Sunday, May 28th, 2023
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers Ellicott's Commentary
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Ellicott, Charles John. "Commentary on Ezekiel 41". "Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers". https://studylight.org/
commentaries/ eng/ ebc/ ezekiel-41.html. 1905.
Ellicott, Charles John. "Commentary on Ezekiel 41". "Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers". https://studylight.org/
- Henry's Complete
- Clarke Commentary
- Bridgeway Bible Commentary
- Coffman's Commentaries
- Barnes' Notes
- Bullinger's Companion Notes
- Bell's Commentary
- College Press
- Smith's Commentary
- Dummelow on the Bible
- Constable's Expository Notes
- Darby's Synopsis
- Ellicott's Commentary
- Expositor's Dictionary
- Gaebelein's Annotated
- Morgan's Exposition
- Gill's Exposition
- Everett's Study Notes
- Haydock's Catholic Commentary
- Commentary Critical
- Commentary Critical Unabridged
- Gray's Concise Commentary
- Sutcliffe's Commentary
- Trapp's Commentary
- Kretzmann's Commentary
- Lange's Commentary
- Henry's Complete
- Henry's Concise
- Pett's Commentary
- Peake's Commentary
- Preacher's Homiletical
- Poor Man's Commentary
- Benson's Commentary
- The Biblical Illustrator
- Coke's Commentary
- The Expositor's Bible Commentary
- The Pulpit Commentaries
- Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
- Wesley's Notes
- Whedon's Commentary
- Keil & Delitzsch
- Fairbairn's Commentary
- Hengstenberg's Commentary
- Ironside's Notes
- Restoration Commentary
- Utley Commentary
- Zerr's N.T. Commentary
PRELIMINARY NOTE ON CHAPTERS 40-48.
These closing chapters of Ezekiel form one continuous prophecy of a distinctly marked character. They present a vision of the Temple in minute detail, with careful measurements of its parts; various ordinances for the Temple, for the Levites, and the priests, and for the prince; a new and remarkable division of the land; and the vision of the life-giving waters issuing from the sanctuary. The whole passage differs too much from anything in the past to allow for a moment the supposition that it is historical in character; and uttered, as it was, at a time when the Temple lay in ashes, and the land desolate, it is equally clear that it cannot describe the present. It must, therefore, have been prophetic; but this fact alone will not decide whether it looked to a literal fulfilment, or was ideal in its character; although the à priori presumption must be in favour of the latter, since all was seen “in the visions of God” (Ezekiel 40:2)—an expression which Ezekiel always applies to a symbolic representation rather than to an actual image of things. Certainly the Temple was afterwards rebuilt, and the nation re-established in Palestine; but the second Temple was quite unlike the one described by Ezekiel, and no attempt was ever made to carry out his division of the land. The few interpreters who have supposed that he meant to foretell literally the sanctuary and the state of the restoration have been compelled to suppose that the returning exiles found themselves too feeble to carry out their designs, and hence that this prophecy remains as a monument of magnificent purposes which were never accomplished. If this were the correct view, it is inconceivable that there should be no allusion to the language of Ezekiel in the historical books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and in the prophecies of Haggai, which all relate to this period, and describe the return and settlement in the land, and the rebuilding of the Temple, with no reference to this prophecy, nor any trace of a desire to conform their work to its directions. Other objections to this view will be mentioned presently.
At the same time, it is to be remembered that a remnant of the people were restored to their land, and their Temple was rebuilt upon Mount Zion; it is but reasonable to suppose that these events, so often foretold, were present to the prophet’s mind, and that he looked out from them upon a more distant future, in the same way that near and typical events often with the other prophets form the basis of their foreshadowing of the future.
The only other way in which this prophecy can be literally understood is by supposing that its fulfilment is still in the future. In general, it is difficult to say that any state of things may not be realised in the future; but in this case there are features of the prophecy, and those not of a secondary or incidental character, but forming a part of its main delineations, which enable us to say unhesitatingly that their literal fulfilment would be in plain contradiction to the Divine revelation. For it is impossible to conceive, in view of the whole relations between the old and the new dispensations, as set forth in Scripture, that animal sacrifices can ever again be restored by Divine command, and find acceptance with God. And it may be added that it is equally impossible to conceive that the Church of the future, progressing in the liberty wherewith Christ has made it free, should ever return again to “the weak and beggarly elements” of Jewish bondage here set forth. But besides these obvious reasons, there are several indications in the detail of the prophecy that show it was never intended to be literally understood. These cannot all be seen without a careful examination of the details, but a few points may be presented which will make the fact sufficiently clear.
In the first place, the connection between the Temple and the city of Jerusalem is so deeply laid in all the sacred literature of the subject, as well as in the thought of every pious Israelite, that a prophecy incidentally separating them, without any distinct statement of the fact, or assignment of a reason for so doing, is scarcely conceivable. Yet in this portion of Ezekiel the Temple is described as at a distance of nearly nine and a half miles from the utmost bound of the city, or about fourteen and a quarter miles from its centre. This holds true, however the tribe portions of the land and the “oblation” be located (see the map in the Notes to Ezekiel 48:0); for the priests’ portion of the “oblation” (Ezekiel 48:10), in the midst of which the sanctuary is placed, is 10,000 reeds, or about nineteen miles broad; to the south of this (Ezekiel 48:15-17) is a strip of land of half the width, in which the city with its “suburbs” is situated. occupying its whole width.
A Temple in any other locality than Mount Moriah would hardly be the Temple of Jewish hope and association; but Ezekiel’s Temple, with its precincts, is a mile square, larger than the whole ancient city of Jerusalem. It is hardly possible that the precincts of any actual Temple could be intended to embrace such a variety of hill and valley as the country presents. However this may be, the prophet describes it as situated many miles north of the city, and the city itself as several miles north of the site of Jerusalem. This would place the Temple well on the road to Samaria.
But, still further, the description of the oblation itself is physically impossible. The boundaries of the land are the Jordan on the one side and the Mediterranean on the other (Ezekiel 47:15-21). The “oblation” could not have reached so far south as the mouth of the Jordan; but even at that point the whole breadth of the country is but fifty-five miles. Now measuring forty-seven and one-third miles north (the width of the oblation) a point is reached where the distance between the river and the sea is barely forty miles. It is impossible, therefore, that the oblation itself should be included between them, and the description requires that there should also be room left for the prince’s portion at either end.
Again, while the city of the vision is nowhere expressly said to be Jerusalem, it is yet described as the great city of the restored theocracy. It cannot, as already said, be placed geographically upon the site of Jerusalem. Either, then, this city must be understood ideally, or else a multitude of other prophecies, and notably many in Ezekiel which speak of the future of Zion and of Jerusalem, must be so interpreted. There is no good reason why both should not be interpreted figuratively, but it is impossible to understand both literally; for some of these prophecies make statements in regard to the future quite as literal in form as these of Ezekiel, and yet in direct conflict with them. To select a single instance from a prophecy not much noticed: Obadiah, who was probably a contemporary of Ezekiel, foretells (Ezekiel 39:19-20) that at the restoration “Benjamin shall possess Gilead;” but, according to Ezekiel, Gilead is not in the land of the restoration at all, and Benjamin’s territory is to be immediately south of the “oblation.” Again, Obadiah says, “The captivity of Jerusalem” (which, in distinction from “the captivity of the host of the children of Israel,” must refer to the two tribes) “shall possess the cities of the south;” but, according to Ezekiel, Judah and Benjamin are to adjoin the central “oblation,” and on the south four of the other tribes are to have their portion. Such instances might be multiplied if necessary.
The division of the land among the twelve tribes; the entire change in assigning to the priests and to the Levites large landed estates, and to the former as much as to the latter; the enormous size of the Temple precincts and of the city, with the comparatively small allotment of land for its support, are all so singular, and so entirely without historical precedent, that only the clearest evidence would justify the assumption that these things were intended to be literally carried out. No regard is paid to the differing numbers of the various tribes, but an equal strip of land is assigned to each of them; and, the trans-Jordanic territory being excluded and about one-fifth of the whole land set apart as an “oblation,” the portion remaining allows to each of the tribes but about two-thirds as much territory as, on the average, they had formerly possessed. The geographical order of the tribes is extremely singular: Judah and Benjamin are, indeed, placed on the two sides of the consecrated land, and the two eldest, Reuben and Simeon, are placed next to them, and Dan is put at the extreme north, where a part of the tribe had formerly lived; but the classification extends no further, and the remaining tribes are arranged neither in order of seniority nor of maternity, nor yet of ancient position. Moreover, nearly the whole territory assigned to Zebulon and Gad is habitable only by nomads, except on the supposition of physical changes in the land.
Another consequence of this division of the land is important: the Levites, being now provided for in the “oblation,” no longer have their cities among the tribes. But it had been expressly provided that the “cities of refuge” (which must be distributed through the land in order to fulfil their purpose) should be Levitical cities (Numbers 35:9-15). With this change, therefore, the provision for cities of refuge ceases, and a profound alteration is made in the whole Mosaic law in regard to manslaughter and murder.
The ordinances for the sacrifices and feasts, as given in Ezekiel 45, 46, differ greatly from those of the Mosaic law, as will be pointed out in the commentary. For the variation in the amount of the “meat offering,” and of the number and character of the victims on various occasions, it is difficult to assign any other reason than that they were intended as indications that the prophet’s scheme was not to be taken literally; it is certain that no attempt was made at the restoration thus to modify the Mosaic ritual, although this could have been done without difficulty if it had been understood that it was intended. The ample provision for the prince, and the regulations for his conduct, were politically wise and useful additions to the Mosaic economy, if literally understood, but which no attempt was ever made to carry out in practice. But in the ordering of the great cycle of feasts and fasts, the modification of the Mosaic system is so profound as quite to change its symbolic value. The “feast of weeks” and the great day of atonement are altogether omitted; and also the “new moons,” except that of the first month, which is enhanced in value. The fact that the men who received these teachings from Ezekiel’s own lips and had charge of the ordering of the services in the restored Temple, paid no attention to these changes, is strong evidence that they did not consider them as meant to be literally carried out.
 This prophecy was given in the twenty-fifth year of the captivity, and was, therefore, forty-five years before the restoration. The elderly men of the restoration must have been of full age to appreciate this prophecy at the time it was uttered, and in the immediately subsequent years of its perusal and discussion. There can be no reasonable doubt, also, that the prophecies of Ezekiel were carried back to Judæa by the returning exiles, and from their very nature they must have been made generally known to those who were in the captivity.
In connection with the omission of the day of atonement, all mention of the high priest is carefully left out. That this is not accidental is shown by the fact that the laws of marriage and of mourning for all the priests are made more strict than in the legislation of Moses (Ezekiel 44:22-27), evidently as a sort of compensation for the omitted legislation in regard to the high priest. But the Levitical system without a high priest becomes a different institution in itself, and is also greatly changed in its symbolism.
It may be remarked in passing that the system here set forth is not at all of the nature of an intermediate or transitional ritual between that which we know existed under the monarchy, and that which is set forth in the Levitical law, and therefore affords no basis for the theory that the Levitical system was the outgrowth of the captivity. The absence of the high priest, so prominent both in the law and in the history, is alone a sufficient proof of this; and to this may be added the full regulations for the prince in Ezekiel, of which there is no trace in either the earlier or the subsequent history.
A further difficulty with the literal interpretation may be found in the description of the waters which issued from under the eastern threshold of the Temple (Ezekiel 47:1-12). These waters run to the “east country,” and go down “to the sea,” which can only be the Dead Sea; but such a course would be physically impossible without changes in the surface of the earth, since the location of the Temple of the vision is on the west of the watershed of the country. They had, moreover, the effect of “healing” the waters of the sea, an effect which could not be produced naturally without providing an outlet from the sea; no supply of fresh water could remove the saltness while this water was all disposed of by evaporation, and Ezekiel (in Ezekiel 47:11) excludes the idea of an outlet. But, above all, the character of the waters themselves is impossible without a perpetual miracle. Setting aside the difficulty of a spring of this magnitude upon the top of “a very high mountain” (Ezekiel 40:2) in this locality, at the distance of 1,000 cubits from their source, the waters have greatly increased in volume; and so with each successive 1,000 cubits, until at the end of 4,000 cubits (about a mile and a half) they have become a river no longer fordable, or, in other words, comparable to the Jordan. Such an increase, without accessory streams, is clearly not natural. But, beyond all this, the description of the waters themselves clearly marks them as ideal. They are life-giving and healing; trees of perennial foliage and fruit grow upon their banks, the leaves being for “medicine,” and the fruit, although for food, never wasting. The reader cannot fail to be reminded of “the pure river of water of life” in Revelation 22:1-2, “on either side” of which was “the tree of life” with “its twelve manner of fruits,” and its leaves “for the healing of the nations.” The author of the Apocalypse evidently had this passage in mind; and just as he has adopted the description of Gog and Magog as an ideal description, and applied it to the events of the future, so he has treated this as an ideal prophecy, and applied it to the Church triumphant.
It is to be remembered that this whole vision is essentially one, and that it would be unreasonable to give a literal interpretation to one part of it and a figurative to another. All the objections, therefore, which lie against the supposition of the restoration of animal sacrifices hold also against the supposition of the general restoration of the Jewish Temple and polity. This was felt at an early day, and such Christian commentators as Ephrem Syrus, Theodoret, and Jerome adopted throughout a symbolic or typical explanation. The changes in the Mosaic law are indeed great, but still are only of detail, and leave it open to the Apostolic description as a “bondage” to which we cannot suppose the providence of God would ever lead back the Church Christ has redeemed at the cost of the sacrifice of Himself. Either the whole argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews is a mistake, not to speak of those to the Romans and Galatians, nor of our Lord’s own discourses (as with the woman of Samaria), or else the Holy Spirit could not have intended a literal realisation in the future of this vision of Ezekiel.
We thus come to regard this prophecy as an ideal one on every ground, not looking for any literal and material fulfilment. If it should be asked, Why then is it given with such a wealth of minute material detail? the answer is obvious, that this is thoroughly characteristic of Ezekiel. The tendency, strongly marked in every part of his book, merely culminates in this closing vision. The two previous chapters, especially, have abounded in concrete and definite details of the attack of a great host upon the land of Israel, while yet these very details have given evidence upon examination that they could not have been meant to be literally understood, and that the whole prophecy was intended to shadow forth the great and final spiritual conflict, prolonged through ages, between the power of the world and the kingdom of God. So here, the prophet, wishing to set forth the glory, the purity, and the beneficent influence of the Church of the future, clothes his description in those terms of the past with which his hearers were familiar. The use of such terms was a necessity in making himself intelligible to his contemporaries, just as to the very close of the inspired volume it is still necessary to set forth the glory and joy of the Church triumphant under the figures of earthly and familiar things, while no one is misled thereby to imagine that the heavenly Jerusalem will be surrounded with a literal wall of jasper, “twelve thousand furlongs” = 1,500 miles (Revelation 21:16; Revelation 21:18), or that its twelve gates shall be each of an actual pearl. It is remarkable that in two instances, that of Gog and that of the river of life, the imagery is the same in Ezekiel and in Revelation. At the same time Ezekiel is careful to introduce among his details so many points that were impossible, or, at least, the literal fulfilment of which would have been strangely inconsistent with his main teaching, as to show that his description must be ideal, and that its realisation is to be sought for beneath the types and shadows in which it was clothed. It may be as impossible to find the symbolical meaning of each separate detail as it is to tell the typical meaning of the sockets for the boards of the tabernacle, although the tabernacle as a whole is expressly said to have been a type. This is the case with every vision, and parable, and type, and every form of setting forth truth by imagery; there must necessarily be much which has no independent signification, but is merely subsidiary to the main point. It is characteristic of Ezekiel that these subsidiary details should be elaborated with the utmost minuteness. His purpose was understood by his contemporaries, and by the generation immediately succeeding, so that they never made any attempt to carry out his descriptions in the rebuilding of the Temple and reconstitution of the State. The idea of a literal interpretation of his words was reserved for generations long distant from his time, from the forms of the Church under which he lived, and from the circumstances and habits of expression with which he was familiar, and under the influence of which he wrote.
This chapter gives the measurements and describes the ornaments of the Temple itself and its various appurtenances.
(1) Six cubits broad.—These posts, as in other cases, are the parts of the wall at the sides of the entrance. There is an apparent discrepancy between this and the following verse, where “the sides of the door” are said to be “five cubits,” and the latter agrees with the whole width of the house (5 + 10 + 5 = 20.) It is necessary, therefore, to understand the measurement of this verse as taken the other way—as we should say, the side walls of the doors were of the same thickness with the other walls—viz., six cubits. The words which was are not in the original, and tend to give a false impression. Tabernacle or tent is the name by which the sanctuary was known before the erection of the Temple.
(2) The length thereof, forty cubits.—These are exactly the dimensions of the Holy Place in Solomon’s Temple. The Holy of Holies is not included, being measured by itself in Ezekiel 41:4.
(3) Went he inward.—There is here a noticeable change in the usual expression; in all other cases the angel had brought the prophet to the places to be measured, but as he is here entering the Holy of Holies, into which, under the law, Ezekiel might not enter, the angel goes in alone. The prophetic vision was not yet sufficiently clear to speak of the way into the true Holy of Holies as at length opened to all (Hebrews 9:8; Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 10:19).
The door, six cubits.—Door is here used for doorway, the clear space between the posts. The “breadth of the door” itself is immediately said to be seven cubits, the door overlapping the posts in a shoulder half a cubit on each side.
(4) Before the temple.—Temple is here, as in Ezekiel 41:1, used of the Holy Place, and before, or west of this, was the Holy of Holies, an exact cube, of the same size as in Solomon’s Temple. The thickness of the dividing wall between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies is nowhere mentioned, nor is it taken into account in the measurements. It was merely a division, either a vail, or perhaps a screen of wood, and occupied little room.
(5) The wall of the house, six cubits.—The thickness of the wall is the same with that of the wall of the outer court (Ezekiel 40:5), about ten feet. Great massiveness is characteristic of Oriental architecture, but is carried to excess in this vision, to set forth the firmness and security of the things symbolised.
Every side chamber.—Every is not in the original, and is unnecessary. He measured the range of side rooms, the word being used collectively. These (J J [Ezekiel 40:44-49]) entirely surrounded the house, except on the front or east side where the porch stood.
(6) Three, one over another, and thirty in order.—Literally, three (and that) thirty times—i.e., there were three storeys of chambers one above the other, and this was repeated thirty times, giving thirty chambers in each storey, or ninety in all. These chambers were exactly like those surrounding Solomon’s Temple, except that they were one cubit narrower, and the description of them is made clearer by a comparison with 1 Kings 6:5-10. The Greek version says that there was a space between these chambers and the wall of the house, and several interpreters have followed this explanation; but this is quite inconsistent with the language of the original, and would involve an inner wall for the chambers, of which there is no mention, and for which no space is allowed.
Entered into the wall . . . but they had not hold.—More exactly, they came upon the wall. The “house” cannot without violence be understood of anything but the Temple itself. The construction was the same as in Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 6:6), the wall receding with each storey of the chambers, thus leaving a ledge on which the beams should rest, “that the beams should not be fastened in the walls of the house.”
Nothing is said of the distribution of these chambers, but, as will be seen by the plan, a uniform size requires that they should be placed twelve on each side, and six at the end of the Temple.
(7) And there was an enlarging.—The description in this verse is difficult to understand, and has called out much variety of opinion. The main facts are clear: that there was an increase in the width of each storey of the side chambers by the distance which the wall receded, as is expressly said in 1 Kings 6:6; but whether there was a corresponding recession in the thickness of the outer wall of the chambers is not stated. It is also plain that the side chambers surrounded the house; and that the two upper storeys were reached by a winding staircase (w [Ezekiel 40:44-49]). It is impossible to enter into more detail without a careful discussion of the words in the original, the meaning of some of which is disputed.
(8) I saw also the height of the house.—This does not mean the height of the house itself, which is nowhere stated. The words are, literally, I saw for the house a height (i.e., an elevation) round about, and the meaning of this is explained in what follows. The Temple, as has been already said (Ezekiel 40:49), was entered by a flight of steps leading up to the porch, and was therefore on a higher level than the court. We are now told that the side chambers had a foundation of six cubits. Whether this “foundation” of the Temple and the side chambers was built of masonry, or, as is more probable, was a sort of basement to contain cisterns and storage rooms, we are not told; but it probably extended, under the name of “the place that was left” (Ezekiel 41:9; Ezekiel 41:11), five cubits beyond the outer wall of the chambers, forming a platform from which they were entered.
Six great cubits.—Literally, six cubits to the joint, or to the armpit, for the word has both significations. It is plain that a cubit of a different length, measured to the armpit, cannot be intended, both because no such cubit is known to have been in use at any time, and because Ezekiel in Ezekiel 40:5 has already fixed the length of the cubit he uses. The sense of joint is therefore to be taken, and this applied architecturally can only mean the point at which one part of the building joins another; here, the point where the superstructure meets the foundation, or, as we should say, “six cubits to the water-table.”
(9) That which was left.—After stating the thickness of the outer wall of the side chambers at five cubits, the prophet speaks of the remaining space left unoccupied by the building. The clause should be translated, “and so also (i.e., of the same width) was that which was left free against the house of side chambers which belonged to the house,” i.e., to the Temple. The same width is assigned to this space in Ezekiel 41:11.
(10) Between the chambers.—There was a space of twenty cubits (I) between the foundation on which the chambers and the Temple stood and the wall of the court on all three sides on which the chambers extended.
(11) The doors of the side chambers.—These doors opened upon the platform, that for the series on the north side to the north, and for the other to the south. There was but one door on each side, so that the series of chambers must have been entered one from another.
We may now sum up the measurements of the Temple with its chambers and surrounding space. The wall, 6 cubits; the chambers, 4; their outer wall, 5; the platform beyond, 5; the space beyond this, 20 (6 + 4 + 5 + 5 + 20 = 40). This was on each side, and therefore is to be doubled, making 80 cubits; to this add the 20 cubits of the inner width of the Temple, and we have exactly the 100 cubits, the width of the inner court. In the same way the length: here the porch is considered as belonging to the court, and with it the front wall of the Temple, the thickness of which is included in the length of the porch. Beginning then at the inside of the outer walls, we have the inner length of Temple, 60 cubits; rear wall, 6; chambers, 4; outer wall, 5; platform, 5; space, 20; in all, 100 cubits. thus making an exact square.
(12) The separate place.—This is the space at the west end of the Temple (20 cubits broad) before coming to another building. Nothing is here said of the purposes of this other building; but it is probably “the appointed place” (Ezekiel 43:21) for the burning of the sin-offering, and also of any remains of other sacrifices which required to be consumed by fire, and of any other refuse from the Temple. Its total width of 80 cubits (70 cubits + 2 walls of 5 cubits each) leaves a passage-way of 10 cubits on each side; while its length (90 cubits + two walls of 5 cubits each—100 cubits) Just fills the space from “the separate place” to the wall of the court. (See plan II., G. [Ezekiel 40:44-49]) The sum-total of the exterior measurements is given in Ezekiel 41:13-14.
(15) And he measured.—The rest of the chapter consists of an enumeration of various details, for the most part not before mentioned, and this is introduced by a summary of the measurements already made. This clause is therefore to be understood as equivalent to “So he measured,” or, “And he had measured.” The dimensions of each of the principal parts is then repeated: the building to the west of the Temple, the Temple itself, and the porches of the court. The only new point introduced is “the galleries thereof.” It seems certain that this must refer to the building beyond “the separate place;” but the word for galleries occurs only here and in Ezekiel 41:16, and Ezekiel 42:3; Ezekiel 42:5, and its derivation is quite unknown. The translation, galleries, is probably correct; and as there was a space of 10 cubits on each side of the building in question, there may very well have been galleries covering and protecting its entrances, although they are not located with sufficient definiteness to be drawn on the plan.
(16) The door posts.—This is the same word as in Ezekiel 40:6-7, &c., and means thresholds. The various particulars mentioned—the thresholds, the windows, and the galleries—are all to be taken in connection with the “he measured” of Ezekiel 41:15, and are details of the three buildings there spoken of, yet they did not all of them necessarily belong to each building.
Narrow windows.—Rather, closed windows. (See Note on Ezekiel 40:16.)
On their three stories.—“Stories” is not in the original, and introduces a wrong idea. He measured the three buildings (Ezekiel 41:15), and various details about their three (constructions) (Ezekiel 41:16).
Over against the door, cieled with wood round about.—This is really a parenthesis, although scarcely intelligible as it stands. Translate, Opposite the thresholds (was) a ceiling of wood round about. The part strictly opposite the threshold was the lintel; but the expression is here broad enough to include also the sides of the doorway. The doorways in the various buildings were all ceiled with wood, and it is afterwards said that this was carved.
And from the ground.—After the parenthesic, the construction dependent upon “he measured” is resumed. As everything else was measured, so also the space between the ground and the windows; then, again, it is mentioned parenthetically that the windows were covered, viz., as in Ezekiel 40:16, by lattices fastened so as not to be opened.
(17) To that above the door.—Better, (The space) over above the door, both to the inner house and without . . . (was) by measure. The verse is an emphatic repetition of the fact that everything was by measure.
(18) With cherubims and palm trees.—Ezekiel 41:18-21 describe the interior ornamentation of the Temple, which was like that of the Temple of Solomon (1 Kings 6:29-30). It may be assumed that here, as there, these figures were carved upon the woodwork. The “s” at the end of “cherubims” is quite unnecessary, “cherubim” itself being plural.
Every cherub had two faces.—In Ezekiel 1:10 the cherubim are represented each with four faces, but being merely symbolic, not actual creatures, they may be modified at pleasure, and here, in accordance with the exigencies of the carving, they have but two faces.
(20) Unto above the door.—The height of the door is nowhere mentioned, and therefore there is nothing to determine how high up the carving was carried; but as it is said that it was also “upon the wall of the Temple,” we may assume that the whole interior wall was ceiled with carved wood as in Solomon’s Temple.
(21) The posts of the temple.—Posts is a different word from that hitherto used, and always means the framework in which the doors were hung. Temple is, as before, the Holy Place, in distinction from the sanctuary, or Holy of Holies. The door-frames of both were square and just alike.
(22) The altar of wood.—This is what was known in the tabernacle (Exodus 30:1-3) as the altar of incense, and in the Temple as the altar of gold (1 Kings 7:48), although here its dimensions are enlarged.
The corners thereof.—This doubtless includes the “horns,” or projecting pieces at the corners, which were always an important part of the symbolism of the altar. The expression “length” in its repetition is generally thought to mean (by a slight change in the text) “the stand” or “base.” Table and altar are used synonymously, as in Malachi 1:7.
(24) Two turning leaves.—The doors both of the Holy Place and of the Holy of Holies are more fully described in 1 Kings 6:31-35. It is to be understood that each of them was made in two parts, and each part again in two leaves folding back, so that there were in all four leaves in each door.
(25) Thick planks.—After stating that the doors just described were ornamented like the walls, the prophet speaks of something that was on the outer front of the porch. What this was, is extremely doubtful, as the word is elsewhere used only in 1 Kings 7:6, of something in front of Solomon’s cloisters or “porch of pillars.” Perhaps the best suggestion is that it may have been a moulding of wood. The word in the original is in the singular.
(26) Windows and palm trees.—These have already been mentioned in connection with the gateways (Ezekiel 40:16), and are now further described as in the “side chambers of the temple.” The last word, translated “thick planks,” is very obscure. If it be the plural of the word used in Ezekiel 41:25, it would mean that the mouldings in front of the porches were also carved with palm trees.
It is to be observed that in these outer parts of the Temple only palm trees were used in the ornamentation, the cherubim being reserved for the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies.
The description of the Temple proper is now finished, and it is noticeable how very little is said of its interior furniture and arrangements. There is no mention at all of that profuse overlaying with gold so characteristic of Solomon’s Temple; nothing is said of the candlestick, or the table of show-bread; even the ark itself, that climax of Israel’s symbolic worship, is not mentioned. The prophet seems to be looking forward to the time described by his contemporary, Jeremiah, when these outward symbols should be forgotten in the higher spiritual presence of the Lord: “They shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD; neither shall it come to mind. . . . At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD, and all the nations shall be gathered unto it” (Jeremiah 3:16-17).