Ezekiel 44 commentary

EZEKIEL 44 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
The Priesthood Restored
1 Then the man brought me back to the outer gate
of the sanctuary, the one facing east, and it was
shut.
BARNES, "Outward sanctuary - The court of the priests, as distinguished from
the temple itself. This gate was reserved for the prince, to whom it was opened on certain
days. Only a prince of the house of David might sit down in the priests’ court (compare
Eze_46:1-2).
CLARKE, "The outward sanctuary - In opposition to the temple itself, which was
the inner sanctuary.
GILL, "Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward
sanctuary,.... The prophet was brought by his divine guide, from the altar of burnt
offerings, which stood before the house, where he had given him the dimensions of it,
and the ordinances concerning it, to the temple or holy place, called the outward
sanctuary, in distinction from the inward sanctuary, or holy of holies; and to one of the
gates of it, which was a gate of the inner court:
and which looketh toward the east: the eastern gate, and was the same he had been
at before, and therefore is said to be brought back the way of it; see Eze_43:1,
and it was shut; when he was there before, it was open; for he saw the glory of the
Lord enter into the house by the way of it; but now it was shut, and for that reason,
1

because he had entered into it; signifying, among other things, that he would never
return, or remove from thence any more. The Misnic doctors (d) interpret this of one of
the little doors to the great gate of the temple, that had two little doors, one in the north,
the other in the south; that which was in the south no man ever entered in by, and this
they say is understood here; but it is not a little door, but a gate here spoken of, and that
the eastern one; of which more in the following verses.
HENRY, "The prophet is here brought to review what he had before once surveyed;
for, though we have often looked into the things of God, they will yet bear to be looked
over again, such a copiousness there is in them. The lessons we have learned we should
still repeat to ourselves. Every time we review the sacred fabric of holy things, which we
have in the scriptures, we shall still find something new which we did not before take
notice of. The prophet is brought a third time to the east gate, and finds it shut, which
intimates that the rest of the gates were open at all times to the worshippers. But such an
account is given of this gate's being shut as puts honour, 1. Upon the God of Israel. It is
for the honour of him that the gate of the inner court, at which his glory entered when he
took possession of the house, was ever after kept shut, and no man was allowed to enter
in by it, Eze_44:2. The difference ever after made between this and the other gates, that
this was shut when the others were open, was intended both to perpetuate the
remembrance of the solemn entrance of the glory of the Lord into the house (which it
would remain a traditional evidence of the truth of) and also to possess the minds of
people with a reverence for the Divine Majesty, and with very awful thoughts of his
transcendent glory, which was designed in God's charge to Moses at the bush, Put off thy
shoe from off thy foot. God will have a way by himself. 2. Upon the prince of Israel, Eze_
44:3. It is an honour to him that though he may not enter in by this gate, for no man
may, yet, (1.) He shall sit in this gate to eat his share of the peace-offerings, that sacred
food, before the Lord. (2.) He shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, by some
little door or wicket, either in the gate or adjoining to it, which is called the say of the
porch. This as to signify that God puts some of his glory upon magistrates, upon the
princes of his people, for he has said, You are gods. Some by the prince here understand
the high priests, or the sagan or second priest; and that he only was allowed to enter by
this gate, for he was God's representative. Christ is the high priest of our profession, who
entered himself into the holy place, and opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers.
JAMISON, "Eze_44:1-31. Ordinances for the Prince and the priests.
K&D 1-3, "The Place of the Prince in the Sanctuary. - Eze_44:1. And he brought me
back by the way to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which looked toward the east; and
it was shut. Eze_44:2. And Jehovah said to me, This gate shall be shut, shall not be
opened, and no one shall enter thereby; because Jehovah, the God of Israel, has entered
by it, it shall be shut. Eze_44:3. As for the prince, as prince he shall sit therein, to eat
bread before Jehovah; from the way to the porch of the gate shall he go in, and from its
way shall he go out. - From the inner court where Ezekiel had received the
measurements of the altar of burnt-offering and the instructions concerning its
consecration (Eze_43:5.), he is taken back to the east gate of the outer court, and finds
2

this gate, which formed the principle entrance to the temple, closed. Jehovah explains
this fact to him through the angel (‫ר‬ ֶ‫ַיּאמ‬ is to be understood according to Eze_43:6 and
Eze_43:7) thus: “this gate is to be shut, because Jehovah, the God of Israel, has entered
into the temple thereby,” as we have already learned from Eze_43:2. Only the prince, as
prince, was allowed to sit in it for the purpose of holding sacrificial meals there. So far
the meaning of the words is clear and indisputable. For there can be no doubt whatever
that Eze_44:3 introduces a more precise statement concerning the closing of the gate; in
other words, that the right of sitting in the gate to eat bread before Jehovah, which is
conceded to the priest, is intended as an explanation, resp. modification and limitation,
of the statement ‫ָה‬‫י‬ ָ‫ה‬ ְ‫ו‬ (Eze_44:2). On the other hand, the more precise definition of the
prerogative granted to the prince in Eze_44:3 is not quite clear, and therefore open to
dispute. Such a prerogative is already indicated in the prominence expressly given to the
prince, consisting partly in the fact that ַ‫יא‬ ִ‫ָשׂ‬‫נּ‬‫ת־ה‬ ֶ‫א‬ is written first in an absolute form,
and partly in the expression ‫יא‬ ִ‫ָשׂ‬‫נ‬ ‫,הוּא‬ which is repeated in the form of a circumstantial
clause, “prince is he,” equivalent to “because he is prince, he is to sit there.” ‫יא‬ ִ‫ָשׂ‬‫נ‬ is
neither the high priest, as many of the older commentators supposed, nor a collective
term for the civil authorities of the people of Israel in the Messianic times (Hävernick),
but the David who will be prince in Israel at that time, according to Eze_34:23-24, and
Eze_37:24. “To eat bread before Jehovah” signifies to hold a sacrificial meal at the place
of the divine presence, i.e., in the temple court, and is not to be restricted, as Kliefoth
supposes, to that sacrificial meal “which was held after and along with the bloodless
sacrifices, viz., the minchoth, and the shew-breads, and the sweet loaves of the Passover.”
There is no authority in the usage of the language for this literal interpretation of the
expression “to eat bread,” for ‫ל‬ַ‫כ‬ ָ‫א‬ ‫ם‬ ֶ‫ח‬ֶ‫ל‬ means in general to partake of a meal, compare
Gen_31:54, etc., and especially Exo_18:12, where Jethro “eats bread before God” with
Aaron and the elders of Israel, that is to say, joins in a sacrificial meal composed of
‫ים‬ ִ‫ח‬ ָ‫ב‬ְ‫ז‬ or slain-offerings. According to this view, which is the only one supported by
usage, the prerogative secured to the ‫יא‬ ִ‫ָשׂ‬‫נ‬ of the future is not “that of participating in the
sacrificial meals (of the priests), which were to be held daily with the minchoth and shew-
bread, in opposition to the law which prevailed before” (Kliefoth), but simply that of
holding his sacrificial meals in the gate, i.e., in the porch of the gate, whereas the people
were only allowed to hold them in the court, namely, in the vicinity of the sacrificial
kitchens.
There is also a difference of opinion concerning the meaning of the second statement
in Eze_44:3 : “from the way of the porch of the gate shall he enter in, and thence shall he
go out.” The suffix in ‫כּ‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫דּ‬ ִ‫מ‬ can only refer to ‫ם‬ ָ‫,אוּל‬ “from the way from which he came
(entered), from this way shall he go out again.” Hitzig follows the Rabbins, who
understand the passage thus: “as the gate is to remain shut, he must go by the way to the
porch which is directed inwardly, toward the court (Eze_40:9). He must have gone into
the outer court through the north or the south gate, and by the way by which he came he
also went back again.” But Kliefoth argues, in objection to this, that “if the prince was to
eat the bread in the porch, the entrance through the south or the north gate would be of
no use to him at all; as the gate which could be shut was at that door of the porch which
was turned toward the outer court.” Moreover, he affirms that it is not at all the meaning
of the text that he was to eat the bread in the porch, but that he was to eat it in the gate-
building, and he was to come thither ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫דּ‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫ם‬ ָ‫אוּל‬ ‫ר‬ַ‫ע‬ַ‫שּׁ‬ ַ‫,ה‬ i.e., “from the place which
3

served as a way to the gate porch, that is to say, the walk from the eastern entrance of the
gate-building to the front of the porch, and from that was he to go out again.” The
prince, therefore, was “to go into the gate-building as far as the front of the porch
through the eastern entrance, there to eat his bread before Jehovah, and to come out
again from thence, so that the gate at the western side of the gate porch still remained
shut.” But we cannot regard either of these views as correct. There is no firm foundation
in the text for Kliefoth's assertion, that he was not to eat the bread in the porch, but in
the gate-building. It is true that the porch is not expressly mentioned as the place where
the eating was to take place, but simply the gate ( ‫;)בּ‬ yet the porch belonged to the gate
as an integral part of the gate-building; and if ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫דּ‬ ‫ם‬ ָ‫אוּל‬ is the way to the porch, or the
way leading to the porch, the words, “by the way to the porch shall he enter in,” imply
clearly enough that he was to go into the porch and to eat bread there. This is also
demanded by the circumstance, as the meaning of the words cannot possibly be that the
prince was to hold his sacrificial meal upon the threshold of the gate, or in one of the
guard-rooms, or in the middle of the gateway; and apart from the porch, there were no
other places in the gate-building than those we have named. And again, the statement
that the gate on the western side of the gate porch was to be shut, and not that against
the eastern wall, is also destitute of proof, as ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫דּ‬ ‫ם‬ ָ‫,אוּל‬ the way to the porch, is not
equivalent to the way “up to the front of the porch.” And if the prince was to hold the
sacrificial meal behind the inner gate, which was closed, how was the food when it was
prepared to be carried into the gate-building? Through a door of one of the guard-
rooms? Such a supposition is hardly reconcilable with the significance of a holy
sacrificial meal. In fact, it is a question whether eating in the gate-building with the inner
door closed, so that it was not even possible to look toward the sanctuary, in which
Jehovah was enthroned, could be called eating ‫ֵי‬‫נ‬ ְ‫פ‬ ִ‫.ל‬
Hitzig's explanation of the words is not exposed to any of these difficulties, but it is
beset by others. At the outset it is chargeable with improbability, as it is impossible to
see any just ground why the prince, if he was to hold the sacrificial meal in the porch of
the east gate, should not have been allowed to enter through this gate, but was obliged to
take the circuitous route through the south or the north gate. Again, it is irreconcilable
with the analogous statements in Ezekiel 46. According to Eze_46:1., the east gate of the
inner court was to be shut, namely, during the six working days; but on the Sabbath and
on the new moon it was to be opened. Then the prince was to come by the way of the
gate porch from without, and during the preparation of his sacrifice by the priests to
stand upon the threshold of the gate and worship. This same thing was to take place
when the prince desired to offer a freewill offering on any of the week-days. The east gate
was to be opened for him to this end; but after the conclusion of the offering of sacrifice
it was to be closed again, whereas on the Sabbaths and new moons it was to stand open
till the evening (Eze_46:12 compared with Eze_44:2). It is still further enjoined, that
when offering these sacrifices the prince is to enter by the way of the gate porch, and to
go out again by the same way (Eze_44:2 and Eze_44:8); whereas on the feast days, on
which the people appear before Jehovah, every one who comes, the priest along with the
rest, is to go in and out through the north or the south gate (Eze_44:9 and Eze_44:10).
If, therefore, on the feast days, when the people appeared before Jehovah, the prince was
to go into the temple in the midst of the people through the north or the south gate to
worship, whereas on the Sabbaths and new moons, on which the people were not
required to appear before the Lord, so that the prince alone had to bring the offerings for
himself and the people, he was to enter by the way of the porch of the east gate, and to go
4

out again by the same, and during the ceremony of offering the sacrifice was to stand
upon the threshold of the inner east gate, it is obvious that the going in and out by the
way of the porch of the gate was to take place by a different way from that through the
north or the south gate. This other way could only be through the east gate, as no fourth
gate existed. - The conclusion to which this brings us, so far as the passage before us is
concerned, is that the shutting of the east gate of the outer court was to be the rule, but
that there were certain exceptions which are not fully explained till Ezekiel 46, though
they are hinted at in the chapter before us in the directions given there, that the prince
was to hold the sacrificial meal in this gate. - The outer east gate, which was probably the
one chiefly used by the people when appearing before the Lord in the earlier temple,
both for going in and coming out, is to be shut in the new temple, and not to be made use
of by the people for either entrance or exit, because the glory of the Lord entered into the
temple thereby. This reason is of course not to be understood in the way suggested by
the Rabbins, namely, that the departure of the Shechinah from the temple was to be
prevented by the closing of the gate; but the thought is this: because this gateway had
been rendered holy through the entrance of the Shechinah into the temple thereby, it
was not to remain open to the people, so as to be desecrated, but was to be kept
perpetually holy. This keeping holy was not prejudiced in any way by the fact that the
prince held the sacrificial meal in the gate, and also entered the court through this
gateway for the purpose of offering his sacrifice, which was made ready by the priests
before the inner gate, and then was present at the offering of the sacrifice upon the altar,
standing upon the threshold of the inner gate-building. ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫דּ‬ ‫ם‬ ָ‫אוּל‬ is therefore the way
which led from the outer flight of steps across the threshold past the guard-rooms to the
gate porch at the inner end of the gate-building. By this way the priest was to go into the
gate opened for him, and hold the sacrificial meal therein, namely, in the porch of this
gate. That the offering of the sacrifice necessarily preceded the meal is assumed as self-
evident, and the law of sacrifice in Ezekiel 46 first prescribes the manner in which the
prince was to behave when offering the sacrifice, and how near to the altar he was to be
allowed to go.
ELLICOTT, "The altar being consecrated, the next thing is to provide for the
purity of the worship of which it is the centre. The pollutions of former times had
been largely introduced by the princes, and by the Levites and priests; and these
classes are therefore treated of in this chapter. Only three verses are here given to
the prince, since he is to be spoken of at greater length hereafter, and the rest of the
chapter is occupied with directions as to the exclusion of strangers, and the duties of
the Levites and priests.
(1) The gate of the outward sanctuary.—This is better rendered, the outer gate of
the sanctuary. The prophet had been in the inner court, or court of the priests,
where the altar stood, and is now brought back to the eastern gate of the outer
court. He finds it shut, as it was ordinarily to remain; but with the exceptions
5

mentioned in Ezekiel 44:3, and in Ezekiel 46
TRAPP, "Ezekiel 44:1 Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward
sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it [was] shut.
Ver. 1. Then he brought me back.] From the east gate, which was found shut, to the
north gate, where the prophet received large instructions. [Ezekiel 44:4] Christ must
be followed, though he seem to lead us in and out, backward and forward, as if we
were treading a maze.
POOLE, "EZEKIEL CHAPTER 44
The east gate assigned only to the prince, Ezekiel 44:1-3. The people reproved for
steering strangers to pollute the sanctuary, Ezekiel 44:4-8. Idolaters declared
incapable of the priest’s office, Ezekiel 44:9-14. The sons of Zadok are accepted
thereto, Ezekiel 44:15,16. Ordinances for the priests, Ezekiel 44:17-31.
Then; when the altar was measured, and directions given for consecrating it at first,
and for the perpetual use of it for future.
Back; from the inner court, where be had been viewing the altar, to the outer part of
the same court, and to the east gate thereof: others say it was to the templegate
eastward and that the temple is called
outward sanctuary, in respect of the holy of holies.
It was shut; when, or by whom, the prophet says not, but he found it shut.
6

PETT, "Verse 1-2
The Permanent Closing of the East Gate of the Heavenly Temple (Ezekiel 44:1-3).
‘Then he brought me back the way of the outer gate of the sanctuary which looks
towards the east, and it was shut. And Yahweh said to me, “This gate will be shut, it
shall not be opened, neither shall any man enter by it, for Yahweh the God of Israel
has entered in by it. Therefore it shall be shut.” ’
Having heard the voice of the Lord Yahweh speaking to him from the sanctuary
with instructions about the altar, Ezekiel was now brought by the heavenly visitant
back to the east gate of the heavenly temple. And he found that it was permanently
closed. For a similar abrupt reintroduction of the heavenly visitant see Ezekiel
46:19.
God then spoke to him again and told him the reason for the closure. It was because
Yahweh, the God of Israel had Himself entered by it. Thus it was to remain shut up
until it released the overflowing of blessing for which it was purposed (chapter 47).
This kind of ban was also known among earthly monarchs of great importance.
When the great king had entered a city, the gate through which he entered would
for a time be closed to common people because he had passed through it, in
recognition of his status and greatness.
This was once again to remind God’s people of His holiness. Once His glory had
been in contact with something it was ‘very holy’. It could not be touched by
common man. This was now true of the gate of the heavenly temple by which
Yahweh had entered. His glory remained in it (compare Exodus 34:29). As far as we
know the restriction was never placed on an earthly temple. Even though the glory
of Yahweh did enter the second temple (Haggai 2:4-9 with 21-23), there is no
mention of His entering by any gate or of an east gate ever having been shut
permanently (although nor do we know that it was not. We do not know the make
7

up of the second temple).
But this gate was no ordinary gate. It was a supernatural gate. For one day from
under its threshold would flow rivers of living water, and such abundant waters
that they would transform the landscape, and the world, and this too was measured
by the man with the measuring line (Ezekiel 47:3). Thus the gate symbolised the
unique presence of God waiting in heavenly power in His heavenly temple to burst
forth on the world.
EBC, "PRINCE AND PEOPLE
Ezekiel 44:1-31; Ezekiel 45:1-25; Ezekiel 46:1-24, PASSIM
IT was remarked in a previous chapter that the "prince" of the closing vision
appears to occupy a less exalted position than the Messianic king of chapter 34 or
chapter 37. The grounds on which this impression rests require, however, to be
carefully considered, if we are not to carry away a thoroughly false conception of
the theocratic state foreshadowed by Ezekiel. It must not be supposed that the
prince is a personage of less than royal rank, or that his authority is overshadowed
by that of a priestly caste. He is undoubtedly the civil head of the nation, owing no
allegiance within his own province to any earthly superior. Nor is there any reason
to doubt that he is the heir of the Davidic house and holds his office in virtue of the
divine promise which secured the throne to David’s descendants. It would therefore
be a mistake to imagine that we have here an anticipation of the Romish theory of
the subordination of the secular to the spiritual power. It may be true that in the
state of things presupposed by the vision very little is left for the king to do, whilst a
variety of important duties falls to the priesthood; but at all events the king is there
and is supreme in his own sphere. Ezekiel does not show the road to Canossa. If the
king is overshadowed, it is by the personal presence of Jehovah in the midst of His
people; and that which limits his prerogative is not the sacerdotal power, but the
divine constitution of the theocracy as revealed in the vision itself, under which both
king and priests have their functions defined and regulated with a view to the
religious ends for which the community as a whole exists.
8

Our purpose in the present chapter is to put together the scattered references to the
duties of the prince which occur in chapters 44-46 so as to gain as clear a picture as
possible of the position of the monarchy in the theocratic state. It must be
remembered, however, that the picture will necessarily be incomplete. National life
in its secular aspects, with which the king is chiefly concerned, is hardly touched on
in the vision. Everything being looked upon from the point of view of the Temple
and its worship, there are but few allusions in which we can detect anything of the
nature of a civil constitution. And these few are introduced incidentally, not for
their own sake, but to explain some arrangement for securing the sanctity of the
land or the community. This fact must never be lost sight of in judging of Ezekiel’s
conception of the monarchy. From all that appears in these pages we might conclude
that the prince is a mere ornamental figurehead of the constitution, and that the few
real duties assigned to him could have been equally well performed by a committee
of priests or laymen elected for the purpose. But this is to forget that outside the
range of subjects here touched upon there is a whole world of secular interests, of
political and social action, where the king has his part to play in accordance with the
precedents furnished by the best days of the ancient monarchy.
Let us glance first of all at Ezekiel’s institutes of the kingdom in its more political
relations. The notices here are all in the form of constitutional checks and
safeguards against an arbitrary and oppressive exercise of the royal authority. They
are instructive, not only as showing the interest which the prophet had in good
government and his care for the rights of the subject, but also for the light they cast
on certain administrative methods in force previous to the Exile.
The first point that calls for attention is the provision made for the maintenance of
the prince and his court. It would seem that the revenue of the prince was to be
derived mainly, if not wholly, from a portion of territory reserved as his exclusive
property in the division of the country among the tribes. [Ezekiel 45:7-8; Ezekiel
48:21-22] These crown lands are situated on either side of the sacred "oblation"
around the sanctuary, set apart for the use of the priests and Levites; and they
extend to the sea on the west and to the Jordan Valley on the east. Out of these he is
at liberty to assign a possession to his sons in perpetuity, but any estate bestowed on
his courtiers reverts to the prince in the "year of liberty." The object of this last
regulation apparently is to prevent the formation of a new hereditary aristocracy
9

between the royal family and the peasantry. A life peerage, so to speak, or
something less, is deemed a sufficient reward for the most devoted service to the
king or the state. And no doubt the certainty of a revision of all royal grants every
seventh year would tend to keep some persons mindful of their duty. The whole
system of royal demesnes, which the king might dispose of as appanages for his
younger children or his faithful retainers presents a curious resemblance to a well-
known feature of feudalism in the Middle Ages; but it was never practically
enforced in Israel. Before the Exile it was evidently unknown, and after the Exile
there was no king to provide for. But why does the prophet bestow so much care on
a mere detail of a political system in which, as a whole, he takes so little interest? It
is because of his concern for the rights of the common people against the high-
handed tyranny of the king and his nobles.
He recalls the bad times of the old monarchy when any man was liable to be ejected
from his land for the benefit of some court favourite, or to provide a portion for a
younger son of the king. The cruel evictions of the poorer peasant proprietors,
which all the early prophets denounce as an outrage against humanity, and of which
the story of Naboth furnished a typical example, must be rendered impossible in the
new Israel; and as the king had no doubt been the principal offender in the past, the
rule is firmly laid down in his case that on no pretext must he take the people’s
inheritance. And this, be it observed, is an application of the religious principle
which underlies the constitution of the theocracy. The land is Jehovah’s, and all
interference with the ancient landmarks which guard the rights of private
ownership is an offence against the holiness of the true divine King who has His
abode amongst the tribes of Israel. This suggests developments of the idea of
holiness which reach to the very foundations of social well-being. A conception of
holiness which secures each man in the possession of his own vine and fig tree is at
all events not open to the charge of ignoring the practical interests of common life
for the sake of an unprofitable ceremonialism.
In the next place we come across a much more startling revelation of the injustice
habitually practised by the Hebrew monarchs. Just as later sovereigns were wont to
meet their deficits by debasing the currency, so the kings of Judah had learned to
augment their revenue by a systematic falsification of weights and measures. We
know from the prophet Amos [Amos 8:5] that this was a common trick of the
wealthy landowners who sold grain at exorbitant prices to the poor whom they had
driven from their possessions. They "made the ephah small and the shekel great,
10

and dealt falsely with balances of deceit." But it was left for Ezekiel to tell us that
the same fraud was a regular part of the fiscal system of the Judaean kingdom.
There is no mistaking the meaning of his accusation: "Have done, O princes of
Israel, with your violent and oppressive rule; execute judgment and justice, and take
away your exactions from My people, saith Jehovah God. Ye shall have just
balances, and a just ephah, and a just bath." That is to say, the taxes were
surreptitiously increased by the use of a large shekel (for weighing out money
payments) and a large bath and ephah (for measuring tribute paid in kind). And if
it was impossible for the poor to protect themselves against the rapacity of private
dealers, poor and rich alike were helpless when the fraud was openly practised in
the king’s name. This Ezekiel had seen with his own eyes, and the shameful injustice
of it was so branded on his spirit that even in a vision of the late days it comes back
to him as an evil to be sedulously guarded against. It was eminently a case for
legislation. If there was to be such a thing as fair dealing and commercial probity in
the community, the system of weights and measurement must be fixed beyond the
power of the royal caprice to alter it. It was as sacred as any principle of the
constitution. Accordingly he finds a place in his legislation for a corrected scale of
weights and measures, restored no doubt to their original values. The ephah for dry
measure and the bath or liquid measure are each fixed at the tenth part of a homer.
"The shekel shall be twenty geras: five shekels shall be five, and ten shekels shall be
ten, and fifty shekels shall be your maneh." [Ezekiel 14:12]
These regulations extend far beyond the immediate object for which they are
introduced, and have both a moral and a religious bearing. They express a truth
often insisted on in the Old Testament, that commercial morality is a matter in
which the holiness of Jehovah is involved: "A false balance is an abomination to
Jehovah, but a just weight is His delight." [Proverbs 11:1] In the Law of Holiness an
ordinance very similar to Ezekiel’s occurs amongst the conditions by which the
precept is to be fulfilled: "Be ye holy, for I am holy." [Leviticus 19:35-36] It is
evident that the Israelites had learned to regard with a religious abhorrence all
tampering with the fixed standards of value on which the purity of commercial life
depended. To overreach by lying words was a sin: but to cheat by the use of a false
balance was a species of profanity comparable to a false oath in the name of
Jehovah.
These rules about weights and measures required, however, to be supplemented by
a fixed tariff, regulating the taxes which the prince might impose on the people.
11

[Ezekiel 14:13-17] It is not quite clear whether any part of the prince’s own income
was to be derived from taxation. The tribute is called an "oblation," and there is no
doubt that it was intended principally for the support of the Temple ritual, which in
any case must have been the heaviest charge on the royal exchequer. But the
oblation was rendered to the prince in the first instance; and the prophet’s anxiety
to prevent unjust exactions springs from a fear that the king might make the
Temple tax a pretext for increasing his own revenue. At all events the people’s duty
to contribute to the support of public ordinances according to their ability is here
explicitly recognised. Compared with the provision of the Levitical law the scale of
charges here proposed must be pronounced extremely moderate. The contribution
of each householder varies from one-sixtieth to one-two-hundredth of his income,
and is wholly paid in kind. The proper equivalent under the second Temple of
Ezekiel’s "oblation" was a poll-tax of one-third of a shekel, voluntarily undertaken
at the time of Nehemiah’s covenant "for the service of the house of our God; for the
shew-bread and for the continual meal-offering, and for the continual burnt-
offering, of the Sabbaths, of the new moons, for the set feasts, and for the holy
things, and for the sin-offerings to make atonement for Israel, and for all the work
of the house of our God." [Nehemiah 10:32-33 : cf. Ezekiel 14:15] In the Priestly
Code this tax is fixed at half a shekel for each man. But in addition to this money
payment the law required a tenth of all produce of the soil and the flock to be given
to the priests and Levites. In Ezekiel’s legislation the tithes and firstfruits are still
left for the use of the owner. who is expected to consume them in sacrificial feasts at
the sanctuary. The only charge, therefore, of the nature of a fixed tribute for
religious purposes is the oblation here required for the regular sacrifices which
represent the stated worship rendered on behalf of the community as a whole.
This brings us now to the more important aspect of the kingly office-its religious
privileges and duties. Here there are three points which require to be noticed.
1. In the first place it is the duty of the prince to supply the material of the public
sacrifices of-feted in the name of the people. [Ezekiel 14:17] Out of the tribute levied
on the people for this purpose he has to furnish the altar with the stated number of
victims for the daily service, the Sabbaths, and new moons, and the great yearly
festivals. It is clear that some one must be charged with the responsibility of this
important part of the worship, and it is significant of Ezekiel’s relations to the past
that the duty does not yet devolve directly on the priests. They seem to exercise no
authority outside of the Temple, the king standing between them and the
12

community as a sort of patron of the sanctuary. But the position of the prince is not
simply that of an official receiver, collecting the tribute and then handing it over to
the Temple as it was required. He is the representative of the religious unity of the
nation, and in this capacity he presents in person the regular sacrifices offered on
behalf of the community. Thus on the day of the Passover he presents a sin-offering
for himself and the people. as the high priest does in the ceremonial of the Great
Day of Atonement. And so all the sacrifices of the stated ritual are his sacrifices,
officiating as the head of the nation in its acts of common worship. In this respect
the prince succeeds to the rights exercised by the kings of Judah in the ritual of the
first Temple, although on a different footing. Before the Exile the king had a
proprietary interest in the central sanctuary, and the expense of the stated service
was defrayed as a matter of course out of the royal revenues. Part of this revenue, as
we see in the case of Joash, was raised by a system of Temple dues paid by the
worshippers and expended on the repairs of the house; but at a much later date
than this we find Ahaz assuming absolute control over the daily sacrifices, which
were doubtless maintained at his expense.
Now the tendency of Ezekiel’s legislation is to bring the whole community into a
closer and more personal connection with the worship of the sanctuary, and to leave
no part of it subject to the arbitrary will of the prince. But still the idea is preserved
that the prince is the religious as well as the civil representative of the nation; and
although he is deprived of all control over the performance of the ritual, he is still
required to provide the public sacrifices and to offer them in the name of his people.
2. In virtue of his representative character the prince possesses certain privileges in
his approaches to God in the sanctuary not accorded to ordinary worshippers. In
this connection it is necessary to explain some details regulating the use of the
sanctuary by the people. The outer court might be entered by prince or people
either through the north or south gate, but not from the east. The eastern gate was
that by which Jehovah had entered His dwelling-place, and the doors of it are
forever closed. No foot might cross its threshold. But the prince-and this is one of his
peculiar rights-might enter the gateway from the court to eat his sacrificial meals. It
seems therefore to have served the same purpose for the prince as the thirty ceils
along the wall did for common worshippers. The east gate of the inner court was
also shut, as a rule, and was probably never used as a passage even by the priests.
But on the Sabbaths and new moons it was thrown open to receive the sacrifices
which the prince had to bring on these days, and it remained open till the evening.
13

On days when the gate was open the worshipping congregation assembled at its
door, while the prince entered as far as the threshold and looked on while the priests
presented his offering; then he went out by the way he had entered. If on any other
occasion he presented a voluntary sacrifice in his private capacity, the east gate was
opened for him as before, but was shut as soon as the ceremony was over. On those
occasions when the eastern gate was not opened, as at the great annual festivals, the
people probably gathered round the north and south gates, from which they could
see the altar; and at these seasons the prince enters and departs in the common
throng of worshippers. A very peculiar regulation, for which no obvious reason
appears, is that each man must leave the Temple by the gate opposite to that at
which he entered; if he entered by the north, he must leave by the south, and vice
versa.
Many of these arrangements were no doubt suggested by Ezekiel’s acquaintance
with the practice in the first Temple, and their precise object is lost to us. But one or
two facts stand out clearly enough, and are very instructive as to the whole
conception of Temple worship. The chief thing to be noticed is that the principal
sacrifices are representative. The people are merely spectators of a transaction with
God on their behalf, the efficacy of which in no way depends on their co-operation.
Standing at the gates of the inner court, they see the priests performing the sacred
ministrations; they bow themselves in humble reverence before the presence of the
Most High; and these acts of devotion may have been of the utmost importance for
the religious life of the individual Israelite. But the congregation takes no real part
in the worship; it is done for them, but not by. them; it is on opus operatum
performed by the prince and the priests for the good of the community, and is
equally necessary and equally valid whether there is a congregation present to
witness it or not. Those who attend are themselves but representatives of the nation
of Israel, in whose interest the ritual is kept up. But the supreme representative of
the people is the king, and we note how everything is done to emphasise his peculiar
dignity within the sanctuary. It was necessary perhaps to do something to
compensate for the loss of distinction caused by the exclusion of the royal body-
guard from the Temple. The prince is still the one conspicuous figure in the outer
court. Even his private sacrificial meals are eaten in solitary state, in the eastern
gateway, which is used for no other purpose. And in the great functions where the
prince appears in his representative character, he approaches nearer to the altar
than is permitted to any other layman. He ascends the steps of the eastern gateway
in the sight of the people, and passing through he presents his offerings on the verge
of the inner court which none but the priests may enter. His whole position is thus
14

one of great importance in the celebration of public ordinances. In detail his
functions are no doubt determined by ancient prescriptive usages not known to us,
but modified in accordance with the stricter ideal of holiness which Ezekiel’s vision
was intended to enforce.
3. Finally, we have to observe that the prince is rigorously excluded from properly
priestly offices. It is true that in some respects his position is analogous to that of the
high priest under the law. But the analogy extends only to that aspect of the high
priest’s functions in which he appears as the head and representative of the religious
community, and ceases the moment he enters upon priestly duties. So far as the
special degree of sanctity which characterises the priesthood is concerned, the
prince is a layman, and as such he is jealously debarred from approaching the altar,
and even from intruding into the sacred inner court where the priests minister. Now
this fact has perhaps a deeper historical importance than we are apt to imagine.
There is good reason to believe that in the old Temple the kings of Judah frequently
officiated in person at the altar. At the time when the monarchy was established it
was the rule that any man might sacrifice for himself and his household, and that
the king as the representative of the nation should sacrifice on its behalf was an
extension of the principle too obvious to require express sanction. Accordingly we
find that both Saul and David on public occasions built altars and offered sacrifice
to Jehovah. The older theory indeed seems to have been that priestly rights were
inherent in the kingly office, and that the acting priests were the ministers to whom
the king delegated the greater part of his priestly functions. Although the king
might not appoint any one to this duty without respect to the Levitical qualification,
he exercised within certain limits the right of deposing one family and installing
another in the priesthood of the royal sanctuary. The house of Zadok itself owed its
position to such an act of ecclesiastical authority on the part of David and Solomon.
The last occasion on which we read of a king of Judah officiating in person in the
Temple is at the dedication of the new altar of Ahaz, when the king not only himself
sacrificed, but gave directions to the priests as to the future observance of the ritual.
The occasion was no doubt unusual, but there is not a word in the narrative to
indicate that the king was committing an irregular action or exceeding the
recognised prerogatives of his position. It would be unsafe, however, to conclude
that this state of things continued unchanged till the close of the monarchy. After
the time of Isaiah the Temple rose greatly in the religious estimation of the people,
and a very probable result of this would be an increasing sense of the importance of
15

the ministration of the official priesthood. The silence of the historical books and of
Deuteronomy may not count for much in an argument on this question; but
Ezekiel’s own decisions lack the emphasis and solemnity with which he introduces
an absolute innovation like the separation between priests and Levites in chapter 44.
It is at least possible that the later kings had gradually ceased to exercise the right of
sacrifice, so that the privilege had lapsed through desuetude. Nevertheless it was a
great step to have the principle affirmed as a fundamental law of the theocracy; and
this Ezekiel undoubtedly does. If no other practical object were gained, it served at
least to illustrate in the most emphatic way the idea of holiness, which demanded the
exclusion of every layman from unhallowed contact with the most sacred emblems
of Jehovah’s presence.
It will be seen from all that has been said that the real interest of Ezekiel’s treatment
of the monarchy lies far apart from modern problems which might seem to have a
superficial affinity with it. No lessons can fairly be deduced from it on the relations
between Church and State, or the propriety of endowing and establishing the
Christian religion, or the duty of rulers to maintain ordinances for the benefit of
their subjects. Its importance lies in another direction. It shows the transition in
Israel from a state of things in which the king is both de jure and de facto the source
of power and the representative of the nation and where his religious status is the
natural consequence of his civic dignity, to a very different state of things, where the
forms of the ancient constitution are retained although the power has largely
vanished from them. The prince now requires to have his religious duties imposed
on him by an abstract political system whose sole sanction is the authority of the
Deity. It is a transition which has no precise parallel anywhere else, although
resemblances more or less instructive might doubtless be instanced from the history
of Catholicism. Nowhere does Ezekiel’s idealism appear more wonderfully blended
with his equally characteristic conservatism than here. There is no real trace of the
tendency attributed to the prophet to exalt the priesthood at the expense of the
monarchy. The prince is after all a much more imposing personage even in the
ceremonial worship than any priest. Although he lacks the priestly quality of
holiness, his duties are quite as important as those of the priests, while his dignity is
far greater than theirs. The considerations that enter in to limit his power and
importance come from another quarter. They are such as these: first, the loss of
military leadership, which is at least to be presumed in the circumstances of the
Messianic kingdom; second, the welfare of the people at large; and third, the
principle of holiness, whose supremacy has to be vindicated in the person of the king
no less than in that of his meanest subject.
16

Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that the transition referred to was not actually
accomplished even in the history of Israel itself. It was only in a vision that the
monarchy was ever to be represented in the form which it bears here. From the time
of Ezekiel no native king was ever to rule over Israel again save the priest-princes of
the Asmonean dynasty, whose constitutional position was defined by their high-
priestly dignity. Ezekiel’s vision is therefore a preparation for the kingless state of
post-exilic Judaism. The foreign potentates to whom the Jews were subject did in
some instances provide materials for the Temple worship, but their local
representatives were of course unqualified to fill the position assigned to the prince
by the great prophet of the Exile. The community had to get along as best it could
without a king, and the task was not difficult. The Temple dues were paid directly to
the priests and Levites, and the function of representing the community before the
altar was assigned to the High Priest. It was then indeed that the High Priesthood
came to the front and blossomed out into all the magnificence of its legal position. It
was not only the religious part of the prince’s duties that fell to it, but a considerable
share of his political importance as well. As the only hereditary institution that had
survived the Exile, it naturally became the chief centre of social order in the
community. By degrees the Persian and Greek kings found it expedient to deal with
the Jews through the High Priest, whose authority they were bound to respect, and
thus to leave him a free hand in the internal affairs of the commonwealth. The High
Priesthood, in fact, was a civil as well as a priestly dignity. We can see that this great
revolution would have broken the continuity of Hebrew history far more violently
than it did but for the stepping-stone furnished by the ideal "prince" of Ezekiel’s
vision.
PULPIT, "The prophet, having finished his account of the temple, or place of
worship, proceeds, in the second section of his vision (Ezekiel 44-46.), to set forth the
culture, or ritual, to be performed in the temple; treating first of the several classes
in the new community, and of their relation to the sanctuary (Ezekiel 44:1-31.); next
of the regulations to be observed in the maintenance of worship (Ezekiel 45:1-25.);
and, thirdly, of certain supplementary orders for the prince, the people, and the
priests, when engaged in the solemnities of their religion (Ezekiel 46:1-24.). In
particular, the present chapter deals
Ezekiel 44:1-3
17

The relation of the prince to the sanctuary.
Ezekiel 44:1
The gate of the outward sanctuary, the outer gate of the sanctuary (Revised
Version)—which looketh toward the east. To this door the prophet was conducted
back, by way of the inner north or south gate, from the inner court, in which he had
received the measurements of the altar and the instructions for its consecration
(Ezekiel 43:5). Whether Ezekiel stood upon the outside of this door as in Ezekiel
43:1, or upon its inside, cannot as yet be determined; but in either ease he observed
that it was shut—again, whether on the east side towards the temple precincts, or on
the west towards the outer court, is not mentioned, and cannot at this stage be
decided. What led the seer to notice that the gate was closed was probably the
circumstance that the last time he stood beside it it was open (Ezekiel 43:1), though
proof cannot be given that he passed through it (Ezekiel 43:5), conjoined with the
fact that it formed the principal entrance to the temple, and as such had been
described to him and measured (Ezekiel 40:6).
2 The Lord said to me, “This gate is to remain
shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter
through it. It is to remain shut because the Lord,
the God of Israel, has entered through it.
CLARKE, "This gate shall be shut - It was not to be opened on ordinary
occasions, nor at all on the week days: but only on the Sabbaths and the new moons. See
18

the account of the gates (4) in the explanation of the plan.
This verse has been adduced by the Roman Catholics to prove the perpetual virginity
of the mother of our Lord; and it may be allowed to be as much to the purpose as any
other that has been brought to prove this very precarious point, on which no stress
should ever be laid by any man. Mary was a virgin when she brought forth Jesus.
GILL, "Then said the Lord unto me, this gate shall be shut,.... In time to come,
as Jarchi interprets it, in the latter day; it was shut, and it should continue to be shut:
it shall not be opened; any more; though it has been, yet hereafter no more:
and no man shall enter in by it, into the house of the Lord,
because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it; the same with the glory
of the God of Israel, Eze_43:2,
therefore it shall be shut; no one being to enter after him. Various are the sentiments
of expositors concerning this gate. Some of the ancients have interpreted it of the Virgin
Mary, by whom Christ came into this world in human nature, being born of her, a virgin,
who had never known man, and as is thought never did after the birth of Christ; nor
were any afterwards born of her; no man might come into the world by her, by that self-
same way the incarnate God did, and for that reason. This sense is approved of, not only
by Papists, but by many Protestant writers. Others understand it of the Scriptures, the
word of God, which as it is a sealed book to men learned and unlearned, so a gate shut
up; it cannot be opened by a mere natural man, or be understood by the light of nature;
none can open it but the Lion of the tribe of Judah; who gives the spiritual knowledge of
it to whom he pleases, the perfect knowledge of which is reserved to a future state; and
there are some things in it which will be always shut, and ever secrets; as the modus of
the subsistence of the three Persons in the Godhead; the generation of the Son, the
procession of the Spirit, and the union of the two natures in Christ; see Isa_29:11, others
think that the gate of heaven, or the way to eternal glory and happiness, is meant; which
was shut by the sin of man, and could never be opened again by any mere man; but
Christ by his blood has opened the way into it; and has entered into it, not as a private,
but public person, representing all his people; and none but those that belong to him,
that are members of him, shall enter there; as none but Christ personal, so none but
Christ mystical: but I am rather of opinion, since this whole fabric, as we have seen, is an
emblem of the church of Christ on earth in the latter day, the way into that is designed
here; and its being shut signifies, that, as the church is a garden enclosed, a spring shut
up, and is only for the use of Christ, and should be a chaste virgin to him, he should have
all her heart, affection, and faith; so it should not be pervious unto others; no natural or
unregenerate man should enter into it; and when the Lord shall have taken up his
residence in the church in the latter day, in a more spiritual and glorious manner than
ever, there shall no more come into her the uncircumcised and the unclean, Isa_52:1,
and especially in the New Jerusalem state nothing shall enter that defiles, or makes an
abomination, or a lie, Rev_21:27 none but those that are Christ's, that are true members
of his, and one with him; and this sense agrees with what follows in this chapter, and
receives light and confirmation thereby; in which the Lord complains of the Israel and
19

church of God in these its present declining times, that unregenerate persons were
admitted into the sanctuary of the Lord, to communicate with the saints, and officiate
there, Eze_44:7 and commends such who are faithful ministers and members, who are
established therein, Eze_44:15.
ELLICOTT, "(2) Hath entered in by it.—See Ezekiel 43:1-2. The thought is, that
the gate which had been sanctified by such a manifestation of the Divine presence,
should not afterwards be used for the ordinary purposes of the entrance of the
people.
TRAPP, "Ezekiel 44:2 Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall
not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of
Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.
Ver. 2. This gate shall be shut.] Is, and shall be, save only to Messiah the Prince, and
to whomsoever he, as having the keys of David, shall open it. "This gate of the Lord
into which the righteous shall enter" [Psalms 118:20] - sc., By that "new and living
way," which Christ, their forerunner, [Hebrews 6:20] hath prepared and paved for
them with his own blood. [Hebrews 10:20] See Hebrews 7:8-9; Hebrews 7:11-12;
Hebrews 7:24; Hebrews 9:11-12.
And no man shall enter in it.] No mere man, [no man] unless it be Emmanuel. See
John 3:13.
POOLE, " Likely the prophet was somewhat surprised, and wondered that the door
should be shut; and while he museth on it the Lord speaks to him out of the temple,
and informs him, and satisfieth him.
Shall not be opened, i.e. shall not ordinarily stand open, but be shut till occasion
requires it should sometimes be opened.
No man; none of the common ordinary sort of people, or none but the prince, God’s
20

vicegerent, and the ministering priests.
The God of Israel hath entered in: what was the glory of the God of Israel, Ezekiel
43:2, is here
the Lord, the God of Israel, that glory was the visible sign of his presence. His glory
is himself, and where that entered he entered, i.e. gave evidence of a more than
ordinary presence there.
It shall be shut; either kept shut with bars, or, by a prohibition, be as if it were shut,
that none should enter thereby.
PULPIT, "This gate shall be shut, The prophet must have noted this as an
important difference between the new sanctuary and the old (whether temple or
tabernacle), in which the east gate stood always open. That the gate of the new
temple was to be closed only on the six working days Ewald mistakenly infers from
Ezekiel 46:1, where he reads, after the LXX; the outer instead of the inner court.
But Ezekiel 46:1 refers to the east gate of the inner court. Of the east gate of the
outer court it is declared emphatically that it shall not be opened, neither shall any
man enter in by it, meaning that it should be closed in perpetuity; and that not, as
Abar-banel and Lightfoot have supposed, to express the idea that the glory of
Jehovah should no more depart from the temple, but abide in it forever, but to
inspire an exalted conception of the sanctity of the "house" and all its belongings, as
Jehovah explained, Because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it,
therefore it shall be shut.
3 The prince himself is the only one who may sit
21

inside the gateway to eat in the presence of the
Lord. He is to enter by way of the portico of the
gateway and go out the same way.”
BARNES, "The prince - Foretold under the name of David Eze_34:24. The rabbis
understood this to be the Messiah.
To eat bread - See Lev_2:3; Lev_24:9; according to the old Law these feasts
belonged only to the priests; none of the rest of the congregation, not even the king,
might partake of them. The new system gives to the “prince” a privilege which he did not
before possess; the prince, as the representative of the Messiah, standing in a higher
position than the kings of old. “To eat bread” may also include participation in the
animals sacrificed, portions of which were reserved for those of the people who offered
them.
GILL, "It is for the prince: the prince shall sit in it to eat bread before the
Lord,.... Or, "as for the prince, the prince shall sit in it" (e); in the gate which is shut to
others: not the high priest, as Jarchi, though he might have a particular seat in the
temple, as Eli had in the tabernacle, 1Sa_1:9, where he might eat the bread and flesh of
holy things: nor the political prince, the king of Israel, though he might have a place in
the temple peculiar to himself; see 2Ch_6:12, 2Ch_24:31, and the Jews say only the
kings of the house of David were allowed to sit in the sanctuary: but the King Messiah, as
Kimchi and Ben Melech rightly interpret it, is here meant; who before, in this prophecy,
is called David a Prince, Eze_34:24, he who is the Prince of peace; Michael the great
Prince; the Prince of life, and the Prince of the kings of the earth; the Messiah the Prince.
Such who interpret the gate of the gate of heaven understand this of Christ's sitting
down there at his Father's right hand, on the same throne with him, having done his
work, and being at ease, and in honour; and of his enjoyment of glory there, as the
heavenly glory is sometimes signified by a feast, by sitting down at a table, and eating
bread in the kingdom of God, Mat_8:11, and so it may intend his being in the presence of
God with the utmost delight and joy; having that glory he had with him before the world
was, and all power in heaven and in earth; dispensing gifts and grace to men, and
receiving honour and glory from them, and seeing the travail of his soul with
satisfaction: but why may it not be understood, more consistent with the scope of the
vision, of his sitting in his church, at his table there with his saints, eating with them,
and they with him, in his word and ordinances before the Lord? see Son_1:12,
22

he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the
way of the same; which some explain of Christ's ascension to heaven, and descent
from thence in the same way; he went up to heaven in the eastern part of the world, from
the mount of Olives, to the east of Jerusalem; and in like manner shall he descend, and
his feet shall stand on that mount, Act_1:11, but it may be interpreted of his going in and
out of his church at his will and pleasure; and affording his gracious presence and
fellowship with himself in his house and ordinances,
ELLICOTT, " (3) The prince.—The Rabbis understood this to refer to the Messiah,
and unquestionably the same person must be meant as by David in Ezekiel
34:23-24; Ezekiel 37:24. This gives another and a conclusive reason for regarding
the sacrificial worship of Ezekiel 46 as symbolical.
To eat bread before the Lord.—This is the common scriptural expression for
partaking of the sacrifices (see Genesis 31:54; Exodus 18:12), and there is no reason
for restricting it to the shew-bread and other unbloody offerings. The eating of the
latter was an exclusively priestly prerogative, and the “prince” of Ezekiel, though
greatly distinguished, is not in any way endued with priestly functions. He is to
partake of his sacrificial meals within this highly-honoured gate, while the people
eat in the outer court. There has been much discussion as to whether the prince was
to go in and out by this gateway, or only, having entered by one of the others, to eat
in this. The language here seems sufficiently plain, and if there could be any doubt,
it would be removed by Ezekiel 46:1-2; Ezekiel 46:8; Ezekiel 46:10; Ezekiel 46:12. It
appears there that the prince is always to enter and leave by this gate except “in the
solemn feasts;” then he is to enter in the midst of the people, by either the north or
the south gate, and go out by the opposite one.
TRAPP, "Ezekiel 44:3 [It is] for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread
before the LORD he shall enter by the way of the porch of [that] gate, and shall go
out by the way of the same.
Ver. 3. It is for the prince.] For "Messiah the Prince"; so Christ is called in Daniel
9:25; or for the chief priest, who, as he had a singular privilege herein above other
priests, so hath Christ, the high priest of the Church Christian, singular privileges
above all his brethren.
23

He shall sit in it to eat bread.] He shall sit at the right hand of the majesty on high,
and enjoy heaven’s happiness, which is oft compared to a feast, as Matthew 8:11;
Matthew 22:1-2, Isaiah 53:11. He shall ascend up into heaven, and therehence come
again to judge the quick and the dead. [Acts 1:11 Hebrews 9:28] Some by "prince"
here understand the ruler of the people, {see Ezekiel 46:1-2} who is peculiarly
licensed to enter in at the east gate, and there to sit, and eat and drink his part of the
peace offering. Compare Exodus 24:11. It is not meant of Peter the apostle, to be
sure, much less of the Pope, his pretended successor, as some of his parasites would
have it.
POOLE, " For the prince; for the king, say some; if so, then the door shut was the
door, not of the temple, but of the east gate of the priests’ court. The high priest, and
the second priest, say others, and indeed this is most likely.
He shall sit: the king might sit before the Lord, others might not, and the priests
stood ministering, as Hebrews 10:11. Perhaps the high priest might have some
privilege to sit, when others might not.
To eat bread: if understood of the king, it was his eating of the sacrifice, that part of
it which was allowed to the offerer. If this prince be the high priest, this bread was
the show-bread, which it seems he might sit and eat in or near the porch of the gate,
whereas other priests were bound to eat in the common refectory, as appears,
Ezekiel 42:13.
He shall enter; he may, it is his privilege; or he shall, that is, it is his duty to enter at
this, and to come out at it, that the people may know which way to look, when they
would see their high priest enter to make atonement: which may be mystical, and
include our looking to the great High Priest.
PETT, "Verse 3
24

“As for the prince, he will sit in it as prince to eat bread before Yahweh. He will
enter by the way of the porch of the gate, and will go out by way of the same.”
This gateway was henceforth to be so holy that only ‘the prince’ could enter it,
although he could not use the gate itself. He had to enter the gateway from within
(from the outer court) for sacred communion and a sacral feast with Yahweh. This
is speaking of the Davidic prince, God’s shepherd and servant (Ezekiel 37:24). It
was a reminder that although he was not a sacrificing priest, he was recognised as
having special sacred duties and responsibilities, and had a sacred place reserved
for himself. He was a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek, a royal priest
(Psalms 110:4). It indicated the favoured place that a Davidic prince would have for
ever in the eyes of God.
The lesson would seem to be that a special place, a very holy place, should be
reserved for each Davidic prince to enable him to commune with God and plead for
the people, having regard to his sacral status (see 2 Samuel 21:1; 2 Samuel 24:17; 2
Samuel 24:25), a place which would be seen as sacred because it represented that
heavenly east gate which had been entered by the manifested presence of God. It
was a way of glorifying the final Davidic prince who would one day come to mean so
much to Israel and the world. And it confirmed his royal priesthood.
The first reference of this must be to the Spirit empowered Zerubbabel (Zechariah
4:6), who was responsible for the day of small things (Zechariah 4:10) which would
eventually shake the world (Haggai 2:21-23). But it also certainly pointed higher to
the coming of the Messianic prince Himself, of whom Zerubbabel was only a pale
reflection. A place, a very holy place, was to be reserved, where he could eat bread
before Yahweh, and this place would ever be a reminder of that glorious day when
Yahweh had returned to the land in His glory, and it would contain a promise of the
going forth of future blessing.
It may well be that when Jesus used to go aside into a quiet place to commune with
His Father He saw Himself as entering the east gate of the heavenly temple on ‘the
mountain’ (Matthew 5:1; Matthew 8:1; Matthew 14:23; Matthew 15:29; Matthew
25

17:1; Mark 3:13; Mark 6:46; Mark 9:2; Luke 6:12; John 6:3; John 6:15). He alone
had unique entry into God’s presence. For He knew more than any other that the
earthly temple was rejected, because it had rejected Him, but that God still dwelt
among His true people in the heavenly temple. The Kingly Rule of God was there.
He had not totally deserted them. And He knew that from that temple, finally
embodied in the lives of His people, His word would go forth into the world as
Isaiah had promised (Isaiah 2:3). It was from the east gate that rivers of living water
would flow out to the world (Ezekiel 47), and this represented the Holy Spirit Whom
the Messianic prince would abundantly give (Ezekiel 39:29; John 7:37-39; John
15:26; John 20:22).
Whether such a sacred private place was ever set aside for Zerubbabel we do not
know, but it is very probable simply because of who he was, the potential Messianic
prince, with a special and unique priesthood. This was thus symbolised here. It may
not have been in the east gate, (or it may have been, we do not know), but the east
gate of the earthly temple had not been entered by Yahweh. But the place would
certainly represent the east gate of the heavenly temple. If it was not in the east gate
then the fact that no attempt was made to make the east gate a forbidden and holy
place would stress that the people in those days recognised that the sacred east gate
spoken of by Ezekiel was in the heavenly temple of which the earthly was but a
vague copy, and that no attempt needed to be made to copy it exactly.
After all we must remember that they did hope that what they were building would
be the Messianic temple (Haggai 2), and they certainly hoped, and had every right to
hope, that the glory of God would fill the holy of holies (Haggai 2:7), for that temple
was built under God’s instructions. We may dismiss it as ‘the second temple’, a fact
of history about which we know little, but to them it was the focus of all their hopes
and beliefs, and the arbiter of their future. Thus we can be sure that they did all
that they felt necessary to make it so.
We have no knowledge of what happened in the end to Zerubbabel, and the Davidic
princeship seems to have quickly slipped into the background to await another day
(whether immediately or not we do not know). His position would be taken by the
High Priest. But certainly there were great expectations to begin with.
26

PULPIT, "It is for the prince conveys an erroneous impression, as if the edict,
excluding all from passing through the east outer gate, did not apply to the prince;
but even for him the gate was not to serve as a mode of entrance into the temple, or,
if so, only on exceptional occasions (see on Ezekiel 46:2), but merely as a place to sit
in. The Revised Version accurately renders the words, As for the prince, he shall sit
therein as prince, etc. That the "prince" here alluded to ( ‫יא‬ ִ‫ָשׂ‬‫גּ‬ַ‫ה‬ ) could not have
been the Prince David, i.e. the Messiah already spoken of (Ezekiel 34:23, Ezekiel
34:24; Ezekiel 37:24), but must have denoted the civic authorities of the new
community of Israel, "the civil head of the theocracy," Havernick infers from
Ezekiel 45:8, Ezekiel 45:9, where the coming "prince" is contrasted with Israel's
previous rulers who oppressed their subjects, from the absence of some such
characteristic predicate as "shepherd" or "king," which would, he thinks, have
been attached to the word "prince" had it been intended to designate Messiah, from
the prince's offering for himself a sin offering (Ezekiel 45:22), from the allusion to
his sons (Ezekiel 46:16), and from what is recorded about his behavior in worship
(Ezekiel 46:2); but none of these statements concerning the "prince' forbids his
identification with Messiah, unless on the supposition that it was already
understood Messiah should be a Divine-human Personage. This, however, had not
then been so distinctly revealed as to be widely and accurately known. Hence it
seems enough to say that while the "prince" would have his highest antitype in the
Messiah, he would also have, though in a lower and lesser degree, an antitype in
every righteous ruler (if ever there should be such) who might subsequently preside
over Israel (see on Ezekiel 37:25). The phrase, to eat bread before the Lord, while
referring in the first instance to those sacrificial meals which, under the Law,
commonly accompanied unbloody offerings, as the meat offerings (Le Ezekiel 2:3),
the showbread (Le Ezekiel 24:9), and the unleavened leaves of the Passover (Exodus
12:18; Leviticus 23:6, Numbers 28:17; Deuteronomy 16:3), and could only be
partaken of by the priests, in the second instance signified to partake of sacrificial
meals in general, even of such as consisted of the portions of flesh which were eaten
in connection with ordinary bloody offerings (Genesis 31:54; Exodus 18:12). If, after
Kliefoth, the former be adopted as the import of the phrase here, then the thought
will be that in the new cultus the prince should enjoy a privilege which under the old
was not possessed even by the king; if, after Keil, the second view be preferred, the
sense will amount to this, that under the regulations of the future the prince should
have the favor accorded him "of holding his sacrificial meals in the gate," whereas
the people should only be permitted to hold theirs "in the court," or "in the vicinity
of the sacrificial kitchens." The way of the porch is mentioned as the ingress and
egress for the prince; which implies that he should obtain access to the outer court
27

by either the north or the south gate, since the outer door of the east gate was shut.
This renders it probable that Ezekiel was himself standing on the outside of the east
gate (see on verse 1).
4 Then the man brought me by way of the north
gate to the front of the temple. I looked and saw
the glory of the Lord filling the temple of the
Lord, and I fell facedown.
BARNES, "Admonition to the ministering priests, grounded upon former neglect.
Eze_44:4
The north gate before the house - The north gate of the inner court. God
expostulates with His people in the seat of their former idolatries Eze_8:3.
GILL, "Then brought he me the way of the north gate before the house,....
The north gate of the inward court, whither he was brought from the east gate, which
was shut: this, and what follow, may have some respect to the churches in these our
northern parts of the world, in their now declining circumstances, which are aptly
represented in some following verses; but will hereafter be filled with the glory of the
Lord, as follows:
and I looked, and, behold, the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord;
as he had seen at the eastern gate, Eze_43:2,
and I fell upon my face; as he had done before, under a sense of the greatness and
glory of the divine Majesty, and of his own vileness and unworthiness; see Eze_43:3.
HENRY, "This is much to the same purport with what we had in the beginning of ch.
43. As the prophet must look again upon what he had before seen, so he must be told
again what he had before heard. Here, as before, he sees the house filled with the glory
of the Lord, which strikes an awe upon him, so that he falls prostrate at the sight, the
28

humblest posture of adoration and the expression of a holy awe: I fell upon my face,
Eze_44:4. Note, The more we see of the glory of God the more low we shall lie in our
own eyes. Now here,
I. God charges the prophet to take a very particular notice of all he saw, and all that
was said to him (Eze_44:5): “Behold with thy eyes what is shown thee, particularly the
entering in of the house and every going forth of it, all the inlets and all the outlets of the
sanctuary;” those he must take special notice of. Note, In acquainting ourselves with
divine things we must not aim so much at an abstract speculation of the things
themselves as at finding the plain appointed way of converse and communion with those
things, that we may go in and out and find pasture. 2. Hear with thy ears all that I say
unto thee about the laws and ordinances of the house, which he was to instruct the
people in. Note, Those who are appointed to be teachers have need to be very diligent
careful learners, that they may neither forget any of the things they are entrusted with
nor mistake concerning them.
II. He sends him upon an errand to the people, to the rebellious, even to the house of
Israel, Eze_44:6. It is sad to think that the house of Israel should deserve this character
from him who perfectly knew them, that a people in covenant with God should be
rebellious against him. Who are his subjects if the house of Israel be rebels? But it is an
instance of God's rich mercy that, though they had been rebellious, yet, being the house
of Israel, he does not cast them off, but sends an ambassador to them, to invite and
encourage them to return to their allegiance, which he would not have done if he had
been pleased to kill them. The whole race of mankind has fallen under the character here
given of the house of Israel; but our Lord Jesus, when he ascended on high, received
gifts for men, yea, even for the rebellious also, that, as here, the Lord God might dwell
among them, Psa_68:18.
1. He must tell them of their faults, must show them their rebellions, must show the
house of Jacob their sins. Note, Those that are sent to comfort God's people must first
convince them, and so prepare them for comfort. Let it suffice you of all your
abominations, Eze_44:6. Note, It is time for those that have continued long in sin to
reckon it long enough, and too long, and to begin to think of taking up in time, and
leaving off their evil courses. “Let the time past of your lives suffice, for by this time,
surely, you have surfeited upon your abominations and have become sick of them,” 1Pe_
4:3. That which is here charged upon them is, (1.) That they had admitted those to the
privileges of the sanctuary that were not entitled to them; whereas God had said, The
stranger that comes nigh shall be put to death, they had not only connived at the
intrusion of strangers into the sanctuary, but had themselves introduced them (Eze_
44:7): You brought in strangers uncircumcised in flesh, and therefore under a legal
incapacity to enter into the sanctuary, which was a breaking of the covenant of
circumcision, throwing down the hedge of their peculiarity, and laying themselves in
common with the rest of the world. Yet if these strangers had been devout and good,
though they were not circumcised, the crime would not have been so great; but they
were uncircumcised in heart too, unhumbled, unreformed, and strangers indeed to God
and all goodness. When they came to offer sacrifice they brought these with them to
feast with them upon the sacrifice, because they were fond of their company, and this
was one of their abominations, wherewith they polluted God's sanctuary; it was giving
that which was holy unto dogs, Mat_7:6. Note, The admission of those who are openly
wicked and profane to special ordinances is a polluting of God's sanctuary and a great
provocation to him. (2.) That they had employed those in the service of the sanctuary
who were not fit for it. Though none but priests and Levites were to minister in the
29

sanctuary, yet we may suppose that all who were priests and Levites did not immediately
attend there, but chosen men of them, who were best qualified, who were most wise,
serious, and conscientious, and most likely to keep the charge of the holy things
carefully; but, in making this choice, they had not regard to merit and qualification for
the work: “You have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves, such as
you had some favour or affection for, such as you either had got, or hoped to get, money
by, or such as would comply with your humours and would dispense with the laws of the
sanctuary to please you; thus you have not kept the charge of my holy things.” Note,
Those who have the choice of the keepers of the holy things, if, to serve some secular
selfish purpose, they choose such as are unfit and unfaithful, will justly have it laid at
their door, that they have betrayed the holy things by lodging them in bad hands.
2. He must tell them their duty (Eze_44:9): “No stranger shall enter into my
sanctuary till he has first submitted to the laws of it.” But, lest any should think that this
excluded the penitent believing Gentiles from the church, the stranger here is described
to be one that is uncircumcised in heart, not in sincerity consenting to the covenant, nor
putting away the filth of the flesh; whereas the believing Gentiles were circumcised with
the circumcision made without hands, Col_2:11. This circumcision of the heart, in the
spirit, not in the letter, was what the unbelieving Jews were strangers to and
unconcerned about, while yet they were zealous to keep out of the sanctuary
uncircumcised Gentiles, witness their rage against Paul when they did but suspect him
to have brought Greeks into the temple, Act_21:28.
JAMISON, "Directions as to the priests. Their acts of desecration are attributed to
“the house of Israel” (Eze_44:6, Eze_44:7), as the sins of the priesthood and of the
people acted and reacted on one another; “like people, like priest” (Jer_5:31; Hos_4:9).
K&D 4-16, "The Position of Foreigners, Levites, and Priests in Relation to the Temple
and the Temple Service. - The further precepts concerning the approach to the
sanctuary, and the worship to be presented there, are introduced with a fresh
exhortation to observe with exactness all the statutes and laws, in order that the
desecration of the sanctuary which had formerly taken place might not be repeated, and
are delivered to the prophet at the north gate in front of the manifestation of the glory of
God (Eze_44:4-8). - Eze_44:4. And he brought me by the way of the north gate to the
front of the house; and I looked, and behold the glory of Jehovah filled the house of
Jehovah, and I fell down upon my face. Eze_44:5. And Jehovah said to me, Son of man,
direct thy heart and see with thine eyes and hear with thine ears all that I say to thee
with regard to all the statutes of the house of Jehovah and all its laws, and direct thy
heart to the entering into the house through all the exits of the house, Eze_44:6. And
say to the rebellious one, to the family of Israel, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Let it be
sufficient for you, of all your abominations, O house of Israel, Eze_44:7. In that ye
brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my
sanctuary, to desecrate it, my house, when ye offered my food, fat and blood, and so
they broke my covenant to all your abominations, Eze_44:8. And so ye did not keep the
charge of my holy things, but made them keepers of my charge for you in my
sanctuary. - From the outer gate to which Ezekiel had been taken, simply that he might
be instructed concerning the entering thereby, he is once more conducted, after this has
30

been done, by the way of the north gate to the front of the temple house, to receive the
further directions there for the performance of the worship of God in the new sanctuary.
The question, whether we are to understand by the north gate that of the outer or that of
the inner court, cannot be answered with certainty. Hitzig has decided in favour of the
latter, Kliefoth in favour of the former. The place to which he is conducted is ‫ֵי‬‫נ‬ ְ‫ל־פּ‬ ֶ‫א‬
‫ת‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫בּ‬ ַ‫,ה‬ ad faciem domus, before the temple house, so that he had it before his eyes, i.e.,
was able to see it. As the gateway of the inner court was eight steps, about four cubits,
higher than the outer court gate, this was hardly possible if he stood at or within the
latter. ‫ת‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫בּ‬ ַ‫,ה‬ i.e., the temple house, could only be distinctly seen from the inner north
gate. And the remark that it is more natural to think of the outer north gate, because the
next thing said to the prophet has reference to the question who is to go into and out of
the sanctuary, has not much force, as the instructions do not refer to the going in and
out alone, but chiefly to the charge of Jehovah, i.e., to the maintenance of divine
worship.
At the fresh standing-place the glory of the Lord, which filled the temple, met the sight
of the prophet again, so that he fell down and worshipped once more (cf. Eze_43:3, Eze_
43:5). This remark is not intended “to indicate that now, after the preliminary
observations in Ezekiel 43:13-44:3, the true thorah commences” (Kliefoth), but to show
the unapproachable glory and holiness of the new temple. For Eze_44:5, see Eze_40:4;
Eze_43:11-12. In Eze_44:6 ‫י‬ ִ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ל־מ‬ ֶ‫א‬ is placed at the head in a substantive form for the
sake of emphasis, and ‫ל‬ ֵ‫א‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְ‫ית־ישׂ‬ ֵ‫בּ‬ is appended in the form of an apposition. For the fact
itself, see Eze_2:8. ‫ם‬ ֶ‫כ‬ ָ‫ב־לּ‬ ַ‫ר‬ followed by ‫ן‬ ִ‫,מ‬ a sufficiency of anything, as in Exo_9:28;
1Ki_12:28, is equivalent to “there is enough for you to desist from it.” The ‫ת‬ ‫ב‬ֵ‫ע‬ ‫,תּ‬ from
which they are to desist, are more precisely defined in Eze_44:6. They consisted in the
fact that the Israelites admitted foreigners, heathen, uncircumcised in heart and flesh,
into the sanctuary, to desecrate it during the offering of sacrifice. It is not expressly
stated, indeed, that they admitted uncircumcised heathen to the offering of sacrifice, but
this is implied in what is affirmed. The offering of sacrifice in the temple of Jehovah is
not only permitted in the Mosaic law to foreigners living in Israel, but to some extent
prescribed (Lev_17:10,Lev_17:12; Num_15:13.). It was only in the paschal meal that no
'‫ן‬ ֶ‫ב‬ was allowed to participate (Exo_12:43). To do this, he must first of all be circumcised
(v. 44). Solomon accordingly prays to the Lord in his temple-prayer that He will also
hearken to the prayer of the foreigner, who may come from a distant land for the Lord's
name sake to worship in His house (1Ki_8:41.). The reproof in the verse before us is
apparently at variance with this. Raschi would therefore understand by ‫ר‬ָ‫כ‬ְ‫י־נ‬ְ‫נ‬ ְ‫,בּ‬
Israelites who had fallen into heathen idolatry. Rosenmüller, on the other hand, is of
opinion that the Israelites were blamed because they had accepted victimas et libamina
from the heathen, and offered them in the temple, which had been prohibited in Lev_
25:22. Hävernick understands by the sons of the foreigner, Levites who had become
apostates from Jehovah, and were therefore placed by Ezekiel on a par with the
idolatrous sons of the foreigner. And lastly, Hitzig imagines that they were foreign
traders, who had been admitted within the sacred precincts as sellers of sacrificial
animals, incense, and so forth. All these are alike arbitrary and erroneous. The apparent
discrepancy vanishes, if we consider the more precise definition of ‫ֵי‬‫נ‬ ְ‫בּ‬ , viz.,
“uncircumcised in heart and flesh.” Their being uncircumcised in heart is placed first,
for the purpose of characterizing the foreigners as godless heathen, who ere destitute not
31

only of the uncircumcision of their flesh, but also of that of the heart, i.e., of piety of
heart, which Solomon mentions in his prayer as the motive for the coming of distant
strangers to the temple. By the admission of such foreigners as these, who had no fear of
God at all, into the temple during the sacrificial worship, Israel had defiled the
sanctuary. ‫י‬ ִ‫ית‬ ֵ‫ת־בּ‬ ֶ‫א‬ is in apposition to the suffix to ‫ל‬ ְ‫לּ‬ ַ‫.ח‬ The food of Jehovah (‫י‬ ִ‫מ‬ ְ‫ח‬ַ‫)ל‬ is
sacrifice, according to Lev_3:11; Lev_21:6, etc., and is therefore explained by “fat and
blood.” ‫רוּ‬ֵ‫ָפ‬‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬, which the lxx changed in an arbitrary manner into the second person,
refers to the “foreigners,” the heathen. By their treading the temple in their ungodliness
they broke the covenant of the Lord with His people, who allowed this desecration of His
sanctuary. ‫ל‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ֲב‬‫ע‬ ‫ל־תּ‬ָ‫,כּ‬ in addition to all your abominations. How grievous a sin was
involved in this is stated in Eze_44:8. The people of Israel, by their unrighteous
admission of godless heathen into the temple, not only failed to show the proper
reverence for the holy things of the Lord, but even made these heathen, so to speak,
servants of God for themselves in His sanctuary. These last words are not to be
understood literally, but spiritually. Allowing them to tread the temple is regarded as
equivalent to appointing them to take charge of the worship in the temple. For ‫ר‬ ַ‫מ‬ָ‫שׁ‬ , see
Lev_18:30; Lev_22:9, and the commentary on Lev_8:35.
The Lord would guard against such desecration of His sanctuary in the future. To this
end the following precepts concerning the worship in the new temple are given. - Eze_
44:9. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and
uncircumcised in flesh, shall come into my sanctuary, of all the foreigners that are in
the midst of the sons of Israel; Eze_44:10. But even the Levites, who have gone away
from me in the wandering of Israel, which wandered away from me after its idols, they
shall bear their guilt. Eze_44:11. They shall be servants in my sanctuary, as guards at
the gates of the house and serving in the house; they shall slay the burnt-offering and
the slain-offering for the people, and shall stand before it to serve them. Eze_44:12.
Because they served them before their idols, and became to the house of Israel a
stumbling-block to guilt, therefore I have lifted my hand against them, is the saying of
the Lord Jehovah, that they should bear their guilt. Eze_44:13. They shall not draw
near to me to serve me as priests, and to draw near to all my holy things, to the most
holy, but shall bear their disgrace and all their abominations which they have done.
Eze_44:14. And so will I make them guards of the charge of the house with regard to all
its service, and to all that is performed therein. Eze_44:15. But the priests of the tribe of
Levi, the sons of Zadok, who have kept the charge of my sanctuary on the wandering of
the sons of Israel from me, they shall draw near to me to serve me, and stand before
me, offer to me fat and blood, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah. Eze_44:16. They shall
come into my sanctuary, and they draw near to my table to serve me, and shall keep
my charge. - In order that all desecration may be kept at a distance from the new
sanctuary, foreigners uncircumcised in heart and flesh are not to be admitted into it; and
even of the Levites appointed for the service of the sanctuary according to the Mosaic
law, all who took part in the falling away of the people into idolatry are to be excluded
from investiture with the priests' office as a punishment for their departure from the
Lord, and only to be allowed to perform subordinate duties in connection with the
worship of God. On the other hand, the descendants of Zadok, who kept themselves free
from all straying into idolatry, are to perform the specifically priestly service at the altar
and in the sanctuary, and they alone. The meaning and design of the command, to shut
out the foreigners uncircumcised in heart from all access to the sanctuary, are not that
the intermediate position and class of foreigners living in Israel should henceforth be
32

abolished (Kliefoth); for this would be at variance with Eze_47:22 and Eze_47:23,
according to which the foreigners (‫ים‬ ִ‫ֵר‬‫גּ‬) were to receive a possession of their own in the
fresh distribution of the land, which not only presupposes their continuance within the
congregation of Israel, but also secures it for the time to come. The meaning is rather
this: No heathen uncircumcised in heart, i.e., estranged in life from God, shall have
access to the altar in the new sanctuary. The emphasis of the prohibition lies here, as in
Eze_44:7, upon their being uncircumcised in heart; and the reason for the exclusion of
foreigners consists not so much in the foreskin of the flesh as in the spiritual foreskin, so
that not only the uncircumcised heathen, but also Israelites who were circumcised in
flesh, were to keep at a distance from the sanctuary if they failed to possess circumcision
of heart. The ְ‫ל‬ before ‫ן‬ ֶ‫ל־בּ‬ָ‫ֶכּ‬ serves the purpose of comprehension, as in Gen_9:10;
Lev_11:42, etc. (compare Ewald, §310a). Not only are foreigners who are estranged
from God to be prevented from coming into the sanctuary, but even the Levites, who fell
into idolatry at the time of the apostasy of the Israelites, are to bear their guilt, i.e., are to
be punished for it by exclusion from the rights of the priesthood. This is the connection
between the tenth verse and the ninth, indicated by ‫י‬ ִ‫כּ‬ ‫ם‬ ִ‫,א‬ which derives its meaning,
truly (imo), yea even, from this connection, as in Isa_33:21. ‫ם‬ ִ‫יּ‬ ִ‫ו‬ ְ‫ל‬ ַ‫ה‬ are not the Levites
here as distinguished from the priests (Aaronites), but all the descendants of Levi,
including the Aaronites chosen for the priests' office, to whom what is to be said
concerning the Levites chiefly applied. The division of the Levites into such as are
excluded from the service and office of priests (‫ן‬ ֵ‫ה‬ַ‫,כּ‬ Eze_44:13) on account of their
former straying into idolatry, and the sons of Zadok, who kept aloof from that
wandering, and therefore are to be the only persons allowed to administer the priests'
office for the future, shows very clearly that the threat “they shall bear their guilt” does
not apply to the common Levites, but to the Levitical priests. They are to be degraded to
the performance of the inferior duties in the temple and at divine worship. The guilt with
which they are charged is that they forsook Jehovah when the people strayed into
idolatry. Forsaking Jehovah involves both passive and active participation in idolatry (cf.
Jer_2:5). This wandering of the Israelites from Jehovah took place during the whole
time that the tabernacle and Solomon's temple were in existence, though at different
periods and with varying force and extent.
Bearing the guilt is more minutely defined in Eze_44:11-13. The Levitical priests who
have forsaken the Lord are to lose the dignity and rights of the priesthood; they are not,
indeed, to be entirely deprived of the prerogative conferred upon the tribe of Levi by
virtue of its election to the service of the sanctuary in the place of the first-born of the
whole nation, but henceforth they are merely to be employed in the performance of the
lower duties, as guards at the gates of the temple, and as servants of the people at the
sacrificial worship, when they are to slaughter the animals for the people, which every
one who offered sacrifice was also able to do for himself. Because they have already
served the people before their idols, i.e., have helped them in their idolatry, they shall
also serve the people in time to come in the worship of God, though not as priests, but
simply in non-priestly occupations. The words '‫ה‬ ָ‫מּ‬ ֵ‫ה‬ ‫דוּ‬ ָ‫מ‬ַ‫ַע‬‫י‬ are taken from Num_16:9,
and the suffixes in ‫ם‬ ֶ‫ֵיה‬‫נ‬ ְ‫פּ‬ ִ‫ל‬ and ‫ם‬ ָ‫תּ‬ ְ‫ר‬ ָֽ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫ל‬ refer to ‫ם‬ָ‫.ע‬ ‫ל‬ ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫כ‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫ם‬ָ‫.ע‬ ‫ון‬ָֹ‫ע‬ ot ref, as in Eze_7:19;
Eze_14:3; Eze_18:30. ‫א‬ָ‫ָשׂ‬‫נ‬ ‫ָד‬‫י‬, not to raise the arm to smite, but to lift up the hand to
swear, as in Eze_20:5-6, etc. ‫ת‬ ֶ‫ֶשׁ‬‫ג‬ָ‫ל‬ ‫ל‬ַ‫ע‬ ‫י‬ַ‫שׁ‬ ָ‫ד‬ ֳ‫ל־ק‬ָ‫,כּ‬ to draw near to all my holy things.
‫ים‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ָ‫ד‬ ֳ‫ק‬ are not the rooms in the sanctuary, but those portions of the sacrifices which
33

were sacred to the Lord. They are not to touch these, i.e., neither to sprinkle blood nor to
burn the portions of fat upon the altar, or perform anything connected therewith. This
explanation is required by the apposition ‫י‬ֵ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫ד‬ ָ‫ל־ק‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫ים‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ָ‫ד‬ ֳ‫קּ‬ ַ‫,ה‬ which (in the plural) does
not mean the most holy place at the hinder part of the temple, but the most holy
sacrificial gifts (cf. Eze_42:13). ‫א‬ָ‫ָשׂ‬‫נ‬ , as in Eze_16:52. In Eze_44:14 it is once more
stated in a comprehensive manner in what the bearing of the guilt and shame was to
consist: God would make them keepers of the temple with regard to the inferior acts of
service. The general expression ‫ר‬ ַ‫מ‬ָ‫שׁ‬ ‫ת‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫מ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫ת‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫בּ‬ ַ‫,ה‬ which signifies the temple service
universally, receives its restriction to the inferior acts of service from '‫ֹל‬‫כ‬ ְ‫ל‬ ‫ת‬ ָ‫ד‬ֹ‫ב‬ֲ‫ע‬ ‫,וגו‬
which is used in Num_3:26; Num_4:23, Num_4:30,Num_4:32, Num_4:39, Num_4:47,
for the heavy duties performed by the Merarites and Gershonites, in distinction from the
‫ה‬ ָ‫ֹד‬‫ב‬ֲ‫ע‬ of the Kohathites, which consisted in ‫ר‬ ַ‫מ‬ָ‫שׁ‬ ‫ת‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫מ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ֹד‬‫קּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ (Num_3:28) and ‫ת‬ ‫ֲשׂ‬‫ע‬
‫ה‬ָ‫אכ‬ָ‫ל‬ ְ‫מ‬ (Num_4:3). The priestly service at the altar and in the sanctuary, on the other
hand, was to be performed by the sons of Zadok alone, because when the people went
astray they kept the charge of the sanctuary, i.e., performed the duties of the priestly
office with fidelity. Zadok was the son of Ahitub, of the line of Eleazar (1 Chr. 5:34; 1Ch_
6:37-38), who remained faithful to King David at the rebellion of Absalom (2Sa_15:24.),
and also anointed Solomon as king in opposition to Adonijah the pretender (1Ki_1:32.);
whereas the high priest Abiathar, of the line of Ithamar, took part with Adonijah (1Ki_
1:7, 1Ki_1:25), and was deposed from his office by Solomon in consequence, so that now
the high-priesthood was in the sole possession of Zadok and his descendants (1Ki_
2:26-27, and 1Ki_2:35). From this attitude of Zadok toward David, the prince given by
the Lord to His people, it may be seen at once that he not only kept aloof from the
wandering of the people, but offered a decided opposition thereto, and attended to his
office in a manner that was well-pleasing to God. As he received the high-priesthood
from Solomon in the place of Abiathar for this fidelity of his, so shall his descendants
only be invested with the priestly office in the new temple. For the correct explanation of
the words in these verses, however, we must pay particular regard to the clause, “who
have kept the charge of my sanctuary.” This implies, for example, that lineal descent
from Zadok alone was not sufficient, but that fidelity in the service of the Lord must also
be added as an indispensable requisite. In Eze_44:15 and Eze_44:16 the priestly service
is described according to its principal functions at the altar of burnt-offering, and in the
holy place at the altar of incense. ‫ני‬ ָ‫ח‬ ְ‫ל‬ֻ‫שׁ‬ is the altar of incense (see Eze_41:22).
ELLICOTT, " (4) The north gate.—The prophet is now carried to the north gate,
and since this is described as “before the house” and was in full view of it, it must
have been the gate of the inner court, the appointed place for the killing of the
sacrifices, and therefore especially fitting for the announcement of the ordinances of
the priests. There he saw the “glory of the Lord” filling the house, and was
commanded to give the utmost attention to the laws now to be announced.
TRAPP, "Ezekiel 44:4 Then brought he me the way of the north gate before the
34

house: and I looked, and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house of the
LORD: and I fell upon my face.
Ver. 4. Then brought he me.] See on Ezekiel 44:1.
The glory of the Lord.] See Ezekiel 43:2; Ezekiel 43:5.
And fell upon my face.] See Ezekiel 43:3; Ezekiel 1:28.
POOLE, " Then, when he had been informed of the reason why the east gate was
shut, and when he perceived he must not go out thereby.
He; the angel, or Christ in the appearance of man.
The way of the north gate; to the north gate of the inner court, whence he had a
prospect of the temple, though no door to it on that side.
Behold; through the windows of the temple he did discern that brightness and lustre
which filled the temple.
The glory of the Lord, & c.: see Ezekiel 1:28 43:2.
PETT, " The Glory of God Fills the Sanctuary.
‘Then he brought me the way of the north gate before the house, and I looked, and
behold, the glory of Yahweh filled the house of Yahweh, and I fell on my face.’
35

Having been instructed about the future Ezekiel was now brought by the heavenly
visitant to the north gate, facing the sanctuary, and there he saw the glory of
Yahweh filling the sanctuary, as he had previously seen the glory of Yahweh at the
River Chebar (chapter 1). And once again he prostrated himself before His glory,
filled with joy that the eternal God was back in His land to bless it again.
Instructions Concerning the Future Running of the Temple.
PULPIT, "Ezekiel 44:4
From the outside of the east gate of the outer court the prophet was brought the way
of the north gate, but whether of the outer or of the inner is uncertain, and set down
before the house. On the ground that the prophet at his new station was in front of
the temple, Hitzig, Keil, and others decide for the north gate of the inner court;
whereas Kliefoth, looking to the circumstance that the first communications made to
the prophet at his new post concerned "the entering in of the house," and "the going
forth of the sanctuary," prefers the north gate of the outer court. But at whichever
of the gates the prophet was set down he perceived a second time (comp. Ezekiel
43:5) that the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord, and this, perhaps,
should cast the balance in favor of the inner court entrance, from which the interior
of the "house" could be more easily
5 The Lord said to me, “Son of man, look
carefully, listen closely and give attention to
everything I tell you concerning all the regulations
and instructions regarding the temple of the Lord.
Give attention to the entrance to the temple and
36

Ezekiel 44 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Ezekiel 44 commentary

Similar to Ezekiel 44 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ezekiel 44 commentary