Daniel 2:39
And after you shall arise another kingdom inferior to you, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
Jump to: BarnesBensonBICalvinCambridgeClarkeDarbyEllicottExpositor'sExp DctGaebeleinGSBGillGrayHaydockHastingsHomileticsJFBKDKellyKJTLangeMacLarenMHCMHCWParkerPoolePulpitSermonSCOTTBWESTSK
(39) Another kingdom.—These words make it clear that by “the king” in the last verse “kingdom” was meant; or, in other words, Nebuchadnezzar was identified with his kingdom (comp. Daniel 7:5; Daniel 8:3; Daniel 8:20). The second kingdom is the Medo-Persian (as appears more fully below, Exc. E). The inferiority is to be found in the divided character of that empire, as compared with the massive solidity of its predecessor. This is signified in the image, partly by the inferiority of the metal, silver instead of gold, and partly by the symbol of division, the two breasts opposed to the one head. It must not be forgotten that in other respects, such as extent of territory and duration of empire, the Medo-Persian far exceeded the Babylonian kingdom.

Another third.—The metal implies a certain inferiority, but the phrase “shall bear rule over the whole earth” speaks of an empire that extended further than the preceding. This is the Græco-Macedonian Empire (see Exc. E, and comp. Daniel 7:6; Daniel 8:5-7).

Daniel 2:39. After thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee — “It is very well known, that the kingdom which arose after the Babylonian was the Medo-Persian. The two hands and the shoulders signify that the empire of the Babylonians should be destroyed by two kings. The two kings were the kings of the Medes and Persians, whose powers were united under Cyrus, who was son of one of the kings, and son-in-law of the other, and who besieged and took Babylon, put an end to that empire, and erected on its ruin the Medo-Persian, or the Persian, as it is more usually called, the Persians having soon gained ascendency over the Medes. The empire is said to be inferior, as being less than the former, according to the Vulgate translation, because neither Cyrus, nor any of his successors, ever carried their arms into Africa or Spain, so far as Nebuchadnezzar is reported to have done; or rather, as being worse, according to Castalio; for indeed it may be truly asserted, that the kings of Persia were the worst race of men that ever governed an empire. This empire, from its first establishment by Cyrus to the death of Darius Codomanus, lasted not much above two hundred years.” — Bishop Newton.

And another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth — “The prophet,” says Jackson, in his Chronicles, vol. 1. p. 393, “having just mentioned this second kingdom, with great delicacy hastens to the third, because he would not tell the king that the second kingdom was to destroy his.” It is universally known that Alexander the Great subdued the Medes and Persians, and subverted their empire. This prince is said, by the author of the first book of Maccabees, “to be the first that reigned over Greece, after having smitten Darius the king of the Persians and Medes; to have made many wars, won many strong holds, and slain the kings of the earth; also to have gone through to the ends of the earth, and taken the spoils of many nations.” It is reported of this mighty conqueror, that “he built more than seventy cities, twelve of which, or, as Curtius intimates, eighteen, he named Alexandria; that his soldiers, though unarmed, were never afraid, while he was with them, of any armed forces. He engaged no enemy which he did not conquer, besieged no city which he did not take, and made attempts on no nation which he did not entirely subdue.” But all would not satisfy the vast cravings of his ambition, so that the Roman satirist with great justice observed of him,

“Unus Pellæo juveni non sufficit orbis; Æstuat infelix augusto limite mundi.” — Juv. Sat. 10.

One world does not satisfy the Macedonian youth: he chafes unhappy, cooped in the narrow compass of the globe: see Wintle. The kingdom, therefore, which succeeded to the Persian was the Macedonian, or Grecian; and this kingdom was fitly represented by brass, for the Greeks were famous for their brazen armour, their usual epithet being, Χαλκοχιτωνες Αχαιοι, The brazen-coated Greeks. This third kingdom is said to bear rule over all the earth, by a figure usual in almost all authors. Alexander himself commanded that he should be called, The king of all the world; not that he really conquered the whole world, but that he had considerable dominions in Europe, Asia, and Africa, that is, in all the three parts of the world then known. Diodorus Siculus, and other writers, give an account of ambassadors coming from almost all the world, to congratulate him upon his success, or to submit to his empire: and then especially, as Arrian remarks, did Alexander appear to himself, and to those about him, to be master both of all the earth and all the sea. But this third kingdom must be considered as comprehending not only Alexander, but likewise the Macedonian princes who succeeded him. This will appear the more probable, because the former kingdoms comprehended all the succeeding princes of the same house and nation, even till the ruin of their empire, and its translation to the different prince and nation which succeeded to the sovereign power and dominion: see Bishop Newton, and Dr. Chandler’s Vindication of Daniel.2:31-45 This image represented the kingdoms of the earth, that should successively rule the nations, and influence the affairs of the Jewish church. 1. The head of gold signified the Chaldean empire, then in being. 2. The breast and arms of silver signified the empire of the Medes and Persians. 3. The belly and thighs of brass signified the Grecian empire, founded by Alexander. 4. The legs and feet of iron signified the Roman empire. The Roman empire branched into ten kingdoms, as the toes of these feet. Some were weak as clay, others strong as iron. Endeavours have often been used to unite them, for strengthening the empire, but in vain. The stone cut out without hands, represented the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, which should be set up in the kingdoms of the world, upon the ruins of Satan's kingdom in them. This was the Stone which the builders refused, because it was not cut out by their hands, but it is become the head stone of the corner. Of the increase of Christ's government and peace there shall be no end. The Lord shall reign, not only to the end of time, but when time and days shall be no more. As far as events have gone, the fulfilling this prophetic vision has been most exact and undeniable; future ages shall witness this Stone destroying the image, and filling the whole earth.And after thee - This must mean "subsequently" to the reign, but it does not mean that the kingdom here referred to would "immediately" succeed his own reign, for that would not be true. The Medo-Persian empire did not come into the ascendency until many years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar. This occurred during the reign of Belshazzar, a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, between whose reign and that of his grandfather there had intervened the reigns of Evil-merodach and Neriglissar; besides, as the remainder of the prophecy relating to the image refers to "kingdoms," and not to individual monarchs, it is clear that this also relates not primarily to Nebuchadnezzar as an individual, but as the head of a kingdom. The meaning is, that a kingdom would succeed that over which he reigned, so far inferior that it might be represented by silver as compared with gold.

Shall arise another kingdom - Chaldee, "shall stand up (תקוּם teqûm) another kingdom." This is language which would denote something different from a succession in the same dynasty, for that would be a mere "continuance of the same kingdom." The reference is evidently to a change of empire; and the language implies that there would be some revolution or conquest by which the existing kingdom would pass away, and another would succeed. Still there would be so much of sameness in respect to its occupying essentially the same territory, that it would be symbolized in the same image that appeared to Nebuchadnezzar. The kingdom here referred to was undoubtedly the Medo-Persian, established by Cyrus in the conquest of Babylon, which continued through the reigns of his successors until it was conquered by Alexander the Great. This kingdom succeeded that of Assyria or Babylon, 538 years b.c., to the overthrow of Darius Codomanus, 333 years b.c. It extended, of course, through the reigns of the Persian kings, who acted so important a part in the invasion of Greece, and whose defeats have given immortality to the names of Leonidas, Aristides, Miltiades, and Themistocles, and made the names of Salamis, Thermopylae, Marathon, and Leuctra so celebrated. For a general account of Cyrus, and the founding of the Medo-Persian empire, the reader is referred to the notes at Isaiah 41:2.

Inferior to thee - And therefore represented by silver as compared with gold. In what respects it would be inferior, Daniel does not specify, and this can only be learned from "the facts" which occurred in relation to that kingdom. All that is necessary to confirm the truth of the prophetic description is, that it was to be so far inferior as to make the appellation "silver" applicable to it in comparison with the kingdom of Babylon, represented by "gold." The expression would denote that there was a general decline or degeneracy in the character of the monarchs, and the general condition of the empire. There have been different opinions as to the inferiority of this kingdom to the Babylonian. Calvin supposes that it refers to degeneracy. Geir supposes that it relates to the duration of the kingdom - this continuing not more than two hundred and forty years; while the other, including the Assyrian, embraced a period of one thousand five hundred years. Polanus supposes that the meaning is, that the Babylonian had more rest and tranquility; while Junius, Willett, and others understand it of a milder and more humane treatment of the Jews by the Babylonians than the Persians. Perhaps, however, none of these opinions meet the circumstances of the case, for they de not furnish as full an account of the reasons of this inferiority as is desirable. In regard to this, it may be observed,

(a) that it is not to be supposed that this kingdom was to be in "all respects" inferior to the Babylonian, but only that it would have certain characteristics which would make it more appropriate to describe it as "silver" than as "gold." In certain other respects it might be far superior, as the Roman, though in the same general line of succession, was in extent and power superior to either, though there was still a reason why that should be represented by "iron," rather than by gold, by silver, or by brass.

(b) The inferiority did not relate to the power, the riches, or the territorial extent of the Medo-Persian empire, for it embraced, so far as appears, all that was comprehended in the Babylonian empire, and all in addition which was added by the conquests of Cyrus. In his proclamation to rebuild the temple Ezra 1:2, Cyrus speaks of the extent of his empire in language strongly resembling what is applied to the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar. "Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth." Thus also it is said of AhaAhasuerus or Astyages, king of Media - a kingdom that constituted a part of the Medo-Persian empire under Cyrus and his successors, that he "reigned from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and twenty and seven provinces." To the kingdom of Babylon, as he found it when he conquered it, Cyrus of course added the kingdoms of Media and Persia, to the crowns of which he was the heir (see the notes at Isaiah 41:2), and also the various provinces which he had conquered before he came to the throne; that is, Cappadocia, the kingdom of Lydia, and almost the whole of Asia Minor.

(c) Nor can it be supposed that the kingdom was inferior in regard to "wealth," for, in addition to all the wealth that Cyrus found in Babylon, he brought the spoils of his victories; the treasures in the possession of the crowns of Persia and Media, and all the wealth of Croesus, the rich king of Lydia, of which he had become possessor by conquest. In considering the "inferiority" of this kingdom, which made it proper that it should be represented by silver rather than by gold, it is to be borne in mind that the representation should embrace "the whole kingdom" in all the successive reigns, and not merely the kingdom as it was under the administration of Cyrus. Thus regarded, it will comprehend the succession of Persian monarchs until the time of the invasion and conquest of the East by Alexander the Great. The reign of Cyrus was indeed splendid; and if "he" alone, or if the kingdom during his administration, were contemplated, it would be difficult to assign a reason why an appellation should have been given to it implying any inferiority to that of Nebuchadnezzar. The "inferiority" of the kingdom, or what made it proper to represent it by silver rather than by gold, as compared with the kingdom of Babylon, may have consisted in the following particulars:

(1) In reference to the succession of kings who occupied the Persian throne. It is true that the character of Cyrus is worthy of the highest commendation, and that he was distinguished not only as a brave and successful conqueror, but as a mild, able, and upright civil ruler. Xenophon, who wished to draw the character of a model prince, made choice of Cyrus as the example; and though he has not improbably embellished his character by ascribing to him virtues drawn from his own fancy in some degree, yet there can be no doubt that in the main his description was drawn from the life. "The true reason," says Prideaux ("Connections," vol. i. p. 252, Ed. Charlestown, 1815), "why he chose the life of Cyrus before all others for the purpose above mentioned" (that of giving a description of what a worthy and just prince ought to be) "seemeth to be no other but that he found the true history of that excellent and gallant prince to be, above all others, the fittest for those maxims of right policy and true princely virtue to correspond with, which he grafted upon it." But he was succeeded by a madman, Cambyses, and by a race of kings eminent among princes for folly and crime. "The kings of Persia," says Prideaux, "were the worst race of men that ever governed an empire."

(2) The kingdom was inferior in reference to the remarkable "defeats" in the military campaigns which were undertaken. The Assyrian or Babylonian empire was distinguished for the victories by which it carried its arms around the then known world. The Medo-Persian empire, after the reign of Cyrus, was almost as remarkable for the succession of defeats which have made the period of the world during which the empire continued, so well known in history. It is probable that no kingdom ever undertook so many foolish projects in reference to the conquests of other nations - projects so unwisely planned, and that resulted in so signal failures. The successor of Cyrus, Cambyses, invaded Egypt, and his conduct there in carrying on the war was such as to make him be regarded as a madman. Enraged against the Ethiopians for an answer which they gave him when, under pretence of friendship, he sent spies to examine their country, he resolved to invade their territory.

Having come to Thebes, in Upper Egypt, he detached from his army fifty thousand men to go against the Hammonians, with orders to destroy their country, and to burn the temple of Jupiter Hammon that stood in it. After marching a few days in the desert, they were overwhelmed in the sands by a strong south wind, and all perished. Meantime Cambyses marched with the rest of his army against the Ethiopians, though he wanted all the means of subsistence for his army, until, having devoured all their beasts of burden, they were constrained to designate every tenth man of the army to be killed and eaten. In these deplorable circumstances, Cambyses returned to Thebes, having lost a great part of his army in this wild expedition. - Prideaux's "Con." i. 328. It was also during the continuance of this kingdom, that the ill-starred expeditions to Greece occurred, when Mardonius and Xerxes poured the million of Asia on the countries of Greece, and met such signal overthrows at Platea, Marathon, and Salamis. Such a series of disasters never before had occurred to invading armies, or made those who repelled invasion so illustrious. In this respect there was an evident propriety in speaking of this as an inferior or degenerate kingdom.

(3) It was inferior in respect to the growing degeneracy and effeminacy of character and morals. From the time of Xerxes (479 b.c.) "symptoms of decay and corruption were manifest in the empire; the national character gradually degenerated; the citizens were corrupted and enfeebled by luxury; and confided more in mercenary troops than in native valor and fidelity. The kings submitted to the control of their wives, or the creatures whom they raised to posts of distinction; and the satraps, from being civil functionaries, began to usurp military authority." - Lyman, "Hist. Chart."

(4) The kingdom was inferior by the gradual weakening of its power from internal causes. It was not only defeated in its attempts to invade others, and weakened by the degeneracy of the court and people, but, as a natural consequence, by the gradual lessening of the power of the central government, and the growing independence of the provinces. From the time of Darius Nothus (423 b.c.) - a weak, effeminate, and indolent prince - "the satraps of the distant provinces paid only a nominal obedience to the king. Many of them were, in fact, sovereigns over the countries over which they presided, and carried on wars against each other." - Lyman. It was from causes such as these that the power of the kingdom became gradually weakened, and that the way was prepared for the easy conquests of Alexander the Great. Their successive defeats, and this gradual degeneracy and weakening of the kingdom, show the propriety of the description given of the kingdom in the vision and the interpretation - that it would be an "inferior kingdom," a kingdom which, in comparison with that of Babylon, might be compared with silver as compared with gold.

Still it sustained an important relation to the progress of events in regard to the history of religion in the world, and had an important bearing on the redemption of man. As this is the most important bearing of history, and as it was doubtless with reference to this that the mention of it is introduced into the sacred Scriptures, and as it is, in fact, often alluded to by Isaiah, and in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and some of the minor prophets, it may be proper, in the most summary way, to alude to some of those things which pertain to the bearing of this kingdom on the great events connected with redemption, or to what was done during the continuance of this kingdom for the promotion of the true religion. A full account may be found in Prideaux's "Connections," part 1, books iii-vii. Compare Edwards' "History of Redemption," Period I, part vi. The particular things which occurred in connection with this kingdom bearing on the progress of religion, and favorable to its advancement, were these:

(a) The overthrow of Babylon, so long the formidable enemy of the ancient people of God.

(b) The restoration of the exiles to their own land under the auspices of Cyrus, Ezra 1:1.


39. That Medo-Persia is the second kingdom appears from Da 5:28 and Da 8:20. Compare 2Ch 36:20; Isa 21:2.

inferior—"The kings of Persia were the worst race of men that ever governed an empire" [Prideaux]. Politically (which is the main point of view here) the power of the central government in which the nobles shared with the king, being weakened by the growing independence of the provinces, was inferior to that of Nebuchadnezzar, whose sole word was law throughout his empire.

brass—The Greeks (the third empire, Da 8:21; 10:20; 11:2-4) were celebrated for the brazen armor of their warriors. Jerome fancifully thinks that the brass, as being a clear-sounding metal, refers to the eloquence for which Greece was famed. The "belly," in Da 2:32, may refer to the drunkenness of Alexander and the luxury of the Ptolemies [Tirinus].

over all the earth—Alexander commanded that he should be called "king of all the world" [Justin, 12. sec. 16.9; Arrian, Campaigns of Alexander, 7. sec. 15]. The four successors (diadochi) who divided Alexander's dominions at his death, of whom the Seleucidæ in Syria and the Lagidæ in Egypt were chief, held the same empire.

Another kingdom inferior to thee; this was that of the Medes and Persians, inferior in time and succession; in duration, it lasted not half so long as the Assyrian; and in prosperity and tranquillity, for the Persian was fuller of trouble; yet was this wonderfully rich and large for a time, Esther 1:1: this was the breast and arms of silver.

Another third kingdom of brass; this was the Grecian monarchy, under Alexander the Great, who conquered the former, called "the city," because given so much to luxury; brass, because coarser than the other, and their armour was chiefly brass, calkocitonev.

Which shall bear rule over all the earth; therefore this is also called a universal monarchy; for Alexander marched into the Indies, and conquered much of that, (by which he was said to conquer the world,) and wept that he had not another world to conquer: yet; his lasted not long, for he was soon overcome and killed by his worldly lusts. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee,.... This is the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, signified by the breasts and arms of silver, an inferior metal to gold; this rose up, not immediately after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, but after his successors, when Belshazzar his grandson was slain, and Babylon taken by Cyrus; now though this monarchy was as large at the first as the Babylonish monarchy, nay, larger, as it had Media and Persia added to it, new conquests made by Cyrus, and was as rich and as opulent in his times; yet in later kings it shrunk much, in its peace and prosperity, grandeur and glory, as in the times of Cambyses and the Magi; and especially in the reigns of Cyrus the younger, and of Artaxerxes Mnemon; and at last ceased in Darius Codomannus, conquered by Alexander; and was worse than the former monarchy, being more cruel under some of its princes to the people of the Jews:

and another third kingdom of brass: this is the Grecian monarchy, which succeeded the Persian, and therefore called the third kingdom, and is signified by the belly and thighs of brass of the image See Gill on Daniel 2:32;

which shall bear rule over all the earth; not the land of Israel, as Saadiah restrains it, but the whole world, as Alexander did, at least in his own opinion; who thought he had conquered the whole world, and wept because there was not another to conquer; and it is certain he did subdue a great part of it. Justin (n) says,

"that when he was returning to Babylon from the uttermost shores of the sea, it was told him that the embassies of the Carthaginians and other cities of Africa, and also of Spain, Sicily, France, Sardinia, and some out of Italy, were waiting for his coming; the terror of his name so struck the whole world, that all nations complimented him as their king destined for them.''

And Pliny reports (o) of Macedonia, that

"it formerly (that is, in the times of Alexander) governed the world; this (says he) passed over Asia, Armenia, Iberia, Albania, Cappadocia, Syria, Egypt, Taurus, and Caucasus; this ruled over the Bactrians, Medes, and Persians, possessing the whole east; this also was conqueror of India.''

(n) Ex Trogo, l. 12. c. 13. (o) Nat. Hist. l. 4. c. 10.

And after thee shall arise another kingdom {s} inferior to thee, and another {t} third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

(s) Meaning, the Persians who were not inferior in dignity, power, or riches, but were worse with regard to ambition, cruelty, and every type of vice, showing that the world would grow worse and worse, until it was restored by Christ.

(t) That is, those of the Macedonians will be of brass, not alluding to the hardness of it, but to the vileness with regard to silver.

39. The second and third kingdoms are, in all probability, the Median and the Persian. The home of the Medes was in the mountainous country N. and N.E. of Babylon, and S.W. of the Caspian Sea; they are often mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions from the 8th cent. b.c.; but they were first consolidated into an important power by Cyaxares, b.c. 624–584, during whose reign, in 607, they were the chief instruments in bringing about the destruction of Nineveh. Cyaxares was succeeded by Astyages, whose soldiers deserted en masse to Cyrus (b.c. 549); and the empire of the Medes thus passed into the hands of the Persians. Their name was however long remembered; for the Greeks regularly spoke of the Persians as Medes (οἱ Μῆδοι, τὰ Μηδικά). In the book of Daniel the ‘Medes and Persians’ are, it is true, sometimes represented as united (Daniel 5:28, Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:15, cf. Daniel 8:20): but elsewhere they are represented as distinct; after the fall of Babylon, Darius ‘the Mede’ ‘receives the kingdom’ (Daniel 5:31), and acts in it as king (Daniel 6:1-2; Daniel 6:15; Daniel 6:25-26); he reigns for a time—it is not said how long—and is succeeded by Cyrus, who is called pointedly ‘the Persian’ (Daniel 6:28; cf. Daniel 10:1, and contrast Daniel 9:1, Daniel 11:1); the two horns of the ram in Daniel 8:3 are distinguished from each other, one (representing the Persian empire) being higher (i.e. more powerful) than the other (the Median empire), and coming up after it. Thus in the view of the author of the book, the more powerful rule of Persia is preceded by a ‘kingdom’ of the Medes, beginning immediately after the death of Belshazzar. It is possible that this representation is based upon the prediction in Isaiah 13:17, Jeremiah 51:11; Jeremiah 51:28, that the Medes would be the conquerors of Babylon. If the second kingdom be the Median, the third will be that of Persia; it is described as ruling ‘over all the earth,’ with allusion to the wide empire of Cyrus and his successors, which embraced virtually the whole of Western Asia (including Asia Minor) and Egypt (cf. the note on Daniel 4:1, at the end). Compare in the O.T. Ezra 1:2, Esther 1:1; Esther 10:1.

inferior to thee] lit. lower than thou.Verse 39. - And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. None of the versions presents any difficulties, or gives occasion for any remark, save the Vulgate, which inserts argenteum, as if reading כספ. The word used, "kingdom," not "king," shows, without possibility of reasonable dispute, that in identifying Nebuchadnezzar with the head of gold, the reference is not to him per-serially, but to him as representing his dynasty. The next dynasty is said to be inferior, that is to say, nearer the ground אָרְעָא (ar'a), which is certainly true of the shoulders in relation to the head. Not only does the inferior metal imply inferiority, but the inferior position dues so also. The metal is omitted here, but stated in the next clause, Another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. The metal is here referred to, but not the position; there is no need to say it is inferior - that is implied when it is said to be a kingdom of brass. We need only refer to what we have said above, as to the fact that "brass" here really means "copper." As the inferiority stated in the first clause is omitted in the second, so the statement made at the end, which grammatically applies only to the third kingdom, applies also to the second. It is only as, in a sense, bearing rule over the whole earth, that any monarchy comes into this statue at all. When we look at these two, we find certainly the two arms suggesting and rendering emphatic a twofoldness of some sort in this power. The fact that, in the description of the statue, the word translated "belly" (מעוהי) is plural, suggests, along with the two thighs, the idea of four-foldness. Faintly is this suggestion made, but the exigencies of the figure must be considered. The Sacrificial Kitchens for the Priests and for the People

Ezekiel 46:19. And he brought me up the entrance by the shoulder of the gate to the holy cells for the priests, which looked to the north; and behold there was a place on the outermost side toward the west. Ezekiel 46:20. And he said to me, This is the place where the priests boil the trespass-offering and the sin-offering, where they bake the meat-offering that they may not need to carry it out into the outer court, to sanctify the people. Ezekiel 46:21. And he led me out into the outer court, and caused me to pass by the four corners of the court; and behold, in every corner of the court there was again a court. Ezekiel 46:22. In the four corners of the court were closed courts of forty cubits in length and thirty cubits in breadth; all four corner spaces had one measure. Ezekiel 46:23. And a row of stands was round about therein in all four, and boiling hearths were under the rows made round about. Ezekiel 46:24. And he said to me, These are the kitchen-house, where the servants of the house boil the slain-offering of the people. - In the list and description of the subordinate buildings of the temple, the sacrificial kitchens are passed over; and they are therefore referred to here again in a supplementary manner. Ewald has shifted Ezekiel 46:19-24, and placed them after Ezekiel 42:14, which would certainly have been the most suitable place for mentioning the sacrificial kitchens for the priests. But it is evident that they stood here originally, and not there; not only from the fact that in Ezekiel 46:19 the passage to the holy cells (Ezekiel 42:1.) is circumstantially described, which would have been unnecessary if the description of the kitchens had originally followed immediately after Ezekiel 42:14, as Ezekiel was then standing by the cells; but also, and still more clearly, from the words that serve as an introduction to what follows, "he led me back to the door of the house" (Ezekiel 47:1), which are unintelligible unless he had changed his standing-place between Ezekiel 46:18 and Ezekiel 47:1, as is related in Ezekiel 46:19 and Ezekiel 46:21, since Ezekiel had received the sacrificial thorah (Ezekiel 44:5-46:18) in front of the house (Ezekiel 44:4). If Ezekiel 46:19-24 had originally stood elsewhere, so that Ezekiel 47:1 was immediately connected with Ezekiel 46:18, the transition-formula in Ezekiel 47:1 would necessarily have read very differently. - But with this section the right of the preceding one, Ezekiel 46:16-18, which Ewald has arbitrarily interpolated in Ezekiel 45 between Ezekiel 45:8 and Ezekiel 45:9, to hold its present place in the chapter before us as an appendix, is fully vindicated. - The holy cells (Ezekiel 46:19) are those of the northern cell-building (Ezekiel 42:1-10) described in Ezekiel 42:1-14 (see Plate I L). בּמּבוא is the approach or way mentioned in Ezekiel 42:9, which led from the northern inner gate to these cells (see Plate I l); not the place to which Ezekiel was brought (Kliefoth), but the passage along which he was led. The spot to which he was conducted follows in אל (the article before the construct state, as in Ezekiel 43:21, etc.). אל הכּהנים is appended to this in the form of an apposition; and here לשׁכות is to be repeated in thought: to those for the priests. 'הפּנות צ belongs to הלשׁכות. There, i.e., by the cells, was a space set apart at the outermost (hindermost) sides toward the west (Plate I M), for the boiling of the flesh of the trespass-offering and sin-offering, and the baking of the minchah, - that is to say, of those portions of the sacrifices which the priests were to eat in their official capacity (see the comm. on Ezekiel 42:13). For the motive assigned in Ezekiel 46:20 for the provision of special kitchens for this object, see the exposition of Ezekiel 44:19.

In addition to these, kitchens were required for the preparation of the sacrificial meals, which were connected with the offering of the shelamim, and were held by those who presented them. These sacrificial kitchens for the people are treated of in Ezekiel 46:20-24. They were situated in the four corners of the outer court (Plate I N). To show them to the prophet, the angel leads him into the outer court. The holy cells (Ezekiel 46:19) and the sacrificial kitchens for the priests (Ezekiel 46:20) were also situated by the outside wall of the inner court; and for this reason Ezekiel had already been led out of the inner court, where he had received the sacrificial thorah, through the northern gate of the court by the way which led to the holy cells, that he might be shown the sacrificial kitchens. When, therefore, it is stated in Ezekiel 46:21 that "he led me out into the outer court," יוציאני can only be explained on the supposition that the space from the surrounding wall of the inner court to the way which led from the gate porch of that court to the holy cells, and to the passage which continued this way in front of the cells (Plate I l and m), was regarded as an appurtenance of the inner court. In every one of the four corners of the outer court there was a (small) courtyard in the court. The repetition of 'חצר בּמקצע הח has a distributive force. The small courtyards in the four corners of the court were קטרות, i.e., not "uncovered," as this would be unmeaning, since all courts or courtyards were uncovered; nor "contracted" (Bttcher), for קטר has no such meaning; nor "fumum exhalantia," as the Talmudists suppose; nor "bridged over" (Hitzig), which there is also nothing in the language to sustain; but in all probability atria clausa, i.e., muris cincta et janius clausa (Ges. Thes.), from קטר; in Aram. ligavit; in Ethiop. clausit, obseravit januam. The word מהקצעות is marked with puncta extraordinaria by the Masoretes as a suspicious word, and is also omitted in the Septuagint and Vulgate. Bttcher and Hitzig have therefore expunged it as a gloss. But even Hitzig admits that this does not explain how it found its way into the text. The word is a Hophal participle of קצע, in the sense of cornered off, cut off into corners, and is in apposition to the suffix to לארבּעתּם, - literally, one measure wax to all four, the spaces or courtyards cut off in the corners. For this appositional use of the participle, compare 1 Kings 14:6. There is also a difference of opinion as to the meaning of the word טוּר, which only occurs here and in Exodus 28:17. and Ezekiel 39:10, where it signifies "row," and not "enclosure" (Kliefoth). טירות, which follows, is evidently merely the feminine plural, from טוּר, as טירה is also derived from טוּר, in the sense of "to encircle" (see the comm. on Psalm 69:26). Consequently טוּר does not mean a covering or boundary wall, but a row or shelf of brickwork which had several separate shelves, under which the cooking hearths were placed. מבשּׁלות, not kitchens, but cooking hearths; strictly speaking a partic. Piel, things which cause to boil. - בּית המּבשּׁלים - .liob ot e, kitchen house. משׁרתּי הבּית, the temple servants, as distinguished from the servants of Jehovah (Ezekiel 44:15-16), are the Levites (Ezekiel 44:11-12). עשׂוּי is construed as in Ezekiel 40:17 and Ezekiel 41:18-19.

Daniel 2:39 Interlinear
Daniel 2:39 Parallel Texts

Daniel 2:39 NIV
Daniel 2:39 NLT
Daniel 2:39 ESV
Daniel 2:39 NASB
Daniel 2:39 KJV

Daniel 2:39 Bible Apps
Daniel 2:39 Parallel
Daniel 2:39 Biblia Paralela
Daniel 2:39 Chinese Bible
Daniel 2:39 French Bible
Daniel 2:39 German Bible

Bible Hub

Daniel 2:38
Top of Page
Top of Page