The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Ezekiel by John Skinner

Herodotus, i. 103-106.

If the “thirtieth year” of ch. i. 1 could refer to the prophet's age at the time of his call, his birth would fall in the very year in which the Law Book was found. Although that interpretation is extremely improbable, he can hardly have been much more, or less, than thirty years old at the time.

The opinion, once prevalent, that it was the Chaboras in Northern Mesopotamia, where colonies of Northern Israelites had been settled a century and a half before, has nothing to justify it, and is now universally abandoned.

This, however, is not certain. Although Jeremiah's property and residence were in Anathoth, his official connection may have been with the Temple in Jerusalem.

The passage xxxiii. 14-26 is wanting in the LXX., and may possibly be a later insertion. Even if genuine it would hardly alter the general estimate of the prophet's teaching expressed above.

Jer. xv. 4; 2 Kings xxiii. 26.

In the superscription of the book (ch. i. 1-3) a double date is given for this occurrence. In ver. 1 it is said to have taken place “in the thirtieth year”; but this expression has never been satisfactorily explained. The principal suggestions are: (1) that it is the year of Ezekiel's life; (2) that the reckoning is from the year of Josiah's reformation; and (3) that it is according to some Babylonian era. But none of these has much probability, unless, with Klostermann, we go further and assume that the explanation was given in an earlier part of the prophet's autobiography now lost—a view which is supported by no evidence and is contrary to all analogy. Cornill proposes to omit ver. 1 entirely, chiefly on the ground that the use of the first person before the writer's name has been mentioned is unnatural. That the superscription does not read smoothly as it stands has been felt by many critics; but the rejection of the verse is perhaps a too facile solution.

Not “amber,” but a natural alloy of silver and gold, highly esteemed in antiquity.

Cf. Exod. xxiv. 10: “like the very heavens for pureness.”

Duhm on Isa. xxx. 27.

Bêth mĕri, or simply mĕrî, occurring about fifteen times in the first half of the book, but only once after ch. xxiv.

Klostermann.

In ch. iii. 12 read “As the glory of Jehovah arose from its place” instead of “Blessed be the glory,” etc. (ברום for ברוך).

A somewhat similar episode seems to have occurred in the life of Isaiah. See the commentaries on Isa. viii. 16-18.

These verses (ch. iii. 22-27) furnish one of the chief supports of Klostermann's peculiar theory of Ezekiel's condition during the first period of his career. Taking the word “dumb” in its literal sense, he considers that the prophet was afflicted with the malady known as alalia, that this was intermittent down to the date of ch. xxiv., and then became chronic till the fugitive arrived from Jerusalem (ch. xxxiii. 21), when it finally disappeared. This is connected with the remarkable series of symbolic actions related in ch. iv., which are regarded as exhibiting all the symptoms of catalepsy and hemiplegia. These facts, together with the prophet's liability to ecstatic visions, justify, in Klostermann's view, the hypothesis that for seven years Ezekiel laboured under serious nervous disorders. The partiality shown by a few writers to this view probably springs from a desire to maintain the literal accuracy of the prophet's descriptions. But in that aspect the theory breaks down. Even Klostermann admits that the binding with ropes had no existence save in Ezekiel's imagination. But if we are obliged to take into account what seemed to the prophet, it is better to explain the whole phenomena on the same principle. There can be no good grounds for taking the dumbness as real and the ropes as imaginary. Besides, it is surely a questionable expedient to vindicate a prophet's literalism at the expense of his sanity. In the hands of Klostermann and Orelli the hypothesis assumes a stupendous miracle; but it is obvious that a critic of another school might readily “wear his rue with a difference,” and treat the whole of Ezekiel's prophetic experiences as hallucinations of a deranged intellect.

An ingenious attempt has been made by Professor Cornill to rearrange the verses so as to bring out two separate series of actions, one referring exclusively to the exile and the other to the siege. But the proposed reading requires a somewhat violent handling of the text, and does not seem to have met with much acceptance. The blending of diverse elements in a single image appears also in ch. xii. 3-16.

The correspondence would be almost exact if we date the commencement of the northern captivity from 734, when Tiglath-pileser carried away the inhabitants of the northern and eastern parts of the country. This is a possible view, although hardly necessary.

Or, with a different pointing, “She changed My judgments to wickedness.”

See ch. xxvii.

Hammânim—a word of doubtful meaning, however. The word for idols, gillûlîm, is all but peculiar to Ezekiel. It is variously explained as block-gods or dung-gods—in any case an epithet of contempt. The ashērah, or sacred pole, is never referred to by Ezekiel.

In ver. 14 the true sense has been lost by the corruption of the word Riblah into Diblah.

The reason may be that two different recensions of the text have been combined and mixed up. So Hitzig and Cornill.

Amos viii. 2.

Cf. Luke xvii. 26-30.

Ezekiel's use of the divine names would hardly be satisfactory to Renan. Outside of the prophecies addressed to heathen nations the generic name אלהים is never used absolutely, except in the phrases “visions of God” (three times) and “spirit of God” (once, in ch. xi. 24, where the text may be doubtful). Elsewhere it is used only of God in His relation to men, as, e.g., in the expression “be to you for a God.” אל שדי occurs once (ch. x. 5) and אל alone three times in ch. xxviii. (addressed to the prince of Tyre). The prophet's word, when he wishes to express absolute divinity, is just the “proper” name יהוה, in accordance no doubt with the interpretation given in Exod. iii. 13, 14.

Of what nature this idolatrous symbol was we cannot certainly determine. The word used for “image” (semel) occurs in only two other passages. The writer of the books of Chronicles uses it of the asherah which was set up by Manasseh in the Temple, and it is possible that he means thus to identify that object with what Ezekiel saw (cf. 2 Chron. xxxiii. 7, and 2 Kings xxi. 7). This interpretation is as satisfactory as any that has been proposed.

The nature of the cults is best explained by Professor Robertson Smith, who supposes that they are a survival of aboriginal totemistic superstitions which had been preserved in secret circles till now, but suddenly assumed a new importance with the collapse of the national religion and the belief that Jehovah had left the land. Others, however, have thought that it is Egyptian rites which are referred to. This view might best explain its prevalence among the elders, but it has little positive support.

It has been supposed, however, that the sun-worship referred to here is of Persian origin, chiefly because of the obscure expression in ver. 17: “Behold they put the twig to their nose.” This has been explained by a Persian custom of holding up a branch before the face, lest the breath of the worshipper should contaminate the purity of the deity. But Persia had not yet played any great part in history, and it is hardly credible that a distinctively Persian custom should have found its way into the ritual of Jerusalem. Moreover, the words do not occur in the description of the sun-worshippers, nor do they refer particularly to them.

Following the LXX.

It is noteworthy that in the dirge of ch. xix. Ezekiel ignores the reign of Jehoiakim. Is this because he too owed his elevation to the intervention of a foreign power?

Especially if we read ver. 12, as in LXX., “That he may not be seen by any eye, and he shall not see the earth.”

By this name for Chaldæa Ezekiel seems to express his contempt for the commercial activity which formed so large an element in the greatness of Babylon (ch. xvi. 29 R.V.), perhaps also his sense of the uncongenial environment in which the disinherited king and the nobility of Judah now found themselves.

Jehoiakim.

The long line is divided into two unequal parts by a cæsura over the end.

Mostly adopted from Cornill. The English reader may refer to Dr. Davidson's commentary.

This word is uncertain.

Ezekiel, p. 85.

Translating with LXX.

The exact force of the reflexive form used (na' ănêthi, niphal) is doubtful. The translation given is that of Cornill, which is certainly forcible.

The same rule is applied to direct communion with God in prayer in Psalm lxvi. 18: “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear.”

See above, p. 97 f.

See below, pp. 179 f.

Ver. 33 may, however, be an interpolation (Cornill).

In ver. 41 the Syriac Version reads, with a slight alteration of the text, “they shall burn thee in the midst of the fire.” The reading has something to recommend it. Death by burning was an ancient punishment of harlotry (Gen. xxxviii. 24), although it is not likely that it was still inflicted in the time of Ezekiel.

“To eat upon the mountains” (if that reading can be retained) must mean to take part in the sacrificial feasts which were held on the high places in honour of idols. But if with W. R. Smith and others we substitute the phrase “eat with the blood,” assimilating the reading to that of ch. xxxiii. 25, the offence is still of the same nature. In the time of Ezekiel to eat with the blood probably meant not merely to eat that which had not been sacrificed to Jehovah, but to engage in a rite of distinctly heathenish character. Cf. Lev. xix. 20, and see the note in Smith's Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, p. 310.

In the striking passage ch. xiv. 12-23 the application of the doctrine of individual retribution to the destruction of Jerusalem is discussed. It is treated as “an exception to the rule” (Smend)—perhaps the exception which proves the rule. The rule is that in a national judgment the most eminent saints save neither son nor daughter by their righteousness, but only their own lives (vv. 13-20). At the fall of Jerusalem, however, a remnant escapes and goes into captivity with sons and daughters, in order that their corrupt lives may prove to the earlier exiles how necessary the destruction of the city was (vv. 21-23). The argument is an admission that the judgment on Israel was not carried out in accordance with the strict principle laid down in ch. xviii. It is difficult, indeed, to reconcile the various utterances of Ezekiel on this subject. In ch. xxi. 3, 4 he expressly announces that in the downfall of the state righteous and wicked shall perish together. In the vision of ch. ix., on the other hand, the righteous are marked for exemption from the fate of the city. The truth appears to be that the prophet is conscious of standing between two dispensations, and does not hold a consistent view regarding the time when the law proper to the perfect dispensation comes into operation. The point on which there is no ambiguity is that in the final judgment which ushers in the Messianic age the principle of individual retribution shall be fully manifested.

This is true whether (as some expositors think) the date in ch. xx. is merely an external mark introducing a new division of the book, or whether (as seems more natural) it is due to the fact that here Ezekiel recognised a turning-point of his ministry. Such visits of the elders as that here recorded must have been of frequent occurrence. Two others are mentioned, and of these one is undated (ch. xiv. 1); the other at least admits the supposition that it was connected with a very definite change of opinion among the exiles (ch. viii. 1: see above, p. 80). We may therefore reasonably suppose that the precise note of time here introduced marks this particular incident as having possessed a peculiar significance in the relations between the prophet and his fellow-exiles. What its significance may have been we shall consider in the next lecture, see p. 174.

The verses xx. 45-49 of the English Version really belong to ch. xxi., and are so placed in the Hebrew. In what follows the verses will be numbered according to the Hebrew text.

At three places the meaning is entirely lost, through corruption of the text.

Cf. ch. xvii.

The reference is to the Messiah, and seems to be based on the ancient prophecy of Gen. xlix. 10, reading there שֶׁלּה instead of שִׁלה.

The word “covenant” is not here used.

Apart from the case of Jephthah, which is entirely exceptional, the first historical instance is that of Ahaz (2 Kings xvi. 3).

There still remain the critical difficulties. What are the ambiguous laws to which the prophet refers? It is of course not to be assumed as certain that they are to be found in the Pentateuch, at least in the exact form which Ezekiel has in view. There may have been at that time a considerable amount of uncodified legislative material which passed vaguely as the law of Jehovah. The “lying pen of the scribes” seems to have been busy in the multiplication of such enactments (Jer. viii. 8). Still, it is a legitimate inquiry whether any of the extant laws of the Pentateuch are open to the interpretation which Ezekiel seems to have in view. The parts of the Pentateuch in which the regulation about the dedication of the firstborn occurs are the so-called Book of the Covenant (Exod. xxii. 29, 30), the short code of Exod. xxxiv. 17-26 (vv. 19 f.), the enactment connected with the institution of the Passover (Exod. xiii. 12 f.), and the priestly ordinance (Numb. xviii. 15). Now, in three of these four passages, the inference to which Ezekiel refers is expressly excluded by the provision that the firstborn of men shall be redeemed. The only one which bears the appearance of ambiguity is that in the Book of the Covenant, where we read: “The firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto Me; likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen and thy sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam, on the eighth day thou shalt give it to Me.” Here the firstborn children and the firstlings of animals are put on a level; and if any passage in our present Pentateuch would lend itself to the false construction which the later Israelites favoured, it would be this. On the other hand this passage does not contain the particular technical word (he'ebîr) used by Ezekiel. The word probably means simply “dedicate,” although this was understood in the sense of dedication by sacrifice. The only passage of the four where the verb occurs is Exod. xiii. 12; and this accordingly is the one generally fixed on by critics as having sanctioned the abuse in question. But apart from its express exemption of firstborn children from the rule, the passage fails in another respect to meet the requirements of the case. The prophet appears to speak here of legislation addressed to the second generation in the wilderness, and this could not refer to the Passover ordinance in its present setting. On the whole we seem to be driven to the conclusion that Ezekiel is not thinking of any part of our present Pentateuch, but to some other law similar in its terms to that of Exod. xiii. 12 f., although equivocal in the same way as Exod. xxii. 29 f.

In the text above I have given what appears to me the most natural interpretation of the passage, without referring to the numerous other views which have been put forward. Van Hoonacker, in Le Museon (1893), subjects the various theories to a searching criticism, and arrives himself at the nebulous conclusion that the “statutes which were not good” are not statutes at all, but providential chastisements. That cuts the knot, it does not untie it.

None of the interpretations of ver. 29 gives a satisfactory sense. Cornill rejects it as “absonderlich und aus dem Tenor des ganzen Cap. herausfallend.”

See Dillmann's note on Lev. xxvii. 32, quoted by Davidson.

Reading במספר for במסרת with the LXX.

The transition ver. 39 is, however, very difficult. As it stands in the Hebrew text it contains an ironical concession (a good-natured one, Smend thinks) to the persistent advocates of idolatry, the only tolerable translation being, “So serve ye every man his idols, but hereafter ye shall surely hearken to Me, and My holy name ye shall no longer profane with your gifts and your idols.” But this sense is not in itself very natural, and the Hebrew construction by which it is expressed would be somewhat strained. The most satisfactory rendering is perhaps that given in the Syriac Version, where two clauses of our Hebrew text are transposed: “But as for you, O house of Israel, if ye will not hearken to Me, go serve every man his idols! Yet hereafter ye shall no more profane My holy name in you,” etc.

It is not certain what is the exact meaning wrapped up in these designations. A very slight change in the pointing of the Hebrew would give the sense “her tent” for Ohola and “my tent in her” for Oholibah. This is the interpretation adopted by most commentators, the idea being that while the tent or temple of Jehovah was in Judah, Samaria's “tent” (religious system) was of her own making. It is not likely, however, that Ezekiel has any such sharp contrast in his mind, since the whole of the argument proceeds on the similarity of the course pursued by the two kingdoms. It is simpler to take the word Ohola as meaning “tent,” and Oholibah as “tent in her,” the signification of the names being practically identical. The allusion is supposed to be to the tents of the high places which formed a marked feature of the idolatrous worship practised in both divisions of the country (cf. ch. xvi. 16). This is better, though not entirely convincing, since it does not explain how Ezekiel came to fix on this particular emblem as a mark of the religious condition of Israel. It may be worth noting that the word אהלה contains the same number of consonants as שׂמרן (= Samaria, although the word is always written שׂמרון in the Old Testament), and אהליבה the same number as ירושלם. The Eastern custom of giving similar names to children of the same family (like Hasan and Husein) is aptly instanced by Smend and Davidson.

This word is of doubtful meaning.

Smend thinks that the illustration is explained by the secluded life of females in the East, which makes it quite intelligible that a woman might be captivated by the picture of a man she had never seen, and try to induce him to visit her.

On these names of nations see Davidson's Commentary, p. 168, and the reference there to Delitzsch.

The words rendered in E.V., “thou shalt be laughed to scorn and had in derision” (ver. 32), “and pluck off thy own breasts” (ver. 34), are wanting in the LXX. The passage gains in force by the omission. The words translated “break the sherds thereof” (ver. 34) are unintelligible.

Although the text in parts of vv. 42, 43 is very imperfect.

On the reading here see above, p. 150.

The eighth verse, referring to the Sabbath and the sanctuary, is rejected by Cornill on internal grounds, but for that there is no justification. If the verse is retained, it will be seen that the enumeration of sins corresponds pretty closely in substance, though not in arrangement, with the precepts of the Decalogue.

Read with the LXX. מטּרה, instead of מטהרה, “purified.”

This appears to be the meaning of the simile in ver. 24; the judgment is conceived as a parching drought, and the point of the comparison is that its severity is not tempered by the fertilising streams which should have descended on the people in the shape of sound political and religious guidance.

Following the LXX. we should read “whose princes” (אשר נשיאיה) for “the conspiracy of her prophets” (קשר נביאיה) in ver. 25.

Read עצים, “wood,” instead of עצמים, “bones” (Boettcher and others).

The words “except by fire” represent an emendation proposed by Cornill, which may be somewhat bold, but certainly expresses an idea in the passage.

Cf. Jer. xiii. 27: “Thou shalt not be pronounced clean, for how long a time yet!”

I.e., as generally explained, bread brought by sympathising friends, to be shared with the mourning household: cf. Jer. xvi. 7; 2 Sam. iii. 35. Wellhausen, however, proposes to read “bread of mourners” (אֲנִשֻׁים for אֲנָשִׁים).

The words “and Seir” in ver. 8 are wanting in the true text of the LXX., and should probably be omitted.

Isa. xvi. 6, xxv. 11; Jer. xlviii. 29, 42.

Rawlinson, History of Phœnicia.

Closing stanzas of The Scholar Gipsy.

Both Movers and Rawlinson make it the basis of their survey of Tyrian commerce.

Babylon and Egypt are probably omitted because of the peculiar point of view assumed by the prophet. They were too powerful to be represented as slaves of Tyre, even in poetry.

E.V., “going to and fro.”

So Cornill, חוילה for רכלי ( = merchants).

See ch. xxvii. 6, where ivory is said to come from Chittim or Cyprus.

The Hebrew text adds “purple, embroidered work, and byssus”; but most of these things are omitted in the LXX.

The text of vv. 18, 19 is in confusion, and Cornill, from a comparison with a contemporary wine-list of Nebuchadnezzar, and also an Assyrian one from the library of Asshurbanipal, makes it read thus: “Wine of Helbon and Zimin and Arnaban they furnished in thy markets. From Uzal,” etc. Both lists are quoted in Schrader's Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, under this verse.

The latter half of this verse, however, is of very uncertain interpretation. For full explanation of the archæological details in this chapter it will be necessary to consult the commentaries and the lexicon. See also Rawlinson's History of Phœnicia, pp. 285 ff.

With a change of one letter in the Hebrew text, המלאה for אמלאה, as in the LXX. and Targum.

Hebrew, Tĕhôm; Babylonian, Tiamat.

Psalm xxxvi. 6: cf. Gen. vii, 11.

Contra Ap., I. 21; Ant., X. xi. 1.

Cf. Hävernick against Hitzig and Winer, Ezekiel, pp. 436 f.

The same engineering feat was accomplished by Alexander the Great in seven months, but the Greek general probably adopted more scientific methods (such as pile-driving) than the Babylonians; and, besides, it is possible that the remains of Nebuchadnezzar's embankment may have facilitated the operation.

For the word גבוליך, rendered “thy borders,” Cornill proposes to read זבולך, which he thinks might mean “thine anchorage.” The translation is doubtful, but the sense is certainly appropriate.

Senir was the Amorite name of Mount Hermon, the Phœnician name being Sirion (Deut. iii. 9). Senir, however, occurs on the Assyrian monuments, and was probably widely known.

Teasshur (read בִּחְאַשֻׁרִים instead of בַּת-אַשׁוּרִים), a kind of tree mentioned several times in the Old Testament, is generally identified with the sherbîn tree.

Elishah is one of the sons of Javan (Ionia) (Gen. x. 4), and must have been some part of the Mediterranean coast, subject to the influence of Greece. Italy, Sicily, and the Peloponnesus have been suggested.

The details of the description are nearly all illustrated in pictures of Phœnician war-galleys found on Assyrian monuments. They show the single mast with its square sail, the double row of oars, the fighting men on the deck, and the row of shields along the bulwarks. In an Egyptian picture we have a representation of the embroidered sail (ancient ships are said not to have carried a flag). The canvas is richly ornamented with various devices over its whole surface, and beneath the sail we see the cabin or awning of coloured stuff mentioned in the text.

See above, pp. 232 ff.

It is not clear whether the dirge is continued to the end of the chapter, or whether vv. 33 ff. are spoken by the prophet in explanation of the distress of the nations. The proper elegiac measure cannot be made out without some alteration of the text.

Dan. x. 20, 21, xii. 1.

“The death of the uncircumcised”—i.e., a death which involves exclusion from the rites of honourable burial; like burial in unconsecrated ground among Christian nations.

Dean Church, Cathedral and University Sermons, p. 150.

“We have, indeed, a nominal religion, to which we pay tithes of property and sevenths of time; but we have also a practical and earnest religion, to which we devote nine-tenths of our property, and six-sevenths of our time. And we dispute a great deal about the nominal religion: but we are all unanimous about this practical one; of which I think you will admit that the ruling goddess may be best generally described as the ‘Goddess of Getting-on,’ or ‘Britannia of the Market.’ The Athenians had an ‘Athena Agoraia,’ or Athena of the Market; but she was a subordinate type of their goddess, while our Britannia Agoraia is the principal type of ours. And all your great architectural works are, of course, built to her. It is long since you built a great cathedral; and how you would laugh at me if I proposed building a cathedral on the top of one of these hills of yours, to make it an Acropolis! But your railroad mounds, vaster than the walls of Babylon; your railroad stations, vaster than the temple of Ephesus, and innumerable; your chimneys, how much more mighty and costly than cathedral spires! your harbour-piers; your warehouses; your exchanges!—all these are built to your great Goddess of ‘Getting-on;’ and she has formed, and will continue to form, your architecture, as long as you worship her; and it is quite vain to ask me to tell you how to build to her; you know far better than I.”—The Crown of Wild Olive.

The “fiery stones” may represent the thunderbolts, which were harmless to the prince in virtue of his innocence. It may be noted that the “precious stones” that were his covering (ver. 13) correspond with nine out of the twelve jewels that covered the high-priestly breastplate (Exod. xxviii. 17-19), the stones of the third row being those not here represented. This suggests that the allusion is rather to bejewelled garments than to the plumage of the wings of the cherub with whom the prince has been wrongly identified.

Jer. xxv. 22, xxvii. 3.

Ezek. xxix. 6, 7: cf. Isa. xxxvi. 6 (the words of Rabshakeh). In ver. 7 read כף, “hand,” for כתף, “shoulder,” and המעדת, “madest to totter,” for העמדת, “madest to stand.”

This is probable according to the Hebrew text, which, however, omits the number of the month in ch. xxxii. 17. The Septuagint reads “in the first month”; if this is accepted, it would be better to read the eleventh year instead of the twelfth in ch. xxxii. 1, as is done by some ancient versions and Hebrew codices. The change involves a difference of only one letter in Hebrew.

Ch. xxxii. 17, following the LXX. reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ant., X. ix. 7.

Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache, 1878, pp. 2 ff. and pp. 87 ff.

Ibid., 1884, pp. 87 ff., 93 ff.

See Schrader, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, III. ii., pp. 140 f.

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

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

Jer. xxxix. 9.

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

Ch. xxiv. 21-24.

Chs. xvii. 22-24, xxi. 26, 27.

See pp. 102 ff.

Cf. especially ch. xxii.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jer. xxxiii. 15-17.

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

Ch. xxxvii. 25.

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

Ch. xxxvii. 22-24.

On the whole subject of the relation of the gods to the land see Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, pp. 91 ff.

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

Ch. xxxvi. 13.

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

Gen. xxvii. 28, 39.

Numb. xiii. 32.

Isa. lxii. 4.

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

Vv. 20, 22, 23.

James ii. 7.

Psalm xlii. 10.

Ch. xxxix. 23.

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

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

Chapter XXIII. below.

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

1 Thess. iv. 13 ff.

Isa. xxvi. 19.

Dan. xii. 2.

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

Isa. vii. 8.

Chapter V., above.

Ch. xxxvi. 16-38.

Ch. xxxvi. 21.

Chs. xviii. 23, xxxiii. 11.

See pp. 75 f. above.

Ch. vi. 8-10.

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

Ch. xviii. 31.

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

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

Chs. xxxvi. 27, xxxvii. 14.

Hosea xiv. 5.

Isa. xxxii. 15.

Chs. xi. 20, xxxvi. 27.

Rom. vii. 16.

Rom. viii. 2.

Jer. xxxi. 33.

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

Cf. ch. xxxix. 23.

See ch. xxxviii. 11, 12.

Ch. xxxviii. 19-23.

Ch. xxxix. 23.

See E. Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums, p. 558; Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions, etc., on this passage.

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

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

Cush and Put (ver. 5).

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

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

Isa. x. 7.

An actual parallel is furnished by the crowds of slave-dealers who followed the army of Antiochus Epiphanes when it set out to crush the Maccabæan insurrection in 166 b.c.

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

Zeph. i.-iii. 8; Jer. iv.-vi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See pp. 318 f.

Cf. Davidson, Ezekiel, pp. liv. f.

See Prof. W. R. Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, pp. 442 f.

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

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

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

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

Gautier, La Mission du Prophète Ezekiel, p. 118.

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

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

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

See the plan in Benzinger, Archäologie, p. 394.

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

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

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

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

So in the LXX.

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

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

Heb. xii. 14.

Heb. ix. 8-10.

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

1 Sam. ii. 36.

Cf. ch. xxii. 26.

Ezra ii. 36-40.

Ezra ii. 58.

Ezra viii. 15-20.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exod. xviii. 25 ff.

Hosea iv. 6.

Cf. Deut. i. 17: “judgment is God's.”

See below, p. 493.

2 Kings xii. 4-16.

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

Deut. xviii. 3.

Deut. xviii. 4.

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

Psalm cxxxiii.

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

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

Amos viii. 5.

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

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

Ezek. xlv. 12, according to the LXX.

Prov. xi. 1.

Lev. xix. 35, 36.

Ezek. xlv. 13-16.

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

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

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

Ch. xlv. 17.

Ch. xlv. 22.

Lev. xvi. 11, 15.

2 Kings xvi. 15, 16.

Ch. xliv. 1-3.

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

Smith, Religion of the Semites, pp. 196 f.

Ch. xi. 16.

Micah vi. 6-8.

Smith, Old Testament in Jewish Church, p. 379.

Ch. xlv. 18-25.

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

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

Smend.

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

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

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

Cf. Lev. xxiii. 23-32; Numb. xxix. 1-11.

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

Deut. xvi. 13.

Ch. xlv. 22.

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

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

Ezra ix. 5.

Numb. xxviii. 3-8; Exod. xxix. 38-42.

Ch. xlvi. 13-15.

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

2 Kings xii. 17.

Cf. ch. xliii. 21.

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

Ver. 26.

טִהֵר (ver. 20).

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

כִּפֵּר (ver. 26).

See Smith, Old Testament in Jewish Church, p. 381.

Ch. xlv. 20.

Ch. xlv. 15, 17.

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

Psalm li. 16, 17.

See his Burnet Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, to which, as well as to his Old Testament in the Jewish Church, the present chapter is largely indebted.

Ch. xlvii. 1-12.

Chs. xlvii. 13-xlviii. 35.

Amos ix. 13.

Ch. xxxiv. 25-29.

Rev. xxii. 1, 2.

Isa. viii. 6.

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

Ver. 11.

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

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

Ver. 18.

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

Ver. 19.

Neh. xi. 1, 2.

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

Footnotes