Chapter Forty

Chapter 40–48 The new temple worship and sacred land

The most complex and enigmatic vision of the prophet is described. It was, as it were, Ezekiel’s farewell, his last great word, a final revelation to him that was so mysterious that it, like his first revelation, could be communicated to him only in symbolic images, not fully translatable into plain language of human concepts. In this vision the prophet was shown a certain mysterious temple of Israel’s glorious future, and it was shown in the finest details and yet still not in all the particulars of its structure (chs. XL-XLIII); the worship (cult) of this temple was shown in similar detail (chs. XLIV-XLVI), that is, the relationship of the people to it; and then the relationship of the sacred land to this temple, for which it determines its fertility and serves as the foundation and starting point for its division among the tribes of Israel (chs. XLVII-XLVIII).

Like the first, the fortieth chapters of Ezekiel constitute an unsolved puzzle for exegetical science (Gregory the Great: “in explaining them you go as if groping in the dark”; Jerome: it is better to say nothing here than to say little), although, as with the first chapter, there have been no lack of attempts to indicate the idea of these chapters. All attempts at explaining them can be reduced to the following categories.

The most natural understanding of these chapters would seem to be that the prophet in them gives positive prescriptions to the people about to return to Palestine from Babylon regarding the temple, its structure, and useful additions to the plan of Solomon’s temple, regarding the worship and the division of the land among the tribes. This is how rationalistic exegesis understands these chapters, and it also sees in them the first attempt at codification of Hebrew worship, which preceded, at least some parts of the Mosaic law; namely, Ezekiel’s worship by the degree of its development occupies the middle ground between Deuteronomy and the so-called Priestly Code (part of the book of Leviticus), and therefore is later than the first and earlier than the second (Smend, Kraetzschmar, and others; old rationalists considered Ezekiel the author of the Priestly Code). Without touching here on that part of this opinion which assails the integrity and authenticity of the Mosaic law and therefore is unacceptable for the Orthodox interpreter (the disagreement of this section with the Mosaic law, as well as the general relationship to the latter, receive, as we shall see in the interpretation of the chapters, a satisfactory explanation without such an assumption), and the basic idea of such a view of this section of Ezekiel cannot be accepted. First of all, it was not necessary for the prophet to give such prescriptions in the form of a vision, which always gives a riddle to the reader, whereas the law requires clarity; naturally, it would be to give cult prescriptions simply in the form of a commandment from God, as Moses did. The entire vision breathes such mystery, and literal fulfillment of the prophet’s prescriptions would have encountered such obstacles (for example, the division of the land is prescribed in straight lines, in regular and equal portions, without regard to the physical conditions of the locality), that among the Jews returning from captivity there arose no thought, in building the temple and restoring worship in it, to follow Ezekiel in anything. In the book of Ezra it is directly noted that after the construction of the altar by those returning from captivity, sacrifices were offered upon it as prescribed by the law of Moses (Ezra 3:2), consequently, not by the vision of Ezekiel.

Little changes if we see in this section of the book of Ezekiel not legislation but only prophecies relating to the post-captivity Israel. Since for some of these prophecies (especially in chapter XLVII) one cannot point to fulfillment in this period, such incomplete fulfillment of them is explained (Gautier, la mission du proph. Ezechiel, Laus. 1891) by the fact that Israel proved unworthy of the fulfillment of these bright prophecies in their entirety, and therefore part of them was annulled by God. But this prophecy is not conditional (like the prophecy of Jonah about the destruction of Nineveh) so that it could be annulled. Not only chapter XLVII, but the greater part of this vision was not fulfilled in post-captivity Israel.

Close to this is such a theory: chapters XL-XLVIII of Ezekiel—an outlined ideal of the future in which Ezekiel was not concerned whether it would be fulfilled in full and whether it would be fulfilled at all, only that it answer his prophetic suppositions. The prophet could settle the requirement that this ideal become reality through the hope in Jehovah, for whom nothing is impossible, that He will fulfill this ideal in all its parts. If reality remained behind the image, then the idea was insufficiently realized; but the blame lies with reality, not with the idea, and Ezekiel is not responsible for this (Hitzig 340).

It remains, as apparently the majority of Christian commentators do, to apply this complex vision to the Church of Christ, holding that it is she, with all her internal organization, sacraments, and mixed composition, that is represented under the image of the magnificent temple of God, her worship, not entirely identical with that of Moses, and finally, the central position of this temple among the 12 tribes of Israel. But with this understanding, almost all the numerous details of the vision (precise measurement of the temple, details in the structure of the gates, side chambers, and so on) find no application or symbolic explanation, or else receive a very distant and arbitrary explanation; for example, Ezek 46:9 is explained in such a way that from the church people leave in a different (better) way than they entered by Phil 3:13: “forgetting what is behind, reaching forward to what lies ahead” (Hengstenberg). Moreover, the vision then would have very little to do with Israel, which as a whole, as a people, did not enter the Church of Christ. Meanwhile, the prophet Ezekiel, in contrast to Isaiah and other prophets who spoke also of the calling of the heathen, was occupied almost exclusively with Israel alone and its fate.

It is safest, apparently, and most easily for the exegete, to refer the vision to the very last times of the world. Then it would not require explanation at all, because such explanation would be entirely impossible. Jewish rabbis think that the worship given in the vision will be realized after the first resurrection. In the vision there are features clearly indicating its eschatological character: already the war of Gog—a prophecy that is difficult to apply to anything else and earlier than the last fierce struggle of evil against good (the appearance of the antichrist), and the present vision describes, apparently, if not explicitly, the times following this war. Then, some particulars in the vision, apparently, can be applied only to the new, not the present earth; such, for example, the whole chapter XLVII. And in general, the eschatological element permeates the entire book of Ezekiel, breaks through, as we have seen, all his prophecies; strengthening toward the end of the book, it should occupy the predominant, if not exclusive, position in its last chapters. But this understanding too is not impregnable. The last times of the world are as incomprehensible a mystery for man as his afterlife, and Scripture communicates as little on the first subject as on the second, for the reason that it is impossible to communicate anything to man about these subjects, for which we need not our present forms of thought. Therefore, if all this large part of the book of Ezekiel spoke only of another world, it would be just as useless for us and would have no greater significance than the detailed depictions of the end of the world with which ancient apocrypha are filled. As everywhere in Scripture—on this unattainable for us subject in the last chapters of Ezekiel one can expect only some indications, hints. All the remaining content of these chapters must have a subject more accessible to our understanding.

All the enumerated explanations of Ezekiel’s last vision sin in that they seek in it prophetic indications of a definite time and predictions of definite, concrete events. Meanwhile, the prophet himself repeatedly directly warns against such an understanding of his vision: Ezek 40:4, and especially Ezek 43:10-11: “declare to the house of Israel concerning this house, so that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them take the measure of the house... so they may observe and do all its specifications and all its statutes.” Consequently, the vision has, first of all, an ethical character. But in establishing the meaning and significance of all the images of the vision, one must bear in mind that ancient man did not make such a distinction between a thing and its image, symbol of it, as we do, and sought for an idea always such symbols that would cover it entirely. Under the image of his mysterious temple and the worship in it, the prophet Ezekiel could present only something that, while not material and physical, nevertheless would wholly coincide with them, would be one with them. In giving Moses various prescriptions about different aspects of ritual worship, God repeatedly remarks that these prescriptions are eternal, are to be observed eternally (Lev 3:17 and others). Jesus Christ said of the Mosaic law that it will remain until heaven and earth pass away (Matt 5:18 and parallels). Consequently, in the Old Testament temple and its worship there was something eternal, imperishable, not perished even now, when externally and materially this worship is not performed and the tabernacle or temple does not exist. This eternal and imperishable element can be only the spiritual essence of worship and the temple, and this essence, upon the destruction of its visible outer form, could persist only in the spiritual world of humanity, in its souls and hearts. One cannot deny that the Old Testament temple and worship were the chief factor in the spiritual education of Israel, that they made it such, gave it that high, truly pleasing to God character and direction in world history by which 1) Christ could come only from this people, and 2) by the example of this people God demanded the formation of all humanity for His kingdom. Thus, the Old Testament temple and worship, not existing externally any longer, continue to exist in the spiritual traces they left in Israel and humanity. And is it necessary to say that such existence of this worship may be far more full and perfect than its former material existence? This latter was necessary only until the spiritual essence of the worship had so penetrated Israel that its external form, obscuring its true essence, became unnecessary. This is the eternal spiritual essence of Old Testament worship in its full and more perfect existence than it had before, before the Babylonian captivity, that Ezekiel contemplates in his last vision. Such full and complete, so to say, longed-for existence for Old Testament worship began precisely after the captivity, or more correctly from the captivity of Babylon, which is why it was easier for the prophet to contemplate it. Even after the captivity, there was no need for the visible presence of God in His temple under images so incommensurate with His greatness, such as, for example, the ark of the covenant and the cloud of glory (the Shekinah), because His dwelling in souls, in the heart and consciousness of Israel became so intense, as the pre-captivity period could not even imagine. Already among the captives of the first years of captivity, there could be only speech of secret and timid “lifting of eyes to the idols of the house of Israel” (Ezek 18:6), of lightly “admitting idols into the heart” (Ezek 14:3-4); after the captivity, the nation as a whole appears as a martyr for faith. If we seek the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s vision in the souls and hearts of post-captivity Israel, then one cannot but marvel at the dimensions and degree to which, noticeably for us, and with our lack of information about this period of sacred history, the prophecy was fulfilled—just as one cannot fail to see how vividly, concretely, and close to reality the prophet’s prediction is expressed. God for post-captivity Israel truly became what the prophet wanted in his vision—sharply separated from the external world, nature (world forces) by a high and thick wall, infinitely raised above the world into an inaccessible region, and at the same time and despite this, apparently, so alienating him from humanity, separation from the world (courts of the temple, complex gates into it). He and His temple, His worship became the true center of the nation’s life, the nation’s mind and feeling, and all this directly beneficially affected all areas of the nation’s life, not excepting the purely physical, material. One cannot deny that all this became from henceforth a firm and indestructible spiritual possession of Israel, and to this day determines the historical immortality of this people, preserves its national life from all the vicissitudes of fate, and is in it a pledge of that salvation of the whole of it that the Apostle Paul promised to it. The prophet Ezekiel is more of a nationalist than other prophets, especially Isaiah: unlike Isaiah, he is not concerned with the spiritual fate of the heathen, whom he regarded only from the perspective of their negative relationship to Israel. Therefore it is natural to seek in his last vision only a speech about Israel in the narrow sense, and not about the “church of those from the nations.” It will be said that if one can discern in the last chapters of the prophet Ezekiel such or some other single idea, it is completely lost and obscured by innumerable particulars and details, the extreme complexity of the vision. But one needs to read carefully and with proper understanding of all these particulars and their place in the vision’s system these chapters of the prophet to convince oneself how in every cornice of this enigmatic temple and in every ritual peculiarity of its worship shines one idea: what God will be for future Israel and how unchangeably firm and new will be the nation’s relationship to Him. It was difficult to give such an abstract idea such a commensurate and at the same time so tangible expression. God for man is most vividly felt, most closely known, and most readily understood in the temple and worship; apart from them He becomes too elusive a magnitude for the average man, for the masses.

Gates and courts of the temple

Ezekiel 40:1. In the twenty-fifth year of our captivity, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was smitten, on that same day the hand of the Lord was upon me, and He brought me there. “In the twenty-fifth year”—573 B.C. Apart from the addition Ezek 29:17-21, this is the last revelation to the prophet. “At the beginning of the year,” that is, in the month of Nisan, as the LXX understood it, replacing the expression “the first month”; see explanation Ezek 1:4, and not in the month of Tishri, as some modern commentators think on this passage and on Lev 25:9; Num 29:1, basing their opinion on the existence among the Hebrews, besides the ecclesiastical year, beginning with Nisan—March, of a civil year beginning with Tishri—September, this latter they consider the most ancient, and the ecclesiastical—introduced under Babylonian influence. “On the tenth day.” A significant day, for on this day the Passover lamb was chosen; on this day the Hebrews crossed the Jordan. “In the fourteenth year after the destruction of Jerusalem,” a date keeping in view the content of the vision. “On that same day”—perhaps an indication of the significance of the day. “The hand of the Lord was upon me”—see explanation Ezek 1:3. “And He brought me there”—to Jerusalem, as in Ezek 8:3; cf. Ezek 37:1.

Ezekiel 40:2. In the visions of God He brought me into the land of Israel and set me upon a very high mountain, and on it, on the south side, were structures like the buildings of a city; “The land of Israel.” So Judea is named because of the future unification of Ephraim and Judah. “Upon a very high mountain.” So also Isa 2:2; Mic 4:1; Ezek 17:22 called Zion, not for its natural height but for its future significance on earth; here, as in the subsequent prophets (Dan 2:35; Zech 14:10: cf. Rev 21:10), this mystical significance of Zion is even more emphasized, so that by it a mountain is scarcely even understood; hence the absence of its name here, where it would be more necessary than in parallel prophecies. “On the south side”—literally “to the south,” that is, to the south for the prophet who came from the north of Babylon (cf. Ezek 20:46): the temple, which, as we shall see, is now in question, by contrast the idealized Ezekiel’s temple occupied not the south alone but the whole mountain (Ezek 43:12). The LXX read instead of negev, south, gewed, straight, perhaps because the prophet is first shown at the eastern gates (v. 6). It is possible that the south is taken simply as the symbolic direction of light and warmth (see explanation Ezek 1:4: “from the north”). “As it were city buildings.” As is evident from v. 3, the buildings of the temple appeared this way with its wide double wall, six gates, and numerous structures. The city itself (idealized, like the temple) was at a distance of more than several miles from the temple mount: Ezek 45:1 and following Ezek 48:8 and following.

Ezekiel 40:3. and He brought me there. And behold, there was a man whose appearance was like the appearance of burnished bronze, and a linen cord was in his hand, and a measuring rod was in his hand, and he stood by the gate. “A man.” On the basis of Ezek 44:2, where this same “man” is apparently called the Lord (Jehovah), and since he addresses the prophet as God does throughout his book: “son of man,” some think that this was the “Angel of the covenant,” the Son of God, who as architect shows the prophet the glory of his future construction. But it is possible that here is meant a simple Angel as in Ezek 9:2; cf. Ezek 43:6. And he shines only as the cherubim, not as the Lord: “whose appearance was like the appearance of burnished bronze”—a sign of spiritual strength, militancy, combined with brightness; see explanation Ezek 1:7; the radiance is not as bright as Ezek 1:27. “Burnished” is not in the Hebrew and is added in the Russian by the LXX: “like the appearance of bronze shining,” στιλβοντος; it is thought that the LXX read in their manuscript here kalal Ezek 1:7. “A linen cord”—for large measurements, such as, for example, in Ezek 47:3 (but Ezek 42:16 and following). The LXX freely: “a builder’s cord” (a plumb line?); Zech 2:1; Rev 21:15. “And he stood by the gate,” perhaps the northern one, because the prophet sees the structures of the temple from the south (v. 3) and was brought to the temple from the north, from Chaldea; but without further specification, the eastern gates could most likely be meant, as the main ones: then in v. 6 the angel approaches them more closely.

Ezekiel 40:4. And he said to me: “Son of man! Look with your eyes, and listen with your ears, and pay attention with your heart to all that I will show you; for you have been brought here in order that I might show you this; declare to the house of Israel all that you see. An invitation to attention, so solemn, threefold, attention not only external (hearing is more internal), but also deep, spiritual (“and pay attention with your heart”) testifies both to the extraordinary importance of the forthcoming revelation and to the mystical (and not literal) meaning of the vision. “Son of man.” Only God addresses the prophet this way throughout his book. “Been brought here.” The place of the vision again (v. 2, 3) is not named directly, but with mysterious indefiniteness. “Declare”—as the prophet and in his capacity.

Ezekiel 40:5. And behold, a wall surrounded the house on the outside; and in the man’s hand was a measuring rod of six cubits, each cubit being a cubit and a hand’s breadth; and he measured the thickness of the wall—one rod, and the height—one rod. The survey of the temple naturally begins with its external, “outside the house,” circular (“on all sides”) wall (Hebrew homa, LXX περιβολος, “enclosure”) and returns to it at the conclusion: Ezek 42:20. Like the temple, the wall is described only in terms of its size, with its length indicated at the conclusion of the temple description (Ezek 42:20), and here only its height and thickness. Both were equal, thanks to which the wall must have seemed very thick and large (therefore, and also for the complexity of its gates, the prophet calls it again “a structure,” binyan, LXX “a facing”), that is, firmly and distinctly separating the sacred area of the temple from the worldly, not hiding the former from the latter. The width and thickness of the wall were equal, as was natural for this first measurement in the mysterious temple, to only one unit of the measure adopted here—a rod; a rod, a stick, was probably used everywhere at that time for such purposes, therefore, also in Assyrian, the measure—kanu; Hebrew kame, rod. Before the measurement, the prophet determines this unit of measure. It contained six cubits, but not ordinary cubits—six hand-breadths—but cubits of large, full size, probably ancient (2 Chr 3:3)—containing, besides the cubit itself (the part of the arm from elbow to hand) also a hand or palm (reckoned at four finger-widths: Jer 52:21), consequently, cubits of seven hand-breadths. So also in the Greek: εν πηχει και παλαιστη; but in Slavic: “in an arm of six palms.” In Egypt and Babylon there was also a large, full cubit (“royal” in Egypt) and a smaller, apparently gradually displacing the large; the large in Egypt was 52.5 cm., in Babylon 55.5, the smaller—49.5 and 45 (Bertholet. Kretch.). Ezekiel’s was of approximately such size, consequently, was somewhat more than half a meter, and the rod about 3 1/3 meters. A wall of such height and thickness resembled a long single-story city building. But inside, from the temple court, it must have been lower by the height of the stairway at the gates (v. 6).

Ezekiel 40:6. Then he came to the gate facing east, and went up its steps, and measured the threshold of the gate—one rod wide; and the other threshold—one rod wide. “Then he came”—the man—the angel of v. 3, and the prophet could remain standing where he was, from where he could see the angel and all his actions. If the angel in v. 3 already stood near the eastern gates, rather than the northern (which is possible—see explanation of v. 3), then here he approaches them more closely for measurement. “To the gate” in the outer wall of the temple, leading to the temple court. “Facing east.” Besides these there were also northern and southern gates; all three were completely identical in structure and size; therefore, the eastern gates are described in detail, as the main and holiest, through which Jehovah enters (Ezek 43:4). “And went up” for measurement. “Its steps,” which, as is evident from what follows, were constructed not in the wall but outside it, did not enter into its line. The temple court is assumed to be, as in Solomon’s temple, on a terrace of the mountain. From v. 22 and 26 it is evident that there were seven of these steps, which the LXX put here as well: “and he went to the gate facing east by seven steps” (instead of “he went up,” vayaal, they read sheva, “seven”). “And measured the threshold of the gate—one rod wide.” The entire thickness of the wall, equal to a rod—that is, six cubits—was pierced cross-wise by the gates, the threshold of which (see plan 1:A) therefore had to be wide the same as this rod, that is, six cubits—see plan 1, a-b. A threshold wide for such a gate and speaking of the holiness of the place to which the gates led. “And the other threshold—one rod wide.” A literal repetition of the preceding phrase, casting doubt on the authenticity (dittography); if the text is true, then the opposite side of the gate structure may be meant (c-d), about which the speech in v. 7 (but the speech about it here is premature and therefore unclear) or the so-called “upper threshold” by the Greeks, the upper jamb, the lintel of the doors, ‘ υπερθυριον, as distinct from the lower threshold, ‘ υποθυριον, superbus as distinct from inferus (Naevius apud Movius IV, 278. Plant. Mac. V, 1. Rosenmüller.), but specifying the measure for such a threshold is unnecessary given its equality with the lower one. The LXX render “threshold” as ailam, which in the LXX is always a transcription of Hebrew ulam “vestibule”—so they call the threshold (Hebrew saf) here, apparently for the large size of this threshold (et-saf somewhat resembles ulam in spelling). Slavic before the speech about the threshold ailam has an insertion: “and measure all, six on this side, six on that side”; “all”—transcription of Hebrew ta, side chamber; about these rooms in the Hebrew text speech only in v. 7, and according to the LXX, only three are counted on each side of the gates, not six as here, therefore, Slavic allows some small chambers in the outer vestibule of the gates.

Ezekiel 40:7. And each side chamber was one rod long and one rod wide, and between the chambers were five cubits; and the threshold of the gate at the vestibule of the gate, facing inward, was one rod. Side chamber, Hebrew ta, LXX transcription θεε, Slavic “fee”—a word occurring, besides Ezekiel, only in 1 Sam 14:28, 2 Chr 12:11, where it means some kind of room in a palace for bodyguards (consonant with Assyrian tu, oath). There were, as v. 10 shows, six such chambers in the gate building—three on each side of the gateway or corridor (hence the Hebrew singular in Russian is rightly translated distributively). On plan 1–6B. These were thus niche-shaped chambers, probably serving as quarters for the temple guard—the Levites (Ezek 44:11)—to watch those entering the temple, to maintain order among them, and to bar unlawful visitors; perhaps for this purpose they had projections in front of them (v. 12); they were equipped with doors and windows (v. 13 and 16). The article before the word shows that they were very familiar to the prophet’s readers and probably existed in the first temple (2 Sam 11). The chambers were square, six by six cubits (“one rod long and one rod wide”). Chambers of one row were at a distance of five cubits from each other (4C) and two parallel rows of them ended with a new threshold (D) of the gate (a sign of twofold holiness of the House of God) the same width as the first. This threshold (the second—D) led to a special structure (was located “at” it “facing inward”—mebabayit, that is, in the direction of the exiting temple house) the vestibule (ulam, see explanation Ezek 8:16) of the gate—that is, to the portico (E) described further in v. 9. So complex is the entrance to the House of God! The LXX, apparently to make clearer the actually unclear, without v. 10, Hebrew text, give a paraphrase of this verse; namely, they replace the singular “chamber,” with a distributive meaning, with a detailed enumeration of the side chambers: “and fee equal to a rod in length and equal to a rod in width and ailam” (LXX’s addition: the space between chambers is rightly represented as a pilaster (4C), separating the chambers—which in Hebrew would be ail, truly a ram, a pilaster, molding, cf. Ezek 41:3) “among fee” (plural of ta, fee with a feminine ending instead of masculine tei—as in v. 10) “six (Hebrew 5; LXX—6 to correspond with the width of fee) cubits; and fee the second equal to a rod in width, and equal to a rod in length, and ailam (Greek αιλαμ the same as before) five (already Hebrew) cubits; and fee the third equal to a rod in length and equal to a rod in width.” Thus the entire first (right or left) row of side chambers is described.

Ezekiel 40:8. And he measured the vestibule of the gate, facing inward—one rod. Not read in the LXX and in all ancient translations except the Targum, which is why all the moderns recognize it as a dittography of the last words of v. 7. It may indicate the width of the portico E (ulam, or “vestibule of the gate” of v. 9), which is indeed not indicated in the description of this portico and may indicate its length (eight cubits) in v. 9. If so, then the width of this portico was equal to the width of each of the two thresholds, consequently, it was like a third and last threshold to the outer court of the temple (the holiness of the latter is thereby further marked).

Ezekiel 40:9. Then he measured the vestibule of the gate—eight cubits; and the gate posts—two cubits. And the vestibule of the gate was at the inner side. “Eight cubits.” If v. 8 indicates the width of the ulam, “vestibule of the gate,” portico E, then here is another measurement—its length; if not, then its width. In any case, this was already a proper hall, a room, not a square guardhouse only, as the ta or fee. Finely decorated (Ezek 41:26) with two massive columns, about which we now speak, these gate chambers probably served for assemblies like that described in Ezek 11:1 and following, and for sacrificial meals (Ezek 44:3). At the entrance already into the very temple court, although the court was still outer (so holy was it too), these chambers, which all three outer gates of the temple had in this same place, appeared as a vestibule of the temple, making one feel the proximity and thereby preparing one for entry into the temple. LXX: “and the vestibule of the gate (πυλωνος—a portal) which near the vestibule of the door (that is, the pilaster separating from the first the last fee) eight cubits.” “And the gate posts—two cubits.” These posts could stand only at the western, already leading to the temple court, exit of the portico, and their width, undoubtedly equal to their length—that is, the thickness equal to the thickness of the wall of the portico and the entire gate structure. Such posts were also in the inner gates (v. 26, 31) and in the temple itself (Ezek 41:3) and should have had the same symbolic significance as the well-known Jachin and Boaz in Solomon’s temple (see explanation 1 Sam 7:21). LXX: “ail-ev” transcription of Hebrew ailav—ail, post (see explanation of v. 7) in the plural with the pronoun “his.” “And the vestibule of the gate was at the inner side,” that is, it was located not at the outer part of the gate, but at the inner, from the side of the temple itself (more precisely—its outer court). An important remark in view of the fact that in the inner gates it was the opposite; see v. 36, 30. Hitzig points out that the length of the “vestibule of the gate” equals 1/5 of the length of the entire gate building (40 cubits), as the length of the temple vestibule (12 cubits) equals 1/5 of the length of the temple (62 cubits).

Ezekiel 40:10. The side chambers of the gate facing east: three on this side and three on that side; the three were of the same size, and the posts on this side and that side were of the same size. The number and arrangement of the measured side chambers, fee (B, B…), and the pilasters dividing them, τα αιλαμ of the LXX (C, C…), are indicated. The chambers were arranged one opposite the other and form two parallel rows, three in each. In the beginning of the verse, instead of the Hebrew “gate facing east,” the LXX read: “fee of the gate opposite fee”; indeed, chambers were in all, not in the eastern gates alone.

Ezekiel 40:11. And he measured the width of the opening of the gate—ten cubits; and the length of the gate—thirteen cubits. “Width of the opening of the gate,” that is, a-h. “And the length of the gate—thirteen cubits.” By the length of the gate cannot here be meant the length of the entire gate structure (with thresholds, passage, and portico), because it was not 13 but 50 cubits according to v. 15. Consequently, one should read this place according to the LXX: “and the width of the gate—thirteen cubits.” With the width of the opening of the gate it is very natural to compare the general width of the passage or corridor (C-C), which was thus more than the width of the entrance opening by three cubits. The correctness of the LXX reading (instead of orek, length, they read derekh, way) is confirmed by the fact that according to other data of the chapter, the width of this passage should be exactly this: the width of the entire gate structure (with passage and both chambers on the sides) according to v. 13 (in the LXX, it is clearer there) is 25 cubits; excluding from this the two chambers of six cubits each, we get 13 cubits; it is true that behind the chambers was still a wall, an unknown thickness of which should reduce this figure (perhaps even by two cubits); but the passage could be measured not between the front walls of the chambers but between the pilasters—“posts” (v. 10), separating the chambers; the width of the passage here was more than its width between the chambers because the latter had projections. About these projections the following v. 12 speaks, thereby limiting the data of the second half of v. 11.

Ezekiel 40:12. Now the guards’ chambers faced the passage on the one side and on the other side; and the chambers were six cubits on one side and six cubits on the other side. “A projection,” gevul, the chambers had, perhaps for some convenience in observing those entering the temple from the side of the guard stationed in the chambers (cf. about v. 7; perhaps in the eastern and western walls of the projection windows were made for this purpose: v. 16); probably therefore this projection was of considerable size—one cubit for each chamber. LXX according to Vat. and other manuscripts “and one cubit a vaulted projection (επισυναγονενος—apparently an architectural term meaning a convexity, projection) straight before the fee (side chambers) … on this side and that side,” to which other manuscripts make a clarifying insertion before “on this side and that side”: “one cubit and one cubit, a boundary” (that is, in the size of one cubit on each side). “Now the guards’ chambers: on one side, six cubits, and six cubits on the other side.” This repetition of the data of v. 7 is made with the purpose, which the indication of the size of the projections has: to show how the width of the passage of 13 cubits is made up, with the width of the entire gate structure of 25 cubits, which is about to be mentioned in v. 13. Therefore, the unit of measure “rod” of v. 7 is here translated into cubits.

Ezekiel 40:13. And he measured the gate from the roof of the one chamber to the roof of the other chamber, twenty-five cubits wide; entrance was opposite entrance. “From the roof of one chamber to the roof of the other, 25 cubits wide.” Undoubtedly (from what precedes) the speech is about the width of the entire gate structure. But the thought in the Masoretic text is expressed strangely. If, as is evident from v. 14 by the LXX, the entire gate structure was uncovered, then precisely in this way the width of the gates could be designated: the roofs, which stood above the chambers, were the most noticeable boundaries (markers) of the entire structure in its width. Others (Rosenmüller) escape the difficulty created by the Masoretic text by giving the Hebrew gag (roof) the meaning of the edge or end (in Exod 30:3 this word designates the top of the altar), here—the edge, back wall of the chamber. The LXX: “from the wall of fee (that is, the back, toward the temple court) to the wall of fee (the back wall of the opposite chamber) the width of twenty-five cubits.” If the LXX did not assign to gag the meaning proposed by Rosenmüller, then they could read instead of this word such an equally short kir (wall); or they read: migav (from the wall) lenegedo (to the opposite); cf. Ezek 23:35 by the Hebrew text. In any case, the width of the entire gate structure is indicated, from which, based on the preceding data, the thickness of the gate wall can be calculated (not an unimportant knowledge): (25 – (12+10)): 2 = 1.5 cubits; cf. v. 42. “Entrance was opposite entrance.” If in the preceding expression speech was about the back walls of the chambers, that is, about the wall of the entire gate structure (facing the temple court), then here, perhaps, speech is only about the doors in these walls, leading from the latter to the (outer) temple court. If not, then here it is said of the doors in the corridor of the gates.

Ezekiel 40:14. And he made the posts sixty cubits high; and the court gate ran all around the gate. “And he made the posts—60 cubits.” Literally, “And made the posts 60 cubits.” It is unclear, first of all, why everywhere the verb used in these chapters “measured” is replaced here with the verb “made,” when the temple is represented as already completed and only measurement of it is being done. It is thought—because here the height of the posts is indicated, and it could not be measured as everything before this with a rod, but had to be determined in some other, not more precisely indicated way. Then it is unclear what posts are in question: the posts between the chambers (v. 10) or the two posts of the portico (v. 9); rather—the latter, since only they could be of such an inordinate height (the figure 60—never in the entire temple description), serving, as it were, as obelisks of the gate (like Jachin and Boaz in Solomon’s temple). Finally, the exact measurement of the posts is not determined by the figure of 60 cubits; the magnitude of this figure only allows one to suppose here a measurement height. All these ambiguities cast a shadow of doubt on the Masoretic text, especially since the LXX again give here a more natural reading: “and uncovered (αιθριον, a courtyard) of the vestibule of the gate (that is, the portico of v. 9E) sixty (only the Slavonic text counts thus; better: the Alexandrian: 25, Vaticanus: 20) cubits.” The LXX thus give the not yet indicated and not unimportant (given the importance of this section of the gate, see explanation of v. 9) length of the portico E; although this length is indicated so late in comparison with the width of the same part of the gate in v. 9, but it is in place, because from v. 11 everywhere a measurement is given from south to north, as before from east to west; “posts” and “vestibules” are consonant in Hebrew: elim and ulam or elam. “And the court gate ran all around the gate.” A presumptive and free translation of the Hebrew literally: “and the post to the court of the gate (adjoined) round, round,” that is, the post (collective, by which one can mean the posts of v. 9 and 10, or—el instead of elam, vestibule?) extended or adjoined already with the court (this holiness!) beside the gates. The LXX, apparently by conjecture: “and fee of the court round about,” that is, round about to the court the side chambers extended, as in the elam, of which we just spoke. Even better would be the sense if we do not read the word “post,” which in Hebrew is altogether consonant with the preceding preposition el—“to”; then it will be: “and to the court of the gate round about, round about,” that is, the gate structure extends free to the court, opening to it on all sides, and not as the inner gates, which are built around (38, 44) in a sign of greater holiness of the latter (see plan 2).

Ezekiel 40:15. and from the front of the entrance gate to the front of the inner vestibule of the gate, fifty cubits. “To the front of the inner vestibule of the gate”—an imprecise translation of the Hebrew: “to the face (entrance from the court) of the vestibule of the inner gate.” Corresponding to the width of the entire gate structure measured in v. 13, the total length of this structure is here indicated: 50 cubits—twice the width—a proportion maintained in all the structures of this temple, as in the simpler one. This total length could be calculated from the data so far given: 6 cubits of the outer wall, 6 × 3 cubits of the side chambers, 5 × 2 cubits of the pillars between them, 6 cubits of another threshold or a second wall of the gate, 8 + 2 cubits of the portico and its wall (equal to the thickness of the pillars of v. 9). The Masoretic text presents some roughness. “From the front of the entrance of the gate” literally, “to (el) the face of the gate of the outside”; “to” (“at”) instead of “from” may be because the measurer stood at this entrance. The LXX: “and uncovered (αιθριον, see note on v. 14) of the gate from outside (from the outer edge of the vestibule of the gate) to uncovered of the vestibule of the inner gate (to the inner, facing the court, edge of the “vestibule at the gate,” the portico of v. 9) fifty cubits.”

Ezekiel 40:16. And there were recessed windows in the side chambers and in their posts, facing the gate round about, and likewise in the vestibule there were windows round about inside, and on the posts were palm motifs. Now it remains to say how the gate building was lit and what ornaments it had. It was lit by windows which were “recessed.” This word is the presumed translation of the Hebrew atoom, used only in Ezek 41:26 and 1 Sam 6:4, which the LXX here and in Kings render as “hidden” (secret, transom), and in chapter XLI as “recessed,” the Vulgate and Peshitta as well as the rabbis render as obliquae, oblique, Symm. τοξικαι—arrow-shaped (both meanings—expanding inward); Aq. βεβυσμεναι—deaf; all these meanings are confirmed both by 3 Kings, where the windows of Solomon’s temple are named: “recessed, deaf, with slants,” and by the addition “inward.” Windows, thus, resembled embrasures or loopholes, which are often found in Egyptian temples. Windows were arranged not only in the walls of the side chambers but also in the pillars (elim, LXX “ailamev”), separating the chambers, despite all their massiveness (5 cubits, and with the wall 5.5–6). Making windows in so massive a wall was nothing extraordinary for the prophet, because in Solomon’s temple the walls were no thinner, and to restore the broken windows was easier than to make new ones. Such windows were in the vestibule, evidently described in v. 8 and 9; but it is here called not ulam, as there, but elam, as the LXX read this word everywhere, and as the Masoretes punctuate it from here to v. 36 (15 times); here, moreover, the word has a feminine plural ending (therefore the Russian “vestibules”); the plural does not suit here, since the vestibule at the gates was one; therefore this is seen as a mistake (LXX singular) or an ancient singular form. “And on the posts were palm motifs.” Since the word posts had been mentioned before and the word posts here is in the singular, while before in this verse it was in the plural with the pronoun “their,” then by these posts are meant only two main posts at the entrance to the vestibule (e and f)—designated in the singular in a collective sense, as in v. 14. Palms indicate that the dwelling of God in the temple is always flourishing, full of life. Since Palestine is the homeland of the palm, this tree served as a kind of coat of arms of the people and country; it is depicted on the coins of the Maccabees, as well as on the coin of Titus (with the inscription Judaea capta). And the Savior, as if to symbolize His entrance into the temple of the new Jerusalem, made His solemn entry here in the midst of palms (Trochon.). LXX: “and on the ailamev (“elim, consequently they read the plural) phoenix on this side and that side,” but the Hebrew timor means any palm. Solomon’s temple, besides palms, was decorated with other images; cf. Ezek 41:18-19.

Ezekiel 40:17. Then he brought me into the outer court; and behold, there were chambers and a stone pavement made round about the court; thirty chambers faced the pavement. Now the prophet was to be shown the outer court of the temple. Since the prophet had so far stood before the eastern gates, he is now introduced (presumably by these same eastern gates, as in v. 32 he is led out by them) into this court. Who introduces him—the angel or God, as in Ezek 40:3—is not said, perhaps intentionally, because the guidance was internal and the prophet could not determine the guide. This court corresponded not to the first court of Herod’s temple, the court of the Gentiles, but to the following court—the court of women: because in Ezekiel’s temple the Gentiles are not admitted at all; perhaps therefore this court is called “inner” by the LXX. This court was surrounded by chambers, that is, separate small houses (Hebrew lemakot, LXX παστοφορια, small temples, Slavic imprecisely: “a barrier”; see plan 3: Z, Z, Z…), which stood beside the outer wall on a stone pavement (Hebrew ritsefa, still only in 2 Chr 7:3, 2 Sam 16:17, and Esth 1:7, but Greek περιστυλα—a colonnade, Slavic “inter-columniation”; see plan 3: y, y, y), of course, of equal stone slabs, which stretched along the outer wall along the entire length. There were 30 chambers total, but how they were distributed along the walls of the court is not indicated; the most natural distribution would be 10—at each of the three unbuilt walls of the court—eastern, northern, and southern (at the western wall there was a building of special purpose—Ezek 41:12 and following); but the expression “round about” allows one to think that some of the chambers were at the western wall too on the open space of it, some of course fewer, for example, eight at each of the first three walls, six at the last. These chambers could serve as storerooms for keeping certain temple furnishings (hence the name in the Vulgate gazophylacia); but since there were chambers for keeping sacred furnishings and the parts of sacrifices allotted to priests in the inner court (v. 44 and following, Ezek 42:1 and following, Ezek 46:19 and following), these present chambers were probably intended for the people and their sacrificial meals. In Solomon’s and the second temple, notable people owned such chambers at the temple, each one separately (2 Sam 23:11; Jer 35:4; Nehem 13:4 and following; cf. Ezek 8:8 and following). It is not said that these present chambers were several stories high or that they were furnished with galleries (LXX: περιστυλα), which is noted of such chambers in the inner court: Ezek 42:3.

Ezekiel 40:18. And the pavement was beside the gates, extending as far as the gates extended; this was the lower pavement. The pavement (LXX: στοαι, colonnades, the περιστυλα of v. 17, Slavic “porticoes,” apparently meaning the chambers) did not pave the entire outer court, but only the part corresponding to the sides (Slavic likewise: “opposite the back wall”) of the gates, that is, the width of its strip was equal to the length of the gates (50 cubits—minus the thickness of the wall, 6 cubits: v. 5, 6), see plan 3: y, y. This pavement (Greek already περιστυλον, Slavic “inter-columniation”), is called lower (Russian “lower,” Greek ‘ υποκατω, Slavic “lower”), of course, in distinction from the pavement of the inner court, which was higher than the outer court by 8 steps (v. 37); it is true that there is no mention of the pavement of the inner court, but this is probably because, as happened in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 7:3) and Herod’s temple (epist. Arist.), this court was entirely paved.

Ezekiel 40:19. And he measured the width of the court from the lower gates to the outer edge of the inner gate—one hundred cubits, on the east and on the north. Like the gates, the court must be measured, and measuring it is sufficient only to measure its width, as its length is the size of the temple square; thus the court has one measurement, while the gates have two main measurements and many secondary ones. The width of the court was most simply determined by the distance between the gates, since the prophet stands at them. From the outer gates, called here lower since the outer court was 8 steps lower than the inner—v. 37, to the outer edge of the inner court (it is not said: to the inner gates, because there had been no speech about them yet, cf. v. 23, 27) was a large, round number—100 cubits. The LXX: “from the uncovered (vestibule, threshold) of the outer gates, inward (in the direction) to the uncovered (threshold) of the (opposite, inner) gates facing out (toward the side of their facing the outer court)…” “On the east and on the north.” The meaning of this remark, perhaps, is only that such a width of the court was not only on the measured direction—on the eastern part of it, but also on the northern, as regards the measurement of the gates of which part the prophet intends to proceed immediately. But such a remark would speak of something obvious; therefore better the LXX: “(facing) on the east (a definition of the measured part of the court, represented as 100 cubits?) and he brought me to the north.”

Ezekiel 40:20. He also measured the length and width of the gate of the outer court facing north, Ezekiel 40:21. with its side chambers—three on this side and three on that side—and its posts and its vestibules; they had the same measurement as the first gate: its length was fifty cubits and its width twenty-five cubits. Ezekiel 40:22. Its windows, vestibules, and palm motifs had the same measurements as those of the gate facing east; and there were seven steps leading up to it, and vestibules facing it. The northern gates (and southern: v. 24–26) had the same measurements in general and in all their parts as the eastern ones. Of these parts mentioned in v. 21 are “side chambers” (fee), “posts,” that is, apparently the pilasters—gaps between chambers v. 10 (Hebrew elav of v. 9, but in v. 10, elim, but the difference is only that the second lacks the pronoun “his,” relating to the gates; LXX transcription here ailev of v. 9, and in v. 10, ailamev), the “elam/ev” (Hebrew, Russian); “vestibules” (which would be gevul), that is, apparently (five thresholds A, D, and E; LXX, apparently, considered this a new architectural term: τα ελαμμων, but Slavic “elamy” (vestibules); LXX †”palms,” which apparently fell from the following verse). In v. 22, the smaller parts of the gates are indicated: windows, elam/ev (slight difference in spelling from the preceding verse; LXX the preceding verse; apparently a new architectural term not named in the description of the eastern gates, Russian “vestibules”) and palms (see explanation of v. 16). All this had the same measurement as in the eastern gates. But in the description of the latter, the measure of windows and palms is not indicated; therefore, the LXX in v. 22 instead of “the same measurement” read καθως, “as” (that is, instead of kemidat—kemo). Regarding the northern gates, it is indicated how many steps the staircase leading to them from the surrounding space of the temple was, which indication, for some reason, was not made in the description of the eastern gates, where it would, apparently, have been more appropriate. There were symbolically significant number of these steps: 7 (in the inner gates the number was even greater: 8). The stairway to the gates, more precisely—its steps, had in front of it the architectural attachment mentioned also in v. 21, named elam/ev, Greek ελαμμων. Vulgate vestibulum (Russian: “vestibules”); the LXX instead of “in front of it”—“inward.” Perhaps the threshold of v. 7 A is meant here.

Ezekiel 40:23. And the inner court had a gate opposite the north gate; he measured from gate to gate, a hundred cubits. Repeating what was said about the eastern part of the court in v. 19 in application to the northern part, the verse makes here an important addition, indicating that there were also gates in the inner court opposite the outer gates, so that the width of the court could be measured by the distance between both gates (in v. 19 it is measured by the distance from the outer gates to the “edge of the inner court”). Probably, the prophet did not see the inner eastern gates with such clarity as he saw here the northern ones, and in v. 27 the southern ones. “And the eastern”—reading with the LXX: “like the gates facing east.”

Ezekiel 40:24. Then he led me toward the south, and behold, there was a gate on the south; and he measured its posts and vestibules with the same measurements as the others. “Then he led me”—not “brought me,” as in v. 17, because here a fairly significant distance. The southern gates were in all respects similar to the eastern and northern ones, but the measurement of them is described not as that of the northern ones (a good writer does not like to repeat), but with insignificant deviations. So, first of all, for some reason there is no mention of so important a part of the gates as the side chambers (the LXX put them first, omitting in the Hebrew text: “fee”), and the measurement begins straight with the posts (apparently between the side chambers), after which immediately the mentioned in v. 22 (see there) elam/ev, Greek τα ελαμμων, Slavic “elamy,” Russian “vestibules.”

Ezekiel 40:25. Both the vestibule and the windows had the same measurements as the others: its length was fifty cubits and its width twenty-five cubits. The description of the southern gates is more fragmentary and less systematic than that of the northern ones: not all parts of the structure are named, and the most important ones are chosen. So after the “posts” and “vestibules” of v. 24, windows are mentioned here immediately. And windows are indicated also in the enigmatic elam/ev (is it not a miswriting—elamo, in his vestibule?), which Russian was forced to render not as “vestibules” (as in 21, 22, 24 verses) but as “vestibules,” while the LXX as before, but without the preposition: “and its windows and elamy.” “Such as those of the gate”—Slavic “like the windows of those” (Greek του αιλαμ); the latter word apparently came from Hebrew elleh, those; therefore the note in the Slavic Bible replaces it with “those.” The enumeration of different parts of the southern gates is interrupted in v. 25b by the indication of their total length and width, the same as the eastern (v. 13, 15) and northern (v. 21).

Ezekiel 40:26. Its ascent had seven steps, and its vestibule was before them; and it had palm motifs, one on this side and one on that side, on its posts. Ezek 40 Cf. v. 22b. “Vestibule,” Hebrew elam/ev, LXX elamy; “before them”—LXX “inward,” see v. 22: apparently the vestibule—the portico E (perhaps a miswriting instead of “elamo”—see v. 25), because it is connected with what follows: “And palm motifs—one on this side and one on that side on its posts,” literally, “and palms to it,” lo, that is, to the “elam/ev,” or “gates,” LXX: theirs. The vestibule—portico E was the most important part of the entire gate structure, and if there were only two palms (that is, ornaments) opposite each other, they would better be placed on the pillars of the vestibule at its very exit to the temple court (the holiest part of the gates); but it is possible that the meaning of the expression here is distributive and indicates the symmetrical arrangement of palm ornaments throughout the gate building (see explanation of v. 16 at the end). The symmetrical arrangement of palm ornaments—a new detail communicated by the prophet: in the survey of the northern and southern gates, not one such detail has been added to the picture of the gates already apparently fully drawn from the eastern gates.

Ezekiel 40:27. And there was a gate to the inner court on the south as well; and he measured from gate to gate toward the south, a hundred cubits. Ezek 40:27 Cf. v. 19 (see note) and 23.

Ezekiel 40:28. Then he brought me through the south gate to the inner court; and he measured the south gate with the same measurements as the others. The survey and measurement of the inner court begins with the southern gates, because the prophet is standing at them. To measure these gates, the prophet passes with his guide through their entire length to the very court, as is done later in v. 32 with the eastern gates.

Ezekiel 40:29. Its side chambers, posts, and vestibules had the same measurements, and it had windows round about; its length was fifty cubits and its width twenty-five cubits. The most important parts of the gate building are mentioned: the side chambers (v. 7), the pillars between them (v. 10), and the vestibules (elamim; see explanation of vv. 22, 25, 26) with windows in them (Heb. lo, emu), that is, in the gates and in the vestibules—which should be singular (see explanation of vv. 25 and 26)—and the dimensions of the gates are indicated. All of this in the inner gates corresponded entirely in size to the outer gates.

Ezekiel 40:30. The vestibules were all around twenty-five cubits long, and five cubits wide. This gives information about the vestibules (Heb. elamot, which for some reason is plural), that the vestibule was twenty-five cubits long (compare v. 14 in the Alexandrian codex; see explanation of it), and five cubits wide (from v. 9: ten—see explanation of them). The verse is absent in nearly all LXX manuscripts (even in the Slavonic translation) and in some Hebrew ones; therefore it is considered an erroneous variant of 29b.

Ezekiel 40:31. And the vestibules were toward the outer court, and there were palm trees on their pillars, and eight steps led up to them. Although generally similar to the outer gates, the inner gates had three differences from them: 1) their vestibule, that is, the vestibule of the gate in v. 9 (Russian “vestibules” because the Hebrew elamim is again a word with dual sense; see explanation of vv. 22, 25, 26; the LXX here has ailam in the singular, but with the article in the genitive: of the; Slavonic “elamy”) was “toward the outer court,” consequently it occupied the front part of the gate (see plan 2A), not the back (it stood before the threshold B, while threshold F opened directly onto the inner court), in contrast to the outer gates. Being holier than the outer court, the inner court reminded those entering it of its sanctity by this outer vestibule, which demanded spiritual cleansing at its very threshold. 2) Thus, those pillars with their palm-tree decorations (from this verse more confidently than from the earlier mentions of palms, one can conclude that palms decorated only the two pillars of the vestibule), which completed the outer gate structure, began the inner gate structure. Since the front wall of the vestibule of the gates was the same thickness—two cubits (v. 9)—as these pillars, and since in the inner gates it had to fit into the wall surrounding the inner court and be part of it, this wall was of the same thickness (which is why it is nowhere measured, but only mentioned incidentally in Ezek 42:7). 3) The third difference of the inner gates from the outer was that the stairway leading to them had not seven but eight steps, a number one greater than the most sacred number, which serves as the symbol of complete fullness. Since (as shown in the explanation of v. 6) the steps were about one and one-third meters high, the inner court rose above the outer court to a height of two and two-thirds meters—a height at which all that happened in the inner court, particularly in its depth near the temple, could be seen from the outer court.

Ezekiel 40:32. And he brought me to the inner court by the eastern gates and measured them with the same measurements. “And he brought me” (see explanation of v. 24) “to the inner court by the eastern gates” is from the Hebrew: “and brought me by the inner court to the east.” The prophet had already entered the inner court by the southern gates, and it was nearer for him to go to the eastern gates through this court. Thus the survey of the inner court is made not in the same order as the outer: there, eastern, northern, and southern gates; here, southern, eastern, and northern. This was perhaps not only because the path was shorter (from the southern outer gates the southern inner gates were nearest), but also so as not to enter the inner court by the so-holy eastern gates (compare Ezek 44:1 and following). The LXX freely: “and he brought me to the gates facing east and measured them...”

Ezekiel 40:33. Their side chambers, their pillars, and their vestibules were of the same size; and the windows and the vestibules all around—fifty cubits long and twenty-five cubits wide. See explanation of v. 23.

Ezekiel 40:34. The vestibules were toward the outer court, and there were palm trees on its pillars on either side, and eight steps led up to it. See explanation of v. 31.

Ezekiel 40:35. Then he brought me to the northern gates and measured them with the same measurements. Since these are already the third gates (of the inner court), the expression is shorter than in vv. 32 and following about the eastern gates.

Ezekiel 40:36. Its side chambers, its pillars, and its vestibules, and its windows all around—fifty cubits long and twenty-five cubits wide. For the same reason there is no mention after “windows in them” of “and in the vestibules” as in vv. 25–29 and 33.

Ezekiel 40:37. The vestibules were toward the outer court, and there were palm trees on its pillars on either side, and eight steps led up to it. See explanation of v. 31; but in the Hebrew, “vestibules” is not elamim as there, but for some reason elav, “its pillars”; perhaps the prophet, instead of the vestibule, calls by name the most visible part of it—the two entrance pillars; the LXX as there: the elamy. A—vestibule in the hall. B—first threshold. D—side chambers, phe. C—passage. E—pillars, alim. F—second threshold. a, b, c, d—sacrificial tables within the vestibule (Ezek 40:39). e, f, g, h—sacrificial tables within the vestibule (Ezek 40:40). e, f, k, g—arrangement of outer tables according to the LXX. O—blood drain according to the LXX (Ezek 40:38).

Ezekiel 40:38. And there was a room with an entrance beside the pillars of the gate, where they washed the burnt offerings. “And there was a room with an entrance beside it at the pillars of the gate.” Literally: “and a room and its door in the pillars of the gate.” It is unclear from the text 1) whether this room formed an addition to the gates or was located within the gate building itself; if the former, one would have needed to indicate on which side of the gate this addition was, as is done with the rooms of v. 44; therefore the latter is more probable. 2) It is not stated in which pillars—Hebrew alim—this room was; given that the pillars of the vestibule (plan 1e and f) were of small thickness, only two cubits, one must think that this room was located in the pillars that divided the side chambers or separated the outermost of them from the vestibule; the latter is more likely; but it remains unknown which of these two pillars contained the room. Because of the similarity of the Hebrew word alim to the word ailam “vestibule,” it is not excluded that here we are speaking not of pillars but of a vestibule; then the addition “its door” would be more understandable: “and a door in the vestibule”: from the vestibule there was a door into the room, because in it they washed the sacrifices that were slaughtered in the vestibule on special tables. The LXX: “and the enclosures (pastoforia—see explanation of v. 17) and their doors (thyroma, literally a room with a door) and their vestibules.” Such a room was located by the direct sense at all three inner gates (in the Hebrew the final word is in the plural). Therefore it is hardly fair to place this room only at the eastern gates (see Ber. Krech.) on the grounds that the rooms at the northern and southern gates had a different purpose (v. 44), that the temple fountain flowed precisely from under the eastern gates (Ezek 47:1-2), and that these gates were always closed, whereas through the northern and southern ones the people passed. With even less probability is this room placed (Hävernick, Hengstenberg, Currey) only at the northern gates on the grounds that the burnt offering, which was washed in this room, according to Mosaic law was slaughtered on the northern side of the altar (Lev 1:11). The LXX: “before their gates second (if from those named, then the eastern ones, or: before the second door of the gate, in the part of it leading into the inner court) a drain,” that is, for the water of the ablution mentioned next. “There they washed the burnt offerings,” that is, according to Lev 1:9, its entrails and legs, the more unclean parts. By this remark the great significance of this sacrifice is presaged, about which there will be discussion later. Ablution was needed for this sacrifice only, as the most holy. For washing, a special room was required so as not to defile the temple by it. In the Vatican and other codices the second half of the verse is absent; the whole verse is absent in all ancient translations except the LXX.

Ezekiel 40:39. And in the vestibule were four tables on one side and four tables on the other side, on which to slaughter the burnt offering, the sin offering, and the guilt offering. While according to Mosaic law sacrifices had to be slaughtered on the north side of the altar, in the mystical temple of Ezekiel, at least the most important sacrifices—the burnt offering, the sin offering (Lev 4:3 and following) and the guilt offering (Lev 5:19; Slavonic “which are for unknowing”)—were slaughtered in the vestibule of the gate, perhaps so that the special holiness of this temple would not be defiled by sin, which the living animal carries on itself for the sinner. The slaughter was performed, perhaps as in the former temple, on special tables, of which there were four for this purpose (perhaps by the number of the directions); they were arranged symmetrically (as everything in the mystical temple) two on each side of the vestibule (see plan 2—a, b, c, d). Thus already the interior of the gate, by the sight of sacrificial tables, introduced those entering into worship, of which the principal part consisted of sacrifices.

Ezekiel 40:40. And on the outside, at the entrance to the north gate, there were two tables; and on the other side of the vestibule of the gate, two more tables. In remembrance that according to Mosaic law the sacrifice was slaughtered on the north side of the altar, at the northern inner gates, besides the tables mentioned in the vestibule for slaughtering sacrifices, there were tables on the sides of the gate for the same purpose, also four in number, and also arranged symmetrically (Plan 2—e, f, g, h.) The placement of the tables outside the gate made it convenient to distribute parts of them to the people after the priestly portion was removed from the sacrificial animal. The LXX: “and after the drain of burnt offerings (of which the LXX text speaks in v. 38; see explanation of it) of the gates facing north two tables on the east opposite the back side of the second gates (that is, at the end of the gate projecting into the inner court, where the second doors were) and opposite the vestibule of the gates (that is, at the opposite side, facing the outer court) two tables on the east”; consequently, according to the LXX, the tables were arranged on only one side of the northern gates—the main, eastern side (Plan 2-e, f, k, d), because there the drain for blood was located (see v. 38).

Ezekiel 40:41. Four tables on one side and four tables on the other side, by the sides of the gate—eight tables in all, on which the sacrifices were slaughtered. The verse apparently indicates the total number of tables for slaughtering sacrifices at the northern gates and within their structure: in the vestibule of the gate there were four tables and outside four, eight in total; and it is indicated that they were arranged symmetrically, so that on each side of the gate wall there stood four tables: two inside and two outside. The LXX: “four on this side, four on the other side opposite the back side of the gates (that is, on the outer wall of the gate four tables, and on its other side, that is, inside the gate, four tables), on them the slaughters shall be made: straight before eight tables of slaughter” (that is, the slaughter of sacrifices is done in no other way than at these tables for slaughter—not at the side of the altar, as in the Mosaic tabernacle). The LXX’s final words “straight before eight tables of slaughter” are better referred to the following verse, seeing in them an indication of where the four stone tables for slaughter instruments described in that verse were located.

Ezekiel 40:42. And there were four tables of hewn stone for the burnt offering, one and a half cubits long, one and a half cubits wide, and one cubit high; on them the instruments for slaughtering the burnt offering and the other sacrifices were laid. Besides the eight tables mentioned, about which it is not said of what material they were made, there were also four stone tables (stone has always been considered the most suitable material for an altar; among the pagans there was even a cult of stones), about which in turn it is not said where they stood (in the LXX perhaps it is said; see explanation of v. 41—end), perhaps because it was clear from their purpose. These were one and a half cubits long, one and a half cubits wide, and one cubit high, and served for storing the instruments for slaughtering sacrifices; the burnt offering, in its generic sense, is mentioned as the most sacred sacrifice.

Ezekiel 40:43. And hooks, a hand-breadth long, were fastened all around the interior of the house; and on the tables was the flesh of the offerings. “Hooks.” So the Targum translates gashefataim. To these hooks the sacrificial animals were hung for removal of their skin. But such a meaning for the present Hebrew word is questionable and does not accord with the context, which speaks exclusively of tables; the specification of a measure for the hooks—“a hand-breadth”—is also unclear. Therefore it is better, with the LXX, to read sefatam—“their edge”: “and they have a border (a rim, a cornice) slightly trimmed a hand-breadth (in height) within” (that is, on the table surface, not on its outside; instead of the Hebrew babbayit, Russian “interior of the house,” the LXX read mibbayyit, from within). This “border” prevented fragments of sacred meat from falling from the table and blood from flowing to avoid their being trampled. The Vulgate similarly: labia, lips. From this the following remark is understandable: “and on the tables was the flesh of the offerings,” which however the LXX read quite differently: “but the top of the table a covering (a canopy) with which to cover them from rain and heat,” necessary both for the sacrifice and for the priests, since some of the tables stood outside the gate building; and the “vestibule of the gate,” where the remaining tables stood, could have been without a roof (compare v. 15 according to the LXX).

Ezekiel 40:44. And outside the inner gates were rooms for the singers; on the inner court, beside the northern gate, one facing south; and beside the southern gate, one facing north. The verse in the Hebrew text speaks of rooms for singers, which could suggest that at the time described all will be singing and rejoicing. But since these rooms in vv. 45 and 46 turn out to be intended for priests, whom Ezekiel separates from the Levites (singers and guards) as strictly as the Mosaic law does, and because of other inconsistencies in this verse in the Hebrew text, scholars now unanimously follow the LXX, which instead of sharim “singers” read shetayim “two (rooms).” “Outside the inner gates,” which gates are not specified; but from the following it is clear that these rooms were located beside the northern and southern gates. More understandable is the LXX: “and he brought me to the inner court.” “Rooms,” Hebrew lishkot (from the root meaning to seize, to contain), Greek exedrai—in classical usage, covered porches before a house, furnished with seats; Slavonic “enclosures,” impassable rooms in distinction from phe, passable ones. (Fartusov. Plans and Facades of Noah’s Ark, Moses’ Tabernacle, the 1st and 2nd Jerusalem Temples, and Solomon’s Palace. Moscow, 1909, 4); Vulgate gazophylacia (treasuries for precious things). Consequently, these rooms were of a completely different kind than the gate rooms of vv. 7 and following—taim, phe. There was also a third kind of room—in Ezek 13:5; see explanation there. “Beside,” Slavonic “opposite the back side of the gates,” that is, at the part of the gates projecting into the inner court. As is clear from the following, at the eastern wall of both gates. See Plan No. 3—C and D. “One facing south” (Hebrew—an obvious error: “facing east”: hakkadim instead of haddrom, perhaps this is a remnant of the indication of the eastern wall of the gate where the rooms were located), and the other “facing north”; thus the rooms were oriented with their fronts, that is, their entrances, toward each other and toward the center of the inner court, toward the altar (compare v. 46). The Slavonic “facing north” (that is, of the southern gates) turned by their entrance into the room toward the north.

Ezekiel 40:45. And he said to me: “This room facing south is for the priests who keep watch over the temple; Both rooms are designated only for priests (previously such rooms were probably used by laymen as well, defiling the temple: Ezek 8:7 and following). Regarding the immediate purpose of the rooms—for priests to clothe themselves in their liturgical garments—see, apparently, Ezek 44:17. The right room, from the perspective of one entering the temple by the eastern gates (the Lord—Ezek 44:1 and following), facing toward the blessed south, is designated for priests performing more honored duties, serving their appointed service (“keeping watch over,” Slavonic “who guard the watch”) in the very building of the temple (the sanctuary), in the holy place (burning of incense, maintaining the fire in the lampstand), changing of the bread of the Presence; see explanation of Ezek 41:22).

Ezekiel 40:46. and the room facing north is for the priests who keep watch over the altar. These are the descendants of Zadok, the only ones among the descendants of Levi who may approach the Lord to minister to him. The left room, facing north, was designated for priests with less honored duties, keeping watch over the altar (Slavonic “the requirements”), which stood in the inner court; their duties did not go beyond the boundaries of the court and did not concern the holy building. Since the prophet mentions priests for the first time, he makes a remark about the tribal composition of this class: the right to priesthood, given by the law of Moses to all direct descendants of Aaron, is here narrowed by historical circumstances mentioned in Ezek 44:15 (compare 1 Sam 2:36; 1 Chr 29:22) to the descendants of Zadok alone; only they from all the tribe of Levi retained the right to that special access to God which priests have through their service in the holy place and at the altar.

Ezekiel 40:47. And he measured the court, one hundred cubits long and one hundred cubits wide—a square. And in front of the temple stood the altar. The dimensions of the inner court are determined by the number that has always served as the symbol of the most perfect fullness and completeness—one hundred cubits—and expressed in the most perfect shape—a square (length and width equal). These dimensions are reckoned in such a way that the corners between the gates are not taken into account (only the square eéff’ on plan 3 is reckoned): otherwise the free space of the court would equal only fifty by fifty cubits and would be very narrow. The altar standing in the center of this square could be seen equally from all three gates, before which on the outer court stood the praying people. Regarding the structure of the altar in Ezek 43:13 and following.

Ezekiel 40:48. And he brought me to the vestibule of the temple and measured the pillars of the vestibule, five cubits on one side and five cubits on the other side; and the width of the gate was three cubits on one side and three cubits on the other side. Measurement of the temple itself (literally “the house”) begins, which now follows the measurement of the inner court. The measurement begins with those pillars (LXX “ayl” transcription) of the vestibule (“ailam”), which opened the entrance to the temple (plan 4: I, B) and corresponded to the well-known Jachin and Boaz of Solomon’s temple (1 Sam 7:15-21; see explanation), being of the same thickness as those columns, approximately. The thickness of each of these pillars is indicated—five cubits (at the gates of the court only two cubits—v. 9). Since the aim is to indicate the thickness of the entire door (more precisely—gate, as such thickness is too great for a door; see explanation of Ezek 41:23), the thickness of both pillars is indicated separately: five cubits on one side and five cubits on the other. Following this the LXX only indicate the width of the door opening (plan 4: ca): “but the width of the doorway fourteen cubits,” a very important indication omitted in the Masoretic text, probably due to the similarity of the final word of the phrase with the ending of the next phrase (homo-ioteleuton). The widths of the doors in the vestibule, the holy place (Ezek 42:2), and the holy of holies (Ezek 42:3) are in arithmetic proportion to one another: 14–10–6. And the further data is more complete in the LXX: “and the side of the doorway,” that is, the remaining part of the gate or door, consisting of a wall and forming as it were large jambs of a door (plan 4: ab. cd.)—“three cubits on this side and three on that side”; Russian “and in the gate three cubits wide on one side and three cubits on the other side.” Consequently, the whole width of the vestibule is 3+14+3=20 cubits; compare the following verse. In its present form the Masoretic text apparently indicates the width of both halves of the door at the end of the verse.

Ezekiel 40:49. The vestibule was twenty cubits long and eleven cubits wide, and steps led up to it; and there were pillars beside the pillars, one on each side. By the prophet’s usual terminology, the “length” of the vestibule means the greater of the two measurements, which in this case corresponds to the width of the temple (plan 4: k-i); conversely, in 1 Sam 6:3. The width is indicated by a non-round and non-symbolic number, eleven; therefore it is better to read with the LXX: “twelve.” Whereas the outer gates were approached by seven steps, the inner gates by eight, the temple itself, as a sign of its special holiness, is approached by a great stairway of ten steps. But this number is read here only by the LXX; the Masoretic text instead of eser (ten) has asher (which), which is identical in appearance. After this stairway there must have been another threshold (plan 4: A; compare Ezek 9:3) of the same thickness as the foundation projecting all around the entire temple (plan 4: C-C; Ezek 41:8; compare Isa 6:4 according to the Hebrew text). “And there were pillars beside the pillars.” Literally: “and columns (ammudim) beside pillars (alim). The LXX read alim as ailam, vestibule (“and the pillar was at the vestibule”), thereby removing the obscurity of the Masoretic text, according to which besides the “pillars” of v. 47 in three cubits thick at the entrance, there stood yet two pillars of unknown thickness. The pillars at the entrance had the immediate purpose of supporting the top of the portal; hence their name here ammudim, supports, pillars. Such pillars were common in Egyptian temples; they were particularly remarkable in the Temple of Melqart at Tyre (Herod. II, 44), and in the Pafros and Hierapolis temples (Nowack Archaol IV, 1, 76). By their height they elevated the thoughts of those entering the temple toward God.