The Pulpit Commentary — Ezekiel — Volume 2 — Section 402

.>,.~,j,17, and on tho ground that" the seventh of day, (o•i;i; nlll~lp lry). By o.lmost all day of (the same) month" would have been interpreters this is understood to mean "a in Hebrew l'°Jli~ ;,:ll~tr~, as in eh. i. 1; xxx. feast of a full week," the exuot dumtion of 20 ; at the s'ame • time admitting that the Feast of Unleavened Bread, whioh hogan t:'ti:~ is sometimes used (Numb. x. 11), w_i~h the eating of the ~~soha.J lamb (Exod. though not (except in this verse) by xu. 8, 15-20; Lev. xxm. 6; Numb. ix. 11: Ezekiel. The sin offerings in question Deut. xvi. 3, 4). At the same time, it is should bo made for (or, 0-11 account of, Jt?, frankly admitted that, to extraot this sense from the words, n\p;if?I must be changed "away from," expressing the reason why any- thing is done) every one that erreth, and for into MJ!.1l?· AB the w'ords stand, they can him that is simple, i.e. for such transgressors only signify a feast of weeks of de.ye. 116 should hnve gone a.side from the straight nip~~ li:1, in Exod. xxxiv. 22 and Deut. path through igu<)rance or foolishness, the xvi. 10, is applied to the Feast of Pentecost, "simple" man being here, as in Prov. vii. which was called "e. Fee.st of Hebdome.ds " 7; xxii. 3; xxvii. 12, one easily enticed or from the seven weeks whioh intervened b~- persuaded to do evil. For such offenders tween the Passover and it. Hence Kliefoth, the Law of Moses provided means of e.dhering to the legitimate sens& of the expiation (Lev. ii. 2, etc.; v. 15; Numb. expression, understands the prophet to say xv. 27); for the presumptuous sinner, who that the whole period of seven weeks be- despised the word of the Lord and violated tween the first Passover and Pentecost Lis corumanclment, only one doom remained, should be celebrated in the new dispensa- to be cut off from among his people (Numb. tion as; o. Feast of Unleavened Bread. In xv. 30; Deut. :xvii. 12). support of this Kliefoth cites a similar use Ver. 21.-With the fourteenth day of of the word "de.ye" in Gen. xxix. 14; xli. the month, the day appointed by the Law 1; Deut. x.x.i. 13; 2 Kings xv. 13; Jer. of Moses for the killing of the Paschal xxviii. 3, 11 ; Dan. x. 2, 3; and certainly lamb (Exod. xii. 6), the Passover (;ipi;ir:i no objection can be taken to e. Passover of with the article, the well-known festive.I of seven weeks, if Ezekiel may be supposed that ne.me) should commence. Though to have been merely expressing analogically the selection of the lamb upon the tenth spiritual conceptions, and not furnishing day of the fust month is not specified, it actual legislation to be afterwards put in may be asstlllled that this would be im- operation. Against this translation, how- plied in the appointment of a Passover ever, Keil urges that the expression, "seven which should begin on the day already days of the feast" (ver. 23), appears to mark legalized by the Mosaio Torah. According the duration of the festival; but this is to Wellbausen and Smend, the fust mention not so convincing as its author imagines, of the Passover occurs in Deut. xvi. 2, 5, 6, since the prophet may be held a.s describing, and the next in 2 Kings x:xiii. 22; bnt this in _vers. 23, 24, the procedure of each seven can only oe maintained by declaring Ex:od. days without intending to unsa.y what he xxx.iv. 25, which occurs in the so-called had already stated, that the feast should •Book of theCovenant'-a pre-Deuteronomio continue seven weeks of de.ye. A second work-" a gloss," and by relegating Exod. objection pressed by Keil, that o•i;i; "is xii. to the " priest-code " for no other not usually connected with the preceding reason than that it alludes to the Passover noun in the construct state, but is atte.ched (vers. 11, 21, 27, 43)-a principle of easy as au adverbial accusative," asin the above- applice.tiou, and capable of being used to cited passages, is sufficiently disposed of by prove anything. Smend likewise regards Kliefoth's statement that the punctuation it as strange that the Passover should be might easily be altered so as to read n\y:;i~. made to corumence on the fourteenth of the Upon the whole, while not free from difficulty, rnoutu, and not, as the autumn fee.et, on the the view of Kliefoth seems best supported fifteenth (vcr. 25); and suggests that by argument. the original reading, which he supposes Ver. 22.-The first day of the feast was the fifteenth, may have been corrected proper, i.e. the fourteenth, should be dis- subsequently in accordance with the priest- tinguished by the prince's presenting, for code. But if the priest-code was posterior himself and for all the people of the land, a to and modelled after Ezekiel, why should bullook for a sin offering. Thr1t this was it have ordaiued the fourteenth iustead of a deviution from the earlier l\Iosaio legislo.- tbe.t which its roaster recommended, viz. the tion in three particulars is appe.reut. In fifteenth ? A sufficient explanation of the the first plaoe, the" sin offering" here pre- differing dates in Ezekiel is supplied if scribed was manifestly to take precedence Ezekiel, in fixing them, may be held to Ii ave of the Paschal feost proper, whereas in the followed the so-called priest-code. A feast Pasche.I festival of the so-ce.Ued priest-code oheven d&y1; literally, a /eaat of hebdomad, the dally se.orifloes were appointed to begin on. XLV. 1-25.J THE BOOK OJ!' THE PROPHET EZEKIEL. 417