الكتاب المقدس

Expositor's Bible Commentary Ezekiel 46:1 Thus saith the Lord GOD; The gate of the inner court that looketh toward the east shall be shut the six working days; but on the sabbath it shall be opened, and in the day of the new moon it shall be opened. PRINCE AND PEOPLE Ezekiel 44:1-31 ; Ezekiel 45:1-25 ; Ezekiel 46:1-24 , PASSIM IT was remarked in a previous chapter that the "prince" of the closing vision appears to occupy a less exalted position than the Messianic king of chapter 34 or chapter 37. The grounds on which this impression rests require, however, to be carefully considered, if we are not to carry away a thoroughly false conception of the theocratic state foreshadowed by Ezekiel. It must not be supposed that the prince is a personage of less than royal rank, or that his authority is overshadowed by that of a priestly caste. He is undoubtedly the civil head of the nation, owing no allegiance within his own province to any earthly superior. Nor is there any reason to doubt that he is the heir of the Davidic house and holds his office in virtue of the divine promise which secured the throne to David’s descendants. It would therefore be a mistake to imagine that we have here an anticipation of the Romish theory of the subordination of the secular to the spiritual power. It may be true that in the state of things presupposed by the vision very little is left for the king to do, whilst a variety of important duties falls to the priesthood; but at all events the king is there and is supreme in his own sphere. Ezekiel does not show the road to Canossa. If the king is overshadowed, it is by the personal presence of Jehovah in the midst of His people; and that which limits his prerogative is not the sacerdotal power, but the divine constitution of the theocracy as revealed in the vision itself, under which both king and priests have their functions defined and regulated with a view to the religious ends for which the community as a whole exists. Our purpose in the present chapter is to put together the scattered references to the duties of the prince which occur in chapters 44-46 so as to gain as clear a picture as possible of the position of the monarchy in the theocratic state. It must be remembered, however, that the picture will necessarily be incomplete. National life in its secular aspects, with which the king is chiefly concerned, is hardly touched on in the vision. Everything being looked upon from the point of view of the Temple and its worship, there are but few allusions in which we can detect anything of the nature of a civil constitution. And these few are introduced incidentally, not for their own sake, but to explain some arrangement for securing the sanctity of the land or the community. This fact must never be lost sight of in judging of Ezekiel’s conception of the monarchy. From all that appears in these pages we might conclude that the prince is a mere ornamental figurehead of the constitution, and that the few real duties assigned to him could have been equally well performed by a committee of priests or laymen elected for the purpose. But this is to forget that outside the range of subjects here touched upon there is a whole world of secular interests, of political and social action, where the king has his part to play in accordance with the precedents furnished by the best days of the ancient monarchy. Let us glance first of all at Ezekiel’s institutes of the kingdom in its more political relations. The notices here are all in the form of constitutional checks and safeguards against an arbitrary and oppressive exercise of the royal authority. They are instructive, not only as showing the interest which the prophet had in good government and his care for the rights of the subject, but also for the light they cast on certain administrative methods in force previous to the Exile. The first point that calls for attention is the provision made for the maintenance of the prince and his court. It would seem that the revenue of the prince was to be derived mainly, if not wholly, from a portion of territory reserved as his exclusive property in the division of the country among the tribes. { Ezekiel 45:7-8 ; Ezekiel 48:21-22 } These crown lands are situated on either side of the sacred "oblation" around the sanctuary, set apart for the use of the priests and Levites; and they extend to the sea on the west and to the Jordan Valley on the east. Out of these he is at liberty to assign a possession to his sons in perpetuity, but any estate bestowed on his courtiers reverts to the prince in the "year of liberty." The object of this last regulation apparently is to prevent the formation of a new hereditary aristocracy between the royal family and the peasantry. A life peerage, so to speak, or something less, is deemed a sufficient reward for the most devoted service to the king or the state. And no doubt the certainty of a revision of all royal grants every seventh year would tend to keep some persons mindful of their duty. The whole system of royal demesnes, which the king might dispose of as appanages for his younger children or his faithful retainers presents a curious resemblance to a well-known feature of feudalism in the Middle Ages; but it was never practically enforced in Israel. Before the Exile it was evidently unknown, and after the Exile there was no king to provide for. But why does the prophet bestow so much care on a mere detail of a political system in which, as a whole, he takes so little interest? It is because of his concern for the rights of the common people against the high-handed tyranny of the king and his nobles. He recalls the bad times of the old monarchy when any man was liable to be ejected from his land for the benefit of some court favourite, or to provide a portion for a younger son of the king. The cruel evictions of the poorer peasant proprietors, which all the early prophets denounce as an outrage against humanity, and of which the story of Naboth furnished a typical example, must be rendered impossible in the new Israel; and as the king had no doubt been the principal offender in the past, the rule is firmly laid down in his case that on no pretext must he take the people’s inheritance. And this, be it observed, is an application of the religious principle which underlies the constitution of the theocracy. The land is Jehovah’s, and all interference with the ancient landmarks which guard the rights of private ownership is an offence against the holiness of the true divine King who has His abode amongst the tribes of Israel. This suggests developments of the idea of holiness which reach to the very foundations of social well-being. A conception of holiness which secures each man in the possession of his own vine and fig tree is at all events not open to the charge of ignoring the practical interests of common life for the sake of an unprofitable ceremonialism. In the next place we come across a much more startling revelation of the injustice habitually practised by the Hebrew monarchs. Just as later sovereigns were wont to meet their deficits by debasing the currency, so the kings of Judah had learned to augment their revenue by a systematic falsification of weights and measures. We know from the prophet Amos { Amos 8:5 } that this was a common trick of the wealthy landowners who sold grain at exorbitant prices to the poor whom they had driven from their possessions. They "made the ephah small and the shekel great, and dealt falsely with balances of deceit." But it was left for Ezekiel to tell us that the same fraud was a regular part of the fiscal system of the Judaean kingdom. There is no mistaking the meaning of his accusation: "Have done, O princes of Israel, with your violent and oppressive rule; execute judgment and justice, and take away your exactions from My people, saith Jehovah God. Ye shall have just balances, and a just ephah, and a just bath." That is to say, the taxes were surreptitiously increased by the use of a large shekel (for weighing out money payments) and a large bath and ephah (for measuring tribute paid in kind). And if it was impossible for the poor to protect themselves against the rapacity of private dealers, poor and rich alike were helpless when the fraud was openly practised in the king’s name. This Ezekiel had seen with his own eyes, and the shameful injustice of it was so branded on his spirit that even in a vision of the late days it comes back to him as an evil to be sedulously guarded against. It was eminently a case for legislation. If there was to be such a thing as fair dealing and commercial probity in the community, the system of weights and measurement must be fixed beyond the power of the royal caprice to alter it. It was as sacred as any principle of the constitution. Accordingly he finds a place in his legislation for a corrected scale of weights and measures, restored no doubt to their original values. The ephah for dry measure and the bath or liquid measure are each fixed at the tenth part of a homer. "The shekel shall be twenty geras: five shekels shall be five, and ten shekels shall be ten, and fifty shekels shall be your maneh." { Ezekiel 14:12 } These regulations extend far beyond the immediate object for which they are introduced, and have both a moral and a religious bearing. They express a truth often insisted on in the Old Testament, that commercial morality is a matter in which the holiness of Jehovah is involved: "A false balance is an abomination to Jehovah, but a just weight is His delight." { Proverbs 11:1 } In the Law of Holiness an ordinance very similar to Ezekiel’s occurs amongst the conditions by which the precept is to be fulfilled: "Be ye holy, for I am holy." { Leviticus 19:35-36 } It is evident that the Israelites had learned to regard with a religious abhorrence all tampering with the fixed standards of value on which the purity of commercial life depended. To overreach by lying words was a sin: but to cheat by the use of a false balance was a species of profanity comparable to a false oath in the name of Jehovah. These rules about weights and measures required, however, to be supplemented by a fixed tariff, regulating the taxes which the prince might impose on the people. { Ezekiel 14:13-17 } It is not quite clear whether any part of the prince’s own income was to be derived from taxation. The tribute is called an "oblation," and there is no doubt that it was intended principally for the support of the Temple ritual, which in any case must have been the heaviest charge on the royal exchequer. But the oblation was rendered to the prince in the first instance; and the prophet’s anxiety to prevent unjust exactions springs from a fear that the king might make the Temple tax a pretext for increasing his own revenue. At all events the people’s duty to contribute to the support of public ordinances according to their ability is here explicitly recognised. Compared with the provision of the Levitical law the scale of charges here proposed must be pronounced extremely moderate. The contribution of each householder varies from one-sixtieth to one-two-hundredth of his income, and is wholly paid in kind. The proper equivalent under the second Temple of Ezekiel’s "oblation" was a poll-tax of one-third of a shekel, voluntarily undertaken at the time of Nehemiah’s covenant "for the service of the house of our God; for the shew-bread and for the continual meal-offering, and for the continual burnt-offering, of the Sabbaths, of the new moons, for the set feasts, and for the holy things, and for the sin-offerings to make atonement for Israel, and for all the work of the house of our God." { Nehemiah 10:32-33 : cf. Ezekiel 14:15 } In the Priestly Code this tax is fixed at half a shekel for each man. But in addition to this money payment the law required a tenth of all produce of the soil and the flock to be given to the priests and Levites. In Ezekiel’s legislation the tithes and firstfruits are still left for the use of the owner. who is expected to consume them in sacrificial feasts at the sanctuary. The only charge, therefore, of the nature of a fixed tribute for religious purposes is the oblation here required for the regular sacrifices which represent the stated worship rendered on behalf of the community as a whole. This brings us now to the more important aspect of the kingly office-its religious privileges and duties. Here there are three points which require to be noticed. 1. In the first place it is the duty of the prince to supply the material of the public sacrifices of-feted in the name of the people. { Ezekiel 14:17 } Out of the tribute levied on the people for this purpose he has to furnish the altar with the stated number of victims for the daily service, the Sabbaths, and new moons, and the great yearly festivals. It is clear that some one must be charged with the responsibility of this important part of the worship, and it is significant of Ezekiel’s relations to the past that the duty does not yet devolve directly on the priests. They seem to exercise no authority outside of the Temple, the king standing between them and the community as a sort of patron of the sanctuary. But the position of the prince is not simply that of an official receiver, collecting the tribute and then handing it over to the Temple as it was required. He is the representative of the religious unity of the nation, and in this capacity he presents in person the regular sacrifices offered on behalf of the community. Thus on the day of the Passover he presents a sin-offering for himself and the people. as the high priest does in the ceremonial of the Great Day of Atonement. And so all the sacrifices of the stated ritual are his sacrifices, officiating as the head of the nation in its acts of common worship. In this respect the prince succeeds to the rights exercised by the kings of Judah in the ritual of the first Temple, although on a different footing. Before the Exile the king had a proprietary interest in the central sanctuary, and the expense of the stated service was defrayed as a matter of course out of the royal revenues. Part of this revenue, as we see in the case of Joash, was raised by a system of Temple dues paid by the worshippers and expended on the repairs of the house; but at a much later date than this we find Ahaz assuming absolute control over the daily sacrifices, which were doubtless maintained at his expense. Now the tendency of Ezekiel’s legislation is to bring the whole community into a closer and more personal connection with the worship of the sanctuary, and to leave no part of it subject to the arbitrary will of the prince. But still the idea is preserved that the prince is the religious as well as the civil representative of the nation; and although he is deprived of all control over the performance of the ritual, he is still required to provide the public sacrifices and to offer them in the name of his people. 2. In virtue of his representative character the prince possesses certain privileges in his approaches to God in the sanctuary not accorded to ordinary worshippers. In this connection it is necessary to explain some details regulating the use of the sanctuary by the people. The outer court might be entered by prince or people either through the north or south gate, but not from the east. The eastern gate was that by which Jehovah had entered His dwelling-place, and the doors of it are forever closed. No foot might cross its threshold. But the prince-and this is one of his peculiar rights-might enter the gateway from the court to eat his sacrificial meals. It seems therefore to have served the same purpose for the prince as the thirty ceils along the wall did for common worshippers. The east gate of the inner court was also shut, as a rule, and was probably never used as a passage even by the priests. But on the Sabbaths and new moons it was thrown open to receive the sacrifices which the prince had to bring on these days, and it remained open till the evening. On days when the gate was open the worshipping congregation assembled at its door, while the prince entered as far as the threshold and looked on while the priests presented his offering; then he went out by the way he had entered. If on any other occasion he presented a voluntary sacrifice in his private capacity, the east gate was opened for him as before, but was shut as soon as the ceremony was over. On those occasions when the eastern gate was not opened, as at the great annual festivals, the people probably gathered round the north and south gates, from which they could see the altar; and at these seasons the prince enters and departs in the common throng of worshippers. A very peculiar regulation, for which no obvious reason appears, is that each man must leave the Temple by the gate opposite to that at which he entered; if he entered by the north, he must leave by the south, and vice versa. Many of these arrangements were no doubt suggested by Ezekiel’s acquaintance with the practice in the first Temple, and their precise object is lost to us. But one or two facts stand out clearly enough, and are very instructive as to the whole conception of Temple worship. The chief thing to be noticed is that the principal sacrifices are representative. The people are merely spectators of a transaction with God on their behalf, the efficacy of which in no way depends on their co-operation. Standing at the gates of the inner court, they see the priests performing the sacred ministrations; they bow themselves in humble reverence before the presence of the Most High; and these acts of devotion may have been of the utmost importance for the religious life of the individual Israelite. But the congregation takes no real part in the worship; it is done for them, but not by. them; it is on opus operatum performed by the prince and the priests for the good of the community, and is equally necessary and equally valid whether there is a congregation present to witness it or not. Those who attend are themselves but representatives of the nation of Israel, in whose interest the ritual is kept up. But the supreme representative of the people is the king, and we note how everything is done to emphasise his peculiar dignity within the sanctuary. It was necessary perhaps to do something to compensate for the loss of distinction caused by the exclusion of the royal body-guard from the Temple. The prince is still the one conspicuous figure in the outer court. Even his private sacrificial meals are eaten in solitary state, in the eastern gateway, which is used for no other purpose. And in the great functions where the prince appears in his representative character, he approaches nearer to the altar than is permitted to any other layman. He ascends the steps of the eastern gateway in the sight of the people, and passing through he presents his offerings on the verge of the inner court which none but the priests may enter. His whole position is thus one of great importance in the celebration of public ordinances. In detail his functions are no doubt determined by ancient prescriptive usages not known to us, but modified in accordance with the stricter ideal of holiness which Ezekiel’s vision was intended to enforce. 3. Finally, we have to observe that the prince is rigorously excluded from properly priestly offices. It is true that in some respects his position is analogous to that of the high priest under the law. But the analogy extends only to that aspect of the high priest’s functions in which he appears as the head and representative of the religious community, and ceases the moment he enters upon priestly duties. So far as the special degree of sanctity which characterises the priesthood is concerned, the prince is a layman, and as such he is jealously debarred from approaching the altar, and even from intruding into the sacred inner court where the priests minister. Now this fact has perhaps a deeper historical importance than we are apt to imagine. There is good reason to believe that in the old Temple the kings of Judah frequently officiated in person at the altar. At the time when the monarchy was established it was the rule that any man might sacrifice for himself and his household, and that the king as the representative of the nation should sacrifice on its behalf was an extension of the principle too obvious to require express sanction. Accordingly we find that both Saul and David on public occasions built altars and offered sacrifice to Jehovah. The older theory indeed seems to have been that priestly rights were inherent in the kingly office, and that the acting priests were the ministers to whom the king delegated the greater part of his priestly functions. Although the king might not appoint any one to this duty without respect to the Levitical qualification, he exercised within certain limits the right of deposing one family and installing another in the priesthood of the royal sanctuary. The house of Zadok itself owed its position to such an act of ecclesiastical authority on the part of David and Solomon. The last occasion on which we read of a king of Judah officiating in person in the Temple is at the dedication of the new altar of Ahaz, when the king not only himself sacrificed, but gave directions to the priests as to the future observance of the ritual. The occasion was no doubt unusual, but there is not a word in the narrative to indicate that the king was committing an irregular action or exceeding the recognised prerogatives of his position. It would be unsafe, however, to conclude that this state of things continued unchanged till the close of the monarchy. After the time of Isaiah the Temple rose greatly in the religious estimation of the people, and a very probable result of this would be an increasing sense of the importance of the ministration of the official priesthood. The silence of the historical books and of Deuteronomy may not count for much in an argument on this question; but Ezekiel’s own decisions lack the emphasis and solemnity with which he introduces an absolute innovation like the separation between priests and Levites in chapter 44. It is at least possible that the later kings had gradually ceased to exercise the right of sacrifice, so that the privilege had lapsed through desuetude. Nevertheless it was a great step to have the principle affirmed as a fundamental law of the theocracy; and this Ezekiel undoubtedly does. If no other practical object were gained, it served at least to illustrate in the most emphatic way the idea of holiness, which demanded the exclusion of every layman from unhallowed contact with the most sacred emblems of Jehovah’s presence. It will be seen from all that has been said that the real interest of Ezekiel’s treatment of the monarchy lies far apart from modern problems which might seem to have a superficial affinity with it. No lessons can fairly be deduced from it on the relations between Church and State, or the propriety of endowing and establishing the Christian religion, or the duty of rulers to maintain ordinances for the benefit of their subjects. Its importance lies in another direction. It shows the transition in Israel from a state of things in which the king is both de jure and de facto the source of power and the representative of the nation and where his religious status is the natural consequence of his civic dignity, to a very different state of things, where the forms of the ancient constitution are retained although the power has largely vanished from them. The prince now requires to have his religious duties imposed on him by an abstract political system whose sole sanction is the authority of the Deity. It is a transition which has no precise parallel anywhere else, although resemblances more or less instructive might doubtless be instanced from the history of Catholicism. Nowhere does Ezekiel’s idealism appear more wonderfully blended with his equally characteristic conservatism than here. There is no real trace of the tendency attributed to the prophet to exalt the priesthood at the expense of the monarchy. The prince is after all a much more imposing personage even in the ceremonial worship than any priest. Although he lacks the priestly quality of holiness, his duties are quite as important as those of the priests, while his dignity is far greater than theirs. The considerations that enter in to limit his power and importance come from another quarter. They are such as these: first, the loss of military leadership, which is at least to be presumed in the circumstances of the Messianic kingdom; second, the welfare of the people at large; and third, the principle of holiness, whose supremacy has to be vindicated in the person of the king no less than in that of his meanest subject. Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that the transition referred to was not actually accomplished even in the history of Israel itself. It was only in a vision that the monarchy was ever to be represented in the form which it bears here. From the time of Ezekiel no native king was ever to rule over Israel again save the priest-princes of the Asmonean dynasty, whose constitutional position was defined by their high-priestly dignity. Ezekiel’s vision is therefore a preparation for the kingless state of post-exilic Judaism. The foreign potentates to whom the Jews were subject did in some instances provide materials for the Temple worship, but their local representatives were of course unqualified to fill the position assigned to the prince by the great prophet of the Exile. The community had to get along as best it could without a king, and the task was not difficult. The Temple dues were paid directly to the priests and Levites, and the function of representing the community before the altar was assigned to the High Priest. It was then indeed that the High Priesthood came to the front and blossomed out into all the magnificence of its legal position. It was not only the religious part of the prince’s duties that fell to it, but a considerable share of his political importance as well. As the only hereditary institution that had survived the Exile, it naturally became the chief centre of social order in the community. By degrees the Persian and Greek kings found it expedient to deal with the Jews through the High Priest, whose authority they were bound to respect, and thus to leave him a free hand in the internal affairs of the commonwealth. The High Priesthood, in fact, was a civil as well as a priestly dignity. We can see that this great revolution would have broken the continuity of Hebrew history far more violently than it did but for the stepping-stone furnished by the ideal "prince" of Ezekiel’s vision. THE RITUAL Ezekiel 45:1-25 ; Ezekiel 46:1-24 IT is difficult to go back in imagination to a time when sacrifice was the sole and sufficient form of every complete act of worship. That the slaughter of an animal, or at least the presentation of a material offering of some sort, should ever have been considered of the essence of intercourse with the Deity may seem to us incredible in the light of the idea of God which we now possess. Yet there can be no doubt that there was a stage of religious development which recognised no true approach to God except as consummated in a sacrificial action. The word "sacrifice" itself preserves a memorial of this crude and early type of religious service. Etymologically it denotes nothing more than a sacred act. But amongst the Romans, as amongst ourselves, it was regularly applied to the offerings at the altar, which were thus marked out as the sacred actions par excellence of ancient religion. It would be impossible to explain the extraordinary persistence and vitality of the institution amongst races that had attained a relatively high degree of civilisation, unless we understand that the ideas connected with it go back to a time when sacrifice was the typical and fundamental form of primitive worship. By the time of Ezekiel, however, the age of sacrifice in this strict and absolute sense may be said to have passed away, at least in principle. Devout Jews who had lived through the captivity in Babylon and found that Jehovah was there to them "a little of a sanctuary,". { Ezekiel 11:16 } could not possibly fall back into the belief that their God was only to be approached and found through the ritual of the altar. And long before the Exile, the ethical teaching of the prophets had led Israel to appreciate the external rites of sacrifice at their true value. "Wherewithal shall I come before Jehovah, Or bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before Him with burnt-offerings, With calves of a year old? Is Jehovah pleased with thousands of rams, With myriads of rivers of oil?" "Shall I give my firstborn as an atonement for me, The fruit of my body as a sin-offering for my life? He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; And what does Jehovah require of thee, But to do justice and to love mercy, And to walk humbly with thy God?" { Ezekiel 11:16 Micah 6:6-8 } This great word of spiritual religion had been uttered long before Ezekiel, as a protest against the senseless multiplication of sacrifices which came in in the reign of Manasseh. Nor can we suppose that Ezekiel, with all his engrossment in matters of ritual, was insensible to the lofty teaching of his predecessors, or that his conception of God was less spiritual than theirs. As a matter of fact the worship of Israel was never afterwards wholly absorbed in the routine of the Temple ceremonies. The institution of the synagogue, with its purely devotional exercises of prayer and reading of the Scriptures, must have been nearly coeval with the second Temple, and prepared the way far more than the latter for the spiritual worship of the New Testament. But even the Temple worship was spiritualised by the service of praise and the marvellous development of devotional poetry which it called forth. "The emotion with which the worshipper approaches the second Temple, as recorded in the Psalter, has little to do with sacrifice, but rests rather on the fact that the whole wondrous history of Jehovah’s grace to Israel is vividly and personally realised as he stands amidst the festal crowd at the ancient seat of God’s throne, and adds his voice to the swelling song of praise." How then, it may be asked, are we to account for the fact that the prophet shows such intense interest in the details of a system which was already losing its religious significance? If sacrifice was no longer of the essence of worship, why should he be so careful to legislate for a scheme of ritual in which sacrifice is the prominent feature, and say nothing of the inward state of heart which alone is an acceptable offering to God? The chief reason no doubt is that the ritual elements of religion were the only matters, apart from moral duties, which admitted of being reduced to a legal system, and that the formation of such a system was demanded by the circumstances with which the prophet had to deal. The time was not yet come when the principle of a central national sanctuary could be abandoned, and if such a sanctuary was to be maintained without danger to the highest interests of religion it was necessary that its service should be regulated with a view to preserve the deposit of revealed truth that had ‘been committed to the nation through the prophets. The essential features of the sacrificial institutions were charged with a deep religious significance, and there existed in the popular mind a great mass of sound religious impression and sentiment clustering around that central rite. To dispense with the institution of sacrifice would have rendered worship entirely impossible for the great body of the people, while to leave it unregulated was to invite a recurrence of the abuses which had been so fruitful a source of corruption in the past. Hence the object of the ritual ordinances which we are about to consider is twofold: in the first place to provide an authorised code of ritual free from everything that savoured of pagan usages, and in the second to utilise the public worship as a means of deepening and purifying the religious conceptions of those who could be influenced in no other way. Ezekiel’s legislation has a special regard for the wants of the "common rude man" whose religious life needs all the help it can get from external observances. Such persons form the majority of every religious society; and to train their minds to a deeper sense of sin and a more vivid apprehension of the divine holiness proved to be the only way in which the spiritua

The north gate...the south gate. Ezekiel 46:9 North and south in religion J. Leckie, D. D. Ezekiel's temple sets forth the order, grandeur, and beauty of the Church in its vigour, and the life that shall go out from it in floods all over the world. It is the picture of the Gospel of Christ in its social aspect and in its healing and regenerating influence. What can be meant, then, by declaring regarding this temple that those who go in by the south door shall go out by the north, and that those who go in by the north shall go out by the south? A man may enter either by the north deer or the south. There is perfect liberty here. But there is no liberty as to what he shall do after that. He shall go right through. He shall make for the "over against." Has not this a very plain meaning for us — that we should not sit still at that side of religion which first attracted us, not keep going beck over the old ground, but strive to go through the whole breadth of religion. There is a north and a south in religion. There is a bright, sunny side. It is always warm and genial there. And there is a cold, dark side, which only gets the sun on the longest days. Some come in by the one side, and some by the other. Some come with grief and tears, driven by bitter cold or wild blasts. Others come in by the door of hope and joy, drawn by bright promises. They come calm, easy, and radiant, as to an old home which they had never lost. Religion has many opposites, though no contradictions. The Bible is continually speaking of the importance of joining opposites together, such as prayer and praise, working and waiting, digging and crying, resting and running, weeping and rejoicing, past and future, time and eternity. The truth taught in the text, then, is a most practical as well as suggestive one, and one that lies very near to the root of success — that we should go on to the opposite good of that which we possess, not simply further than where we are, but that we should strive to reach and embrace the directly opposite attainment, not leaving or undervaluing what is possessed, but uniting to it that which may seem contrary or which may possibly have been considered by us as wholly antagonistic and incompatible. We shall find that it is these opposites which not only preserve from exaggeration and caricature, but that they are needful even for proper rooting and strength. When one finds out how opposites coalesce and help each other, need each other, claim each other, and are only themselves when they find each other, he is fortified against moral scepticism and against religious unrest. What I contend for is not a compromise, but a junction in which each remains to strengthen and develop the other. Do we wish to see examples of this in human life? Are not great generals who have a power of wide and far arrangement also remarkable for the opposite, the attention to small details? So men who have organised and sustained large mercantile enterprises have been remarkable combinations of opposite qualities, cautious and bold, cool and intense, patient and ardent, careful of little things, observant of the slightest signs, while conceiving great projects. If a painter is happy in outlines, it will not profit him much unless he studies minute effects; if he excels in form, he must try to excel also in colour. Everything in actual life needs its opposite to give it substance, pith, and permanence. We need to be often reminded of this truth, for everyone is inclined to some particular side of things, by temperament, by habit, or surroundings. I. TRUTH. The truth of God has many sides, and there are truths which stand as opposites: whole classes of truths stand as opposites. A healthy, religious life seeks to lay hold of both of these. 1. Religion embraces truths that are mysterious and truths that are clear and plain. Can we be right if we seek merely clear things and neglect the vast mysteries, or if we are fascinated by the mysteries and despise or forget things easy to understand? Every man needs the plainest truths constantly, for religion is not mainly an exercise for the intellect or a discipline for faith, but rest and food for the feeblest. But let no man say, The plain and simple things are all I want; I care not for mysteries. They perplex me; they weigh upon me. I avoid them, I pass them by. Do you really think, then, that you have got hold of these plain truths while you thus act? The plain truths need the vast and unsearchable to give them force. You yourself need to be awed and mastered, ay, even bewildered and perplexed by the inscrutable. 2. There are truths of theory and truths of practice. Let the one class be added to the other. Theology ought to be the most inspiring of all sciences. If you have entered the temple by this door, it is well; but do not stay there. Religion is more than theology. A man may be very theological, and only a very little religious. But you never get a real hold of theology till you learn the elementary experiences of religion. Truly to pray and be contrite, and hold fellowship with God opens up theology. II. WORSHIP. Worship has many sides. It also abounds in opposites. Such are sorrow and joy, hope and fear, prayer and praise, supplication and promise, or resolve. How fully and impartially these are presented in the Word of God; yet how frequent it is for men to cling to one side of worship. How many enter at the north door of entreaty, and never really approach the south door of joy and praise. You must not remain in sorrow. Whoever has brought to God tears, sorrows, fears, doubts, burdens, let him bring great joy. He may find it hard to do this. It is called in the Psalms the sacrifice of joy. And truly it is a sacrifice and often the most costly that one can bring. It may cost you far more to bring joy to God than to bring labour and tears. So to pass over to the side of joy would really be the wholesomest endeavour that many a one could make. It would revolutionise his life. He would be renewed and made a spiritual man in the mere effort to bring to God joy. But there are those who find it easy to be glad and grateful, Depression, the awful burden of sin, bitter tears, or a sorrow that would find relief in tears, they have no experience of. Are they, then, under no obligation to sorrow! Can they ignore all that side of religion? Have they found their way to a region where it is superfluous? That cannot be if they are sinful men. He that does not know the secret of grief must be very much on the surface of things. There are those, again, who have been very earnest for themselves. They have pleaded and wrestled for pardon. They have cried many and many a time with all the earnestness of their nature after renewal, after deliverance from evil and attainment of Divine freedom; they have felt, as a crushing load, the burden of their own souls; but they have never felt the burden of the world's evil and bondage. They must learn to be in thorough earnest about some object, and some person not their own, and that can bring no benefit to them. Only then is a soul truly emancipated, only then, when it takes up God's cause and man's and forgets itself, does it know the greatness of prayer. III. MORAL AND SPIRITUAL LIFE. 1. How common it is to decry feeling and exalt conduct and action. The tendency is certainly right as to the comparative value of these opposites if they are regarded as antagonistic. Action, conduct in the full sense of the word, the action of the man is the end and aim of all. But, on the other hand, feeling is the proper basis of action and conduct. Pity and compassion are feelings; can anyone be acting a wise or noble part who decries or ignores them? Sympathy and benevolence are feelings. Admiration is a feeling. Taken together, these form that supreme feeling called love. Zeal and enthusiasm are feelings. Men who speak slightingly of feeling must surely be uneasy when they reflect on the value which the great human heart sets on these things, and the immense sway they wield. Surely they must be uneasy when they reflect how very differently the Word of God speaks, and how intent it is on expelling wrong feelings and awaking right ones. No! The true course is for men not to excuse or vindicate their want of feeling, but to lament it, to bewail their poverty, and press across that they may become rich. There are those who, on the other hand, rest in emotion, who are pleased with themselves that they are so susceptible, and have such fine, earnest, lofty desires. This is a huge danger. Feeling is for the purpose of action. Those, therefore, who feel strongly should of all men particularly set their hearts on action, on being extremely, thoroughly, minutely practical. It is easier for them than other men to be diligent and thorough. Their glow and enthusiasm ought to give them wings. 2. Devotion and righteousness in like manner stand over against each other; in other words, some are mainly for God, others mainly for man. There are those who feel strongly the claims of God and have a constant drawing to worship. The pleasure they take in devotion is real, but their conscience and their human affections are dormant. They need to have it strongly brought home to them that there is a whole side of things of the utmost moment which they are ignoring, that if a man love God he must love his brother also, and that this is the love of God to keep His commandments. And is not the opposite type frequent? The feeling of this class is expressed in such phrases as, The best worship of God is to do what is right. The best worship of God is to help men. The best worship of God is to be like Him. What shall we say to this? The helping of men may be a worship of God, but it may not. It will not be a worship of God unless there is first, and as the foundation of the life, direct worship of God. God claims direct worship, and the soul needs it. From whence will you draw your inspiration and your power to help men if you do not come into contact with God? ( J. Leckie, D. D. ) The prince in the midst of them, when they go in, shall go in; and when they go forth, shall go forth. Ezekiel 46:10 The Prince in the midst J. J. Wray. The Prince shall mean to us the man Christ Jesus, whom God has exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour. Isaiah calls Him the "Prince of Peace"; and Peter, the "Prince of Life." I don't know where the Prince's central palace is, nor where He holds His court. It is in the far country which no human eye has ever explored; somewhere beyond the unknown seas which no embodied soul can navigate, and from which no traveller has come back to tell the tale. But I live in hope, the hope that stirs many another eager heart, that on some fair morning I shall see this King in His beauty, in the land that won't be far off then! But this verse tells us something quite good enough and bright enough for us to know: "The Prince is in the midst of them." It is not often that the royalties of earth occupy a place like that; some of them are shut up in splendid seclusion. Most men know only the names of the great and noble; all of them are removed from the society of the poor. But our Prince has no preference, no selection, no priority. He is in the midst of His people, and His light and smile are always to be seen. The gifts of His bounty are as free to the man who is lowly, to the sons of poverty, as to the sons of wealth. But it is not everybody who recognises the presence of the Prince when He is here. He may smile as royally as the sunlight, and yet you may be so insensible as never to know He is near. Do you acknowledge His rule? Do you submit to His authority? Do you obey His command? A prince has laws, — do you honour them? A prince has reverence, — do you reverence Him? This Prince covets your affections, — do you love Him? I knew a Christian woman who was always found early in the sanctuary. She was quite deaf, and heard neither song nor sermon. I asked her why she came and whether she was the better for it, and her answer is worth recording: "The communion of saints is sweet in itself, and a neighbour always finds the lessons and the text for me, and the Lord speaks to me, and His voice is very sweet to me." You see that her loyalty brought her into the presence of royalty. The Prince was there to speak, touch, and smile to her. And the Prince in the midst of them when they go in shall go in with them. You see that the loyal hearts that honour Christ bring Him with them. They cross the threshold together with Christ, and sit together with Him in the pew. I am afraid that there is too little of this with us. We should seek to be prepared for the house of prayer beforehand, that we and the Prince may come there hand in hand. "When they go forth." That is the best test of any sanctuary service. Do we carry with us the companion, the guest who says to us as we go forth from the house of God, what He said to Zacchaeus when He called that publican, "I must abide at thy house," thy house. Always understand that where the Prince's subjects are, those who are loyal to Him, in whose hearts He reigns — ruling in the life, — that the Prince is always with them. He does not part company with them at morning prayer; He does not breathe a benediction on them at the family gathering, and then retire to the throne of His glory. But He takes His place, too, in the tram, the 'bus, or the train. He cheers and gives the strength and power to the ordinary doings of the day. If we would but remember to realise this, what a grand and noble business the daily round and common task would be! Don't you think the company and oversight of our Prince is to be desired? I do believe in a religion that has to do with every five minutes of our time. Sure am I that your burdens would be lighter, your cares lessened, your hands strengthened, and your hearts cheered, if you could but feel that your Prince was present to smooth your path and to dwell within prayerful reach of you all the time; and oh! what a defence that would be against the continuity of temptations that assail us through life. I remember reading of a lad who was tempted to steal his master's goods by one of his fellow workmen. "John, you can do so-and-so now; the master has gone now; the master is not in." "No," said the lad, "my Master is always in." Well done, John! that is the true principle of life. His Master was the Prince. Christ had gone into the shop with him. I want you to see that my text is especially grandly and beautifully true in the days of our suffering and trial. If you yourself are called on to drop your tool, to lay down your pen, to retire awhile from actual life, and to prepare for illness, the Prince, when you go in, shall go in too; for there, more than ever, He is near to comfort and to bless. His voice is then so gentle, His touch so tender, and His companionship so sweet. He makes the sick chamber the house of God, and the gate of heaven. And my text says a little more than that. The Prince in the midst of them when they go forth shall go forth too. This is a promise for the traveller. We travel much nowadays; travel rapidly and in a good deal of peril. What a promise for the traveller when he goes forth. He shall go forth too! What a promise for the emigrant as he says "Good-bye" to his friends. "Good-bye, my lad," said an old man whom I knew, to a young fellow, "there is one thing that keeps my heart from breaking and that is that the Lord is with thee, lad." Christ was going forth with the boy! What a promise that is for the youth leaving the parental roof! Or for the evangelist going out to proclaim the Gospel. The Prince is in the midst of them; when they go forth He shall go forth. Is not that a grand promise for us in view of our departure from earth? Our last exit, our going forth from the brief life which is here our portion, will come, perhaps, soon. At the bedside of the dying, Christ enters, and He shall not leave us alone then. I think the record of the goings forth from life of Christians is most encouraging. Rutherford was glorying in God when his very feet were on the shore, and he said , as he went, "I have gotten the victory, and Christ, my Savior, is holding out both arms to embrace me. Why is death called the dark valley, for it grows brighter and brighter, and it is now so bright I have to shut my eyes." His lips parted in a smile. So he went forth, and the Prince went forth with him. Then his eyes were opened, to be shut no more. An English lady visiting the great Exhibition in Paris, was seized with sudden illness. But she longed to be loyal to the Prince whom she had long ago crowned with her heart. In her last moments her speech left her, but she managed to utter a simple word — Bring. Her friends offered her a drink of water, and she said again — Bring. Then they moistened her lips, and prayed. Then they thought she must desire to see some absent friend, and they whispered in her ear that he should be sent for, and she said, with a last effort, "Bring forth the royal diadem, and crown Him Lord of all." And when the Prince, who was in the midst, when she went forth, went — yes, the two went forth together — Christ and the saved soul went forth into the silence of the great unknown. ( J. J. Wray. ) Christ among His people G. M'Michael, B. A. I. CHRIST THE PRINCE. 1. His right. (1) By virtue of Fatherhood, "Son of the Highest." (2) By appointment ( Psalm 2:6 ). 2. His character. Grace not only poured into Christ's lips, but is His distinction and beauty in all respects. Purity supreme; forbearance and tenderness distinguish His dealings; unspeakable condescension and love the spirit of His life. 3. His dominion, "Prince of the kings of the earth." His rule is spiritual. Casts down moral opposition, overcomes enmity, unbelief, thoughts that exalt themselves against God, and brings into captivity to Divine will. II. CHRIST IN THE MIDST OF HIS CHURCH. 1. As a Ruler among His subjects. 2. As a Teacher among His disciples. 3. As a Shepherd among His flock. 4. As a Physician among His patients. 5. As a Husbandman in His vineyard. III. THE INTIMACY OF CHRIST'S FELLOWSHIP. 1. When do we "go in"?(1) At seasons of devotional retirement. Legends of saints sometimes speak of an angel as visible. The reality, though unseen, is more. Christ is with us. Prayer should be very precious; much exercised.(2) When we worship in the sanctuary. Praise. Meditation. Adoration.(3) When afflicted. Christ comforts agitated thoughts, sustains under distressing feelings, lifts mind to things above. To hearts despairing His voice is "like a falling star" — "It is I, be not afraid." 2. When do we "go forth"? (1) To business. Lay our plans in Him. Know His eye is on us. (2) To manifold temptations. "Greater is He who is with us." (3) To all the forms and methods of Christian duty. "Lo, I am with you alway." ( G. M'Michael, B. A. ) Thou shalt daily prepare a burnt offering unto the Lord. Ezekiel 46:13 The Christian's daily sacrifice A. Maclaren, D. D. The old legend that the Grecian host lay weather bound in their port, vainly waiting for a wind to come and carry them to conquest; and that they were obliged to slay a human sacrifice ere the heavens would be propitious and fill their sails, — may be translated into the deepest verity of the Christian life. We may see in it that solemn lesson — no prosperous voyage, and no final conquest until the natural life has been offered up on the altar of hourly self-denial. ( A. Maclaren, D. D. ) Each day needs its sacrifice A. Maclaren, D. D. No one, who plunges himself into the affairs of the world without God, can easily escape out of two sad alternatives. Either he is utterly wearied and disgusted with their triviality, and dawdles out a languid life of supercilious superiority to his work, or else he plunges passionately into it, and, like the ancient queen, dissolves in the cup the precious jewel of his own soul. ( A. Maclaren, D. D. ).

46:1-24 The ordinances of worship for the prince and for the people, are here described, and the gifts the prince may bestow on his sons and servants. Our Lord has directed us to do many duties, but he has also left many things to our choice, that those who delight in his commandments may abound therein to his glory, without entangling their own consciences, or prescribing rules unfit for others; but we must never omit our daily worship, nor neglect to apply the sacrifice of the Lamb of God to our souls, for pardon, peace, and salvation.