(The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Translated from the original Hebrew, with a Commentary, Critical, Philological, and Exegetical. By E. Henderson, D.D. London, Hamilton, Adams & Co.)
Reviews.
Bible Treasury, 2nd. Edition, Volume 1, July 1857.
(1st. Edition, July [01 1857 215])
[01 1857 211]
Jeremiah and Daniel, with the son of Buzi, were the great prophets of the captivity, as indeed they were in part contemporaries of one another, however they differed in their position and in the work which God gave each to do.
In Jeremiah we see a heart surcharged with grief, as he looked on the sin and misery and imminent judgement of the beloved people of God. Willing to plead that he was a child who could not speak, he is called to go to all that the Lord should send him, and to speak whatsoever He should command — a prophet unto the nations, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build and to plant. Man — Jeremiah himself — would not have so ordered his path, for his was a timid spirit, which would gladly have retired into a lodging-place in the wilderness apart, and there have melted away in weeping for the daughter of his people. But God chose this man of tender sympathies to be the vessel of His terrible denunciations, and caused the one who interceded with the deepest feeling for Judah to know that all was in vain to stay the ruin. The iniquity was full, with less and less of heart to repent, and increasing rejection of God and His testimony, as he had to learn in his own sorrowful experience. Jerusalem, then, and David's house, having proved hopelessly wicked, nothing remained but judgement — a judgement which extends in principle to all nations. (Jer. 25) These nations are given into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, who should at the close be judged like the rest. Thus while Jeremiah exhorts to entire submission to the divine judgement, the destruction of Babylon is most fully and minutely declared. There is no account of the successive empires, as such, but solely of that one which God had raised up to set aside His own people and king, who had now become His worst dishonour, and the scandal of all the Gentiles. But the downfall of Jerusalem involved, that of the various independent nations, who revolved, in the ways of God, around that centre. Jeremiah shows, accordingly, the rise of Babylon into its peculiar place, but also its fall, as the occasion of a deliverance of the captive people: the pledges of a vaster judgement, and of a more glorious restoration at the end of the age.
It was the lot of Daniel, while still assigning a singularly marked niche to Babylon, to develop, by the Holy Ghost, the whole course of the Gentile powers, "the times of the Gentiles," who should, one after another, tread down Jerusalem. In other words, Daniel surveys the very serious and interesting parenthesis,* during which God suspended His direct government of the earth, hitherto connected with David's house in Jerusalem, and retreating into His sovereignty, as God of heaven, committed universal power apart from His calling and presence, to Nebuchadnezzar and his successors. Of this momentous, but too little estimated, change, Daniel is the grand witness in the Old Testament. He fills up the interval during which God's proper and immediate governance of the earth ceases. There had been a feeble testimony to His earthly government in Israel, which was set aside for a time by the Babylonish captivity. There will be the fulfilment of His rule when the last holder of the dominion, which was entrusted first to Nebuchadnezzar, shall fall under His judgement, God dealt with the world, not merely in providence, but through Israel, before the existence of the system symbolised by the statue of Dan. 2. He will deal with the world, after the extinction of this system by the little stone cut without hands. The intervening space is occupied with the rejection of Israel, and the contemporaneous supremacy of the imperial nations.
{* In a certain sense it was of all periods the most solemn and affecting; for it was during these times, as all know, that a remnant of the Jews returned in connection with and dependence on their heathen lords, and in due time had the responsibility and the guilt of rejecting their own Messiah. But all this is unnoticed by Ezekiel.}
Evidently, therefore, the prophecy of Daniel fits into the space which is left open in the book of Ezekiel, who gives us most striking and instructive pictures of the state of things before and after the great image, but overleaps all between. Thus, at the beginning, we see that when the city, and even the sanctuary, became the scene of ungodliness and idolatry, Nebuchadnezzar takes Jerusalem, and the glory of God visits and abandons it. (Ezek. 1 – Ezek. 11.) At the end, (Ezek. 40 – Ezek. 48), it is equally clear that the glory returns, never to depart from the land and people, as long as God has relations with the earth. Accordingly, all the rest of the book bears out and confirms this first and prominent lesson, which no spiritual reader can fail to discern. There is a remarkably full display of the government of God here below, and this in Israel as His earthly centre. The earlier half of the book is devoted chiefly to proving and rebuking the sin which necessitated the judgement, and so much the more because God was there as a governor. The latter part dwells rather upon His ways with Israel to restore them fully as His people, reveals the judgement of those nations who should venture to dispute His rights in connection with Israel, and predicts the establishment of the temple and all pertaining to it, as well as the final division of the land for the people, suitably to the glory of God and the rule of the true David.
Hence, in Ezekiel, you have no longer the man whose heart was broken, as he viewed the insensibility of God's people, not only to their exceeding sin, but to the yearnings of the Spirit over them, if peradventure they might yet repent. Our prophet sees the people thoroughly obdurate, so as to be no longer morally appealed to, no longer open even to rebuke. And therefore it is that in Ezekiel we find that the time is come to announce that the Lord could not act on the principles of His ancient dealings with Israel, and a new line of conduct is set forth. Individual conscience is appealed to; each must be judged according to his own ways. (Compare Ezek. 18, and Ezek. 33.) The condition of the individual before God is everything now that the nation is judged. And if judgement is threatened and executed on all nations, beginning with Jerusalem, the object is that all may know the Lord — know Him by His vengeance, as Israel will also by the accomplishment of His word.
Another consequence that flows from the governmental aspect in which Israel and Jerusalem are looked at in Ezekiel is, that Christ's coming in humiliation is never spoken of there. His glory we have, but not His sufferings. Indeed, properly speaking, the second advent of Christ is not described any more than His first. The results of His presence, His judgements, His reigning in the midst of Israel, are prominent; but neither His cross nor His coming again in the clouds of heaven. Judgement of sin borne by the rejected Messiah is nowhere the thought, but the judicial dealing of the Lord with His people and the nations. A remnant is set apart and spared, and the reserve of God's sovereign grace is disclosed, whereby all is changed where all was lost, and He can and will restore His people and bless them according to all His heart, under the sway of the rightful king. "And my servant David shall be their prince for ever."
Again, from considering the diverse objects of these prophecies, we discover the true solution of their peculiarities. Thus, it is noticed by Dr. H. "that among the predictions against the enemies of the covenant-people, we find none directed against Babylon." But he adds an explanation which ought never to have proceeded from a christian pen — "to what this is to be ascribed, it is difficult to imagine, except it arose from a desire not to give unnecessary offence to the government under which the prophet lived" (p. 9). Is it possible that one who writes thus can rightly hold that Ezekiel was inspired, and his writings the word of God? And, in the next place, if any prophet could have been supposed to be actuated by such motives, it was Daniel, who resided, not in the country only, but in the capital, nay, who stood in the palace of Babylon's most imperious king. Does he shrink from uttering the dirge of Babylon? The very contrary. In the second chapter he opens to the king fearlessly the true meaning of his dream, and in his interpretation — far from weakening — he gives a very personal force to the head of the great image — "Thou art this head of gold;" and closes all with the declaration that an indestructible kingdom, set up by the God of heaven, should consume all these kingdoms, as the little stone was seen to break in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold. Still more pointed is Dan. 4, where Daniel interprets for the king the dream which made Nebuchadnezzar afraid, and filled the prophet with mute astonishment for a short season. And no wonder. Yet did not the prophet shrink from explaining that it was he, Nebuchadnezzar himself, who for his pride of power was doomed to be the object of the most terrible humiliation which the Most High ever inflicted, though mercy was to triumph over judgement in the end. But, thirdly, the judicial scope of Ezekiel required him, under the guidance of the Spirit, to introduce the king of Babylon, not as the first of the bestial empires, (which was reserved for another prophet who predicted it under circumstances still more calculated to silence him, if human prudence ruled,) but as the servant of the Lord in executing judgement upon the apostate people of God, no less than the Gentiles. Ezekiel brings us up to the point when imperial supremacy was entrusted to the king of Babylon, but gives us neither the destruction of that city, nor much less the history and judgement of the imperial power. Jeremiah, in accordance with the Spirit's design by him, gives us the former, (Jer. 50, Jer. 51); Daniel gives us both with the utmost precision (Dan. 2:35, 45; Dan. 5, Dan. 7:4). That is, Ezekiel gives us the preliminary struggles of the king of Egypt, who wished to be the great imperial head, but fell, as the Assyrian had already fallen, and Nebuchadnezzar received that place in the sovereign disposal of God. But having got there, Ezekiel stops, and again brings forward the ways of God with Israel, when He in the last days falls back on His grace, judges all their oppressors, and re-establishes them as His nation in holiness and glory before all the earth. Therefore it is that the end of his prophecy presents such a full view of God's final dealings with Israel and the Gentiles, the sanctification of His name in their midst, the proof of His grace, and the return of His glory to rest on an immutable basis. Daniel, on the contrary, just leads you to the brink of this bright era, and there he concludes, his subject being the course, character, and judgement of the great Gentile empires, as related to the Jews.
There is no reference, therefore, in this prophecy, to what is called "the spiritual kingdom," as men so often deduce from Ezek. 17:22-24, or from the closing vision. Elsewhere are indications of mercy to the Gentiles; and that during Israel's temporary blindness, but they are foreign to the purpose of God in Ezekiel. Isaiah and Hosea furnished prophetic hints, of which the Holy Ghost, who inspired them, makes fruitful use, when the due time came, by the ministry of the apostle Paul. Here it is another character of events and visions and revelations, which have for their foundation God removing His government from Israel, and God re-establishing it there before all nations. All is fitly closed by the description of a sanctuary, its ritual, and other appurtenances, adapted to an earthly though regenerate people, to Israel on earth, and in no way, nor time, to the Church of the first-born which are written in heaven.
Dr. Henderson is "constrained to abide by the idea of a literal temple," and so far is he right. "That it was the restoration of the material temple, then in ruins, that the prophet had in his eye, is the only hypothesis which fully meets the exigency of the case." Indeed, one has only to read the comments of such as Gill, etc., to see how inevitably the so-called spiritual interpretation drives its advocates into plain and positive contradiction of the New Testament. For the priests are, in this scheme, made to represent christian ministers! An idea more incompatible, not only with the true place of the believer and christian ministry, but with the grace of God as now displayed in the gospel, can scarcely be imagined. This will serve to show how a false prophetic notion invariably tends, if systematically carried out, to overthrow the work or the person of Christ. All errors probably tend to the same point when confronted with the full light of God; but happily His mercy keeps His saints from working them out to their mature and deadly consequences.
Now, it is striking to observe how God has graciously guarded against this spurious spiritualism no less than against Dr. H.'s idea that it refers to what was restored after the return from the Babylonish captivity — a return, by the way, which Ezekiel does not notice. For most important changes are here anticipated, embracing things sacred and political. The divisions of the land among the twelve tribes did not differ more from the ancient arrangement, than did the predicted temple; sacrifices, feasts, etc., from the previous order of Moses and of David. That the feeble remnant under Ezra and Nehemiah rebuilt the city and the sanctuary, according to this pattern, and conformed to these predicted innovations, is contrary to all the evidence of scripture which we possess; and we have ample light upon the restoration, both in a civil and in a religious point of view. The gathering of Israel from the heathen and out of all countries, the remnant knew too well, had not taken place; nor had the gracious work of God in cleansing and renewing them been yet accomplished, much less had the earthly blessings of the kingdom been vouchsafed. (Ezek. 36) The dry bones were still unquickened; Ephraim and Judah were as far apart as ever. (Ezek. 37) Nor had the last Gentile foe, Gog, made his appearance on the mountains of Israel. (Ezek. 38-39). There was no pretence to parcel out the land as Ezekiel prescribed, nor to build a temple according to his magnificent scale. It was a day of small things and the ancient men that had seen the former house wept, when the foundation of the post-captivity temple was laid before their eyes. But among the people who shouted for joy, not one, we presume, fell into so great mistake as Dr. H. Who of these Jews, untaught and unspiritual as most were, could have thought that they who had mercy extended to them in the sight of the Persian kings, to set up the house of God and its desolations, and to have a wall in Judah and Jerusalem, were beholding a temple, whose earthly grandeur was to transcend the house of Solomon, far more than the house which he built outshone the lowly tabernacle of the wilderness?
On the other hand, we agree with Dr. H. that a matter-of-fact sanctuary is meant. The more a reader "studies it, and the more he enters into the minutiae, with the greater force does the conviction rivet itself in his mind. Talk to him about spiritual and mystical meanings, you puzzle and bewilder him. He may admire your ingenuity, and be brought to be half inclined to embrace your theory, but he cannot, after all, rid himself of the notion of a material building and literal ordinances" (p. 189). This is true, and cannot be got rid of by the mysticists. But it is more important to observe that, in the feasts, Pentecost or the feast of weeks has no place. This fact, and it is not the only one of the sort, destroys the notion that the present dispensation was meant. For notoriously that feast is, above all others, the type of the Christian position, which is founded on the death and resurrection of Christ, and characterised by the presence of the Spirit. Doubtless, in the millennium, the Spirit will be poured out on all flesh. Still however blessed a privilege that may be, the presence of Christ the king is much more distinctively what marks the age to come — the answer of glory to the sufferings of the Messiah. Accordingly, as the millennial age is here meant, we have the indispensable Passover and the Tabernacles then fulfilled; but no Pentecost — an absence most unaccountable, if the bearing were to foreshadow the place and privilege of the Church now, but perfectly natural if the future and earthly reign of Christ were intended.
There are many to whom the idea of a material temple, of earthly priesthood, and literal sacrifices, bloody and unbloody, is repulsive, and this not only in the abstract, but because each and all seem opposed to the letter and the spirit of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But these Christians forget that that epistle addresses the "partakers of the heavenly calling," and supposes persons in separation from the mass of the Jewish nation. Suffering on earth, and in relation with Christ on high, in no way applies to the state of things which Ezekiel takes for granted; for there it is Israel, as such who are brought into blessing on earth, reigned over by their long-expected king, and their every foe judged, so as to sanctify and make known Jehovah to all the earth.
Nor is it just to say that such a restitution of earthly rites, etc., is to retrograde. It would be so if men compare the Church's portion, even now, with that of millennial Israel or the Gentiles; but such a comparison is unfair. Rightly viewed, there is decided and most blessed progress in the ways of God. We have had Israel tried and found wanting. We have the Church proved, and still proving itself, just as unfaithful to its high calling and responsibilities. The millennium will be the manifestation of God's kingdom, in both its parts, "earthly things," as well as "heavenly." And what advance more precious or conspicuous! The Church, which had failed here below, will be displayed in unfailing glory above; and Israel, hitherto so rebellious, shall be called the holy people, the redeemed of the Lord, their city no longer forsaken, nor their land desolate. Thus it is a partial view which creates the difficulty. Divine revelation, as a whole, preserves the earthly people and the heavenly Church in their due spheres, without confusion; and shows that in the age to come there will be no more retrogression than in God's past dispensations. For us, no doubt, it would be going back, but not for Israel, who will then offer intelligently that which sets forth the work of their Messiah.
In a word, then, faith leaves room for all the words of God, and waits on the Spirit for wisdom in applying them. The tendency of Popery has ever been to find in the Christian Church the accomplishment of such prophecies of earthly glory, as are found in Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc. And Popery is in this more consistent than Protestantism; for Popery regards Christianity as an elongation of, and improvement on, the Jewish economy, and finds an earthly high priest, priests, Levites, temple, sacrifices, fasts, feasts, etc., answering to those of the Mosaic system. Protestantism discards all these in profession, if not in practice; but as it in general denies the future and distinctive place of Israel, it arrogates to itself that coveted prize of earthly exaltation, and is thus forced to adopt the mystical principle of interpretation. If not, it falls back on the strange praeterism of Dr. H, which can only see in Gog the past history of Antiochus Epiphanes, and in the glowing pictures of the sanctuary and the land and city the prefiguring of what was done under Ezra and Nehemiah. It is clear that such exposition exposes the word of God to the charge of the grossest exaggeration, and helps on the growing incredulity of these last days. To faith it makes little difference whether God speaks of the past or of the future: the believer cordially accepts all He says and loves to look for a bright morrow.