286 2 Kings xii. 17.
287 Cf. ch. xliii. 21.
288 Another explanation, however, is possible, and is adopted by Smend and Davidson. Assuming that a burnt‐offering was offered on the first day, and holding the whole description to be somewhat elliptical, they bring the entire process within the limits of the week. This certainly looks more satisfactory in itself. But would Ezekiel be likely to admit an ellipsis in describing so important a function? I have taken for granted above that the seven days of the double sacrifice are counted from the “second day” of ver. 22.
289 Ver. 26.
290 טִהֵר (ver. 20).
291 הִטֵּא a denominative form from הֵטְא = sin (ver. 22).
292 כִּפֵּר (ver. 26).
293 See Smith, _Old Testament in Jewish Church_, p. 381.
294 Ch. xlv. 20.
295 Ch. xlv. 15, 17.
296 As distinguished from sins, בִּשִׁנָנָה, or through inadvertence. See Numb. xv. 30, 31.
297 Psalm li. 16, 17.
298 See his Burnet Lectures on the _Religion of the Semites_, to which, as well as to his _Old Testament in the Jewish Church_, the present chapter is largely indebted.
299 Ch. xlvii. 1‐12.
300 Chs. xlvii. 13‐xlviii. 35.
301 Amos ix. 13.
302 Ch. xxxiv. 25‐29.
303 Rev. xxii. 1, 2.
304 Isa. viii. 6.
305 Engedi, “well of the kid,” is at the middle of the western shore; Eneglaim, “well of two calves,” is unknown, but probably lay at the north end. The eastern side is left to the Arabian nomads.
306 Ver. 11.
307 I do not myself see much objection to supposing that it leaves the sea near Tyre and proceeds about due east to Hazar‐enon, which may be near the foot of Hermon, where Robinson located it. In this case the “entrance to Hamath” would be the south end of the _Beḳa’_, where one strikes north to go to Hamath. This would correspond nearly to the extent of the country actually occupied by the Hebrews under the judges and the monarchy. The statement that the territory of Damascus lies to the north presents some difficulty on any theory. It may be added that Hazar‐hattikon in ver. 16 is the same as Hazar‐enon; it is probably, as Cornill suggests, a scribe’s error for נצרה ענון (the locative ending being mistaken for the article).
308 Smend, for example, points out that if we count the Levites’ portion as a tribal inheritance, and include Manasseh and Ephraim under the house of Joseph (as is done in the naming of the gates of the city), we have the sons of Rachel and Leah evenly distributed on either side of the “oblation.” Then at the farthest distance from the Temple are the sons of Jacob’s handmaids, Gad in the extreme south, and Dan, Asher, and Naphtali in the north. This is ingenious, but not in the least convincing.
309 Ver. 18.
310 Vv. 31‐34. It is difficult to trace a clear connection between the positions of the gates and the geographical distribution of the tribes in the country. The fact that here Levi is counted as a tribe and Ephraim and Manasseh are united under the name of Joseph indicates perhaps that none was intended.
311 Ver. 19.
312 Neh. xi. 1, 2.
313 Rev. xxi. 2, 3, 22, 23.