The Prince
Notes
FOLLOWING ON THE description of the return of the glory of the Lord to fill the central space of the temple, Ezekiel 44 continues the process of the filling of the various spaces described in chapters 40–42. No one is allowed access to the Most Holy Place itself, but who may be permitted to enter into the inner court of this holy God? The question of access to God is, of course, not a new one in Ezekiel’s day. The tabernacle had strict regulations governing access to the different areas,2 as had Mount Sinai itself before that (Ex. 24). What is new about Ezekiel’s vision, however, is that the rules of access are tighter than those of the tabernacle, and the basis for those rules is now bound up in the past obedience of the parties concerned. Those who have proved themselves obedient are rewarded with the closest access to the center, while those who have strayed are allowed only a more limited access. It is the outworking in visionary, graded form of the question and answer of Psalm 24:3–4:
Who may ascend the hill of the LORD?
Who may stand in his holy place?
He who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who does not lift up his soul to an idol
or swear by what is false.
This section begins with an absolute prohibition of access: the outer east gate is closed and will forever remain closed (Ezek. 44:1–2). Because the Lord entered through it on his return to the Most Holy Place, it has acquired a special sanctity and may not be used by anyone else
However, the space within the gate may be used by the prince for his sacral meals before the Lord. When he does so, he is to enter this space from the outer court, not from outside the temple complex, in order that the outer gate may remain perpetually closed (44:3).
As Ezekiel is taken back to the east gate in the outer wall of the court, the gate is firmly closed (44:1–2). This was the gate through which Ezekiel had witnessed the return of God’s glory (43:1–4), and as a consequence no one would be allowed to pass this way.
The ‘prince’ (i.e. king) may use some of the rooms in the gateway (see, 40:6–16) to eat his sacrificial meal, but he must enter these rooms via the portico at the western end of this gateway (44:3; i.e. from the west—from inside—rather than through the gateway—from the east). This was, no doubt, a way of reflecting the privilege of the king’s position, intimating, in part, the honour of God himself. Being allowed to eat in the eastern gateway, through which the glory of the Lord had passed, reflected the king’s honour as God’s representative ruler among his people. Nevertheless, the access given to the king is strictly limited. He may not abuse this privilege, as Uzziah did in his old age (2 Chron. 26:16–20).
Of greater significance, however, is the shutting of the eastern gate. This, no doubt, was a way of symbolizing that the Lord, having once entered, was not about to leave the temple again. Having left once before because of Israel’s sin, the Lord was now back—permanently. (As to the identity of the ‘prince’, see discussion on 45:13–25.)
The closure of the gate is significant in many ways. When those who entered the temple via the north and south gates for the first time asked why the east gate was closed, they would be told that the Lord, who had once left his temple, had returned again by means of the east gate. But, perhaps more significantly, the closure of the gate may be indicative of the Lord’s intention never again to leave his sanctuary. He had left once before, a consequence of the evil of his people; in the restored temple, for use in the worship of a renewed people, his presence would be permanent. So the closed gate is not an ominous symbol, but a hopeful one; a people, who by their actions had caused the divine departure, would again know the permanent presence of their God.
Zadokite priests have access to Yahweh, and the Levites may serve within the courts, but the nāśîʾ is repulsed. He must eat his meals at the gate.
Third, the closed gate presents a veiled polemic against pagan notions. Among the many activities involved in the Babylonian New Year festival was the ritual “opening of the gate” (pît bâbi). The sacred gate (bābu ellu) apparently remained closed to all human traffic except on the great day of the festival when Marduk would exit and later return in procession through it. The closing of this gate declares on the one hand that Yahweh is not dependent on human arms for residence in the temple. No one, neither well-intentioned worshipers nor foreign conquerors like Nebuchadrezzar, may enter here. As the sovereign over Israel, and by extension over the earth, Yahweh opens gates that no one may close, and closes gates that no one may open. No enemy, either human or divine, will ever crash his sacred residence, remove him from his throne, and drag him off, according to the common treatment of the images of patron deities of conquered lands. Yahweh reigns supreme.
In this way, both the privilege and restriction of the prince’s position is emphasized. On the one hand, he holds a unique position among the laity with special privileges, including access to a private room in part of the central east-west spine of the new temple, an especially holy location. On the other hand, this room is in the outer part of that region, and the prince has no access to the inner court. Thus, compared to the past, when the kings frequently treated the sanctuary as a royal chapel, as if it were their own preserve in which they might establish whatever innovations they wished (e.g., 2 Kings 16:10–18), in future the royal figure has a limited, though still honorable, position.
44:9 Every foreigner uncircumcised of heart and uncircumcised of flesh shall not come into my sanctuary—not Israel’s past idolatry can be summarized as one offense: They violated Yahweh’s sacred space. Stricter observance of procedures and regulations designed to protect the sacred space will prevent future violation. One regulation forbids foreigners from entering the sanctuary (see Exod 12:43–51).
Moving forwards from the outer east gate, and round to the right, Ezekiel enters the inner court via the north inner gateway (44:4), coming face to face with the glory of God in the temple. Ezekiel falls on his face, something which Daniel was also to do (Dan. 8:17). It is an expression of unworthiness and defilement in God’s presence.
Who may enter the temple and worship God? Only the covenant people of God. Foreigners, those who were ‘uncircumcised in heart and flesh’ (44:7), were not permitted to enter. This was something which had been violated in Solomon’s temple, when foreign guards had been placed in charge (44:8; cf. 2 Kings 11:4). These had permitted those who were spiritually unfit to enter the temple and thus defile it. Herod’s temple, unlike Solomon’s, provided a ‘court’ for Gentiles to meet. It more or less surrounded the temple area itself. Preventing access to the ‘Court of Israel’ was a four-and-a-half foot high stone wall acting as a kind of partition. On it was an inscription forbidding Gentiles to go any further on pain of death. According to Josephus, there were many such inscriptions written in Greek and Latin at equal distances from each other. Two such notices were discovered (one in 1971 and the other in 1935) and read: ‘No foreigner may enter within the barricade which surrounds the temple and enclosure. Anyone who is caught doing so will have himself to blame for his ensuing death.’3
44:9 While resident aliens are forbidden a role in temple service, the qualifying phrase uncircumcised in heart and flesh (cf. v. 7) may suggest that aliens with the appropriate inner orientation announced in 36:26–27 could become members of the covenant community. Residence alone, however, was not enough to qualify.
(ii) Regulations concerning foreigners (verses 4–9). It had become the custom in former years to employ foreigners (especially foreign slaves) in the variety of menial tasks which were essential to the proper functioning of the temple. The foreigners, while not necessarily evil persons as such, were alien to the faith and worship of Israel; they were “uncircumcised in heart and flesh” (verse 7) meaning that, both literally and emotionally, they were not a part of the covenant community.
This legislative portion of the vision, expressed as the words of God to the prophet, is critical of Israel, not the foreigners. To the foreign servants of the temple had been delegated a variety of tasks: they were janitors, doormen, cleaners, assistants in various sacrificial activities, and the like. Their tasks as such held no particular appeal, and those responsible for the temple in the past had no doubt been glad of the regiment of foreign servants placed at their disposal. But using the foreigners had betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the temple’s place at the heart of the covenant community. It may be that few people like to wield a broom or function as doormen, yet they were honest and worthy tasks, a vital part of the functioning of the temple as a whole. And, whether in ancient Israel or the modern Church, the privilege of divine service is misunderstood if the “dirty” jobs are delegated without thought and the “honourable” ones retained. Every role in the service of the sanctuary is important, that of the cleaner no less than that of the priest; it may not always appear to be so in human estimation, but these verses represent the divine estimation.
The sin of the past lay in bringing “foreigners uncircumcised in heart and flesh into my sanctuary, desecrating my temple” (44:7). This probably refers to the well-attested practice of employing foreign guards in the temple (2 Kings 11:14–19).
Unfortunately, the NIV, like most English translations, obscures the flow of thought in the passage by placing a paragraph break after 44:9, as if verse 10 introduces a new subject. In fact, verse 10 continues the thought of what precedes by identifying the legitimate temple guards, the Levites. The flow of the main train of thought is as follows: The foreigners will not enter the sanctuary (v. 9), but the Levites will (v. 10); they will be in my sanctuary serving as armed guards at the gates of the house (v. 11).
To be sure, the Levites are not exonerated from blame; they served the people in the presence of their idols and must bear the consequences of their sin (44:10). Because they are tainted with the corruption of the preexilic sins of the people, they may not enter the inner court, serve as priests, or have any contact with the sacred offerings (44:13). But their ministry is extended rather than restricted when compared with the preexilic situation. Now they must slaughter the burnt offerings and sacrifices on behalf of the people (44:11), something the people had previously done for themselves.
The purpose of these regulations is to induce shame in the hearers as they consider their detestable practices (44:13), yet it is a shame mixed with an appreciation of grace, for the sinners have not been excluded utterly from the presence of the holy God, as their sins deserved.
The duties of the Levites were threefold: keeping watch over access to the temple, thus acting as temple guards; slaughtering and cooking of sacrifices; and, thirdly, helping the worshippers with their worship (44:11). In contrast to the duties of the Zadokite priests (described in the next section, 44:15–27; cf. 43:19), these were relatively menial tasks. Forbidden to serve as priests, a privilege reserved, on penalty of death, for Aaron’s sons (Num. 3:10; 10:8), the Levites were dedicated to an auxiliary role as ministers for the priests, especially in regard to the manual labour of caring for the tabernacle and later the temple of Solomon (Num. 3:5).
They had, however, been grossly irresponsible in the past, allowing idolatry (44:12) to mar the temple of God. This is something Ezekiel has been at pains to point out (6:3–6; 14:3–11; 16:18–21; 23:36–49; 36:17–18; 37:23). Judgement has now fallen on them and their tasks in Ezekiel’s temple are greatly reduced in importance: ‘They are not to come near to serve me as priests or come near any of my holy things or my most holy offerings; they must bear the shame of their detestable practices’ (44:13). Those who hold office in God’s church are accountable to God. ‘From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked’ (Luke 12:48).
Having mentioned three groups (the king, foreigners and the Levites) who had violated access to the temple in the past, Ezekiel is now shown the function of the Zadokites who are to serve as priests in the new temple.
44:10–14 The Levites are gatekeepers and temple attendants but are restricted from service at the altar. The vision maintains these as suitable roles for a class of priests who had previously failed in their sacred duties (v. 12). Priestly conflict and failure are as old as the priesthood itself (cf. Lev. 10:1–7; Numbers 16). Rivalry among priests continued into the period of the monarchy (e.g., 1 Kings 1:7–8). Ezekiel’s vision places greater restrictions on Levites than is seen in the books of Chronicles (e.g., in the account of Josiah’s Passover, 2 Chronicles 35; cf. also Deut. 18:1–8).
(iii) The Levitical ministers (verses 10–14). The tasks unassigned by the exclusion of foreigners from the temple would have to be assumed by some other group of persons. They were to be assumed by Levites, specifically those groups of Levites who, in former days, had left the true faith to serve in the idolatrous country shrines that had dotted the landscape and hillsides of ancient Judah. Their past activities were such that these Levites could not stand directly before God, functioning as priests. They could, nevertheless, participate fully in the worship of the temple, assisting the assembled congregation in their tasks. Though there is a judgmental theme running through these verses, there is also a theme of grace and mercy. Those whose past activities might seem for all time to have excluded them from participation in the divine worship, would yet be able to partake in the worship of Israel in its new temple.
It was a failure to control access in the past that leads to the condemnation of the house of Israel in 44:6. Since Wellhausen used this passage as the heart of his reconstruction of the history of Israelite religion, it has been common to see this passage as a tendentious program aimed at downgrading the Levites from priestly status to that of temple servants. However, it is important to note that the prime target of accusation is the house of Israel as a whole; they (i.e., the laity) are primarily to blame and are therefore the ones who are “downgraded.” The Levites are involved only secondarily and therefore receive only a partial exclusion.6
The righteousness of the Zadokites is relative, not absolute, just as their access is relative: They are permitted to go closer to the inner sanctum than anyone else, but even they are not allowed to enter the Most Holy Place, not even for the annual Day of Atonement ceremony. Just as sin has spatial consequences of restricted access in Ezekiel’s vision of the future, so also righteousness brings with it the spatial rewards of greater access.12
But greater access into the realm of the holy carries with it also greater responsibilities and limitations. Because the Zadokite priests penetrate closer to the Most Holy Place than any others, they face additional restrictions on their behavior (44:17–27). They must wear linen rather than woolen clothing when they minister so that they do not defile the inner court with their sweat (44:17–18). Sweat may have been undesirable because it was regarded as belonging to the general category of bodily emissions that rendered one unclean (Deut. 23:9–14). Moreover, they are to distinguish between the “sacred” clothes they wear for ministry and the “other [profane] clothes” they wear for the rest of life. The former are to remain within the inner court, housed in the special rooms described in Ezekiel 42:13–14, so that holiness might not be accidentally transmitted to the people (44:19).
In Israelite law, holiness was not dangerous by itself. It was dangerous only to one who was contaminated with impurity or who acted in contravention of its laws. Therefore the priest, who daily handled the holy things, had to take special care with regard to his ritual cleanliness and actions. The fate of Nadab and Abihu stood as a solemn warning of the dangers attending the ministry of serving a holy God (Lev. 10:1–3).
The need for pure priestly stock, which flows from restricting access to the descendants of the seed of Zadok, is present in the restriction of priestly marriage to unmarried Israelite women or to the widows of priests (44:22). That provision assured that no offspring conceived by a former husband of a different tribe would be accidentally assumed to be of priestly stock. In all these ways, the priests are to be living models of what they teach—that there is a difference between holy and profane, between clean and unclean (44:23).
Throughout this chapter, the concern over the holiness of those having access to the central regions of the sanctuary is evident. Those who enter the inner parts of the sanctuary to minister in God’s service must have a past history of faithfulness and must continue to walk in the ways of the holy, lest they be destroyed in an instant by the holy God whom they serve.
The duties of the Levites were threefold: keeping watch over access to the temple, thus acting as temple guards; slaughtering and cooking of sacrifices; and, thirdly, helping the worshippers with their worship (44:11). In contrast to the duties of the Zadokite priests (described in the next section, 44:15–27; cf. 43:19), these were relatively menial tasks. Forbidden to serve as priests, a privilege reserved, on penalty of death, for Aaron’s sons (Num. 3:10; 10:8), the Levites were dedicated to an auxiliary role as ministers for the priests, especially in regard to the manual labour of caring for the tabernacle and later the temple of Solomon (Num. 3:5).
They had, however, been grossly irresponsible in the past, allowing idolatry (44:12) to mar the temple of God. This is something Ezekiel has been at pains to point out (6:3–6; 14:3–11; 16:18–21; 23:36–49; 36:17–18; 37:23). Judgement has now fallen on them and their tasks in Ezekiel’s temple are greatly reduced in importance: ‘They are not to come near to serve me as priests or come near any of my holy things or my most holy offerings; they must bear the shame of their detestable practices’ (44:13). Those who hold office in God’s church are accountable to God. ‘From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked’ (Luke 12:48).
Having mentioned three groups (the king, foreigners and the Levites) who had violated access to the temple in the past, Ezekiel is now shown the function of the Zadokites who are to serve as priests in the new temple.
The priests’ clothes
The priests were to wear ‘linen clothes’ (44:17) not wool, while they ministered in the inner court, or inside the temple area. Likewise, they were to wear ‘linen turbans’ (Ezekiel wore one, cf. 24:17) and ‘linen undergarments’ (44:18). The reason lies in making sure that they did not ‘perspire’! (cf. Exod. 39:27–29; 16:4). Concern over bodily fluids was a source of uncleanness in Old Testament times, as it is today (cf. Lev. 12, 13, 18, etc.). No doubt this was to reinforce basic hygiene in relatively primitive times, but it was also to underline the fact that serving in the inner court meant proximity to God and therefore a necessity to be ceremonially pure. Consequently, these garments were to be kept in the chambers surrounding the inner court (44:18–19) and described in 42:1–9.
Sin is a state of uncleanness, as well as rebellion and guilt, and salvation involves at its heart the need to be washed and made clean. This was, in part, the lesson Nicodemus received from Jesus (John 3:5). The same lesson is reinforced by Paul when he writes to Titus and speaks of the ‘washing of rebirth’ (Titus 3:5). God had also spoken of this truth through Isaiah:
‘ “Come now, let us reason together,”
says the Lord,
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool’
(Isa. 1:18).
The priests’ clothes
The priests were to wear ‘linen clothes’ (44:17) not wool, while they ministered in the inner court, or inside the temple area. Likewise, they were to wear ‘linen turbans’ (Ezekiel wore one, cf. 24:17) and ‘linen undergarments’ (44:18). The reason lies in making sure that they did not ‘perspire’! (cf. Exod. 39:27–29; 16:4). Concern over bodily fluids was a source of uncleanness in Old Testament times, as it is today (cf. Lev. 12, 13, 18, etc.). No doubt this was to reinforce basic hygiene in relatively primitive times, but it was also to underline the fact that serving in the inner court meant proximity to God and therefore a necessity to be ceremonially pure. Consequently, these garments were to be kept in the chambers surrounding the inner court (44:18–19) and described in 42:1–9.
Sin is a state of uncleanness, as well as rebellion and guilt, and salvation involves at its heart the need to be washed and made clean. This was, in part, the lesson Nicodemus received from Jesus (John 3:5). The same lesson is reinforced by Paul when he writes to Titus and speaks of the ‘washing of rebirth’ (Titus 3:5). God had also spoken of this truth through Isaiah:
‘ “Come now, let us reason together,”
says the Lord,
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool’
(Isa. 1:18).
The regulations bearing on their activities have a close relationship with Pentateuchal legislation (esp. Leviticus 21 and Numbers 18; see ESV cross-references for parallels). These regulations were intended to maintain the Zadokite priests in a state of readiness for serving before the altar and in the sanctuary, in other words, to be holy. They include instructions concerning clothing and grooming (Ezek. 44:17–20), comportment (v. 21), and marriage (v. 22). They are to be teachers and arbitrators (vv. 23–24; cf. Lev. 10:8–11; Ezek. 22:26). When of necessity they defile themselves by tending to the dead, they must wait a period of seven days (cf. 43:26) before reentering sacred service. Like other priestly groups in antiquity, they do not hold landed property (44:28); their maintenance comes from their temple service itself and the offerings of those in the community who do have property (vv. 29–30). Finally, they are forbidden unclean meat, a restriction Ezekiel himself had long since taken to heart (see 4:14).
44:15 The holiness required to serve God prefigures the holiness of Christ (Heb. 7:23–8:6; 9:11–28; see note on Ezek. 40:45).
44:17 their inner linen garments The command to wear linen rather than wool prevents ritual defilement through excessive sweating (see v. 18). The Greek historian Herodotus records that Egyptian priests wore linen garments and washed them regularly.
44:19 they will not make the people holy with their garments See 42:13–14. Priests were required to change clothes in the holy chambers. Holiness was thought to be a transferrable force—potentially deadly if handled improperly.
44:23 they will teach my people According to Ezek 22:26, one of the priests’ primary failures before the exile was in teaching the distinction between sacred and profane, pure and impure.
The opening verses are curious; earlier in the book, the prophet had been fierce in his condemnation of these priests (e.g. 22:26), but now seems to indicate they had remained faithful (verse 15). Either the words are the addition of a later hand (no doubt a Zadokite one), or they reflect a selective sense: some of the Zadokite priests had remained faithful to God in the old days of apostasy.
The description of priestly regulations and duties that follows is similar in principle to the legislation contained in Exodus (e.g. 39:27–29) and Leviticus (e.g. 21:1–9).
At first these verses appear to add little to the other extensive portions of the Old Testament, especially in Exodus and Leviticus, in which detailed legislation is provided concerning the behaviour and responsibility of the priesthood. And yet, for all their repetitive character, the verses do serve to emphasise an important point. The priests, who represented the people as a whole before God, were to be scrupulous in maintaining ritual purity which in turn was to be the outer clothing of an inner ethical purity. And the scrupulousness of their behaviour and activity in the temple’s worship would serve constantly to remind the assembled worshippers of their own need of ethical purity in approaching God to worship. The failures of the past, among both priests and people alike, had been moral failures. Taking religion and God for granted, they had casually resorted to worship in the free moments between their acts of moral turpitude. There could be no ultimate distinction between life outside the temple and life within its precincts. Those who would worship a holy God must seek to live a holy life. Indeed, it was only in the pursuit of a holy life that the failure to attain it completely would become apparent, and hence the need for forgiveness, integral to all worship, would become the more evident.
