The Pulpit Commentary
Having completed his survey of the sacrificial kitchens in the outer court (Eze_46:19-24), the prophet was once more conducted by his guide to the door of the house, or of the temple in the strict sense, i.e. of the sanctuary. There he perceived that waters issued (literally, and behold waters issuing) from under the threshold of the house, i.e. of the temple porch (see Eze_40:48, Eze_40:49; and comp. Eze_9:3), eastward, the direction having been determined by the fact that the forefront of the house stood or was toward the east. He also noticed that the waters came down (or, descended)—the temple having been situated on higher ground than the inner court—from under the threshold, from the right side of the house—literally, from the shoulder (comp. Eze_40:18, Eze_40:40, Eze_40:41; Eze_41:2, Eze_41:26; Eze_46:1-24 :29) of the house, the right. The two clauses are not to be conjoined as by Hengstenberg, Ewald, and Smend, as if they meant, from underneath the right side of the house; but kept distinct, to indicate the different features which entered into the prophet's picture. The first was that the waters issued forth from under the threshold of the house; the second, that they proceeded from the right side or shoulder of the house, i.e. from the corner where the south wall of the porch and the east wall of the temple joined (see Eze_41:1); the third, that the stream flowed on the south side of the altar, which stood exactly in front of the temple perch (see Eze_40:47), and would have obstructed the course of the waters had they issued forth from the perch doorway instead of from the comer above described.

The Pulpit Commentary
As the prophet could not follow the stream's course by passing through the east inner gate, which was shut on the six working days (Eze_46:1), or through the east outer gate, which was always shut (Eze_44:1), his conductor led him outside of the inner and outer courts by the north gates (literally, to the north (outer) gate), and brought him round by the way without unto the outer gate by the way that looketh eastward. This can only import that, on reaching the north outer gate, the prophet and his guide turned eastward and moved round to the east outer gate. The Revised Version reads, by the way of the gate that looketh toward the east; but as the east outer gate was the terminus ad quem of the prophet's walk, it is better to translate, to the gate looking eastward. When the prophet had arrived thither, he once more beheld that there ran out—literally, trickled forth (מְפַכִּים occurring here only in Scripture, and being derived from פָכַה, "to drop down," or "weep")—waters. Obviously these were the same as Ezekiel had already observed. On (literally, from) the right side; or, shoulder. This, again, signified the corner where the east wall of the temple and the south wall of the gate joined.

The Pulpit Commentary
Having emerged from the corner of the east outer gate in drops, the stream, which had not swollen in its passage across the outer court and under the temple wall, speedily exhibited a miraculous increase in depth, and therefore in volume. Having advanced eastward along the course of the stream an accurately measured distance of a thousand cubits (about one-third of a mile), the prophet's guide brought, or caused him to pass, through the waters, when he found that they were to the ankles; or, were waters of the ankles, as the Chaldee, Syriac, Vulgate, Keil, Kliefoth, Ewald, and Smend translate, rather than "water of the foot-soles," as Gesenius and Havernick render, meaning," water that hitherto had only been deep enough to wet the soles." The ὕδωρ ἀφέσεως, or "water of vanishing," of the LXX,, is based on the idea of "failing," "ceasing," "coming to an end," which appears to be the root-conception of (see Gen_47:15, Gen_47:16; Psa_77:9; Isa_16:4).

The Pulpit Commentary
At a second and a third distance of a thousand cubits the same process was repeated when the waters were found to be first waters to the knees, and secondly waters to (or, of) the loins. The unusual expression, מַיִם בִּרְכָּים, instead מֵי, as in the similar expressions before and after, may have been chosen, Keil suggests, in order to avoid resemblance to the phrase, מֵימֵי רַגְלַיִם in Isa_36:12 (Keri)—not a likely explanation. Havernick describes it simply as an instance of bold emphasis. Schroder breaks it up into two clauses, thus: "waters, to the knees they reach." Smend changes מַיִם into מֵי.

The Pulpit Commentary
After a fourth distance of a thousand cubits, the waters had risen, or, lifted themselves up (comp. Job_8:11, in which the verb is used of a plant growing up), and become waters to swim in—literally, waters of swimming (שָׂחוּ occurs only here; the noun צְפָה only in Eze_32:6)—a river that could not be passed over, on account of its depth. The word נָחַל was applied either to a river that constantly flowed from a fountain, as the Amen, or to a winter torrent that springs up from rain or snow upon the mountains, and disappears in summer like the Kedron, which had seldom any water in it (see Robinson's 'Bibl. Res.,' 1.402). That Ezekiel's river broadened and deepened so suddenly, and apparently without receiving into it any tributaries, clearly pointed to miraculous action.

The Pulpit Commentary
Then he … caused me to return to the brink of the river. The difficulty lying in the word "return" has given rise to a variety of conjectures. Hengstenberg supposes the prophet had made trial of the river's depth by wading in (perhaps up to the neck), and that the angel caused him to return from the stream to the bank According to Hitzig, the measuring had taken place at some distance from the stream, and the prophet, having come up to his guide from the bank after making trial of the water's depth, was Once more conducted back to the river's brink. Havernick conceives the sense to be that the prophet, having accompanied the angel to the point where the stream debouched into the Dead Sea was led back to the riverbank. All difficulty, however, vanishes if, either with Schroder we refer וַיְשִׁבֵנִי to a mental returning, as if the import were that the angel, having ascertained that the prophet had "seen" the river's course, now told him to direct his attention to the bank, or, with Keil and Kliefoth, translate עַל by "along" or "on" rather than "to." As the prophet had been led along or on the river's bank to see the increasing breadth and depth of the water, so was he now "caused to return" along or on the same bank to note the abundance of the foliage with which it was adorned.

The Pulpit Commentary
Now when I had returned בְּשׁוּבֵנִי is by the best interpreters, after Gesenius, regarded as an incorrect form for בְּשׁוּבִי (literally, in my returning), though Schroder adheres to the transitive sense of the verb, and translates," when I had turned myself," and Hitzig takes the suffix נִי as a genitive of possession, and renders, "when he came back with me." In any case, on the return journey the prophet observed that at (or, on) the bank (or, lip) of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other. Hitzig supposes the trees had not been there when the prophet made the down journey, but sprang up when he had turned to his guide (Eze_47:6), and stood with his back to the river. Kliefoth's conclusion is better, that the trees had been there all the while, but that the prophet's attention had not been directed to them. The luxuriant foliage of this vision reappears in that of the Apocalyptic river (Rev_22:2).

The Pulpit Commentary
Toward the east country (הַקַּדְמוֹנָה אֶל־הַגְּלִילָה); literally, the east circle, in this case probably "the region about Jordan" (Jos_22:10, Jos_22:11), above the Dead Sea, where the valley or ghor widens out into a bread basin, equivalent to כִּכַּד הַיַרְדֵּן (Gen_13:10). The LXX. render, or τὴν Γαλιλαίαν, designing by this, however (presumably), only to Graecize the Hebrew word גְּלִילָה as they do with the term הָעַרָבָה, desert, or, plain, which they translate by τὴν Ἀραβίαν. The Arabah signified the low, sterile valley into which the Jordan runs near Jericho, in which are the Dead Sea (hence called "the sea of the Arabah," Deu_3:17; Deu_4:49), and the brook Kedron, or "river of the Arabah" (Amo_6:14), and which extends as far south as the head of the Elanitic gulf. The whole region is described by Robinson ('Bibl. Res.,' 2.596) as one of extreme desolation—a character which belonged to it in ancient times (Josephus, 'Wars,' 3.10. 7; 4.8. 2). The part of this Arabah into which the waters flowed was situated north of the sea, clearly not the Mediterranean, but the Dead Sea, "the sea of the Arabah," as above stated, and the "eastern sea" as afterwards named (Eze_47:18), into which they ultimately flowed. The clause, which being brought forth into the sea, may either be connected with the proceeding words or formed into an independent sentence. Among those who adopt the former construction a variety of renderings prevails. The LXX. reads, "(And the water) comes to the sea (ἐπὶ τὸ ὕδωρ τῆς διεκβολῆς), to the sea of the pouring out," i.e. the Dead Sea, into which the river debouches. With this Havernick agrees, rendering, "to the sea of that outflow." Ewald reads, "into the sea of muddy waters," meaning the Dead Sea. Kimchi, "into the sea where the waters are brought forth," i.e. the ocean (the Mediterranean), whoso waters go forth to encompass the world. Hengstenberg, Kliefoth, Keil, and Currey, who adopt the latter construction, borrow בָאוּ from the antecedent clause, and translate, "To the sea (come or go) the waters that have been brought forth;" with which accords the Revised Version. The last words record the effect which should be produced by their entering into the sea. The waters shall be healed, i.e. rendered salubrious, from being hurtful (comp. Exo_15:23, Exo_15:25; 2Ki_2:22). The translation of the LXX; ὑγιάσει τὰ ὕδατα, is inaccurate. The unwholesome character of the Dead Sea is described by Tacitus: "Lucius immenso ambitu, specie maris sapore corruptior, gravitate odoris accolis pestifer, neque vento impellitar neque pisces ant suetas aquis volucres patitur" ('Hist.,' 5.6). Yon Raumer writes, "The sea is celled Dead, because there is in it no green plant, no water-fowl in it, no fish, no shell. If the Jordan carry fish into it, they die." "According to the testimony of all antiquity and of most modern travelers," says Robinson ('Bibl. Res.,' 2.226), "there exists within the waters of the Dead Sea no living thing, no trace, indeed, of animal or vegetable life. Our own experience goes to confirm the truth of this testimony. We perceived no sign of life within the waters."

The Pulpit Commentary
The nature of the healing is next described as an impartation of such celebrity to the waters that everything that liveth, which moveth—better, every living creature which swarmeth (comp. Gen_1:20, Gen_1:21; Gen_7:21)—whitherseover the rivers (literally, the two rivers) shall come, shall live. The meaning cannot be that everything which liveth and swarmeth in the sea whither the rivers come shall live, because the Dead Sea contains no fish (see above), but whithersoever the rivers come, there living and swarming creatures of every kind shall spring into existence, shall come to life and flourish. The dual form, נַחֲלַיִם, has been accounted for by Maurer, as having been selected on account of its resemblance to מַיִם; by Hävernick and Currey, as pointing to the junction of another river, the Kedron (Hävernick), the Jordan (Currey), with the temple-stream before the latter, should fall into the sea; by Kliefoth, as alluding to a division of the river waters after entering the sea; by Neumann and Schroder, as referring to the waters of the sea and the waters of the river, which should henceforth be united; and by Hengstenberg, with whom Keil and Plumptre agree, as a dual of intensification (as in Jer_1:1-19 :21), signifying "double river," with allusion to its greatness, or the strength of its current. None of these interpretations is free from objection; though probably, in default of better, the last is best. Ewald changes the dual into נַחְלָם, a singular with a suffix, while Hitzig makes of it a plural; but neither of these devices is satisfactory. As a further evidence that the waters of the sea should be healed by the inflowing into them of the waters of the river, it is stated that the sea should thereafter contain a very great multitude of fish (literally, and the fish will be very many), of which previously it contained none. The next clauses supply the reason of this abundance of fish, because these waters (of the river) shall—or, are (Revised Version) come thither—(into the waters of the sea), for (literally, and) they, the latter, shall be (or, are) healed, and everything shall live (or, connecting this with the foregoing clause, and everything shall be healed, and live) whithersoever the river cometh—the river, namely, that proceedeth from the temple.

The Pulpit Commentary
As another consequence of the inflowing of this river into the Dead Sea, it is stated that the fishers (rather, fishers, without the article) should stand upon its banks, from Engedi, even unto Englaim; there shall be a place to spread forth nets. The Revised Version more correctly renders, fishers shall stand by it; from Engedi even unto Eneglaim, shall be a place for the spreading of nets; or, more literally, a place of spreading, out for nets (comp. Eze_26:5). Engedi, עֵין גֶּדִי, meaning "Fountain of the kid;" originally styled Hazezon-Tamar (2Ch_20:2), now called 'Ain Jidy (Robinson,' Bibl. Res.,' 2.214), was situated in the middle of the west coast of the Dead Sea, and not at its southern extremity, as Jerome supposed. Englaim, עֵין עֶגְלַיִם, signifying "Fountain of two calves," was located by Jerome, who cars it En Gallim, at the northern extremity of the Dead Sea, and is usually identified with the modern 'Ain Feshkhah, or "Fountain of mist," at the northern end of the west coast, where the ruins of houses and a small tower have been discovered (Robinson, 'Bibl. Res.,' 2.220). Ewald cites Isa_15:8 to show that Englaim was on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea, which, Smend notes, was given up by the prophet to the sons of the East.

The Pulpit Commentary
The miry places thereof and the marshes thereof גְבָיָאו, "its pools and sloughs" (comp. Isa_30:14, where the term-signifies a reservoir for water, or cistern), were the low tracts of land upon the borders of the Dead Sea, which in the rainy season, when its waters overflowed, became covered with pools (see Robinson, 'Bibl. Res.,' 2.225). These, according to the prophet, should not be healed, obviously because the waters of the temple-river should not reach them, but should be given to salt. When the waters of the above-mentioned pools have been dried up or evaporated, they leave behind them a deposit of salt (see Robinson, 'Bibl. Res.,' 2.226), and Canon Driver, following Smend, conceives that the above-named miry places and marshes in the vicinity of the Dead Sea were to be allowed to remain as they were on account of the excellent salt which they furnished. (On the supposed (!) excellence of the salt derived from the Dead Sea, Thomson's 'Land and the Book,' p. 616, may be consulted.) If this, however, were the correct import of the prophet's words, then the clause would describe an additional blessing to be enjoyed by the land, viz. that the temple-river would not be permitted to spoil its "salt-pans;" but the manifest intention of the prophet was to indicate a limitation to the life-giving influence of the river, and to signify that places and persons unvisited by its healing stream would be abandoned to incurable destruction. "To give to salt" is in Scripture never expressive of blessing, but always of judgment (see Deu_29:23; Jdg_9:47; Psa_107:34; Jer_17:6; Zep_2:9).

The Pulpit Commentary
The effect of the river upon the vegetation growing on its banks is the last feature added to the prophet's picture. Already referred to in Eze_47:7, it is here developed at greater length. The "very many trees" of that verse become in this all trees, or every tree for meat, i.e. every sort of tree with edible fruit (comp. Le 19:23), whose leaf should not fade or wither, and whose fruit should not be consumed or finished, i.e. should not fail, but continue to bring forth new fruit, i.e; early or firstfruits, according to his (or, its) months; or, every month; the לְ in לָחֱדָשִׁים being taken distributively, as in Isa_47:13 (compare לַיוֹם, "every day," in Eze_46:13). This remarkable productivity, the prophet saw, was due, not so much to the fact that the tree roots sucked up moisture from the stream, as to the circumstance that the waters which they drank up issued out of the sanctuary. To the same circumstance were owing the nutritive and medicinal properties of their fruit and leaves respectively. The picture in this verse is unmistakably based on Gen_2:9, and is as clearly reproduced by the Apocalyptic seer in Rev_22:2. On this whole vision the remarks of Thomson, in 'The Land and the Book', are worthy of being consulted.

The Pulpit Commentary
The boundaries of the land, and the manner of its division.

Thus saith the Lord. The usual formula introducing a new Divine enactment (comp. Eze_43:18; Eze_44:9; Eze_45:9, Eze_45:18; Eze_46:1, Eze_46:16). This. גֵה is obviously a copyist's error for זֶה, which the LXX; the Vulgate, and the Targum have substituted for it; the change seems demanded by the complete untranslatability of גֵה, and by the fact that וְזֶה גְּבוּל recurs in Eze_47:15. The border, whereby ye shall inherit the land; or, divide the land for inheritance (Revised Version). The term גְּבוּל, applied in Eze_43:13, Eze_43:17 to the border of the altar here signifies the boundary or limit of the land. (For the verb, comp. Num_32:18; Num_34:13; Isa_14:2.) According to the twelve tribes. This presupposed that at least representatives of the twelve tribes would return from exile; but it is doubtful if this can be proved from Scripture to have taken place, which once more shows that a literal interpretation of this temple-vision cannot be consistently carried through. Smend observes that the word commonly employed in the priest-cede to denote "tribes" is מַטּוֹת (Num_26:55; Num_30:1; Num_31:4; Num_33:54; Jos_14:1; Jos_21:1; Jos_22:14), which is never used by Ezekiel, who habitually selects, as here, the term שְׁבָטִים (Eze_37:19; Eze_45:8; Eze_48:1), which also was not unknown to the priest-cede (Exo_39:14; Num_18:2; Jos_13:29; Jos_21:16; Jos_22:9, Jos_22:10, Jos_22:11, Jos_22:13). That is to say, if the priest-cede existed before Ezekiel, he had the choice of both terms, and selected shebhet; whereas if Ezekiel existed before the priest-cede, and prepared the way for it, the author of the latter rejected Ezekiel's word shebhet, and adopted another perfectly unknown to the prophet. This fact appears to point to a dependence of Ezekiel on the priest-cede rather than of the priest-cede on Ezekiel. Joseph shall have two portions; rather, Joseph portions, as חֲבָלִיםis not dual. Yet that two were intended is undoubted (see Gen_48:22; Jos_17:14, Jos_17:17).

The Pulpit Commentary
Ye shall inherit it, one as well as another; literally, a man as his brother—the customary Hebrew phrase for "equally" (see, however, 2Sa_11:25). The equal participants were to be tribes, not the families, as in the Mosaic distribution (Num_33:54). Had the earlier principle of allotment been indicated as that to be followed in the future, it would not have been possible to give the tribes equal portions, as some tribes would certainly have a larger number of families than others. Nevertheless, the division was to be equal among the tribes, which shows it was rather of an ideal than of an actual distribution the prophet was speaking. Then what they should divide amongst themselves was to be the land concerning which Jehovah had lifted up his hand—a peculiarly Ezekelian phrase (see Eze_20:5, Eze_20:6, Eze_20:15, Eze_20:23, Eze_20:28, Eze_20:42), signifying "to swear" (comp. Gen_14:22; Deu_33:1-29 :40)—to give it unto their fathers (see Gen_12:7; Gen_18:8; Gen_26:3; Gen_28:13). That the land was not divided after this fashion among the tribes that returned from exile is one more attestation that the prophet's directions were not intended to be literally carried out.

The Pulpit Commentary
The north boundary. And this shall be the border of the land toward the north side. The Revised Version follows Kliefoth and Keil in detaching the last clause from the preceding words, and reading. This shall be the border of the land: on the north side. From the great sea, the Mediterranean, by the way of Hethlon, as men go to (or, unto the entering in of) Zedad. The former of these places (Chethlon), which is again mentioned in Eze_48:1, has not yet been identified, though Currey suggests for the "way," "the defile between the ranges of Lebanus and Antilibanus, from the sea to Hamath." The latter (Zedad) Wetstein and Robinson find in the city of Sadad (Sudud), east of the road leading from Damascus to Humo (Emesa), and therefore west of Hamath; but as Hamath in all probability lay to the east of Zedad, this opinion must be rejected.

The Pulpit Commentary
The four names here mentioned belong to towns or places lying on the road to Zedad, and stretching from west to east. Hamath, called also Hamath the Great (Amo_6:2), situated on the Orontes, north of Hermon and Antilibanus (Jos_13:5; Jdg_3:3), was the capital of a kingdom to which also belonged Riblah (2Ki_23:33). Originally colonized by the Canaanites (Gen_10:18), it became in David's time a flourishing kingdom under Toi, who formed an alliance with the Hebrew sore-reign against Hadadezer of Zoba (2Sa_8:9; 1Ch_18:9). It was subsequently conquered by the King of Assyria (2Ki_18:34). Winer thinks it never belonged to Israel; but Schurer cites 1Ki_9:19 and 2Ch_8:3, 2Ch_8:4 to show that at least in Solomon's reign it was temporarily annexed to the empire of David's son. In Ezekiel's chart the territory of united Israel should extend, not to the town of Hamath, but to the southern boundary of the land of Hamath. Berothah was probably the same as Berothai (2Sa_8:8), afterwards called Chun (1Ch_18:8), if Chun is not a textual corruption. The town in question cannot be identified either with the modern Beirut on the Phoenician coast (Conder), since it must have lain west of Hamath, and therefore at a considerable distance from the sea; or with Birtha, the present day El-Bir, or Birah, on the east bank of the Euphrates, which is too far east; or with the Galilaean Berotha, near Kadesh (Josephus), as this is too far south; but must be sought for between Hamath and Damascus, and most likely close to the former. Sibraim, occurring here only, may, on the other hand, be assumed to have lain nearer Damascus, and may, perhaps, be identified with Ziphron (Num_34:9), though the site of this town cannot be where Wetstein placed it, at Zifran, north-east of Damascus, and on the road to Palmyra. Smend compares it with Sepharvaim (2Ki_17:24). Damascus was the well-known capital of Syria (Isa_7:8), and the principal emporium of commerce between East and West Asia (Eze_27:18). Its high antiquity is testified by both Scripture (Gen_14:15; Gen_15:2) and the cuneiform inscriptions, in which it appears as Dimaski and Dimaska. Hazar-hatticon; or, the middle Hazar, was probably so styled to distinguish it from Hazar-enan (verse 17). (On the import of Hatticon, see Exo_26:28 and 2Ki_20:4, in both of which places it signifies "the middle.") The word Hazar (חֲצַר), "an enclosure," or "place fenced off," was employed to denote villages or townships, of which at least six are mentioned in Scripture (see Gesenius, 'Lexicon,' sub voce). Hauran, Αὐρανῖτις (LXX.), "Cave-land," so called because of the number of its caverns, was most likely designed to designate "the whole tract of land between Damascus and the country of Gilead" (Keil).

The Pulpit Commentary
The northern boundary is further defined as extending from the sea, i.e. the Mediterranean on the west, to Hazar-enan, or the "Village of fountains," in the east, which village again is declared to have been the border, frontier city (Keil), at the border (Revised Version) of Damascus, and as having on the north northward the border or territory of Hamath. The final clause adds, And this is the north side, either understanding וְאֵת, with Gesenius, as equivalent to αὐτός, ipse, "this same," or with Hitzig and Smend, after the Syriac, substituting for it here and in Eze_47:18, Eze_47:19 ואֹת as in Eze_47:20; though Hengstenberg and Keil prefer to regard אֵת as the customary sign of the accusative, and to supply some such thought as "ye see" (Hengstenberg), or "ye shall measure" (Keil), which Eze_47:18 shows was in the prophet's mind. Compared with the ancient north boundary of Canaan (Num_34:7-9), this appointed by Ezekiel's Torah for the new land shows a marked correspondence.

The Pulpit Commentary
The east boundary. And the east side ye shall measure from Hauran, etc. The Revised Version, after Keil and Kliefoth, translates, And the east side, between Hauran and Damascus and Gilead, and the land of Israel, shall be (the) Jordan; from the (north) border unto the east sea shall ye measure. Smend offers as the correct rendering, The east side goes from between Hauran and Damascus, and from between Gilead and the land of Israel, along the Jordan, from the border unto the east sea. In any case, by this instruction, first the land of Israel was defined as the territory lying west of the Jordan, and secondly its boundary should extend from the last-named north border at its easternmost point, Hazar-enan, down the Jordan valley to the Dead Sea. The practical effect of this would be to cut off the lands which in the earlier division (Num_34:14, Num_34:15) had been assigned to Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. Otherwise the boundary hero given corresponds with that traced in Numbers, though the latter is more minute. Hengstenberg, however, thinks the prophet cannot have intended to assert that the new Israel should not possess the land of Gilead as a frontier in the future as formerly, as in that case he would have been at variance, not only with preexisting Scripture (comp. Psa_60:7; Mic_7:14; Jer_1:19; Zec_10:10), but with subsequent history.

The Pulpit Commentary
The south boundary. This should begin where the east boundary terminated, viz. at Tamar, "Palm tree." Different from Hazezon-Tamar, or Engedi (Eze_47:10; 2Ch_20:2), which lay too far up the west side of the sea, Tamar can hardly be identified either with the Tamar of 1Ki_9:18 near Tadmor in the wilderness, or with the Thamara (Θαμαρά) of Eusebius between Hebron and Elath, supposed by Robinson to he Kurnub, six hours south of Milh, towards the pass of Es-Sufah, since this was too distant from the Dead Sea The most plausible conjecture is that Tamar was "a village near the southern end of the Dead Sea" (Currey). Proceeding westward, the southern boundary should reach to the waters of strife in Kadesh; better, to the waters of Meribotk Kadesh. These were in the Desert of Sin, near Kadesh-Barnea (Num_20:1-13), which, again, was on the road from Hebron to Egypt (Gen_16:14). The exact site, however, of Kadesh-Barnea is matter of dispute; Rowland and Keil find it in the spring 'Ain Kades, at the north-west corner of the mountain-land of Azazimeh, which stretches on the south of Palestine from the south-south-west to the north-north-east, and forms the watershed Between the Mediterranean and the Arabah valley. Delitzsch and Conder seek it in the neighborhood of the Wady-el-Jemen, on the south-east side of the above watershed, and on the road from Mount Hot. Robinson ('Bibl. Rea,' 2.582) discovers it in 'Ain-el-Weibeh, not far from Petra. A writer (Sin; Smend?) in Riehm ('Handworterbuch des Biblischen Alterthums,' art. "Kades") pleads for a site on the west side of the Azazimeh plateau, and in the vicinity of the road by Shur to Egypt. Leaving Kadesh, the boundary should continue to the river, or, brook, of Egypt, and thence extend to the great sea, or Mediterranean. The punctuation of גַחֲלָה, which makes the word signify "lot,' must be changed into נַחְלָה, so as to mean "river," since the reference manifestly is to the torrent of Egypt, the Wady-el-Arish, on the borders of Palestine and Egypt, which enters the Mediterranean near Rhinocorura (Ῥινοκόρουρα). In Num_34:5 it is called the river of Egypt. And this is the south side southward (see on Num_34:17). The correspondence between this line and that of the earlier chart (Num_34:4, Num_34:5) is once more apparent.

The Pulpit Commentary
The western boundary. This, as in Num_34:6, should be the great sea from the border, i.e. the southern boundary last mentioned (Num_34:19), till a man come over against Hamath; literally, unto (the place which is) over against the coming to Hamath; i.e. till opposite the point (on the coast) at which one enters the territory of Hamath (comp. Jdg_19:10; Jdg_20:43).