But the part of hzekiel's work that was destined to have the most direct and powerful historical influence was the ideal emlx)die<t in the vision of chs. 40-48. The unique significance of that re- markable creation lies in the fact that under the form of a Messianic prophecy it presents the ecbeme of a politico-religious constitution in whicli the fundamental idea of holiness is applied to the regulation of every part of the national life. It is a picture of the kingdom of God in its final and perfect state as this prophet was led to conceive It. The niling conception is that of J" dwelling in visible glory in His sanctuary in the midst of His people, ancf the practical purpose of the vision is to set forth the conditions on Israel's part which euch a relation involves. That the institutions prescribed are mainly of a priestly character is partly due to the fact that E. was himself a priest, deeply imbued with the traditions of his office ; but still more to his perception of the inherent fitness of the priestly idea of holiness to be the formal principle of a theocratic polity pivinp expression to the essential character of Israel as the people of J". How fully the ideal
met the needs of the time is shown by its operation in all the be.st tendencies of tlie Restoration period. This is not the place to discuss the bearing of E.'i ideal legislation on the development of the penta- teuchanaws(seeHKXATEUCH}. The viewof most re- cent critics is that he occupies a position intermedi- ate between the Book of Deut. and the composition of the so-called Priestly Code ; and it can hardly i)e denied that the peculiar features of E.'s system are more fully explained on this theory than on any other (see esp. the regulations as to the status of the Levites, ch. 44). But, setting aside the purely critical question, the fact is clear that the whole movement by which the new Israel was consoli- dated proceeded on the lines foreshadowed in E.'s vision. His position in this respect may be com- pared with that of Augustine in the history of the Latin Church. What the civitns Dei was to mediaeval Christendom, that the vision of E. was to post-exilic Judaism : each furnished the ideal that moulded the polity of the age that followed. To what extent this section of the Book of E. was adopted as a legislative programme by the leaders of the Return cannot be precisely determined from the somewhat meagre records at our disposal (see Smith, OTJC p. 442 f.) But it is important to observe that the Messianic hope as set forth by E. formed one of the most powerful impulses that made for the reconstruction of the Jewish state. We learn from Hag and Zee that the erection of the second temple was carried througli under the conviction that that unpretentious edifice was to be the centre of a renovated world, and the car- nest of the latter-day glory just about to dawn ; wliile the expectation that the Lord would sud- denly come to His temple meets us nearly a cent, later in the book of Malachi. These are conceptions which it would be difficult to understand otherwise than as consequences of the work of Ezekiel.
As compared with his master Jeremiah, or Is40fr., Ezekiel's teaching as a whole appears lacking in breadth of sympathy and evangelical freedom, and to be a preparation for an age of legalism rather than for the fulness of the Christian dispensation. He is not quoted expressly bj' any NT writer, and it is doubtful if he has directly influenced any except the author of the Apoc, who was familiar with the book and has drawn largely on its imagery. But while all this is true, there are many tilings in E. which give him a high place amongst the heralds of Christ in OT. His clear assertion of the vanje of the individual soul and of the eflicacy of repentance, his profound sense of sin as ingratitude, and of the need of a new heart in order to fulfil the law of God, his impassioned vindication of the character of God as merciful and eager to forgive, are amongst the brightest gems of spiritual truth to be found in the pages of propliecy.
LlTKKARY History. — Of the literary history of the book little needs to be said. It is mentioned by the son of Siracli (49*) in a connexion which shows that it formeil part of the prophetical Canon in his time (c. B.C. 200). In the order given by the Talmudic treatise Bnba bnlhra (14'') it stands second amongst the greater prophets, being pre- ceded by Jer and followed by Isaiah. A further statement in the same source that the book wa.< written (like Dn, Est, and the Twelve Prophets) by ' the men of the Great Synagogue,' has no signi- ficance, unless it be an inference from the theory that no prophetic book could be written outside of tlie Holy Land (so Rashi, (juoted by Ryle, Cnnon of OT, p. 263 f.). According to Jerome {pr(r/atw fid Ezerh. ), certain parts of it were, on account of their obscurity, forbidden to be read by any Jew under the age of 30 years ; and its deviations from the Mosaic Law caused doubts to be expressed as