RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Ezekiel
regards it as highly important that the holiness of God be preserved by the ceremonial purity of his ministers and by the exclusion of the profane. But chap, xviii., which exhibits Ezekiel's ethics, puts beside the first command, to worship God only, the other which is like unto it, to love one's neighbor, and emphasizes the truth that every one is judged by God according to his personal conduct. A parallel passage is found in xiv 14 sqq. But how little the prophet expected salvation from mere formal fulfilment of commandments is shown by xi. 19-20, xxxvi. 26-27; complete obedience is the_ result of a new heart written over with God's law,' which' the Lord is to'give with a new spirit (cf. Jer. xxxi. 33), so that regeneration and sanctification appear as God's work. With Ezekiel the glory of God was the highest good. The people's misfortune was a just punishment for great guilt. Future salvation, however, was to come not because of man's merit (xxxvi. 22), but for the sake of God's name. This sovereign God was not arbitrary or cruel; his will purposed the conversion and life, not the ..destruction, of his sinful people (xxxiii. 11). The awakening of the congregation to new life is exhibited in a hopeful allegory (xxxvii.). The Davidic royalty was again to be established. David, the servant of the Lord, i.e., a future heir of the mind and power of David, was to rule his entire people in the name of his God (xvii. 22 sqq., xxxiv. 23, xxxvii. 24). Ezekiel does not stop with the portrayal of a favored ruler from this family; he describes in detail a last attack by the heathen world upon the law of Yahweh already announced by former prophets. In this whole delineation the relation to Joel is to be observed (cf. C. v. Orelli, Die zwolf kleinen Propheten, Munich, 1896, p. 43). The closing vision (xl.-xlviii.) has no connection with these other prophetical utterances. The description of the new temple is not merely a sketch for its reestablishment. The seer is raised above existing conditions.; On the other hand, his sketch and his arrangement are well considered and are so clear that one can as easily make a sketch of Ezekiel's as of Solomon's temple. The question of the priority of Ezekiel to the Priest Code reenters here. Popper and Graf, breaking with tradition, declared the conception of the Mosaic tabernacle (Ex. xxvi.-xxvii. and xxxvi.xxxvii.) to be later than Ezekiel's picture of the temple and they are followed by most of the critics. There are some, however, who with equal confidence advocate the preexilic origin of the Priest Code. A close relationship exists between
the earlier addresses of Ezekiel and 6. Relation the so-called Law of Holiness (Lev. to the Priest xvii.-xxvi.). Graf and Kayser con- Code, sider the prophet the author of the
latter, which Klostermann has exhaustively shown to be wrong. He prefers to consider this law a kind of catechism in use among the exiles, which the prophet also followed. Bantsch also, though following Graf in the main, comes to the conclusion that a large part of the Law of Holiness was prior to Ezekiel and was used by him as a basis of his discourses. This being admitted, the same should also hold good for the
rest. Otherwise it would be difficult to explain how later men imitated the prophet's style, but boldly opposed his revelations. Baudissin by an impartial comparison arrives at an essential affirmation of the priority of the Law of Holiness and the Priest Code (^part from Lev. xvi. which may be a later interpolation). Dillmann considers the Law of Holiness as much older than Ezekiel, which however (especially Lev. xxvi.) was revised during the exile with the use of Ezekiel's utterances. The main argument for the opposite view is found in xliv. 6-13, according to which only the Levitical priests of the house of Zadok are the priests proper; the Levites, however, who had worshiped in the high places, were to perform the lower functions. Here may be perceived the first distinction between classes of Levites. In Deuteronomy such a difference does not exist; the door to the sanctuary at Jerusalem was open for the priests of the high places (Deut. xviii. 6 sqq.)> In the Priest Code, however, the sharp distinction between priests and Levites is traced back to Moses; Ezekiel stood between. But it must be remembered that Ezekiel nowhere stated in what respects the new temple was to resemble the present or differ from it. But he certainly censures as a transgression of the covenant, and as a breach of Mosaic order that strangers should perform the lower temple services. This supposes that that order provided for other temple servants, no doubt Levitical (see Levi, Levites). Another obvious difference is that Ezekiel does not mention the high priest. But from this it can not be certainly inferred that the prophet did not know the office and that in the preexilic period a head of the priesthood did not exist. History proves the contrary. His silence may be explained from the same point of view as the fact that in place of the preexilic king he puts a modest prince (xliv. 3 sqq.). It is possible that xxi. 26 sqq. is an afterthought, where it is said: "Remove the diadem, and take off the crown." The prophet presupposes an ancient ordinance traced back to Moses (xx. 10-11, xliv. 7-8), according to which he reforms depraved practise, but with prophetical liberty he is not afraid to change ordinances to prevent future abuses or to give a purer expression to the spiritual idea. That Mosaic ordinance is nothing else than the Priest Code, whose directions Ezekiel intensifies in many points in the interest of the holiness of God. It is therefore untenable that he is the lawgiver who created this legislation. It must not be forgotten that he established neither a complete code nor one serving for an immediate use; as a teacher of the Mosaic law he could therefore move more freely in order to emphasize those things which served his prophetic purpose.
C. von Ofelli.
Bibliography: The best text is by S. Baer, with Assyriological notes by Friedrich Delitzsch, Leipsic, 1886, cf. C. H. Toy in SBOT, 1899. Commentaries are by H. Ewald, Gottingen, 1841; F. Hitzig, Leipsic, 1847; P. Fairbairn, Edinburgh, 1851; E. W. Hengstenberg, Berlin, 1867, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1869; C. F. Keil, Leipsic, 1868; E. Henderson, Edinburgh, 1870; G. Curry, in Bible Commentary, vol. vi., London, 1876; R. Smend, Leipsic, 1880; C. von Orelli, Munich, 1896; A. B. Davidson, in Cambridge Bible, 1892; J. Skinner, in Expositor's Bible, London, 1895; A. Bertholet, Tubingen, 1897; R.
Ezion-Geber
Ezra and Nehemiah