Exodus 34:25, which occurs in the so-called “Book of the
Covenant” — a pre-Deuteronomic
work — “a gloss,” and by relegating
Exodus 12 to the “priest-code” for no other reason than
that it alludes to
the
Passover (vs. 11, 21, 27, 43) — a principle of easy application, and
capable of being used to prove anything. Smend likewise regards it as
strange that the Passover should be made to commence on the
fourteenth
of
the month, and not, as the autumn feast, on the fifteenth (v. 25); and
suggests that the original reading, which he supposes was
the fifteenth,
may have been corrected subsequently in accordance with the
priest, code.
But if the priest-code was posterior to
and modeled after Ezekiel. Why
should it have ordained the fourteenth instead of that
which its master
recommended, viz. the fifteenth? A sufficient explanation
of the differing
dates in Ezekiel is supplied if Ezekiel, in fixing them,
may be held to have
followed the so-called priest-code. A feast of seven days;
literally, a feast
of hebdomad of days (חַג שְׁבֻעות
יָמִים). By almost all interpreters this is
understood to mean “a feast of a full week, the exact
duration of the Feast
of Unleavened Bread, which began with the eating of the
Paschal lamb
(Exodus 12:8, 15-20; Leviticus 23:6; Numbers 9:11;
Deuteronomy 16:3-4).
At the same time, it is frankly admitted that, to extract
this sense from the
words, שְׁבֻעות
must be changed into שְׁבְעַת. As the words stand, they can
only signify a feast of weeks of days. חַג שְׁבֻעות, in Exodus 34:22 and
Deuteronomy 16:10, is applied to the Feast of Pentecost,
which was called
“a Feast of Hebdomads,”
from the seven weeks which intervened between the
Passover and it. Hence Kliefoth, adhering to the
legitimate sense of the expression,
understands the prophet to say that the whole period of seven weeks
between the
first Passover and Pentecost should be celebrated in the new
dispensation as a
Feast of Unleavened Bread. In support of this Kliefoth
cites a similar use of the
word “days” in Genesis 29:14; 41:1; Deuteronomy 21:13; II Kings
15:13;
Jeremiah 28:3, 11; Daniel 10:2-3; and certainly no
objection can be taken
to
a Passover of seven weeks, if Ezekiel may be supposed to have been merely
expressing analogically spiritual conceptions, and not furnishing
actual legislation
to
be afterwards put in operation. Against this translation, however, Keil urges
that the expression, “seven days of the feast” (v. 23),
appears to mark the duration
of
the festival; but this is not so convincing as its author imagines, since the
prophet may be held as describing, in vs. 23-24, the procedure of
each
seven days without intending to unsay what he had already
stated, that the
feast should continue seven weeks of days. A second
objection pressed by
Keil, that יָמִים “is
not usually connected with the preceding noun in the
construct state, but is attached as an adverbial accusative,” as in
the above
cited passages, is sufficiently disposed of by Kliefoth’s statement that the
punctuation might easily be altered so as to read שָׁבֻעות. Upon the whole,
while not free from difficulty, the view of Kliefoth seems best supported by
argument.
The Moral of the Passover (v. 21)
This great feast, which was so solemnly though hastily
inaugurated, and so
solemnly and joyously renewed after a discreditable lapse (Exodus
12; 2
II Chronicles 30), had an
historical and also a religious aspect.
surpassing national interest; it brought back to memory the pitiless
cruelty,
the blind obduracy, the false confidence of Egypt, and, at the
same time,
the sad sufferings and the trembling hopes of Israel. “With
what solemn
awe and yet with what thrilling expectation did their
forefathers in the land
of bondage partake of that strange meal! With what eager
carefulness did
they see that the saving blood-stream marked the lintels of the
door which
would shut in their dear ones! And what a morning on the morrow!
What
joyous congratulations in each Hebrew family when they all met,
in life and
health, on that memorable march! And what terrible consternation
in those
Egyptian homes where the angel
of death had not passed by but had struck
his fearful stroke! It was the hour of Jehovah’s most signal
interposition; it
was the hour of national redemption. They might well remember
it “in
all
their dwellings through all their generations.”
fitted to exert a most invaluable influence in two ways.
Ø It was calculated to bind the nation together and so to preserve its
unity;
or, when that unity was broken, to induce a kinder or more brotherly
feeling
between the separated communities, and to prevent further
dissolution.
For nothing is a stronger tie than common sacred memories —
the vivid
recollection of scenes, of sufferings, of struggles, through which
common
ancestors have passed. Such memories allay ill feeling and
strengthen
existing “cords of love.”
Ø It was calculated to preserve their allegiance to their Divine Deliverer.
For the slaying
and eating of the lamb in their homes:
o
Spoke
to their hearts of the vast and the immeasurable obligation under
which
they stood to the Lord their God; it presented Him to their minds
as the
Lord their Redeemer, who had with a mighty hand rescued them
from tyranny
and oppression, and placed them in the land of plenty,
in homes
of peace.
o
Summoned
them to the liveliest gratitude for such signal mercy, for
such
abounding and abiding goodness.
o
Charged
them to live that life of purity and of separateness from
heathen
iniquity of which the unleavened bread spoke to them while
the feast
lasted (see homily in loc., in Leviticus 23:4-8).
§
It
is well to signalize individual mercies; it is well, by some
wise
habit or institution, to call to remembrance, for renewed
gratitude
and consecration, some special deliverance granted
us by
the God of our life during our past career.
§
It is
well to commemorate common, national favors; to
recall,
with thankfulness and devotion, the goodness of
God shown in great national conjunctures.
§
It is
best to perpetuate the one great, surpassing redemption
of our race; to join in the commemoration of that supreme
event
WHEN THE LAMB OF GOD WAS SLAIN FOR
THE
SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD!
22 “And
upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the
people of the land a bullock for a sin
offering.” The
first day of the feast proper,
i.e. the fourteenth,
should be distinguished by the prince’s presenting, for himself
and for all the people of the land, a bullock for
a sin offering. That this was a
deviation from the
earlier Mosaic legislation in three particulars is apparent. In, the
first place, the “sin offering” here prescribed was
manifestly to take
precedence of the Paschal feast proper, whereas in the
Paschal festival of
the
so-called priest-code the daily sacrifices were appointed to begin on
the
fifteenth after the Paschal lamb had been slain and eaten (Leviticus 23:8).
In the second place, the sin offering was to consist of a
bullock instead of a
he-goat as formerly (Numbers 28:22). In the third place, it was
not intended to
be
renewed on each of the seven following days of the feast, but was designed,
by
repeating the sacrifice of the first and seventh days, to connect these with
the
fourteenth, on which the feast proper opened.
23 “And
seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt offering to the
LORD, seven bullocks and seven rams without
blemish daily the
seven days; and a kid of the goats daily
for a sin offering.
24 And he
shall prepare a meat offering of an ephah for a
bullock, and
an ephah for a
ram, and an hin of oil for an ephah.”
The deviations of Ezekiel’s Torah from that of Moses in
regard to the offerings to be made during the seven days of
the feast are
also unmistakable (see Numbers 28:19-22).
bullocks, one ram, and seven yearling lambs, this of Ezekiel
prescribes
seven bullocks and seven rams.
flour mixed with oil for each bullock, two-tenths for a ram, and
one-tenth
for each lamb, this asks an ephah of
flour with a hin
of oil for each bullock
and each ram.
he-goat daily.
25 “In the
seventh month, in the fifteenth day of the month, shall he do
the like in the feast of the seven days,
according to the sin offering,
according to the burnt offering, and
according to the meat offering,
and according to the oil.” In the seventh month, i.e. in month of Tishri
(I Kings 8:2), in the fifteenth day of the month, shall he, i.e. the prince, as in
v. 22, do the like in
the feast of the seven days; or,
in the feast shall he do
the like the seven days (Revised
Version). That is, the same sacrifices
should be offered daily throughout the seven days of this
feast as had been
offered during the seven days of the former feast. That
this feast was
designed to represent the ancient Feast of Tabernacles can
scarcely be
doubted, though the practice of living in booths (Leviticus
23:40-43) is
not adverted to. Possibly this may have been omitted, as Keil remarks,
“because the practice of living in booths would be dropped
in the time to
come” (see, however, Nehemiah 8:14-17), or, as Kliefoth
observes,
“because, when Ezekiel’s Torah should come into operation, the people of
God would be dwelling in the eternal tabernacles of which
the booths of
the
Mosaic Torah were but the types.” Nor are the
deviations of Ezekiel’s
Torah from that of Moses, in respect of the daily offerings
prescribed for
this feast, fewer or of less importance than those which
have been noted in
connection with the Passover. Ezekiel’s Torah prescribes
for a burnt
offering seven bullocks and seven rams daily, for a sin
offering a he-goat
daily, for a meat offering an ephah
of flour with a hin of oil for each
bullock and each ram daily; the Mosaic Torah, while
retaining the he goat
for a sin offering, required — for a burnt offering on the
first day thirteen
young bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs, and so on,
diminishing by
one bullock each day, till the seventh, when seven
bullocks, two rams, and
fourteen lambs should be sacrificed; and for a meal
offering three-tenths of
an ephah of flour for every
bullock, and two-tenths of an ephah for every
ram, and one-tenth of an ephah for
each lamb, according to the number of
bullocks, rams, and lambs for each day. In addition, the
Mosaic celebration
concluded with a solemn assembly with special sacrifices on
the eighth day
(see Leviticus 23:34-36; Numbers
29:12-39), of which no mention
is made in Ezekiel. Nor should it be overlooked that
Ezekiel’s Torah omits
all reference to the other great festival that figures in
the Mosaic Torah,
viz. that of Pentecost, or the Feast of Weeks, as well as
to the Feast of
Trumpets and the great Day of Atonement (see on v. 21),
although
Hengstenberg is of opinion that Ezekiel, having instanced the Passover
and
Tabernacles, the beginning and end of the feast-cycle
already known to the
Jews, designed that all the feasts which lay between should
be included. Be
this, however, as it may, to infer from the deviations in
Ezekiel’s Torah
from that of Moses, as George, Vatke,
Kuenen, Wellhausen, Smend,
Robertson Smith, Cornill, and
Driver have done, that the latter had no
existence in the time of Ezekiel is, as Havernick
observes, not only to
render Ezekiel’s representations completely unintelligible,
but to beg the
entire question between the newer criticism and the old
faith. “How will
one generally explain,” asks Cornill
(‘Einleitung in das Alte
Testament,’ p.
64), “that a
completely ignores the priest.code
(?), in all points remains far behind its
requirements (?), and in a groping manner lays hold of the
future, instead
of appropriating to himself the finished system (i.e. of
the, so-called priest
code, supposing it to have then existed)? Why does Ezekiel
require, in the
cultus (which he sets up) so much less than Numbers 28, and 29.?
Where,
in Ezekiel is the high priest, who for the priest code is
the center of the
theocracy? Where is the great Day of Atonement of Leviticus
16.?” and so
on. The answer to these interrogations is that Ezekiel did
not intend to
republish the Mosaic Torah, but to modify it so as to meet
the
requirements of the new era, or (perhaps better) to express
more
adequately the new conceptions of religion and worship he
had been
commissioned to set before his fellow-exiles; and that
Ezekiel had a perfect
right to deal in this way even with the Mosaic Torah,
inasmuch as he
distinctly claimed, in committing to writing the details of
his temple- vision,
to
be acting under special Divine guidance (Ezekiel 43:10-11; 44:5).
Canon Driver (‘An Introduction to the Literature of the Old
Testament,’ p.
133) admits that the argument from Ezekiel’s deviations
from the so-called
priest-code in favor of the later origin of the latter, if
“taken by itself,
would not, perhaps, be a decisive one,” and even adds that,
“however
doubtful it may be whether Ezekiel presupposes the completed
priests’
code, it is difficult not to conclude that he presupposes parts
of it” ibid., p.
138). But if none of it existed before Ezekiel, then a
counter-question to
that of Cornill may be put, “How
is it to be explained that the unknown
author of the priests’ code should have allowed himself to
deviate so far
from the arrangements which Ezekiel, a prophet acting under
Jehovah’s
guidance, had established?” The natural reply is that when
the priests’ code
was composed, Ezekiel’s Torah did not exist. If the newer
criticism
believes that Ezekiel would not have deviated so largely as
he has done
from the rites prescribed in the priests’ code had these
been in operation
and invested with authority (see ‘Drivel’, ‘An
Introduction,’ etc., p. 133),
the newer criticism should explain how the priests’ code
came to deviate
from the Torah of Ezekiel, which, if it was not then in
actual operation,
was at least invested with Divine authority. Is it not
every way as logical to
infer, from the deviations of the priests’ code (supposing
it to be postexilic)
from the Torah of Ezekiel, that the author of the priests’
code could
not have known of the existence of Ezekiel’s Torah, and
therefore that it
could not then have been in existence, as vice versa that
Ezekiel had no
acquaintance with the priests’ code, and that therefore it
had not in his day
been composed? The impartial reasoner,
with no theory to uphold, will
recognize that the two arguments run exactly purpose.
Sacred Festivals (vs. 18-25)
The prophet here refers to some of those great “feasts
of the Jews” which
formed so interesting a feature of the social and religious life
of the chosen
people. These references are suggestive of the spiritual
privileges and
religious exercises of the vaster Israel of God, which He has redeemed to
Himself by the death of His Son and consecrated to Himself by the grace of
His Spirit. Among the lessons which
these festivals may thus convey may be
mentioned:
have more impressively realized and displayed their oneness in
political and
religious life than when they together celebrated such festivals as
those of
the Passover and of Tabernacles, both referred to by the
prophet in this
passage. A grander unity
distinguishes the spiritual
because:
Ø
under the care of
the one Father,
Ø
redeemed by the
one Mediator, and,
Ø
because informed,
hallowed, and guided by the one Spirit.
It was the prayer and the purpose
of the Divine High Priest that all His
people might be as one nation:
Ø
cherishing the
same memories,
Ø
obeying the same
laws,
Ø
speaking the
same language, and
Ø
honoring the same King.
PEOPLE. It was
not to celebrate a merely human community that the
children of
striking and helpful manner, the perpetual interest and care of
their glorious
Lord and King. They were a
chosen nation, a peculiar people, and this they
both recognized and testified when they assembled to observe
their festive
solemnities, instituted by Divine wisdom to retain among the nation the
sentiment of nearness to the unseen but mighty Head.
THE CONSECRATED, PEOPLE. The sacrifices and offerings presented
were the symbolic means of preserving this harmony between
Jehovah and
the seed of Abraham.
Ø
Offences were
confessed with penitence,
Ø
submission was
made,
Ø
prescribed observances
were complied with, and
Ø
the favor of God
was manifested and the conscience was purged
from
guilt.
Such harmony, only deeper and
more spiritual, obtains between God and his
Church on
earth. The:
Ø
estrangement and
enmity are abolished;
Ø
reconciliation
is effected;
Ø
communion is enjoyed.
DIVINE MERCY, FORBEARANCE, AND DELIVERANCE. The
Hebrew people were accustomed,
upon occasion of their sacred festivals,
to remind one another of the blessings bestowed upon their
forefathers.
Ø
The Passover reminded
them of their deliverance from the cruel
bondage of
Ø
the Feast of
Tabernacles brought to their memory the wanderings in
the wilderness.
On such occasions they would
turn their thoughts to their
marvelous national history, and especially to its more instructive
and
memorable incidents. Similarly in the
interpositions effected by Divine power and
clemency can never be
forgotten; they must be held in everlasting remembrance; the mighty
works
which God did in old time must never lose their freshness and
their
wonder. The “sacred year” of the Church is filled with reminders of God’s
mercy, and especially of those supremely glorious and blessed
events in
which the Church on earth took its rise; events connected with
the advent,
the sacrifice, and the glory of
Immanuel, and those connected with the gift
of the Holy Spirit of God.
festivals were occasions of social and sacred joy. With them were
associated the thanksgivings and the adorations of a nation. The
people
gave thanks to the God of gods,
the Lord of lords, to Him who
remembered them in their low estate, who led His people through the
wilderness; for His mercy endureth
forever. (Deuteronomy 8:2; Psalm
136:16)
There is no exercise more
congenial or delightful to the
the exercise of grateful praise. The songs of the redeemed and
the righteous
ever ascend to Him from whom
all mercies flow, to whom ALL PRAISE
is due. The moral nation of the saved ever lifts to heaven the
tribute and
offering of filial gratitude and spiritual worship.
"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.