Chapter Forty-Seven

1-12. The source from beneath the temple. 13-23. The boundaries of the future sacred land.

The actual basis for the prophetic idea of the life-giving temple source in the prophet Ezekiel, as earlier in Joel (Joel 3:18), and later in Zechariah (Zech 14:8), could be an actual spring on the temple mount, concerning which the Letter of Aristeas speaks (“an inexhaustible collection of water as though from a source of many waters flowing naturally”) and Tacitus (“a constant spring of water, a mountain with cavities under the earth.” Hist. V, 12. Cf. Robinson, Palast. II, 159-163) and the reference to which should probably be found in Isaiah (Isa 8:6). The basis for this idea could have been sacred springs, which were known in ancient times to the Hebrews (though in lesser quantity than to the surrounding heathens, for example, the Phoenicians and Syrians): cf. Gen 14:7 “spring of Mispatim” (i.e., of judgment), Gen 16:14 “spring of him who lives and sees me,” 1 Sam 1:9; 2 Sam 5:10 and others. In the East in general the fertility of a country greatly depends on the abundance of waters; cf. the significance given to its rivers in the description of paradise. Meanwhile, Palestine in respect to fertility always left much to be desired, and especially Judea could not boast of it: not far to the south-east of Jerusalem began the Judean desert, and beyond it lay the Dead Sea, into which flowed the waters of the Kidron and the temple mount, and upon it dwelt God. If He will dwell upon it in a more substantial and permanent manner than hitherto, this cannot but produce a special prosperity of the country, chiefly its fertility, which may be produced by a stream flowing from the temple mount, if it were correspondingly enlarged and directed to the barren south and west of Judea. And God’s dwelling in the temple will be an inevitable consequence of the propriety of the worship cult in it (worship of God), to which, consequently, in the last instance as its cause is traced the fertility of the country. Thus the temple source, transforming the future sacred land into paradise, is but a symbol of the life, salvation (according to blessed Jerome “signifies the teaching of our Savior”) issuing from proper worship and serves as another expression of the idea contained in such passages as Isa 30:25; Jer 2:18; Ps 86:7; John 4:10; Rev 22:1. The prophet is first shown the stream and direction of water from beneath the temple (verses 1-2), then its growth into a stream (3-5), and finally its miraculous action (7-12).

Ezekiel 47:1. Then he brought me back to the door of the temple; and behold, water was flowing out from under the threshold of the temple toward the east, for the temple faced east; and the water was flowing down on the south side of the altar. From the outer court, where the prophet was since Ezek 46:21, he is led back (“by a man” Ezek 40:3) Ezek 44:4 to the entrance of the temple, i.e., the building of the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, to the entrance, of course, into the vestibule of the temple (therefore the LXX: “to the entrance”) and here he saw the water flowing (literally “going out”) from under the threshold of the temple (perhaps going out also from the Holy of Holies) and directed to the east, since the temple too was directed to the east. The water flowed out not from under the door of the temple, because then it would have gone toward the altar, but “from under the right side of the temple,” i.e., from under the wall z-a on plan 3, (LXX “from under the unroofed, i.e., courtyard, part of the temple”), whereby it passed “on the south side of the altar.” “The Dead Sea, into which it flowed, lay precisely to the south-east of the temple” (Smend).

Ezekiel 47:2. Then he led me out by way of the north gate, and led me around on the outside to the outer gate facing east; and the water was trickling out on the south side. To trace the further direction of the temple stream, the prophet needed to go out of the temple, but he could not go directly, since the eastern gates were shut (the inner — for the most part: Ezek 46:1 cf. Ezek 40:1, and the outer always: Ezek 44:2); therefore the prophet is led out through the north gates (both) and, going around the temple from without (“on the outside”) comes before its eastern outer gates; “to the outer gates facing (“by way of” — Hebrew derekh sometimes means only direction and to) east.” From these gates (literally “entrance”; not expressed in Russian and Slavonic translation) to the right, i.e., under the adjacent wall on the right, the prophet saw again water being, evidently, a continuation of the stream seen by him earlier. — “Trickling” — Hebrew mippen, rendered thus from cognate roots (“drop”); Vulgate. redundantes; LXX: katetered — was falling, Slavonic “went out”; cognate with Assyrian paku, to break through.

Ezekiel 47:3. Going eastward with a measuring line in his hand, the man measured off a thousand cubits, and then led me through the water; the water came up to my ankles. “When the man went to the east.” — “The man,” Ezek 40:3. Literally from the Hebrew: “at the going out of the man to the east”; the LXX, reading instead of “be,” “v” — “ke,” “as,” have: “as the going out of the man towards,” connecting this with the end of verse 2: “and behold, water went out from the land of the right, as the going out of the man towards,” i.e., the water flowed as evenly as a man walks in a straight direction. — “Line,” Hebrew kav, in Ezekiel only here, “linen rope” (Ezek 40:3) — since large measurements were ahead. The measurement of the stream is meant to show that its depth increases in strict gradation and with complete uniformity, whereby it was completely unlike natural currents and rivers and fully corresponded both to the new temple and to the new sacred land, the proportionality in the plan of the former and in the division of the latter. At the distance of a thousand cubits from the temple wall the stream, barely breaking through from under the wall, had already reached the ankles, Hebrew “ophsaim” — dual of an Aramaized Hebrew pasim. The LXX perhaps saw in the expression a hidden meaning: “and went (i.e., the angel, not the prophet; middle voice instead of causative “and led me”) through water water of remission” instead of Hebrew “water of ankles”; but apheseos, perhaps a transcription of Hebrew ophsaim, representing indeed a form not used anywhere else.

Ezekiel 47:4. Again he measured a thousand cubits and led me through the water; the water came up to my knees. Again he measured a thousand cubits and led me through; the water came up to my loins. “And led me.” The LXX again (see verse 3) dielthen (i.e., the angel, not the prophet), according to the Slavonic “and led me.” — “The water came up to my knees,” as also the Slavonic “and the water rose to the knees” — a paraphrase of the brief, as in verse 3, Hebrew “water of knees” (Greek more precisely without “rose”); but “water” in Hebrew not in the status constructus, as before and further, but in st. abs. maim not meі, perhaps because in the first form the expression would mean the same as in Isa 36:12 “water of feet” (urine). From “led me” the LXX formed a predicate to water “and the water rose.”

Ezekiel 47:5. Again he measured a thousand cubits, and it was a river that I could not cross, for the water had risen; it was deep enough to swim in, a river that could not be crossed. The water thus increased in geometric progression. — “I could not cross.” The LXX “could not, i.e., the angel, pass,” as in verses 3 and 4. — “The water had risen.” LXX: “was boiling,” was turbulent like the sea, from the width and depth of the river. — “That could be swam,” literally “water of swimming.” LXX: “like a roar” (of a stream). Rosenmüller compares a place from the Zend-Avesta (translation Keuker, t. III, p. 16), that Zoroaster in a dream was passing through water, reaching him first to the heels, then to the knees and loins and finally to the neck and saw in this dream an indication of the development of his teaching.

Ezekiel 47:6. And he said to me, “Son of man, have you seen this?” Then he led me back along the bank of the river. Ezekiel 47:7. As I came back, I saw upon the bank of the river a great many trees on one side and the other. “Have you seen...?” i.e., the supernatural increase of water in the stream. Instead of measuring the further depth of the stream, which would be impossible, the prophet is shown its action on the surroundings, which is also a measure of it, having replaced the previous insufficient unit of measurement. But this action does not begin only from the 5th thousand cubits of its length, but much earlier, therefore the prophet with the angel return to investigate the banks of the stream. — Slavonic “in my return” — “when I came back” the beginning of verse 7.

Ezekiel 47:8. And he said to me, “This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah; and when it enters the sea, the sea of salt, the waters will become fresh. Since it was impossible to trace the many-verst course of the river personally, the prophet receives information about it from the angel. “Toward the eastern region of the land.” “Region,” according to Hebrew galil, a region, Josh 22:20 et seq. The LXX took it for a proper name: “to Galilee”; but this word became a proper name much later; here the eastern part of Judea, the Jericho region, is meant. “The Arabah,” Hebrew araba, literally steppe, which the LXX again took for a proper name: “to Aravi”: the word was indeed a proper name, but it designated not a known peninsula, but “the southern part of the depression between the Gulf of Akaba and the Dead Sea, with which today is exclusively connected the name El-Arabah, as well as the modern Ghor between the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee” (Buhl, Geographic d. alt. Palastina, 111 et seq.): here the second Arabah is meant, — the Judean plain to the west of the Dead Sea. In general this sea was surrounded by a plain on all sides, therefore it was called the sea of the plain (2 Sam 14:25: yam ha-arabah, Russian “sea of the desert,” Slavonic “sea of Arabah”). “Into the sea.” So clear which, that no definition was required. After “enters the sea” — Hebrew an unintelligible addition: “to the sea hammutzaim,” the second word evidently having its root in yatza — goes out, perhaps only part Hof (passive participle) from this verb, — a form impossible from a middle verb, — and moreover the article is inexplicable. The LXX considered it a noun: “to the water of the exit,” ekboles, should be to the effluent, to the mouth of the river (perhaps the Jordan). Vulgate. exibunt, i.e., the waters, having entered the sea, went out from it by another river. The word is close in form to “salty” (hamutzim) and recent interpreters read it as such. “And the waters will become fresh.” Now the water in the Dead Sea is very clear and transparent, but strongly salty, bitter and causes nausea; taken on the lips, it produces the sensation as of a strong solution of alum. In antiquity, it seems, the water was much worse. According to Tacitus (Hist. V, 6), “the water in this immense lake in taste is worse than sea water, harmful to the inhabitants by its very smell, is not disturbed by the wind, does not sustain fish and ordinary birds.” According to blessed Jerome, “nothing living can exist in it — this the bitterest sea, called in Greek limne asphaltu, i.e., lake of asphalt.” The prophet looks upon the waters of this sea as diseased and expects in the future a healing of them; and possibly the Dead Sea is taken as the most sickly part of nature.

Ezekiel 47:9. And wherever the river goes, every living creature that swarms will live, and there will be very many fish, for these waters go there, so that the sea may become fresh; and everything will live where the river goes. “Every living creature that swarms,” in the general sense: “moving”; so the LXX: ekyeonton, “swimming” — “swarming.” Gen 1:20 and others. — “Two streams,” literally “streams” in the dual; an unexpected dual, since hitherto there was discussion of one stream. Explained (Maurer) by the dual used in the sense of singular for correspondence with the following “waters” — duale tantum (used in dual only), or for the expression of the power, strength of the river (Hengstenberg, Keil); or because the river divided upon entering the sea (? Kliff.) or due to the merging into it beside Kidron (Hävernick) or Jordan (Currey). Recent scholars read with the LXX simply the singular or a related form “their stream” (i.e., of waters — an impossible expression), supposing that the dual arose from comparison with Zech 14:8.

Ezekiel 47:10. Fishermen will stand beside the sea; from En-Gedi to En-Eglataim it will be a place for the spreading of nets; the fish will be of very many kinds, like the fish of the great sea, very abundant. The abundance of the sea with fish is poetically depicted in the picture of a whole succession of fishermen over several versts standing on the banks of the sea. En-Gedi, Ingyadeίn, Slavonic Ingadd, now En-Jedi, a city at the very center of the western bank of the Dead Sea, from which to the southern bank was probably uninhabited, — is mentioned frequently in the Bible, beginning with Josh 15:62; the word means “spring of the kid” (i.e., probably with sweet, warm water). En-Galaim, more precisely from Hebrew En-Galaim, Enagaleim, Slavonic Ingalim, no more mentioned in the Bible, according to blessed Jerome, “at the beginning of the sea, where the Jordan flows in,” it is unknown whether this is only J.’s supposition, or En-Galaim existed then; on the basis of this testimony it is identified with the present En-Feshka on the north-east end of the Dead Sea; hardly can one identify it, as the Russian translation does, with the Moabite city of Eglaim (Isa 15:8) to the east of the Dead Sea; the eastern side of the sea the prophet, it seems, leaves to “the sons of the east” (verse 18). The word means “spring of two calves.” Cornelius Alapide draws attention to the fact that a goat and a calf — animals for the sin offering. “Will be a place for the spreading of nets” — literally “spreading of nets,” Ezek 25:5, therefore the LXX “dried mrezhamy” Vulgate. siccatio sagenarum; but hardly in such a sense here, rather in the sense of casting of nets. “The fish will be of very many kinds,” literally “in kind it will be,” i.e., of different sorts; LXX: “it will be by itself” (will breed by itself?); the word causing doubt from the absence of a masoretic sign (mappik) and the unnaturalness of the expression: in the Peshitta it is absent. “Like the fish of the great sea” — the Mediterranean. — Blessed Jerome: “all caught by the apostles; nothing remained uncaught, for the distinguished and undistinguished, rich and poor, people of every kind are drawn from the sea of this age to salvation.”

Ezekiel 47:11. But its marshes and its swamps shall not become fresh; they are to be left for salt. Where the action of the beneficial stream does not reach, there the water cannot manifest its life-giving power, but this will bring no great harm; such places will be storehouses of such necessary salt (and now supplied to Jerusalem in large quantities from the Dead Sea locality). Salt — an image of desolation or of the little useful that the desert can give: Deut 29:23; Ps 107:34; Zeph 2:9: “and at its exit,” en tē diekbolē autou, probably at the mouth (see verse 8), in the mouth of the river (autou potamos or “hydōr; as is evident from the following hydōr), and in its turning (epistroph) — in the winding bays, and in its elevation (hyperarsei, probably on the capes); from Hebrew tzotav, “marsh” the LXX probably made two first words, and the third Hebrew gevavev, Russian “swamps,” — root “to rise.”

Ezekiel 47:12. On both banks of the river, trees for food will grow. Their leaves will not wither nor their fruit fail. They will bear fresh fruit every month, because the water for them flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for healing. A tree on the bank of a river — a received in the Bible image of a righteous man Ps 1:3; Jer 17:8. According to Saint Ambrose (in commentary on Rev 22), the fruit means good works, and the healing leaves — the word of preaching. The Palestinian sycamore suits this description by its repeated fruiting in the year and could have been in the mind of the prophet. Medicinal plants were of course known before the foundation of medicine as a science; see Sir 38:1-8, according to which “from the Most High is healing”; cf. Rev 22:2. Healing, LXX: eis hygiein, “to health,” but in Rev eis therapein; cf. Gen 2:9: “the Tree of Life”; Odys. VII, 114: the gardens of Alcinous. Ezek 47:13-23. The boundaries of the future sacred land are defined and the general bases for its division are given. The boundaries (verses 13-20) do not fully coincide either with Num 34:1-15 and other indications of the Hexateuch, or with the actual boundaries of the Jewish kingdom of any period. The main difference from both is the complete exclusion of Transjordan. The reason for this is that the most sacred and ancient traditions, the history of the patriarchs for example, were connected only with the Cisjordan Palestine, — and also that only within the boundaries of the latter could the tribes be arranged symmetrically around the temple, which in this case is the most important: and for Moses too, though the boundaries of the ideal Canaan reach the Euphrates, but properly the sacred land is that before the Jordan (Num 34:12). As if in compensation for the eastern region, the boundaries of the future sacred land are moved somewhat farther north than Moses’ and considerably farther south. — And the principle of division among the tribes of the land (verses 21-23) differs from the Mosaic, and namely in two respects: 1) the parcels to the tribes are determined by law, not by lot; by lot the division takes place precisely within the boundaries of each tribe; 2) to the ownership of the sacred land on equal rights with the Hebrews foreign peoples are admitted (the calling of the Gentiles).

Ezekiel 47:13. Thus says the Lord God: These are the boundaries by which you shall divide the land for inheritance among the twelve tribes of Israel. Joseph shall have two portions. “Behold,” Slavonic “this,” Hebrew not ze, this, but ge, perhaps according to Assyrian aga, this, or a scribal error. — “Distribution,” Hebrew unnaturally without the article. — “For inheritance” — the accepted since Moses designation for the possession by the Hebrews of Canaan (Num 32:18; Isa 14:2), — inheritance from the fathers or from God Himself; in the New Testament the same concept applies to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 25:34 and others). — “Joseph shall have two portions.” This is mentioned because otherwise 12 would not be obtained, since Levi does not receive a portion. — “Portions,” Hebrew havalim, thus in 2 Sam 8:2 is called a cord measure; here, evidently, metonymically; but a portion in Ezekiel is everywhere helek; strange also the plural, not dual. The LXX, considering Joseph appositive (“to add”), have: “an addition to a share” (the division should be the most accurate).

Ezekiel 47:14. And you shall inherit it, one as well as another; for I swore to give it to your fathers, and this land shall fall to you as your inheritance. “One as well as another.” Equal portions and evidently not only of individual families, but of tribes: see also Num 26:54; cf. Josh 17:14. Probably a hidden thought about the numerical equality of the tribes in the future; cf. Rev 7:4-8. “I swore, lifting up My hand,” i.e., swore (see explanation Ezek 20:5); principally, perhaps, Gen 15:1 is meant. “And this land shall fall” (the LXX more precisely: “fell” — fell to the lot of Israel in the Divine distribution of land among peoples) “to you as your inheritance.” The most rightful title to possession.

Ezekiel 47:15. These shall be the boundaries of the land: On the north side, from the great sea by way of Hethlon to the entrance of Hamath, The boundaries of the sacred land are defined with less detail than in Num 34 and not in such an order: there from south to west, north and east; here from north to east, south and west; this is because there Israel enters from Egypt, here from captivity, from the north (Ezek 1:4). The northern boundary goes from the Mediterranean (“great” — verse 10) sea, as is evident from the following, at a right angle to it toward Lebanon and Hermon. “Hethlon” (only here and Ezek 48:1) is identified in recent times or with the present Heitela in 2 hours to the east of the Mediterranean toward Hermon (Xorrer, Zeitschr. der Deutsch. Morgenl. Gesellsch. VIII, 27), or with Adlun to the north of the mouth of the Kasimiyah. “Zedad,” mentioned also in Num 34:8 — before (Robinson) was identified with Zudud to the east of the road from Damascus to Emesa; but this is too far east; therefore now it is proposed to read according to the LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch Serad and identify it with Hirbat-Serada near Hermon (Bertholet. Kretch.). The LXX instead of the words: “by way of (Hebrew haderekh — by way) Hethlon to the entrance (Hebrew levo, literally to come) into Zedad” have: “from the great sea descending and separating (periskhizousēs haderekh le, perhaps read as yared — between) entrance (Greek p. and i., Hebrew ad) Imaseldaim” (“Hamath” first word of verse 16 † “Zedad,” read as Seldam); i.e., from the descending boundary entrance of Imasaldam. Recent scholars prefer this meaning, since levo, “entrance” is often connected with the city of Hamath and indicates the depression between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon (Hermon) through which one entered into Coele-Syria.

Ezekiel 47:16. Hamath, Berothah, Sibraim, which lies between the territory of Damascus and the territory of Hamath, as far as Hazar-Hatticon, which is on the border of the Hauran. “Hamath,” Hebrew Chamat, see explanation Num 34:8, at the foot of Hermon, now Hama, a fairly significant city. The cities mentioned further should constitute the line of the northern boundary farther to the east. “Berothah” Beroth (literally Berothai) 2 Sam 8:8, according to this passage belonged to the kingdom of Suvah and was taken by David; should be the present Bereytan at the western foot of the Anti-Lebanon. LXX: “Maavfirs” (Hamat † Beroth?). “Sibraim” — only here, but sonant and should be, identical in location with Ziphron (Slavonic Zephron) Num 34:9, perhaps Tsafaran between Hamat and Emesa or Tsafran to the north-east of Damascus. LXX: “Evramilin.” Sebraim † Iliam in the second word some see the name of a city fallen out of the Masoretic text and — Elam (2 Sam 10:16), where David won a great victory over the Syrians. “Situated (Heb. asher, which) between the Damascus and Hamath regions,” this definition may refer to the last city Sepharaim (in the LXX even to Iliam Elam) or to the series of all three (thus it appears also in the LXX: “midst boundary of Damascus and midst…”), but in no way to the following city Hazar-Tichon, as in the Russ. translation “Hazar-Tichon,” lit. “Gazer – middle,” perhaps in distinction from another Gazer; but in Ezek 48:1 this city is called Hazar-Enon and as a n.e. boundary should not differ from Hazar-Enon st. 17; therefore Tichon is seen as merely a scribal error – Enon – which is confirmed by the LXX reading: “courts (gazer, perhaps encampments, see explanation Ezek 25:4) Savnani”; of Hazar-Enon in foll. st. Avran Αβρανιτις (LXX) Greek-Rom. writer – n. Transjordanian part of Palestine; the word means “basin country.”

Ezekiel 47:17. And the border shall be from the sea to Hazar-Enon, the border of Damascus, and northward the region of Hamath; and there, the northern boundary. The description of the northern boundary is concluded by indicating its general extent from w. to e. and the foreign region bordering on this side is defined, so that it should not be reckoned to the holy land. “Hazar-Enon” Ezek 47:17 and Num 34:9 by the meaning of the word “court of springs” or “sources” (LXX: “from the court of Enan”) and by context it is natural to seek at the springs of Jordan, consequently, approx. present Banias or neighboring El-gadr. This is the very eastern edge of the northern border, while the sea (Mediterranean) the western. Everything to the north of this line is already pagan territory – namely the Damascus and Hamath region. Lit. “and the border shall be from the sea to Hazar-Enon – border of Damascus and north to north (Smend: ‘from Damascus the border draws an arc northward’) and border of Hamath and edge (et – meat, article acc. et before this word proposed to read zot – this, behold) northern.” LXX: “these borders from the sea: from the court of Enan (and beyond the border line from m. and E. -) borders of Damascus, and those to the north (and even more northern country), and border of the Hamathites, and border of the north” (and more northern lands).

Ezekiel 47:18. Draw the eastern boundary between Hauran and Damascus, between Gilead and the land of Israel, along Jordan, from the northern boundary to the eastern sea; this is the eastern boundary. Lit.: “and the eastern boundary from (locality) between (miwen – from between) Havran and between Damascus (on one side) and between Gilead – and between the land of Israel (on the other side) Jordan from the boundary (indicated northern; but no article) to the sea eastern (Dead, Joel 2:20; Zech 14:8) set apart (tamodu) and this eastern boundary.” Thus the eastern boundary, beginning from the eastern edge of the northern boundary, ran along Jordan to the Dead Sea, by which all Transjordan was excluded from the territory of the holy land future (see prelim. remark). LXX: “Jordan divides (forms boundary, gevul) to (until) sea in the east of Phoenicia,” επι ην – θαλασσαν, την προς ανατολας Φοινικωνος, (to the sea which is east of the city Phoenicia); according to St. Jerome the LXX read tamodu as tamarot (palms); if this reading is correct, then here in the original text there should have been indicated as the southern edge of the eastern boundary that very Tamar which in st. 19 becomes the starting point of the south. boundary.

Ezekiel 47:19. And the southern boundary on the south side from Tamar to the waters of Meribah at Kadesh, and along the stream to the great sea; this is the southern boundary on the south. “Southern,” Heb. negev. – “On the south side” Heb. temna, acc. of direction from Teman, name of an Edomite city, used in the sense “south” only in later biblical language. LXX regard it as a proper name: “and those to the south and southwest: (λιβα – doublet) from Teman.” – “Tamar,” Heb. Tamar, mentioned only yet Ezek 48:28, but consonant with Thedmor (lit. Tamor) 1 Sam 9:18, should be identical with Thamaro of Ptolemy (V, 16, 8) and Θαμαρα of Eusebius, according to whom (Onomasticon – under Hazazon) it was situated 1 day from Hebron on the way to Elath (Deut 2:8; 1 Sam 9:26) and was under Roman dominion. Robinson (Bibl. Research, t. III, pp. 178, 186 and foll.) points to the place of present Kurnuba, but it is too far north. The word means “palm,” which is why the LXX render Φοινικων (see st. 18), and the Targum – Jericho, “city of palms” according to Deut 34:3. “To the waters of Meribah,” Heb. mei merivot, i.e., Meribah (Num 27:14; Deut 32:51), – only here in plural. LXX: “to the water Marimoth-Kadem.” The nearest determination of this date: “at Kadesh” (in Heb. and Greek without preposition Heb. Kadesh, LXX: Kadem), i.e., Kadesh Barnea, present Ain Kadis to the s. of Beersheba in the wilderness between Palestine and Egypt (on it there is a whole investigation Trumbull H. C. Kadesh Barnea, New York 1884: cf. Guthe in Zeitschr. des Deutsch. Palastina – Vereins VIII, 182). “Stream” – should be “River of Egypt” 1 Sam 8:65 and many others, present Wadi-el-Arish, the last eastern river flowing into the Mediterranean Sea, flowing from Kadesh, at the mouth of which lay “Rhinocorura,” and which according to St. Epiphanius was simply called Neel, Heb. nahal, stream. Hengst. on the grounds that in other places this river is not called by the one word “stream” (without the designation “Egyptian”), ascribed to the word the meaning “in inheritance.” LXX: “continuing” (presumably boundary is meant, “ ορος). – “This (et zot, see st. 18) southern boundary on the south,” Heb. temane negeva – to the south, to the south: the boundary curves back to the south (cf. in st. 17 of the north). LXX: “this region south and southwest.”

Ezekiel 47:20. And the western boundary – the great sea, from the southern boundary to the place opposite Hamath; this is the western boundary. “Western,” lit. “sea.” – “Great sea” – the Mediterranean, st. 10 and 19. – “From the southern boundary” – Heb. “from the boundary” – i.e., just indicated (but the word without article). – “To the place opposite Hamath,” lit. “to opposite (that), as going to Hamath.” – “Opposite” – nokah – Peshitta takes as a proper name Nachoch LXX: “This region (μερος) of the great sea (part adjoining the Mediterranean) divides (οριζει, borders even directly at entrance of Hamath, even to (“ εως) its entrance (the sea boundary extends to the geographical latitude of Hamath, to its sea harbor): this is the Hamath-sea boundary.”

Ezekiel 47:21. And divide this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. “Divide…according to the tribes” – it is not said: by lot, as in the next verse, where there is talk of allotting to individual families. In contrast to Joshua, the portions to tribes are appointed by God, not given by lot: Ezek 48:1 and foll. see explanation Ezek 45:1

Ezekiel 47:22. And divide it by lot as an inheritance for yourselves and for the strangers sojourning among you, who have borne children among you; and they shall be to you as native-born among the sons of Israel, and they shall inherit with you among the tribes of Israel. In the Masoretes the verse begins: “and it shall be,” not rendered by the LXX. The modern scholars see in this word a tendentious later addition to the sacred text, so that the categoricality of the command displeasing to the Hebrews in this verse be replaced by hypotheticality. The strangers (gerim). LXX: προσηλυτοι are equalized in rights with Hebrews, but only those settled permanently among Israel and having offspring. The attitude toward strangers has always been very humane among Hebrews: Lev 19:34 prescribes treating them as fellow countrymen and loving them. Deut 23:3-9 allows even receiving them into the society of the Lord (should be through circumcision) with certain exceptions (Moabites and Ammonites) and with some limitations (in the third generation). The Prophets did much to further improve this attitude: Isa 56, Jeremiah and others. In Ezekiel one cannot fail to notice special concern for the sojourners; Ezek 14:7, as well as a good opinion of the Gentiles: Ezek 3:6. The captivity could greatly contribute to the rapprochement and the improvement of opinion concerning the Gentiles. And here the prophet clearly has in mind the Gentiles who came with Israel from captivity. It is possible that there is also intention to strengthen the small number of the people: Ezek 36:37 and foll., Ezek 37:1 and foll. “Thus religion outweighed nationality” (see) Anticipation Rom 10:12; Gal 3:28; Eph 3:6; Col 3:11. Remarkably, circumcision is not set as a condition of equality; the latter is given not in the 3rd generation as in Moses, and not even in the 1st, but only at the presence of offspring. – “Shall inherit,” in Heb. the same words as “divide by lot as an inheritance” in the beginning of the st., but the verb there is set in the causative voice (hiphil), and here in the middle (qal), wherefore the sense, properly speaking, becomes such that the strangers shall become the inheritance of Israel (cf. Zech 2:9); here again a tendentious correction is seen. LXX: “they shall eat in a portion” (read akal instead of nahal).

Ezekiel 47:23. In whichever tribe the stranger is dwelling, there you shall give him his inheritance, says the Lord God. LXX: “and they shall be in the tribe (φυλη – tribe) of proselytes, in the proselytes who are with them.” As though the thought (in contrast to the Masoretic text) that the sojourners are to form a separate tribe in Israel.