Eze 47:22 | KD | STEP | Eze 47:13. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, This is the boundary according to which ye shall divide the land among you for an inheritance, for Joseph portions. Eze 47:14. And ye shall receive it for an inheritance, one as well as another, because I lifted up my hand to give it to your fathers; and thus shall this land fall to you for an inheritance. Eze 47:15. And this is the boundary of the land: toward the north side, from the great sea onwards by the way to Chetlon, in the direction of Zedad; Eze 47:16. Hamath, Berotah, Sibraim, which is between the boundary of Damascus and the boundary of Hamath, the central Hazer, which is on the boundary of Haruan. Eze 47:17. And the boundary from the sea shall be Hazar-Enon, the boundary town of Damascus; and as for the north northwards, Hamath is the boundary. This, the north side. Eze 47:18. And the east side between Hauran and Damascus and Gilead and the land of Israel, shall be the Jordan; from the boundary to the eastern sea ye shall measure. This, the east side. Eze 47:19. And the south side toward the south; from Tamar to the water of strife, Kadesh, along the brook to the great sea. This, the south side toward the south. Eze 47:20. And the west side; the great sea from the boundary to Hamath. This, the west side. Eze 47:21. This land shall ye divide among you according to the tribes of Israel. Eze 47:22. And it shall come to pass, ye shall divide it by lot among yourselves for an inheritance, and among the foreigners who dwell in the midst of you, who have begotten sons in the midst of you; they shall be to you like natives born among the sons of Israel; they shall cast lots with you for an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. Eze 47:23. And it shall come to pass, in the tribe in which the foreigner dwells, there shall ye give him his inheritance, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah. The fixing of the boundary of the land which Israel was to divide in future according to its twelve tribes is commenced ( and ) and concluded ( and ) with certain general statements concerning the distribution. The introductory statements are attached to the heading “this is the boundary,” which is therefore repeated in Eze 47:15. גּה is evidently a copyist’s error for זה, which is adopted by all the older translators, contained in some Codd ., and demanded by וזה in Eze 47:15. גּבוּל stands here for the whole of the boundary of the land to be distributed; and אשׁר which follows is an accusative, “according to which.” - ”According to the twelve tribes,” - for all Israel is to return and dwell as one people of God under one prince in its own land (Eze 36:24., Eze 37:21.). But the division among the twelve tribes is more precisely defined immediately afterwards by the clause abruptly appended, “Joseph portions,” i.e., two portions for Joseph. There can be no doubt that this is the meaning of the words in accordance with and , Jos 17:17. Hence the notice-like form of the expression, which should not be obliterated by pointing חבלים as a dual, חבלים. If the land was to be divided by lot according to twelve tribes, and the tribe of Levi was to receive its portion from the terumah which was set apart, Joseph must necessarily receive two hereditary portions for his sons Ephraim and Manasseh, in accordance with the appointment of the patriarch in Gen 48:22. The commencement of is not at variance with this, as Hitzig imagines; for the words, “ye shall receive it for an inheritance, one as another,” simply affirm, that of the twelve tribes reckoned by Israel in relation to the נחלה, all were to receive equal shares, the one as much as the other. As the reason for this command to divide the land, allusion is made to the oath with which God promised to give this land to the fathers (cf. ). The definition of the boundaries commences with Eze 47:15. In form it differs in many points from Num 34:1-5, but in actual fact it is in harmony with the Mosaic definition. In Num 34 the description commences with the southern boundary, then proceeds to the western and northern boundaries, and closes with the eastern. In Ezekiel it commences with the northern boundary and proceeds to the east, the south, and the west. This difference may be explained in a very simple manner, from the fact that the Israelites in the time of Moses came from Egypt i.e., marching from the south, and stood by the south-eastern boundary of the land, whereas at this time they were carried away into the northern lands Assyria and Babylon, and were regarded as returning thence. Again, in Ezekiel the boundaries are described much more briefly than in Num 34, the northern boundary alone being somewhat more circumstantially described. The course which it takes is represented in a general manner in as running from the great sea, i.e., the Mediterranean, by the way to Chetlon, in the direction toward Zedad. In and there follow the places which formed the boundary. The starting-point on the Mediterranean Sea can only be approximately determined, as the places mentioned, Chetlon and Zedad, are still unknown. Not only Chetlon , but Zedad also, has not yet been discovered. The city of Sadad ( Sudud ), to the east of the road leading from Damascus to Hums (Emesa), which Robinson and Wetzstein suppose to be the same, lies much too far toward the east to be used in defining the boundary either here or in Num 34:8 (see the comm. on Num 34:8). Among the names enumerated in , חמת is not the city of Hamah on the Orontes, which lay much too far to the north, but the kingdom of Hamath , the southern boundary of which formed the northern boundary of Canaan, though it cannot be given with exactness. Berothah is probably identical with Berothai in , a city of the king of Zobah; but the situation of it is still unknown. Sibraim may perhaps be identical with Ziphron in Num 34:9, which has also not yet been discovered, and is not to be sought for in the ruins of Zifran , to the north-east of Damascus, near the road to Palmyra; for that place could not form the boundary of Damascus and Hamath. The situation of the “central Hazer ” has also not yet been determined. Hauran , on the boundary of which it stood, is used here in a more comprehensive sense that ̓Αυρανῖτις in Josephus and other Greek authors, and includes the later Auranitis , together with Gaulanitis (Golan) and Batanaea (Bashan), and probably also Ituraea , as only Damascus and Gilead are named in in addition to Hauran, on the east side of the Jordan; so that the whole tract of land between the territory of Damascus and the country of Gilead is embraced by the name Hauran. חורן, Arab. Hawrân , is derived from the number of caves (חור, חוּר) in that district, to which Wetzstein ( Reiseber . p. 92) indeed raises the objection that with the exception of the eastern and south-eastern Hauran, where no doubt most of the volcanic hills have been perforated by troglodytes, the dwellings in caves are by no means common in that region. But the name may have originated in this eastern district, and possibly have included even that portion of Gilead which was situated to the north of the Jabbok, namely, Erbed and Suët , the true cave-country. For further remarks concerning these districts, see the comm. on and Deu 3:10. The statement in , “the boundary from the sea shall be Hazar-Enon , the boundary of Damascus,” cannot have any other meaning than that the northern boundary, which started from the Mediterranean Sea, stretched as far as Hazar - Enon , the frontier city of Damascus, or that Hazar-Enon formed the terminal point on the east, toward the boundary of Damascus, for the northern boundary proceeding from the sea. חצר עינון or חצר עינן (Num 34:9), i.e., spring-court, we have endeavoured to identify in the comm. on Num 34:3 with the spring Lebweh , which lies in the Bekâa at the watershed between the Orontes and the Leontes; and the designation “the boundary of Damascus” suits the situation very well. has been aptly explained by Hitzig thus, in accordance with the literal meaning of the words, “and as for the north north-wards, Hamath is the boundary,” which he further elucidates by observing that צפונה is intended as a supplementary note to the boundary line from west to east, which is indicated just before. ואת פּאת צפון is a concluding formula: “this, the north side.” But ואת (here and and ) is not to be altered into זאת after and the Syriac version, as Hitzig supposes, but to be explained, as clearly shows, on the supposition that Ezekiel had תּמודּוּ, “ye shall measure,” floating before his mind, to which 'ואת פ, “and that the northern boundary,” would form a correct logical sequel. The eastern boundary is defined in v. 18 in the same manner as in Num 34:10-12, except that in the latter it is more minutely described above the Lake of Gennesaret by the mention of several localities, whereas Ezekiel only names the Jordan as the boundary. - פּאת , with supplementary remarks, is not to be taken as the predicate to the subject היּרדּן, as Hitzig has correctly observed; for the meaning of פּאה does not allow of this. The explanation is rather this: as for the east side, between Hauran, etc. and the land of Israel, is the Jordan. Hauran, Damascus, and Gilead lie on the east side of the Jordan, the land of Israel on the west side. The striking circumstance that Ezekiel commences with Hauran, which lay in the middle between Damascus and Gilead, - Hauran, Damascus, and Gilead, instead of Damascus, Hauran, and Gilead, - may probably be explained from the fact that the Jordan, which he names as the boundary, for the sake of brevity, did not extend so far upwards as to the territory of Damascus, but simply formed the boundary of the land of Israel between Hauran and Gilead. מגּבוּל points back to the northern boundary already mentioned. From this boundary, the eastern terminal point of which was Hazar-Enon , they are to measure to the eastern sea, i.e., to the Dead Sea. Eze 47:19. The southern boundary toward the south is to proceed from Tamar to the water of strife, Kadesh, (and thence) along the brook to the great (i.e., Mediterranean) sea. Tamar , a different place from Hazazon-tamar , called Engedi in (cf. ), is supposed to be the Thamara (Θαμαρά), which was a day’s journey on the road from Hebron to Aelam ( Aelath , ; 1Ki 9:26), according to Eusebius in the Onomast . ed. Lars. p. 68, and had a Roman garrison; and Robinson ( Pal . III pp. 178 and 186ff.) accordingly conjectures that it is to be found in the ruins of Kurnub , which lie six hours’ journey to the south of Milh , toward the pass of es-Sufâh . But this conjecture is bound up with various assumptions of a very questionable character, and the situation of Hurnub hardly suits the Tamar of our passage, which should be sought, not to the west of the southern point of the Dead Sea, but, according to the southern boundary of Canaan as drawn in Num 34:3-5, to the south of the Dead Sea. The waters of strife of Kadesh (Num 20:1-13), in the desert of Zin, were near Kadesh-barnea, which was in the neighbourhood of the spring Ain Kades , discovered by Rowland to the south of Bir-Seba and Khalasa by the fore-courts of Jebel Helal , i.e., at the north-west corner of the mountain land of the Azazimeh (see the comm. on Num 10:12; Num 12:16, and Num 20:16). Instead of מריבות we have the singular מריבת in , as in Num 27:14 and Deu 32:51. נחלה is to be pointed נחלה, from נחל with ה loc .; and the reference is to the brook of Egypt; the great wady el-Arish ( ̔Ρινοκορουρα), along which the southern boundary of Canaan ran from Kadesh to the Mediterranean Sea (see the comm. on ). - Eze 47:20. The Mediterranean Sea formed the western boundary. מגּבוּל, i.e., from the southern boundary mentioned in till opposite (עד) to the coming to Hamath, i.e., till opposite to the point at which one enters the territory of Hamath (Hitzig), i.e., the spot mentioned in (? ) as the commencement of the northern boundary in the neighbourhood of the promontory of esh-Shûkah between Byblus (Gebal) and Tripolis. - Eze 47:21. This land they are to divide among them according to their tribes. With this remark, which points back to , the definition of the boundaries is brought to a close. There is simply added in and a further regulation concerning the foreigners living in Israel. The law of Moses had already repeatedly urged upon the Israelites affectionate treatment of them, and in the command is given to treat them like natives in this respect, and to love them. But the full right of citizenship was not thereby conceded to them, so that they could also acquire property in land. The land was given to the Israelites alone for an hereditary possession. Foreigners could only be incorporated into the congregation of Israel under the limitations laid down in , by the reception of circumcision. But in the future distribution of the land, on the contrary, the גּרים were to receive hereditary property like native-born Israelites; and in this respect no difference was to exist between the members of the people of God born of Abraham’s seed and those born of the heathen. At the same time, this right was not to be conferred upon every foreigner who might be only temporarily living in Israel, but to those alone who should beget sons in the midst of Israel, i.e., settle permanently in the holy land. The Kal יפּלוּ is not to be altered into the Hiphil תּפּילוּ, as Hitzig proposes, but is used in the sense of receiving by lot, derived from the Hiphil signification, “to apportion by lot.”

‏ Ezekiel 47:22

Boundaries of the Land to be Divided among the Tribes of Israel.

Eze 47:13. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, This is the boundary according to which ye shall divide the land among you for an inheritance, for Joseph portions. Eze 47:14. And ye shall receive it for an inheritance, one as well as another, because I lifted up my hand to give it to your fathers; and thus shall this land fall to you for an inheritance. Eze 47:15. And this is the boundary of the land: toward the north side, from the great sea onwards by the way to Chetlon, in the direction of Zedad; Eze 47:16. Hamath, Berotah, Sibraim, which is between the boundary of Damascus and the boundary of Hamath, the central Hazer, which is on the boundary of Haruan. Eze 47:17. And the boundary from the sea shall be Hazar-Enon, the boundary town of Damascus; and as for the north northwards, Hamath is the boundary. This, the north side. Eze 47:18. And the east side between Hauran and Damascus and Gilead and the land of Israel, shall be the Jordan; from the boundary to the eastern sea ye shall measure. This, the east side. Eze 47:19. And the south side toward the south; from Tamar to the water of strife, Kadesh, along the brook to the great sea. This, the south side toward the south. Eze 47:20. And the west side; the great sea from the boundary to Hamath. This, the west side. Eze 47:21. This land shall ye divide among you according to the tribes of Israel. Eze 47:22. And it shall come to pass, ye shall divide it by lot among yourselves for an inheritance, and among the foreigners who dwell in the midst of you, who have begotten sons in the midst of you; they shall be to you like natives born among the sons of Israel; they shall cast lots with you for an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. Eze 47:23. And it shall come to pass, in the tribe in which the foreigner dwells, there shall ye give him his inheritance, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah.

The fixing of the boundary of the land which Israel was to divide in future according to its twelve tribes is commenced (Eze 47:13 and Eze 47:14) and concluded (Eze 47:22 and Eze 47:23) with certain general statements concerning the distribution. The introductory statements are attached to the heading “this is the boundary,” which is therefore repeated in Eze 47:15. גּה is evidently a copyist’s error for זה, which is adopted by all the older translators, contained in some Codd., and demanded by וזה in Eze 47:15. גּבוּל stands here for the whole of the boundary of the land to be distributed; and אשׁר which follows is an accusative, “according to which.” - ”According to the twelve tribes,” - for all Israel is to return and dwell as one people of God under one prince in its own land (Eze 36:24., Eze 37:21.). But the division among the twelve tribes is more precisely defined immediately afterwards by the clause abruptly appended, “Joseph portions,” i.e., two portions for Joseph. There can be no doubt that this is the meaning of the words in accordance with Gen 48:22 and Jos 17:14, Jos 17:17. Hence the notice-like form of the expression, which should not be obliterated by pointing חבלים as a dual, חבלים. If the land was to be divided by lot according to twelve tribes, and the tribe of Levi was to receive its portion from the terumah which was set apart, Joseph must necessarily receive two hereditary portions for his sons Ephraim and Manasseh, in accordance with the appointment of the patriarch in Gen 48:22. The commencement of Eze 47:14 is not at variance with this, as Hitzig imagines; for the words, “ye shall receive it for an inheritance, one as another,” simply affirm, that of the twelve tribes reckoned by Israel in relation to the נחלה, all were to receive equal shares, the one as much as the other. As the reason for this command to divide the land, allusion is made to the oath with which God promised to give this land to the fathers (cf. Eze 20:28).

The definition of the boundaries commences with Eze 47:15. In form it differs in many points from Num 34:1-5, but in actual fact it is in harmony with the Mosaic definition. In Num 34 the description commences with the southern boundary, then proceeds to the western and northern boundaries, and closes with the eastern. In Ezekiel it commences with the northern boundary and proceeds to the east, the south, and the west. This difference may be explained in a very simple manner, from the fact that the Israelites in the time of Moses came from Egypt i.e., marching from the south, and stood by the south-eastern boundary of the land, whereas at this time they were carried away into the northern lands Assyria and Babylon, and were regarded as returning thence. Again, in Ezekiel the boundaries are described much more briefly than in Num 34, the northern boundary alone being somewhat more circumstantially described. The course which it takes is represented in a general manner in Eze 47:15 as running from the great sea, i.e., the Mediterranean, by the way to Chetlon, in the direction toward Zedad. In Eze 47:16 and Eze 47:17 there follow the places which formed the boundary. The starting-point on the Mediterranean Sea can only be approximately determined, as the places mentioned, Chetlon and Zedad, are still unknown. Not only Chetlon, but Zedad also, has not yet been discovered. The city of Sadad (Sudud), to the east of the road leading from Damascus to Hums (Emesa), which Robinson and Wetzstein suppose to be the same, lies much too far toward the east to be used in defining the boundary either here or in Num 34:8 (see the comm. on Num 34:8). Among the names enumerated in Eze 47:16, חמת is not the city of Hamah on the Orontes, which lay much too far to the north, but the kingdom of Hamath, the southern boundary of which formed the northern boundary of Canaan, though it cannot be given with exactness. Berothah is probably identical with Berothai in 2Sa 8:8, a city of the king of Zobah; but the situation of it is still unknown. Sibraim may perhaps be identical with Ziphron in Num 34:9, which has also not yet been discovered, and is not to be sought for in the ruins of Zifran, to the north-east of Damascus, near the road to Palmyra; for that place could not form the boundary of Damascus and Hamath. The situation of the “central Hazer” has also not yet been determined. Hauran, on the boundary of which it stood, is used here in a more comprehensive sense that ̓Αυρανῖτις in Josephus and other Greek authors, and includes the later Auranitis, together with Gaulanitis (Golan) and Batanaea (Bashan), and probably also Ituraea, as only Damascus and Gilead are named in Eze 47:18 in addition to Hauran, on the east side of the Jordan; so that the whole tract of land between the territory of Damascus and the country of Gilead is embraced by the name Hauran. חורן, Arab. Hawrân, is derived from the number of caves (חור, חוּר) in that district, to which Wetzstein (Reiseber. p. 92) indeed raises the objection that with the exception of the eastern and south-eastern Hauran, where no doubt most of the volcanic hills have been perforated by troglodytes, the dwellings in caves are by no means common in that region. But the name may have originated in this eastern district, and possibly have included even that portion of Gilead which was situated to the north of the Jabbok, namely, Erbed and Suët, the true cave-country. For further remarks concerning these districts, see the comm. on Deu 3:4 and Deu 3:10. The statement in Eze 47:17, “the boundary from the sea shall be Hazar-Enon, the boundary of Damascus,” cannot have any other meaning than that the northern boundary, which started from the Mediterranean Sea, stretched as far as Hazar-Enon, the frontier city of Damascus, or that Hazar-Enon formed the terminal point on the east, toward the boundary of Damascus, for the northern boundary proceeding from the sea. חצר עינון or חצר עינן (Num 34:9), i.e., spring-court, we have endeavoured to identify in the comm. on Num 34:3 with the spring Lebweh, which lies in the Bekâa at the watershed between the Orontes and the Leontes; and the designation “the boundary of Damascus” suits the situation very well. Eze 47:17 has been aptly explained by Hitzig thus, in accordance with the literal meaning of the words, “and as for the north north-wards, Hamath is the boundary,” which he further elucidates by observing that צפונה is intended as a supplementary note to the boundary line from west to east, which is indicated just before. ואת פּאת צפון is a concluding formula: “this, the north side.” But ואת (here and Eze 47:18 and Eze 47:19) is not to be altered into זאת after Eze 47:20 and the Syriac version, as Hitzig supposes, but to be explained, as Eze 47:18 clearly shows, on the supposition that Ezekiel had תּמודּוּ, “ye shall measure,” floating before his mind, to which 'ואת פ, “and that the northern boundary,” would form a correct logical sequel.

The eastern boundary is defined in v. 18 in the same manner as in Num 34:10-12, except that in the latter it is more minutely described above the Lake of Gennesaret by the mention of several localities, whereas Ezekiel only names the Jordan as the boundary. - פּאת , with supplementary remarks, is not to be taken as the predicate to the subject היּרדּן, as Hitzig has correctly observed; for the meaning of פּאה does not allow of this. The explanation is rather this: as for the east side, between Hauran, etc. and the land of Israel, is the Jordan. Hauran, Damascus, and Gilead lie on the east side of the Jordan, the land of Israel on the west side. The striking circumstance that Ezekiel commences with Hauran, which lay in the middle between Damascus and Gilead, - Hauran, Damascus, and Gilead, instead of Damascus, Hauran, and Gilead, - may probably be explained from the fact that the Jordan, which he names as the boundary, for the sake of brevity, did not extend so far upwards as to the territory of Damascus, but simply formed the boundary of the land of Israel between Hauran and Gilead. מגּבוּל points back to the northern boundary already mentioned. From this boundary, the eastern terminal point of which was Hazar-Enon, they are to measure to the eastern sea, i.e., to the Dead Sea.

Eze 47:19. The southern boundary toward the south is to proceed from Tamar to the water of strife, Kadesh, (and thence) along the brook to the great (i.e., Mediterranean) sea. Tamar, a different place from Hazazon-tamar, called Engedi in Eze 47:10 (cf. 2Ch 20:2), is supposed to be the Thamara (Θαμαρά), ^{▼▼The statement runs thus: λέγεται δέ τις Θαμαρά κώμη διεστώσα Μάψις ἡμέρας ὁδόν, ἀπιόντων ἀπὸ Χεβρὼν εἰς Αἰλάμ, ἥτις νῦν φρούριόν ἐστι τῶν στρατιωτῶν. In Jerome: est et aliud castellum, unius diei itinere a Mampsis oppido separatum, pergentibus Ailiam de Chebron, ubi nunc romanum praesidium positum est. But on account of the Μάψις (Mampsis), which is evidently a corruption, the passage is obscure. Robinson’s conjecture concerning Thamara is founded upon the assumption that the reading should be Μάλις, and that this is the Malatha mentioned by later writers as the station of a Roman cohort.} which was a day’s journey on the road from Hebron to Aelam (Aelath, Deu 2:8; 1Ki 9:26), according to Eusebius in the Onomast. ed. Lars. p. 68, and had a Roman garrison; and Robinson (Pal. III pp. 178 and 186ff.) accordingly conjectures that it is to be found in the ruins of Kurnub, which lie six hours’ journey to the south of Milh, toward the pass of es-Sufâh. But this conjecture is bound up with various assumptions of a very questionable character, and the situation of Hurnub hardly suits the Tamar of our passage, which should be sought, not to the west of the southern point of the Dead Sea, but, according to the southern boundary of Canaan as drawn in Num 34:3-5, to the south of the Dead Sea. The waters of strife of Kadesh (Num 20:1-13), in the desert of Zin, were near Kadesh-barnea, which was in the neighbourhood of the spring Ain Kades, discovered by Rowland to the south of Bir-Seba and Khalasa by the fore-courts of Jebel Helal, i.e., at the north-west corner of the mountain land of the Azazimeh (see the comm. on Num 10:12; Num 12:16, and Num 20:16). Instead of מריבות we have the singular מריבת in Eze 48:28, as in Num 27:14 and Deu 32:51. נחלה is to be pointed נחלה, from נחל with ה loc.; and the reference is to the brook of Egypt; the great wady el-Arish ( ̔Ρινοκορουρα), along which the southern boundary of Canaan ran from Kadesh to the Mediterranean Sea (see the comm. on Eze 34:5). - Eze 47:20. The Mediterranean Sea formed the western boundary. מגּבוּל, i.e., from the southern boundary mentioned in Eze 47:19 till opposite (עד) to the coming to Hamath, i.e., till opposite to the point at which one enters the territory of Hamath (Hitzig), i.e., the spot mentioned in Eze 47:20 (? 17) as the commencement of the northern boundary in the neighbourhood of the promontory of esh-Shûkah between Byblus (Gebal) and Tripolis. - Eze 47:21. This land they are to divide among them according to their tribes. With this remark, which points back to Eze 47:13, the definition of the boundaries is brought to a close. There is simply added in Eze 47:22 and Eze 47:23 a further regulation concerning the foreigners living in Israel. The law of Moses had already repeatedly urged upon the Israelites affectionate treatment of them, and in Lev 19:34 the command is given to treat them like natives in this respect, and to love them. But the full right of citizenship was not thereby conceded to them, so that they could also acquire property in land. The land was given to the Israelites alone for an hereditary possession. Foreigners could only be incorporated into the congregation of Israel under the limitations laid down in Deu 23:2-9, by the reception of circumcision. But in the future distribution of the land, on the contrary, the גּרים were to receive hereditary property like native-born Israelites; and in this respect no difference was to exist between the members of the people of God born of Abraham’s seed and those born of the heathen. At the same time, this right was not to be conferred upon every foreigner who might be only temporarily living in Israel, but to those alone who should beget sons in the midst of Israel, i.e., settle permanently in the holy land. The Kal יפּלוּ is not to be altered into the Hiphil תּפּילוּ, as Hitzig proposes, but is used in the sense of receiving by lot, derived from the Hiphil signification, “to apportion by lot.”