Ezekiel Chapter 43 verse 7 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerses 7-12. - Debate exists as to who the speaker in the seventh verse was, whether Jehovah or the man - some holding with Kliefoth, Ewald, Smend, and Currey, that he was Jehovah; others, with Havernick, Keil, Hengstenberg, and Schroder, that he was "the man;" and still others, with Plumptre, that it cannot be decided which he was. One thing is clear, that if "the man" was the speaker, his words and message were not his own, but Jehovah's. Yet unless the man had been the angel of the Lord - the view of Hengstenberg and Schroder - it will always seem incongruous that he should have addressed Ezekiel without a "Thus saith the Lord." Hence the notion that the speaker was Jehovah is, perhaps, the one freest from difficulty. The message announced or communication made to the prophet related first to Jehovah's purpose in entering the temple (vers. 7-9), and secondly to his object in showing the house to the prophet, viz. that he might show it to the house of Israel (vers. 10-12). Verse 7. - The LXX. and the Vulgate divide the present verse into two parts, and take the first as equivalent to a solemn word of consecration, the former supplying ἑώρακας the latter vidisti, "thou hast seen." The Chaldee Targum inserts, hic est locus, "this is the place," and in so doing is followed by Luther and the Revised Version. Some word, it is obvious, either a "see!" or a "behold!" must be interpolated, in thought at least, unless one adopts the construction of the Authorized Version, with which Smend agrees, and makes "the place of my throne," etc., to be governed By the verb "defile," or, with Ewald, places it under the regimen of "show" in ver. 10, throwing the whole intervening clause into a long parenthesis - a device which does not contribute to lucidity. Of the two expressions here employed to designate the sanctuary - not the temple proper, but the whole house with its surroundings - the former, the place of my throne, though peculiar to Ezekiel, receives explanation from the conception, familiar to earlier writers, of Jehovah as dwelling between the cherubim (Exodus 25:22; 1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Kings 19:15; Psalm 80:1; Isaiah 37:16); the latter, the place of the soles of my feet, was of frequent occurrence to denote the ark of the covenant (1 Chronicles 28:2; Psalm 99:5; Psalm 132:7) and the temple (Isaiah 60:13; Lamentations 2:1). The word of consecration was expressed in the promise, I will dwell (in the temple) in the midst of the children of Israel forever, etc., which went beyond anything that had been spoken concerning either the tabernacle of Moses or the temple of Solomon (comp. Exodus 25:8; Exodus 29:45; 1 Kings 6:13). The second part of the verse announces what would be the result of Jehovah's perpetual inhabitation of the temple - the house of Israel would no more defile his holy Name either by their whoredom or by the carcasses of their kings in their high places, or, according to another reading, in their death. That the whoredom signified idolatry (comp. Ezekiel 16.) commentators are agreed. What divides them is whether this also is alluded to in the alternative clause. Rosenmüller, Havernick, Keil, Fairbairn, and Plumptre believe it is, contending that the "carcasses of their kings" (comp. Leviticus 26:30; and Jeremiah 16:18) was a contemptuous and satirical designation of the idols they had formerly served, that the word "kings ' is frequently employed in this sense in Scripture (see Isaiah 8:21; Amos 5:26; Zephaniah 1:5), and that the special sin complained of, that of building altars for dead idols in the very temple court, had been practiced by more kings than one in Judah (comp. 2 Kings 16:11; 2 Kings 21:4, 5-7); and in support of this view may be urged first that it is favored by the use of the term bamotk, or "high places," in ver. 7, and secondly by the exposition offered in ver. 8 of the nature of the sin. Ewald, Hitzig, Kliefoth, and Smend, on the other hand, regard the sin spoken of in the second clause as different from that indicated in the first, maintaining that while this was the practice of defiling Jehovah's sanctuary by idolatry that was the desecration of the same by the interment in its courts of their dead kings. Against this, however, stands the fact that no authentic instance can be produced of a Judaean sovereign's corpse having been interred in the temple area. David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, and others were buried in the city of David (1 Kings 2:10; 1 Kings 11:43; 1 Kings 22:50), and a place of sepulchers existed on the south-west comer of Zion in the days of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 3:16); but these prove nothing unless the temple hill be taken, as no doubt it sometimes was, in an extended sense as inclusive of Mount Zion. Similarly, the statement that Manasseh had a burial-place in the garden of Uzzah (2 Kings 21:18, 26) cannot be adduced in support of this view, unless it can be shown that the garden of Uzzah was situated on the temple hill. On the whole, therefore, the balance of argument inclines in favor of the first view, though it does involve the introduction of a figurative sense into the words.

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(7) The place of the soles of my feet.--Comp. 1Chronicles 28:2; Psalm 132:7.I will dwell . . . for ever.--This should be the peculiar distinction of the Temple seen in the vision. The Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple had both been accepted as the peculiar dwelling-place of God, but both had passed away. So also it would be with the material Temple of the restoration. But in this Temple of the vision God promises that He would dwell for ever.By the carcases of their kings.--The "shall defile" with which the later clauses of this verse are connected is not an imperative, but a simple future, and is in accordance with the generally ideal character of the vision. The word "carcases" is here a difficult one. Some commentators understand it literally of the burial of some of the kings in the Temple area; but there is no historical proof that any were so buried, the gardens of the royal palace being quite too distant for the language here used, nor is there anywhere any allusion to such defilement. The simplest explanation is that the language is founded upon Leviticus 26:30, and means idols. Manasseh and others had introduced their idols into the very courts of the Temple (2Kings 21:4-7; sec also 2Kings 16:11). . . .