The verb עֲמָמֻהוּ (ʿămāmûhû), a Qal perfect third-person common plural with a third-person masculine singular suffix, is more vivid than a simple assertion that the cedars did not equal the great tree. Derived from עמם (ʿmm), “to be dark” or “to grow dim,” it depicts the cedars as unable to cast this tree into shadow or eclipse its prominence. The sense is therefore well represented by translations such as “could not rival it,” but the underlying image remains one of visual overpowering: even the lofty cedars, ordinarily the standard of arboreal majesty, could not diminish its radiance or stature. The following cola employ the more ordinary comparative language of resemblance: the cypresses “did not resemble” (לֹא דָמוּ, lōʾ dāmû) its boughs, and the plane trees were not like its branches. The opening verb thus supplies the heightened first stroke of a carefully escalating description. No tree in “the garden of God” could match its beauty. In the immediate allegory, the tree is Assyria (vv. 3, 9), whose imperial grandeur is rehearsed before Pharaoh and Egypt are warned that the same exaltation leads to the same descent (vv. 10–18). The wording does not commend Assyria’s pride; it magnifies the height from which divine judgment brought it down. “Garden of God” is clarified in v. 9 as Eden, the garden of God. Ezekiel uses Edenic language not to identify Assyria with a historical tree in primordial Eden, but to portray its God-given splendor in superlative, creational terms. The tree surpassed even the cedars associated with that ideal garden, yet its beauty was itself bestowed by God (v. 9). Thus the metaphor of being impossible to eclipse intensifies the irony of the oracle: the empire that seemed beyond comparison was nevertheless felled by the sovereign God who had made it magnificent.

The object is an altar in its cultic identity, yet it is called “the table that stands before the LORD” because it belongs immediately before Yahweh’s presence and is understood as a furnishing of priestly service rather than as ordinary furniture. The noun מִזְבֵּחַ (mizbeach, “altar”) introduces the object, while the interpreting speaker definitively identifies it as הַשֻּׁלְחָן (hashshulḥan, “the table”). The expression לִפְנֵי יְהוָה (“before the LORD”) marks its location and consecrated function at the threshold of the inner sanctuary. Its wooden construction, projecting “corners” (מִקְצֹעוֹת), and elevated form distinguish it from a domestic table and indicate a sanctuary altar, most naturally corresponding in function to the altar of incense placed before the veil in the Mosaic tabernacle (Exod 30:1–6). The designation “table” does not require the conclusion that Ezekiel has simply fused the incense altar with the table of the bread of the Presence. Scripture can describe an altar as the Lord’s table, particularly because offerings presented there are set before God and signify covenantal fellowship; Malachi 1:7, 12 explicitly calls the altar “the table of the LORD.” Moreover, an altar need not be named from animal sacrifice in every setting: the incense altar is itself an altar, though its regular offering is incense. Ezekiel’s vision does not separately describe a bread table or lampstand, and the omission has prompted proposals of a combined furnishing; but the text neither mentions bread nor assigns bread-table duties to this object. Its primary identification remains an inner wooden altar, while “table before the LORD” interprets its liturgical significance as the appointed place of presentation in the divine presence.

The repeated מֻנָּח (munnaḥ) does not denote an offering but the strip of space “left free” around the temple structure. It is a Hophal passive participle of נוח (nûaḥ), “to rest, be set down,” used substantivally: the area that has been set aside or left over. Thus the side-chamber entrances opened toward this reserved space, one facing north and one south, while the space itself measured five cubits in width all around the building. Rendering the term “offering” confuses it with מִנְחָה (minḥâ), the ordinary Hebrew word for a grain offering; the consonants and morphology here do not support that meaning. The immediate context determines the referent. Verse 9 has already described a five-cubit width of מֻנָּח, located between the outer wall of the side chambers and the temple structure; verse 10 then distinguishes an additional twenty-cubit area associated with the priests’ chambers. In v. 11 the doors of the side chambers open outward toward the five-cubit strip, not inward toward the sanctuary. The repeated “all around” (סָבִיב סָבִיב, sābîb sābîb) emphasizes that this was a continuous surrounding margin, serving the architectural separation of the temple house and its subsidiary rooms. The description contributes to Ezekiel’s sustained concern that the holy house be ordered, bounded, and protected from unauthorized encroachment.

The phrase does not identify the coastlands themselves as goods shipped to Tyre; it presents them as belonging to Tyre’s sphere of commercial exchange. The construct expression סְחֹרַת יָדֵךְ (seḥorat yādeḵ), literally “the trade/merchandise of your hand,” uses “hand” idiomatically for Tyre’s active commercial agency and control. Thus the many אִיִּים (ʾiyyîm), “coastlands” or maritime lands, are portrayed as markets and trading connections handled by Tyre’s mercantile power. English renderings that state that these regions “traded with” Tyre convey the sense, though they smooth the more forceful Hebrew image of Tyre’s hand extending over a wide network of coastal commerce. This wording advances the chapter’s portrayal of Tyre as the hub of an international trading system. The “sons of Dedan” are named as Tyre’s רֹכְלַיִךְ (rokelayik), “merchants,” while the coastlands are added as a broad maritime constituency participating in her trade. Their return-payment is specified as “horns of ivory and ebony.” “Horns of ivory” denotes elephant tusks, and הָבְנִים (hobenîm) is ebony, not “sons,” despite the identical consonantal form in the unpointed text. The Hiphil perfect הֵשִׁיבוּ (hēšîbû), “they brought back” or “rendered,” with אֶשְׁכָּרֵךְ (ʾeškārēḵ), denotes recompense or payment in exchange, not a voluntary gift. The verse therefore magnifies both the geographic extent of Tyre’s trade and the luxury character of the goods flowing into her commercial center.

Ezekiel 18:8 characterizes the righteous Israelite as one who refuses profit from a neighbor’s financial vulnerability, rather than setting forth an undifferentiated ban on every commercial return from capital. The two expressions, “at interest” (banešek; nešek) and “increase” (tarbît), are joined to make the prohibition comprehensive in the setting envisioned: he neither gives money in a loan designed to exact interest nor receives an added increment from it. Nešek, literally something that “bites,” commonly denotes interest as a burdensome exaction; tarbît denotes an increase or multiplication. Their pairing closely echoes Leviticus 25:36–37, where an Israelite is forbidden to take nešek or tarbît from an impoverished brother who must be sustained. Ezekiel therefore treats this economic restraint as an indispensable mark of covenant righteousness, alongside refusal of idolatry, adultery, oppression, theft, and judicial falsehood. The immediate context favors loans to fellow Israelites in need, not an abstract treatment of all investment or trade. The Torah itself distinguishes lending to an Israelite brother from lending to a foreigner in Deuteronomy 23:19–20, and its concern is repeatedly that debt not become an instrument by which the poor are depleted or enslaved. Consequently, Ezekiel’s language cannot responsibly be used to erase every distinction between a charitable subsistence loan and a lawful commercial arrangement. Yet the verse is not thereby weakened into a mere condemnation of unusually high rates. The righteous man does not seek gain where another’s distress has created dependence. The following clauses, “he withdraws his hand from injustice” and “he executes true judgment between man and man,” identify the governing principle: economic dealings, like judicial decisions, must be ordered by covenantal justice and faithful dealing, not by self-enrichment at a neighbor’s expense.

The clause does not render Ezekiel’s proclamation indifferent or unnecessary; it declares that his commission is to announce God’s word faithfully while the hearers’ divergent responses disclose their settled relation to that word. The definite participle הַשֹּׁמֵעַ (haššōmēaʿ, “the one hearing”) followed by the imperfect יִשְׁמָע (yišmaʿ, “will hear”) forms a compressed characterization: the responsive hearer will receive the message. Its counterpart, הֶחָדֵל (heḥādēl), denotes the one who holds back or refuses, and יֶחְדָּל (yeḥdāl) states that such a person will persist in refusal. The construction is declarative, not imperative; it does not say that Ezekiel may cease addressing the unresponsive. This wording echoes the repeated alternatives in Ezekiel 2:5—“whether they hear or whether they refuse”—and must be read alongside the watchman charge in 3:16–21. There the prophet remains accountable to warn the wicked, even when the warning is rejected. Thus the present statement limits neither the scope of Ezekiel’s address nor the seriousness of Israel’s guilt. Rather, it removes from the prophet responsibility for producing repentance: the Lord opens Ezekiel’s mouth and supplies the message, whereas Israel’s hearing or refusal belongs to its moral response before God. The final rationale, “for they are a house of rebellion” (בֵּית־מְרִי, bêṯ-merî), explains why refusal is an expected and prominent outcome. Yet it is not a declaration that no individual can hear. The juxtaposition of “the one hearing” and “the one refusing” preserves the real distinction among those confronted by the divine word, while identifying the nation corporately by its prevailing covenant rebellion. Divine sovereignty in opening the prophet’s mouth and foretelling resistance therefore stands together with Israel’s culpable refusal to hear.

The comparison denotes first of all an extraordinary multitude of people, but it deliberately frames that abundance in cultic terms. The construct expression צֹאן קָדָשִׁים (tsoʾn qodāšîm), literally “flock of holy things,” refers most naturally to animals consecrated for sacrifice. Such animals belonged to the sphere of the holy because they were set apart for presentation before the Lord. The following parallel, “the flock of Jerusalem at her appointed times,” identifies the setting more precisely: Jerusalem was filled with sacrificial animals when Israelites assembled for the stated festivals (מוֹעֲדִים, môʿădîm). The image is therefore not that the restored people themselves become sacrifices, but that the formerly empty cities will be as densely populated as Jerusalem was with sacrificial flocks at its great festal gatherings. The final phrase, צֹאן אָדָם (tsoʾn ʾādām), “a flock of humankind,” extends the flock metaphor explicitly to the human population. The feminine plural imperfect תִּהְיֶינָה (tihyeynâ), agreeing with “cities,” promises that the devastated cities will become full. In the immediate context, this completes the Lord’s pledge to multiply the house of Israel “like a flock” (36:37). Yet the cultic coloring is not incidental. Restoration from exile includes not merely demographic recovery but the reconstitution of Israel as a people gathered around the Lord’s holy presence. This anticipates the prominence of temple worship, holy offerings, and appointed times in Ezekiel 40–48. The concluding recognition formula, “and they shall know that I am the LORD,” governs the promise. The fullness of the cities, like the renewal of land and people throughout 36:24–38, will publicly demonstrate that Israel’s restoration is the Lord’s work. The metaphor thus joins numerical multiplication, covenantal holiness, and the restoration of worship under the one divine purpose of revealing the Lord’s name.

The opening clause does not promise Gog restoration in a favorable or salvific sense; it depicts the Lord’s decisive manipulation of Gog for judgment. The verb שׁוֹבַבְתִּיךָ (shobabtîkā), a Polel perfect with second masculine singular suffix from שוב (shûb), can bear the sense of turning, causing to turn, or leading back/away. In this military setting, followed immediately by the placing of hooks in Gog’s jaws and the Lord’s bringing out of Gog and his entire army, “I will turn you about” or “I will lead you on” conveys the force more clearly than “I will restore you.” The latter rendering is possible at the lexical level if “restore” means to bring back, but in English it can wrongly suggest renewal or reconciliation. The imagery is one of compulsory direction rather than merely providential permission. Hooks in the jaws (חַחִים, ḥaḥîm) evoke the restraint and leading of a dangerous animal, and comparable imagery elsewhere in Ezekiel portrays God’s mastery over hostile rulers and nations (Ezek 29:4; cf. 19:4, 9). Gog appears as a formidable commander, surrounded by horses, horsemen, shields, and swords, yet his expedition is neither autonomous nor beyond divine government. The repeated first-person verbs—“I will turn/lead,” “I will put,” and “I will bring out”—make the Lord the controlling agent behind the invasion. The precise spatial nuance of the verb should not be pressed into a claim that Gog is first marching in one direction and then physically reversed. In the context, the clause introduces God’s mustering and drawing forth of Gog for the assault described in vv. 8–9 and for the judgment announced throughout the oracle. Thus the sense is that the Lord sets Gog in motion and directs him toward the divinely appointed encounter. Gog’s hostile intention remains genuinely his own (38:10–12), but the prophecy simultaneously asserts that his campaign serves the Lord’s judicial purpose and culminates in Gog’s defeat.

The expression does not portray the vine as naturally growing in a literal forest; it places the vine in a deliberately unfavorable comparison with forest timber. The interrogative מַה־יִהְיֶה (mah-yihyeh), literally “what will be?” or “what is [it worth]?,” asks what advantage vine wood possesses מִכָּל־עֵץ (mikkol-ʿets), “over/among all wood.” The preposition מן carries a comparative force here. Vine wood is not prized for construction or manufacture, unlike the straight and substantial wood supplied by forest trees. The following appositional phrase, עֵץ הַזְּמוֹרָה (ʿets hazzĕmôrâ), “the wood of the vine branch,” specifies that the subject is not the vine’s fruit but its woody stem or branch. The relative clause אֲשֶׁר הָיָה בַּעֲצֵי הַיַּעַר (ʾăšer hāyâ baʿăṣê hayyaʿar), “which was among the trees of the forest,” heightens the contrast rather than supplying a horticultural description. Jerusalem, represented by the vine, is set amid other peoples and kingdoms, likened collectively to forest trees. Yet the image should not be pressed into a complete allegory in which every forest tree denotes a particular nation. Its principal force is comparative: a vine’s wood has no intrinsic superiority to the wood around it and, indeed, is markedly inferior for ordinary practical use. This use of vine imagery is intentionally severe in light of the Old Testament’s more positive portrayals of Israel as the Lord’s vine or vineyard. Such imagery ordinarily stresses the divine planting and the expectation of fruit. Ezekiel 15 proceeds on precisely that premise: once a vine yields no fruit, its wood cannot claim the secondary usefulness of timber; it is fit only for burning (vv. 3–5). Thus the verse does not deny Israel’s election or divine cultivation. It declares that Jerusalem’s privileged identity, when severed from the fruit demanded by the covenant, supplies no ground for exemption from judgment.

The third-person rendering, “when he came to destroy the city,” is probably to be preferred, since the one who comes in judgment is the divine glory whose appearance Ezekiel is describing, not Ezekiel himself. The clause recalls the Jerusalem vision of Ezekiel 8–11, in which the glory of the God of Israel appears in connection with the city’s defilement, the execution of judgment, and the departure of the glory from the temple. Ezekiel was brought to Jerusalem in vision (8:3), but he was an observer and prophetic witness of its destruction, not its agent. The return of that same glory in 43:1–5 therefore deliberately reverses the earlier departure: the God who came in judgment now comes to take up residence in the restored sanctuary. The Masoretic pointing reads בְּבֹאִי (bĕboʾî), “when I came,” with a first-person singular suffix, whereas “when he came” would be בְּבֹאוֹ (bĕboʾô). The first-person reading is grammatically possible if Ezekiel means that he came, in his visionary transport, to the scene of Jerusalem’s destruction. Yet the following infinitive לְשַׁחֵת (lĕšaḥēt), a Piel infinitive construct meaning “to destroy” or “to ruin,” makes that sense markedly strained: Ezekiel did not come in order to destroy the city. Ancient textual witnesses support a third-person understanding, and the immediate literary context strongly favors it. Accordingly, translations that supply “he” are not simply smoothing the Hebrew; they reflect the judgment context of chapters 8–11 and a likely reading in which the subject is the Lord’s coming in glory to judge Jerusalem.

Ezekiel’s bearing of Judah’s iniquity is a symbolic enactment of the nation’s guilt and the punishment that guilt has incurred; it is not an atoning or sacrificial removal of sin. The verb נָשָׂאתָ (nasaʾta, Qal perfect with sequential force, “you shall bear”) and the object עֲוֹן (ʿawon, “iniquity, guilt, or its penal consequence”) can denote bearing liability or punishment for sin. In this context, however, the prophet is commanded to embody Judah’s condition in a public sign-act. His constrained posture for forty days represents forty years assigned to Judah under divine judgment, just as the preceding 390 days represent the iniquity of the house of Israel (4:4–5). The concluding declaration, “I have given it to you,” identifies the period and burden as one imposed by God for prophetic representation. The language should therefore not be isolated from Ezekiel 4:1–17, where the prophet’s actions portray Jerusalem’s siege, defilement, scarcity, and coming desolation. Ezekiel bears Judah’s iniquity in the sense that he visibly carries, within the sign, the weight and duration of its judicial consequence. Judah itself remains accountable and is not released from judgment by the prophet’s suffering; indeed, the enacted oracle announces that judgment is certain. Although the Old Testament can use the language of bearing iniquity in priestly and sacrificial settings, nothing in this passage presents Ezekiel as an expiatory mediator. His burden is prophetic and representational, displaying before the exiles the seriousness of covenant rebellion and the divinely fixed measure of its punishment.

In this context חיל (ḥayil) denotes wealth or accumulated resources, rather than military strength as such. The noun has a broad semantic range, including strength, capability, military force, and wealth; its precise force is determined by context. Here the immediately following clause, “and you made gold and silver in your treasuries,” specifies the form that the ruler’s self-acquired ḥayil has taken. The parallel use of עָשִׂיתָ (ʿāsîtā, Qal perfect, second masculine singular, “you made”) and וַתַּעַשׂ (wattaʿaś, waw-consecutive imperfect, “and you made”) joins the general acquisition of resources to their concrete expression in precious metals stored in royal treasuries. The verse therefore does not deny Tyre’s commercial competence. Wisdom (ḥokmâ) and understanding (tĕbûnâ) could describe the practical discernment required for maritime trade, diplomacy, craftsmanship, and the management of an international mercantile city. Ezekiel 27 has extensively portrayed Tyre’s trading network and its abundant merchandise. Yet chapter 28 exposes the theological distortion in the ruler’s interpretation of that success: he regards his wealth as something made “for yourself” (lĕkā), the product and possession of autonomous human wisdom. The wording prepares for the indictment in v. 5, where increased trade and riches lead to a heart lifted up. Thus ḥayil is material prosperity gained through real skill, but claimed in a manner that becomes evidence of arrogant self-exaltation before God.

The expression “according to these measurements” identifies the north gate as conforming substantially to the measurements just reported for the other inner-court gates, especially the immediately preceding eastern gate (40:32–34). The demonstrative phrase כַּמִּדּוֹת הָאֵלֶּה (kammiddôt hāʾēlleh), literally “like/as the measurements these,” functions as an economical architectural cross-reference. Rather than restating the gate’s length, breadth, threshold dimensions, and vestibule arrangement, the vision records its conformity and then supplies the features requiring renewed notice in vv. 36–37. The nearest antecedent is the east gate of the inner court, whose measurements have just been given in detail; yet that gate itself was described as having measurements corresponding to the south inner gate (40:28–31). The formula therefore establishes a repeated, standardized pattern among the inner gates. Similar shorthand appears in the account of the outer-court gates (40:20, 22, 24), where one fully described structure provides the norm for parallel structures. The phrase does not necessarily assert an absolute identity in every incidental feature, since the following verses still enumerate chambers, posts, and the vestibule. It does assert that the essential dimensional design was the same. This architectural symmetry belongs to Ezekiel’s portrayal of the temple as a divinely ordered sanctuary, not an improvised or merely idealized complex. The measuring angel’s action, expressed by the Qal perfect וּמָדַד (ûmādad, “and he measured”), confirms that the north gate stands under the same determinate pattern as its counterparts. The repeated measurements underscore the ordered accessibility of the inner court from the cardinal directions while preserving the graduated holiness marked by the temple’s successive boundaries.

The designation “common” distinguishes the city’s allotment from the consecrated portions assigned to the sanctuary, priests, and Levites; it does not characterize the city as morally defiled or irreligious. The noun ḥōl (“common, ordinary”) stands emphatically as the predicate in the clause, “common it shall be for the city.” In priestly terminology, the common is the sphere not set apart as holy, and it must not be confused with what is unclean. Ezekiel has carefully differentiated the holy contribution (48:10–14) from this remaining strip, reserving the latter for the civic life of Israel. The “remaining five thousand in width” is the southern portion of the larger twenty-five-thousand-cubit tract described in 48:8–20. Its length runs “along the face of twenty-five thousand,” that is, alongside the full east-west extent of the sacred allotment. Whereas the central sanctuary and its supporting priestly and Levitical lands are holy, this five-thousand-cubit-wide band is allocated “for the city, for dwelling and for open land.” The term moshab (“dwelling-place, settlement”) indicates its residential purpose, while migrash denotes the surrounding open ground or pastureland belonging to the city, not merely an urban street or vacant lot. The final clause, “the city shall be in its midst,” locates the city centrally within this common municipal territory. The following verses specify that the city itself is a square of 4,500 cubits on each side, with open land surrounding it (48:16–18). Thus the vision neither absorbs ordinary civic existence into the sanctuary nor abandons it to secular autonomy. The city occupies a proper, ordered place adjacent to, but distinct from, the holy precincts in the restored land.

The verse most naturally depicts each of the four living creatures as having humanlike hands situated beneath its wings on each of its four sides; thus four hands per creature are strongly implied, though the text does not expressly enumerate them. The phrase וִידֵי אָדָם (wîdê ʾādām), literally “hands of a man” or “human hands,” identifies the hands by their human form rather than assigning them to a particular human being. Their placement, מִתַּחַת כַּנְפֵיהֶם (mittaḥat kanpêhem, “underneath their wings”), portrays the hands as normally concealed by the wings, while עַל אַרְבַּעַת רִבְעֵיהֶם (ʿal ʾarbaʿat ribʿêhem, “on their four sides/quarters”) extends this feature around the creature’s whole perimeter. The plural suffixes need not mean that the hands were shared collectively among the four creatures. Ezekiel has already introduced four beings, each with four faces and four wings (v. 6), and he commonly describes their corresponding features with plural pronouns. The reference to “four sides” therefore accords with the fourfold symmetry of each individual creature: hands lie beneath the wings associated with every directional aspect. The compressed final clause, “their faces and their wings were for the four of them” (וּפְנֵיהֶם וְכַנְפֵיהֶם לְאַרְבַּעְתָּם), confirms that these extraordinary features characterize all four beings. Human hands signify capacity for purposeful, intelligent action, yet their subordination beneath wings preserves the dominant impression of swift, obedient heavenly attendants rather than autonomous human figures.

The singular expression רוּחַ הַחַיָּה (ruaḥ haḥayyâ, “the spirit of the living creature”) presents the four living creatures and their wheels as a single, coordinated living reality. Although the vision distinguishes four creatures (vv. 5–11) and four associated wheels (vv. 15–19), their movements are never independent: wherever the spirit goes, the creatures go, and the wheels rise “alongside them” (vv. 20–21). The singular הַחַיָּה is therefore collective, identifying the living creatures in their unity rather than reducing the vision to one creature. The repeated correspondence between creatures and wheels demonstrates that the wheels are not autonomous mechanisms but belong to the animate, heavenly chariot-throne apparatus. רוּחַ (ruaḥ) can denote wind, breath, disposition, or spirit. In this context it is chiefly the animating and directing power that accounts for the wheels’ perfect conformity to the creatures. The phrase should not be taken to mean that each wheel literally contains a separate creature, nor does the wording expressly identify ruaḥ with the Holy Spirit as a distinct person. Yet the vision as a whole locates this movement under the sovereign initiative of God: the creatures move according to the ruaḥ, and above them stands the likeness of the divine throne (vv. 20, 22–28). Thus the “spirit of the living creature” is best understood as the God-given life and directional impulse governing the entire chariot vision. Its theological force is to portray the divine presence as living, unified, and wholly unconstrained by earthly location.

The sequence of Pathros, Zoan, and No portrays Yahweh’s judgment as extending through the whole of Egypt, from Upper Egypt to the Nile Delta and its principal southern capital. Pathros (Pathrôs) denotes Upper Egypt, probably the region south of Memphis; Zoan (Ṣoʿan), known in Egyptian sources as Tanis, lay in the northeastern Delta; and No (Nōʾ), the Hebrew designation for Thebes, was the great city of Upper Egypt and an important royal and cultic center. The verse therefore does not name incidental localities but representative centers distributed across the land. Egypt’s political strength, religious prestige, and territorial breadth will not protect it from the God of Israel. The varying expressions intensify rather than divide the judgment. Yahweh will “make desolate” Pathros through the Hiphil of שׁמם (šāmēm), a verb denoting devastation and ruin; he will “give fire” in Zoan, an idiom for destructive visitation, whether effected through warfare, conflagration, or both; and he will “execute judgments” in No. The plural שְׁפָטִים (šĕpāṭîm) denotes concrete acts of judicial punishment, not merely a legal declaration. In the surrounding oracle these acts are directed against Egypt’s idols, princes, cities, and military power (30:13–19). No, especially, will be exposed as unable to preserve itself despite its stature. The catalog thus serves the larger prophetic claim that Yahweh’s sentence upon Egypt under Babylonian invasion is comprehensive and judicial: the land’s regional centers, its fortified cities, and its reputed sources of power alike fall under his judgment.

The Masoretic text presents the measuring activity as the work of Ezekiel’s single angelic guide, not of an unspecified group. The sequence is consistently singular: killâ, “he finished” (Piel perfect, 3ms); hôṣîʾânî, “he brought me out” (Hiphil perfect with first-person singular suffix); and ûmedādô, “and he measured it” (Qal perfect, 3ms, with a masculine singular object suffix). A rendering such as “they measured” therefore smooths the narrative into an impersonal plural but obscures the grammar. The same “man” introduced with measuring instruments in 40:3 remains the operative guide and measurer throughout the vision. The object suffix in ûmedādô does not most naturally denote the eastern gate through which Ezekiel has just been led out. Rather, it anticipates the measurements of vv. 16–20, where the guide measures the precinct on each of its four sides and establishes the surrounding wall. “The inner house” (habbâyit happenîmî) denotes the inner sacred complex whose detailed measurements have occupied 40:48–42:14; having completed that interior survey, the guide exits by the east-facing gate in order to measure the exterior boundary. The doubled sābîb sābîb, “all around,” introduces the comprehensive perimeter measurement, culminating in v. 20: the enclosing wall marks the distinction between what is holy and what is common.

The two participles portray a comprehensive failure of pastoral responsibility: no one gives the scattered flock concerned attention, and no one undertakes an effective search to recover it. The clause is not a redundant repetition. דּוֹרֵשׁ (dōrēš), a Qal active participle of דָּרַשׁ (dāraš), commonly denotes seeking by inquiry, investigation, or careful concern; it can describe seeking God, but also making a matter the object of attentive investigation. מְבַקֵּשׁ (mebaqqēš), a Piel active participle of בָּקַשׁ (bāqaš), denotes actively seeking or pursuing something desired. Together they move from the disposition and duty to inquire after the lost sheep to the concrete effort of looking for and restoring them. The singular participles following אֵין (ʾên, “there is none”) are generic: there is no shepherd, ruler, or responsible person who does either. This is directed principally against the shepherds denounced in vv. 2–10, Israel’s leaders who fed themselves rather than the flock. Yet the language also underscores the flock’s utter abandonment after its dispersion “over all the face of the land.” No human agency has supplied the care appropriate to Yahweh’s own sheep. The paired vocabulary prepares for the divine reversal in v. 11: “Behold, I myself will search for my sheep and inspect them.” Yahweh’s self-declaration answers the leaders’ neglect, not by merely expressing sympathy, but by assuming the searching and supervisory work they withheld. The verse therefore presents the scattering as both the sheep’s wandering and the shepherds’ culpable failure to pursue those who had been lost.

“The tithe of the homer” denotes a tenth-part measure, not an offering tithe collected for the sanctuary. The noun מַעֲשֵׂר (maʿăśēr) can designate a tithe in the sense of a required contribution, but here its construction with “the homer” and the immediately following parallel expression, “the bath [shall be] a tenth of the homer, and the ephah [shall be] a tenth of the homer,” establishes its arithmetical sense. The infinitive לָשֵׂאת (lāśēʾt), Qal infinitive construct of נָשָׂא (nāśāʾ, “to lift, bear, contain”), means that each vessel-measure is to hold a tenth of a homer. The verse therefore legislates a common and stable standard for liquid and dry capacity: the ephah and the bath are distinct kinds of measure, the former normally for grain and the latter for liquids, yet each has the same fixed capacity, one-tenth of the homer. “One measure” (תֹּכֶן אֶחָד, tōken ʾeḥād) stresses uniformity of standard rather than identity of commercial use. The closing phrase, “with reference to the homer shall be its standard” (אֶל־הַחֹמֶר יִהְיֶה מַתְכֻּנְתּוֹ), makes the homer the controlling unit by which the smaller measures are calibrated. In the context of 45:10–12, this specification excludes manipulated measures and supplies the basis for the offerings calculated in 45:13–14; it is not itself a command concerning the payment of a tenth.