Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries: Ezekiel

COMMENTARY

A PROPHET AMONG THE EXILES (1:1–3:27)

Many years ago, in a land far away, lived a man named Ezekiel. He and his people had suffered terribly. After a fierce battle, Ezekiel’s home had been conquered. He was among the social elite who were taken captive to their conqueror’s country. A few years later, sitting by a river in this foreign land, Ezekiel experienced something almost as terrifying: an encounter with God. The description of this encounter opens the book of Ezekiel. After orienting readers to Ezekiel’s time and place (1:1-3), three distinct events are narrated. First, Ezekiel recounts his vision of standing in God’s presence (1:4-28). Next, in a series of speeches, God calls Ezekiel to a new role: a prophet who is to bring God’s message of lamentation and . . . woe to the people (2:1–3:15). Finally, Ezekiel undergoes a process that prepares him for this role (3:16-27).

Just as the ordination service of a priest served as an initiation rite into that role (compare Lev 8–9), prophets also experienced an initiation process. Ezekiel’s experience both resembles and differs from the experiences of prophets before him (compare Isa 6; Jer 1). The report is longer and more complex than that of any other biblical prophet. Perhaps Ezekiel had more need than other prophets did to prove that YHWH sent him, since his message is so unbelievably disturbing. Each main section of the opening chapters is one more argument to persuade Ezekiel’s audience that he is YHWH’s true messenger. The purpose of these events was to prepare Ezekiel for his role and to make his claim for legitimacy. Considering how aspects of trauma might illuminate Ezekiel’s experience reveals the experience of divine encounter as highly disturbing.

Ezek’el Saw de Wheel Way Up in de Middle o’ de Air (1:1-28)

Ezekiel claims prophetic authority precisely because he saw de wheel way up in de middle o’ de air. Standing in God’s presence is a standard claim for true prophecy. The way Ezekiel saw God is also important. The deity of Ezekiel’s vision is creator of the universe, mighty warrior, and almighty king, a God who can kill and make alive. Ezekiel faced the God his people faced—the God who both killed Judah and will make them alive again.

Literary Analysis

The book of Ezekiel begins as do other prophetic books, with a superscription (1:1-3), a brief indication of author, date, and subject (e.g., Hos 1:1; Amos 1:1). This superscription is more elaborate than the usual terse provision of basic data. The elaboration takes the form of repetition and expansion. Twice a time frame is given (vv. 1, 2). The location by the river Chebar is mentioned twice and each time is modified by another descriptor, among the exiles (v. 1) and in the land of the Chaldeans (v. 3). Three times reference is made to Ezekiel’s relationship to God: I saw visions of God (v. 1); the word of YHWH came . . . and the hand of YHWH was on him there (v. 3). Repetition is a standard literary device throughout the book of Ezekiel, providing emphasis or elaborating upon something. Here the repetition emphasizes when the prophet spoke, where Ezekiel prophesied, and who authorized this prophet.

The main body of the chapter (vv. 4-28) is an extended vision report, a characteristic prophetic genre. Significantly, the book of Ezekiel begins with a vision portraying the prophet having an audience with God in the heavenly realm. Throughout the OT one of the tests of the true prophet is whether the prophet could claim to have stood in YHWH’s presence (1 Kgs 22:19-23; Isa 6:1-3; Jer 23:21-22). The prophet who made this claim was trustworthy. Of all the prophets, Ezekiel is the only one to begin with such a vision. Ezekiel does not wait for his message to be questioned to present his credentials, but starts by authenticating his prophecy. Because Ezekiel’s message is in many ways unbelievable, the readers of this message need to know from the very beginning that they can believe it.

Exegetical Analysis

The superscription (vv. 1-3) provides two dates. The thirtieth year may (or may not) refer to the minimum age one could assume priestly duties (Num 4:30). The second date locates Ezekiel during the time of the exile. Jehoiachin was king when Nebuchadnezzar first attacked Jerusalem and deported some of its population (2 Kgs 24:1-16). To date, his oracles from that moment imply that they define time for Ezekiel, just as contemporary time might be divided before 9/11 and after 9/11. There was life before Jehoiachin’s exile and then there was life after. Ezekiel’s concern is with life after.

The three identifications of location also firmly anchor Ezekiel in the exile. Among the exiles establishes Ezekiel as among the first group of deportees from Jerusalem. According to Babylonian sources the river Chebar was a canal that looped off the Euphrates around the city of Nippur in the plains of southern Babylon. Chaldea is the biblical name for southern Mesopotamia, the area associated with Babylon (contemporary southern Iraq). Both the time and place accentuate that Ezekiel’s life and prophetic work occurred in the context of the Judean exile, and deal with its concerns.

Like many Hebrew names, Ezekiel is a compound name. Two elements are combined to form a descriptive phrase or a complete sentence. The first element in the name (Ezeki-) is a verbal form and the second element (-el) is derived from a divine name. The verb generally means to be or grow strong. In another form it means to make strong, strengthen. The same verb is used in Exodus to describe the hardening, or strengthening, of Pharaoh’s heart. The second element, El, is the generic Hebrew word for god as well as the proper name of Canaan’s chief deity. Thus, Ezekiel means May God (El) make strong or God strengthens (or hardens) or God will be strong. Several interpretations are possible: God will strengthen Ezekiel in his prophetic mission; or since God is strong, God is someone on whom Ezekiel can rely for support; or God will be strong and firm in carrying out the divine intention of punishing the people.

Ezekiel (and/or his father) is identified as a priest. According to the grammar of the sentence, the identification, priest, can refer either to Ezekiel or to his father, making Ezekiel’s priestly status ambiguous. Nonetheless, the priestly orientation of the book is clear from the attention to such typical priestly concerns as dating, purity/impurity, the layout of the Temple, worship practices, God’s holiness, as well as specific connections with the priestly Holiness Code in Lev 17–26. Whether or not Ezekiel was himself a priest, he used the priestly worldview to explain to the exiles how and why they suffered deportation and what their future might be.

For good reasons, there are few artistic representations of Ezekiel’s vision; attempting to draw it results in frustration. There are several reasons why it is so difficult to grasp its content and meaning.

First, the vision itself claims to represent only vaguely what Ezekiel saw, using words something like, appearance, like, looked like, and likeness. The closer one gets to the center of the vision, the vaguer the description:

And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form. Upward from what appeared like the loins I saw something like gleaming amber, something that looked like fire enclosed all around; and downward from what looked like the loins I saw something that looked like fire. (vv. 26-27, emphasis added)

Second, the convoluted syntax or even lack of syntax in the Hebrew, obscured in translation, is problematic. Some verses simply lack verbs. Verse 8 is literally, and the hands of a human beneath their wings by their four sides and their faces and their wings to four of them. Then there is the notoriously inconsistent use of masculine and feminine endings. Hebrew is a gendered language and pronouns are to agree with their antecedent in both gender (masculine or feminine) and number (singular or plural). But not here. Verse 10 offers an example of this. As for the likeness of their [masc.] faces, the face of a human [designating either or both sexes] and the face of a lion to the right to the four of them [masc.] and the face of an ox from the left side of the four of them [fem.] and the face of an eagle to the four of them [fem.] (author’s translation).

A third problem is the use of obscure vocabulary. This vision employs words such as amber, which only occurs here in the entire OT. Moreover, words are defined differently from traditional usage. For example, the word translated as gleaming, sparkled, shining ( ên) (vv. 4, 7, 16, 22, 27) everywhere else in the OT means eye (e.g., Deut 19:21; Ps 94:9; Ezek 1:18; 7:4). Numerous other words used in the passage occur less than ten times in the entire OT. It is as if Ezekiel had to make up language for this vision.

Finally, what Ezekiel sees is bizarre. Perhaps the reason the rabbis forbade making any representation of and were reluctant to interpret the vision may simply be that they could not figure it out. There are four living creatures that look sort of human, but each has four faces and four wings and their wings are somehow touching one another. Each walks straight, and there is some kind of glowing fire in/around/among them, with a wheel beside the living creatures (or are the living creatures on the wheel?). There is also a wheel within the wheel (is this the same wheel?) and its rim is full of eyes (are there four wheels or only one?). When the creatures go, so do the wheels. There is a firmament above them, and the appearance of a likeness of another humanlike being also gleams brightly.

As difficult as it might be to envision this, a number of images from Israel’s traditions help in understanding it. The stormy wind (v. 4), the sound of tumult like . . . an army (v. 24), the images of fire and lightning (vv. 13-14, 27), the image of a chariot evoked by the wheels, and the bow (an instrument of war) in the cloud (v. 28) are associated with various traditions of YHWH as warrior (Eichrodt 1970, 56; Lind 1996, 29–31).

The wings of the living creatures that spread out, touch one another, and cover their bodies evoke both the seraphim of Isaiah’s vision (Isa 6:2) and the winged cherubim associated with the ark of the covenant (Exod 25:18-22), YHWH’s throne (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2), YHWH’s chariot (Ps 18:10), and the guardian of the garden of Eden (Gen 3:24). Yet only in 10:1 does the word cherubim appear. It is not used here, not even to say that Ezekiel saw something like cherubim. Still, the associations evoke a royal court or royal throne and thus YHWH as a royal figure.

The dome in verses 22, 23, 25, 26 is the same dome of the creation account in Gen 1. But the emphasis is not on God creating the dome but rather on God as present or residing above the dome. In an imprecise, confusing, and ambiguous manner the language evokes Israel’s main imagery for God as Warrior, King, and Creator. The images of God described here are encountered throughout the book. Readers should consider their significance for understanding Ezekiel’s message.

In addition to these inexact uses of various traditions, there are unique elements to the vision. The image of the heavens being opened (v. 1) is unique in the OT as is the wheel within a wheel with its rim full of eyes. The part human, part animal image of a creature will emerge later in the apocalyptic visions of Daniel, but the four faces (human, lion, ox, eagle) are a unique occurrence in the OT (though they appear later in Rev 4:6-8). The uniqueness of these images means that their precise meaning in the vision can only be guessed at. The most important of these unique images are the wheels. While in the opening vision they do little except add a level of complexity, in another vision they will serve an important theological function (see p. 57).

Although aspects of the image may be unclear, it is clear that Ezekiel claimed to see the glory of YHWH, an important concept in the priestly traditions, which Ezekiel adapted. In priestly traditions, the glory occurs in connection with God’s appearance in the tabernacle (Exod 40:34-35; Num 14:10; 16:42 [17:7]; 20:6). The glory also takes the form of a consuming fire and cloud (Exod 16:10; 24:16-17; Num 16:42 [17:7]). Instead of the tabernacle, Ezekiel locates the glory in Jerusalem’s Temple (compare 1 Kgs 8:11). Ezekiel also describes the glory as blazing fire and cloud (1:4, 13; 8:2; 10:4). In both the priestly traditions and Ezekiel, the glory was the visible, constant presence of God. God’s glory dwelled perpetually, first in the tabernacle, then in the Temple, and so was associated with God’s dwelling place. The glory is also a theological attempt to speak about God as both present and transcendent. The transcendent God can be present and known to the people through the glory. Perhaps this is why the glory is associated with both fire and cloud. The fire signifies divine otherness and majesty. People must keep their distance lest they be burned. The cloud offers protection by preventing the people from getting too close to the fire. As a sign of divine presence, the glory underscores that Ezekiel saw God.

In summary, Ezekiel’s vision is not nearly as clear as English translations would have readers believe. The echoes that resound of God as Creator, Warrior, and King, however, as well as the identification of the likeness of the glory of YHWH, emphasize the fact that Ezekiel claimed to stand in the presence of the God of Israel and no other. Ezekiel’s audience can know, beyond all doubt, that the word of YHWH came to Ezekiel. Even if it is not possible to draw a precise picture, Ezekiel offers the proper response to the vision. When I saw it, I fell on my face (v. 28).

Theological and Ethical Analysis

(1) Although the vision is difficult, later traditions will find meaning in parts of it. In Judaism the wheel imagery became a chariot (Merkavah) that bears the Throne of Glory. Because the Merkavah is connected with God, the study of the Merkavah became equated with the study of the Divine and thus played a significant role in sectarian Jewish mysticism. In Christianity, the four faces of the living creatures became the basis of the iconography of the four Gospel evangelists; Matthew was identified with the human face, Mark with the lion, Luke with the bull, and John with the eagle. For Irenaeus the four faces in Ezekiel’s and John’s revelations explained why there are four Gospels and neither five nor three. African American slaves sang about Ezekiel’s wheel as a metaphor of human faith and divine grace. Just as Ezekiel borrowed aspects of his tradition in creating the vision, later communities borrowed aspects of Ezekiel’s vision.

Finding meaning in this vision for today is difficult. This is evident in the popular belief that Ezekiel saw a UFO. The classic exposition of this is by Erich von Däniken (1968, 55–57). A Google search of Ezekiel and UFO yields thousands of Web sites making the same claim. As outlandish as this view sounds, it suggests viewing this vision as something alien. Ezekiel claims he experienced a direct encounter with God, but how does one describe such an experience? He is trying to describe something that is essentially indescribable. Language itself breaks down. While other commentators see the fractured language of this chapter as evidence of multiple and inept redactors, it is possible to consider the fractured language as evidence that human language cannot convey the experience of God’s presence. Divine encounter is something alien to normal human discourse. It should not be surprising that there are obscure words, no verbs, wrong endings, and convoluted syntax. Translations obscure the fractured nature of the language of the vision by smoothing out the language so it makes sense, but part of the point is that it is impossible to make sense of God. If one is so (un)fortunate as Ezekiel as to have a direct experience of God, how does one convey that in mere language? The vision report demonstrates the limits of language for such a task. It is the primary way humans communicate with one another, and yet it is an inadequate vehicle.

(2) The language may also convey more than the inability to describe God in human terms. Ezekiel may have experienced this divine encounter as a traumatic experience. Studies show that the overwhelming emotions of trauma can wreak havoc on memory.

Traumatic memories are likely to be stored in a form that works against meaningful recall. Memories may be stored . . . in bits and pieces. . . . Memories of such fragmented experience may take the form of isolated images. . . . These images, feelings, and memory fragments do not occur in sequence, and they do not add up to a coherent event. (Allen 1995, 104, emphasis added)

Often those who experience trauma are unable to tell a coherent narrative, with a beginning, middle and end (van der Kolk and Fisler 1995, 517). In other words, simply narrating what has happened is sometimes impossible for a trauma victim. Ezekiel’s language sounds like someone who, although he recalls isolated images, is not yet able to give a coherent account of a traumatic experience.

It is perhaps a surprising, unfamiliar, and uncomfortable notion to consider a divine encounter as traumatic. There is a tendency in American society to tame the text, or perhaps to tame experiences of God to make them seem friendly and centering. Ezekiel pushes readers to consider how an encounter with the divine can be terrifying, traumatic, and decentering.

In this opening scene God overwhelms Ezekiel. Yet the prophet survives to tell of his experience—however disjointed it may be. Perhaps this hints at the exiles’ future. They too will be overwhelmed—by God and by the Babylonian army. Ezekiel’s experience may give them hope that though they are driven to their knees, they too will survive to tell the tale.

A Bitter and Traumatizing Call (2:1–3:15)

In a scene from the movie The Blues Brothers, Jake Blues enters a church. A bright light from the sky shines on him as a choir sings hallelujahs, while a minister shouts, Do you see the light? Have you seen the light? Jake Blues sees the light as he is called to reassemble his band. What this nonbiblical call narrative shares with its biblical counterpart is a person’s sense of being compelled to a particular act of service. Candidates for ordination in Christian denominations will be asked to recount their call to ministry. Behind the question is the issue of authority. Only those who experience a sense of divine compulsion should be authorized to take up the task of full-time ministry. The question of authorization for divine service is the focus of this unit (2:1–3:15). The literary genre call narrative provides further evidence that Ezekiel was a true prophet.

Literary Analysis

Following the vision of chapter 1, the next events of call and commissioning reinforce Ezekiel’s authority by providing additional proofs of Ezekiel’s legitimacy. The call narrative, like the vision of standing in God’s presence (1:4-28), is a form of prophetic authorization. Comparing Ezekiel’s call with other call narratives (e.g., Exod 3–4; Isa 6; see Habel 1965) leaves two impressions. First, this passage makes use of all the elements of all the call narratives in Israel’s history. Since one of the most serious forms of opposition to a prophet was to say, YHWH has not sent you (compare Jer 28:15; Ezek 13:6), there is almost a sense of desperation in the narrative to prove that Ezekiel has indeed been sent by YHWH. If Ezekiel takes all the call elements and makes them bigger and grander and repeats them often enough, perhaps he can persuade his audience that he is truly God’s prophet. Perhaps the extreme circumstances of exile call for an extreme call narrative.

Second, beyond merging, combining, or expanding upon the elements of a call narrative, at times this text stretches or distorts them almost beyond recognition. This is typical of Ezekiel’s rhetoric throughout the book. It is as if what has come before cannot quite fit the circumstances of exile. Just as exile has distorted the life of a refugee out of all recognition, the traditions that have shaped Israel must also be radically altered.

Despite the chaotic and desperate quality of this unit, it is characterized by a number of carefully crafted literary features (Greenberg 1983, 74–75). First, there are double expressions, such as to the people of Israel/to a nation of rebels; impudent/stubborn; obscure speech/difficult language; hard forehead/stubborn heart. Second, there are double expressions augmented into triplets, such as briers/thorns + scorpions. Third, there are unique expressions, such as hard forehead, difficult language, and receive in your heart. Fourth, a number of threefold patterns abound. The simplest pattern repeats the same thing three times, such as whether they hear or refuse to hear (2:5, 7; 3:11). Three times in 2:6, Ezekiel is told not to be afraid. Three times he is commanded to eat (2:8; 3:1, 3). The word hard is repeated three times in 3:8-9. These repetitions add emphasis. It is the equivalent of using italics, bold, caps, and exclamation points—DO NOT BE AFRAID! EAT! Another pattern modifies the content with each repetition, such as the different characterizations of those to whom Ezekiel is sent. The audience is first characterized as rebellious (2:3-7), then second as unresponsive (3:5-7), and third, their identity as exiles is emphasized (3:11).

Another literary feature is that the final verses of this unit (3:12-15) return to images, themes, and vocabulary from Ezekiel’s opening vision. This creates an inclusio, or an envelope, for Ezekiel’s entire call account (1:1–3:15). References to YHWH’s glory (1:28; 3:12), the sounds of wings (1:24; 3:13), the presence of wheels (1:15-19; 3:13), and the hand of YHWH (1:3; 3:14) enhance the impression of unity and coherence (Darr 2002, 1128).

Overall there is a great deal of structure to this unit. Whether from the trauma of divine encounter or the trauma of exile, or both, throughout the book Ezekiel will come across as on the edge of disintegration. That edginess is evident in the way Ezekiel contorts traditions, genres, and language. At the same time, the attention to detail and highly structured and stylized features suggest someone trying to create order out of chaos. Without the stylistic features one has a sense that the narrative would be incomprehensible, that Ezekiel would sound like what many consider him to be: crazy.

Exegetical Analysis

For the first of ninety-three times throughout the book, Ezekiel is identified as mortal (2:1). Previous English translations employed the more literal translation, son of man. Because of Jesus’ self-identification as Son of Man in the Gospels (eighty-eight times throughout, e.g., Matt 8:20; Mark 10:33; Luke 19:10; John 6:53), the significance of this phrase is hotly debated. Readers should consult the Abingdon New Testament Commentaries on the Gospels for its meaning there. Here it is a fairly straightforward Hebrew construction where the phrase son(s) of X refers to a specific member of the set X (IBHS, §9.5.3.b). The most common example is sons of Israel, which specifies members of the group Israel. The set ādām in biblical Hebrew is that of humanity (compare Gen 6:1; 1 Sam 15:29; Jer 7:20), so a member of that set is a mortal or human being (compare Deut 32:8; Ps 11:4; Job 16:21). This may signify a contrast to an immortal or divine being; Ezekiel is human and no god (Zimmerli 1979, 131; Greenberg 1983, 61–62). Alternatively, this impersonal address, instead of addressing Ezekiel by name, may represent the separation between God and the people (see p. 21). Either way, the epithet is capable of bearing (and the reader of perceiving) more than one nuance, even within a single verse (Darr 2002, 1122).

At the end of the previous chapter, Ezekiel responds to his vision by falling on his face. One way to interpret that physical action is as a response to the overwhelming and traumatic nature of his encounter with God. Falling on one’s face is also an example of court etiquette, what a vassal does in the presence of a sovereign, human (1 Sam 25:23; 2 Sam 9:6; 14:4) or divine (Gen 17:3; 2 Chr 20:18). Whether Ezekiel falls from a sense of propriety or terror, when commanded to stand, he seems unable, or unwilling, to do so (2:1). Instead, a spirit enters him and sets him on his feet (2:2; compare 3:22-24). This spirit will be with Ezekiel throughout the book, leading him to speak (11:5), lifting him up, and transporting him to another place (3:12, 14; 8:3; 11:1, 24; 37:1). The Hebrew word, rûa , can be translated wind, spirit, breath. There is widespread debate about the nature of this spirit. Is it the Holy Spirit? The Spirit of God? A human energy? A powerful wind? Ezekiel does not specify. Again, the word is capable of bearing (and readers of perceiving) more than one nuance.

Once Ezekiel is on his feet, God commissions him as a divine messenger (I am sending you, 2:3). Ezekiel is to deliver God’s message to the people of Israel (lit., sons of Israel; see above). Those in Ezekiel’s audience would identify themselves as descendants of Jacob/Israel. They would also identify themselves as being in covenant relationship with YHWH. But the next description defines them as the antithesis of the covenant community. Throughout the generations (ancestors) they have rebelled and transgressed (2:3). In the political realm, to rebel denotes the attempt to escape from political dependency with the goal of achieving or regaining political independence. . . . A vassal refuses to acknowledge vassal status (TDOT, 9.2). Its antonym is serve, be subject to (TDOT, 9.2; Greenberg 1983, 63). To transgress can have similar political connotations, namely, seceding from a political alliance (TDOT, 9.3). The pairing of rebel and transgress occurs in the OT only here and in Ezek 20:38. Since the people have rebelled and transgressed against YHWH, the political is transferred into the theological realm. The covenant relationship requires that Israel serve YHWH alone (e.g., Deut 6:13; 10:12; 1 Sam 7:3). Instead, Israel attempts to escape from and break with this relationship. This is the first hint of Ezekiel’s explanation for the exile: the covenant relationship has been severed because of the people’s failure to be loyal subjects of the divine sovereign.

Not only is Ezekiel’s audience rebellious, they have stiff faces and a hard heart (2:4; author’s translation). Instead of the more common expression a stiff necked people (see Exod 32:9; Deut 9:6), stiff faces is an Ezekielian creation. A hard heart characterized Pharaoh (e.g., Exod 7:3; 8:15). The NRSV translation impudent and stubborn brings to mind the expression and attitude of toddlers or teenagers bent on having their way. But the problem is more serious than petulance. Moshe Greenberg translates impudent as brazen/hard faced, an impassive face that shows no emotion or disconcertion when it should (compare Isa 50:7; Greenberg 1983, 63). A stiff face reveals a person’s complete indifference or insensitivity to others. Ezekiel characterizes his audience as callous and indifferent to the impact of their behavior. In 2:6 and 3:9, Ezekiel is told not to be dismayed at their looks, literally, at their faces. No wonder!

If this were not discouraging enough, the audience is also called a rebellious house, a phrase unique to Ezekiel. It occurs four times in this unit and eleven times in chapters 2–24. Rebellious connotes a willful, deliberate decision to disobey, like the stubborn and rebellious son in Deut 21:18-21 (TDOT, 9.7). As a grammatical parallel to house of Israel, rebellious house is practically a synonym (compare 12:9). House, in Hebrew, also carries the meaning of dynasty or lineage, like the establishment of David’s house (2 Sam 7:11-16). Rebelliousness is the inheritance that gets handed down to the next generation in this dynasty.

Finally, the audience is described as briers and thorns and scorpions, terms that share the common element of sharp, stinging things. Talk about your tough crowd! This audience will be quite prickly and dangerous. No wonder God had to keep commanding Ezekiel do not be afraid (2:6).

In contrast to his audience, Ezekiel is commanded not to be rebellious (2:8). His obedience is immediately tested. Open your mouth and eat what I give you. Readers may wonder if Ezekiel was tempted to clamp his lips tightly together and vigorously shake his head, No! If God is sending Ezekiel to such a prickly crowd, who knows what kind of noxious substance God will give him. But before Ezekiel has an opportunity to protest, he sees before him a written scroll (2:9). When the scroll is unrolled, Ezekiel finds written on both sides lamentation and mourning and woe (2:10).

The fact that the scroll is covered in writing is significant. It is a text, and thus has a sense of permanence. Unlike in today’s computer age where texts are easily alterable, once inscribed with ink a papyrus is not easily changed. The only way King Jehoiakim knew to alter a written scroll was to cut it into strips and burn it (Jer 36:23). The fixity of written words is featured in the later stories of Esther and Daniel, where once a decree is written it may not be altered or revoked (Esth 8:8; Dan 6:8). The scroll’s fixity means that Ezekiel’s audience could be certain that whatever Ezekiel spoke would be nothing but the words of God; Ezekiel could not alter them. The written scroll functions as another piece in Ezekiel’s prophetic résumé. With other prophets offering conflicting messages (compare 12:21–14:11), the factor determining true from false was that Ezekiel’s words were written on a scroll that he received from God.

The words on it are also significant. Lamentation is a fairly common word in the OT and originated in funeral rituals (compare 2 Sam 1:17; 2 Chr 35:25). Mourning describes various inarticulate sounds like the growl of a lion (Isa 31:4), one’s inarticulate mutterings while meditating on God’s word (Josh 1:8; Ps 1:2), or the sigh uttered when life ends (Ps 90:9; HALOT, 237). Woe is a hapax legomenon and its translation is a guess. Many scholars connect it with other Hebrew words denoting wailing or mourning. Others suggest that it is an onomatopoeic expression echoing a cry of pain, heee (Block 1997, 125; Brownlee 1986, 30).

The scroll’s words express the feelings and experience of the exiles. They would have seen many, perhaps even close family members, die during Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem. Who knows how many others died or what hardships and horrors they faced on the forced march to Babylon. Furthermore, they have suffered the loss of their social, political, and economic prestige and have had their assumptions about themselves, their country, their faith, and their God shattered. Undoubtedly, in their sighing and moaning the exiles are asking victim questions (see p. xx). Insofar as the scroll represents Ezekiel’s message, it is possible to view that message as answering the victim questions and reestablishing a conceptual system that will allow the exiles to recover from trauma. The scroll is neither a message of doom nor even a message of judgment. It is a message of explanation. What follows in the rest of Ezekiel, the message of the scroll, explains why there is lamentation, mourning, and woe.

When Ezekiel is commanded to eat the scroll, he eats. Ingestion signifies that he embodies the divine word. This too will reassure his audience that Ezekiel’s words are, in fact, God’s own. Readers might expect the taste of this scroll to be bitter and to give Ezekiel indigestion. Instead the taste is sweet as honey. The medieval Jewish interpreter Kim i said that something so distasteful was easily swallowed (Greenberg 1983, 68), a Mary Poppins’ spoonful-of-sugar-helps-the-medicine-go-down approach to scroll swallowing.

YHWH’s speech in 3:4-9 provides another angle on Ezekiel’s audience besides their rebelliousness: their unresponsiveness. The house of Israel is not an incomprehensible people of obscure speech and difficult language (3:6), yet no communication is possible between them and Ezekiel. Indeed, communication would be more likely if Ezekiel were to go to a people who spoke a foreign language! Readers who know what it is like to try to communicate with those whose language they do not speak can understand how cutting this indictment is.

Although Ezekiel will speak YHWH’s words to them, they are not willing to listen to him or to YHWH because they have hard foreheads and a stiff heart (3:7; author’s translation). This is similar but not identical to the language of 2:4 (see p. 9). Forehead is substituted for face and the adjectives stiff and hard are reversed. Greenberg relates the hard forehead to the English word effrontery, which comes from the Latin ex (out) + front-, frons (forehead). There is a bold, shameless quality to their refusal to listen (Greenberg 1983, 69; compare Jer 3:3).

If the suggestion is plausible that Ezekiel’s task is to rebuild shattered assumptions (see p. xix), then it is possible to understand the people’s resistance to God’s words (2:5, 7; 3:11). Their resistance is not to the future possibility of God’s judgment against them, but to the explanation for why God has judged them. It is the difference between someone saying on September 10, 2001, Because you have done x, y, and z, America, prepare for God’s judgment, and someone saying on September 12, 2001, America, this has happened and it is God’s judgment because you have done x, y, and z.

Trauma victims are more open to hearing some explanations than others. Anyone who has worked with such survivors knows that reactions to unwanted explanations can be visceral and intense. They can turn a deaf ear to such explanations or violently reject them. Israel’s inclination is to reject violently God’s proffered explanation. In the face of this rejection, the word hard is repeated three times in 3:8-9. "I have made your face hard . . . and your forehead hard. . . . Like the hardest stone (emphasis added). Ezekiel will live up to his name, God hardens" (see p. 3). No wonder Ezekiel must labor to establish the divine authorization of his message.

The third reference to Ezekiel’s audience is in 3:11. Rather than focusing on the character of the audience (rebellious, unresponsive), here, the focus is on their identity. They are the exiles and your people (lit., sons of your people; see p. 8). This divine message is specifically addressed to those in exile. The identification links Ezekiel and the people; he is one of them. He too must accept God’s explanation for exile.

After Ezekiel is told for the third time, go (3:1, 4, 11), he is returned to the scene of the vision as the spirit lifts him and bears him away (3:12-14). He leaves YHWH’s presence and finds himself back among the exiles at Tel-abib (pronounced like the modern city Tel Aviv) by the river Chebar. Throughout the book, readers learn very little about Ezekiel’s own response to the events he has experienced, so it is significant that the call narrative’s epilogue provides information about his emotional state.

I went in bitterness in the heat of my spirit (3:14). Bitterness is an antonym to the sweetness of the scroll (compare Isa 5:20). Bitter(ness) is used to describe human emotion in situations of extreme stress, usually associated with dramatic losses (TDOT, 9.16–18). Naomi was bitter because of the deaths of her husband and sons (Ruth 1:13, 20). Slavery in Egypt was bitter because of the loss of freedom (Exod 1:14). The heat, which here describes Ezekiel’s spirit, everywhere else in the book describes God’s fury (5:13, 15, passim), a smoke-coming-from-the-ears kind of rage. Ezekiel returns a bitter, furious prophet.

Bitterness and anger are two common emotions following trauma (Allen 1995, 53–59). The exact trauma that leaves Ezekiel emotionally wrecked is ambiguous. It could be his experiences of war and exile or his encounter with the divine (see p. 6). It is also plausible that the commissioning itself gives rise to his bitter wrath.

If the latter, Ezekiel’s emotions may arise as a response to a unique aspect of Ezekiel’s call narrative—the absence of any protest by the prophet. An objection is a standard component of call narratives (Exod 3:11; Isa 6:5; Jer 1:6). Modern commentators assume an implied protest or interpret Ezekiel’s silence as a sign of his total submission to God’s call. The silence can also be interpreted as the prophet being bullied by God; he is never given an opportunity to voice his protest. Divine coercion may have been one stressor too many. No wonder Ezekiel is bitter and furious and sits stunned among the exiles (3:15). Stunned is an understatement. Elsewhere in Ezekiel the NRSV translates the same verb as horrify (20:26), desolation (30:12, 14), and appalled (32:10). In its noun form it is used throughout Ezekiel to describe the desolated land (compare 6:14; 12:20; 14:15-16; 15:8). A more appropriate translation than stunned might be traumatized. Ezekiel remains by the river for seven days, a bitter, furious, and traumatized divine messenger.

Theological and Ethical Analysis

Amid competing prophetic voices, Israel faced the problem of determining who spoke the true voice of God. Over centuries a type of job description emerged. Wanted: Prophet. The successful candidate must be called by God and have stood in the heavenly council. Must be willing to speak only YHWH’s words. Candidates who resemble Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah are especially encouraged to apply. Not just anyone could stand shouting in the street and be considered a prophet. Cross-cultural studies have demonstrated that in every society where prophets, shamans, wise persons, and other intermediaries exist, cultural expectations always determine how an intermediary is chosen, such as through descent from a particular family or participation in a certain set of initiation rites.

People today may disagree on whether to call a person prophet or to speak instead of one having a prophetic voice. But to the extent that anyone claims to speak the word of YHWH in his or her preaching and teaching, the question arises of how communities decide who speaks with the true voice of God. Readers may have considered these criteria:

an evident spiritual connection with God

a message compatible with Scripture

successful completion of ordination requirements

a particular theological stance

spiritual maturity

an unpopular message

appeals to the spirit of prophecy

a message not for financial gain or personal fame

Even with agreed-upon criteria, there might be no consensus as to whether Martin Luther King, Jr. or Jerry Falwell spoke truly. Whose voice does a faith community listen to? How does the community decide? It is crucial that a decision be made. In many ways, the debates taking place within faith communities today over difficult and controversial issues are precisely over the issue of who truly speaks God’s word. Ezekiel had to speak in a time of trauma about the meaning of that trauma. There is perhaps no more difficult time in which to be called to be a divine messenger. As faith communities respond to the traumas of today’s world and wonder where they encounter God in that trauma, there will be competing voices and it will be necessary that each community determine who authentically speaks the word of YHWH this day. (See also p. 19.)

Watching and Explaining (3:16-27)

The beginning of this unit, at the end of seven days, picks up where the previous unit left off. It is like tuning into a favorite TV show and hearing, "Previously, on ‘Ezekiel in Exile’ . . ." Viewers catch up on the action and then the new show begins. What follows serves as a continuation of what has preceded.

Except for the words of lamentation, mourning, and woe inscribed upon the scroll, readers do not yet know what message Ezekiel will deliver. In the final event of Ezekiel’s encounter with God, God makes him a sentinel (v. 17) and provides the theoretical framework needed to interpret the exile (vv. 18-21). Then Ezekiel undergoes an ordeal (vv. 22-27), which concludes his transformation into a prophet. This is the first of a series of ordeals Ezekiel endures that symbolize the exiles’ present experience (4:1–5:4). The words that Ezekiel ate (2:8–3:3) transform his body into a representation of God’s message, providing further evidence he is God’s prophet.

Literary Analysis

In addition to the reference to seven days, there are many literary connections between this unit and those that precede, which strengthen reading this unit as another component of the larger call narrative (Block 1997, 152; Hals 1989, 26):

3:17, 25 mortal (2:1, 3, 6, 8; 3:1, 3, 4, 10)

3:17 house of Israel (3:1, 4, 5, 7)

3:22 the hand of YHWH was upon me (1:3; 3:14)

3:23 the glory of YHWH (1:28; 3:12)

3:23 river Chebar (1:1, 3; 3:15)

3:23 I fell on my face (1:28)

3:24 The spirit entered into me, and set me on my feet (2:2)

3:26, 27 rebellious house (2:5, 6, 8, 9; 3:9)

3:27 say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD’ (2:4; 3:11)

3:27 hear . . . refuse to hear (2:5, 7; 3:11)

Two subunits within 3:16-27 can be identified (vv. 16-21 and 22-27). They are marked off by content (the sentinel vs. the ordeal) and by different divine actions (the word of YHWH came; the hand of YHWH was upon).

The first subunit employs elements from the law courts. Ezekiel’s (re)use of the tradition will show both similarities and differences. The bulk of the speech is couched in the literary language and style of case law (vv. 18-21). This type of law frequently begins with the Hebrew kî (if) and sets out the details of a case followed by its legal consequences (e.g., Exod 21:33-34; Deut 22:22). The declaration whether someone shall surely die or shall surely live is the form of a judge’s verdict. The former appears most commonly in the passive declaration X shall surely be put to death (e.g., Exod 21:17; Num 35:16). The latter occurs only in Ezekiel, here and in chapters 18 and 33, but echoes similar pronouncements in the OT (e.g., Lev 18:5; Deut 30:16). These legal elements serve a dual function. First, they render God’s verdict regarding the exile, providing God’s explanation for the exile. Second, they provide a means of measuring Ezekiel’s effectiveness as a prophet since the consequences of each case will be evident. Perhaps this explains why the role of sentinel reappears at the end of Ezekiel’s explanation for the exile when those consequences can be determined (33:1-9).

The opening of the second subunit (vv. 22-24) bears some elements of a vision report (Eichrodt 1970, 76; Hals 1989, 25). Nearly verbatim literary connections with the opening vision suggest a correspondence in purpose; both passages authenticate Ezekiel and his message. The remaining verses (vv. 25-27) resemble a report of a sign-act (see p. 20). These two genres emphasize seeing.

As a continuation of the call narrative these subunits further authorize Ezekiel as God’s prophet. Only the prophet has stood in God’s presence and been called by YHWH. The role of sentinel and the ordeal are visible to the community and provide the means for the exiles to verify that there has been a prophet among them (2:5).

Exegetical Analysis

At the end of seven days. . . . Even a brief examination of verses found in a concordance search of seven days or seventh day shows that the number seven is auspicious in Hebrew numerology. God rests from the acts of creation on the seventh day. Many rituals take place over seven days. It is often the length of time of uncleanness. But another association with seven days illuminates this text. Job’s three friends sat with him on the ground seven days and seven nights in sympathy for his great suffering (Job 2:13; see also Gen 50:10; 1 Sam 31:13). Seven days appears to be a fixed time for mourning a tragedy. For seven days Ezekiel sits grieving his trauma, including, or perhaps especially, that associated with this divine