Ezekiel 42:15-20

Ezekiel 42:15. And he finished the measurements of the house inwards, and he brought me forth by the gate which looks toward the east, and he measured it round about.

Ezekiel 42:16. He measured the east side (literally, wind) with the measuring rod, 500 rods, with the measuring rod round about.

Ezekiel 42:17. He measured the north side, 500 rods, with the measuring rod round about.

Ezekiel 42:18. He measured the south side, 500 rods, with the measuring rod.

Ezekiel 42:19. He turned about to the west side, and measured 500 rods with the measuring rod.

Ezekiel 42:20. By the four sides he measured it; it had a wall round about, 500 long, and 500 broad, to make a separation between the holy and the profane.

We cannot but note the particularity with which these measurements are given, the rod as the measuring instrument, and the number of lengths on each side, being successively stated in regard to each. This plainly shows the importance which the prophet attached to the external dimensions, while the frequent occurrence also of the terms employed more fully certifies us of their exact amount. Yet from an early period a disposition has been shown to tamper with the numbers. The Septuagint substitutes cubits for rods, and the great mass of modern commentators (still also Ewald, Hitzig, Böttcher, Thenius, the latter in his Anhang to the Com. on Kings) have thought it necessary to adopt the same alteration. The chief reasons for this are, first, the apparently extravagant compass assigned to the sacred buildings a square of 500 rods, or 3000 cubits, and these cubits about two feet each (Ezekiel 40:5), making in all a square of fully 1 1/7 of a mile. There can be no doubt that this exceeded the limits of all ancient Jerusalem; and so, it is thought, the prophet could never intend to give such enormous bounds to his new temple; he must have meant cubits only, and not rods. Then it is also alleged that the particular measurements in the preceding portion do not require a space larger than a square of 500 cubits, and that the adoption of rods here instead of cubits would necessarily leave an immense space of unappropriated ground. Hävernick has tried to evade this argument by denying that the 100 cubits mentioned in connection with the outer and inner courts (Ezekiel 40:23; Ezekiel 40:27) are given as the measures of the whole breadth of these, and contending that they apply only to the distance between one gate and another in the same court. I cannot concur in this, for I think the natural supposition is, that the gates between which the distances in question lay were simply those of the two courts respectively. But if by rejecting that method of relief we seem to have far too much space on hand, by adopting the smaller measures of cubits instead of rods we should have decidedly top little. I think this might be proved by reckoning up the different items of the several measures connected with the temple itself and the separate place. But as we should thus inevitably get into intricacies where few would follow, we prefer establishing our position by a simpler process. In the central part to the east of the temple there was a square of 100 cubits, the court of the priests. But if on three sides of an entire square of 500 cubits you take off first 100 cubits for the outer court, then 100 for the inner, with nothing intervening, there would be left precisely this square of 100 more for the court of the priests. But where, then, was the space to be found for the broad outermost wall, outside of which the measurement of 500 was made six cubits all round? Where, again, for the seven steps leading up to the gate of the inner court, and the breadth of the wall dividing it from the outer? And where, once again, space for the eight steps leading up to the court of the priests, and the buildings of many chambers for them? There is evidently no room for these on the cubit hypothesis, which would require the different courts to be enclosed, and separated from each other by strictly mathematical lines; so that the objection of too much ground by the measurements of the text may fairly be met by the too little of the hypothesis.

In truth, we have here another of those traits which render manifest, and, I believe, were intended to render manifest and palpable, the ideal character of the whole description. It is of a nature throughout which defies all attempts to bring it within the bounds of the real. Those who have endeavoured so to deal with it have always been obliged to resort to numberless arbitrary suppositions and violent adjustments. And, in particular, the vast compass the prophet so explicitly and distinctly assigns to the whole area, involving a sort of natural incongruity, like the promise of the new David in the prophecies of the restoration, must ever be regarded as an inseparable obstacle to their superficial literalism. It is an incontrovertible evidence that the prophet had something else in his eye than the masonry of stone and lime erections, and was labouring with conceptions which could only find their embodiment in the high realities of God's everlasting kingdom.

We abide, then, by the Hebrew text as the true handwriting of the prophet, the very difficulties of which are a proof of their correctness; and we regard the immense extent of the sacred area as a symbol of the vast enlargement that was to be given to the kingdom of God in the times of Messiah. It was immeasurably to surpass the old in the extent of its territory, and in the number of its adherents, as well as in the purity of its worship. The wall that surrounded the sacred buildings is expressly said, in Ezekiel 42:20, to have been for separating between the holy and profane; not, therefore, as in Revelation 21:12, and very commonly elsewhere, for defence and safety, as indeed its comparative want of elevation might seem to render it unfit for such a purpose. But its square form, and the square appearance of the entire buildings (as in John's city, Revelation 21:16), betokened the strength and solidity of the whole, along with a vast increase in extent and number. A perfect cube, it was the emblem of a kingdom that could not be shaken or removed. And thus every way it exhibited to the eye of faith the true ideal of that pure and glorious temple which, resting on the foundation of the eternal Son, and girt round by all the perfections of Godhead, shall shine forth the best and noblest workmanship of Heaven.