At the center of Ezekiel 40–48 in its final form is a law code. It is the only body of law in the Hebrew Bible that is not ascribed to Moses. This material falls into three parts: an introduction (43:10–27), the main body of the law code (44:1–46:18), and an appendix dealing with the temple kitchens (46:19–24). The law code itself deals broadly with access to the divine presence by right priesthood and right liturgy. These chapters also describe a secular leader (called the nasiʾ, the term generally used in chs. 1–39 for the king), but only as his responsibilities relate to participation in, and funding of, the temple liturgy. As the title in 43:12 succinctly states, “This is the law of the temple.”
43:10–27 This opening section of the law code provides the necessary introduction to the ideas and principles that will characterize the entire unit. Verses 10–12 introduce the idea of temple ordinances. Then, at the beginning of the code, verses 13–17 describe the altar in detail, and verses 18–27 describe the ritual for its consecration.
The transition from the vision of the temple to the Law of the Temple begins with an idea common in Ezekiel: “Son of man, describe the temple to the people of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their sins” (v. 10). Elsewhere in Ezekiel, it is God’s forgiveness and deliverance that lead to shame, as the people look back regretfully on their sins and realize their unworthiness (see the discussion of 6:9–10 and 16:60–63). Here, it is the perfection of the temple the prophet has envisioned that leads to shame. But, in response to their shame, Ezekiel is to set the temple before them all the more—its arrangement, its exits and entrances (v. 11; see the Additional Note on this difficult verse)—setting these down in a written document. God’s presence is both the cause of Israel’s shame and its cure.
Priestly material in the Torah uses the expression “This is the law of . . .” to introduce bodies of legislation. In Leviticus 6, this phrase introduces the regulations concerning the burnt offering (6:9), the grain offering (6:14), and the sin offering (6:25). Similarly, the regulations regarding the preparation of the water of purification needed to purge uncleanness brought on by contact with the dead (Num. 19:2), and the regulations pertaining to purification of spoils of war (Num. 31:21), begin with this same Hebrew phrase. The statement This is the law of the temple (v. 12) is likewise best read as the title for the regulations that follow, in 43:13–46:24. In the Hebrew of verse 12 the opening and closing clauses are identical, although the NIV translation obscures this fact. The LXX strikes the repetition at the end of the verse, however it seems more likely that the LXX is aiming to clean up Ezekiel’s repetitive style than that the second phrase is a secondary expansion or an error. The repeated expression “This is the law of the temple” thus brackets the statement: All the surrounding area on top of the mountain will be most holy. Sure enough, the central theme of the legislation that follows is the holiness of the temple and its precincts, preserved by carefully restricting access to right priests, who approach by means of the right liturgy.
This title may provide another bit of evidence for the date and setting of these chapters in their final form. According to the Demotic Chronicle, the Persian king Darius I issued a command in Egypt in his third year (ca. 519 B.C.):
Let be brought unto me the learned men . . . from among the (military) officers, the priests, (and) the scribes of Egypt so that, being assembled together, they may in concert write the law of Egypt which had been (observed) formerly through the forty-fourth regnal year of Pharaoh Amasis, (that is) the fifth pharaonic law, (concerning) the temples (and) the people. (W. Spiegelberg, Die sogenannte demotische Chronik des Pap. 215 der Bibliotheque Nationale zu Paris, nebst den auf der Ruckseite des Papyrus stehenden Texten (Demotische Studien 7; Leipzig, 1914), pp. 30–31; translated from the Demotic by S. D. McBride Jr.)
In brief, Darius challenged the leaders of Egypt to assemble a constitution based on authentic Egyptian legal tradition, from the days before their conquest by Persia (Amasis was the last independent pharaoh). While we have no record of a similar command being given in Judah, the idea of assembling “the law (concerning) the temples (and) the people” of Israel surely would have been provocative for Jewish religious leaders. Ultimately, the priests in Babylon would assemble in the first five books of the Bible their own “law of the temple and the people,” bringing together traditions going back not to their last independent king, but to their foundation as a society under Moses. But the designation of the law code in 43:10–46:24 as “the law of the temple” is suggestive. Perhaps we find in the final form of Ezekiel 40–48 a “first draft” of the Torah: an attempt to give expression to Israel’s polity, which is founded in priestly tradition and built onto Ezekiel’s temple vision. In the following discussion, we will test this hypothesis by considering the most likely context for the promulgation of the Law of the Temple.
Before the main body of the law code commences in 44:1 (note the reference to “the regulations regarding the temple” in 44:5), 43:13–17 describes the altar of burnt offering and 43:18–27 details the rites for its consecration. The detailed description of the altar, including its dimensions, has prompted some interpreters to see this passage as a resumption of Ezekiel’s temple description in chapters 40–42 (e.g., Block, Ezekiel 25–48, p. 595). However, this text is quite different in character from the temple vision (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 425; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 557; and Wevers, Ezekiel, p. 216). The absence from the altar description of the motifs of guidance and measurement which are typical of chapters 40–42 is suggestive, though those features are also lacking in some sections of the original vision (see the discussion of 41:5–15 and 42:1–12, above). But most distinctive are the richly symbolic names that these verses give to the parts of the altar—a distinction that the NIV, which translates these terms in mundane fashion as the gutter (Heb. kheq, in vv. 13–14) and the altar hearth (Heb. ʾariʾel, in vv. 15–16), obscures.
As the Hebrew kheq often refers to a hollow or indentation (such as the interior of a chariot; see 1 Kgs. 22:35), many interpreters follow the LXX here, which reads in verse 14 “the depth of the hollow was about a cubit” (see particularly Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, pp. 425–26). By this reading, the kheq was a drain for carrying off the blood from the sacrifices. However, verse 13 seems to describe a square, solid object rather than a trench around the altar’s perimeter. With the NRSV, the kheq is the base upon which the altar rests (see also the Additional Note on this verse). But in verse 14, where the NIV has the gutter on the ground, the Hebrew reads kheq haʾarets: literally, “the bosom of the earth.” Why would this foundation be called “the bosom of the earth?” Before we can explore the significance of this name, we need first to consider the second term, ʾariʾel (v. 15; NIV altar hearth).
The use of ʾariʾel in the Moabite Stone inscription (l. 12) makes clear that it is an ancient term for an altar hearth. In Isaiah 29:1–2, 7, where the term appears five times, the designation of Jerusalem as ʾariʾel comes both from the city’s character, as the site of the pilgrim feasts with their sacrifices, and from its lofty location, as a stronghold atop Zion (see Isa. 29:1). But the positive designation of Jerusalem as an altar hearth in Isaiah 29:1 sets the stage for a message of judgment: as the altar hearth, Jerusalem will become a place of sacrifice and slaughter (Isa. 29:2–4). Doubtless, in Ezekiel 43:15–16 as well, ʾariʾel means “altar hearth.”
But in verse 15 the MT has not ʾariʾel, but harʾel: “the mountain of God.” This is not a scribal error but an interpretive gloss, connecting the altar description both to the “high mountain” of 40:2 and to the “top of the mountain” in 43:12. The depiction of the altar hearth as “the mountain of God” is particularly evocative, given the altar’s structure. It is a three-level stepped pyramid, like the ziggurats of ancient Mesopotamia. While a direct connection between the altar and the ziggurat is unlikely, their similarity in design is no accident—both are symbolic mountains. Further, the references to the altar hearth as “the mountain of God” and to the altar’s foundation as “the bosom of the earth” are certainly significant. In ancient Near Eastern temple imagery, the temple represented the cosmic mountain, the meeting place of heaven and earth at the center of the world. So the ancient temple at Nippur was called Dur-an-ki, “the bond of heaven and earth,” and in the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish, the creator god Marduk founded his temple on Apsu (the waters below the earth), “And its ‘horns’ were gazing at the foundations of Esharra” (that is, the heavens). In the same way, the symbolic names for the altar’s hearth and foundation suggest that the altar is the center of the world and the point of contact between earth and heaven. In chapters 40–42, the central location of the altar would seem to make a similar point. However, the presence of God in that perfect temple is immediate and unmediated. Further, in that temple vision which describes the massive bronze gateposts Jachin and Boaz dismissively as “pillars on each side of the jambs” (40:49), the richly symbolic language of 43:13–17 would seem out of place. Yet if this description does not belong to the original temple vision, what is its source?
Perhaps verses 13–17 describe the altar of burnt offering that stood in the forecourt of the first temple. The account of the building of Solomon’s temple in 1 Kings gives no description of the altar. Indeed, the Deuteronomistic History mentions the altar only twice (1 Kgs. 8:64; 2 Kgs. 16:14–15)—perhaps because the history in Joshua–Kings was written from the perspective of Levite “temple clergy” rather than Zadokite “altar clergy” (see Ezek. 40:45–46). A description of the altar of burnt offering does appear in 2 Chronicles 4:1, but its relationship to the altar in Ezekiel 43 is uncertain. Chronicles states that the temple altar was made of (more likely, sheathed in) bronze, like the altar associated with the tabernacle (Exod. 35:30–33; 38:1–2). Ezekiel 43:13–17 says nothing of the materials used for the altar, however 9:2 calls the altar before the temple “the bronze altar.” Further, the dimensions do not quite match: even if we use long cubits, that cubit being a cubit and a handbreadth (v. 13), the altar Chronicles describes is somewhat larger in breadth and length than the one in Ezekiel 43 (though both are said to be square). In short, verses 13–17 may indeed be an old description of the altar of burnt offering, emended at verse 13 (see the discussion of the “long cubit” in 40:5) and at verse 15 (reading “mountain of God” instead of “altar hearth”) so as to fit its context.
The structure of the ritual for consecrating the altar (vv. 18–27) is like that of a prophetic oracle: beginning with “this is what the Sovereign LORD says” (v. 18) and concluding with declares the Sovereign LORD (v. 27). Neither expression has appeared in chapters 40–48 to this point, though both are characteristic of the legal material to come (for the messenger formula see 44:6, 9; 45:9, 18; 46:1, 16; 47:13; and for the concluding oracular formula see 44:12, 15, 27; 45:9, 15; 47:23; 48:29). This is yet another indication that the law code belongs to the final editing of these chapters rather than to the original vision report.
The text shifts back and forth between a second-person singular and a third-person plural voice, prompting some to identify multiple stages of composition (e.g., Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf, pp. 48, 115; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 558; Wevers, Ezekiel, p. 217; Cooke, Ezekiel, p. 469). However, the shifts in person could instead indicate different agents: third-person plural for the priests and people, second-person singular for their leader or representative (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 431). More difficult to explain are the apparent contradictions in form and content between verses 18–24 and 25–27. Verse 24, with its “twofold formulaic reference” to the Lord (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 435), seems to mark the end of a unit, making verses 25–27 seem a likely expansion. The rites of consecration take two days in verses 18–24 and require a bull for the sin offering; but verses 25–27 indicate that seven days of consecration are necessary and do not mention the bull. Zimmerli concludes that verses 25–27 are a later expansion, harmonizing these rites with Exodus 29:37 and Leviticus 8:33, 35, which also envision a seven-day purification period (Ezekiel 2, p. 435).
However, this layering need not require us to postulate multiple revisions. Instead, I would argue, what we have here are multiple sources and documents joined together in a single revision, with a single purpose. Just as verses 13–17 join an old altar description both to Ezekiel’s temple vision and its legislation expansion by the designation of “the altar hearth” ʾariʾel as harʾel, God’s mountain, so here the context has transformed the rites for the altar’s consecration. Perhaps in its original setting the second-person singular verbs in this rite addressed the high priest. But, in this new setting, they address Ezekiel and tie the legislation to the vision report. Further, that the consecration ritual in verses 25–27 represents a second tradition need not mean that it represents a later editorial stage. Instead, the text confronts us with the harmonization of two authoritative traditions, which our editor performed in one sitting. Throughout these chapters, we see that an editor has carefully reworked old priestly traditions and harmonized them wherever possible with the current practices and norms of the community so as to produce a single authoritative statement: the Law of the Temple. Seams and contradictions will remain evident, yet always in chapters 40–48 we have a unified vision of right service to the Lord.
44:1–14 There are eight sections in the main body of the Law of the Temple (44:1–46:18). The first section, 44:1–14, is a judgment oracle against the Levites, denying them the title “priest.” This leads into a statement of the responsibilities of the rightful priests, the Zadokites (44:15–31). Next, in 45:1–8, comes a foreshadowing of the land division set forth in 47:13–48:21, together with the first prophetic critique of the prince (Heb. nasiʾ; 45:8). A second critique of the prince (45:9) occurs at the beginning of an extended section concerning the responsibilities of this community leader (45:9–17). There follows a liturgical calendar (45:18–25), like and yet curiously unlike the priestly calendar in Torah. Legislation concerning major feasts, Sabbaths, and new moons (46:1–11) and the freewill and daily offerings (46:12–15) follows, each also on fine points quite different from the corresponding regulations in Torah, and each related specifically to ceremonies involving the eastern gate. The main body of the Law of the Temple concludes with a third prophetic critique of the prince (46:16–18).
The beginning of the judgment oracle in 44:1–14 returns us to the prophet’s original vision. Once again, the angelic guide takes Ezekiel to the eastern gate, which the prophet sees is shut (v. 1). The Lord tells him, “This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered through it” (v. 2). The closed eastern gate, and the repeated command that that gate never again be opened, recall 10:19, where the Glory departs from the earthly temple by way of the eastern gate. These two verses follow naturally upon the Lord’s promise of permanent presence in 43:7a: “This is where I will live among the Israelites forever.” They are surely part of the prophet’s original vision, underlining the Lord’s promise never again to depart (Cooke, Ezekiel, p. 476; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 549; Block, Ezekiel 25–48, p. 613).
However, verse 3 then immediately compromises the command in the preceding verse by making an exception to the rule. The prince may sit in the gateway and eat the sacred meal. The language and structure of the verse are odd, suggesting that this is a later addition. That such an addition was made following the prohibition in verse 2 strongly suggests that the verse describes an actual practice in the second temple (Tuell, Law of the Temple, pp. 108–9; for more on the role of the prince in the liturgies involving the eastern gate, see 46:1–15). In verse 4, the man takes the prophet once more into the inner court (by way of the north gate, as the eastern gate is closed), where “I looked and saw the glory of the LORD filling the temple of the LORD, and I fell face-down” (compare 43:3). Then, in explicit reference to both 40:4 and 43:11–12, God reaffirms Ezekiel’s commission: “Son of man, look carefully, listen closely and give attention to everything I tell you concerning all the regulations regarding the temple of the LORD. Give attention to the entrance of the temple and all the exits of the sanctuary” (v. 5). After the necessary excursus on the altar, the Law of the Temple resumes.
While we can tease out separate histories for these verses, in their present context verses 1–5 function as a unit, to provide the background and setting for the judgment against the Levites that follows. Verses 6–8 present the reason for this judgment: “you brought foreigners uncircumcised in heart and flesh into my sanctuary, desecrating my temple while you offered me food, fat and blood, and you broke my covenant” (v. 7). Following the messenger formula in verse 9, the Lord delivers the judgment: because of this offense, Levites are barred from altar service (vv. 9–14).
Still, the interpretation of this passage remains controversial. Many interpreters have proposed that God is not directing the judgment in verses 1–14 against the Levites, but rather against the people of Israel. Verse 6 in fact states: “Say to the rebellious house of Israel, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Enough of your detestable practices, O house of Israel!’” Because of their idolatries, this argument runs, God no longer permits the people to kill their own sacrifices. God instead gives that task to the Levites (v. 11) and otherwise restores them to the historical responsibilities of service and guard duty that they had earlier shirked by the employment of “foreigners.” Otherwise, verses 13–14 merely restate the duties of the Levites, in language reminiscent of Numbers 18:3: “They [that is, the Levites] are to be responsible to you [Aaron] and are to perform all the duties of the Tent, but they must not go near the furnishings of the sanctuary or the altar, or both they and you will die.”
However, Numbers 18:3 does not state that the Levites are not to serve as priests. Such a statement is unnecessary; the context in Numbers assumes that the Levites are not priests. This, by contrast, is precisely what verse 13 does state: “They are not to come near to serve me as priests.” The accusation in verse 7 presupposes that the Levites had, formerly, been granted this dignity and right, since the “foreigners” were present “while you offered me food, fat and blood” (v. 7), and only priests can offer sacrifices. So while verses 1–14 begin by referring to all the house of Israel, the issue is the priestly service of the Levites, who are held accountable for the people’s sin (much as Ezekiel would have been, had he ignored God’s commission; see 3:16–21; 33:1–9). God does not express the statement that the Levites are to kill the sacrifices for the people (v. 11) as a punishment. Indeed, this is likely another indication of a setting in the early Persian period, when Levitical slaughter of sacrifices was the common practice. It is the Levites God punishes, by taking away their right to serve as priests.
We cannot square this attitude toward the Levites with that of Ezekiel’s original oracles. In chapters 8–11, God condemns the entire temple establishment, not one particular group. So, too, 40:44–46 treats the two priestly classes with virtual equality. These verses call both Zadokite altar clergy and (presumably) Levite temple clergy “priests” and describe their tasks in identical fashion. The text exalts the Zadokites as those “who may draw near to the LORD to minister before him” (40:46) but does not in any way belittle the temple clergy—and certainly it does not deny their right to the title priest. It is difficult, then, to see how the final form of verses 1–14, which reject the priesthood of the Levites, could be the work of Ezekiel (Konkel, Architektonik, pp. 48, 346–47).
44:15–31 The account of the responsibilities of the Zadokite priests begins by contrasting the Zadokites with the Levites, whom the Lord rejected from priestly service in verses 1–14: only the “descendants of Zadok . . . who faithfully carried out the duties of my sanctuary when the Israelites went astray from me, are to come near to minister before me” (v. 15). The Lord gives the Zadokites exclusive rights to priesthood: “They alone are to enter my sanctuary; they alone are to come near my table to minister before me and perform my service” (v. 16). We can make a case for seeing verses 15–16 as belonging with 44:6–14, 28–30a, as an intensely partisan endorsement of the Zadokites, in contrast to 44:17–27, 30b–31, which, in a comparatively dispassionate fashion, set forth laws regarding the priesthood preserved elsewhere in the Scriptures (Gese, Der Verfasssungsentwurf, p. 111; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 551; Hals, Ezekiel, p. 316). However, as in the legislation regarding the altar consecration in 43:18–27, this need not mean multiple stages of composition. Although 43:15–16 comes from the same pen that produced 44:6–14, it was composed for a different purpose. In its final form, as we have seen, 44:1–14 is a judgment oracle against the Levites and a coherent unit. Verses 15–16 neatly accomplish the transition from verses 1–14 to verses 17–31, which deal at length with the conduct and responsibilities of the Zadokite priests.
As 43:11–12 and 44:5 prepare us to expect, the organization of 44:15–31 is around entrances and exits. The statement in verse 16 that the Zadokites may “enter my sanctuary” leads in verses 17–19 to a consideration of the vestments to be worn When they enter the gates of the inner court (v. 17). This leads to matters of dress When they go out into the outer court where the people are (v. 19), and so to the conduct appropriate for priests in the mundane world, culminating in marriage regulations for clergy (vv. 20–22). Verses 23–24 spell out the priest’s responsibilities as teacher and judge. Consideration of the priest’s responsibilities and conduct outside the temple raises the issue of potential defilement (vv. 25–27) and requires a mechanism for purging that defilement before he again goes into the inner court of the sanctuary to minister in the sanctuary (v. 27). Though this material draws on various old texts and traditions, the motif of entry into the divine presence unifies it.
The primary responsibility of the Zadokite priesthood is the sacrificial liturgy. When engaged in that service, the priest is to wear linen vestments (vv. 17–18; see 9:2, and compare Lev. 6:10) and must change his clothing before going out of the inner court so as to avoid the communication of dangerous holiness to the people (v. 19; see 42:13–14, as well as 46:19–20). The separation of the priest from other persons is evident even without his vestments: his hair is specially trimmed (v. 20; compare Lev. 21:5; Deut. 14:1, 2), and during his time of service in the inner court, he abstains from wine (v. 21; compare Lev. 10:9). A priest can only marry a virgin of unquestioned bloodline, or the widow of a priest (v. 22; compare Lev. 21:7, 13–15). Since he must remain ritually pure the priest cannot come into contact with the dead unless the deceased is a member of his immediate family (vv. 25–27; see 24:15–24, and compare Lev. 21:1–3), and he must avoid unslaughtered meat (v. 31; see 4:14, and compare Lev. 7:24). The priest has a vital obligation to teach the people to observe the distinctions among sacred, common, clean, and unclean, as well as their place in the regular liturgical cycle of feasts and Sabbaths (vv. 23–24; see 7:26; 22:26, and compare Lev. 10:11). In lawsuits, the Zadokite priests are to serve as judges (v. 24; compare Deut. 21:1–5). Removing him from concerns about property assures the priest’s objectivity and independence. In keeping with ancient tradition (Num. 18:20–32; Deut. 18:1; Josh. 13:14), the priest receives no inheritance in the land (vv. 28–30; but see 45:3–4; 48:10). The priests are entirely dependent on the Lord: “I am to be the only inheritance the priests have. You are to give them no possession in Israel; I will be their possession” (v. 28). Practically, this means that the Zadokite priests rely upon the temple for their survival. They live on the portion of the sacrifices allotted them, and especially on the gifts of firstfruits (vv. 29–30; compare Lev. 2:3–10; 6:14–18; Deut. 18:3–5).
A glance over these many parallels makes clear, on the one hand, the dependence of this portrayal of priesthood on ancient tradition and, on the other, the complexity involved in tracing lines of dependency. So while this view of priesthood primarily reflects priestly tradition in general, and the Holiness Code in particular, the service of priests as judges is not found in southern priestly tradition at all but instead reflects old northern traditions (e.g., Exod. 21:6; 22:7–8; Deut. 21:1–5). Even as regards priestly tradition, complexities rule out any simple line of dependency. While the laws regarding priesthood in the Holiness Code (Lev. 21:1–22:9) are clearly related to Ezekiel 44:15–31, the nature of that relationship is complicated. The text from the Holiness Code does not mention any requirements that the priests teach torah or abstain from wine (though Lev. 10:9–11 does mention both). The Leviticus text mentions vestments only in connection with the high priest (Lev. 21:10), who as we will see does not appear in the Law of the Temple at all. The law relating to cutting the hair comes in the context of regulations restricting mourning practices (Lev. 21:5)—not, as in the Law of the Temple, as a mark of priestly distinction. Finally, Ezekiel 44 does not mention the physical deformities that would bar someone from priestly service, though a list of these disfigurements is a key feature of Leviticus 21:1–22:9 (Lev. 21:16–24). Despite the many similarities, the differences rule out any theory of direct dependence of this text on the Law of the Temple, or vice versa. Rather, both Torah and the Law of the Temple seem to be dependent on similar old priestly traditions—a theme to which we will return later.
The rejection of Levites as priests on the one hand, and the restriction of priesthood to a single Levitical clan on the other, point us once more to the early Persian period. A clue to that setting is the reason God gives for condemning the Levites: “you brought foreigners uncircumcised in heart and flesh into my sanctuary, desecrating my temple while you offered me food, fat and blood” (v. 7). The expression rendered “foreigners” here (Heb. bene-nekar) usually refers to non-Israelites (see Gen. 17:12, 27; Exod. 12:43; Lev. 22:25; 2 Sam. 22:45–46//Ps. 18:44–45; Ps. 144:7, 11). Many interpreters see the bene-nekar in Ezekiel 44 as foreigners doing menial work in the temple, such as the Gibeonites of Joshua 9:23 (e.g., Cooke, Ezekiel, p. 479; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 564; Wevers, Ezekiel, p. 220; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, pp. 453–54; and Hals, Ezekiel, p. 319). Allen (Ezekiel 20–48, p. 261) suggests that “the Carian royal guards of 2 Kgs. 11, from southwest Asia Minor” are in view here. However, the offense in Ezekiel 44 is the participation of the “foreigner” in sacrifices, and there is no evidence of foreign temple servants or guards ever being connected with the sacrificial liturgy. Further, the expression bene-nekar occurs only in this passage in Ezekiel. Elsewhere the prophet uses zar for the foreigner (see 11:9; 28:10; 30:12; 31:12), suggesting that Ezekiel 44 may have some other referent than the generic foreigner (as Block, Ezekiel 25–48, p. 622 and Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, p. 245, both observe).
This same expression also appears in Isaiah 56:1–6, in a setting related to altar service. There, though the foreigner resignedly says, “The LORD will surely exclude me from his people” (Isa. 56:3), the Lord declares:
foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD
to serve him,
to love the name of the LORD,
and to worship him,
all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant—
these I will bring to my holy mountain
and give them joy in my house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar. (Isa. 56:6–7)
Isaiah 56:1–8 makes a very significant claim for ben-hannekar. This text does not restrict priestly access to Zadokites but extends it in particular to “the foreigner” (Isa. 56:7, “Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar”). In Ezekiel 44:7 the chief abomination of the people of Israel (perpetrated by their spiritual leaders, the Levites) took place when “you brought foreigners uncircumcised in heart and flesh into my sanctuary, desecrating my temple.” But in Isaiah 56:7, it is the Lord who says, “these I will bring to my holy mountain.” What in Ezekiel 44 is an act of defilement, for which God punishes the Levites with loss of priestly status, is in Isaiah 56 an act of blessing that the Lord performs.
Isaiah 56, then, seems to be a response to Ezekiel 44, affirming the sacrificial service of those “foreigners” whose service cost the Levites their priesthood in the Law of the Temple (Tuell, “Priesthood,” pp. 193–99). The parties to this debate over priesthood are the priestly leaders of the returning exiles, the Zadokites, and the priestly leadership of the people left behind in the land, likely Levites. As representative exchanges in a debate about priestly service in the early Persian period, these two passages interpret one another—particularly as regards the identity of these “foreigners.”
In Nehemiah 9:2, before Ezra calls the people to the first celebration of the Feast of Booths conducted according to his Mosaic Torah, his congregation “had separated themselves from all foreigners” (Heb. bene nekar)—that is, from alleged aliens living in the land. The particular “foreigners” with whom Nehemiah 9:2 is concerned are likely the same people in the land whose offers to help rebuild the temple they rebuff in Ezra 4:1–3: persons of mixed heritage, the product of intermarriages among ethnic Israelites and the people resettled in Israel by Esarhaddon. Among those participating in worship in the land prior to and soon after the Zadokites’ return would have been people of mixed blood—foreigners, by the Zadokites’ rendering. But this alone does not explain the bitter Zadokite polemic of Ezekiel 44. After all, foreigners were not automatically barred from worship (see Deut. 23:4–8). However, Ezekiel 44:7 accuses the Levites of going beyond allowing the participation of foreigners in the worshipping congregation. This passage accuses the Levites of permitting persons of questionable heritage to serve in the very act of sacrifice. It is quite likely that these bene nekar were none other than Levites whose families had intermarried with the people in the land. Their line, the accusation goes, is impure and defiled, mingled with the blood of foreigners (the claim in 44:9 that the foreigners were “uncircumcised in heart and flesh” is a deliberate insult, not a literal description; so, too, Cook, “Innerbiblical Interpretation,” p. 200).
The conflict that Ezekiel 44:1–12 and Isaiah 56:1–8 express, though bitter and intense, did not last long. The radically exclusive Zadokite priesthood of the Law of the Temple gives way in Torah to the more inclusive Aaronide priesthood. While the line of Zadok was singular, Aaron’s line extended through two sons: Eleazar and Ithamar. In the Torah, Eleazar is responsible for the care and transport of the most sacred religious objects, particularly those used in sacrificial service (Num. 4:2–16; 7:9), while Ithamar is responsible for non-sacrificial items and oversees the transport of the tabernacle itself (Exod. 38:21; Num. 4:28, 33; 7:6–8). The distinction between the priestly lines of Eleazar and Ithamar, then, is strikingly similar to the twofold division of altar clergy and temple clergy that Ezekiel 40:45–46 describes (see Tuell, Law of the Temple, pp. 133–35). Recall, too, that Mosaic Torah includes not only Leviticus, but also Deuteronomy. In contrast to the exclusivity of the Law of the Temple, the Torah represents a compromise.
45:1–8 The relationship between this passage dealing with land grants and the territorial boundaries we find in 47:13–48:29 is obvious. The land grants are of the same size in each passage (see the Additional Note for 45:1), and they present them in the same sequence: the temple lands first, followed by the land grants to the priests, the Levites, the city, and the prince. They even share the same vocabulary. Both passages refer to the temple lands as terumah haqqodesh (“sacred district” and “sacred portion” in the NIV, 45:6–7; 48:10, 18, 20–21), an expression that outside of Ezekiel appears only in priestly material, relating to offerings dedicated to the Lord (Exod. 36:6; Lev. 22:12; Num. 18:19). Both passages also use the Hebrew root nkhl in reference to the land—as a noun in 45:1 (nakhalah, rendered “inheritance” in the NIV), and as a verb in 47:13 (titnakhalu; the NIV reads “divide . . . for an inheritance”). This vocabulary not only anticipates the boundary description in 47:13–48:29 but also links back to the preceding unit regarding the Zadokite priests. Ezekiel 44:28 uses the term nakhalah for the Lord as the priests’ inheritance, and 44:30 uses terumah for “all your special gifts” devoted to the priests’ use. Indeed, it seems that those terms are there deliberately in 44:28–30 so as to ease the transition from the legislation pertaining to Zadokite priestly responsibilities to this section regarding territorial allotments (Tuell, Law of the Temple, pp. 61–62).
Despite the close links between 45:1–8 and 47:13–48:29, this passage is neither a misplaced fragment of that larger unit nor an earlier draft (as Gese proposed, Der Verfassungsentwurf, p. 115), but rather a summary of that boundary description (see esp. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 569). The place of the lands the Lord allotted to temple, priest, Levite, city, and prince at the center of Israel is only evident in the larger land division scheme, which lays out the allotments to the tribes surrounding this central section, to the north (48:1–7) and to the south (48:23–29). Since, as we will see, these concerns are back of the placement of 45:1–8 here, the longer work must already be in view.
But why is this account of the land grants to the temple and its personnel here? The land division scheme in verses 1–8, like the central portion of the boundary description in 48:8–22, begins with the holy portion as divided among temple, priests, and Levites. In keeping with 44:1–14, and in contrast to 40:44–46, this passage assumes a separation between the priests, who minister in the sanctuary and who draw near to minister before the LORD (v. 4), and the Levites, who serve in the temple (v. 5; see also 46:19–24). The land grants end with the portion given to the prince, providing a smooth transition from the laws regarding the priests in 44:15–31 to the laws to follow regarding the prince in 45:9–17 (Hals, Ezekiel, p. 322). Then, as the legislation regarding the prince opens with a prophetic critique (v. 9), another critique, in verse 8, neatly accomplishes the transition between the land grant account and this new section: “my princes will no longer oppress my people but will allow the house of Israel to possess the land according to their tribes” (v. 8). Since verses 1–8 do not mention the property the Lord assigned to the tribes, this passage must be referring to the grand scheme in 47:13–48:29. The final critique, in the closing verses of the Law of the Temple proper (46:16–18), makes explicit the principle at work in this opening critique of the prince: God insures the wealth of the prince for the temple’s sake (since the prince is the patron of its liturgy), and for the sake of the people (secure in his own wealth, the prince will not need to take land from the tribes).
The prophetic critiques of the prince assume that, by the time that the Law of the Temple was being edited, a history of oppression at the hands of the secular leaders could already be cited. This is a warning to future princes not to repeat past offenses. While some interpreters find evidence in the negative tone of verse 8 that an editor added it to this context later (e.g., Wevers, Ezekiel, p. 223; and Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 571), its content assumes the land grant to the prince that verse 7 describes, and its tone serves as an appropriate transition to the second prophetic critique of the prince in verse 9. Again, we can readily imagine one editor or group assembling this material in virtually one sitting. In sum, verses 1–8 neatly effect the transition between the laws regarding the priests and Levites and the laws regarding the prince. The verses also place these figures in connection with the temple and in the center of the community. Further, the description of the prince’s estates provides necessary background to his central role as temple patron.
45:9–17 Just as 44:15–31 defined the role of the Zadokite priest, so here verses 9–17 define the role of the prince—beginning, as we have seen, with a prophetic critique: “You have gone far enough, O princes of Israel! Give up your violence and oppression and do what is just and right” (v. 9; compare 44:6). To “give up” oppression means, in light of 45:8, no longer evicting people from the lands God gave them. Doing “what is just and right” (Heb. mishpat utsedaqah) also has a very specific application in context. The prince is responsible for maintaining proper weights and measures: “You are to use accurate scales, an accurate ephah and an accurate bath” (v. 10; referring in sequence to accurate measures of weight, dry volume, and liquid volume). The Hebrew word the NIV translates “accurate” is tsedeq, from the same root as tsedaqah (rendered “what is right” in v. 9). If the sacrificial system is to function properly, right weights and measures are essential. Indeed, once the Lord sets forth this just system (vv. 10–12), there is an immediate application to the special gift you are to offer (v. 13; Heb. terumah): a contribution the people are to give to the prince for the support and maintenance of the temple liturgy (vv. 13–17).
The Law of the Temple assigns two primary responsibilities to the prince: he is to guarantee just measures and to collect the terumah for maintaining the temple. There is no mention of any secular responsibilities, which would make sense if the prince were a figure of the ideal future: “In a theocracy, one need devote no attention to the mechanics of government” (Levenson, Program of Restoration, p. 113). However, it is difficult to square this ideal role with the harsh, realistic critiques of the prince that the Law of the Temple contains. Perhaps there is no mention of administrative structures because the priestly editors of chapters 40–48 have no interest in them. The prince matters, from their perspective, only in his roles as patron and participant in the liturgy. The focus stays where the title places it: “This is the law of the temple” (43:12).
It is not difficult to identify multiple sources in verses 9–17. The prophetic critique of the prince in direct address that opens this section (vv. 9–10), the table of weights and measures God instructs the prince to institute and guarantee (vv. 11–12), the list of “special” offerings (vv. 13–15), and the conclusion (vv. 16–17) may all have separate histories. The table of weights and measures probably came (like the length of the cubit in 40:5 and 43:13) from the Persian standard (see the Additional Note). The terumah-table in verses 13–15 may date from the first temple—or it may be an exilic proposal for the support of the liturgy in the rebuilt temple that the editor’s community preserved. It is in any case clear that verses 13–15 have a different history than verses 16–17 (with Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf, pp. 111–12). The terumah-table addresses the people directly in the second person and has a clear beginning (“This is the special gift you are to offer,” v. 13) and end (the oracular formula declares the Sovereign Lord, v. 15). Verses 16–17 shift to third person, addressing the community as the people of the land (v. 16). But we do not need to postulate a complicated composition history for verses 9–17. The editor of the Law of the Temple has brought together two authoritative units—one setting forth a standard system of measurement, and another applying this system to the contribution scheme for the support of the temple. This editor has then united these within an envelope of his own composition: the prophetic critique in verse 8, and the conclusion underlining the prince’s responsibility for collecting offerings for the support of the temple (vv. 16–17).
The prince’s wealth makes possible his role as temple patron. In the description of the prince’s estates (45:7–8 and 48:21–22), the inheritance given to the prince alone takes up the bulk of the dedicated portion at the heart of the land. The purpose of this property, as far as the Law of the Temple is concerned, is to enable the prince to provide for the temple. According to the priestly editors of the Law of the Temple, this is what the office of the nasiʾ is for. The liturgical calendar in 45:18–25 states that the prince is to provide the bull for the sin offering at Passover (45:22). Ezekiel 46:4–8 makes clear that the prince also provides the regular offerings for the Sabbath and the new moon. In fact, as verse 17 clearly states, “It will be the duty of the prince to provide the burnt offerings, grain offerings and drink offerings at the festivals, the New Moons and the Sabbaths—at all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel. He will provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel.” The necessary items for these sacrifices come both from the prince’s own holdings and from the terumah (the NIV has “special gift”) of the people. In other words, the prince has the authority to levy taxes. To be sure, the text doesn’t call this contribution a tax. Since, from the viewpoint of the priestly establishment, the function of this authority is the support of the sacrificial liturgy, the editors call it a terumah (a sacred offering) rather than a secular tax. However, when a secular authority has power to claim a portion of the property of every household in Israel (“All the people of the land will participate in this special gift for the use of the prince in Israel” [v. 16]), it certainly looks like a tax. To put this another way, the temple that 43:10–46:24 depicts is a state-supported institution—a state church, if you will.
Provision for the temple liturgy is also a prominent task of the nasiʾ elsewhere in Scripture. In the priestly material of the Pentateuch, it is the nesiʾim (translated “leaders” in the NIV) who provide the precious stones for the ephod and the priestly breastplate, as well as spice, anointing oil, and incense for tabernacle service (Exod. 35:27). Numbers 7 details the offerings the nesiʾim brought “for the dedication of the altar” (Num. 7:11). However, of particular interest for us is the specifically religious task the Persians entrusted to Sheshbazzar, whom Ezra 1:8 calls “the prince of Judah.” As the leader of the Jews returning from exile and the first governor of Judah under Cyrus, Sheshbazzar was to return the sacred vessels stolen by the Babylonians to their rightful place in Jerusalem (Ezra 1:7–8). The use of the term nasiʾ in Ezekiel 40–48 for a secular ruler with sacral responsibilities may also point to the Persian-period governor (see the Additional Note on 44:3).
The Aramaic correspondence that Ezra 5:1–6:18 and 7:12–26 preserve reveals that Persian concern for Jerusalem and its temple did not end with Sheshbazzar. Concerned by the attempts of Judah’s elders to build a temple in Jerusalem, Persian officials in the province of which Judah was a part asked Darius for a ruling (Ezra 5:6–17). When a search of the archives turned up Cyrus’ old edict commanding the Jews to build, Darius issued a proclamation of his own (Ezra 6:6–12). First, he directed that the royal treasury pay the building costs of the temple. In particular, these funds were to come from the tribute of the province (Ezra 6:8). Then, Darius further stipulated that the province was to provide daily whatever might be required for the temple service, “so that they may offer sacrifices pleasing to the God of heaven and pray for the well-being of the king and his sons” (Ezra 6:10). In short, like the temple establishment 45:9–17 depicts, the temple in Restoration Judah was state-supported (for the reliability of that picture in light of the evidence of Persian involvements elsewhere in their empire, see Tuell, Law of the Temple, pp. 78–102). Once more, the portrayal of temple and society in the final form of chapters 40–48 points us towards the Persian period.
45:18–25 The editor has assembled the liturgical calendar which concludes this chapter (vv. 18–25), like the laws pertaining to the prince, from the traditions of his community. He has revised those traditions for their new context, particularly so as to present the prince as patron of the liturgy. In particular, the use of the word terumah ties together the three units in this chapter and the previous section regarding the priest (44:30; 45:1, 6, 7, 13, 16).
This liturgical calendar in verses 18–25 describes three major annual observances. The first, set on the first day of the first month, is evidently the Day of Atonement (vv. 18–20; so too Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 482), since it is explicitly designated “for anyone who sins unintentionally or through ignorance . . . to make atonement for the temple” (v. 20). This atonement is made by sacrificing a bull on the first and seventh days of the month and placing its blood on the sanctuary doorposts, the four corners of the altar, and the doorposts of the gate (presumably the eastern gate) of the inner court. However, the Day of Atonement in Torah (see Lev. 16:1–34) takes place on the tenth day of the seventh month (Lev. 16:29–30; see also Ezek. 40:1). The ritual in Leviticus is also far more complex, involving the scapegoat (Lev. 16:8–10, 20–22) as well as other sacrifices. The major differences, however, are the absence in Ezekiel 45 of the ark and the high priest—the center of this observance in Leviticus. The ark’s absence (compare 41:3–4) is another likely referent to the context, after the destruction of the first temple and the loss of the ark. The source for verses 18–25 evidently did involve the high priest, as the use of the second-person singular in verse 18 (“you are to take a young bull”), and the expression The priest in verse 19 (which can refer to the chief priest; see Deut. 17:12; 26:3; 2 Kgs. 11:9–10, 15; 16:10–11, 15; 22:10, 12, 14; Isa. 8:2) both imply. However, in its present context no high priest is in view, and the referent for the singular verbs, as in the altar consecration text (43:18–27), has become Ezekiel.
The second annual observance in this calendar, and the only one named, is Passover (vv. 21–24). This feast does fall where it is supposed to according to Torah, though the offerings differ (compare Num. 28:16–25). Also distinctive is the role the prince played in this festival—he was to provide animals, grain, and oil for the sacrifices.
The third observance, called simply the Feast (v. 25), is from its date evidently the old autumn festival, or Booths. This festival was already known in 1 Kings 8:2 simply as “the festival”: However, the Law of the Temple does not mention the building of booths that in Torah represents the most characteristic feature of this feast (Lev. 23:33–36). Missing entirely from this list is the Festival of Weeks, or Pentecost, celebrated between Passover and Booths in the Jewish calendar (Lev. 23:15–21; see also Acts 2). Thus, while formally similar to the religious year Torah set forth, the liturgical calendar in the Law of the Temple is on fine points entirely different.
46:1–15 These two units are both concerned with temple service. The first (vv. 1–11) concerns the prince’s role in the appointed observances: the major feasts, Sabbaths, and new moons which occur at set times in the liturgical calendar. The second (vv. 12–15) concerns the required daily offerings and occasional freewill offerings. Ancient scribal tradition saw each of these sections as a unit (though the Aleppo Codex subdivides vv. 1–11 with a break between the prescription for the prince’s Sabbath and new moon offerings). It may seem that we ought to include verse 12 in the first unit, as it too deals with the liturgy involving the eastern gate (Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf, p. 110, who finds in vv. 1–10, 12 the main body of the editorial expansion concerning the prince). But the scribes chose to place this verse, with its instructions regarding the free-will offering of the prince, with the instructions regarding the daily sacrifices, and separate from the instructions regarding the appointed feasts.
Once more, it is possible to pick these verses apart. We have encountered the expression people of the land (Heb. ʿam haʾarets, v. 9; compare 45:16), the concern for the prince, and the connection of the prince with the eastern gate (44:3) before—and all in passages we have attributed to the editor. So, while connections with earlier traditions are certainly possible, the liturgy of the eastern gate found here is entirely the work of the priestly redactor and probably describes a current practice in his community. On the other hand verse 11, which sounds like the terumah-table in 45:13–15, may come from the same source as that passage and have its own separate history (Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf, p. 110). Here, however, it functions as the conclusion to the prescribed liturgy for the appointed feasts. A new section begins at verse 12, though the motif of the eastern gate ties it to verses 1–11. Having described the liturgy of the eastern gate on the major feasts, Sabbaths, and new moons, the priestly editor turns to the daily and free-will offerings (vv. 12–15).
Comparing the temple liturgy in the Law of the Temple with the temple liturgy in Torah reveals numerous discrepancies. Talmud b. Menahot 45a discusses, as one example of these discrepancies, the offerings this section prescribes for the new moon. The Law of the Temple requires the prince to provide a young bull, six lambs and a ram, all without defect . . . as a grain offering one ephah with the bull, one ephah with the ram, and with the lambs as much as he wants to give, along with a hin of oil with each ephah (vv. 6–7). Numbers 28:11, on the other hand, calls for two bulls, a ram, and seven lambs, with a grain offering of three-tenths of an ephah for the bull, two-tenths for each ram, and a tenth for each lamb. This text does not specify the amount of oil to be mixed with the flour, but it does additionally stipulate libations of one half of a hin of fine wine for the bull, a third for the ram, and a quarter for each lamb, plus a goat as a sin offering. As with the discrepancies regarding the liturgical calendar, the nature of these differences is intriguing: though formally similar, these sacrificial liturgies are on specific points entirely different. Three times (b. Shabbat 13b; b. Hagigah 13a; and b. Menahot 45a) Talmud records the story of Hananiah ben Hezekiah, leader of the school of Shammai, who burned three hundred jars of oil laboring over the texts until he had resolved all the contradictions between Ezekiel and the Torah of Moses (though, unfortunately, the manner of that resolution is not revealed!). Even so, b. Menahot 46a says that only when Elijah comes will all the discrepancies be explained.
Some interpreters account for these differences by proposing that chapters 40–48 are a deliberate revision of Mosaic Torah. In particular, J. Levenson argues that chapters 40–42 constitute a section that “finds its only close biblical parallel in Moses’ vision of the tabernacle” (Program of Restoration, p. 40). The “very high mountain” of 40:2 could reflect Sinai as well as Zion, making Ezekiel a new Moses revealing a new Torah for a new Israel in a new age (Levenson, Program of Restoration, p. 38; see also McKeating, “Ezekiel,” p. 108). A new Torah is necessary because, as 20:25–26 reveals, the first Torah was deliberately, fundamentally flawed. The law in chapters 40–48 is the new Torah, by which the people may find life (Levenson, Program of Restoration, p. 39; see also Kohn, “Mighty Hand,” pp. 165–68).
However, the Law of the Temple nowhere presents itself as a corrective or reform. Nowhere does it mention the specific agent of defilement in 20:25–26 (the sacrifice of the firstborn). The myriad variations between the sacrificial liturgy in Torah and that in the Law of the Temple primarily reflect minor matters—the numbers of animals offered, or the quantities of grain or oil. In what way, then, is this a reform? It is far more likely that both derive from a common tradition. What if the priestly editors of Torah and the Law of the Temple were virtual contemporaries, one group in Palestine and another in Babylon? What if each group was responding independently to the challenge of Darius in the Demotic Chronicle, to assemble the law of the people and the temple, drawing independently on a common deposit of priestly tradition (see the discussion of 43:12, above)? This would readily account for both the numerous parallels and the puzzling differences between them. In broad strokes they share a common vision but, on fine points, regional, political, and even textual differences have resulted in a different approach.
46:16–18 The main body of the Law of the Temple closes with a final prophetic critique of the prince. The critique opens with the messenger formula in verse 16 and, since the guidance formula in verse 19 begins a new unit, the critique clearly ends at verse 18. The passage begins by rejecting what was evidently a well-known practice among the princes—awarding grants of land from the prince’s holdings to his cronies (vv. 16–17). Such awards, called covenants of grant, were royal prerogatives in the ancient Near East. The Law of the Temple here restricts the prince’s power. He cannot make grants in perpetuity, to be handed down in the recipient’s family: If, however, he makes a gift from his inheritance to one of his servants, the servant may keep it until the year of freedom; then it will revert to the prince (v. 17). The “year of freedom” refers to the jubilee when, according to the Holiness Code, all debts were cancelled and all property reverted to its original owners (Lev. 25:10; see too Isa. 61:1 and Jer. 34:8–22). Another command in verse 18 joins this one: the prince may not seize the lands of others. Ensuring that the estate of the prince remains in the prince’s family, apparently, is supposed to prevent eviction and land theft by making them unnecessary.
We have encountered these themes before: 45:9 introduced the laws regarding the prince with a prophetic oracle calling for evictions to cease, following a denouncement of the greed of the princes (45:8) and the depiction of the prince’s estates (45:7). The material between 45:9–10 and 46:16–18 is all concerned, in one way or another, with the prince. It is appropriate that the editor should bracket the material dealing with the prince with critiques of the misuse of that office through greed. Also, this concluding section regarding the land grant of the prince provides a transition into the material concerning the land that will follow (chs. 47–48).
46:19–24 In many ways, this unit recalls the temple description in chapters 40–42. Once again, we find the familiar guidance formula, the figure of the guide, and the description of temple structures from a first-person perspective: Then the man brought me through the entrance at the side of the gate (v. 19). He then brought me to the outer court and led me around to its four corners (v. 21). The structures in these descriptions are temple kitchens—one in the inner court where the priests can prepare the sacred meal (vv. 19–20), and four corresponding kitchens in the corners of the outer court, where those who minister at the temple (v. 24) may prepare the sacred meal for the people (vv. 21–24).
However, verses 19–24 cannot be a misplaced portion of Ezekiel’s original vision (as Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 578; Wevers, Ezekiel, p. 227; Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf, p. 89; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 500; and Hals, Ezekiel, p. 336 all observe). The description of the priestly kitchens (vv. 19–20) is strongly reminiscent of the description of the temple sacristies, which belongs to the editing of the vision, not its original form (see the discussion of 42:13–14, above). In particular, both of these passages deal with the problem of the communication of holiness (42:14; 46:20). Indeed, verses 19–20 presuppose the existence of “the priests’ rooms” that 42:13–14 describe, since it is there that the sacred meal prepared in these kitchens is to be eaten. Similarly, verses 21–24 are dependent on verses 19–20. The repetition of the guidance formula in verse 21 presupposes that the prophet had gone into the inner court, since he must be led back into the outer court. The most striking feature of this description is the mention of “those who minister at the temple” (v. 24; Heb. meshorte habbayit). These temple servants, in explicit contrast to the priests in verses 19–20, are evidently Levites (compare 44:14). The point of view in evidence is not that of the prophet, who in 40:44–46 identified both altar and temple clergy as priests, but that of the editor.
This description seems oddly placed, disrupting what seems a natural connection between verses 16–18 (dealing with the prince’s apportionment of his inheritance) and chapters 47–48 (dealing with the land). However, an editor could not have conveniently introduced the temple kitchens any earlier. The editor was reluctant to tamper with Ezekiel’s temple description. The two minor insertions identified there, concerning the length of the cubit (40:5) and the containment of holiness within the shrine (42:13–14), were both essential to the Law of the Temple in its final form. The description of temple kitchens in verses 19–24 is not so essential. Further, while this passage addresses a question implied in the description of the sacrificial liturgy in 45:13–46:15 (that is, where will the sacred meal after the offerings be prepared and eaten?), the description of the temple kitchens could not have been placed prior to verses 16–18 without interrupting the unity of the laws involving the prince. By placing verses 19–24 where we find them here, the editor counterbalances 44:1–4 by another descriptive section with the guidance formula, reintroduces the guide, and so at once nicely concludes the Law of the Temple and provides a neat segue to Ezekiel’s vision of the river, where guidance, measurement, and the guide once again feature prominently (47:1–12).
Additional Notes
43:10 Let them consider the plan. The MT reads umadedu ʾettoknit, “Let them measure the perfection” (Block, Ezekiel 25–48, p. 586). The LXX reads this as a clause relating to the description of the temple, “its appearance and its arrangement,” apparently reading wemaraʾeho (“its appearance”) for umadedu and tabnit (“form, pattern”) for toknit (on this term, see the discussion of 28:12, above). The NIV (like the NRSV) has let the verb stand but has agreed with the LXX in reading tabnit instead of toknit. Among the versions, only the Vulg. supports the MT here. On the other hand, Joyce argues that the rarity of toknit argues for its originality, though he also understands this Heb. term to mean something like “pattern” (“Ezekiel 40–42,” p. 28). In fact, Joyce proposes that the use of toknit rather than tabnit may be quite deliberate; while Moses saw only the pattern of the shrine (tabnit; see Exod. 25:9, 40), “the point in Ezekiel may, by way of contrast, be that the prophet has glimpsed not merely the pattern but rather the heavenly Temple itself” (“Ezekiel 40–42,” p. 28).
43:11 This is an extremely awkward and repetitious verse, plagued by numerous textual problems. However, the resolution of those problems has significance for the interpretation of this entire section. First, in place of the opening phrase if they are ashamed of all they have done, LXX and the Vulg. read “and they will be ashamed.” Cooke (Ezekiel, pp. 465, 474), Gese (Der Verfassungsentwurf, p. 40), Zimmerli (Ezekiel 2, p. 410), and Hals (Ezekiel, p. 304) all emend the text accordingly and read this as the conclusion of 43:10 (NIV also combines the verses, though preserving the conditional character of 43:11a). Eichrodt (Ezekiel, p. 553) and Wevers (Ezekiel, p. 216), on the other hand, strike the entire clause as a later insertion. With the NIV and NRSV, I propose that we follow the MT here. As in 43:7b–9, and in contrast to the original vision at 43:7a, God’s presence is conditional in 43:11: “the very possibility of experiencing reconciliation with the divine is predicated on the repudiation of past sins” (see Tuell, Law of the Temple, p. 43).
The other difficulties in v. 11 all relate to the word tsurah (“form”), repeated four times in the MT of this verse. The LXX translates the first occurrence as a verb meaning “draw out,” apparently reading it as a form of the verb tsur (“fashion, delineate”). It is doubtful that the LXX is based on a different Heb. text than the one before us. It is more likely that the Gk. translator, troubled by the lengthy, awkward object clause prior to the verb hodaʿ (make known), resolved the difficulty by reading the first noun as a verb. Most commentators accept the first tsurah as genuine but deem the other three questionable. As Cooke wrote, “the word is repeated erroneously no less than three times, and the repetitions must have some starting-point” (Ezekiel, p. 465; see also Gese, Der Verfassungentwurf, p. 40; Wevers, Ezekiel, p. 216; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 551; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 410; and Block, Ezekiel 25–48, pp. 587–88). The LXX recognizes only the second occurrence (translated as “its substance”), rendering the first verbally (as we have seen), lacking the third, and apparently understanding the fourth as torah (translated “my commandments”). Cooke (Ezekiel, pp. 474–75) made sense of this awkward, repetitious verse by proposing that the second incidence of tsurah was an error for torah. He proposed that a scribe placed a note to that effect in the margin, but then another mistakenly copied that marginal note into the text at a later date. Others follow this very attractive resolution to an awkward situation, including Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf, p. 40; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 552; Wevers, Ezekiel, p. 216; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, pp. 410–11; and Hals, Ezekiel, p. 304. However, Tg. Jonathan not only preserves tsurah in all the places it appears in the MT but also fails to read torah in the one place that it does occur, reading instead “everything to which it is entitled.” This suggests that it is not tsurah, but torah, that does not belong. I propose that a scribe did erroneously copy a marginal note into the text, but that the note itself was wrong. The NIV is correct to preserve the second incident of tsurah. However, the original passage said nothing about torah. The first reference to law in this material comes in the title, “This is the law of the temple” (43:12).
43:13 The altar. There is ample biblical precedent for presenting laws regarding the altar at the beginning of a law code (see S. M. Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law [VTSup 18; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970], p. 34). The old Covenant Code in Exod. 20:22–23:33 opens with laws concerning the altar and sacrifices (Exod. 20:22–26). The Holiness Code of Lev. 17–26 begins with the command to perform sacrifices only before the tent of meeting (Lev. 17:1–9). So, too, in the law code at the heart of Deut. (Deut. 12–26), the laws regarding the centralization of the sacrificial worship come first (12:1–27). The Law of the Temple continues this pattern.
Its gutter. Targum Jonathan renders kheq here with the Aram. tswytʾ, meaning “bottom,” or perhaps “bed” (Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, p. 1703), a natural designation for the altar’s foundation. For kheq as the base of the altar see also Cooke, Ezekiel, p. 467; and W. F. Albright, “The Babylonian Temple-tower and the Altar of Burnt-Offering,” JBL 39 (1920), p. 139. If the base of Ezekiel’s altar (v. 13) was a sunken foundation (as LXX and the Tg. both imply), the height of the altar in vv. 13–15 would match the height of the altar in 2 Chr. 4:1 (as Albright observed, see “Temple-Tower,” p. 139).
43:15 Altar hearth. On the altar as a ziggurat-like structure see Albright, “Temple-Tower,” pp. 140–41. As Richard Clifford observes, ancient Near Eastern temple ideology identified the temple with the cosmic mountain: “The temple appears therefore to be a part of the structure of the universe. Its base reaches into the underworld and its top to the heavens” (The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament [HSM 4; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972], p. 20).
44:1–14 In their final form, these verses take the classic form of the judgment speech (C. Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech [trans. H. C. White; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967], p. 128).
44:3 The prince himself. In chs. 1–39, the title “prince” (Heb. nasiʾ) is Ezekiel’s typical term for Israel’s kings (see the Additional Note at 12:10). Indeed, the expression can refer to an expected future king or messiah (34:24; 37:25). As a result, many interpreters (particularly Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, pp. 278–79; Levenson, Program of Restoration, pp. 87, 94; and Duguid, Ezekiel, p. 50) argue that it is this figure to whom the term nasiʾ refers in chs. 40–48. But throughout this law code the prince is not an ideal figure of the future but a present-day political leader, three times confronted with prophetic critiques (45:8, 9; 46:16–18). The exception this text makes to the prohibition on the use of the eastern gate (44:1–2) for the prince (44:3) surely requires such an interpretation. Who would dare insert such a qualification unless it described an actual, well-entrenched practice? The nasiʾ in chs. 40–48 is a real, rather than a potential or ideal, leader.
As the title nasiʾ refers to the secular leader at the time that this edition of the Law of the Temple was completed, the term must refer to the governor of Persian-period Judah (as Hölscher argued; see Hesekiel, pp. 211–12). Although this figure is more usually called “governor” (Aram./Heb. pekhah; see Ezra 5:14; Hag. 1:1, 4), the title nasiʾ is attested in the period in Ezra 1:8, for Sheshbazzar, and in the Elephantine Papyri (AP 30) for Ostanes, brother to the high priest. The first governors of Judah after the exile were descendants of David (see 1 Chr. 3:18–19), so perhaps the Law of the Temple used nasiʾ as a compromise—in continuity with Ezekiel’s usage, if not his intent. The title nasiʾ is fitting for a figure carrying the dignity of the ancient royal line but without pretensions to a power that Persia would have perceived as rebellious (see Tuell, Law of the Temple, pp. 115–20).
44:6 On the judgment being against the people of Israel see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, p. 140; Duke, “Punishment or Restoration?,” 67–70; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, p. 261. The protest in v. 6 echoes the language of the Korah rebellion, which also concerned Levitical claims to priestly rights (Num. 16:3, 7; also S. Cook, “Innerbiblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44 and the History of Israel’s Priesthood,” JBL 112 [1995], pp. 196–97, though in Cook’s view this passage reflects a dispute over interpretation of texts, not an actual historical conflict). On the Levitical slaughter of sacrifices as the common practice in the Persian period, see S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), p. 1049; and Tuell, First and Second Chronicles, pp. 220, 239; see 2 Chr. 30:17; 35:5–6, 11; Ezra 6:20.
44:7 Foreigners. For additional discussion see S. D. McBride Jr., “Biblical Literature in Its Historical Context,” HBC, pp. 35–36; and P. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), pp. 44–45, 71.
44:29 Everything in Israel devoted to the LORD. The Heb., astonishingly, is kherem, the word used for the dedication of an enemy to the Lord, so that the entire population, with all their cattle and all their goods, are utterly destroyed (see the discussion of 9:6, above). As the NIV footnote observes, the point is “the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the LORD.” That the priests may use such gifts is a measure both of the tremendous respect the Law of the Temple has for the Zadokite priesthood, and of the degree to which the Lord has become the priest’s “inheritance” and “possession” (44:28).
45:1 20,000 cubits wide. As the NIV footnote observes, the MT here, as well as in 45:3, 5 and 48:9, has “10,000 cubits wide.” If the priests and the Levites are each to be given a strip of the sacred district 10,000 cubits wide, however, the width of the sacred district needs to be 20,000 cubits (as the LXX indeed has). This may be a scribal error by copyists, or an arithmetic error by the editors. In any case, the dimensions of the territory allotted to temple, city, priest, Levite, and prince are the same in 45:1–8 and 48:8–22.
45:5 As their possession for towns to live in. The MT has “as their possession, twenty chambers” (ʿesrim leshakot)—a reading the Tg., the Vulg., and the Syr., as well as the NJPS, support. However, as Block observes, “it makes little sense in the context” (Ezekiel 25–48, p. 649). The LXX has “towns to live in,” presupposing the Heb. ʿarim lashabet (or, lashebet), an expression found three times in the HB, each time with reference to Levitical cities (see Num. 35:2; Josh. 14:4; 21:2). This phrase could easily be mistaken for the reading in MT (lashabet and leshakot are similar in Heb., k and b being readily confused). The NIV is right to follow the LXX here.
45:12 Twenty shekels plus twenty-five shekels plus fifteen shekels equal one mina. The NIV accurately renders the MT of v. 12. However, many, indeed most, commentators and translators emend the text in light of the LXX, which reads “five shekels [shall be] five, and ten shekels [shall be] ten, and your mina shall be fifty shekels,” arguing that the MT is circumlocutious and confused (the NRSV follows the LXX here, as do, e.g., Cooke, Ezekiel, pp. 498–99; Wevers, Ezekiel, p. 225; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 567; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 474; Hals, Ezekiel, p. 324). However, Ezekiel’s style, and the style of his editors, is often difficult. The reading found in the MT is meaningful, yielding a measure of sixty shekels to the mina. The Elephantine Papyri (specifically AP 15, which deals with the bride price in this Egyptian Jewish colony) assume a system of ten shekels to the karash. From a Babylonian cuneiform inscription on a Persian period trilingual weight in the British Museum, we know that two karsha equaled one-third of a mina—which, again, gives sixty shekels to the mina (F. H. Weissbach, Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden [VAB 3; Leipzig: J. C. Hindrichs, 1911], p. 105). This sexagesimal (that is, base 60) system survives in our sixty-minute hour and 360–degree circle. It was Babylonian in origin and apparently is very ancient (J. Lauterbach, “Weights and Measures,” JE 12, p. 484). However, it was not used before the exile in either Israel or Egypt, where a decimal system (in Israel, fifty shekels to the mina) instead obtained.
Ezekiel could have used the Babylonian system, but why would he have done so? If Ezek. 40–48 is indeed the prophet’s plan for reconstruction after the exile, or even more if it is a portrayal of life in the messianic age, why would he have made the system of weights of the Babylonian oppressors the standard? If, on the other hand, we read the text realistically, as detailing an actual society, it makes sense that the writer would have used the system of the dominant power—particularly if, as was the case in Restoration Judah, that dominant power was footing the bill.
Unfortunately, since most of the Persian-period weights that have been found in Palestine lack inscriptions, we have no concrete evidence as to what system of weights they assume. Further, there is evidence that localities used their own systems for private transactions, whatever the official standard may have been. In Egypt, they used weights according to “the stones of the king” (AP 5, 1.7) and “the stones of Ptah” (AP 11, 1, 2) alongside the Persian standard, and in Samaria, slave purchases continued to be based on the preexilic, fifty-shekel mina (F. M. Cross, “Samaria Papyrus 1: An Aramaic Slave Conveyance of 335 B.C.E. Found in the Wâdi–ed-Dâliyeh,” Eretz-Israel 18 [1985], pp. 7–17). However, as Ephraim Stern has observed, “It is very likely that the system of weights employed by the Persian government in this period was uniform throughout the Persian realm, including Palestine” (Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538–332 b.c. [Warminster, England: Aris and Phillips, 1982] p. 215). Herodotus (Hist. 3.89) records that Darius standardized the system of weights, specifying that those paying tribute in silver were to do so by the Babylonian talent. Engraved weights from Darius’ reign found at Persepolis assume the Babylonian system of 60 shekels to the mina. That we find this same system in chs. 40–48 makes a strong case for dating this document as well, in its final form, to the reign of Darius in the Persian period. In such a setting, the prince would be obligated to enforce the Persian standards.
45:18 In the first month. The “seventh month” in Lev. 16:29 may be the same as the “first month” in Ezek. 45:18, assuming either that the editors were numbering from the fall, when the Jewish New Year is celebrated, or that their source was doing so. The calendar in Lev., on the other hand, counts from the first month in the spring. Ezekiel gives the dates for Passover (45:21) and Booths (45:25), however, according to the same vernal calendar that Lev. followed, suggesting either that the same is true in 45:18–20, or that our editor is here combining sources based on different calendars, placing them side by side without regard for their differences. We also find this kind of “artificial, exegetical harmonization” in Chr. (e.g., 2 Chr. 35:17, which combines contradictory rules for preparing the Passover in Exod. 12:9 and Deut. 13:7; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, p. 134; see also the examples in Tuell, First and Second Chronicles, pp. 23–24, 240). The approach of the editor of the Law of the Temple to tradition, like that of the Chronicler, “is not analytical, but synthetic; both/and, rather than either/or” (Tuell, First and Second Chronicles, p. 41).
46:1–11 For more on the idea that the Law of the Temple and Torah derived from a common tradition see G. Fohrer and K. Galling, Ezechiel (HAT 13; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1955), p. 155; M. Haran, “The Law-Code of Ezekiel XL–XLVIII and its Relation to the Priestly School,” HUCA 50 (1979), pp. 62–63; A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem (CRB 20; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1982), pp.150–51; and Tuell, Law of the Temple, pp. 142–46.
46:17 A gift . . . to one of his servants. See M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970), pp. 184–203.