INTRODUCTION
1. Background
Israel’s idolatrous abominations caused the ten northern tribes of that nation to be taken into captivity by Assyria in 722 B.C. At that time the southern kingdom of Judah was spared through the influence of righteous men like Isaiah. Judah soon experienced a revival and spiritual refreshment under the leadership of young King Hezekiah. He had learned the spiritual lessons from the downfall of Israel and was encouraged by the ministry of the prophet Isaiah (2Ki 18–19). However, Hezekiah’s faith in the Lord and zeal for the Mosaic covenant were forgotten when his son Manasseh and his grandson Amon rejected the ways of the Lord. For fifty-five years (2Ki 21:1–18) they turned the people to all kinds of idolatry and wickedness. This so perverted the people that they repudiated the law of God and forgot that it existed.
Josiah, Amon’s righteous son, brought renewed hope to Judah; but it came too late. As he was having the temple repaired, a copy of the Law of Moses was discovered (2Ki 22). On reading it, Josiah was moved to obey it fully (2Ki 23). He purified the temple and officially cleansed the land of the abominations of Manasseh and Amon. But among the people this reformation was only perfunctory. The idolatry of Manasseh’s long reign had so corrupted their hearts that there was little genuine repentance (cf. Jer 3:10). The Mosaic covenant declared that the nation of Israel would be taken captive and dispersed among the nations if the people continually disobeyed the stipulations of that covenant (Lev 26; Dt 28–29). That curse was now certain. It was the only thing that would remove the wickedness of Israel and cause the people to return to the Lord their God.
Meanwhile, on the international scene there was a new power struggle. Assyria, the dominant nation in the ancient Near East for more than 250 years, was declining, while the Neo-Babylonian Empire was rising under the leadership of Nabopolassar. In 612 B.C. the Babylonians defeated the Assyrians; and Nineveh, their capital city, fell. The remnants of the Assyrian army under Ashuruballit II retreated westward to Haran, where, with their backs to the Egyptians, they endeavored to keep resistance alive.
In 609 B.C. Pharaoh Neco of Egypt marched to the aid of Assyria with a large force. At Megiddo, Josiah, the reformer king of Judah, tried to stop the advance of Neco, only to be killed in the ensuing battle. Neco continued on to Haran to support Ashuruballit in his attempt to retain Haran, but the strength of the Babylonians gave them a decisive victory.
Though Neco failed in his effort to aid Assyria at Haran, he did begin to consolidate Palestine and Aram. He removed Jehoahaz, the pro-Babylonian son of Josiah whom the people of Judah crowned as their new king, and established Jehoiakim, Josiah’s eldest pro-Egyptian son, as his vassal king in Judah. Throughout this international turmoil, Jeremiah the prophet warned the people of Judah to submit to the Babylonians and not to follow the enticements of Egypt. But they would not listen.
In 605 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar, the crown prince of Babylonia, attacked the combined Assyrian and Egyptian forces at Carchemish on the Euphrates in one of the most important battles of history. In Nebuchadnezzar’s overwhelming victory, two great powers of the ancient Near East fell, never again to rise to international significance. As the Babylonians pushed their conquest southward, they invaded Judah and deported a group of young nobles from there (2Ki 24:1; 2Ch 36:6; Da 1:1–3, 6). This began the great Babylonian captivity of Judah that would ultimately affect every Israelite.
Jehoiakim was both a reluctant vassal of Babylon and a greedy ruler over his people, despising the Mosaic covenant and the reforms of his father, Josiah (Jer 22:13–17). After three years of unwilling submission to Nebuchadnezzar, Jehoiakim refused to heed the warnings of Jeremiah and revolted against Babylon in favor of Egypt (2Ki 24:1). The stalemate in battle between Babylon and Egypt on the frontier of Egypt in 601 B.C. encouraged him. His revolt was a mistake, for as soon as Nebuchadnezzar reorganized his army, he retaliated against those nations that had revolted and had refused to pay tribute to him.
In December 598 B.C., during the month that the Babylonians began to attack Judah, Jehoiakim died. His eighteen-year-old son, Jehoiachin, succeeded him (2Ki 24:8), only to surrender the city of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar three months later. Jehoiachin, his mother, his wives, his officials, and the leading men of the land (2Ki 24:12–16), including Ezekiel (a priest; Eze 1:1–3), were led away into exile. Zedekiah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, was established by Nebuchadnezzar as a regent vassal over Judah. Though in exile, Jehoiachin remained the recognized king of Judah by Babylon, as demonstrated from administrative documents found in the excavations at Babylonia.
Buoyed by false prophets’ messages that Nebuchadnezzar’s power was soon to be broken and the exiles would triumphantly return, and seduced by the seemingly renewed strength of Pharaohs Psammetik II (594–588 B.C.) and Apries (588–568 B.C.), on whom the vacillating Zedekiah pinned his hopes of restored national independence, the king was persuaded to rebel once more against Nebuchadnezzar. The response of Babylon was immediate. Early in 588 the Babylonian army laid siege to Jerusalem (2Ki 25:1; Jer 32:1–2), having already destroyed the fortress cities of the Judean hill country (vividly described in the Lachish Letters). In the fall of 586, Jerusalem was destroyed; Zedekiah was captured and blinded after witnessing the execution of his sons; many inhabitants of Jerusalem were murdered by the Babylonians; and others were deported to Babylon (2Ki 25:2–21; Jer 52:5–27). Judah had fallen.
During this period of international turmoil and unrest, combined with the immorality and apostasy of Judah, Ezekiel ministered. Having grown up during the reform of Josiah and having been taken captive in the deportation of Jehoiachin in 597 B.C., Ezekiel proclaimed to the exiled Jews the Lord’s judgment and ultimate blessing.
The following outline will clarify the chronological relationship between the Judean, Egyptian, and Babylonian kings.
1. Judean kings
Josiah (640–609 B.C.)
Jehoahaz (Josiah’s second son) (609 B.C.)
Jehoiakim (Josiah’s eldest son) (609–597 B.C.)
Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim’s son) (597 B.C.)
Zedekiah (Josiah’s youngest son; a regent) (597–586 B.C.)
Jerusalem destroyed (586 B.C.)
2. Egyptian kings
Psammetik I (664–609 B.C.)
Neco (609–594 B.C.)
Psammetik II (594–588 B.C.)
Apries (Hophra) (588–568 B.C.)
3. Neo-Babylonian kings
Nabopolasser (626–605 B.C.)
Nebuchadnezzar (605–562 B.C.)
2. Authorship and Date
Ezekiel’s authorship of the entire book was never seriously questioned before the second quarter of the twentieth century. Recent objections to the book’s unity have been based on critical literary analysis. Though Ezekiel’s visions caused him to see events in Jerusalem while living in Babylon, there are fewer difficulties in accepting the traditional unity than in altering the text and devising stylistic, geographical, and historical objections. The style and content of Ezekiel are remarkably consistent. Some hold to a Palestinian locale for the composition.
Few books in the OT place as much emphasis on chronology as Ezekiel does. The first three verses of ch. 1 mark the chronological setting, dating the book by Jehoiachin’s deportation to Babylon in 597 B.C. The first prophetic message is dated in “the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin” (1:2; i.e., 593 B.C.), and the last-dated message (29:17–30:19) was given in “the twenty-seventh year” (571 B.C.) The book contains thirteen chronological notices. Chapters 1–24, which announce both the judgment on Jerusalem and Judah and the basis for it, are dated 593–589 B.C. (1:1–3; 8:1; 20:1; 24:1). The prophecies against the foreign nations in chs. 25–32 are dated 587–585 B.C. (26:1; 29:1; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1, 17), with the exception of 29:17–30:19. The messages of blessing and hope in chs. 33–48 were delivered between 585 and 573 B.C. (33:21; 40:1).
3. Place of Origin and Destination
Ezekiel 1:1–3 and 3:15 clearly define the place of origin of Ezekiel’s ministry as Babylonia, specifically at the site of Tel Abib located near the Kebar River and the ancient site of Nippur. Many identify this “River” as a canal making a southeasterly loop, connecting at both ends with the Euphrates River.
The conditions of the Jews in the Babylonian exile were not severe. Though placed at the specific site of Tel Abib, it seems that they had freedom of movement within the country and the opportunity to engage in commerce. They were regarded more as colonists than slaves.
Ezekiel’s messages were primarily for these exiles. He condemned the abominations that were leading Jerusalem and Judah to ultimate destruction. The exiles questioned the prophecies of Ezekiel; and he, in turn, answered them carefully. He played the role of a watchman to warn them of the impending judgment on Judah and to proclaim the hope of their ultimate restoration to the land of Israel. Though in some of Ezekiel’s visions (chs. 8 and 11) he was carried to Jerusalem, his messages were not directly given for the benefit of the Jews in Palestine. The distance between Babylon and Jerusalem would preclude these messages being directed to Jerusalem, though certainly some of the concepts of Ezekiel may have filtered back to Palestine. Jeremiah, Ezekiel’s contemporary, however, was simultaneously proclaiming a similar message of warning and judgment to those remaining in Jerusalem and Judah.
4. Occasion and Purpose
When God created the nation of Israel, he gave the people the Mosaic covenant (Ex 20–Nu 9; Dt) as their constitution, which told them how to live for the Lord. The law was not given to burden the Hebrews; it was given for their own good (Dt 10:12–13), so that they might be blessed (Dt 5:28–33).
Yet the history of Israel was marked by disobedience to this covenant. Often the nation followed the gods of the peoples around them. As the above historical sketch shows, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah became increasingly corrupt and ultimately forgot their constitution. The covenant itself had warned the Israelites that if they strayed from the Lord’s ways revealed in the statutes and commandments of the law, the Lord would discipline them through dispersion in order to bring them back to himself.
Ezekiel spoke to his contemporaries, declaring to them the faithfulness, holiness, and glory of God. Their God would bring judgment, cleansing, and ultimate blessing through which all peoples might come to know that he, the God of Israel, was the one true God. The Lord desired to turn the exiles of Israel away from their sinful ways and restore them to himself. His judgment, therefore, was exercised as an instrument of love to cause them to see their abominations and to recognize the Lord’s faithfulness to his covenants. He was indeed faithful to his promises, both to judge and to bless his people. The destruction of the city of Jerusalem demonstrated God’s faithfulness to his holy character (cf. Lev 26; Dt 28–30) as revealed in his covenants. On the other hand, Ezekiel gave hope that one day the true Shepherd, the Messiah, would come to lead God’s people. Though their contemporary rulers had exploited them and led them away from the Lord, in the future the people would be restored to the Promised Land (Ge 12:7) by a righteous leader. In that day all the covenants of the Lord would be fulfilled to his people (Eze 37:24–28).
Ezekiel, as a watchman for Israel, warned the people of the judgment that was imminent and stressed the need for individual responsibility as well as national accountability before God. Each Israelite was personally to turn to the Lord. Likewise, the whole nation must ultimately return to him.
5. Theological Values
Five prominent theological concepts pervade these prophetic pages: (1) the nature of God; (2) the purpose and nature of God’s judgment; (3) individual responsibility; (4) the ethical, religious, and moral history of Israel; and (5) the nature of Israel’s restoration and the millennial worship.
(1) God’s attributes most strongly emphasized are those relating to his covenant promises. A righteous and holy God had established a righteous way of life for the well-being of his people. If they followed the stipulations of that covenant, they would be blessed in every spiritual and physical way (Lev 26:3–13; Dt 28:1–14). If they rebelled against the Lord’s righteous ordinances and disobeyed them, the Lord—being holy, just, and righteous—would discipline his people and withhold blessing (Lev 26:14–39; Dt 28:15–68). Ezekiel demonstrated the Lord’s faithfulness to these promises. He was judging Israel and Judah because they had broken the law, but he would also faithfully restore the people to the land of blessing and confer on them messianic blessings of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants (Lev 26:40–45; Dt 30; cf. Ge 12:1–3; 2Sa 7:12–17; Jer 31:31–34).
(2) God’s character logically reflects judgment. The Lord loved the Israelites and chose them as his very own people to bless the world (Ge 12:2–3; Ex 19:4–6; Dt 7:6–11). Since they strayed from his righteous ways, the Lord brought judgment on them to make them conscious of their wickedness so that they would return to him. Ezekiel continually declared that the purpose of the Lord’s judgment was to cause Israel, or the nations, to “know that I am the LORD,” a phrase repeated over sixty-five times in this book. Judgment was for Israel’s good because it would result in their return to the Lord and their recognition that he was the only true God.
(3) Though the Lord often dealt with Israel nationally, Ezekiel balanced this with an emphasis on individual responsibility (cf. Dt 24:16; 29:17–21). A person was not delivered from God’s curse by the righteousness of the majority of the nation or some other person’s spirituality. Each person was accountable individually to God. Each person needed to obey the statutes of God’s word in order to live righteously before him. Everyone was equally responsible for his or her own disobedience and unrighteousness. Therefore Ezekiel exhorted the exiles to turn from their sinful ways and live righteously, according to the Mosaic covenant (chs. 18; 23).
(4) Along with God’s judgment announced in this prophecy, Ezekiel vindicated the Lord’s righteous justice by recounting Israel’s ethical, moral, and religious history. This was most vividly accomplished through the imagery of Israel as a spiritual prostitute who, having been wooed and married by God, had prostituted herself by going after the gods of other nations throughout her entire history. This idolatry and unfaithfulness had characterized her from her birth in Egypt.
(5) In spite of Israel’s consistent idolatry, the Lord gave a message of hope through his prophet. One of the most complete descriptions of Israel’s restoration to the land of Palestine in the end times was given in the hope messages (33:21–39:29), which enunciated the basis, manner, and results of Israel’s restoration to the Promised Land. Likewise, the most exhaustive delineation of the worship system in the Millennium is set forth in chs. 40–48. Anyone studying eschatology must know these sections of Ezekiel.
EXPOSITION
I. Ezekiel’s Commission (1:1–3:27)
A. The Vision of God’s Glory (1:1–28)
1. The setting of the vision (1:1–3)
1–3 The setting of the Mesopotamian dream-visions, which occurred in both the Assyrian period and the Babylonian period, consisted of four elements: the date, the place of reception, the recipient, and the circumstances. Ezekiel included all four aspects in his vision.
The date of this vision is stated in two different ways: “in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day,” and “on the fifth of the month—it was the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin.” The “thirtieth year” most likely relates to the age of Ezekiel. It was not uncommon that dates were given according to a man’s age when personal reminiscences were being reported (cf. Ge 8:13). Additionally, Ezekiel was a priest, and a man entered his priestly ministry at the age of thirty (Nu 4:3, 23, 30, 39, 43; 1Ch 23:3). Therefore, Ezekiel apparently received this vision and his commission in the very year he would have begun his priestly service.
The “thirtieth year” of Ezekiel is related to the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s exile. The month is understood in v.2 from the explicit statement in v.1 (i.e., the fourth month). Since Jehoiachin was deported to Babylonia in 597 B.C., Ezekiel’s commission must have been received in 593 B.C. Jehoiachin’s year of deportation is the focal point of all dating within the book.
Ezekiel saw this vision “by the Kebar River in the land of the Babylonians.” The river Kebar, a navigable canal, flowed southeast from the city of Babylon.
Ezekiel was the stated recipient of the vision. He was a priest and the son of Buzi. Nothing is known about Buzi, though as Ezekiel’s father he would also have been a priest. The notation of Ezekiel’s priesthood is significant. He would have been well acquainted with the Mosaic covenant and the priestly functions of the temple, both of which pervade the entire message of this book. Ezekiel was able to describe clearly the glory of God in the temple and the temple functions. He also was prepared to evaluate accurately the rebellion of his people against the explicit commands of the law, which was the basis for the Lord’s judgments that Ezekiel announced. Moreover, this priestly background enabled Ezekiel to understand the millennial temple vision that concludes the entire prophecy.
The only circumstances set forth in this introduction to the subsequent vision were that “the word of the LORD came to Ezekiel” and “the hand of the LORD was upon him.” These phrases occur whenever Ezekiel was about to receive or proclaim a revelation from God (3:22; 8:1; 33:22; 37:1; 40:1). “The hand of the LORD was upon him” connotes the idea of God’s strength on behalf of the person involved (3:14), a concept inherent in the name “Ezekiel” (which means “God strengthens”). God was preparing Ezekiel to receive a vision that would provide the necessary framework for understanding the rest of the prophecy. It is important to the interpretation of this book to notice the phrase “I saw visions of God,” for this immediately declared the nature of the following vision.
2. The description of the vision (1:4–28)
a. The living beings (1:4–14)
There appears to be a general pattern to the commission narratives of the prophets. First is the divine confrontation—an introductory word that forms the basis and background for the succeeding commission. Then the commission itself enumerates the task the prophet is called to and its importance. Third, the objections the prophet may offer are stated, after which the “call” narrative closes with reassurances from the Lord that answer these objections and assure the prophet that the Lord is with him. All four elements are found in Ezekiel’s commission.
The Lord confronted Ezekiel with this glorious vision to impress on him the majesty, holiness, and wonder of the God who was about to execute judgment on the people of Israel. Ezekiel was awestruck by God’s holiness. The indelible impression of this theophany served as a constant encouragement to Ezekiel in his difficult ministry of announcing God’s judgments on his own contemporaries. Against the backdrop of the awesome holiness of God visualized here, Ezekiel saw the wickedness of Israel and thereby understood why God had to judge his sinful people. When the nations profaned the Lord by claiming that Judah was in captivity because their God was weak, Ezekiel knew that his God was greater than Babylonia’s gods. Though the Lord had chosen to discipline his people then, he would be victorious over all the nations when he restored Israel to the Promised Land.
This was the same glorious, covenant-keeping God who first revealed himself to Israel in a similar vision of splendor on Mount Sinai (Ex 19). He reappeared as the glory inhabiting the Most Holy Place in the dedication of the tabernacle (Ex 24:15–18; 29:42–46; 40:34–38). This theophany led the children of Israel through the desert (Nu 9:15–23; 14:10; 16:19; 20:6), filled Solomon’s temple (1Ki 8:10–11; 2Ch 5:14), and appeared at Isaiah’s commission (Isa 6:3). Though some may be disturbed that the manifestation of God’s glory is not always the same, variation in details is to be expected when one considers the limitlessness of God. However, the consistency of the manifestation of God’s glory was such that Ezekiel, a priest and a student of the Scriptures, immediately recognized that this was a vision of the glory of the Lord (v.28).
4–14 This vision began with a common introductory formula to visions: “I looked, and I saw.” Ezekiel suddenly saw what appeared to be a raging electrical storm—dark clouds, lightning, and thunder—coming from the north. Within this storm he saw four figures resembling living beings (cf. Rev 4), which he describes. Though the beings looked like people, each one had four faces and four wings. The human face was dominant, being on the front of each creature, while the lion’s face was on the right, the ox’s (or cherub’s; cf. 10:14, 22) face on the left, and the eagle’s face on the back.
The wings were joined together (vv.9, 23), with two covering each side of each being and the other two spread for movement, touching the wings of the other living beings (vv.11, 23). When the wings fluttered, they sounded like a great thunder of rushing water, a violent rainstorm, or a noisy military encampment—like the voice of the “Almighty” God. The sides of the living being had hands like a human being’s under its wing, straight legs, and feet like a calf.
The rapid movement of these living beings was like flashes of lightning. Their forward movement was in the direction in which the human face looked. When they moved, they did not turn around. These creatures moved only under the control of the “spirit” (v.12; GK 8120), which, in this context of God’s glory, is most likely the Holy Spirit of God.
In addition to the general appearance of brightness, these creatures contained in their midst that which looked like coals of fire, from which lightning issued. These living beings are identified in 10:15, 20 as cherubim. Certainly Ezekiel was acquainted with cherubim from his training in the temple, with its many representations of these creatures (Ex 25–26; 36–37; 1Ki 6; 2Ch 3), as well as his knowledge of the “cherubim” imagery from Mesopotamian culture with its guardian genii before temples. Cherubim often accompanied references to God’s glory in the OT; yet their specific functions are nowhere clearly delineated.
b. The wheels and their movement (1:15–21)
15–18 There was one high and awesome wheel beside each of the four living creatures (cf. 10:9) that had the general appearance of a sparkling precious stone—“chrysolite”—with a rim full of eyes (cf. Rev 4:6).
19–21 When these wheels were functioning, they gave the impression of a wheel being in the midst of another wheel. The wheels moved in conjunction with the living beings, going in any direction, lifting up off the earth, and standing still. All the movement was under the direction of “the spirit.” Chapters 3 and 10 further describe the wheels as making rumbling sounds when they whirled (3:12–13; 10:5, 13).
c. The expanse (1:22–28)
22–28 An awesome expanse resembling sparkling ice appeared like a platform over the heads of the four living creatures (cf. Rev 4:6). The likeness of a throne made from precious lapis lazuli (“sapphire”; see NIV note on v.26) was above this expanse, and the likeness of a human being was on the throne (cf. Ex 24:10; Rev 4:2). This person appeared surrounded by fire, giving him a radiance similar to a rainbow (cf. 8:2; Da 10:6; Rev 4:3, 5).
The most significant phrase of the entire chapter is in the last verse: “This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD.” This reference would relate more directly to the likeness of the man on the throne, but Ex 19, 1Ki 6, Isa 6, Da 10, and Rev 4 confirm that the entire vision is a manifestation of God’s “glory” (GK 3883; cf. v.1). The Lord revealed his magnificent person to Ezekiel to prepare him for ministry. He continued to appear to Ezekiel in this same fashion throughout the book to encourage him that he was a servant of Almighty God. When one genuinely sees God’s glory, one cannot help but fall prostrate in worship before the Almighty God, as Ezekiel did.
This manifestation of the Lord’s glory forms a backdrop for the announcements of judgment that Ezekiel would make. Since the glorious, holy God who gave the Mosaic covenant (Ex 19) could not tolerate disobedience to that covenant because of his righteous character, he had to execute judgment on the iniquity that his holy nature could not tolerate. Therefore, when God brought judgment on Jerusalem, his glory had to leave its residence in the temple (10:1–20; 11:22–23). However, Ezekiel saw the Lord’s glory returning (cf. ch. 43) after the cleansing of God’s people was completed. Thus the revelation of God’s glory becomes a significant theme throughout the prophecy, showing a unity of purpose within the book.
B. The Lord’s Charge to Ezekiel (2:1–3:27)
1. The recipients of Ezekiel’s ministry (2:1–5)
1–2 The voice of God speaking from the theophany addressed Ezekiel with the title “son of man” (GK 1201 & 132). This became Ezekiel’s normal designation throughout the remainder of the book (used over ninety times); this expression is found nowhere else in the OT except in Da 7:13; 8:17. This title indicates the frailty and weakness of a human being humbled before the mighty and majestic God. By this title Ezekiel was reminded continually of his dependence on the Spirit’s power, which enabled him to receive God’s message and to deliver it in the power and authority of the Lord—“This is what the Sovereign LORD says” (v.4). This same name—“Son of Man”—was given Christ in the Gospels (Lk 19:10) to emphasize his relation to humanity and his voluntary dependence on the Spirit of God (see comments on Da 7:13–14; Mk 8:31).
3–4 The commission side of Ezekiel’s call narrative encompasses the majority of chs. 2–3. God was about to commission Ezekiel for a most difficult task. He was to go to his own people in exile, the people God described as rebellious against himself, his law, and his messengers, the prophets. This was not a new condition, for this nation had transgressed the Mosaic covenant throughout her history. God’s chosen people were “obstinate” and “stubborn” (lit., “hard-hearted” and “hard-faced”), demonstrating a strong-willed determination to resist God and his ways. Undoubtedly a major contribution to Judah’s current rebellion were the abominations of Manasseh that had stained the hearts of the people.
5 Ezekiel’s message was not to be conditioned on his listeners’ response. Even if the people closed their ears to his words, he was to speak in God’s authority and not his own. Only then would the people know that a prophet had been among them.
2. Ezekiel’s encouragement in the ministry (2:6–7)
6–7 In light of the difficult ministry Ezekiel was being called to, the Lord reassures him. Regardless of how frightful the opposition may be—pricking him as thorns or stinging him as scorpions—Ezekiel was not to be afraid or become dismayed and give up. On the contrary, he was to be faithful in proclaiming God’s message, for his recipients were rebels who needed his warnings. This truth is still a source of encouragement to those called to proclaim the truth of God’s Word in the midst of a perverse and wicked generation.
3. The nature of Ezekiel’s ministry (2:8–3:11)
2:8–3:3 The Lord’s charge to Ezekiel emphasizes the absolute necessity of hearing, understanding, and assimilating God’s message prior to going forth as a spokesman for the Lord. Ezekiel was to listen to God (2:8a) and not rebel against him, as did the people of Israel, who failed to listen to his word.
Before beginning his ministry, Ezekiel was to symbolize his complete acceptance of the Lord’s message by eating the scroll. The nature of the message he would proclaim was written on the scroll: funeral dirges, mournings, and lamentations. Certainly this was not a joyous note on which to begin. But even when the ministry would seem difficult and distasteful, the Lord would cause his word to be as sweet as honey.
4–9 The recipients’ response to Ezekiel’s messages was not to govern the nature or manner of his ministry. The people rejected the divine messenger because they had been alienated from God. Though Israel was obstinate, and though it would have been easier to preach to foreign people in a foreign language, Ezekiel was to be strong and not respond in fear and dismay. The Lord fully prepared Ezekiel for his task by making him more determined than the people of Israel—as sharp and hard as flint. The Lord always prepares and reassures his messengers with the needed equipment.
10–11 The word of the Lord had to become part of Ezekiel (cf. Jer 1:9) before he could “go” and “speak” (Eze 3:1). Thus the prophet was to meditate on the Lord’s message, giving continual attention to it throughout his ministry. Only then would he be able to speak repeatedly with God’s authority—even to audiences who did not care to listen to him.
4. The conclusion of the vision (3:12–15)
12–13 The vision concludes with Ezekiel’s being raised up by the Spirit and hearing a final benediction that assured him that he had witnessed a revelation of God’s glory. Ezekiel’s transportation was not a case of hypnotism, autosuggestion, or the parapsychic phenomenon of bodily levitation. Rather, his transportation was in a vision, experienced under the compulsion of the Holy Spirit.
14–15 These verses recount Ezekiel’s objection to his commission (the third element of the normal prophetic-call narrative; see comment on 1:1–14). As Ezekiel was brought back in the Spirit to the exiles at Tel Abib, he struggled with the distasteful ministry he had been called to. He was anguished and angry that he had to deliver a displeasing message to an unreceptive audience.
It took Ezekiel seven days to sort out his thoughts and feelings after having seen this vision. The Lord’s hand was on him to control him as he sat appalled at the wonder and horror he had experienced. Ezekiel’s condition and the period of seven days were instructive to the exiles: mourning for the dead normally took seven days (Ge 50:10; Nu 19:11; Job 2:13), as did the length of time for a priest’s consecration (Lev 8:33). Ezekiel was being consecrated for the priesthood on his thirtieth birthday and commissioned to proclaim Judah’s funeral dirge.
5. Ezekiel: a watchman to Israel (3:16–21)
16–17 Ezekiel’s basic prophetic role was to be a watchman to the house of Israel (cf. chs. 18; 33). A watchman in OT times stood on the wall of the city as a sentry, watching for any threat to the city from without or within. If he saw an invading army on the horizon or any dangers within the city like fire or riots, he would immediately sound the alarm to warn the people (2Sa 18:24–27; 2Ki 9:17–20).
18–21 Ezekiel was to listen to the Lord and then warn the people of Judah concerning judgment on the horizon. His warning was based on the Mosaic covenant (Ex 20-Nu 9; Deuteronomy), which showed those in a relationship with the Lord how to live life in the best way. The covenant’s righteous stipulations, lovingly given for the good of the people (Dt 5:28–33; 6:25; 10:12–13), enabled them to enter into all the blessings God desired to pour out on them (Lev 26:1–13; Dt 16:20; 28:1–14; Mal 3:10–12). If they disobeyed these ordinances and wandered from God’s way of living, the Lord promised that he would lovingly discipline his people to cause them to return to the righteous life he prepared for their good (Lev 26:14–39; Dt 28:15–68). Ezekiel, therefore, was to warn Israel that God’s inescapable discipline was coming.
Ezekiel’s role as a watchman (cf. Isa 56:10; Jer 6:17; Hos 9:8) was not reprobative and injurious but corrective and beneficial. He was to warn the wicked that if they did not turn from their wickedness, they would die in unrighteousness. Likewise, Ezekiel admonished the righteous not to turn from their righteous ways—loyalty to the Mosaic code—and disobey God’s commands; if they did, they would surely die. These warnings were directed to individuals.
When a righteous person turned from righteousness and did evil, God placed a “stumbling block” before him. That person had already turned from God’s ways and done evil; so this stumbling block was not placed by God deliberately to cause him to fall into sin. Rather, it was an obstacle set into the path of this person to see how he would continue to respond. If he fell, then physical death came.
If a watchman saw a potential danger to a city and failed to warn its inhabitants, he was held responsible for the following destruction. So God warned Ezekiel that if he failed to warn the people of God’s curse on disobedience, Ezekiel would be responsible for their death; Ezekiel himself would have to die for his negligence. Those charged with declaring God’s word have a weighty responsibility to be faithful.
“Life” (GK 2649) and “death” (GK 4637) in this context must be understood as physical, not eternal. The concept of life and death in the Mosaic covenant is primarily physical. That covenant was given to guide those who had already entered into a relationship with God by faith. The Hebrews could live righteously and freely by keeping these commands (Lev 18:5; Dt 16:20). But if they disobeyed, physical death, resulting in a shortened life, was the normal result (Dt 30:15–20). The emphasis was on living a righteous life. This covenant pointed the people on to faith in the Messiah, whose work for salvation is pictured in the festive and sacrificial system (cf. Heb 9:6–10:18); but the keeping of the commandments of the law never provided salvation. Throughout the Scriptures, eternal salvation is always by faith, never by works of any kind.
6. Ezekiel’s muteness (3:22–27)
22–23 Ezekiel’s commission concluded with a second glimpse of God’s glory. Ezekiel, obedient to the Lord’s command, went out to the plain where God’s glory appeared to him, as it did in the vision of ch. 1.
24–27 As Ezekiel fell down before God in true humility and reverence, the Spirit prepared him to receive the message that he was to deliver to the exiles (cf. 4:1–7:27). Ezekiel was directed to return home and shut himself up in his house. The exiles would tie him up with rope. Then the Lord would make Ezekiel mute so that he could not reprove the people unless God opened his mouth. Whenever God did so, Ezekiel would speak only in the Lord’s authority, regardless of the people’s response. The phrase “Whoever will listen let him listen” (a favorite saying of Christ) stresses individual responsibility to respond to the message.
Ezekiel’s muteness would last approximately seven and one-half years, until the fall of Jerusalem (cf. dates in 1:1–3 with 33:21–22). Yet he would deliver several oral messages in the intervening period (cf. 11:25; 14:1; 20:1). The concept of muteness, therefore, was not one of total speechlessness throughout these years. Rather, Ezekiel was restrained from speaking publicly among the people, in contrast to the normal vocal ministry of the prophets. The prophets usually moved among their people, speaking God’s message as they observed the contemporary situation. But Ezekiel would remain in his home, except to dramatize God’s messages (cf. 4:1–5:17). He would remain silent, except when God opened his mouth to deliver a message. Then his mouth would be closed until the next time that the Lord chose for him to speak. Instead of Ezekiel’s going to the people, the people had to come to him. Though this rebellious people initially rejected Ezekiel’s ministry, the elders started sneaking away to seek the Lord’s message from Ezekiel as contemporary world events began vindicating his divine warnings.
II. Judah’s Iniquity and the Resulting Judgment (4:1–24:27)
Chapters 4–24 combine a series of oral messages and symbolic acts designed to warn the people of Judah that judgment was coming and to explain the reason for this imminent discipline. In chs. 4–7 Ezekiel dramatized the coming siege of Jerusalem (ch. 4) and the subsequent dispersion of the people in exile (ch. 5). He concluded the drama by declaring that this imminent judgment would destroy pagan idolatry. The exile could not be escaped through human efforts (chs. 6–7). The vision of God’s glory reappeared to Ezekiel (ch. 8) to expose, by contrast, the defilement of Judah resulting from her current participation in idolatrous heathen rituals. Subsequently God’s glory left Jerusalem and Judah, enabling God to pour out his wrath on Israel in accord with the Mosaic covenant (chs. 9–11). The exiles objected to this, but Ezekiel effectively answered their complaints (chs. 12–19). They were reminded that their history, characterized by unfaithfulness to their Lord and spiritual prostitution promulgated by corrupt leadership (chs. 20–23), condemned them. Chapter 24 concludes by vividly describing the fall of Jerusalem.
A. The Initial Warnings of the Watchman (4:1–7:27)
1. Monodramas of the siege of Jerusalem (4:1–5:17)
a. The brick and the plate (4:1–17)
1–3 The Lord showed Ezekiel the methods he was to use in warning of the impending siege of Jerusalem and the resulting exile. Though Ezekiel was mute, God directed him to act out the warnings (probably just outside Ezekiel’s house; cf. 3:24–25). The exiles had observed Ezekiel’s unique seven-day consecration (3:15–16). Now they would wonder what strange thing he would do next. The parables Ezekiel acted out demanded an audience.
Ezekiel took a clay brick and scratched on it a diagram of Jerusalem. Then he simulated a siege of the city with “siege works,” “ramp” (or “mounds”), battering rams, and military encampments. With an iron plate between him and the city, Ezekiel played this war game with determination for 430 days while prophesying against Jerusalem (vv.6–7). All this was “a sign to the house of Israel” of the coming siege of Jerusalem.
The “iron pan” was the kind used only by the priests for certain offerings (Lev 2:5; 6:21; 7:9). It was placed between Ezekiel and the city inscribed on the clay brick. The “pan” was declared to be a “wall.” Normally walls provided protection. The Lord had warned Ezekiel of the hostile reception of his ministry (cf. 2:6). Therefore, the imagery portrays either Ezekiel’s protection as he acted out the siege or the siege wall around Jerusalem erected by the Babylonians.
4–8 After acting out Jerusalem’s siege, Ezekiel was directed to dramatize the length of time that God’s people would undergo punishment for their iniquity. He faced north first (symbolically toward Israel), lying on his left side for 390 days to represent the time for bearing the punishment for Israel’s sins. When the 390 days were “finished,” then Ezekiel would “lie down again,” this time for forty days on his right side, facing south (symbolically toward Judah), to portray the punishment for Judah’s wickedness. He would be bound in each of these positions so that he could not change sides until he had completed the allotted days to portray the siege for each nation respectively. Ezekiel need not have been on his side twenty-four hours each day. The rest of ch. 4 has him fixing meals, while in ch. 8 he sat in his house with the exilic elders during the final days of lying on his right side. Apparently a portion of each day sufficed to fulfill the symbolism.
Though the basic meaning of this section is clear, the numbers have given rise to many explanations. Certain things are plain: each day represents a year (vv.5–6; cf. Nu 14:34), and the years signify a period during which the people sinned. The numbers should be taken as literal periods of time, separated into two distinct and successive intervals of 390 and 40 years. Ezekiel’s reference point for chronological determination is Jehoiachin’s deportation of 597 B.C. This, therefore, suggests the starting point for measuring the time periods in these verses. The 430 years then denote the punishment inflicted by conquering foreign powers on the children of Israel and Judah from the deportation of Jehoiachin, their recognized king, to the inception of the Maccabean rebellion in 167 B.C. During the Maccabean period the Jews once again exercised dominion over Judah. Though this is a possible solution, we cannot be dogmatic about these numbers.
9–17 During the 390 days Ezekiel lay on his side acting out a “siege” of Jerusalem, God placed him on a strict diet. Ezekiel was to eat bread made from a mixture of several different grains. He would be rationed to two pints of water and one-half pound of bread for his daily food for over a year. This meager diet was to communicate the reality of the famine during the siege of Jerusalem. The Lord would “cut off the supply of food” in Jerusalem (as he promised in Lev 26:16, 20, 26, 29). There would be a scarcity of any one kind of grain for bread and also lack of water. The inhabitants of Jerusalem would rot away and look on one another in horror (cf. Lev 26:19, 35; 2Ki 25:3; Jer 34:17–22).
In addition to his beggarly sustenance, Ezekiel was to bake his rationed bread over a fire made unclean from human dung (cf. Dt 23:12–14). Though eating combined grains was acceptable, using human dung was defiling, for eating unclean food was forbidden by the Mosaic covenant (Lev 22:8; Dt 12:15–19; 14:21). Since Ezekiel, a faithful priest, had never eaten defiled food, he cried out to the Lord, requesting not to have to eat unclean food. God graciously permitted him to use the common fuel of cow’s dung instead of human excrement. This unclean manner of preparing food described the Captivity that would follow the imminent siege and fall of Jerusalem. The captives would eat the defiled foods of the foreign nations they would be banished to.
God was not changing his law when he told Ezekiel to do all this. God temporarily caused Ezekiel to disregard the principle of eating unclean food to dramatize in an extreme way how abhorrent the Captivity would be. God used an acted parable to convey this truth in a way that would surely be understood; the eating of unclean food as a normal practice was not being condoned here. God sovereignly protected Ezekiel against any ill effects of eating defiled food.
b. The division of hair (5:1–4)
1 Ezekiel completed the drama begun in ch. 4 by shaving his head and beard, weighing the hair, and dividing it equally into three groups. This final act also pictured defilement. Shaving the head and beard was a pagan ritual for the dead (27:31; cf. Isa 22:12; Jer 16:16; Am 8:10), which the law forbade (Dt 14:1), and a sign of humiliation and disgrace (7:18; cf. 2Sa 10:4). If an Israelite priest shaved his head, he was defiled and no longer holy to the Lord (Lev 21:5). Ezekiel defiled and humiliated himself as a symbol of the humiliation of the people of Judah who were defiled and no longer holy to the Lord. Nothing was left to do but to mourn their death as a nation.
2–4 The hair symbolized the inhabitants of Jerusalem. One-third of them would be burned when Jerusalem was burned after the siege (2Ki 25:9). Part of these people would have already died through famine and distress during the siege (v.12a). The second third of the inhabitants would die by the sword when Jerusalem fell (v.12b; 2Ki 25:18–21a; 2Ch 36:17). The final third would be scattered to the wind in exile (v.12c; 2Ki 25:11, 21b). A portion from this last group would be judged by fire as they left Jerusalem, while some would die by the sword in captivity. Out of this final third, the Lord would deliver a remnant of Jerusalem’s citizens—depicted by Ezekiel’s placing a few hairs from this group securely into the hem of his garment.
c. The significance of the symbolic acts (5:5–17)
5 The Lord emphasizes the recipient of the siege and the coming judgments by the statement, “This is Jerusalem.” Immediately one’s attention was brought back to the city etched on the clay brick in 4:1. Jerusalem was the object of God’s love. However, all these symbolic actions demonstrated what would happen to her.
6–7 A judgment speech—with accusations against Jerusalem enumerated and a verdict pronounced—reinforced the monodrama. The basic accusation was that Jerusalem, this blessed city, had responded to God’s blessing by rebelling against his commandments, refusing his ways, and failing to live life according to the Mosaic covenant. She had become so wicked that she did not even adhere to the common laws of the nations around her. Some of Jerusalem’s inhabitants would resort to cannibalism during the coming siege (v.10a; cf. Lev 26:29; Dt 28:53; 2Ki 6:28–29; Jer 19:9; La 4:10). They had already defiled his holy sanctuary with detestable idolatry (v.11a; ch. 8).
8–17 God would execute the judgments pronounced in the Mosaic covenant on Jerusalem in the sight of the nations. Never again would he execute a judgment like this. He would withdraw himself from the sanctuary (cf. 10:4; 11:22–23) to pour out his judgment without pity. One-third of the inhabitants of Jerusalem would die in the city through disease and famine; one-third would die by the sword; and a remnant would be scattered in every direction among the nations. Famine, wild beasts, plagues, and bloodshed would all be part of Jerusalem’s judgment (cf. Lev 26:21–26). The land of Judah would become a desolation, causing the nations to ridicule her because of what God had done to her. At the same time these nations would be struck with fear and terror at God’s justice and wrath even on his very own people. Judah’s judgment served to warn these nations of the judgments God would bring on them if they cursed Israel (cf. Ge 12:3). As a result of this judgment, God’s justice would be satisfied and the people of Jerusalem would know that the Lord had executed his wrath. The punishment was certain. The Lord had spoken!
2. The coming judgment on the land of Judah (6:1–7:27)
a. Destruction of pagan religious shrines (6:1–14)
1–7 God interrupted Ezekiel’s muteness to announce judgment on Judah’s mountains, hills, ravines, and valleys. Ezekiel set his face against these four geographical features of the land, for it was in them that the pagans normally established their religious shrines (cf. 2Ki 23:10). Canaanite religion—with its perverted emphasis on sex, war, cults of the dead, snake worship, and idolatry—preferred high places and groves of trees for its place of worship. Manasseh, king of Judah (695–642 B.C.), had led in the resurgence of these pagan cults.
The Lord next pronounced judgment on the heathen shrines and their cultic practices that had been adopted by his people. He would remove the temptation facing them by destroying all the “high places,” “altars,” “incense altars,” and “idols.” These shrines would become desecrated by the scattering of bones of the dead around them. The “scattering of bones” is a phrase used for judgment in which uncleanness and shame are conveyed (cf. Pss 53:5; 141:7). The bones would be those of the Israelites who had become engrossed in these pagan practices (cf. 2Ki 23:20; Jer 8:1–2). The Lord was faithful to his promise in Lev 26:30; he refused to allow anything to take his rightful place. Through this discipline Judah would know that he was the only God.
8–10 God always accompanies his pronouncements of judgment with the proclamation of a way to escape—by turning to the Lord and following his ways (cf. Jer 18:7–10). Thus within Ezekiel’s judicial sentence was the Lord’s assurance that some of the exiles would see the wickedness of their ways and be ashamed. They would remember the Lord and recognize that he did not speak in vain when he instructed his people to live righteously or they would suffer the threatened discipline. This remnant would respond to God’s discipline and repent of the spiritual fornication that had grieved the Lord. They would come to know that their God truly is the Lord. The whole purpose of God’s judgment was to bring his people back to him.
11–14 Reverting to his theme of impending judgment, the Lord instructs Ezekiel to demonstrate joy because of the coming judgment. Clapping the hands and stamping the feet signify either joyful praise or derision over sin and judgment (21:14–17; 22:13; 25:6; cf. La 2:15; Na 3:19). Ezekiel exhibits God’s delight over the comprehensive eradication of pagan shrines and practices from the land. The entire land would become as desolate as the desert toward Diblah. Everyone would be touched by the judgment: the distant ones by disease, the near ones by the sword, the remainder outside and inside Jerusalem by famine. Four times God directed Ezekiel to remind the exiles that the purpose for God’s judgment was to restore his hearers to an experiential knowledge of God (vv.7, 10, 13, 14). This major thrust of the book called for an intimate relationship with the Lord rather than a destructive allegiance to impotent idols.
In every generation God’s judgment and discipline are misunderstood by most people. God’s chief desire is to bring people to himself—or back to himself. When humankind willfully refuses to turn to him, God mercifully uses discipline and judgment to cause the people to recognize that he is the only true God, always faithful to what he has said in his word!
b. The imminency and comprehensiveness of the curse (7:1–13)
1–4 God now gives a second message to Ezekiel, containing four brief, intensive prophetic speeches in poetic form that emphasize the imminency and comprehensiveness of the coming judgment on all Judah. Numerous short sentences and the repetition of words and phrases express the intensity of the message. The recurrence of the word “end” (GK 7891) stresses the finality of the judgment. Judgment had come! Imminency was heightened by the reiteration of the verb “coming,” the repetition of “now,” and the use of terms like “time,” “day,” and “is near.”
The first prophetic speech (vv.1–4) emphasizes the extent—“the four corners of the land”—of the judgment and its basis; two main points summarize the reasons for judgment. Judah would be judged according to her wicked ways. Her abominations would be brought on her. The Exile would bring the Judeans into countries where the same abominable practices they had taken part in were a daily occurrence. The expectation was that this would cause them to detest such wicked rituals. Furthermore, the Lord would have pity on no one. He would not spare them. Though his forbearance and compassion had withheld discipline, such restraint would no longer continue. God’s judgment genuinely manifested his love, for its purpose was to cause Judah to know that he is God.
5–9 The second oracle emphasizes the horror and surprise of the judgment as well as the person of the judge. The terror that would fill the land is stressed by the repetition of the words “disaster” and “end,” in addition to the announcement that the judgment would be a time of panic, not joy like that experienced at harvest festivals (cf. Isa 16:10; Jer 25:30). The unexpectedness (chs. 12–19) of judgment is reflected by a play on words in “the end has come” and “roused itself,” as well as by phrases such as “Doom has come,” “time has come,” and “the day is near.” Verses 8–9 give the basis for the judgment stated in vv.3–4. The message closed by stunning the exiles with a new name for God: “The LORD who strikes the blow”—the one who would now judge Judah.
10–11 The third oracle focuses on the imminency, comprehensiveness, and readiness of judgment. The dawn of the judgment day had arrived; it had suddenly “budded” and “blossomed.” The “rod” is either Nebuchadnezzar as the instrument of judgment or the insolence of the kings of Israel. The only passage in Scripture referring to a “budded rod” is Nu 17, where God used such a rod to denote his choice. But since judgment on Judah is described here, it would seem best to understand the “rod” as an instrument of judgment that had been divinely chosen and was ready for use. The concept of the budding rod stands in parallelism with the previous line of the poem (indicating imminency) and the following line (describing the nature of the rod God would use to discipline Judah—a rod of “arrogance”). Nebuchadnezzar fits the description of this rod as an instrument of judgment. God would use this weapon to devastate the land until nothing of value was left.
12–13 The last oracle emphasizes the permanency and quickness of the judgment. Its suddenness is illustrated by the inability one had to regain what one had sold because of the rapidity of the coming discipline. Most likely this example was given with the law of the sabbatical year (Dt 15:1–2) or the Year of Jubilee in mind (Lev 25:13–16). According to that law, if one sold land to pay for a debt, that land reverted to him on the sabbatical year or the Year of Jubilee, whichever came first. Ezekiel maintained that if one sold land under this arrangement, he would not realize its return since neither he nor the buyer would be in the land of Judah seven years hence. Though the buyer might rejoice over the fact that he would never have to return the land, it would not be a time of rejoicing for either party. When judgment came, neither would own the property. Babylon would possess it!
The vision of judgment was certain! God would not repeal it! No one would be able to continue to live in iniquity, for all wickedness would be judged.
c. The response to the curse (7:14–27)
14–18 The last half of this chapter vividly describes the reactions of the Judeans to this swift and violent judgment. Moral dissipation, famine, and disease had so decimated the nation that they would be unable to muster an army when the trumpet sounded for battle. Therefore the Babylonians would easily approach Jerusalem for the siege (cf. Lev 26:7).
Disease and hunger would slay those within Jerusalem, and the sword would catch by surprise those working outside the walls. Any fortunate enough to escape the initial invasion would flee to the hills. There, shuddering in fear, weak and dismayed, they would be ashamed of and humiliated by their sins that brought this destruction. They would put on sackcloth in mourning, shave their heads in humiliation, and moan like doves.
19 Nothing could deliver the Israelites from God’s awesome wrath demonstrated in Jerusalem and Judah’s destruction in 586 B.C. Many of the inhabitants had lived for wealth so long that material gain had become an obsession to them. Yet in the judgment these riches would mean nothing. Idolatry, wickedness, and materialism had robbed them of everything and led them into judgment. Money would be thrown away like something sexually unclean.
20–22 Judah had profaned her sanctuary. The “beautiful jewelry” refers to Jerusalem and her temple; “my treasured place” likewise refers to the temple when connected with the full discussion of Jerusalem’s fall (see 24:21, 25). The people had taken ornaments and treasures from the temple and defiled God’s temple by using them to make idols. Ironically, God would now allow foreigners to profane the temple, plundering its treasures. Everything would become spoil for Babylon.
23–24 “Chains” were prepared to bind the captives for deportation to Babylonia. This was their due for the violent crimes they had committed. As the Judeans were leaving, the worst foreigners among the nations would enter and possess the land, profaning their holy places. The land would come under Babylonian dominion.
25–27 The last response for some was to seek help. People would run to the prophet in hope of a visionary revelation of deliverance, to the priest for messages from the law that might help, or to the elders for counsel in this time of distress. None could offer help. They had no answers at all! The leadership had failed in its responsibility to lead the people in God’s ways. It was too late! The anguish of judgment had come! If the people had sought peace earlier, it would have been available; but now there was no peace. Kings and princes would be horrified and mourn. God had judged Israel by her own judgments—by the Mosaic covenant they should have known and followed. The only redeeming factor was that they would learn that the Lord truly was God and that his covenants were to be obeyed!
B. The Vision of the Exodus of God’s Glory (8:1–11:25)
1. The idolatry of the house of Israel (8:1–18)
a. The image of jealousy (8:1–6)
1–6 Verse 1 describes the single vision of chs. 8–11. The date was “in the sixth year, in the sixth month on the fifth day” (August/ September), 592 B.C. The recipient was Ezekiel. He received the vision while sitting in his house with the elders of Judah sitting before him. God’s hand came on Ezekiel, causing him to be caught up into the vision. From the chronological notices of 1:1–3 and 8:1, it appears that he received his vision about fourteen months into his symbolic siege of Jerusalem. He was still lying daily on his right side, bearing the iniquity of Judah (cf. 4:6). Most likely the elders had been watching this performance, wondering whether anything new would happen. It was fitting for Ezekiel to be on his right side when this vision of Judah’s judgment appeared to him.
In light of the distance and time involved, these elders were not contemporary elders in Judah who had come from Judah to Babylonia to seek counsel from Ezekiel. Moreover, the depraved character of the Judean elders revealed in this vision would not have led them to take such an arduous journey to Babylonia for genuine spiritual reasons. Rather, the elders sitting before Ezekiel were the leaders of the Judean exiles in Babylonia who had already been deported from Judah in the captivities of Daniel (605 B.C.) and Jehoiachin (597 B.C.).
The vision’s primary thrust was to make known the cause of the coming judgment on Jerusalem. The political rulers, the prophets, and the priests were expected to lead Judah in her holy ways. In this vision Ezekiel saw the contrast between God’s glory in the sanctuary and the extreme moral and spiritual corruption of the nation’s leadership. The latter was the main cause for God’s judgment on Jerusalem. In ch. 8 the abominable idolatry as practiced by Judah’s leaders in the temple precinct was exposed. Chapters 9–11 depict the judgment of a holy God on the unholy perversion described in ch. 8. Progressively God’s glory is removed from Jerusalem and Judah. Appointed men are sent to pour out fiery judgment on this wicked idolatry and its proponents. The Judean leaders are singled out for special condemnation in 11:14–21, but the faithful remnant who repented of their sinful ways are marked for protection (9:4) and reassured of their ultimate restoration and cleansing (11:14–21).
The vision begins in vv.1–6 with Ezekiel seeing the same manifestation of God’s glory that he had seen on the river Kebar in chs. 1–3. In the vision of ch. 8, the likeness of a man of the same appearance as the one in the vision of ch. 1 (cf. 1:27) caught Ezekiel by his hair and transported him by the Spirit to Jerusalem in the vision. In Jerusalem Ezekiel saw God’s glory in the temple. Such glorious splendor stood in stark contrast to the religious perversion being practiced in the temple area.
Ezekiel found himself standing at the entrance of the inner court’s north gate, known also as the altar gate, because the altar of sacrifice was located just inside that gate (cf. Lev 1:11). He stood in the outer court at the gate’s entrance, not in the inner court. As he looked northward into the outer court, he saw the “idol of jealousy.” This idol provoked the Lord to jealousy, for he had declared in the Mosaic covenant that he alone was God (Ex 20:1–3) and that all idolatry was forbidden (Dt 4:16; 32:16, 21). The idol’s description is vague; thus it cannot be identified with certainty. Possibly it is a reestablishment of the idol of Asherah, the mother-goddess of the Canaanite pantheon, which Manasseh had erected in the temple (2Ki 21:7; 2Ch 33:7) but later removed (2Ch 33:15). This image certainly had its attraction in Israelite history, for Josiah had also had to remove it in his reformation (2Ki 23:6). Jeremiah’s denunciation of the worship of the Queen of Heaven may also relate to this image (Jer 7:18; 44:17–30).
The statement “But you will see things that are even more detestable” concludes this brief examination of the “idol of jealousy.” This conclusion emphasizes the progressive severity of Judah’s idolatry (vv.6, 13, 15).
b. Idol worship of the elders (8:7–13)
7–9 Ezekiel was brought into the north entry gate. There he saw a hole in the wall and was told to dig through the wall, enter, and observe what the elders of Israel were doing secretly in the inner court. These seventy elders were most likely the leaders of the nation who based their traditional position on Moses’ appointment of the seventy elders to assist him in governing God’s people (Ex 24:1, 9; Nu 11:16–25).
10–11 Jaazaniah, the son of Shaphan (possibly the son of Josiah’s secretary of state; see 2Ki 22:8–14; 2Ch 34:15–21; Jer 26:24; 29:3; et al.), was leading these men in burning incense to all sorts of sculptured animals, reptiles, and detestable things. Perhaps the detestable things were the animals declared unclean in Lev 11.
12–13 The Judean leaders were practicing their corrupt worship of these idols in the dark, each in his own room. These individual chambers are difficult to explain. Were they built into the wall that separated the inner and outer courts, or were they rooms in the private homes of each elder, indicating that each was engaged in this perverse ritual privately as well as publicly? Contextually, the former is preferable, though no such chambers were known to have existed within the inner court of Solomon’s temple.
These leaders rationalized their activities by declaring that God did not see them nor was he present anymore. He had forsaken the land, as demonstrated by the deportations of 605 B.C. and 597 B.C. They denied the existence of God in direct opposition to his name: “the one who always is.” They negated his omnipresence and omniscience, choosing to exchange “the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like . . . birds and animals and reptiles” (Ro 1:23). In saying that God had forsaken the land, the elders repudiated his faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant, his love for his chosen people, and his immutability. With this kind of rationalization, they permitted themselves to do anything they desired. If God did not exist, then no one need care about him.
c. Tammuz worship of the women (8:14–15)
14–15 Leaving the inner court and the iniquity of the elders, Ezekiel returned to the entry way of the inner court’s north gate, where he observed women worshiping Tammuz, an ancient Akkadian deity, the husband and brother of Ishtar. Tammuz, later linked to Adonis and Aphrodite by name, was a god of fertility and rain, similar to Hadad and Baal. In the seasonal mythological cycle, he died early in the fall when vegetation withered. His revival, by the wailing of Ishtar, was marked by the buds of spring and the fertility of the land. Such renewal was encouraged and celebrated by licentious fertility festivals.
The date of this vision was in the months of August/September, when this god Tammuz “died.” At the time of this vision, the land of Palestine would have been parched from the summer sun, and the women would have been lamenting Tammuz’s death. They perhaps were also following the ritual of Ishtar, wailing for the revival of Tammuz. But there were still greater abominations for Ezekiel to see (cf. vv.6, 13).
d. Sun worship (8:16–18)
16 Ezekiel returned to the temple’s inner court, where he noticed twenty-five men with their backs to the temple, facing east in sun worship. The identity of these men is unsure. Possibly they were part of the seventy elders just mentioned. But it would seem strange that only a portion of the seventy would have been engaged in the sun worship. Moreover, since this was the inner court and only priests were permitted access into that court (2Ch 4:9; Joel 2:17), they may have been priests (though, to be sure, the seventy elders of Israel had just been seen practicing their idolatry within the inner court). The specific numbers of seventy (v.11) and twenty-five are probably given to aid in distinguishing the two groups. Therefore, it is more likely that these “twenty-five men” are priests. If so, the number twenty-five suggests that there was one representative of each of the twenty-four courses of the priests plus the high priest (cf. 1Ch 23). Regardless of their identity, sun worship was strictly forbidden by the Mosaic covenant (Dt 4:19); and both Hezekiah and Josiah had had to remove this pagan practice from Judah during their reigns (2Ki 23:5, 11; 2Ch 29:6–7).
17–18 These verses summarize this chapter of perverse idolatry by declaring that this wickedness of Judah’s leaders had allowed violence to fill the land. All this had repeatedly provoked God. They were even “putting the branch [GK 2367] to their nose.” This phrase is problematic. The word’s normal reading is “twig.” Possibly putting the twig to the nose was part of the ritual practice of sun worship, a concept that fits this context well. Regardless, the context implies that the act was offensive to God.
All these abominable, idolatrous rituals brought the wrath of a holy God. He would judge without compassion. He would refuse to listen to the people’s cries for mercy, even though they shouted with a very loud voice. Judgment would come! The remainder of the vision continues to emphasize that point.
2. Judgment on Jerusalem and the departure of God’s glory (9:1–11:23)
a. The man with the writing kit (9:1–4)
1–2 As Ezekiel stood in the temple’s inner courtyard, aghast by the abominations being practiced, the Lord announced the coming of the city’s executioners. Ezekiel saw them enter the “upper gate,” equivalent to the inner court’s north gate (cf. 2Ki 15:35; 2Ch 27:3; Jer 20:2; 36:10). Each executioner carried a lethal weapon in his hand. They gathered together and stood beside the bronze altar. Among them was a man clothed in linen and carrying a writing kit.
Ezekiel 8:18 provides a transition in the vision, where God announced judgment on Jerusalem. He would execute it through these seven men (six executioners and the man in linen). A holy and righteous God would not allow idolatry to rob him of his rightful place as Israel’s true God. The basis of the judgment was God’s glory and holiness as seen in the theophany of glory and the linen clothing of the man with the writing kit. Linen was often worn by divine messengers (cf. Da 10:5; Rev 15:6) and was used for priestly garments (Ex 28:42); thus linen portrays the purity and holiness of God. On the other hand, judgment was stressed by these men gathering at the bronze altar, the altar of sacrificial judgment, ready to execute their assigned task.
3 The glorious God prepared to delegate the execution of this judgment to these men as he arose from above the cherubim and proceeded to the temple’s threshold. Most likely God’s glory, envisioned in the man of 8:2, had separated from the cherubim throne-chariot in the vision and moved from the Most Holy Place (cf. 8:4) to the temple threshold. From there the picture of God’s departure from his people in preparation for judgment began. With judgment imminent, God’s glory could not be present over the ark of the covenant in the Most Holy Place or in the presence of the divine Judge. Therefore, the Lord vividly demonstrated his readiness to judge the people by withdrawing his glory from the Most Holy Place to the entry of the temple, in order to assign the tasks of judgment.
4 The Lord commanded the man clothed with linen and carrying the scribal implements to go throughout Jerusalem and mark everyone who had genuine remorse and concern for the sins of the city, who saw that the heathen ways of Jerusalem were contrary to the Mosaic covenant, and who desired to see that covenant properly instituted in the city. This man marked them on their forehead with a mark of protection as the impending judgment drew near (cf. Rev 7:3; 9:4; 14:1). These people had a righteous heart attitude.
b. The executioners’ judgment (9:5–8)
5–7 God commanded the six men to follow the man with the scribal kit throughout Jerusalem and to exercise individual judgment on everyone who did not have the mark of protection, regardless of sex or age. They were to spare none. They began with the seventy elders polluting the temple with their secret worship of sculptured animals in the inner court. Judgment started in the temple (cf. 1Pe 4:17), the center from which religious leadership should come. However, Judah’s leadership had become corrupt. Therefore, the temple courtyards would be defiled by the blood of these worshipers of heathen deities (cf. Nu 19:11; 2Ki 23:16).
8 As Ezekiel found himself the only inner-court survivor of the judgment, he became alarmed at the mass of people destroyed by these executioners. Although he could appear hard, his heart throbbed with love for God and his people. He pleaded with God not to eradicate the entire remnant of Judah. She was the only tribe left, and some of that tribe had gone into exile to Babylonia already (605 B.C. and 597 B.C.). The present judgment, illustrated by these six men, looked as if it would consume the remainder of Judah.
c. Vindication of God’s judgment (9:9–11)
9–10 The Lord’s response to Ezekiel’s concern for the nation was to remind him that the iniquity of Judah was extremely great. Violence and spiritual perversion had filled the land because the people had forgotten God’s character, assuming that he did not see what they were doing because he had deserted them. They denied God’s omniscience, omnipresence, and faithfulness. The Lord had not left, because he presently was judging Judah for her iniquity and would not spare anyone. He did know the wickedness of the people, for he would recompense them for it.
11 As an encouragement to Ezekiel that all Judah had not strayed from God, the man with the writing kit reported, “I have done as you commanded.” In other words, the righteous ones had been marked.
d. Coals of fire on Jerusalem (10:1–7)
1–2 God instructed the man clothed in linen to take fire coals from the center of the cherubim chariot (cf. ch. 1) and to pour them out in judgment on the city to purify it (cf. Isa 6).
4–5 This parenthesis clarifies the setting. The cherubim throne-chariot was in the inner courtyard to the south of the temple. The temple precinct had been cleansed by the six men, and God’s glory had moved to the temple door. From there it filled the temple and the courts.
6–7 The man in linen faithfully responded to the Lord’s command to take coals from the cherubim. The cherub was probably the living being with a face like a “cherub.” He handed the live coals to the man in linen.
e. Cherubim and Ichabod (10:8–22)
8–17, 20–22 The living beings of ch. 1 are identified as “cherubim” (GK 4131) in this passage. Cherubim appear elsewhere in the Scriptures, though they were new to the discussion in Ezekiel. In the ancient Near East, a winged sphinx with a human head and a lion’s or bull’s body was often identified as a “cherub.” The OT cherubim are primarily represented as guardians and protectors (cf. Ge 3:24), though they also performed worship on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:18–20). Perhaps as a throne-chariot (cf. 1Sa 4:4; 2Sa 6:2; 2Ki 19:15; 1Ch 13:6; 1Ch 28:18; Pss 18:10; 80:1; 99:1), they were protectors and guardians of God’s glory.
18–19 A principal theme in this vision and in the book of Ezekiel is the departure and return of God’s glory. It departed from the temple because of the corruption within Jerusalem and Judah, but it would return in the end time when the nation had been fully cleansed (cf. 43:1–9). The gradual departure of God’s glory began in 9:3 and 10:4, when the glory of God left the Most Holy Place and moved to the temple’s entrance. God’s glory departed from the temple’s threshold and assumed its place on the cherubim throne-chariot. Together they went to the temple’s east gate, from where they finally departed (cf. 11:22–23). Scripture declares (Dt 31:17; Hos 9:12) that this departure would occur if the people strayed from God’s ways. In 1Sa 4 a similar example of the departure of God’s glory at a time of judgment was memorialized by the name of Eli’s grandson “Ichabod” (v.21), which means “inglorious.” Once again, in Ezekiel’s day God was writing “Ichabod” over Jerusalem and Judah.
f. Judgment on Jerusalem’s leaders (11:1–13)
1 As Ezekiel watched God’s glory move to the east gate of the temple complex, the Spirit brought him to that gate. Here God showed Ezekiel more of the perversion of the nation’s leadership. Twenty-five men were gathered together, led by Jaazaniah, the son of Azzur, and Pelatiah, the son of Benaiah, leaders of the people (these twenty-five political leaders were different from the twenty-five sun worshipers of 8:16).
2–3 These leaders had given the people false and evil counsel. They had planned evil things, deceiving the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah by encouraging them to build homes at a time when the prophets were continually warning of the impending Babylonian destruction. These leaders were complacent and apathetic, believing that there was no imminent danger. They declared that Jerusalem’s inhabitants were secure inside Jerusalem’s walls by promulgating the proverb: “This city is a cooking pot, and we are the meat.” Jerusalem, “the pot,” provided security to its inhabitants, “the meat,” just as a pot protects the meat within it. Prophets like Ezekiel were declared to be misguided men using scare tactics.
4–6 Ezekiel prophesies to these twenty-five men with a judgment oracle; the accusation is stated in vv.5–6 and the verdict in vv.7–12. He reminds these leaders that their actions were not hidden from God; he knew exactly what they were thinking, saying, and doing. He knew they had rejected the prophets’ warnings, exchanged the righteous statutes of the law for idolatry, and murdered the inhabitants of Jerusalem with their devious schemes.
7–12 The verdict was expressed in the same imagery as the people’s proverbial statements in v.3. The “pot” of Jerusalem would protect only the righteous whom these wicked leaders had already slain. These corrupt leaders and their followers would be brought outside the “pot” of Jerusalem and struck down by the dreaded sword of foreigners. Babylonia would execute this judgment, slaying the Judeans throughout the land (cf. 2Ki 25:18–21). With the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C., the Judean leaders and their subjects would know that the Lord was truly the Lord. They would observe that he faithfully executed the righteous judgment he had declared would come on those who failed to live according to his statutes. If Israel would obey, she would live (Lev 18:5). But she had chosen rather to live by the idolatrous ways of the nations around her and to receive the law’s curse instead of its blessing.
13 While Ezekiel was prophesying this message to the leaders, Pelatiah died. He did not actually hear Ezekiel’s prophecy, but news of Pelatiah’s death helped confirm Ezekiel as a prophet. This stunning result of his prophecy caused Ezekiel to fear once again that God would destroy all the remnant of Israel.
Large cooking pots, some of them completely intact, are often found while excavating biblical sites.
g. The future of the remnant (11:14–21)
14–15 Ezekiel’s great concern for the remnant of Judah had not gone unnoticed by the Lord. God encouraged him in this message that he and a remnant, his kindred, were purposely being kept by God through the Captivity. The citizens of Judah had looked on the exiles as the unclean and sinful part of the nation. Was not God judging them by their deportation? The Judeans encouraged the exiles to get as far away from the land of Israel as possible, because God had given it to those still in Judah, not to the sinful exiles.
16–20 On the contrary, God now shows that it was the deported remnant that he cared for; and he shows his care by promising to regather the exiles to the Promised Land. This is the first mention of a future restoration in Ezekiel. Many of the prophets held out restoration as a continual hope to the righteous. On the basis of the Mosaic covenant, judgment was all the prophets could offer Judah for her sins. The promise of restoration to the land, though declared in the blessings of the Mosaic covenant (Lev 26:40–45; Dt 30:1–10), was based on the eternal covenants to Abraham (Ge 12:1–3), David (2Sa 7:12–16), and Jeremiah (Jer 31:31–34).
In exile the Lord would continue to be an ever-present sanctuary for his people, making provisions for them no matter where they were scattered. This is the same ever-present God who today meets the needs of those who trust him, regardless of their circumstances. God then promises that when he finished disciplining the remnant of Israel, he would (1) regather them, (2) restore them to the land of Israel, (3) cleanse the land of its abominations, and (4) fulfill the new covenant with them.
The new covenant promised in Jer 31:31–34 provided for a change of heart and a new spirit. This new spirit would be the outpouring of the Spirit promised by the prophets (Dt 30:6; Jer 31:33; Joel 2:28–29), further developed in Eze 36:26–27, and initially instituted in Ac 2. The new heart and spirit would replace Israel’s old heart of stone (Zec 7:12), which had become so hardened against the Lord and his ways. The people would be empowered to live in the godly manner set forth in the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant. Finally they would truly reflect the Mosaic covenant formula: they would be God’s people, and he would be their God.
Through his death for sin once for all, Christ, the Mediator of the new covenant (Heb 8:6), has made it possible for all believers to receive the Spirit’s divine enablement so that they too may live according to God’s righteous standards. This is available to all who place their faith in the resurrected Messiah, Jesus Christ.
21 However, God warns those who do not repent and follow him that they will be held accountable and will be judged.
h. The departure of the Lord’s glory from Jerusalem (11:22–25)
22–25 After God had encouraged Ezekiel about the future restoration of the Judean remnant, his glory departed east from Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives. His presence among Israel is hereafter pictured as removed (until his return in 43:1–4). Judgment was now certain! Ezekiel was brought back to Babylonia in the vision, and the vision stopped. He then recounted the entire vision to the exiles who had been observing his symbolic siege and had seen him caught up in the vision.
C. The Lord’s Reply to the Exiles’ Invalid Rationalizations of Hope (12:1–19:14)
1. The dramatic tragedy of exile (12:1–20)
a. Introduction (12:1–2)
1–2 The introductory phrase indicates the beginning of a new series of messages. Ezekiel always gives specific dates for new visions or oracles. Since no new chronological notice is given, and since the speeches of chs. 12–19 are closely related thematically to the foregoing vision, presumedly these messages were uttered shortly after Ezekiel’s explanation of the vision in chs. 8–11.
God immediately reminded Ezekiel that he lived among “a rebellious people.” Ezekiel had been warned of this in his commission (2:3–8), but now he would experience that reality. The exiles had been watching his symbolic acts and hearing his judgment oracles for over a year. He had communicated the imminency of the judgment, its severity, and its basis (chs. 4–11) through every possible means. Though the elders had ears and eyes, they had neither heard his messages nor seen his visual signs in chs. 8–11 (cf. Isa 6:9–10; Jer 5:21). Ezekiel had to speak to this rebellion.
The exiles had not grasped the serious consequences of Ezekiel’s warnings. They still hoped for an early return to Palestine, for they viewed the continued preservation of Jerusalem and Judah as signs of security. After all, Jerusalem was the eternal city. They presented several reasons for their hope and security—as well as their objections to Ezekiel’s warning—in chs. 12–19.
First, if judgment was to come, it would not be in their lifetime, as Ezekiel had declared (ch. 12). Second, Ezekiel was only one of many prophets. Most prophets and prophetesses announced hope and reasons for optimism. Why should the people listen to Ezekiel (ch. 13)? Third, the leaders in Judah were ultimately responsible. If there was to be any judgment, it would be on them, not the exiles (ch. 14). Fourth, if real danger of judgment should exist, then they would only have to find some righteous man to intercede for them before God, and they would be delivered (ch. 14). Fifth, how could Ezekiel possibly believe that God would judge his own chosen people? He would not do that (chs. 15–16). Sixth, it would not be fair for God to judge anyone for his forefathers’ sins. The people thought Ezekiel was saying just the opposite (ch. 17). Seventh, if judgment was really coming, then there was nothing they could do to stop it; for they would be paying for their fathers’ sins. It would not make any difference if they repented (ch. 18). Eighth, Zedekiah, the contemporary ruler of Judah, could be trusted. He would throw off the yoke of Babylonia (ch. 19).
Ezekiel patiently, systematically, and adamantly challenged the naive reasoning of the exiles, undermining each source of their optimistic rejection to his warnings of judgment. When Ezekiel had finished his challenges, no excuses remained.
A basic pattern is noticeable in the structure of Ezekiel’s prophecy: each vision is followed by a message that expands and develops the concepts in the vision. The vision of Ezekiel’s commission (chs. 1–3), for example, was followed by the announcements of judgment on Jerusalem. The vision of Jerusalem’s religious corruption in the temple and judgment in chs. 8–11 is now elaborated in chs. 12–19, which develops the wickedness of all leaders in Judah (kings, prophets, and priests) as the core of the nation’s iniquity. These chapters emphasize corrupt leadership and reasons for the coming judgment.
b. A picture of deportation (12:3–16)
3–7 Ezekiel’s symbolic acts undoubtedly drew curious spectators. Even though the exiles had failed to grasp the significance of Ezekiel’s previous messages, once again God graciously sought to convey his warnings to them. Maybe they would understand this time. The Lord repeatedly encouraged Ezekiel to perform new dramas for everyone to see. Ezekiel would be a “sign” to them.
Therefore, Ezekiel is told to act out something familiar to everyone watching: the process of deportation. During the day he gathered the small amount of belongings a deportee could take with him and brought them out where everyone could see them. In the evening he dug a hole through the mud-brick wall of his house. Leaving through the hole, Ezekiel carried his bag like an exile. Next he covered his face and went to another place while all the people watched. Ezekiel’s act was a “sign” (GK 4603) that God would bring additional exiles to Babylon.
8–16 Since all the exiles had participated in a deportation themselves (either in 605 B.C. or 597 B.C.), they should have understood clearly Ezekiel’s picture of deportation. God reminded Ezekiel that many had not understood the drama, for they were asking, “What are you doing?” Therefore, Ezekiel explained his dramatization so none would miss its meaning.
Ezekiel prophesied deportation of a remnant from Jerusalem in 586 B.C., especially as it related to Zedekiah, the current Judean ruler. Ezekiel told the captives that he was a “sign” to them of the exile that the current inhabitants of Jerusalem would soon experience. His message probably shattered any hope that they might have had that he was portraying their imminent departure from Babylonia back to the Promised Land.
Zedekiah was called “the prince” because he was not the legitimate king. That right belonged to Jehoiachin who was in Babylonia. Zedekiah would load his bags at night (2Ki 25:4; Jer 39:4; 52:7), escape with difficulty through the gates of the king’s garden in southeast Jerusalem, and flee toward the Jordan, where he would be caught by Nebuchadnezzar’s army like an animal on the hunt. The figure of a conqueror catching enemies in a net is from the imagery of the fowler or hunter in the ancient Near East. Zedekiah’s troops would be scattered, and he would be brought before Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah. There his sons and the nobles would be slaughtered before his eyes, after which he would be blinded. Therefore Zedekiah would never see the land of Babylonia, though he would die there as a captive (cf. 2Ki 25:5, 7; Jer 39:6–7; 52:8, 10–11). Ezekiel’s covering of his face in the dramatization likely indicated that Zedekiah would seek to disguise himself in his flight from the city. That in fleeing he “will not see” the land with his eyes would correlate with Zedekiah’s blinding and deportation.
Moreover, God wanted to make clear the purpose of the Exile. The deportations were designed to show the deportees that the Lord was the faithful, loving, and powerful God over Israel, to which they would return. Lest the foreign nations misunderstand Judah’s dispersion, God had the exiles testify that their abominations precipitated the deportations. In this way the nations would realize that the Lord was holy and righteous, and that he cared for his people. This would correct the common notion in the ancient Near East that a nation that was conquered was serving gods who were either powerless or no longer cared about their people. To prevent such a misconception, the Lord would send a remnant of Jews among the nations to witness that they were in exile only because of their own iniquity, not because of the Lord’s failure. Then perhaps the nations too would come to know that the Lord was the only true God.
c. A drama of fear (12:17–20)
17–20 In another brief act Ezekiel was to quiver and tremble while he ate and drank. This displayed the fear and horror that would come on the citizens of Jerusalem and all the cities of Judah when their towns were destroyed and lay in ruins. The land would be emptied of its fruitfulness because of the violence that had been done in it. The violence they had done to others would return on their own heads. Thus the Judeans would know that the Lord was real and that he was faithful to his promises. Those things they had refused to learn in times of blessing, God would teach them through the horrors of judgment. But his judgment was still a manifestation of his love; for if he had not cared for them, he would never have disciplined them.
2. The faithfulness of God: the present judgment (12:21–28)
21–25 Ezekiel confronted the exiles’ rationalizations of his messages. It had become obvious that the apathy of the Jewish exiles had blunted their understanding of his symbolic acts and oracles (12:2). They did not think that Ezekiel’s prophecies were valid. Through a contemporary proverb the captives asserted that they believed all the previous judgments proclaimed by Isaiah, Micah, and others were not true, for they had not come to pass. Why should they now accept Ezekiel’s prophecies as valid? Their outlook presumed on God’s grace, long-suffering, and forbearance. It showed an unbelief in God’s immutability and the trustworthiness of his word as revealed in the Scriptures. It was only because of his grace that God had not disciplined Israel sooner. He had waited so Israel might change her mind and return to him. Instead, the people had strayed further, living in the fantasy of security when judgment was imminent.
God declared that the exiles’ proverb would be heard no more, for judgment was imminent. On the contrary, the Lord would create a new proverb: “The days are near when every vision will be fulfilled.” The judgments that the Lord had promised in the Law and the Prophets would soon be executed. Judgment on Jerusalem would bring the false visions and deceptive divinations, by which the false prophets continually sought to encourage unscriptural ways, to an abrupt halt.
26–28 Others had believed Ezekiel’s warning of judgment yet thought it would come, not in their lifetime, but in the distant future. God’s response to Judah was brief and to the point: Judgment would no longer be delayed! What God had said, he would do—and he would do it soon!
3. The condemnation of contemporary false prophets (13:1–23)
a. Judgment on the prophets (13:1–16)
1–7 In 12:21–28 Ezekiel spoke against the exiles’ false security that led them to think that judgment was not imminent. They had received encouragement in this position by the visions and divinations of the many false prophets. Now Ezekiel would deliver God’s denunciation on these prophets. Ezekiel was instructed to charge the prophets to listen to the Lord’s word, not to their own hearts, for judgment (“woe”) was about to be delivered against them for their foolish ways.
Before the judgment verdict was delivered (vv.8–16), God clearly delineated the characteristics of the prophets that had brought this judgment on them. The prophets were summarized as “foolish” (GK 5572). This word is a broad term that encompasses spiritual and moral insensitivity contrary to the nature of a wise man. Ezekiel described the basic cause of their foolishness as their reliance on their own hearts and their failure to seek God’s revelation.
The prophets followed their own desires, failing to care for the people and seeing the perversions of their own hearts as God’s revelation. Their visions were false and full of lies because they had really not seen anything at all. They were using pagan practices of divination to seek messages from God: watching the movement of stars, studying animals’ internal organs, casting lots, etc. This only resulted in counterfeit statements that were deceitfully prefaced with the prophetic formula of divine authority: “The LORD declares.” Yet the Lord had not spoken, nor had he sent them. They were only speaking from their own perverse hearts, hoping for a word of confirmation that never came. God emphatically denied that he had spoken through them.
These prophets followed their own spirit, not the Spirit of God. The desires of their fleshly spirits caused them to behave like “jackals among ruins.” Jackals love to play among rubble, seeking dens for themselves. They do not care about the ruins. Similarly, these prophets did not care about the people of Judah but made dens in their own self-interest. They played their own games of false prophecy that destroyed the people and the land. So they failed to prepare the people for the difficult times ahead or for the intense times in which they lived. Judah faced judgment and deportation unless the people turned to the Lord.
The prophets were to step in and repair the “breaks in the wall” caused by violations of the Mosaic covenant. They were to exhort the people concerning the truths of that covenant in order to repair the breaks and protect the people from judgment. But they were negligent of their responsibilities. No one could be found to repair the “breaks” for God’s people (22:30). Moreover, they failed to secure the sanctuary with holiness so that it might stand in the battles of the “day of the LORD”—not the future eschatological judgment but the immediate judgment of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion and siege of Jerusalem in which the temple would fall. Sinful abominations had been permitted in the temple due in part to the failure of these prophets to speak the truth and warn the people of the statutes and ordinances of the Mosaic covenant.
8–16 The false prophets had failed as “watchmen” over the nation of Judah, crying “peace” when judgment was on the horizon. These prophets had an empty word to speak and had seen lies. God’s verdict was simple and clear: “I am against you.” Ezekiel repeated the reasons for the judgment.
These false prophets would be cut off from the people and have no part with the nation of Israel because they had misled the people. As prophets they had been in the hierarchy of the nation and in influential places, but they would no longer be in the council of God’s people (cf. Jer 23:22). Instead, their names would be eliminated from the citizenry of Israel. They would not reenter the land of Israel at the time of their restoration from the Babylonian captivity (c. 539 B.C.). This judgment would cause the prophets to turn to the Lord and know that he existed as the only true God. The implication was that they still had an opportunity to repent and come to the Messiah in eternal salvation.
The judgment of the prophets is described in terms of their participation in “whitewashing.” Since the prophets were declaring a time of peace and prosperity, it was not out of line for them to encourage home building. Consequently, they had gone around plastering walls and helping people decorate the thin partitions of their homes. It was the confirmation of a “settle down and live” philosophy. However, God declared that these walls and their decorative plaster would fall beneath the raging rains of his anger and the hail and violent wind of his wrath. When the walls were destroyed, so also would the prophets be consumed in the destruction. No one would be concerned about house decorations then. God would establish another new proverb: “The wall is gone and so are those who whitewashed it.”
b. Judgment on the prophetesses (13:17–23)
17–19 The Lord exhorted Ezekiel to turn and prophesy against the prophetesses who, like the false prophets, also had prophesied from their own hearts. These women were involved in divination and sorcery. Their practice of witchcraft was common in the ancient Near East—especially Babylonia and Egypt. But witchcraft was forbidden in the Mosaic covenant (Lev 19:26). The practice of the false prophetesses was to tie bands of cloth to their wrists and place veils over their heads as they cast spells over people’s lives in order to bind them and hunt them down. These women caused the righteous to die and kept the wicked alive.
Barley and bread were also instruments of sorcery. Hittite practices and later Aramean rituals demonstrate that divination was carried out with barley bread either as part of the pagan sacrificial ritual or as a means of determining whether the victim would live or die. The prophetesses, therefore, profaned God by misrepresentation. Though appearing to be God’s prophetesses, they polluted his name when they used these occult practices.
These women not only had the power to kill people through their incantations, but they also lied to God’s people. Because the Judeans listened to these lies, many died unnecessarily. This is not to say that the ultimate authority over life and death rested with these prophetesses, for that authority rests only with almighty God.
20–23 Ezekiel announces that God would tear off the cloth bands of these prophetesses, along with their veils with which they hunted people and bound them, thus freeing the righteous in Judah from their grip. The Lord then reasserted the reasons for this punishment. These sorceresses had used deceptive and counterfeit means to dishearten the righteous, pulling them into their cultic snare and influence. At the same time they encouraged the wicked to disobey God’s ways. Therefore, God would cause their false visions and cultic divinations to cease, delivering his people from their wicked hands. When he would do that, then these prophetesses would know that he was the ever-present one, faithful and immutable Lord.
4. The effect of the false prophets on the leaders (14:1–11)
1–2 Some of the Judean elders in the exile came before Ezekiel. These “responsible” leaders came to seek clarification from him about his denunciation of the prophets and to inquire from him what God’s ways for them should be. Their lives and attitudes showed they had followed the false prophets and prophetesses.
3 These leaders outwardly sought God’s will by coming to Ezekiel, a true spokesman for the Lord. At the same time, however, they inwardly were exalting idols on the throne of their hearts as the real gods of their lives. Theirs was a fickle, twofold allegiance. Their lust for idols led to the elders’ stumbling into sin. Their outward rebellion against God, their practice of pagan rituals, and their refusal to keep the Mosaic covenant showed their inward worship of these false gods. No true direction can be given to those who have erected idols in their hearts.
4–11 The Lord broadened his answer to include any person in Israel who may have harbored this dual allegiance; phrases like “any Israelite” and “house of Israel” unmasked this hypocrisy. The elders represented the entire nation that had followed their leadership.
The Lord’s reply was threefold: two portions related to the elders and the nation at large, while one was directed at the false prophets. The Lord first declared that he would give the elders over to the many idols in their hearts. God knew that satiation with idolatry was the only way for Israel to repent of her sin. The people would become nauseated with the emptiness and perversion of idolatry. God wanted to “recapture” their hearts that had become alienated from him through lust for these idolatrous practices. He wanted to convict them of sin so that they would heed his invitation to repent.
God purposes not only to convict sinners of their sin but also to bring them to his Messiah. Therefore he lovingly exhorted these double-minded elders and their followers to “repent” and to turn from their idols and abominations to him. Instead of heart allegiance to idols, a heart allegiance to God was necessary.
The Lord’s second response was directed toward those who had refused his invitation to repent. If they did not heed this, God himself would answer their empty inquiry with action, not words. In fulfillment of the “curse” stipulations of the Mosaic covenant, God would set his face against these people, cut them off as citizens of Israel (cf. 13:9; Lev 70:3, 5–6), and make them “examples” and “bywords” for all nations to see his faithfulness in executing his covenant judgments (Dt 28:37). Then they would know that he truly was the ever-present God of Israel.
Finally, the Lord turned to the prophets whose false visions and deceptive proclamations had misled the elders and people. If these false prophets were enticed to prophesy in any way other than that which God had given through Ezekiel, it would only be because God had permitted it. God ultimately controls all things, even false prophets. These prophets would receive the same punishment God would mete out to the fickle inquirers, for the iniquity of each was the same: idolatry. The Lord consistently brought judgment on the idol worshipers in order to restore them to himself. Likewise, this judgment on the prophets was given so that the Israelites might no longer wander away from their Lord and defile themselves but that they might come into the relationship God had always desired them to have with him as his people. This relationship was expressed through the covenant formula: “They will be my people, and I will be their God” (cf. Ex 19:5–6; Lev 26:12; Jer 7:23; et. al.). God would remove the false prophets and leaders so that his people might be those who truly followed his ways as revealed in the Mosaic covenant.
5. No deliverance apart from personal righteousness (14:12–23)
12–14 As the elders listened to Ezekiel’s call to repentance (vv.1–11), some no doubt wondered whether the impending judgment on Jerusalem might be diverted if some well-known righteous man or men could be found (cf. Ge 18). Ezekiel responds by saying that even Daniel, their contemporary, who was ministering before Nebuchadnezzar in the city of Babylon, if he teamed up with the likes of Noah and Job, could not save the nation. God reminded the elders that any nation that was unfaithful to him and turned to other gods would be punished, for God remains faithful to both his covenant curses and his covenant promises (Lev 26:22–26). Each individual and each land was responsible for its own standing before God.
15–20 Ezekiel illustrates his point through four common vehicles of judgment: beasts, the sword, disease, and famine. If any of these judgments were to come on the land, not even the personal righteousness of a Noah, a Daniel, or a Job would be able to deliver another person from judgment—even a member of his own family. These three righteous men were delivered respectively out of the dangers they faced, but each had little effect on his contemporary situation.
21–23 Judah’s current situation was no exception. God would send his four severe judgments against Jerusalem. But to vindicate his justice before the exiles, the Lord would spare a small remnant of unrepentant Hebrews and send them into exile in Babylonia. This was strictly a manifestation of God’s grace. When these unrighteous people would go into exile in Babylonia, the exiles already there would observe their deeds and see how wicked the Judeans had become. Through this the exiles would be consoled that God was perfectly just in his judgment on Jerusalem. As the exiles saw the Judge of all the earth doing right (Ge 18:25), they would be comforted in their sorrow over what had happened to Jerusalem.
6. Jerusalem, an unprofitable vine (15:1–8)
1–5 This parable implies that the exiles had asked about God’s consistency. They understood that they were his chosen people, his choice vine, and did not believe that God’s judgments would destroy Judah as Ezekiel had proclaimed. The parable shows the worthlessness of a vine except for bearing fruit. Its wood was too soft, weak, and crooked for building. It was not even fit for making a peg to hang some utensil or clothing on. If a vine was naturally of so little value, it certainly could not be expected to be useful when charred by fire.
6–8 In the parable the inhabitants of Jerusalem were likened to the vine. Just as the vine was profitable only for fruit-bearing, so Judah and Jerusalem were to be fruitful. The nation never was like other nations (trees) in military strength and riches except when they were trusting in the Lord (cf. David’s reign). God had chosen Israel to be a blessing to the nations (Ge 12:1–3), though throughout her history she never had been very fruitful in this respect. Israel had been as unproductive as an uncultivated vine. Now, having experienced the fire of God’s judgment through the Babylonian invasions and deportations, her value was entirely gone. She was worthless as a fruit-bearer (a blessing to the nations). She was fit only as fuel for fire. The Lord would return her to the fire of his discipline. The inhabitants of Jerusalem would be devoured, and the land would then lie desolate.
The reason for this fiery judgment was once more made clear: Judah had been unfaithful to the Lord and his covenant. They had failed to be a blessing to the world. They had disobeyed God’s ordinances and had sinned. They were worthless and useless because of their idolatry. Graciously, the exiles could still be useful and fruitful for God, but only if they remained faithful to him. To cause them to return to himself, the Lord brought this ruin on those living in Jerusalem. Through this judgment the exiles would know that he was their ever-present God. So he disciplined his chosen people to make them fruitful instead of unproductive (cf. Jn 15:1–16).
7. Jerusalem’s history as a prostitute (16:1–63)
a. The birth of Jerusalem (16:1–5)
1–2 The exiles were unconvinced by the parable of the vine (ch. 15). Certainly, they thought, the vine of Israel may have done a few things wrong in her past; but she was chosen of God and could not be as worthy of judgment as Ezekiel implied. Therefore, the Lord instructed him to “confront Jerusalem with her detestable practices.” Ezekiel would show just how corrupt Israel’s history was by tracing the history of Jerusalem, which became the capital of Israel and the symbol of the nation. Likewise, the purpose of this allegory was to show to the exilic leaders all the terrible abominations that had brought the impending judgment on Jerusalem. Needless to say, the abominations of Jerusalem pervaded the nation, and the judgments she would experience would likewise affect all Judah.
3 Jerusalem was conceived by the Amorites and the Hittites in the land of Canaan. The city was not founded by the Hebrews but by the heathen peoples of Canaan. The reference to Jerusalem’s father as an Amorite and her mother as a Hittite shows how the city came into being. Jerusalem was a Jebusite city when the children of Israel entered the land under Joshua (Jos 15:8, 63) and a member of the Amorite league that joined together against the Hebrews at Gibeon (Jos 5:1).
4–5 Jerusalem had been treated in a manner similar to a child left to exposure on birth. It was the custom in the ancient Near East to wash a newborn child, rub it with salt for antiseptic reasons, and wrap it in cloths, changing these twice by the fortieth day after the umbilical cord was cut. Such common treatment was not given to Jerusalem, by analogy, in her beginning. She was a foundering city, uncared for by the people of Canaan or by Israel in the conquest of the land, for the Hebrews failed to conquer the city of Jebus (Jos 15:63). In fact, they allowed this city to lie exposed as an unwanted child throughout the period of the judges, a widespread custom in the ancient Near East that was used to eliminate unwanted children.
b. The Lord’s courtship and marriage to Jerusalem (16:6–14)
6 The Lord saw Jerusalem in her ignoble condition and sent David, the newly anointed king over Israel (2Sa 5:6–10), to rescue her from the Jebusites and her maltreatment. God determined Jerusalem’s destiny when he found her and stressed that she would live!
7 Once delivered, Jerusalem received the blessings and benefits of the Lord, her lover. He promised to increase her population like the plants of the field. Under his gracious care Jerusalem grew to full maturity as a city. Though she had reached marriageable age, she was still “naked and bare.”
8–14 The Lord visited Jerusalem and claimed her in marriage by spreading his garment over her (cf. Ru 3:9). He entered into a marriage covenant with Jerusalem (cf. Ps 132:13–17). She became the Lord’s city, where he dwelt when David brought the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem and purchased the threshing floor of Araunah, the Jebusite (2Sa 6; 24), in preparation for the temple’s construction. As a groom to his bride, God lavished marriage gifts on Jerusalem: ornaments, cleansing, anointing, costly garments, jewelry, a crown, and fine foods. She was made exceedingly beautiful and advanced to royalty under the reigns of David and Solomon. Her fame and beauty became renowned throughout the ancient Near East as the capital of the leading nation of that day (1Ki 10; La 2:15).
c. Jerusalem’s prostitution with other lands and gods (16:15–34)
15 No sooner had the Lord crowned Jerusalem with beauty and fame as his bride than she began to trust in her beauty rather than in God who gave it to her. She began to commit spiritual adultery with every nation. Solomon led Israel contrary to God’s way of faith by making treaties with many nations (cf. Dt 17:1–20; 1Ki 11:1–13). It was customary to seal international treaties with a marriage. Solomon’s many foreign wives attested to his reliance on these treaties rather than on the Lord. This led to his worship of the foreign gods of his wives. The emphasis came to be on externals and material objects. The very gifts God had given to Jerusalem had become the means of her downfall, for she loved the gifts rather than the giver.
16–22 From rebellion under Solomon Jerusalem, as the capital of Israel, gradually led the nation down the path of corruption. While the gifts of God were not inherently evil, Jerusalem became married to the gifts rather than to the Lord. She constructed pagan high places for worship and decorated them with her garments and committed adultery against God on them (2Ki 23:7). She formed male images from her precious metals and clothed them with her exquisite textiles. She fornicated by worshiping them with incense, libations, and offerings.
Worst of all, Jerusalem offered her children in sacrifice to these idols (cf. 2Ki 16:3; 21:6; 23:10; Jer 32:35). She entered into every kind of religious abomination practiced among the heathen peoples. She had forgotten what God had done for her in her youth when she had nothing and deserved nothing. She forgot that he rescued her from a despicable state and elevated her to royalty and beauty.
23–25 It would have been enough if Jerusalem had simply entered into the abominations of the pagan religions, but she became a militant advocate of these heathen practices. Jerusalem established pagan high places and mounds for abominable worship in every street. She offered herself lewdly as a prostitute by inviting every false religious ritual to come and have an intimate part of her syncretistic spiritual adultery. In doing so she made her God-given beauty detestable. So God began to declare his “woe” on Jerusalem as she broke his heart with her prostitution.
26–29 Jerusalem also began to play the prostitute with Egypt. Egypt had lusted after Israel throughout the united kingdom period. Then Jeroboam I and others prostituted themselves with Egypt (2Ki 17:4; 18:21; Isa 30:7; 36:2), though prophets like Hosea and Isaiah condemned this spiritual and political adultery. Jerusalem sought security through political relations with foreign nations rather than in her God. Thus the Lord delivered Jerusalem into the hands of the Philistines and caused the city to lose portions of the territory she had ruled over (cf. 2Ch 21:16–17; 28:18; Isa 1:7–8). Though this should have caused Jerusalem to reevaluate her sinful ways, she blatantly continued her harlotry, having political “relations” with Assyria and Babylonia. Yet her desires were never satisfied. Ahaz sought relations with Assyria (2Ki 15:19–20; 16:7–18); and overtures to Babylonia were made even during the reign of Hezekiah (2Ki 20:12–19), though Isaiah rebuked the leaders for these political desires (Isa 20:5–6; 30:1–5; 31:1). Political relations with Assyria and Babylonia normally brought the demand to worship their gods.
30–34 The Lord cried out to Jerusalem, condemning their weakness in soliciting suitors in his place. Because of the weakness of her heart relationship with God, she, as an unfaithful wife, had sought out nations with whom she could have her “relations” instead of with the Lord, her husband. Instead of the normal practice of receiving gifts or pay for her services as a prostitute, Jerusalem actually solicited these strangers (nations). She bribed or paid them to secure intimate relationships with them (cf. Hos 8:9). God summarized: Jerusalem has a rebellious and disobedient heart of infidelity. She is without excuse!
d. Jerusalem: judged a prostitute (16:35–43)
35–41 Judgment was declared on Jerusalem. She had indulged in obscene, spiritual adultery with the nations and their perverse idols. The Lord would now use these very nations as instruments to discipline her. Those nations Jerusalem had loved in fornication and those she had hated, God would use to strip her bare of all her riches and blessings so that all might see the barrenness and nakedness of Jerusalem and Judah without God’s blessing. These foreign nations would judge her and make her pay the penalty for adultery and infanticide as set forth in the Mosaic covenant: death (Ex 21:12; Lev 20:10). They would mockingly destroy her brothels (places of idolatry), tear off her clothes (cf. Hos 2:12; Na 3:5), and spoil her garments so that she would stand naked for all to see. Then she would be tried, stoned, and cut in pieces. Her houses would be burned as these nations executed God’s judgment on her as one who practiced idolatry in contradiction to the law (Dt 13:12–18).
42–43 This punishment was ultimately accomplished by the Babylonian invasion of 586 B.C. under Nebuchadnezzar, whereby Jerusalem’s idolatrous abominations ceased. She lay in burned ruins. The remnant of her population was taken captive into Babylonia. There the Israelites turned from idolatry to monotheism, learning the lesson God’s judgment was designed to teach. At that time God’s wrath also ceased against Jerusalem, for his justice was satisfied. So that Jerusalem might remember him once again, God brought this discipline on her. Though we may forget God, his love prevents him from forgetting his own. God takes his commitments in personal relationships seriously.
e. The perversion of Jerusalem (16:44–58)
44–48 Ezekiel changes the figure slightly at this point to make a comparison between Jerusalem, Sodom, and Samaria. These three cities are likened to three sisters, all the offspring of their Hittite mother and Amorite father. In what manner their mother, the Hittites, despised her husband and children is not clear. Perhaps she too had rejected the Lord and had sacrificed her children to idols. However, the emphasis of the allegory is to demonstrate the abominable degradation of sin that characterized the land of Canaan, for Canaan was renowned for her religious syncretism in which she experimented with every kind of idolatry and religious perversion.
A common proverb applied to these three cities: “Like mother, like daughter.” Jerusalem, Sodom, and Samaria had all been nourished in the perverted religious systems of the land of Canaan, and now they were characterized by their parents’ wickedness. However, Jerusalem had become the preeminent sister in spiritual abominations and wickedness. Though Samaria was Jerusalem’s “older” sister to the north, greater in strength and military might, and Sodom (Ge 10:19) was Jerusalem’s “younger” sister to the south, smaller in prestige and strength, Jerusalem had outstripped both in her depravity and rebellion against God. Though both sisters were known for their extreme sin, Jerusalem had become more corrupt than either of them.
49–50 Sodom’s chief sin had been pride and self-exaltation, stemming from her abundant materialism (food), given to her from God (Ge 13:10), which had resulted in false security, apathy, and disdain and neglect of the poor and needy. This material ease fostered sexual perversion (Ge 13:13; 18:20; 19:4–5). As evil as Sodom was, she did not begin to do evil like Jerusalem. Since God removed Sodom in judgment, certainly Jerusalem would receive greater punishment (La 4:6; cf. Mt 11:23).
51–52 Jerusalem had sinned twice as much as Samaria, the wicked capital of the northern kingdom, which had already gone into captivity because of her abominations before God (1Ki 12:25–33; 15:30; 16:20, 26, 31–34). Jerusalem’s wickedness was so perverse that she caused Sodom and Samaria with all their evil to appear righteous by comparison.
53–58 Judgment would come on Jerusalem. Just as haughty Jerusalem abhorred Sodom when she was a byword among the nations because of her corruption, so Jerusalem would be a similar byword in her day to Edom and Philistia. The nations would despise her. Jerusalem’s only hope was the promise that God would restore her from her captivity in the future. God would not only restore Jerusalem but would also restore Sodom and Samaria in that day when he brings restoration to the land of Canaan (cf. ch. 36). That restoration would humble Jerusalem and humiliate her for all her wickedness.
f. Restoration: the promise of love (16:59–63)
59 The Lord concludes this allegory by affirming his immutable faithfulness to his covenants. He would discipline Jerusalem (and Israel) as the Mosaic covenant promised, because they had failed to be faithful to him and had broken their covenant with him. The covenant broken by their spiritual adultery was the Mosaic covenant, the only one Israel entered through an oath (Ex 24:7–8; Dt 29:10–21). But Judah/Jerusalem had broken that covenant exactly as described in Dt 29. Thus God would faithfully execute the justice of that covenant on them—the curses.
The word “oath” (GK 460) can also mean “curse” and was used both ways throughout the OT. God purposely used this term to communicate both the idea of Jerusalem’s despising of the oath of Ex 24 and Dt 29 and the concept of her disregard for the promise of the curse.
60 Nevertheless, after the Lord completed his judgments on Jerusalem, he would continue to be faithful by remembering the everlasting covenant that he made with the nation in her youth. In the Mosaic covenant (Lev 26:40–45), the Lord promised that after his future and final judgment on Israel he would remember the covenant that he had made with Abraham, in which he promised to give the land of Canaan to Israel as an eternal possession (cf. Ge 17:7–8; Lev 26:42). This was an everlasting covenant, and God would graciously and lovingly remember to do what he had promised. The unfaithfulness of humankind does not alter the faithfulness of God (cf. 2Ti 2:13).
61–63 When God would remember his covenant with Abraham and restore Jerusalem and Judah to the land of Canaan, then Jerusalem would remember her evil ways that forced her into exile and would be ashamed. Jerusalem would be reestablished in the future kingdom (cf. ch. 48) in a place of preeminence. Though she had been more wicked than either Sodom or Samaria and would receive greater judgment, the Lord would sovereignly exalt her over them by giving them to her as “daughters” (20:43; 36:31). Thus these cities would no longer be thought of as “sisters” (city/nation) but as cities with their suburbs under the jurisdiction of Jerusalem (cf. v.46; Jdg 1:27). The Lord’s return of Sodom and Samaria to Jerusalem as daughters is not based on the Mosaic covenant, however, but on the grace of God.
This restoration would cause Jerusalem to know that the Lord was her ever-present, always faithful God, who had chosen her of his own accord in the past and would save her in the future. Never again would Jerusalem and Judah mention their past sins; God would make atonement for their sins and forget all their iniquity. This, of course, was accomplished by Jesus Christ’s death on the cross.
8. The riddle and the parable of the two eagles (17:1–24)
1–10 As the exiles listened to Ezekiel’s long allegory of Jerusalem’s history of spiritual infidelity to the Lord, some began to wonder why they were being judged for all the past sins of their nation. Ezekiel responds that they would be judged for their own contemporary lack of trust in the Lord, which they had shown by their tendency to rely on Egypt for security and by the corruption of their regent, Zedekiah.
Ezekiel uses a riddle to communicate this message. In it, the two kings are God and Zedekiah. The historical background for this riddle is found in 2Ki 24:6–20; 2Ch 36:8–16; and Jer 37; 52:1–7. Judah’s kings were fickle in failing to follow the prophets’ warnings and in yielding to the Babylonians, God’s instrument of discipline. On the contrary, the kings continued to seek security and aid from Egypt. This issue was at the heart of this chapter.
The riddle is set forth in two parts. Verses 1–6 describe an eagle that was extremely glorious and multicolored. This bird flew to Lebanon (the land of Canaan; cf. Jos 1:4; 2Ki 14:9) and took the top of a cedar and the topmost young twigs and brought them to the land of merchants (Babylonia; cf. 16:29). Then the eagle took some seeds from Canaan and planted them in a land of fertile soil (cf. Dt 8:7; 11:11). The seed grew into a low spreading vine that sent out shoots and branches toward the eagle.
The second part of the riddle (vv.7–10) portrays another great eagle—not quite as glorious as the first—which caused the transplanted vine to turn its branches and roots toward it. Though the vine was initially planted in good soil so that it yielded abundant produce, it no longer thrived; it was uprooted and its fruit cut off by the east wind. No one was able to restore it.
11–14 For the interpretation vv.11–12 a give the summons to listen; vv.12b–18 give the charges; and vv.19–21 announce God’s intervention in judgment with the word “therefore.” Each eagle represented a conquering king whom, in part, God used as an instrument of his punitive wrath on Judah. The first eagle was Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylonia, who had taken King Jehoiachin (crest of the cedar) and his young princes and nobles (topmost young twigs) into exile in Babylonia, a land of merchants (cf. 1Ki 10:27; 2Ki 24:10–12; Jer 22:15, 23). The cedar has messianic overtones (cf. Isa 10:33–11:1). It represents the line of David that culminates in the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
Jehoiachin was of the Davidic line. The “seed” was defined as one from the royal seed whom Nebuchadnezzar took and placed in the field of Canaan. This member of the royal seed was Zedekiah (or Mattaniah; cf. 2Ki 24:17; Jer 37:1), Jehoiachin’s uncle, whom Nebuchadnezzar established as regent over the remnant in Judah by entering into a binding covenant with Zedekiah. Jehoiachin still remained the legitimate king though he was in exile in Babylonia. Zedekiah and the Hebrews remaining in the land with him should have become a flourishing vine, but instead they became a worthless and useless vine like the one already described in ch. 15. It was low and spreading because Nebuchadnezzar never allowed it to exalt itself.
15–21 The second eagle represented the king of Egypt to whom Zedekiah sent for military aid when he rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar in 588 B.C. and broke the covenant he had made with Nebuchadnezzar (cf. 2Ch 36:13). This act of trust in Egypt had been opposed rigorously by both Isaiah (Isa 30:1–2) and Jeremiah (Jer 37:1). God rhetorically asked whether the vine (Zedekiah and the small nation of Judah) would prosper. The emphatic answer was no! They would suffer God’s judgment through Nebuchadnezzar when he attacked Judah, because Zedekiah had despised the covenant with him and had broken it by turning to Egypt (2Ch 36:13; cf. Eze 5:7).
Because of his disobedience both to his covenant with Nebuchadnezzar (sworn in God’s name; cf. 2Ch 36:13) and to his covenant with God, Zedekiah would experience the judgments promised in the Mosaic covenant he had also broken. God would spread a net and seize him with the Babylonian army and bring him to Babylonia in exile. Egypt would be of no help when Jerusalem was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar, for Zedekiah’s army would fall by the sword, the remaining population would be scattered throughout the land, and Zedekiah would ultimately die in Babylonia (cf. 12:13–14). Yet all this was a manifestation of God’s grace, for he was faithfully executing his justice so that Zedekiah might come to know that the Lord, the only true God, had spoken in these judgments.
22–24 This epilogue provides an oracle of salvation. Wherever God pronounces judgment, he normally declares hope as well. Judah had failed to remain “planted” and “fruitful.” In the future, however, after God had cleansed Judah through his discipline, he would take a “tender sprig” from the topmost shoots of the cedar and “plant it on a high and lofty mountain.” This cutting of the cedar was not from the first cutting made by Nebuchadnezzar in vv.4, 12, for Jer 22:28–30 declared that the physical line of Jehoiachin (Coniah) would not continue to sit on the Davidic throne. Rather, the line would continue through other descendants of David. This new cutting was, however, from the “cedar,” the messianic line. It was the “tender one,” a concept that had messianic implications (Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5–6; 33:14–16; Zec 3:8; 6:12–13). This was the Messiah whom God would establish as King over Israel in the messianic kingdom.
The high and lofty mountain may have reference to Mount Zion and the temple complex (cf. 20:40; Ps 2:6; Mic 4:1). This messianic kingdom would be as great and fruitful as a stately cedar tree. All the birds would nest in its branches—perhaps a figure of the nations of the world (cf. Da 4:17, 32, 34–37; Mt 13:31–32). They would submit to the Messiah and his rule.
9. Individual responsibility for righteousness (18:1–31)
a. Proverb versus principle (18:1–4)
1–4 In 16:44 Ezekiel set forth a proverb to show that Israel had taken on herself the heathen character of her environment. Ezekiel’s hearers misapplied that proverbial concept. They reasoned that they were being judged because of the wickedness of their forefathers. This principle of the Decalogue teaches that children would be affected by their father’s sin (Ex 20:5; Dt 5:9). Parents model for their children. Regrettably, children frequently practice the same sinful acts as their parents. Likewise, they must accept the same just punishment for such actions. Each child is individually responsible. A child can abort the “sin-punishment-inheritance” progression at any time, but he or she must repent and do what is right.
The misunderstanding of the exiles was expressed in the contemporary proverb, “The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge”; i.e., what the father does affects his children. The people believed that righteousness and wickedness were hereditary; therefore, there was no reason to change one’s ways.
The Lord’s response to this new proverb was that the hereditary principle would cease immediately, for it had been erroneously applied to righteousness and unrighteousness. Each person lives or dies according to his or her own actions. God solemnly declares that “every living soul belongs to me”; he is the Creator of everyone, and all have equality before him. They are free to make a decision to walk in his ways or not. The principle of individual responsibility has always been true (cf. Ge 2:17; 4:7; Dt 24:16; 2Ki 14:6; et al.). A son is not bound to be like his father.
A basic principle is set forth at the conclusion of v.4: “The soul who sins is the one who will die.” Life and death in this context are not eternal but physical. One enters into eternal life by faith in the Messiah, Jesus Christ, whether by looking forward in faith to his work on the cross, as did the OT saint, or in looking back in faith, as we do today. Eternal salvation is by faith alone (cf. Ge 15:6; Ro 4:5; Eph 2:8–9). The stipulations of the Mosaic covenant were given to a people who already had a trusting relationship with God, providing a concrete, practical outworking of faith in the God who redeemed Israel from Egypt and revealed his law. Trust in him entailed the ritual of blood sacrifice as well as obedience to his commands. If the people obeyed these commands, they would show their righteousness, receive God’s blessings, and live. But if they failed to live according to God’s ways as revealed in the law, the Mosaic covenant declared that even those who had believed in the Messiah would die physically (cf. Dt 28:58–66; 30:15–20). If, however, they had never trusted in their Messiah, portrayed in the sacrifices, then they would also die eternally.
b. Three illustrations of the principle (18:5–18)
5–9 The principle of individual responsibility shows that a righteous person in a trusting relationship with the Lord will live physically and eternally. First, however, the Lord must define righteousness according to the Mosaic covenant. Five legal areas differentiate righteous acts from unrighteous deeds. First, the righteous person refrains from pagan sacrificial meals at the heathen high mountain shrines and from the prevalent idolatry found in the northern kingdom of Israel (cf. Dt 12:21). Second, such a one refuses to defile his neighbor’s wife or to have relations with a woman during her menstrual period (Ex 20:14; Lev 15:24; 18:19; 20:10, 18; Dt 22:22). Third, he does not oppress people through maltreatment and extortion but rather restores the pledge of a poor person’s debt (Ex 22:26–27; Dt 24:6; Am 2:8). The wealthy take advantage of the poor, especially finding orphans, widows, and strangers easy prey for their extortion schemes. Fourth, the righteous person does not steal (Ex 20:15; Lev 19:13) but feeds and clothes the destitute (Dt 15:11; 24:19–22; Isa 58:7).
Finally, refusing to take interest from his fellow Israelites (Ex 22:25; Dt 23:19–20; Ps 15:5; Isa 24:2), the righteous individual practices only justice (Lev 19:15–16, 35–36; Dt 25:13–16). Interest could be charged foreigners in commercial relations, but it was contrary to the principle of love and concern for one of the covenant people to profit from a poor fellow Hebrew by extorting interest on charitable loans. Verse 9 sums up the definition of a righteous person: one who lives by the Mosaic statutes is righteous and will surely live physically and eternally to enjoy the blessings of life as God has planned (cf. Lev 18:1–5; Dt 11; 26:16–19; 30:15–20). This list clearly demonstrates that a person’s attitude and acts toward others provide a true index of his or her faith and attitude toward God.
10–13 The second example deals with the unrighteous son of the righteous son. The son demonstrates his unrighteousness and lack of faith by a lifestyle opposite that of his father. Whatever his father did in righteousness, the son does not do; and whatever his father refrained from in righteousness, that the unrighteous son does. He also commits murder. Verse 18 summarizes his wicked deeds as extortion, robbery, and wrongdoing. Since he fails to live according to the righteous stipulations of the law, he will not live physically or eternally at all. This type of man was certainly manifested by the life of Manasseh.
14–18 The third illustration shows that an unrighteous man will not necessarily have an unrighteous son. If the grandson does all the righteous deeds of the Mosaic covenant, like his godly grandfather, and refuses to follow his wicked father’s unrighteous acts, then he will not die because of his father’s wickedness, but will surely live. But his father will die because of his own iniquity.
c. The explanation of the principle (18:19–32)
19–24 Having stated the basic principle of individual responsibility in vv.1–4 and illustrated it in vv.5–18, Ezekiel then elaborates aspects of this principle. The discussion was initiated by the exiles’ rhetorical question: “Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?” God answers the question by a series of subprinciples.
First, whenever anyone—even the son of an unrighteous man—lives righteously, he lives physically and ultimately eternally. Second, the unrighteous sinner who disobeys God’s righteous way for living will die physically and ultimately eternally. Third, a son will not bear the penalty for a father’s sins, nor will a father bear the punishment for his son’s sins. Fourth, the righteous live because of their righteousness (cf. Lev 18:5), but the wicked die because of their sin (Dt 30:17–18). Fifth, a wicked person can live physically and ultimately eternally if he or she turns from sinful rebellion, obeys the righteous commandment, and trusts in the Messiah. Past sins of such people will not be remembered because of their righteous acts by which they now live. Only God’s marvelous grace has kept that wicked person from dying previously. Sixth, God does not rejoice when a wicked person dies. Rather, he is delighted when a wicked person turns to him in obedience and lives. Sinful humankind normally sees judgment as God’s delight. Nothing could be further from God’s desire; else he would not have sent his only Son to be judged on the cross for the sin of the whole world.
Finally, there is never a time or place where the righteous, who have trusted in the Messiah, can feel free to sin; for if they turn away from living by God’s righteous stipulations and sin, then they too will surely die physically (but not eternally). They will die because of their unfaithfulness to God and their unrighteous acts. God never condones sin or grants anyone a license to disobey his holy commands.
25–29 Ezekiel again raises a rhetorical statement that expressed the mind of the exiles: “The way of the Lord is not just.” God replies that it was Israel’s ways, not his, that were inequitable and unrighteous. They sought to apply the principle of heredity incorrectly to righteousness and unrighteousness. The principle is repeated that the righteous are righteous only because they have practiced righteousness and justice according to the Mosaic covenant, and the wicked are unrighteous because they have turned from the righteous demands of the law. God’s grace, in harmony with his law, always allows the wicked to become righteous by turning from their wickedness and practicing the righteous ordinances of the Mosaic covenant. Likewise, the righteous will die physically if they fail to walk in God’s holy ways. Righteousness or unrighteousness is not inherited. Righteousness is reckoned to the individual when he or she does righteous acts of God revealed in the Scriptures. Likewise, unrighteousness is credited to the individual who fails to practice God’s righteous ways. The decision is up to the individual, not heredity.
30–32 The Lord concludes this message by pleading with the people to repent individually from their sins. This was a strong invitation to live. Repentance was available to the people of Israel in Ezekiel’s day. The Lord does not delight in the death of one person who dies because of his or her sin. Therefore the Lord exhorts the people to “repent and live!”
10. A lament for the princes of Israel (19:1–14)
1–9 The final question raised by the recipients of Ezekiel’s messages concerns the trustworthiness of the contemporary rulers of Judah to lead the nation back to prominence. Ezekiel responds with a funeral dirge for Judah’s princes. The contemporary rulers were not worthy of anyone’s trust. They were examples of the wicked person in ch. 18. These rulers had been responsible for Judah’s present condition. They would die. No true rulers would be left in Judah.
Ezekiel’s lament centers first around the imagery of a lioness and her whelps. The figurative use of a lion normally had royal overtones, especially in reference to the Davidic line (cf. Ge 49:9). Contextually the lioness here must be identified as the nation of Israel. Israel had taken her place among the nations. The young whelps represented given kings of Israel, and in historical and biblical context they signified certain latter rulers in Judah.
The first whelp was Jehoahaz, who had been placed on the throne by the Judeans following the death of his father, Josiah (2Ki 23:31). Jehoahaz learned, as a young lion, to tear and devour humankind, doing evil in the sight of the Lord (2Ki 23:32). Becoming world renowned for the violence in his reign of three months, he was seized in 609 B.C. like a hunted lion and brought bound to Egypt, where he ultimately died (2Ki 23:33–34; 2Ch 36:1–4; Jer 22:10–12).
The second whelp was Jehoiakim’s son, Jehoiachin (cf. 2Ki 24:8–17; 2Ch 36:8–10)—Jehoiakim himself is bypassed. Judah’s hope had perished with the nation’s decline under Jehoiakim’s pro-Egyptian leadership. Hope was renewed as the young eighteen-year-old prince Jehoiachin became king. However, his reign was not substantially different from his father’s, for Jehoiachin too learned to devour humankind.
Jehoiachin destroyed cities and desolated the land. He did not escape the snare of the “lion-hunting” nations that trapped him in their “pit” and brought him to Nebuchadnezzar in a “cage” in 597 B.C. Later he was released (2Ki 25:27–30; 2Ch 36:9–11). No longer would he “roar” in Judah.
10–14 The imagery changes to that of a “vine.” This figure often typifies the nation of Israel as a whole (15:1–6; 17:1–10; cf. Ps 80:8–16; Isa 5:1–7; 27:2–6). The imagery used by Ezekiel probably changes since Zedekiah was not the legitimate legal king of Judah, as were Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin.
The vine referred to the historic nation of Israel. It had been planted beside abundant water in the land of Canaan (Dt 8:7–8), where it had grown large and fruitful during the kingdom period, with many branches for ruling scepters (or kings). Yet this vine was finally plucked up and cast to the ground, where its exposed roots withered under the blasts of the east wind (Babylonia; cf. 17:6–10, 15). The vine (or nation) was transplanted into a desert place—into captivity. The “fire” that “spread from one of its main branches” was the destruction that Zedekiah, Judah’s current ruler, had brought on Judah. Judah’s current condition was the responsibility, in part, of Zedekiah. Ezekiel had answered the exiles’ earlier question by demonstrating the foolishness of trusting in Zedekiah, for he was partially responsible for the imminent judgment. In fact, there was not a “strong branch” in Judah at all—no one “fit for a ruler’s scepter,” not even Zedekiah, who would be deported in 586 B.C. There was no hope! Judgment was coming!
D. The Defective Leadership of Israel (20:1–23:49)
1. The history of Israel’s rebellion and the Lord’s grace (20:1–44)
a. Rebellion in Egypt (20:1–9)
1 The chronological notice (July/August 591 B.C.) indicates the beginning of a new segment of the book and a new series of messages. Eleven months had passed since Ezekiel had delivered the previous revelations from God (cf. 8:1). During this time, however, the Jewish leaders in Babylonia had given thought to Ezekiel’s response to their arguments against his prophecies. Apparently they still had some hope that Judah would be able to find deliverance from her present state.
The news of Egypt’s victory in the Sudan had reached the remnant of Judeans at Tel Abib. Rumors also indicated that Psammetik II would make a triumphal conquest of Palestine. The exiles’ expectations were most certainly heightened as they hoped that Egypt would prove to be the redeemer to free them from Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah had foolishly shared the same dream when he revolted from Babylonian rule and placed his confidence in Egypt’s strength somewhere between the end of 591 and 589 B.C. Such a move was ill-timed; for the Pharaoh soon became ill, and the potential might of Egypt never materialized.
Ezekiel’s messages in chs. 20–23 set forth the Lord’s response to the unspoken query of the elders. God would not even listen to such a foolish question. Israel’s history had been one of persistent rebellion against her God. In spite of such rebellion, God had demonstrated unending grace toward his people with great long-suffering. The time had come for the nation to prepare herself for judgment, for the Lord was soon going to bring Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem to destroy the city and to take more captives to Babylonia (20:45–21:32). The wickedness of Judah—especially that of her leaders—was full (chs. 22–23).
2–6 The Lord summarized his response to the inquiry of the elders of Israel, probably concerning the outcome of Zedekiah’s overtures to Egypt. (1) He refused to give them an audience for such a question; (2) he refused because of the abominations of Judah; and (3) the nation of Judah must be judged for her iniquity. These aspects would be enlarged as Ezekiel recounted the history of Israel’s rebellion against God and God’s undying forbearance and grace toward his wicked people.
Israel’s history as a nation began in Egypt where God chose her. He made himself known to Israel and swore that he would be her God (Dt 7:6–11). He took an oath to bring his people into the fruitful and glorious land he had promised Abraham (Ge 12:7; Ex 3:8, 13–18; 6:1–8; Jer 3:19; Da 8:9; 11:16, 42, 45). To bring a nation into being, three elements were essential: (1) a people, (2) a government, and (3) a homeland. The people of Israel came into being in Egypt, the government was received at Mount Sinai, and the homeland was acquired through Joshua’s conquest of Canaan (see introductory comments on 33:21–48:35).
7–9 Ezekiel declares that the reason Jacob’s descendants had to undergo the prolonged discipline in Egypt lay in their detestable worship of Egyptian idols. God’s benevolent love was not only shown to Israel in her special calling and promises but also in his warning to remove her pagan deities so that he alone would be her God (cf. 23:3, 8). The Lord did not want his people to develop incorrect worship patterns.
However, as Israel’s history continued, she did not heed God’s gracious warnings. She rebelled against him by continuing to worship the Egyptian idols. Therefore, the Lord determined to pour out his wrath on Israel in the 430-year captivity in Egypt. Yet when the captivity was completed, God graciously brought his people out of Egypt (cf. Ge 15:13–16) so that his name would not be profaned among the nations. The Lord’s name embodied all he was. He did not want the Egyptian bondage to be misconstrued as a demonstration of his inadequacies. Though Israel had failed to sanctify the name of the Lord among the nations, the Lord himself would do so by delivering Israel from Egypt. Then all the nations would know that he was the Lord, the true, faithful, and powerful God of Israel (Ex 7:5; Ps 106:8–12).
b. Rebellion in the wilderness (20:10–26)
10–12 Ezekiel turned from Israel’s corrupt beginning to the generation that God brought out of Egypt by his great power (Ex 12–15). God’s kindness and grace were manifested in the Exodus and in his giving of the covenant. This covenant explained the godly principles that enabled one to live life at its best. Therefore, the Israelites were to observe all the commandments of the law, practicing them in daily life (Lev 18:5; Dt 10:12–13).
God revealed Israel’s constitution in the pattern of the international suzerain-vassal treaties of the second millennium B.C., in which a great king entered into a covenant with a lesser power to provide blessings and protection to that vassal. The subject nation would, in turn, follow the stipulations laid down by the great king. God was the great king, and Israel had become his vassal. The Lord had been benevolent to Israel by bringing her out of Egyptian servitude. Israel, in turn, was to be a witness for God in the world, living according to God’s righteous stipulations of the Mosaic covenant. The great king would seal this covenant by placing his “sign” in the midst of the legal policy. The Lord represented himself as the Creator in the sign of the Sabbath (Ex 20:8–11; 31:13, 17). By observing the weekly Sabbath, Israel would be reminded that God graciously set her apart as an instrument of blessing to the world and as a witness against the pagans who had exchanged the worship of the Creator for that of creation (Ne 9:14; Ro 1:25).
13–17 The phrase “the man who obeys them will live by them” (cf. Lev 18:5) is not a reference to salvation by works. Obeying God’s laws demonstrated Israel’s faith in the Lord; disobedience showed Israel’s unbelief. In spite of the gracious blessings of God, this generation of Israelites rebelled against their Lord in the wilderness by rejecting the commands of the Mosaic covenant and profaning the Sabbaths (cf. Nu 11–14). Therefore, the Lord resolved to destroy Israel (Nu 14:11–12); yet he would not, because his name would be profaned before the nations if he destroyed his people. The nations would think that he was unable to protect Israel in the desert once he brought them forth from Egypt. Moses interceded on behalf of God’s people (Nu 14:13–19; Dt 1:26–40) so that the Lord spared them. Instead, God declared that he would not bring that generation into the Promised Land because they had rejected his ways in their idolatrous hearts (cf. Nu 14:32). It was only because of the Lord’s holy name that he graciously spared the nation from destruction.
18–26 All members of Israel twenty years and under had the prospect of entering the land of Canaan. God warned this new generation not to follow their fathers’ idolatrous and rebellious ways. However, as in the cycle of their fathers, this generation also rebelled against the Lord, failing to live by the law and profaning the Sabbaths. Once again God resolved to destroy his people. Yet, as before, God’s holiness restrained his wrath so that his name might not be desecrated among the nations (cf. Nu 16:21–22; 25:1–9). Instead, God swore that he would disperse his people among the nations (Lev 26:33; Dt 28:64; Ps 106:26–27), give them over to statutes they could not live by, and pronounce their sacrifices unclean. Then he would make them desolate and thereby cause them to know that he was the Lord their God. That God would give Israel “statutes that were not good” means that Israel would choose to live according to the world’s ordinances that brought misery and death. The “gift” in v.26 referred to religious sacrifices (cf. Ex 28:38; Lev 23:38). The specific offerings were the child-sacrifices of their firstborn to their pagan deities (Ex 13:12; Lev 18:21; Dt 18:10)—a practice especially common in the worship of Molech (2Ki 21:6; 2Ch 28:3).
c. Rebellion in the conquest and settlement of the land (20:27–29)
27–29 The Lord describes the sin of Israel’s first generations as blasphemy and unfaithfulness (Nu 15:30–31). When a person despises God’s word, that person slanders (or blasphemes) God. Israel had not learned by the mistakes of their forefathers. The generation of Hebrews who entered Canaan began practicing the Canaanites’ heathen rituals they saw.
d. Rebellion of Judah in Ezekiel’s day (20:30–44)
30–31 God suddenly brought the cyclic pattern of his benevolence, Israel’s rebellion, his judgment, and his grace to bear on the contemporary scene. He challenged the current elders, as representatives of the exiles and Judah, with a question: Are you not rebelling like your fathers? Contemporary Israel was as rebellious as her ancestors had been. So the Lord turned to the immediate issue of the people’s inquiry. He emphatically replied that he would not give an audience to anyone who disobeyed his ways and yet said that they wanted to know his will.
32–37 Because he loved them, God rejected Israel’s desire to be like other idolatrous nations. In doing so he carried the cycle of judgment and grace into Israel’s future history. In his judgment he would rule over her now; yet he would restore Judah at the end of the Babylonian captivity. However, there would be a second dispersion of the Israelites in which God would judge Israel and bring the people “into the desert of the nations” as he had done during Israel’s Egyptian sojourn. This dispersion is most likely the one that happened in the first century A.D.
Yet, as God’s grace follows judgment, so he would ultimately bring Israel into the bond of the covenant as his special possession. When a sheep passes under his shepherd’s rod, it indicates that that sheep belongs to the shepherd. “Shepherd” was a common ancient metaphor for king. A rod could also have the connotation of wrath and discipline (Ps 89:32; La 3:1).
38 The covenant was described in terms of a cleansing that would result in the knowledge of God. This is the heart issue of the new covenant promise (36:25–38; Jer 31:31–34). Israel would ultimately become a cleansed flock of the Lord through the new covenant. The process of cleansing would purge out sinners from Israel in that they would not return to the land of blessing when the Lord ultimately restored his people to that land (cf. Da 12:10; Jer 31:34).
39–44 This brief summary of Israel’s history of rebellion concludes with an application to Ezekiel’s contemporaries. God had delivered them over to their idols since they too had refused to listen to him. The Lord also encourages them by reminding them of his ultimate grace to Israel at the end time. Once Israel was cleansed through the final judgment, God would make sure that she did not allow his holy name to be profaned among the nations again. God would accomplish this by bringing back all Israel of that day to worship on his holy mountain. There he would accept them and their sacrificial worship. The Israelites would have a contrite heart that loathed their past sins. They would come to see that God’s grace had been poured out on them throughout the millennia, because the Lord refused to allow his holy name to be defiled. God had continually been dealing with them on the basis of his grace rather than of what they deserved.
2. Judgment on Judah’s contemporary leaders (20:45–21:32)
a. The burning of the southern forest (20:45–21:7)
45–49 Having surveyed the history of Israel’s rebellion and found the nation deserving of judgment in Ezekiel’s day, God announced and described the judgment that he was about to bring on Judah. Four messages described God’s judgment by Babylonia (cf. v.45; 21:1, 8, 18). The first message consists of a parable and its explicit interpretation (21:1–7). The parable describes a forest fire in the southern forest (the southern kingdom of Judah, a forested area in biblical times) that burned every tree, whether green or dry. Everyone would see that God had kindled the unquenchable fire.
Verse 49 provides a transition between the parable and its interpretation. Ezekiel’s hearers were frustrated. Ezekiel, the old parabolic speaker, was at it again with another of his parables they did not understand. Therefore, God would give the interpretation.
21:1–5 The parable’s interpretation is revealed in these verses. Ezekiel was instructed to “set [his] face toward the south” (20:46), defined as Jerusalem, its sanctuaries, and all the land of Israel (i.e., Judah). The fire in the parable (20:47) represented a sword of judgment, i.e., the sword of Nebuchadnezzar and his armies (cf. vv.18–27). The green and dry trees symbolize the righteous and the wicked, respectively. God’s judgment would be comprehensive. When God poured out his wrath on the sinners, the effects would cover the entire land from north to south. Each person would be touched by the sword of his fury. Both the righteous and the wicked would experience the land’s devastation. Everyone would know that the Lord was the one who brought the judgment.
6–7 The effects of God’s wrath on Judah would also be devastating. The people would lose strength. Ezekiel communicated these emotional responses to the people by groaning as one who was in emotional distress and in bitter anguish. When the exiles inquired as to the cause of his grief, he told them that he was a sign of the emotional distress they would have when God’s judgment would come. At that time their hearts would melt, their spirits would faint, and their hands and knees would become weak like water.
b. The slaughter of the sword (21:8–17)
8–13 Ezekiel was instructed to sing a song (poem) about a sword, sharpened, polished, and ready for the slaughter, with the speed of lightning. The sword is pictured as ready to be taken by the hand of the slayer (identified as Nebuchadnezzar in vv.18–23).
Therefore, Ezekiel was to weep and wail, for the Babylonian sword of judgment was against Judah, God’s people, especially her leaders. Ezekiel would strike his breast (or, better, “thigh”), a gesture of remorse, grief, and despair over this heartbreaking verdict (cf. Jer 31:19). The people of Judah had been tested and found wanting. Since the nation had failed the testing, the solemn question was whether Judah and her ruler (“the scepter,” cf. v.10) would continue to exist. Would God’s judgment be final?
Judah and the exiles were rejoicing and still hoping in the promise of the royal messianic line through the tribe of Judah. In Ge 49:10 both “scepter” and “my son” are used to describe the promise. The messianic overtones of Ge 49:9–10, together with the promises of the Davidic covenant (2Sa 7), were foundational to Judah’s hope. The people were certain that God’s messianic promises (“scepter of my son”) would preserve them as a nation forever. They need not fear Ezekiel’s pronouncements of judgment. However, they had forgotten the stipulation of discipline both in the Davidic covenant (2Sa 7:14) and in the cursing formula of the Mosaic covenant (Dt 28–29).
There was no immediate hope for contemporary Judah in the promises of Ge 49 (cf. v.27), for God would be faithful to exercise his justice in discipline on Judah and her current ruler in order to purify her. But the ultimate “scepter of Judah,” the Messiah, would not be extinguished (cf. v.13). This was Judah’s only hope in the midst of their current judgment. When Judah would ultimately be purified, then the “scepter” (Messiah) would rule over his people (cf. v.27).
14–17 Ezekiel clapped his hands in approval of the judgment but with scorn and contempt for the iniquity that had precipitated God’s wrath. By this act Ezekiel demonstrated the Lord’s attitude of justice toward Judah’s sin and encouraged the sword’s greater effectiveness. The intensity of the judgment was emphasized by the doubling and tripling of the sword; it became three times more effective than it normally would be. The sword totally encompassed the people; their hearts melted, and many fell in their gates in the lightning-fast invasion. Ultimately the sword seemed to be in God’s hand. The judgment was comprehensive.
The song (poem) builds to a climax. The sword’s devastation covered the entire country from right (or south) to left (or north), a play on words depicting the sharpening of the sword blade back and forth as well as the comprehensiveness of the judgment from north to south. The Lord gave his approval by clapping. But he also declared that his wrath would cease when this judgment was complete.
c. The imminent judgment by Babylonia (21:18–27)
18–21 The prophetic “sword song” is now integrated and reinforced by symbolic action. Ezekiel drew a map, perhaps in the dirt or on a brick, on which he made a road from Babylonia toward Canaan. He placed a signpost in the road where it forked, one branch leading toward Rabbath-Ammon, the capital of Ammon, and the other branch descending to Jerusalem. Damascus was the normal junction where the road divided. The king of Babylonia, Nebuchadnezzar, was shown standing at the fork in the road, using all manner of magic and divination to determine which nation he should attack first. The combined conspiracy of Judah and Ammon against Babylonia in 589 B.C. undoubtedly precipitated this coming of the Babylonian army.
Shaking arrows inscribed with personal or place names was a form of casting lots. Each arrow was marked with a name, the arrows placed in the quiver, the quiver whirled about, and the first arrow to fall out was the gods’ decision. Household idols were intimately related to ancestral inheritance; perhaps also they were consulted as mediums, who were supposed to give guidance. The liver, being the seat of the life, was commonly examined with a decision being determined from its color or markings. Nebuchadnezzar used all three means of divination with the same result. Though God did not condone divination in any form, he as the sovereign God controlled all things. He controlled these pagan practices to accomplish his will (cf. Jer 27:6).
22–23 The unanimous decision of this divining was to pursue the path to Jerusalem and to lay siege to that city (cf. 4:2). The inhabitants of Judah responded in unbelief. They were convinced that this was false divination and continued to place confidence in their covenant treaties with Nebuchadnezzar or their Mosaic covenant with God. The phrase “sworn allegiance” likely refers to the treaty-oaths made with Babylonia, for contextually the two participants are Babylonia and Judah. Judah was placing unfounded confidence in treaties she had broken. This provided no security at all. On the contrary, Nebuchadnezzar (“he”) would bring Judah’s iniquity to remembrance when he, as God’s instrument of wrath, destroyed the nation.
24–27 This message was concluded with a judicial sentence. Since Judah’s sins had become manifest, Jerusalem would be seized; and the wicked prince of Israel, Zedekiah, would be cut off in this time of final punishment (in 586 B.C.). The removals of the priesthood and the kingship from Judah are pictured in the removal of the high priest’s turban (Ex 28:4, 37, 39; 29:6; et al.) and the king’s crown. These would not be rightly worn again “until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs,” a clear reference to Ge 49:10 and the king-priest Messiah (cf. Heb 5–7). Ezekiel uses this reference with its messianic overtones to stress that the kingship (and priesthood) would be removed in judgment but returned ultimately in the Messiah’s coming in accord with Ge 49:10. God’s judgment would be so complete that everything would be “topsy-turvy” socially. The threefold repetition of “ruin” stresses the intensity of God’s wrath and its destruction administered by Babylonia.
d. Postponement of judgment on Ammon (21:28–32)
28–32 The other route that Nebuchadnezzar could have taken at the fork in the road was the road to Ammon (cf. v.20). Since Ammon would mock and mistreat Judah in her collapse before Babylonia, Ezekiel sings the same “sword song” to Ammon. The Ammonites had seen empty visions and divined lies that would lead them to fall on Judah, “on the necks of the wicked who are to be slain,” at their time of punishment for iniquity.
God, however, stayed Ammon’s terrorizing of Judah by calling for the sword to be placed back into the sheath. Why this was done, we do not know. God would judge Ammon by the sword in their own land, where he would pour out indignation on them with the fire of his wrath, delivering them to men skilled in destruction who would devour them. This judgment on Ammon was not forgotten just because Babylonia chose to attack Jerusalem first. It was certain! The time element of this judgment is not certain, though it seems related to the judgment soon to be executed by Babylonia. Ammon would be remembered no more.
3. The cause of judgment: Judah’s idolatrous rulers (22:1–31)
a. Deliberate disobedience to the Mosaic covenant (22:1–16)
1–2 Though Israel’s history of wickedness demanded discipline, it was the abominations of contemporary Israel and her rulers that had ignited the punishment. Since the people had failed to see this fact, God directed Ezekiel to deliver three judgment messages to make this clear once more. The first detailed the manner in which the nation, led by her leaders in the capital city, Jerusalem, had broken the Mosaic covenant. The second emphasized God’s burning judgment that would display the people’s impurity. The third message stressed the failure of every aspect of Judah’s society—especially her leadership—to follow God’s ways.
Ezekiel would act as a prosecutor of the nation, thus causing the “city of bloodshed” to become conscious of all her sins that were the bases of the coming judgment. Jerusalem’s chief characteristic was her bloodguiltiness, the taking of lives. This perversion resulted from her disobedience to God’s law.
3–5 The accusation is stated in two parts: the abominations of Jerusalem (vv.3–5) and the abominations of Judah’s rulers (vv.6–12). Jerusalem had committed murder in various ways; these are itemized in the elaboration of the leaders’ wickedness (vv.6–12; cf. 18:15–17). But the underlying cause of this bloodshed was the idolatry in the capital city. Her inhabitants had covered the city with idols contrary to her divine calling, which, in turn, defiled her (Ex 20:3–7). Since pagan religious practices did not restrict human sacrifice and wicked ways, the influence of idolatry had fostered indiscriminate murder that brought God’s judgment near. Jerusalem would become a reproach to the surrounding nations. They would laugh at her miserable state and her infamous reputation.
6 The chief cause of Jerusalem’s wickedness had been her evil rulers, especially her recent kings (Manasseh and Jehoiakim) and prince (Zedekiah). Each had acted in his own strength to shed blood through the misuse of power (cf. 2Ki 21:16; 24:4). Each went as far as his power enabled him. Each broke the explicit prohibitions of the Mosaic covenant (Ex 20:13).
7–12 The rulers ignored the rightful place and authority of parents, thus destroying the home (cf. Ex 20:12; Lev 19:3). Socially these leaders were taking advantage of the helpless (cf. Ex 22:21–24; 23:9; Lev 19:33; Dt 24:17). The indifference of the rulers to those they ruled over was directly related to their indifference to the holy things of God. They profaned the Sabbaths, thereby demonstrating their rejection of the Mosaic covenant and their great God (cf. Ex 20:8; Lev 19:3).
On the contrary, the rulers engaged in heathen rituals (cf. Dt 12:1–2; 16:21–22). Using informers (“slanderous men”) these leaders carried out premeditated murders (cf. Lev 19:16; 1Ki 21; Jer 6:28; 9:3). These same officials engaged in sexual sins (cf. Lev 18:6–23; 20:10–21). They prospered through illegitimate gain (cf. Ex 23:8; Dt 24:6, 10–12; 23:19–20; 27:25). But the main cause was, “You have forgotten me, declares the Sovereign LORD.”
13–16 Ezekiel concludes this judgment speech with God’s verdict of scorn for Jerusalem’s dishonest gain and murder. God struck his hands in a gesture of disapproval. He even questioned Jerusalem concerning her ability to stand through the days of judgment. Would her heart and hands be able to stand God’s discipline? The judgment would be threefold: dispersion among the nations, cleansing of Jerusalem’s impurity, and Jerusalem’s desecration before all the nations by the Babylonians. God’s primary purpose in judgment, however, was to cause his people to know that he was the Lord, the only true God.
b. The purification of judgment (22:17–22)
17–22 The imagery of the smelting process is at the heart of this second judgment speech. Israel was shown to be worthless as dross already, as if from a previous smelting. Now she would once again be melted by the heat of God’s wrath in the furnace of Jerusalem. This fire of God’s wrath would literally be executed by the Babylonians when they burned and sacked Jerusalem.. With this fiery trial, God desired to make himself and his justice known.
c. The void of righteous leaders (22:23–31)
23–29 The land of Judah was unclean and would therefore receive no “rain” of blessing in the day of judgment (“day of wrath”). Judah was an impure nation mainly because the people had failed in their responsibilities, especially those appointed as leaders. The “princes” (prophets?; see NIV note) had conspired against the people for the purpose of personal prosperity. They had led the people into situations (battle, rebellion, etc.) that had brought death to many, increasing the number of widows in the nation. These leaders were devouring lives like vicious lions.
The “priests” had done violence to that covenant by polluting God’s holy statutes. They had failed to observe or to teach the distinction between the holy and profane, the clean and the unclean. They disregarded the observance of the Sabbath and profaned God through their pagan ritual practices.
The political “officials” in the land had acted like ravenous wolves, using violence to destroy people for personal gain. Through their false visions and lying divinations, the prophets had whitewashed their own impure motives and led the people astray by falsely claiming to have God’s authority.
Finally, God condemned the people for following this corrupt leadership and maltreating one another. They had practiced extortion, robbery, and oppression of the poor, needy, and stranger through unjust avenues. It was everyone for himself, each doing what was for his own profit (cf. Jdg 21:25).
30–31 The Lord was unable to find anyone who would stand defensively, through spiritual leadership and intercession, for the nation against the impending judgment. Moses had stood in the breach of the wall before the Lord in his day, to intercede for his people and to instruct them in the ways of the Lord as a leader. But now God could find no one to step to the front and to lead Judah to repentance and to a godly walk according to the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant. There was no ruler who would intercede for them. They were all corrupt! Therefore, the Lord concluded this last message with a judgment verdict. He would consume the people with the fire of his wrath. They were responsible for the coming judgment!
4. An allegorical summary of Israel’s political prostitution (23:1–49)
a. Israel’s sordid youth (23:1–4)
1–4 Ezekiel concludes his discussion of Israel’s defective leadership with a summary allegory of the political adultery into which Israel’s corrupt rulers had led the people. Several distinct speeches comprise the whole allegory. Before specific oracles are addressed to Samaria and Jerusalem, Ezekiel briefly discusses the family background of these “two sisters.” They were both “born” of the same “mother,” an emphasis on their common origin from the united nation of Israel that existed from the time of Egypt to Solomon. It was during their stay in Egypt as youths that they had learned the trade of prostitution (cf. 16:26; 20:7–8; Nu 25:3–9). God did not hedge in describing clearly and concisely the crudeness and perversion of wickedness and sin.
The two sisters are named. Samaria, the older in the sense of initiating perverted relations with other nations and in receiving her punishment first, was named Oholah, which means “her tent.” The significance of this name is not clear, unless it refers to her propensity for heathen tent-shrines. Jerusalem, the younger of the two sisters, was called Oholibah, meaning “my tent is in her.” Perhaps this name refers to God’s temple (“tent” or “tabernacle”) that dwelt in the city of Jerusalem (cf. 2Sa 6:17; 1Ki 8:4; et al.). Both cities belonged to the Lord as his possession, specifically as his nations. Whether this statement of possession was meant to convey “marriage” or “parenthood” is not indicated within the text. Both cities bore children. These children are most likely their inhabitants and satellite towns.
b. Samaria’s prostitution (23:5–10)
5–8 The older sister was the first to be accused of being unfaithful to the Lord by seeking security in the strength of other nations. Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, had particularly sought “relations” with Assyria as her “lover.” She had seduced the governors, officials, and military leaders of Assyria to enter into relations with her, which they willingly did (cf. 2Ki 15:19–20; 17:3–4; et al.). Not only did Israel submit to political alliances with Assyria, but she likewise defiled herself by going after the idols and gods of Assyria. This spiritual and political prostitution had characterized this nation since she began to practice it in Egypt. What she had learned in her youth had created a habit pattern that was increasingly difficult to break.
9–10 Therefore, the Lord announced his verdict. He would give Samaria into the hands of her lovers, the Assyrians, who would strip her bare of her inhabitants by either taking them into captivity or slaying them with the sword. This occurred in 722 B.C. Assyria, the object of Israel’s sinful lusts, became the instrument of Israel’s judgment. Samaria’s prostitution was so perverse that her name became a “byword” for an immoral woman.
c. Jerusalem’s prostitution (23:11–35)
11–21 God turned to deliver his accusation against Samaria’s younger sister, Jerusalem. Though Jerusalem, the capital of the southern kingdom of Judah, observed the consequences of Samaria’s prostitution in her fall to Assyria in 722 B.C., she did not learn from Samaria’s experience. Instead, Jerusalem proceeded to engage in more lustful and corrupt fornication than that of Samaria. Rather than seeing her mission to be a servant of the Lord bringing salvation to the nations, like a prostitute Jerusalem cleverly used the nations for her own advantage.
Like Samaria, Jerusalem’s first major “lover” was also Assyria (cf. v.5; 2Ki 16:8; Isa 7:7–9). Judah then extended her prostitution to the Babylonians. She had inordinate affections for the Babylonian rulers (cf. Jer 22:21), seeing images of them on walls. Perhaps this was an allusion to some Judean envoys who were sent to Babylonia and saw the witness of her great power demonstrated on walls. Judah did send messengers to woo Babylonia into “relations” with her, and Babylonia complied by entering into such “relations” with Jerusalem (cf. 2Ki 23:32, 37). Judah became defiled through this political alliance. She had trusted in the world powers rather than in God’s perfect security. Jerusalem, however, realized her error in part after she became a vassal of Babylonia. She became disgusted with the Babylonians after she was debased. But it was too late! God announced that he also had become disgusted with Jerusalem, which would be demonstrated by her fall in 586 B.C. to Nebuchadnezzar.
As if Jerusalem had not learned her lesson, she turned away from Babylonia only to turn to Egypt for aid (cf. Jer 2:18; 6:8; 37:5–7; La 1:17). Jerusalem still failed to learn that security lay in the Lord. Egypt was extremely anxious to enter into “relations” with Judah; for the pharaohs were planning intervention in Asia. Such desire on Egypt’s part was portrayed by lustful donkeys and horses, while Jerusalem equally desired to renew the sexual perversion of her youth with Egypt.
22–27 Having accused Jerusalem of crass prostitution with the nations, the Lord announces his judgment verdict in four short speeches. The first speech stresses that he would use Jerusalem’s “lovers” to execute judgment on her. The Babylonians whom Jerusalem then hated would be commissioned by God to judge Jerusalem through military aggression. Babylonia with all her entourage of vassal nations would assault Jerusalem with a hatred stirred by God’s jealousy against Jerusalem.
The word “Chaldeans” (GK 4169) initially referred to the people living immediately north of the Persian Gulf. With the rise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, however, the term was used for the entire Babylonian Empire.
Jerusalem’s judgment is described in terms of ancient Near Eastern punishment for an adulteress: her “nose” and “ears” would be cut off. This was symbolized by the deportation of Judah’s sons and daughters to Babylon (cf. 2Ki 24:10–16; 25:11; Da 1:1). The remainder of Jerusalem’s inhabitants would die by the sword and fire (cf. 2Ki 25:18–21). Babylonia would strip Jerusalem of all her garments, leaving her disgraced as a prostitute. Jerusalem’s “clothes” were her beautiful jewels, most likely a reference to her wealth and possessions (cf. v.46). The severity of Babylonian judgment and deportation would terminate Jerusalem’s adulterous relationship with Egypt. Judah would forget Egypt and never seek aid from her again. Such has been the case ever since the Babylonian captivity in 586 B.C.
28–31 Babylonia’s judgment on Jerusalem would demonstrate before all the nations the severity of Jerusalem’s wicked adulterous ways. The desolation of Jerusalem would cause the nations to understand that Judah had erred greatly to receive such punishment. Jerusalem had committed political and spiritual adultery with the nations and their idols rather than trusting in the Lord for security and remaining faithful to him and his ways (cf. Ex 20:1–7; Dt 17:14–20). Since Jerusalem had followed Samaria’s example and walked in her adulterous ways, she would share in the “cup” of Samaria’s punishment.
32–34 The term “cup” (GK 3926) was often used by the prophets to refer to God’s wrath. This “cup song” concentrates on the theme of judgment like the “sword song” (21:8–17). Jerusalem’s “cup” of judgment would include ridicule and mocking. She would be drunken, sorrowful, horrified, and devastated. Jerusalem would drain the entire contents of God’s wrath, shatter the pottery cup by casting it down, and tear her breasts in utter agony. The horror of her punishment was sobering.
35 The final message of these four judgment oracles is perhaps the most significant of all. The chief reason for Jerusalem’s impending judgment was that she had forgotten the Lord. When a nation (or an individual) discards God, there is no other road to follow but that which leads to perversion and utter degradation.
d. Judgment for prostitution (23:36–49)
36–39 Though each city was treated separately in the immediately preceding messages, now the two sisters are combined. Ezekiel is exhorted to “judge” (GK 9146) both women—to prosecute them, exposing their abominations. They had committed spiritual adultery by worshiping idols rather than the Lord (cf. Ex 22:20; 23:13; Dt 4:15–24; 12:24–32). Part of this worship had involved child sacrifice, i.e., murder (cf. Ex 20:13; Lev 18:21; 20:1–5). The combination of idolatry and child sacrifice was performed in the Lord’s sanctuary and thereby defiled it (cf. Ex 20:24–26). The implication was that these perversions were also performed on Sabbaths; thus they were profaned (cf. Ex 20:8–11; Lev 19:3, 30). In addition, the prophets had asserted that the Sabbath was neglected during most of the period of the divided kingdoms.
Samaria was equally condemned for defiling the temple. Perhaps she defiled the temple by her absence from proper worship in it and by her construction of heathen shrines.
40–42 These two “cities” were condemned for their adulterous political desires because they had sought out relationships with foreign nations for security alliances (cf. Dt 17:14–20). These two cities seduced foreign nations as a harlot lures lovers with her cosmetics and clothing, even offering them incense and oil of the Lord’s sanctuary. All sorts of sordid “men” responded to the wooing, even drunkards from the desert— likely a reference to the Arabians, Moabites, Edomites, or Sabeans. These “lovers” gave Judah the hire of harlots—bracelets, crowns, etc.
43–47 God’s indictment culminates in a summary verdict on “the one worn out by adultery.” It was tragic that Jerusalem and/or Samaria would be known by this epithet. Those whom Jerusalem and Samaria lured into “relations” would now judge these two cities. Contextually the nations who would judge Jerusalem and Samaria (essentially Assyria and Babylonia) are called “righteous men.” This implies that they were acting righteously in judging Samaria and Jerusalem (cf. Cyrus in Isa 41).
Assyria and Babylonia would judge Samaria and Jerusalem with the judgment prescribed for an adulteress and murderer in the Mosaic covenant: death, normally by stoning (cf. Ex 21:2; Lev 20:10; Dt 22:22). The “sisters” would be tossed about, robbed, stoned, and cut down with the sword; and their children would be murdered and their houses burned.
48–49 God’s purpose in this judgment is fourfold. (1) Such discipline would put an end to wickedness in the Promised Land. (2) This judgment would instruct all other nations (“women”) in the fruitlessness of following the same sort of unrighteousness. (3) It was necessary, however, that these two cities and their respective nations bear the punishment for the sin of their idolatry. (4) God must execute this punishment to bring Israel and Judah into a correct and proper knowledge of himself.
E. The Execution of Jerusalem’s Judgment (24:1–27)
Until now Ezekiel had variously proclaimed the Lord’s coming judgment on Jerusalem and Judah. He had systematically answered each argument against the impending judgment. Nothing remained except for the enactment of that discipline (ch. 24). The beginning of Babylonia’s siege of Jerusalem is described. Then Ezekiel prophesies against the foreign nations who had abused Judah and mocked her during her judgments (25:1–33:20). These foreign nations would be judged for their wicked attitude and actions toward Judah. However, the hope of future restoration and blessing would be promised to Judah.
1. The parable of the cooking pot (24:1–14)
1–2 The date was the very day Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem began: December/January 589/588 B.C. Through divine revelation Ezekiel understood that the fulfillment of his prophecies had begun, two years and five months from the date of his last series of messages (cf. 20:1). This chronological notice, based on the years of Jehoiachin’s exile, is corroborated by similar notices in 2Ki 25:1 and Jer 39:1; 52:4, which were based on Zedekiah’s regnal years. The years of Zedekiah’s reign and the years of Jehoiachin’s captivity were synchronous.
The Lord commanded Ezekiel to “record the date” in the sense of permanently noting it. This affirmed the validity of his prophecies so that the exiles would surely know that a prophet had been in their midst. This specific day became a memorial day in Israel’s history, remembered by an annual fast (cf. Zec 8:19).
Chapters 24–25 contain three messages delivered on the date given in 24:1. The first two (in ch. 24) stress the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem. Verses 3–4 describe the siege with a parable and its interpretation. The features of God’s judgment are renewed. The second message emphasizes the response that the exiles and the Judeans should have had to this siege (vv.15–27). Ezekiel is instructed to restrain his emotions after the death of his wife to show the people that they should not mourn over Jerusalem’s destruction. After all, they had continually defiled God’s sanctuary and had been warned of the imminent judgment, which came as no surprise. Finally, Ezekiel declares that the scorn of Judah’s neighbors would not go unnoticed. Judah was reminded of the Lord’s perfect justice in executing judgment on these nations as well as Judah.
3–8 Ezekiel’s parable of the boiling pot was given to “the rebellious house,” the people of Israel. The key to interpreting the parable is given in v.2: “The king of Babylon has laid siege to Jerusalem this very day.” The parable was given in light of this siege of Jerusalem.
Ezekiel once again concentrates his message in a song, here in the “cooking pot song” (cf. 21:8–17; 23:32–34). The parable describes a pot being placed on burning bones. Water would be poured into the pot and pieces of choice mutton boiled vigorously.
Two interpretative speeches follow the parable, each interpreting and expanding the parable and then announcing a verdict. The first verdict-speech (vv.6–8) identifies the pot and stresses the reasons for Jerusalem’s present judgment. The “pot” represents Jerusalem, “the city of bloodshed.” The pieces of meat, choice members of the flock, are nowhere explicitly identified. Since the “pot” is Jerusalem, the context is one of a “siege” judgment; and the term “flock” was used elsewhere by Ezekiel almost entirely to represent the people of Israel (cf. ch. 34). Thus, the pieces of meat most likely picture Jerusalem’s inhabitants, who would be “boiled” in the judgment fire of Nebuchadnezzar’s siege. The parable portrays the siege of Jerusalem as her people boiling in the pot of God’s wrath.
This first interpretative speech adds a new dimension of encrusted deposits on the pot. Verses 7–8 imply that these “deposits” represent the violent bloodshed of this “bloody city,” which is like blood poured on a bare rock and not covered with dirt. Jerusalem had done nothing to cover (or to atone) for her bloodshed as required by the Mosaic covenant (Lev 17:13). Uncovered blood evoked God’s vengeance (cf. Ge 4:10; Isa 26:21). The Lord declares that he has put Jerusalem’s blood on the bare rock and would not allow it to be covered, so that his wrath might be poured out on her.
Another new feature is that after the cooking the pieces would be removed from the pot without favoritism. The concept of “casting lots” is that a “lot” would not fall on any person (piece of flesh), so that he would be granted favor to be removed to exile over against someone else. From a human perspective it is arbitrary and at random, but God is sovereign in all his doings.
9–14 The second verdict-speech continues the interpretation and expansion by emphasizing Jerusalem’s purification through the judgment. Through the intense heat of the fire, the meat boiled until only the bones remained and were charred. On completion of this intense boiling (the siege), the contents were removed (deportation into exile) and the empty “pot” placed on the fire until it became red hot and “its heavy deposits” (filthiness of bloodshed) were melted and consumed. God would cleanse his holy city, Jerusalem. He had previously cleansed her (the deportations of 605 B.C. and 597 B.C.), but she was still unclean. She had become dirty and rusty again with the filthiness of her bloodshed. But the Lord’s fire of judgment would now accomplish a complete work so that Jerusalem would be purified, but not till God caused his wrath on Jerusalem to cease. Ezekiel’s entire prophecy implies that God’s wrath would cease and that Israel will be cleansed completely when God begins to restore Israel to the land of Canaan in the end time (cf. 36:22–32).
This message is certain. God has spoken; he will do what he has said. He will not neglect this righteous judgment, for he is just. He spares no one in pity nor will he be sorry for anyone, for Jerusalem will receive the just due of her wicked deeds.
2. Signs to the exiles (24:15–27)
a. The death of Ezekiel’s wife (24:15–24)
15–17 The Lord informs Ezekiel that shortly he would take Ezekiel’s wife from him “with one blow,” a phrase that normally refers to a plague or disease (cf. Ex 9:14). This predicted death of Ezekiel’s wife is heightened when it is emphasized that she was “the delight of [his] eyes.”
In the funeral rites of the ancient Near East, the mourner normally tears his garments and puts on sackcloth (2Sa 3:31). He removes his shoes and headdress (2Sa 15:30; Mic 1:8), shaves his head, and puts earth on his head (1Sa 4:12). The lower part of the face (from the mustache down) is covered with a veil of some sort (2Sa 15:30; 19:4). The mourner rolls his head or his whole body in dust and then lies, or sits, among a heap of ashes (Isa 58:5; Mic 1:10). He fasts for a day (2Sa 1:12; 3:35), after which friends bring “mourning bread” (Jer 16:7). Funeral lamentations are made by the family, relatives, and professional mourners (2Sa 1:17; 11:26; Mic 1:8).
In vv.16b–17 the Lord instructs Ezekiel not to use these normal procedures to mourn the loss of his wife. In fact, he was not to mourn at all, not even to shed a tear. He was only to groan silently. This was certainly an unnatural response to death, especially in the culture of Ezekiel’s day. Priests mourned the death of a family member (Lev 21:1–3), but Ezekiel would not even be allowed that privilege.
18–19 Ezekiel probably shared this message with the people in the morning; in that evening his wife died. He faithfully responded to her death according to God’s command, though undoubtedly this was one of the most difficult things he ever did. Only through the Lord’s strength was he able to obey. Such an unnatural response to death immediately arrested the attention of his audience, and they readily inquired as to the meaning of his actions. Ezekiel’s entire life was a testimony to the exiles.
20–24 The “delight” of the exiled people’s eyes was the pride (2Ch 36:19; La 1:10–11) and affection that they had in the temple at Jerusalem (cf. v.25). However, the Lord would defile the temple and slay the Judean children in the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem. Ezekiel was to be a sign to them. They were to respond to the destruction of the temple and the death of their children in the same manner that Ezekiel responded to the death of his wife. Just as the delight of his eyes (his wife) was taken, so the delight of their eyes (the temple and their children) would be taken. They were not to mourn because Jerusalem’s fall had been foretold by the prophets. Judgment should have been expected!
b. The removal of Ezekiel’s muteness (24:25–27)
25–27 The Lord announces that Ezekiel’s muteness (cf. 3:25–27) would be removed when the siege of Jerusalem was completed. On the day Jerusalem fell, a fugitive would escape to bring the news of Jerusalem’s collapse to Ezekiel in Babylon. On the day that the fugitive arrived in Babylon, Ezekiel’s mouth would be opened; he would have the freedom to move among his people and proclaim the message of hope for the future. He would once again intercede before the Lord on their behalf. This fulfillment is described in 33:21–22 (cf. 2Ki 25:8), in the very night on which Ezekiel delivered his great message of hope for Israel (33:31–39:29). The removal of his muteness would be another affirmation of Ezekiel’s prophetic gift to the exiles. When they saw the fulfillment of the Lord’s messages through his prophets, then the exiles would know that the Lord was the God of Israel.
III. Judgment on the Foreign Nations (25:1–33:20)
A. Judgment on Judah’s Closest Neighbors (25:1–17)
1. Judgment on Ammon (25:1–7)
1–7 In 25:1–33:20 the prophet thematically groups all the oracles against foreign nations that he received from the Lord (cf. Isa 13–23; Jer 46–51). Though delivered at different times, topically they form a singular unit, significantly placed at this point in the book. Ezekiel had warned Judah of judgment in the first twenty-three chapters. Chapter 24 climaxed these warnings with the announcement of the beginning of Judah’s foretold punishment. With the fall of Judah and Jerusalem, Ezekiel turns to announce judgment on the foreign nations that had in some manner cursed Israel (cf. 25:1–33:20; cf. Ge 12:3). By inserting these judgment oracles against the nations here, he concludes the book decisively and constructively with promise. Receiving a renewed commission in 33:1–20, Ezekiel closes his prophecy with the encouraging announcement that Israel would be brought back safely to the Promised Land (33:21–48:35).
Chapter 25 does not start a new series of messages. The four short oracles against Judah’s immediate neighbors continue Ezekiel’s dated judgment message begun at 24:1. The messages in this series announce judgment on Judah and then turn to denounce the surrounding nations that had rejoiced over Judah’s downfall and had hoped for personal spoil and gain. God announces judgment on these nations lest their gleeful taunts continue and the exiles question his faithfulness to his promises.
The judgment announced on these nations had already been predicted several times by Jeremiah (Jer 9:25–26; 25:1–26; 27:1–11; 48:1–49:22). Nebuchadnezzar and his Babylonian armies would be the instrument of judgment on these nations as well as on Judah. They too would experience captivity in Babylonia for seventy years (Jer 25:11). Long ago God had promised that those who cursed Israel would be cursed (Ge 12:3). Now he would bring that “cursing” on these nations. Judgment would continue until the second coming of Christ, when the Lord will reign over them (cf. Isa 11:14; Da 11:41; Joel 3:1–4). Thus God’s perspective of judgment extends from the immediate judgment by Babylonia to the end times.
Ezekiel was to prophesy against the children of Ammon, exhorting them to listen to God’s word and not the message of their own gods. Judgment on Ammon has already been briefly discussed in 21:20, 28–32; but at that point in Ezekiel’s argument Ammon’s judgment was deferred until the prior discipline of Jerusalem was executed. The accusation and verdict against Ammon are stated in vv.3–5 and 6–7: Ammon is accused of expressing satisfaction over the misfortune of Judah, her enemy and rival. This was clearly shown by the interjection “Aha!” The Ammonites had clapped their hands and stamped their feet in joyous contempt over the temple’s defilement (cf. 24:21), the desolation of the land of Judah, and the captivity of the Judean people by Babylonia.
God was ready to give the Ammonites as a possession to the “people of the East,” who would exploit the land of Ammon by settling down in it and eating the produce of that country. The desolation of the land would be symbolized by the use of Rabbah, their capital, as a pasture for camels and the use of their land as a resting place for flocks. The “people of the East” are not identified here; but the immediate context, parallel passages, and ancient history all argue for the designation of “Babylonia.” Ezekiel’s proclamation of God’s continuing purpose for judgment did not change in his announcement of judgment on Ammon. God desired that this discipline would cause the Ammonites to know that he was the Lord, the God of Israel, the only true God.
2. Judgment on Moab (25:8–11)
8–11 Moab had cursed the people of Israel, being disrespectful of Judah’s divine election as an instrument of blessing to the world. Moab had likened Judah to all other nations because she had fallen to Babylonia. Such a defeat indicated to Moab and other nations that Judah’s God was weak. Therefore, any special calling of Judah by that God was considered a joke. So Moab laughed at Judah’s defeat in light of her professed election (Jer 48:27; Zep 2:8–9). Edom, known elsewhere in the OT as “Seir” (cf. Ge 32:3; 36:30; Eze 35), shared with Moab this same disdain of Judah. A more complete accusation of Edom follows in the next judgment speech.
The verdict on Moab manifested God’s promise to curse those who curse Israel (cf. Ge 12:3). The Lord would expose Moab’s northwest flank (the mountain plateau overlooking the Jordan rift) to the invasion of “the people of the East” (the Babylonians attacked Moab in 583/582 B.C.). The attack would begin on this shoulder of the land of Moab, along a line drawn from north to south between the cities of Beth Jeshimoth (in the Jordan Valley), Baal Meon (about five miles southwest of Madebah), and Kiriathaim (location uncertain), “the glory of the land” (the best part). The people of Moab would be given as a possession to these “people of the East,” along with the children of Ammon, implying that the same invasion was involved. Moab would be exiled and laid desolate (Jer 48:7–9). Neither Moab nor Ammon would “be remembered among the nations” until the end times. This judgment was to begin with Nebuchadnezzar and conclude with the second coming of the Lord. God’s consistent purpose in judgment is stated again: that Moab would come to know that he is the Lord, the only true God.
3. Judgment on Edom (25:12–14)
12–14 The accusation against Edom centered on her perpetual attitude of vengeance against Judah, an attitude that began with the conflict between Jacob (Israel) and Esau (Edom; cf. Ge 25:30; 27:41–46; 32:4). Edom had desired to possess Israel and Judah (35:10) and had joined Ammon and Moab in degrading Judah (cf. v.8; 36:5; Ps 137:1, 7–9). She had committed grievous acts against Judah. Edom’s behavior was inexcusable because he was a twin brother! Israel respected this solidarity, but Edom spurned it.
Therefore, God announces his verdict on Edom, a judgment that is expanded in 35:1–36:15. Edom would become a desolation as the Lord cut off both humankind and cattle from that land. This devastation would be comprehensive from Teman to Dedan. Other passages indicate that this punishment would be executed by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 9:26; 25:21; 27:1–11; cf. Eze 32:29; Mal 1:2–5). However, God also declares that he would execute his vengeance on Edom in return for its vengeance on Judah, and that he would do so through the instrumentality of Israel. The historical context of Ezekiel’s day precludes this event from happening at that time. However, Ezekiel and other prophets declared that Israel would possess Edom in the end time (cf. 35:1–36:15; Isa 11:14; Da 11:41; Am 9:12; Ob 18).
The purpose of God’s judgment on Edom is stated differently than the norm: Edom would know God’s vengeance in his judgment. They would understand that he was the faithful God of Israel who would curse those who cursed his people. In turn Edom would observe that he was the only true God.
4. Judgment on Philistia (25:15–17)
15–17 Ezekiel moves geographically clockwise as he announced judgment on Judah’s closest neighbors. The Philistines also were accused of responding with vengeance against Judah, especially with contempt and perpetual enmity. Their goal was to destroy Judah. Such continual hostility against Israel by Philistia had been demonstrated in its interaction with Samson (Jdg 13–16), Eli (1Sa4), Saul (1Sa 13; 31), David (2Sa 5), Hezekiah (2Ki 18:8), Jehoram (2Ch 21:16–17), and Ahaz (2Ch 28:18). God’s judgment verdict declares that he would “cut off the Kerethites,” a synecdoche for “Philistines” or a portion of them (1Sa 30:14; Zep 2:5). God’s great vengeance against them was a judgment “in kind” for their revengeful attitude and actions against Judah. His destruction of Philistia would be complete, even consuming the remnant of those who were on the coast. His wrath, however, was for correction, so that Philistia would come to know through this act against them that he was the only true God.
Though the time of this punishment on Philistia was not stated, the context assumes the same time as the three verdicts executed on Ammon, Moab, and Edom by Babylon (cf. Jer 25:20; 47:1–7). The ultimate fruition of this judgment will be realized when Israel possesses Philistia in the end time (cf. Isa 11:14; Joel 3:1–4; Ob 19; Zep 2:4–7).
B. Judgment on Tyre (26:1–28:19)
1. Judgment by Babylon (26:1–21)
a. A judgment oracle against Tyre (26:1–14)
1–6 Ezekiel turns toward the north to announce judgment on the city of Tyre and its environs. The length of this oracle suggests the political and religious significance of this city. His indictment of Tyre is set forth in a series of four messages: a judgment speech with explanatory appendixes (26:1–21); a funeral dirge over the fall of the city (27:1–36); a judgment speech against the prince of Tyre (28:1–10); and a funeral dirge over the fall of the king of Tyre (28:11–19).
The date for these four oracles is given as “the eleventh year, on the first day of the month.” The specific month was not stated. It seems that these oracles were pronounced against Tyre while the siege of Jerusalem was in process in the “eleventh” year.
Tyre is first mentioned as a strong, fortified town that formed part of the boundary of the inheritance of the tribe of Asher (Jos 19:29). Tyre had been prominent in the days of David and Solomon. Hiram, Solomon’s contemporary, enlarged and beautified the city. It became an important maritime city of the ancient Near East. With the rise of Assyria to power, Tyre periodically submitted to Assyria’s lordship, paying tribute out of the abundance of her wealth. Whenever possible, however, Tyre rebelled against the Assyrian power and withstood the Assyrian retribution in the security of its island fortress (as in the case of Sennacherib). As Assyria began to decline in strength, Tyre exerted her complete independence. Tyre was in this latter condition when these oracles were delivered.
Verses 1b–6 compose the basic judgment speech against Tyre with the accusation stated in v.2 and the verdict delivered in vv.3–6. Tyre was accused of delighting in the prospects of Jerusalem’s downfall so that she might obtain the spoils of the city and the advantages of its fall (e.g., Jerusalem controlled the trade routes connecting Egypt and Arabia with the north). “Aha!” expresses Tyre’s satisfaction over Jerusalem’s misfortune. Tyre looked forward to the “gate to the nations” being broken down. The term “doors” refers to the gates of Jerusalem, which would be broken for the access to the nations. Jerusalem’s gates would be broken by Babylonia and opened to Tyre.
Tyre’s major desire was to be filled with the spoils of Jerusalem and with the opportunities, since Jerusalem lay “in ruins,” that would then be hers in western Asia. The Babylonians had taken Jerusalem, leaving it open for Tyre to take advantage of the spoils of Jerusalem. It was this incessant desire for wealth and riches that brought God’s wrath on Tyre in fulfillment of his promise in Ge 12:3.
God, who was personally against Tyre, would bring many nations successively, like the waves of the sea, to destroy Tyre and make her like a bare rock, useful only for drying nets. “Out in the sea” describes Tyre’s almost impregnable situation. The cliffs of Moab, the heights of Edom, and the island fortress of Tyre were no defense against the sovereign Lord. Tyre would become spoil for all nations, just as she sought to spoil Jerusalem. Even Tyre’s outlying coastal settlements would be destroyed. But even through this prolonged judgment, God’s purpose would be that Tyre would too come to know that he was the Lord, the only true God.
The siege of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar lasted for thirteen years (c. 586–573 B.C.). However, when Babylonia declined in power, Tyre regained her independence once again. This brief freedom lasted till the second “wave” of destruction brought her into submission to the Persians around 525 B.C. Tyre’s remaining history demonstrated the continuing “waves” of conquerors. God was faithful to bring the “many nations” against Tyre in successive “waves” of conquest. The Lord Jesus did bring his preaching and healing ministry to this heathen city (Mt 15:21; Mk 7:24–31; Lk 6:17). Her responsibility and judgment would be less than that of the Galileans who rejected Christ’s constant ministry to them (Mt 11:21–22; Lk 10:13–14).
7–14 Nebuchadnezzar and his great army are identified in v.7. The process of his siege of Tyre is fully described. The city’s destruction and the slaying of its inhabitants are described, followed by the taking of spoils and the demolition of the remaining glories of Tyre. The change from “he” to “they” in v.12 may demonstrate a broadening of the instrument of judgment from Babylonia to the many future nations that would plunder Tyre. Alexander the Great literally threw Tyre’s “stones, timber and rubble into the sea” when he built a one-half mile causeway out to the island fortress to conquer the city.
Tyre’s desolation is emphasized by the lack of any song in the city (an indication of cessation of normal social activities) and by the town’s bareness portrayed by the figure of a bare rock used only for spreading fishing nets to dry.
b. The response of vassal nations to Tyre’s fall (26:15–18)
15–18 Tyre had many vassals who had depended on her as their protector. Ezekiel prophesies that when the news of Tyre’s fall to Babylonia is received by these peoples, they would be terribly frightened. Their princes would abdicate their thrones, perhaps in an act of surrender and submission to Babylonia before she attacked them. As mourners they would not sing a lament song in luxurious dress. They would be stunned and stand amazed as to how Tyre could fall. These vassal rulers would sing a funeral dirge over the deceased Tyre. Ironically, Tyre had the poor sense to rejoice over Jerusalem’s fall. These cities, however, had the good sense to realize that Tyre’s fall spelled the same for them.
c. The Lord’s concluding verdict (26:19–21)
19–21 A prophecy of Tyre’s eternal death was certainly an appropriate response to the funeral dirge of the nations. Ezekiel refers to the imagery of vv.3–6 to pinpoint the aspect of the previous message that he wants to expand. At the time that Tyre would be made a ruin by the great waves of nations (v.3) and left as a barren rock (v.4), God would make sure that she never again regained her place of prominence on this earth. Tyre would die. She would “go down to the pit,” as had those in the past who had already died. In her ruined state she would be as if she dwelt in Sheol in the earth below. Also, Tyre would never again exist and play an important role in history as she had in the past. Though some might look for her, she would not be found.
2. Ezekiel’s funeral dirge over Tyre (27:1–36)
a. The building of Tyre’s ship of pride (27:1–11)
1–3 A previous dirge had been sung by neighboring kings (26:15–18). This new message is another funeral lament, but one that Ezekiel himself sings at Tyre’s death. The chief cause for this major maritime power’s collapse was her pride. Tyre became full of self-conceit, presuming herself to be “perfect” in all she had acquired through trade with the nations. The Lord hates pride (Pr 8:13; 16:18).
4–11 The destruction of Tyre would be lamented like the wreck of a magnificent ship. The imagery is sustained through the poem and climaxes in the wreckage. In typical dirge style the deceased’s former splendor is first accented. Ezekiel uses the imagery of a ship being constructed and equipped to show Tyre’s pride and development of prominence and dominion as a maritime empire.
Tyre’s domain was in the heart of the sea. Her sea traffic extended throughout the ancient Near East. She obtained the finest materials through maritime trade. She used her dominion over other nations to build and beautify her own “ship” (Tyre). The wood for the frame (pine or fir) came from the district of Mount Hermon (Senir), while her “mast” was made from choice cedars of Lebanon. The ship’s “oars” were from the oaks of Bashan; and her “deck,” inlaid with ivory, was made from cypress wood from Cyprus. Her “sail” and “banner” were made of Egypt’s fine linen, while her “awnings” were made of purple and blue textiles of Elishah. These verses convey the idea that Tyre’s development into a beautiful and great maritime city-state came through acquiring the finest materials of her day from the areas that produced them. She obtained these materials through the prominence and power of her sea merchants.
Those who engineered the development and expansion of Tyre’s merchant activity were native Phoenicians. Tyre secured the best-trained veteran sea merchants from the Phoenician cities of Sidon, Arvad, and Gebal (Byblos) to be her “crew” and “shipwrights.” However, the intelligentsia of Tyre actually “sailed” the ship. She was so adept at sea trade that soon everyone traded with her. In turn this necessitated armed protection of her city and ships. She was then able to attract military mercenaries from far-off Persia, Lydia, and Put (in Africa), as well as more local soldiers from Arvad, Helech, and Gammad. Tyre’s ability to allure these mercenaries came undoubtedly from her splendor, wealth, and power. In turn, the presence of these foreigners enhanced Tyre’s significance. Truly Tyre became a magnificent maritime empire that attracted nations from all over the ancient Near East to trade with her and to come and experience her greatness as a city. In light of this Tyre could say, “I am perfect in beauty.”
b. Tyre’s vast commercial relations (27:12–24)
12–24 The nations desired to trade with Tyre because of the abundance of goods she had to trade. The list of geographic locations and the major items that each nation had to trade show the extent, abundance, and variety of Tyre’s trade. Tyre traded with almost every region: from Tarshish (Spain) to northeast Anatolia (Tubal, Beth Togarmah) on an east-west axis (through the Aegean), and from Arabia through Syria and Palestine on a north-south axis.
c. The sinking of the ship of Tyre (27:25–36)
25–27 This last section of Ezekiel’s funeral lament over Tyre gives God’s verdict and the nation’s response. The imagery of a sinking ship continues the metaphor and portrays Tyre’s demise. Laden with all the wealth of the nations and her resulting pride in materialism, the “ship” became extremely vulnerable to the “seas.” Led out on the high seas of commercial adventure by her obsession for more wealth, Tyre quickly succumbed to the strong “east wind” of Babylonia. All Tyre’s “cargo” of wealth, materialism, and pride, along with those serving her, sank suddenly into the sea.
28–36 Those who had traded with Tyre quickly “abandoned their ships,” i.e., their work for Tyre, and they stood stunned and shocked on the shore. They bitterly mourned for Tyre’s death by putting on sackcloth, shaving their heads, placing dust on their heads, and rolling in ashes. They had never seen anyone collapse as quickly as Tyre. She had been supreme in the maritime world, constantly satisfying others with her wares, but now nothing was left. It had all sunk into the sea. Tyre was nonexistent.
The nations and kings who had traded with Tyre became afraid that they too would have the same thing happen to them (cf. 26:17–18). In fear and self-protection, they quickly turned from being ones who adored Tyre to ones who totally disowned her. They hissed at her in a derogatory manner. How quickly the proud fall! Tyre found this out. She would exist no more!
3. A judgment speech against the ruler of Tyre (28:1–10)
1–5 God commands Ezekiel to deliver a final judgment speech against the ruler of Tyre. Tyre’s king is described as a very wise man. But he was so impressed with himself that he actually began to think that he was a god. He was sitting on the “throne of a god [Melkart, Tyre’s patron deity] in the heart of the seas.” This arrogant pride and self-exaltation as a god brought God’s accusation against Tyre’s ruler. God charged that Tyre’s ruler was not a god but merely a man. God questioned whether Tyre’s ruler was as wise as Daniel, the prophet who had revealed secrets to Nebuchadnezzar. Did Tyre’s ruler know all secrets? No! Tyre’s ruler was only a man.
6–10 Ezekiel announces the verdict against Tyre’s ruler. God would humble him by bringing him to a horrible, disgraceful death, the death of the uncircumcised at the hand of ruthless foreigners. Phoenicians practiced circumcision; so to be slain as an uncircumcised male would be to die a barbarian’s death. No longer would he have beauty and splendor. Strangers’ swords would cut off his wealth and grandeur. God mocked the ruler’s claim to divinity by declaring that the ruler would not claim deity before his slayers but would be a mere mortal in their hands.
4. A funeral dirge for the king of Tyre (28:11–19)
This is one of the more difficult passages in the book of Ezekiel-if not in the whole Bible! The most logical and expected understanding of this section is to see it as Ezekiel’s funeral lament for Tyre’s king. The progression of the prophecies against Tyre have alternated judgment speeches with funeral laments. Since 28:1–10 set forth a judgment speech against Tyre’s ruler, one would expect 28:11–19 to be the corresponding funeral dirge for this king. Many, however, have understood the king of Tyre to be Satan. But this interpretation has its difficulties, as will be noted below. Therefore, the most natural and logical understanding of these verses is that the human king of Tyre is the person under discussion.
11–12 The main difficulty in this passage lies in explaining the description given for this king. He is said here to be full of wisdom and perfect in beauty, concepts already conveyed about Tyre’s ruler and his city. He is also “the model of perfection [lit., the one sealing a plan].” As Tyre’s king and the mastermind of the city’s commercial sea traffic, it is easy to understand how he would be known as the one whose plan enabled the city to become the maritime leader of its day.
13a This individual was also declared to have been in “Eden, the garden of God.” The word “God” could refer either to the true God or to a god. “Eden” may refer to the Paradise described in Ge 1–3. It probably is a simile to portray the splendor of a given geographical area, its most common use (cf. Ge 13:10; Eze 31:9). It is impossible that Tyre’s contemporary king was in the Garden of Eden at the time of creation; thus many argue that Tyre’s king is Satan (see Ge 3). However, several conjectures about Satan need to be made if one chooses this interpretation.
If Tyre’s literal king is in view, then a possible solution may be found in understanding ancient Near Eastern temples. These temples normally encompassed a large enclosure with a garden. If the term for “God” is understood as “god,” then perhaps “Eden, a garden of a god” metaphorically describes the splendor of the temple complex of Melkart (“king of the city”), with whom Tyre’s human king sought identity. Admittedly the phrase “you were in Eden, the garden of God” is a difficult obstacle to the interpretation, though plausible solutions do exist.
13b–14a In the ancient Near East a “cherub” (GK 4131) was understood to be a sphinxlike creature with an animal body (normally a bull or lion), wings, and a human head. These statutory creatures normally guarded the entrances to pagan temples. The cherubim of God guarded the ark of the covenant and the Garden of Eden, and they formed the throne-chariot of God. It seems that Tyre’s king was identifying himself with the patron deity of Tyre, Melkart, directly or symbolically, as the god’s guardian sphinx. The Phoenician male-sphinx (or cherub) was normally bejeweled and sometimes had the head of the priest-king. The sphinx was considered to be all-wise. Such a description fits well, for the king is called a guardian cherub (sphinx), and the many jewels listed as his covering befit the many jewels that adorned the Phoenician sphinx (cherub). The passage would then be declaring that the king of Tyre had become as the guardian cherub for the god Melkart and was bejeweled with his riches as a cherub-sphinx normally was. The term “created” is used in the sense of bringing the king to the throne. God is always the Creator; so this would demonstrate that it was the true God who had sovereignly placed this king on the throne of Tyre.
To assume that the stones were the garment of Satan in the Garden of Eden and that Satan was a guardian cherub of Eden are purely hypotheses. In fact, neither Michael nor Gabriel (archangels) is described as a cherub, and Satan was no doubt on the same level as these before his fall.
14b The phrase “holy mount” is consistently used to describe Jerusalem and/or Zion as the central place of worship and the dwelling place of the Lord (Ps 99:9; Isa 56:56:7). It is to “my holy mountain” that the children of Israel will be regathered in the millennial kingdom (Isa 11:9: 65:25). If “the holy mount of God” refers to Jerusalem, then this means that the king of Tyre was in (not on) the city of Jerusalem walking amid fiery stones after Babylonia destroyed Jerusalem. However, the ritual of burning a god has been discovered on a bowl from Sidon and is recorded in the cult of Melkart at Tyre. Melkart’s resurrection was celebrated by a “burning in effigy,” from which he would then be revitalized through the fire and the smelling of the burnt offering. Therefore, in keeping with the Phoenician religious-cultural background, perhaps the explanation of walking among the fiery stones is a reference to the king’s self-exaltation of himself even as the god Melkart, to the extent of his claiming resurrection after burning by fire.
The “holy mount of God” is never used in Scripture to mean heaven, which would have to be its interpretation if the king of Tyre is identified with Satan. Likewise, walking among the fiery stones would be an enigma if Satan is the person described here.
15–19 Last, this king is declared to be perfect in his ways from the day he was created till he sinned. “Perfect” (GK 4003) does not mean “sinless perfection” but implies that one was blameless or unobjectionable in a given area. The king of Tyre was a good king against whom objections were not raised from the moment of his coronation until pride possessed him and he sinned.
The king of Tyre’s sin of pride arose from the splendor he achieved through his vast commercial traffic. His obsession for material gain opened the city to all the evils prevalent in commercial traffic. He became filled with violence. His wisdom was dulled by the glitter of wealth and splendor. He also profaned his sanctuaries—likely a reference to the idolatries practiced in the temple of Melkart. Such a description is totally unfitting for Satan. Only by seeing Satan as the force behind Tyre’s king and the spirit working in him can one even begin to relate these verses to Satan.
This funeral lament concludes with a description of the fall of this king under God’s judgment. God would bring him down in disgrace from his self-deification, from “the mount of god.” As a cherub he would be eliminated from the area of the fiery stones, i.e., his professed immortality by fiery resurrection would be destroyed when he died (or he would be removed from taking spoils from Jerusalem). God would cast him to the ground before all the world’s kings and cause fire to come forth from him to devour him. Just what is meant by fire coming out from the king is not clear. His death would be sudden and horrible, and he would exist no more. Certainly this description is befitting a human but does not coincide with what we know of Satan’s fall and ultimate destruction.
Thus Tyre’s king is best understood as the literal human contemporary king of that city in Ezekiel’s day. Each characteristic can be explained in light of the cultural and religious context of that day. Contrarily, to identify the king as Satan requires far too much presupposition. Most of these descriptions—if they do in fact relate to Satan—are revealed nowhere else in Scripture.
C. Judgment on Sidon (28:20–24)
20–24 Sidon, a sister city of Tyre, lay in the shadow of Tyre’s maritime leadership in Ezekiel’s day. God’s judgment on Sidon would consist of a plague and death by the sword. Bloodshed would be rampant, but God’s judgment was a manifestation of his grace, for therein the Lord was glorified when the Sidonians realized that he is truly the Lord and God. God’s holiness demands that he be just and execute judgment on sin. This holiness was demonstrated in his judgment on sinful Sidon.
Verse 24 summarizes the previous judgment oracles against the nations (chs. 25–28). When these judgments are completed, Israel would be free from these despising and harassing nations’ constant pain that she had received for so long. Israel would then recognize and know that the Lord truly is her God.
D. Israel’s Restoration From the Nations (28:25–26)
25–26 By the judgment of the nations around Israel, Ezekiel encourages the exiles that God faithfully exercises his righteousness against other nations as well as against Judah. He encourages them further with a reminder that the Lord will regather them from among all the nations where they have been scattered. This restoration will take place when God executes his judgments on the nations, judgments that will not be completed until the end times. By regathering Israel God will demonstrate that he is the holy God, unique and distinct.
When the Lord restores Israel to Canaan, he will show his immutable character of faithfulness. He promised this land to Abraham (Ge 12:7), Isaac (Ge 26:3), and Jacob (Ge 35:12) in the Abrahamic covenant. The Lord will cause his people to live in that land in security and prosperity. At that time they will know without doubt that he is the Lord their God.
E. Judgment on Egypt (29:1–32:32)
Ezekiel concludes his prophecies against the nations with six judgment messages against Egypt. Egypt had played a significant role in the final days of the Judean kingdom. From 609 B.C. until her fall to Babylonia in 605 B.C., Egypt had dominated Judah. With the momentous victory over Egypt at Carchemish, Babylonia began to rule Judah. Nevertheless Egypt continued to try to regain the Judean allegiance, frequently encouraging Judah to rebel against Babylonia. The Egyptian Pharaoh Hophra tried unsuccessfully to interrupt the Babylonians’ siege of Jerusalem.
Ezekiel’s prophecies reflect this historical and chronological orientation. The advancement of Egyptian forces into Palestine under Hophra during Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem seems to have precipitated this series of oracles. Ezekiel’s first message is a general prophecy of Egypt’s complete desolation because of her pride and her unreliable support of Judah (29:1–16). In his third prophecy (30:20–26), Ezekiel refers to the defeats of Pharaoh Hophra by the Babylonian forces; this was only the beginning of God’s judgments on Egypt. The entire nation would be destroyed because of Egypt’s arrogant pride, a haughtiness that Ezekiel likens to that of Assyria at her height of power. But as Assyria was brought down by God, so also Egypt would fall (see Ezekiel’s fourth message, 31:1–18). The prophet follows his judgment messages with a lament over Egypt’s demise (32:1–16). A summary of his oracles of judgment against Egypt and a warning to the Judean exiles to turn to the Lord and live while there was still opportunity conclude Ezekiel’s prophecies (32:17–33:20).
The second prophecy (29:17–30:19) is chronologically out of place; Ezekiel’s thematic concern overweighs his chronological concern. By placing this chronologically final message immediately after the introductory prophecy of December/January 588/587 B.C. (29:1–16), Ezekiel provides an immediate and a full understanding that Egypt’s ultimate and complete destruction, as foretold in that first message, would come through the Babylonians after 571 B.C. Likewise, the placement of the 571 B.C. message (29:17–30:19) after the introductory prophecy against Egypt provides a transition from the judgments on Tyre to those on Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar was the instrument of judgment on Tyre; but since he did not secure the spoils of war from that city because of Egypt’s intervention, God said he would give Egypt as spoils to Babylonia instead. Finally, with the knowledge of ultimate judgment on Egypt acquired, each succeeding prophecy in this series of six messages can be better understood.
1. The introductory prophecy of judgment on Egypt (29:1–16)
1–7 Pharaoh is likened to a crocodile (“monster”; GK 9490) in the midst of the Nile that the Lord would catch, pull from the Nile, and leave on the dry land to die. Though the word used here may be translated either “monster” or “crocodile,” it seems best in light of Egyptian culture and religion to use the imagery most fitting to the Egyptians. The “crocodile” was a fearful creature of the Nile. It was normally caught with hooks in the jaws and then pulled on dry land where it would be slaughtered. The crocodile god was considered Egypt’s protector.
In the imagery the crocodile represented the pharaoh, the protector of Egypt, who dominated the Nile (i.e., all Egypt). This was Hophra’s arrogant self-image. In his reign he sent an expedition against Cyprus, besieged and took Gaza (cf. Jer 47:1) and the city of Sidon, was victorious against Tyre by sea, and considered himself master over Palestine and Phoenicia. Such pride was consistent with the denunciation in this message, for the pharaoh felt that the Nile (Egypt) belonged to him and that he had created it for himself. This arrogance had also shown itself in an attempt to interrupt Babylonia’s siege of Jerusalem—an attempt thwarted by God.
The imagery of catching a crocodile beautifully expresses God’s judgment on the pharaoh. He would be pulled from his position of dominance and pride and left as carnage for the birds and animals. He would not even be afforded the royal burial so important to the pharaohs, a horrible fate. The indictment was broadened to include all Egyptians (“fish”?), for as a nation they had failed to be of political support to Israel. Rather, they were as a staff made of reeds that shattered when Israel leaned on it, seriously wounding her (cf. Isa 36:6).
8–16 Both the pharaoh and all Egypt would perish, and the land would become desolate when God brought the sword against that land because of their pride. The desolation would affect the entire country from Migdol in the northeast delta to Seveneh (located at modern Aswan opposite Elephantine Island on the east bank near the first cataract). These sites were ancient Egypt’s northern and southern boundaries. The judgment would also extend into Cush (modern Ethiopia), between the Nile’s second and third cataracts. The streams or canals in the Nile’s delta would be affected also (cf. 30:12; 32:13–14).
While Egypt was desolate for forty years, her inhabitants would be scattered among the nations at the hands of the Babylonians. Egypt’s fate was like a repetition of Judah’s (cf. the forty years parallel in 4:6). If Egypt fell to the Babylonians about 568 B.C., as implied in the chronicles of the Babylonian kings, then a forty-year “captivity” of Egypt would end under the Persians. Since the Persians returned many of the peoples displaced by the Babylonians, this very well may be the case. Just because there is no direct statement in ancient history concerning this dispersion does not mean that it did not occur. God’s word is more valid than our conjectures or ignorance.
When Egypt would be restored to her land after forty years, she would inhabit the area of Pathros or “Upper Egypt,” the land area essentially between modern Cairo and Aswan. Never again would Egypt be a great kingdom. It would always be lowly and weak. No longer would Israel look with confidence toward Egypt. Every time she would look to Egypt in the future, Israel would be reminded of her sin in turning to Egypt for help in the past.
The purpose of God’s judgment messages is always the same. He desires that those judged recognize that he is the Lord, the only true God, the God of Israel.
2. A day of the Lord: the consummation of Egypt’s judgment (29:17–30:19)
a. Babylonia’s compensation of Egypt for the spoilless siege of Tyre (29:17–21)
17–21 As a fulfillment of God’s judgment on Tyre, Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian army laid siege to Tyre for thirteen years. The scant historical data indicate that Egypt and Tyre became allies under Pharaoh Hophra (Apries). The extended siege of Tyre was perhaps due to the aid Tyre received from the Egyptians. In such an act Hophra was going contrary to God’s purposes. Not only was the siege prolonged by Egyptian support, but possibly Egypt’s maritime aid enabled Tyre to send away her wealth for security during the siege. When Tyre surrendered about 573 B.C., Babylonia gained almost no spoils from the long siege. Therefore God promised in this latest-dated oracle of Ezekiel on Egypt that Nebuchadnezzar would receive Egypt as compensation for the spoils he failed to receive from Tyre. “Every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw” indicates that they were carrying heavy loads on their heads and shoulders during the siege. Nebuchadnezzar would carry off Egypt’s superior wealth as pay for his army and as a belated “reward” for his execution of God’s judgment against Tyre.
For the first time the instrument of God’s judgment on Egypt is revealed to be Babylonia under Nebuchadnezzar’s leadership (cf. Jer 43:8–13). Since Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 B.C., this predicted desolation of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar’s army would have to have occurred before then. Historical notices imply that Babylonia invaded Egypt about 568/567 B.C.
God used Babylonia’s conquest of Egypt to strengthen and encourage Israel in exile. The passage treats the judgment on Egypt and states that at the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion “a horn” will grow for Israel. The symbol must refer to the strength (cf. NIV note) and encouragement that Israel was to receive when she observed God’s faithfulness in executing his judgment on her enemy, Egypt, in accord with these prophecies and the Abrahamic covenant (Ge 12:3). At this time Ezekiel’s mouth would be opened among the exiles to proclaim God’s purposes and workings more freely, since the exiles would be more ready to listen. Through these events the Israelites would perceive that the God who was accomplishing these mighty acts in faithfulness was the Lord their God.
b. Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Egypt (30:1–19)
1–19 A “day of the LORD” may be any specific time period when God does a special work. The context demonstrates that this “day of the LORD” relates specifically to God’s judgment on Egypt through Babylonia, with Nebuchadnezzar being the agent of judgment. In addition, the event is called a “day of Egypt,” limiting the judgment to Egypt and her satellites alone. It would occur during the “time of doom for the nations,” when Babylonia would bring God’s wrath on those nations that had in some manner “cursed” Israel (cf. 25:32; Jer 25, 27, 45–48).
Egypt’s day of the Lord, a day of doom, would be a dark day in her history (“a day of clouds”). The masses would fear as Egypt’s proud strength ceased before Nebuchadnezzar’s sword. Many would be slain. Egypt’s great riches would be carried off to Babylonia along with many people. Not even a prince (leader) would be left in the country. Many idolatrous statues of the Egyptian gods would be destroyed in the Babylonian quest for complete victory and wealth.
The entire land would lie desolate from Migdol in the north to Syene in the south. Pathros, the major portion of Upper Egypt between modern Cairo and Aswan, would be laid waste. Egypt’s major cities would bear the punishment of Babylon: Zoan in the northeastern delta; Thebes, Egypt’s perennial southern capital; Pelusium, the residence of the ruling Twenty-Sixth Dynasty of Ezekiel’s day located on the northeast border; Heliopolis, a major religious center; Bubastis; and Tahpanhes (cf. Jer 43:7–9). The Nile’s streams would be dried up (cf. 32:13–14).
Egypt’s allies would fall also to Babylonia’s sword: Cush (Ethiopia), Lydia in western Anatolia (modern Turkey), Arabia, and Libya. Even the Judeans (“people of the covenant land”), who probably had fled to Egypt following Gedaliah’s assassination (2Ki 25:23–26; Jer 43), would suffer under the Babylonian invasion. The judgment would be comprehensive and awful, though God’s purpose would be accomplished. This judgment was a manifestation of God’s grace; for through it he would finally cause the Egyptians to understand that he, the Lord God of Israel, is the only true God.
3. Pharaoh’s broken arms (30:20–26)
20–26 Ezekiel returns to his chronological sequence of messages (v.1). Pharaoh Hophra had sought to interrupt Babylonia’s siege of Jerusalem at some point during the year 588 B.C. (Jer 34:1, 21–22; 37:5, 9). The Judeans’ hopes were raised in expectation of deliverance from the siege. However, Hophra was not successful. The Babylonians defeated him and his army and sent them back to Egypt, after which Nebuchadnezzar renewed his siege of Jerusalem. The prophetic message in these verses follows Hophra’s abortive intervention by a few months (March/April 587 B.C.). God declares that he had shattered Hophra’s arm. The flexed arm was a common Egyptian symbol for the pharaoh’s strength. Therefore Hophra’s defeat was suitably represented by “breaking his arm.” Ezekiel takes the imagery further by declaring that Hophra’s arm had not been splinted so that it might heal.
This initial defeat of the Egyptian pharaoh was only a prelude of the complete devastation that God would bring on Egypt by Babylonia. In contrast God would strengthen Nebuchadnezzar’s arms and place the Lord’s sword in his hand to enable him to bring complete disability to Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar would symbolically break both arms of the pharaoh, so that Hophra would be unable to hold a sword at all. This occurred about 568 B.C. Again God reminds Egypt of her dispersion among the nations at that final destruction (cf. 29:12; 30:17–18). The result is equally reinforced: the Egyptians would realize that it was the Lord who brought this judgment.
4. Egypt’s fall compared with Assyria’s fall (31:1–18)
1–9 This beautiful poetic message was delivered two months after the previous prophecy concerning the shattering of Egypt’s strength (May/June 587 B.C.). The implication is that Egypt was still proud. Ezekiel uses the imagery of a great cedar of Lebanon, the tallest of the known trees, to represent Assyria, which had recently fallen (612 B.C.). Egypt, in turn, is compared with Assyria. The great cedar (Assyria) was well-watered—an indirect reference to her great water sources in the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Egypt, of course, equally prided herself in her unending supply of Nile water. The cedar (Assyria) had been higher than all other trees (or nations); and she was more beautiful than any other tree, even every original variety of beautiful tree in the Garden of Eden. Every bird nested in her boughs, and every beast bore its young and was shaded under her branches. These birds and beasts represented the nations under Assyria’s control and in her service (cf. Da 4:10–12, 19–22; Mt 13:31–32). Assyria was perhaps the greatest nation known to that point in history.
10–17 Assyria became proud of her greatness (“height”). For this cause the cedar (Assyria) was handed over to the ruler of nations (Nebuchadnezzar) to treat her as she had treated other nations—ruthlessly. She was cut down and cast aside by the most ruthless of foreign nations. God restrained Assyria’s water source. She was worthless after her fall. All nations (other trees, birds, and beasts) mourned and trembled at the cedar’s demise. No other nation of that day would ever reach the height that Assyria had reached.
18 If Egypt thought she was more majestic and had greater splendor than other nations of her day, the Lord reminds her that she too would “be brought down.” She would “die” disgracefully as an uncircumcised foreigner without a decent burial—a horrible thought for proud Egyptian royalty that cherished its royal burial and despised foreigners. If God brought Assyria down, Egypt could be certain that she, who had never come close to Assyria’s greatness, would also fall.
5. A funeral dirge for Egypt (32:1–16)
1–10 Two months had passed since the exiles in Babylonia had learned of Jerusalem’s fall seven months earlier. As they began to comprehend that the Lord did exist and had been faithful to destroy Jerusalem even as he had said, they perhaps wondered whether God would be faithful to punish the heathen nations as he had declared. Conversely, Egypt had seen the collapse of Jerusalem and Judah, and Egypt may have begun to gloat in pride over her own survival and power. Lest the Egyptians think that God would not follow through to judge them, and lest the exiles begin questioning their new understanding of God’s faithfulness to his word, Ezekiel delivers this funeral dirge for Egypt in March 585 B.C.
In the previous judgment prophecies against nations, Ezekiel often followed a judgment message with a lament over that nation. So, having delivered three oracles of condemnation, Ezekiel composes a funeral dirge. He portrays Egypt as dead, and so the funeral dirge was to be sung by the “daughters of the nations” as they watched Egypt expire.
The lament over Egypt is principally a recapitulation of the judgment messages, emphasizing Egypt’s false pride and bewailing the fate of judgment. Once again the double imagery portrays the pharaoh’s energetic pride but ineffective strength. Hophra is likened to a young lion and a thrashing crocodile that only muddies the streams of the Nile. The crocodile would be captured with a net and hurled on the open field as food for the birds and animals. The carnage would be so great that it would fill every ravine and mountain. It would be as if a great darkness covered the land, demonstrating that Egypt’s great sun gods were impotent to help. Cosmic collapse is a common image with earthshaking events. The nations who sang this funeral dirge would be stunned and horrified that Egypt had fallen in their midst.
11–16 The slaughter of Egypt would occur at the hands of the Babylonians, the most ruthless of all peoples. Everyone and every place would be touched, including the great Nile. When all life had disappeared, then the Nile would cease to be stirred up and would flow as smoothly as oil. Only then would Egypt’s pride be shattered. So much did God care for Egypt that in his grace he brought this severe judgment so that they might finally realize that the Lord was the only true God and they would turn to him.
6. Ezekiel’s summary lament over Egypt (32:17–32)
17–32 This is Ezekiel’s final prophecy against Egypt, and it concludes his oracles against the nations (chs. 25–32). It was given in April 585 B.C. Ezekiel must wail for the Egyptians because they too would descend into the pit of death, as had all other mighty nations that had preceded them. Egypt would not be favored over the uncircumcised nations she had proudly disdained. She too would die a shameful, barbarian’s death like all the other countries. God had wrought his terror on them, and he would continue to bring his terror on any nation that dealt violently with others in this world. That is the reason God quickly brought his terror through the Babylonians against Egypt.
F. Ezekiel’s Warning to the Exiles (33:1–20)
1–20 This latter half of Ezekiel’s concluding prophecy against Egypt echoes two previous messages: Ezekiel’s commission as a watchman (v.7; ch. 3) and his exhortation to individual responsibility (v.8; chs. 3; 18). He had faithfully performed his watchman duty for Israel (v.9), warning her of God’s impending judgment on the horizon (chs. 4–24). Three to four months prior to this present message, Ezekiel had also encouraged the people with messages of hope concerning their ultimate restoration to the land (33:21–39:29). They had not heeded his warning concerning judgment and consequently found themselves in captivity, with Jerusalem and Judah in ashes. Ezekiel was exonerated from guilt for the destruction and captivity because he had been God’s responsible watchman. The Judeans could only blame themselves for failing to heed the warning. Therefore, Ezekiel gives one final warning to the exiles: Turn now to the Lord! At least the exiles had come to recognize that God’s judgment had come because of their sin, not their parents’ sin (cf. ch. 18).
Ezekiel seeks to encourage the exiles. God does not find pleasure in death because of wickedness. Conversely, God delights in those who turn from sin, follow his ways in the Mosaic covenant, and live! Each individual is personally responsible for his or her righteousness or wickedness. If one is declared righteous, it was because he or she has decided personally to follow the Lord. If one is judged wicked, it was because he or she personally has decided to reject the Lord and to live according to his or her own desires. To some Judeans it did not seem that God’s ways were fair and just. However, God’s ways are always fair and just, for he does not blame one person for another’s sin. The Lord fairly judges every person according to his or her own actions.
IV. The Future Blessings of a Faithful Covenant God (33:21–48:35)
The majority of evangelical interpreters claim to use a “literal” grammatical-historical hermeneutic. However, that hermeneutic is viewed differently by different groups within evangelicalism. Some hold “literal” to mean “literalistic,” meaning a straightforward reading of the text (usually excluding figures of speech). Others understand that “literal” interpretation allows for figures of speech, historical perspective, contextual study, progressive revelation, analogy of faith, etc. Still others understand “literal” as reading Scripture in a normal literal manner with most prophetic material seen as symbolic and figurative. Since most evangelicals maintain that they consistently use a literal hermeneutic and that others do not, the approach taken in this commentary will be briefly outlined.
This commentary approaches chs. 33–48 with a straightforward reading of the text in the light of history, context, figures of speech, the analogy of faith, progressive revelation, etc. The flow of the argument of the book is emphasized within the context of the entire canon of Scripture and its themes. Apocalyptic visions are viewed as containing considerable symbolism as well as much reality. The interpretations of divine interpreters within visions are followed. These interpreters interpret symbols (cf. ch. 37) but allow to be taken as reality what may be understood in a straightforward reading of the text (e.g., the temple in chs. 40–42). Spiritual lessons may be learned from the realities, even as the future temple of chs. 40–48, with its sacrifices, conveys spiritual lessons as described by the divine interpreter (e.g., the importance of holiness).
This commentary presents a view of Israel’s future restoration to the land after which she will be cleansed, receive a new heart, and live in security and prosperity under the Messiah’s rule in his future millennial kingdom. A literal temple will be constructed according to detailed plans in order to display God’s holiness. Sacrifices will be instituted as memorials of the soteriological work of Christ on the cross. A real river will flow from the temple to heal the land. A completely new geographical setting will be established.
A. Restoration to the Promised Land (33:21–39:29)
God desires to bless; he does not delight in cursing. However, both blessing and cursing are very much a part of God’s covenant program. Ezekiel’s entire prophecy is given in light of God’s covenants with Israel. In order to perceive the unity and development of Ezekiel, it is necessary to understand God’s covenants (see chart at 1Ch 17).
The Abrahamic covenant is God’s basic program for blessing the world (Ge 12:1–3). In this covenant God declared that he would choose one man, Abram; from that one man he would create the nation Israel; and through that nation he would bless the world. For a nation to exist three elements are needed: a people, a government, and a homeland. The people of Israel came into being in Egypt from the twelve sons of Jacob (Israel). Israel’s government was received on Mount Sinai in the form of the Mosaic covenant; the land was acquired through the conquest of Canaan under Joshua.
The Mosaic covenant (Ex 20–Nu 9, Deuteronomy) provided Israel’s constitution, which governed all aspects of life. As Israel kept the Mosaic covenant, she would appropriate the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant; e.g., being in the land of blessing and being a blessing to the nations. However, at any point in history when Israel disobeyed the Mosaic covenant, she would find also that she did not benefit from Abrahamic covenant blessings and, in turn, would not be a blessing to the nations. Israel’s failure to follow the Mosaic covenant was what caused her to be exiled in Babylonia. Israel found that her God was faithful to bring the judgments of Dt 27–28 on her.
In the Davidic covenant (2Sa 7:12–16) God promised that David’s descendants would always sit on his throne: an eternal throne over an eternal kingdom. The concept of the Messiah is based on this covenant, for each king of Israel was a messiah, an “anointed one.” This covenant promised that someday the final son of David would rule on David’s throne.
Jeremiah announced a new covenant that God would make with his people, a covenant that would replace the functions of the Mosaic covenant. It would incorporate the Mosaic covenant in that its laws would be written on the hearts of those who believed in the Messiah. Under its provisions, all sin would be forgiven once and for all (by the Messiah), and the Spirit of God would be poured out on all who believed (cf. ch. 36; 2Co 3).
All these covenants provide the backdrop for Ezekiel’s messages. After receiving his commission (chs. 1–3), Ezekiel warned Israel that the Lord would judge (curse) her in accord with the Mosaic covenant: she would be dispersed among the nations, and Jerusalem and Judah would become desolate (chs. 4–23). In ch. 24 Ezekiel declared that in the siege of Jerusalem, the execution of God’s prophesied judgment on his people had begun. Then, as a reminder of God’s faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant, Ezekiel announced judgment on those nations that had oppressed Israel (25:1–33:20).
The fall of Jerusalem forms the pivotal point of Ezekiel’s prophecy. The warnings against God’s people had been consummated with that fall. But now there was the need to encourage the exiles that the Lord was as faithful to his promises to bless as he was to those to curse. The remainder of Ezekiel (33:21–48:35) emphasizes the blessings of the covenants. God promises to restore Israel to her land (Mosaic covenant, specifically Dt 30) and place within her a new heart and a new Spirit (new covenant). She will dwell in peace and security as her Lord, the Messiah, reigns over her (Davidic covenant). All God’s promises of blessing will be consummated in the fulfillment of each covenant, including the peace covenant. The Messiah will reign over Israel forever, and no one will ever again dispossess Israel from her land.
The concept of the land is particularly significant to the six messages delivered in that one night before the news of Jerusalem’s fall reached the exiles in Babylonia. Since Jerusalem had fallen, would the land be lost to Israel (33:21–33)? It was the false “shepherds” of Israel who had lost the land for Israel by leading the people astray from the truth. But the true “shepherd,” the Messiah, would ultimately restore the land to Israel (ch. 34). Those foreigners who had possessed the land of Israel and had oppressed her people would be judged and removed so that Israel might again possess her own land (35:1–36:15). Then God would restore Israel to the Promised Land, an action described in 36:16–38 and beautifully illustrated in the apocalyptic vision of 37:1–14. Israel would return united with the Messiah as her singular ruler, and the Lord would inaugurate his peace covenant with her (37:15–28). Never again would a foreign power have dominion over Israel in her land (chs. 38–39).
1. Israel and the Promised Land (33:21–33)
21–22 The date and setting of the six messages in 33:21–39:29 are given in these two verses. Ezekiel had closed ch. 24 by prophesying that a fugitive would escape Jerusalem’s destruction and come and report the city’s fall to the Babylonian exiles. The fulfillment of that prophecy is in these verses. The siege of Jerusalem had begun in December/January 589/588 B.C. (24:1; 2Ki 25:1). Two years and seven months later, Jerusalem fell (September 586 B.C.; 2Ki 25:8). As the city fell, an unknown fugitive escaped—or was brought by the Babylonians—and came to report Jerusalem’s destruction to the exiles. Five months later (December/January 586/585 B.C.), on the morning after Ezekiel delivered these six messages, that anticipated report came. Ezekiel’s muteness, which had lasted for seven and one-half years (3:24–27), ended as God opened Ezekiel’s mouth to speak these six messages of encouragement to the exiles immediately prior to their reception of the news of Jerusalem’s fall (cf. 3:24–27).
23–29 The first of Ezekiel’s six messages has two aspects: a question by the Judean remnant concerning the land (vv.23–29) and the manner in which the Israelites in Canaan and in Babylonia had responded to Ezekiel’s ministry (vv.30–33). Jerusalem had fallen! Would Israel lose the land? The remnant in the ruins of Jerusalem were questioning the fate of the land promised to Abraham. Why were they, Abraham’s descendants, now to be separated from the land given to their forefathers? Was not the Abrahamic covenant still valid? Did not the Abrahamic promises pertain to them as survivors of the destruction?
The Lord answers that the hope of keeping the Promised Land lay in a correct understanding of the covenants. For their disobedience of the Mosaic covenant stipulations, the Israelites failed to receive the Abrahamic covenant blessings, one of which was being in the Promised Land. The people had violated the Mosaic covenant statutes: they had eaten blood (cf. Lev 17:10–14; 19:26), worshiped idols (18:6; cf. Ex 20:4–5), made detestable things, shed blood with the sword (18:10; cf. Ex 20:13), and defiled one another’s wife (18:6; 22:11; cf. Ex 20:14). In light of such violations, did they really think they should possess the land?
God’s verdict was no! The judgments of the Mosaic covenant (Dt 27:28; 29:25–29) were being executed: those left in Judah would die by the sword or disease, or fall prey to animals. Their arrogant pride would cease. The land would become a desolation and waste. Most important, God’s purpose for judgment on his people would be accomplished: they would come to know that he was their God when these judgments were executed.
30–33 The Israelites in exile and the remnant in Palestine had looked on Ezekiel’s ministry in mockery. They had gossiped that they should go and hear God’s word. Yet when they came to Ezekiel to listen to his messages, they had not acted in accord with his warnings. They orally expressed devotion, but their hearts were greedy for material gain. They were “playing games” with God. To them Ezekiel was no more than a good entertainer. He was amusing to listen to and to watch, with all his symbolic acts and prophecies. But just as an entertainer demands no response, so they did not sense a need to respond to Ezekiel’s messages. However, as Ezekiel’s prophecies became reality—and such had already begun in the fall of Jerusalem—then Israel would realize that a true prophet had been among them.
2. Shepherds false and true (34:1–31)
a. The accusation against the false shepherds (34:1–6)
1–6 In the previous message Ezekiel explained that Palestine had been lost to Israel because she had violated the Mosaic covenant. Therefore she would not now experience the blessing of being in the Promised Land, a blessing of the Abrahamic covenant only experienced when the nation obeyed the Mosaic covenant stipulations. But the more severe indictment belonged to Israel’s leaders, depicted as “shepherds.”
This judgment speech sets forth the reason for God’s judgment on Israel’s past “shepherds.” Israel’s leaders had thought only of themselves and material gain. They had not cared for the “flock.” Instead of feeding the flock, they fed on the flock, taking food and clothing for themselves instead of providing for the people. They had failed to provide for the needy—those weak and sick. They had not sought for sheep that had been lost. They did not care what happened to the people as long as they had all their own personal needs met. They were harsh and brutal in their rule. God makes it clear that a leader has a primary responsibility to care for those he leads, even at the sacrifice of his own desires.
Because of the de facto lack of a shepherd to lead them, the flock of Israel was led astray and ended up being scattered among the nations (cf. Jer 23:9–10). Since they no longer had a shepherd’s protection, they became as food for wild beasts. There was no shepherd to search them out and care for them (cf. Mt 9:36). Lack of leadership always leads to the disintegration of God’s people and to personal and corporate heartache and injury.
b. God’s verdict concerning the leadership of Israel (34:7–31)
7–10 Normal judicial procedure required repeating the accusation immediately before announcing the verdict. Israel’s “shepherds" had been selfish, insensitive leaders who had plundered the flock for personal gain and had allowed the people to become prey for other nations. On this basis, God promises to remove the leaders from their position so that the flock of Israel might no longer be devoured by these wolves in shepherds’ clothes. The Lord would hold each “false shepherd” accountable for his shepherding.
11–16b Though the people of Israel were responsible for their own actions, they had been led astray by brutal leaders. The Lord encourages the flock of Israel by declaring that he would personally assume the responsibility for “shepherding” them. The Lord promises to search, rescue, and regather the scattered flock from the nations, and to care for them as a loving shepherd. He would restore Israel to her own land and feed her on the lush pastures of her own mountains and ravines. Individual needs would finally be met; those lost would be sought and found. The injured would be healed; the weak would be strengthened. The Lord would care for every need of his flock.
16c–24 God would shepherd his people in justice. Those who had taken advantage of the flock would be treated like all other sheep or goats. Previous shepherds were likened to fat, sleek, and strong sheep because they had fed on the best pasture and drunk the clear water. Out of lack of concern for the flock’s other members, they arrogantly had trampled the rest of the pasture and muddied the clear drinking water. They had abused their positions of strength and “bullied" the other sheep, driving them away. These “shepherds" would be judged and destroyed, for there was no place for such irresponsible behavior among leaders.
The Lord would deliver Israel from all distress, whether from poor leadership or from the predatory nations. He would do so by appointing one true and responsible Shepherd for his people: the Messiah, his servant David. The Lord would be Israel’s God; his servant David, the Messiah, would be Israel’s Ruler on earth after he restored Israel to her land. Two members of the Godhead are clearly discerned with varying functions. The phrase “my servant David” regularly referred to the Messiah. Jeremiah equated the Messiah with the true Shepherd from the line of David, calling him “a righteous Branch,” “the Lord Our Righteousness” (Jer 23:5–6). The identity is also implied elsewhere in the Prophets (Jer 30:9; Eze 37:24–25; Hos 3:5).
25–31 Finally, the Lord encourages Israel with the establishment of another covenant with them: the “covenant of peace” (cf. 37:26–28; 38:11–13; 39:25–29). This is not the new covenant. This peace covenant will be inaugurated when the Lord has fulfilled all his other covenants with Israel. (1) This covenant guarantees the ultimate removal of all foreign nations (“wild beasts”) from Israel’s land, so that she may live securely. (2) God will bless Israel and her land with “showers of blessings.” The result will be full satisfaction from the land’s abundant produce. (3) Israel will live in complete security. No longer will she be plundered or scorned by the nations; never again will she experience famine. (4) When God delivers Israel from all her captors and restores her safely to her land, then she will have realized that he truly is the Lord her God. (5) The Mosaic formula of relationship between Israel and the Lord will become a reality. The Lord will truly become their God, and they will finally be his people, following his ways at every turn. According to Jeremiah, this relationship will be entered when Israel accepts the new covenant (Jer 31:31–34) instituted by the Mediator of that covenant, the Messiah (cf. Heb 8:6).
This announcement of the peace covenant provides a transition to the following messages delivered in this series of six oracles. Each elaborates an aspect of the peace covenant. Ezekiel 35:1–36:15 describes how the foreign plundering nations will be removed and judged in preparation for Israel’s return to her own land. The message in 36:16–37:14 provides a beautiful and descriptive account of God’s restoration of Israel to her land. Ezekiel 37:15–28 stresses the full reunion of the nation and the fulfillment of her covenants when this peace covenant is established. Finally, Ezekiel 38–39 develops the concept of Israel’s complete security in the Lord, for he will thwart the final attempt by a foreign power (Gog) to possess Israel’s land and to plunder God’s people.
Israel could rejoice; for though she had experienced the cruel leadership of recent rulers, she is now assured that God will provide perfect leadership through the Good Shepherd, the Messiah, who will care for her as a shepherd should. There was hope!
3. Preparation of the land (35:1–36:15)
a. Removal of oppressors (35:1–15)
1–9 Ezekiel had encouraged the Babylonian exiles that they would no longer be governed by predatory rulers. Instead the Lord would establish his Messiah as their “shepherd.” But what about the land of Israel? Did it not lie desolate? Were there not foreign oppressors presently ruling that country? How would the Messiah govern his people in a land ravaged by foreigners? These questions likely came to the captives’ minds as they listened to Ezekiel. The Lord understood these concerns and desired to ease their fears by announcing that he would personally remove all foreign oppressors from Israel and prepare that land to receive her people.
Edom (Mount Seir; cf. v.15) was most likely chosen as a representative of those nations that had sought to occupy Israel’s land and exert dominion over her. Edom, perhaps more than any other nation, had continually detested and resented Israel. It started with the conflict between Jacob (Israel) and Esau (Edom) (Ge 25:22–34; 27; 36:1). Edom had sought to block Israel’s first entrance into the Promised Land (Nu 20:14–21; 24:15–19). There were conflicts during the times of Saul (1Sa 14:47), Solomon (1Ki 11:14–22), Jehoshaphat (2Ch 20:1–23), Jehoram (2Ki 8:21), and Ahaz (2Ch 28:17). The prophets regularly made reference to Edom’s antagonism toward Israel and the resulting judgment they would receive (Isa 11:11–16; Da 11:41; Am 2:1). Malachi demonstrated that the hatred between these nations was still common in his day (Mal 1:2–5). Therefore, it was fitting that Ezekiel used Edom as the epitome of nations that sought to overrun and acquire Israel’s land for themselves.
Two brief accusations (vv.5, 10) against Edom are followed by respective verdicts (vv.6, 9, 11–15). First, Edom is indicted on two charges: she had harbored hostility against Israel throughout her history (cf. 25:12), and she was the accomplice of other nations and had delivered Israel over to them whenever possible. Psalm 137:7 and La 4:21–22 imply that Edom gladly aided the Babylonian invasion of Judah in 589–586 B.C. Obadiah 10–14 also denounces Edom for her betrayal of Israel in time of need. The implication of Ezekiel’s accusation is that Edom would someday be Israel’s antagonist again.
God would punish Edom. Since Edom had not refrained from bloodshed in her hatred of Israel, the Lord would bring unbridled bloodshed on Edom. Edom’s land would be filled with inhabitants slain by the sword. As Edom had been continually hostile toward Israel, so God would bring an unending desolation throughout Mount Seir (cf. 25:12–14; Jer 49:13, 17; Ob 18). Cities would be uninhabited. No one would carry on normal relations with Edom, for she would not exist. As a result of this judgment, however, Edom would know that the one who brought this discipline was the God of Israel, the only true God.
10–15 The second reason for judgment on Edom was threefold: Edom desired to control Israel and Judah; Edom, in her desire to devour Israel, had defamed her with contempt and had spoken boastfully against the Lord; and Edom had failed to recognize the God of Israel as the only true God. Edom felt that the Lord did not care what she did or hear what she said.
As Edom had done to Israel out of her anger, jealousy, and hatred, so God would do to Edom. Such a display of God’s vindication against Edom would cause Israel to recognize that truly this was her God who was intervening on her behalf. Likewise, since Edom had rejoiced when Israel became desolate, so the Lord would make Edom desolate when all the earth is happy. This implies that Edom will not exist in the end time when God brings unparalleled joy to this earth. Through this judgment Edom will recognize that the God of Israel does exist and is the only true God.
b. A prophecy of encouragement (36:1–15)
1–12 This prophecy of encouragement takes the form of a judgment speech. The land of Israel could make the following charges against foreign nations: many nations had claimed the right of ownership of Israel, including her ancient religious sites; the nations surrounding Israel had brought desolation to Palestine as they trampled through the land in conquest. The land of Israel had become a mockery of evil rumors and gossip among the nations.
The Lord vindicates his righteousness and his people. He had declared in the Abrahamic covenant that he would bless those who bless Israel, but he also would curse those who curse his people (Ge 12:3). Therefore God declares that Israel has had enough scorn and shame from the nations. His fiery jealousy will come against those who had joyously and scornfully invaded Israel for spoils. As the nations had brought shame on Israel, so the Lord will cause them to bear shame and disgrace. He will emphatically lift up his hand against the nations in a symbol of strength and wrath. He will exonerate his people.
Blessing normally follows judgment in God’s scheme. So, having pronounced judgment on the scornful nations, the Lord turns to encourage Israel by describing his preparation of her land for her return in the end time. This will be his work.
The mountains of Israel are contrasted with Mount Seir. After Israel’s destruction one might have expected Mount Seir to triumph over the mountains of Israel. Though the land of Israel lay desolate in Ezekiel’s day, God looks with favor on it and promises that he will prepare that land for Israel’s return by making it productive and fruitful once again. The land will be encouraged by receiving its own people back. All Israel will return. The people and the cattle will be more plentiful than ever before. Her cities will again be inhabited and every waste place rebuilt. In demonstration of God’s faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant, Israel will finally possess her land as the inheritance promised by God but never before fully realized. When God restores his people, the condition of the land will surpass any previous state of the land. But will the land be deprived of its children (the Israelites) again and become desolate? The Lord reassures Israel that when God regathers his people to the Promised Land in that last regathering of the end times, the land will never again be deprived of its children. All will recognize that the Lord has done this great thing.
13–15 The second charge brought against the land is that she has devoured people and, in turn, has become “childless” among the nations. This conclusion arises from observing the many horrible misfortunes Israel had experienced. God refutes this false charge, for he will restore his people to that land. Then Israel will no longer hear taunts of scorn and shame from the nations. She will never again bear such reproach and will never again cease to be a nation. God encourages the exiles by declaring that he will give them the Messiah as their ruler and will remove the oppressive nations from the land of Israel to prepare the way for the restoration of his people.
4. The restoration to the land (36:16–37:14)
Ezekiel’s previous message concluded with a description of the Lord’s preparation of the land of Canaan for the return of his people (36:1–15). This provides the natural transition from God’s removal of foreign oppressors from the land (35:1–15) to the subject of this new message: Israel’s restoration to her land. This prophecy emphasizes the people’s return and contains four distinct parts. So that the Lord’s grace and mercy in regathering his people may be fully understood, the reason for their scattering among the nations is outlined by contrast (36:16–21). This is followed by a beautifully detailed portrayal of how the Lord will restore the people to the land (36:22–32), followed by the effective results of that return (36:33–38). As an encouragement to the Babylonian exiles, Ezekiel concludes this oracle with an apocalyptic vision, illustrating the return of God’s nation to the land promised to their forefathers (37:1–14).
a. The basis for Israel’s dispersion (36:16–21)
16–21 To highlight the importance of Israel’s reestablishment on the land of their forefathers, Ezekiel summarizes Israel’s past history that had brought her dispersion among the nations. By her disobedience to the Mosaic covenant stipulations, Israel had defiled her sacred land. Israel’s two major crimes were (1) bloodshed, which was brought among her own people through infanticide, intrigue, violence, and selfishness, and (2) idolatry, which pervaded the people’s lives and drew them continually away from the Lord. Their actions were so abominable that the Lord regarded their defilement as impure as that of a woman during her menstrual cycle. God had set forth in Israel’s constitution, the Mosaic covenant, that if she persisted in disobeying the lifestyle given to her in that covenant, he would scatter her people among the nations in discipline (cf. Dt 29:1–30:10). The Lord had been faithful to his word and had sown Israel like seed throughout the countries of that day.
God was so concerned that Israel be restored to a proper relationship with him that he sent his people out of the Promised Land so that they might learn the importance of following his ways. God’s ways are always best, for as the Creator of life he knows how life can best be lived. But in disciplining Israel in this manner, the Lord risked his own reputation in the world. A nation was uniquely tied to its land in the ancient Near East. If a people were forced off their land, whether by conquest, famine, disease, or any other reason, this was a demonstration that their god was not sufficiently strong to protect and care for them. Therefore, when God scattered Israel among the nations, they perceived that Israel’s God was weak; thereby the name of the Lord was profaned among them.
But the Lord would not allow his name to be defiled forever. Israel’s return to her land would be based on the Lord’s compassion for his own holy name that had been profaned (cf. Mt 6:9; Lk 11:2). Through Israel’s restoration, God would demonstrate to the nations that he was the only true God. His name would be set apart in holiness, as it should be. Therefore, so that his name might be vindicated, the Lord would restore Israel to her land, and not because of any great thing she had done. What a contrast between God’s holiness and grace and human sin! Sin never deserves mercy; yet the Lord always deals graciously and mercifully as well as justly.
b. A description of the final restoration (36:22–32)
22–23 In OT times one’s “name” (GK 9005) represents the person. Through Israel’s rebellion against God, the people had defamed God’s person. Therefore, not only would his covenant faithfulness be displayed when he restored Israel to her land, but he would also bring honor and sanctity to his name and person throughout the nations, through his supernatural regathering of Israel. Then the nations would know that the righteous and loving God of Israel was the only true God.
24–32 The reestablishment of Israel on her land is wonderfully described in these verses. God had already foretold Israel’s restoration after the Exile when Moses restated the Mosaic covenant on the plains of Moab (Dt 29:1–30:10). The pattern of restoration defined here is return, cleansing from sin, enablement of the Spirit, and prosperity.
(1) The Lord will remove his people from the nations where they have been scattered. He will gather them and bring them back to the land of Canaan, which had been promised to their forefathers in the Abrahamic covenant.
(2) The Lord will cleanse Israel in her land from all sin and idolatry that has defiled her. “Sprinkling with clean water” symbolizes cleansing through divine forgiveness by blood (cf. Ex 12:22; Lev 14:4–7; 49:53; Ps 51:7; 1Co 6:11). For ceremonial cleansing to be more than a ritual, it was essential that the people repent and acknowledge their past iniquity about which God would remind them. As they would loathe their former transgressions with their shame and disgrace, they would understand how gracious was their cleansing. Likewise, if ceremonial cleansing were to be meaningful, actual cleansing and forgiveness of sin must be made. This will be through the new covenant (Jer 31:31–34); for Israel’s return to the land, the people will accept the Messiah as their Savior, through whose death all sin has been once and for all forgiven. Iniquity will be remembered no more. They will exchange their old rebellious hearts of stone for sensitive hearts of flesh.
(3) In the new covenant the people will also receive a new spirit, God’s Holy Spirit (cf. 11:19–20; 18:31; 37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28–29; Ac 2:17–18; 2Co 3:6–18), who will enable them to live God’s way (cf. Ro 7:7–8:4; Heb 8:6–10:39). The old Mosaic covenant will be written on the hearts of those living under the new covenant (Jer 31:33). Therefore, the new covenant replaces the Mosaic covenant by adding those things that made it better, but not by eliminating the good, righteous, and godly stipulations that described how to live a godly life. The new covenant provides forgiveness of sin once and for all and the Holy Spirit’s indwelling.
(4) A cleansed Israel will return permanently to a productive and plentiful land that will be more than “flowing with milk and honey” (vv.1–15). Never again will the land allow Israel to be disgraced among the nations through famine. Likewise, the epitome of the Mosaic covenant for Israel and the Lord is expressed in a formula that now will become a reality: Israel will be God’s people and he will be her God. The nations will observe this marvelous transformation and see the Lord as the only gracious and loving God, for Israel will not deserve restoration.
This context, along with the historical perspective, make it clear that the return mentioned in this passage does not refer to the return to Canaan under Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, but to a final and complete restoration under the Messiah in the end times. The details of Israel’s reestablishment on her land set forth here simply did not occur in the return begun in 538 B.C.
c. The effects of the restoration (36:33–38)
33–38 The effects of Israel’s restoration will be great. The land will produce like the Garden of Eden. It will be Paradise regained (cf. Isa 51:3; Ro 8:19–22; 2Pe 3:13; Rev 21:1–4, 23–27). Ruined cities will be rebuilt and fortified for the many inhabitants. The people of Israel will increase so much that they will constitute a large flock for the Shepherd, the Messiah. They will be numerous like the flocks kept for the many offerings in Jerusalem during Israel’s appointed feasts. The most important consequence of Israel’s restoration will be the spread of the knowledge of the Lord throughout the world. The nations will unequivocally know that Israel’s God has accomplished this great restoration. They will know that he is not a weak god but the only God who does exactly what he says. Israel herself will humbly acknowledge that the one who restored her is the Lord her God.
d. A vision of restoration (37:1–14)
1–2 Chapter 37 begins by simply revealing the apocalyptic vision that concludes Ezekiel’s message on Israel’s future restoration. Apocalyptic literature is not familiar to most people. This type of literature is symbolic visionary-prophetic, consisting of visions recorded exactly as they are seen by the author and explained through a divine interpreter. The theological content is primarily eschatological, normally being composed during times of oppression. Apocalyptic literature has a simple twofold form: the setting of the vision, in which the recipient and the geographical location are identified, and the vision per se, with its divine interpretation.
Ezekiel is brought by the Lord into a valley (or plain), perhaps the same valley mentioned in ch. 1 where Ezekiel saw the visions of God. Ezekiel sees the valley filled with innumerable bones that are extremely dry. The Spirit of the Lord leads him around the valley, and he passes among these bones.
3–10 This apocalyptic vision has two distinct sections: (1) Ezekiel recounts what he sees and does and (2) the vision is interpreted (vv.11–14). The Lord asks Ezekiel whether these bones will live. Ezekiel replies that only the Lord knows. A prophecy is then given to Ezekiel for the dry bones. The Lord will cause them to live. Tendons, flesh, skin, and breath will come on the bones so that live people will be formed. Then this “resurrected” people will know that God is the Lord. So Ezekiel does exactly as the Lord commands and proclaims the Lord’s words to the dead, dry bones. While he is speaking, all the bones come together and take on themselves tendons, flesh, and skin. But no breath is found in them.
Ezekiel is instructed to prophesy again, this time to the breath to come from the four winds—probably indicating the full power of the entering breath (i.e., from every direction) to renew the bodies—and to breathe on these slain ones so that they might live. On doing so, Ezekiel sees this army of people come alive! The recovery of the bones to form bodies pictures Israel’s ultimate national restoration. “Breath” (also “wind” or “Spirit”; GK 8120) entering these restored bodies portrays spiritual renewal. This imitated the sequence in ch. 36.
11–14 Apocalyptic visions were never meant to have every detail interpreted; only the major thrust of the vision was to be grasped. The bones are identified as the whole house of Israel, the slain ones of v.9 (cf. 36:10). These bones will declare three things about themselves. (1) They were dry, an obvious condition of bones from people who have been dead for a very long time. Though duration of time may be implied by the dryness of the bones, the emphasis is on spiritual deadness. (2) The bones declare that their hope has perished. The people of Israel have lost all hope of becoming a nation again or of seeing God’s covenants fulfilled. (3) The bones say that they were separated from one another, i.e., the people had been separated and dispersed; that was their current condition.
The vision itself is rather self-evident and needs no interpretation once the bones are identified. The vision clearly demonstrates the restoration to life of a people who have been dead for some time. It is in two stages: first physical (or national) restoration and then spiritual renewal. The creation of humankind followed a similar pattern: the body formed first, then the breath received (cf. Ge 2:7).
This national and spiritual restoration is elaborated in the interpretation section through another figure, that of a resurrection from graves. Both the imagery of dry bones becoming live people and the figure of resurrection from a grave illustrate the same truth. Israel, nonexistent as a people on their own land and scattered throughout the nations, will be brought back to life physically as a nation in their own land. Just as the events in the vision were miraculous, so will be Israel’s restoration. Once in the land they will be renewed spiritually when God places his Spirit within them in keeping with the new covenant and the message just delivered in ch. 36.
The entire context of these six messages is future. Israel’s national restoration in the end time is in view (cf. the chapters surrounding chs. 36–37). It is not to be just a physical restoration or merely a spiritual restoration. A national regathering of Israel from among the nations in the end time, a spiritual conversion of Israel, and a reestablishment of the nation in the land of promise are all in view in 36:16–38 and in this apocalyptic vision.
This can genuinely be termed a “rebirth” of the nation. God will provide all three essentials—a people, a government, and a land—once again in this rebirth of Israel in the future. The people of that day are brought together through restoration in 36:16–37:28. The land is provided in the prophecy of 35:1–36:15. The government of renewed Israel will be given in chs. 40–48. When Israel is restored and becomes a nation once again, then the people will definitely know that the Lord did it and that he and no one else is their God.
5. Israel’s reunion amid fulfilled covenants (37:15–28)
15–17 Ezekiel uses a symbolic act to demonstrate that the two previously divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah will once again be reunited when God brings his people back into their land. Israel will then be complete with all her covenants fulfilled. Ezekiel took two sticks. He wrote the names of Judah and her companions on one and those of Ephraim and her companions on the other—one stick representing the former kingdom of Judah, the other the previous kingdom of Israel. When Ezekiel put these two sticks together in his hand, they became one stick.
18–28 The union of the two sticks into one portrays the reunion of the nations of Judah and Israel into a united kingdom in the land promised in the Abrahamic covenant. Never again will the nation be divided. The Messiah, David’s Greater Son, will be the only King, Shepherd, and Prince that reunited Israel will ever have, in accord with the Davidic covenant. This united people of God will be cleansed from their former idolatry and transgressions through the complete forgiveness provided by the Messiah’s death and the ministry of the Spirit promised in the new covenant. By accepting the new covenant Israel will be enabled through the Holy Spirit to follow the righteous stipulations of the Mosaic covenant and to live by them. Then Israel will finally be the unique, choice people that God had created for himself; and he will be their God—finally fulfilling the ideal of the Mosaic covenant.
The Lord will enact his peace covenant (cf. 34:25–29) with Israel at the time of her restoration to the land, when all her other covenants with God will be fulfilled. Under this peace covenant Israel will be established in her land, her numbers will increase (cf. Ge 22:17–18), and the Lord will place his sanctuary among his people forever. Then all nations will see that it was the Lord who made Israel holy. She will be set apart from all nations as God’s special possession. No other nation will have the Lord dwelling in its sanctuary uniquely in its midst as Israel.
When all Israel’s covenants have been consummated, then the Lord will enact his peace covenant with Israel. She will dwell in peace forever under the rule of her king, the Messiah.
6. The Promised Land and foreign possession (38:1–39:29)
These two chapters may be viewed as isolated from the previous messages that were delivered on the night prior to the arrival of the fugitive from Jerusalem to announce Jerusalem’s fall (cf. 33:21–22). The message in chs. 38–39, however, should be seen as the sixth and last in Ezekiel’s series of messages delivered that night before the news came of Jerusalem’s destruction.
A major subject of the five previous messages had been the land of Israel; it concluded with God’s peace covenant with his people (see introductory comments on 33:21–39:29 for a summary of these messages). The message in chs. 38–39 initially describes the entire nation of Israel peacefully dwelling in their land in security. They were living without walls, bars, or doors (38:7). The remainder of the message describes a final attempt by foreigners to possess the land of Israel. The endeavor would fail because God, faithful to the peace covenant and his name, would defend Israel, He would not permit his holy name to be profaned again by a conquest and dispersal of Israel (36:20; 39:7).
The events and details of chs. 38–39 are relatively easy to understand. The major interpretative difficulties are the identity of characters and places, and the time when these events occur.
a. The initialjudgment speech against Gog (38:1–23)
1–3 Ezekiel prophesied against Gog of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. The exact identity of each proper name has spawned many interpretations of this text. None of the proposed solutions have sufficient support to warrant their acceptance as the identity of the term “Gog.” It does seem that Gog was a person, whether mentioned in this context by name or by title. Fortunately the specific identity of Gog is unnecessary to interpret the significance of this passage. Further discussion of the time of these events will aid in a more general identification of the person of Gog. Magog, a Japhetic descendant (Ge 10:7), is identified by Josephus as the land of the Scythians, a mountainous region around the Black and Caspian Seas.
The phrase “chief [rosh; GK 8031] prince of Meshech and Tubal” has been interpreted variously. Rosh presents the major difficulty in the phrase. Its normal meaning was “head” or “chief.” Some understand it as a proper noun, a geographical area named “Rosh,” but there is no evidence that a country named Rosh ever existed. Some would understand rosh as modern Russia, but the word “Russia” is a late eleventh-century A.D. term.
In the Hebrew both “prince” and “chief” are related equally to the geographical words Meshech and Tubal. Grammatically it would seem best to render the phrase as “the prince, the chief [head or ruler] of Meshech and Tubal.” Meshech is the name of a son of Japheth in Ge 10:2 and 1Ch 1:5; the name is normally connected with the word Tubal (cf. 27:13; 32:26). The sparse data imply that Meshech and Tubal refer to geographical areas or countries in eastern modern Turkey, southwest of Russia and northwest of Iran. This, however, gives no basis for identifying these place names with any modern country. There are no data to support the contention of some that Meshech and Tubal refer to the modern Russian cities of Moscow and Tobolsk.
It can be concluded that Gog is a person from the region of Magog and that he is the prince, the chief ruler, over the geographical areas of Meshech and Tubal. These land areas or countries appear to be located generally toward the south of the Black and Caspian Seas, in the modern countries of Turkey, Russia, and Iran.
4–16 This section portrays Israel lying peacefully and securely in her land following her restoration by God. God had fulfilled his covenants with his people, and they were basking in the land’s fruitfulness and the unquestioned security that they possessed in the strength of God’s faithfulness to his word. Unexpectedly their safety came to be in grave jeopardy. Like a storm cloud’s sudden darkness, disaster loomed on the northern horizon as an awesome horde of nations from every corner of the earth appeared. Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, was their mastermind and commander. Peoples had joined him from every direction of the compass; Persia from the east, Cush (Ethiopia or Nubia) from the southwest, Put (normally identified as Libya) from the west or southwest, and Gomer (probably the ancient Cimmerians) and Beth Togarmah (possibly the ancient Til-garimmu southeast of the Black Sea) from the north. They were ready to invade Israel.
Gog had devised an evil plan. He intended to attack defenseless Israel who so naively trusted in her God. She had not protected herself; there were no city walls and no gates with doors and bars. Gog would plunder their land and gather all their possessions for his spoils. Other nations like Sheba and Dedan, along with merchants from Tarshish, would be shocked and question Gog’s design to plunder and loot Israel.
God, however, made it perfectly clear that he sovereignly brought Gog on the land of Israel, though Gog thought it was his own idea. God would cause Gog to come on Israel by figuratively putting hooks in his jaws and leading him there. Though this may seem incongruous with God’s restoration of his people and the security promised in the peace covenant, God would cause this invasion to be initiated by Gog so that all the world might know once and for all that the Lord was a faithful God. He would defeat Gog before Gog brought any harm to Israel and her land, even as God had promised (cf. 34:22, 28–29; 36:1–15). All would see that God was holy, right, and immutably faithful; and he would not permit his name to be profaned again.
The time of this invasion is indicated by temporal statements in these verses and the context of this message—the time of Israel’s golden age in the end times. The phrase “after many days” (v.8) normally expresses an indefinite time period. It is sometimes used, however, to reach as far as the end times (cf. Jer 32:14; Da 8:26). The expression “in future years” is found only in this verse in the OT; one should understand its meaning in light of its context. The phrase “in days to come” tends to fix this invasion at the end times, for this phrase normally refers to Israel’s final restoration to the messianic kingdom and Messiah’s reign (cf. Ge 49:1; Isa 2:2; Jer 23:20; 30:24; Hos 3:5; Mic 4:1).
Verses 8 and 12 indicate that this invasion was planned at a time when Israel had been restored from the sword, having been regathered from among the nations. This regathering was followed by a peace and security that Israel would know in the restoration to her land (36:22–37:14). She felt so safe that she did not even seek to fortify herself. Israel has never enjoyed such an idyllic situation since she returned from Babylon in 539 B.C. The phrase “live in safety” describes messianic security after Israel’s restoration. This oracle relates to other prophetic oracles concerning the end times and the Davidic, messianic kingdom (28:26; cf. Jer 23:6; 33:16; Zec 14:11). Finally, the entire context of these six messages of Ezekiel deals with the future restoration of Israel to her homeland by the Messiah. Thus the time of this invasion is the end times, after the people of Israel have been restored to the Promised Land and are living securely under Messiah’s protection.
17–23 In his judgment God reminded Gog that the Lord’s servants, the prophets, had formerly foretold this end-time invasion. Though there are no specific references to Gog in any of the other prophets, there are general references to the final destruction of the enemies of God’s people (cf. Dt 30:7; Isa 26:20–21; Jer 30:1–21).
Israel’s dependence on God was not in vain. At the very moment that Gog came against the land of Israel, God’s burning wrath would arise against Gog. The Lord was a jealous God and would faithfully protect his own. God’s fiery fury would break forth suddenly against Gog and his horde. The entire earth would be jolted with an enormous earthquake that would topple mountains, cliffs, and every wall. Every creature on the earth, within the sea and within the air, would shudder in awe and fear at the presence of almighty God who had come to annihilate Gog and his followers. Gog’s armies and the nations following him would become so confused that they would slay one another in suicidal strife, while the Lord supernaturally destroyed them with diseases, bloodshed, and catastrophic torrents of rain, hailstones, and burning sulphur. God would vindicate his holy name and magnify himself as the only true God in the eyes of all nations with this annihilation of Gog. The purpose of all God’s judgments is only to make himself known in all his greatness and holiness to those who can come to know him in no other way.
b. Reiteration and expansion of God’s judgment speech against Gog (39:1–29)
1–2 These verses give a summary restatement of 38:1–16. God would sovereignly coerce Gog to invade Israel, but at the same time he would defeat Gog to display his faithfulness to Israel.
3–8 Ezekiel 38:17–23 described God supernaturally using the elements of nature to destroy Gog and his hordes: earthquakes, disease, and hailstones. Gog would be completely disarmed; his armies would fall throughout the land—on the mountains and in the open field. The slaughter of Gog’s hordes would provide food for every bird of prey and wild beast (cf. vv.17–20). In addition God would bring a fiery judgment on the territory of Magog and on her allies who felt secure in their coastlands and/or islands. God would use Gog’s defeat as a demonstration to the nations that he, the Holy One of Israel, was the only true God. He was faithful to his covenant people to whom he had promised eternal peace and security in the peace covenant. He would not permit his holy name to be profaned again through the conquest and dispersion of Israel. Israel, in turn, would make the Lord’s name holy in her midst; for she would see his immutable faithfulness through his protection of her in this final attempt to invade Israel’s land. As encouragement to the Jewish exiles, the Lord stressed again that Gog’s destruction would most certainly occur. The phrase “Holy One in Israel” expresses God’s absolute separation from evil. He maintains his holiness and that of his land by judging Gog and by his keeping his promises.
9–10 God totally disarmed Gog’s armies. So great was the resulting assemblage of weapons that it would take the Israelites seven years to burn them all. These weapons would provide fuel for Israel during these seven years so that she would not need to use any of her own fuel resources. Likewise, though Gog and his entourage had sought to take spoils from Israel, it would be Israel who would take spoils from them.
11–16 The magnitude of Gog’s armies created a staggering problem with their death. All of them needed to be buried to cleanse the land of Israel. A specific valley known as the “valley of those who travel east toward [or of] the Sea” was designated as the burial place. Whether the proper rendering is “toward” or “of” could make a distinct difference as to which sea is involved. If the sea is the Dead Sea, then the valley would either be east of that sea—and therefore out of the normal boundaries of Israel—or a valley that led travelers east toward the Dead Sea. The only valley to fit remotely this description is the Esdraelon Valley in lower Galilee. If the sea is understood as the Mediterranean, then the specific valley could be any valley in the land of Israel east “of” that sea. None of the theories of identification of this valley can be substantiated without question because of the sparse data. The text does make it clear that the massive burial of Gog and his hordes in this valley would cause a major obstacle to travel. For this reason the valley would be named “the Valley of Hamon Gog” (“the hordes of Gog”).
The multitude of carcasses would require more than seven months to bury to cleanse the land (cf. Lev 5:2; 21:1; Dt 21:1–9). Every person in Israel would be involved. For seven months they would bury the easily observed bodies lying on the ground. After seven months overseers would designate two groups to carry out a “mopping-up” operation (v.14). One group would search to find any remnant of a body—even a bone—and mark it. These would be collected and taken to the Valley of Hamon Gog for burial by the second group. A city named Hamonah (“horde”) would be located in the Valley of Hamon Gog, perhaps viewed as a city of the dead. The city’s exact nature is unclear. Gog’s burial would be a memorable day for the Lord, for the death of this enemy demonstrates God’s faithfulness to protect his people forever and brings glory to the Lord’s name.
17–20 The search throughout the land for bones of the deceased enemy may have arisen due to the great feast on the dead by the carrion-eating birds and animals of prey invited to feed on the carnage of Gog and his followers. This great slaughter is called a “sacrifice” that the Lord prepared for these birds and animals on Israel’s mountains (cf. Isa 34:6; Jer 46:10). The flesh and fat of princes, warriors, and their animals would be consumed; and their blood would be drunk until these fowls and beasts were glutted and drunk. “Rams and lambs, goats and bulls” of Bashan were always well-fed and strong. The parallel of this imagery to the defeated princes emphasizes that these were not weaklings but the strong and mighty of the earth.
Some observations on the relationship of these two chapters to the book of Revelation are in order. There is a clear allusion to the great feast of Eze 39:17–20 in Rev 19–21. Revelation 19:11–16 presents a heavenly scene of the Second Advent. The Lord comes on a white horse with his armies to judge and make war in righteousness. The sword that proceeds out of his mouth smites the nations as he treads out the winepress of his great wrath. Revelation 19:17–21 is a distinctly different section, in which an angel invites all the birds to a “great supper of God,” a feast on the mighty leaders of the nations who have gathered against the Lord and who is slain by the sword of his mouth. The beast and the false prophet are seized and cast into the lake of fire. The birds fill themselves on the carnage of the others.
In his “great supper of God,” John appears to allude explicitly to the feast on the carnage of Gog’s hordes in Eze 39:17–20. Why would John directly link Eze 39 to Rev 19 in his argument? The restoration and messianic context of Ezekiel’s message is also that of John. Revelation 19:11–16 presents a heavenly glimpse of the Messiah at his second coming after Israel has been restored to her land (cf. Rev 7). The beast and the kings of the earth with their armies (Rev 19:19) are certainly similar to the nations assembled with Gog in Ezekiel (Eze 38:4–7, 9, 15, 22; 39:4, 11; Rev 19:15, 18–19, 21). The Lord’s judgment in Eze 38–39 finds parallel features in the Messiah’s treading out God’s winepress of wrath in Rev 19. The Lord calls for a sword against Gog, and the sword out of the Lord’s mouth smites the nations that come against him in Revelation (cf. Eze 38:21; Rev 19:15, 20).
An explicit chronology is not set forth in Revelation. Therefore it is difficult to know the exact time of Rev 19, though the second coming of the Messiah is in view. It appears that Messiah comes to defeat all nations and perhaps conclude the Battle of Armageddon. Yet the context of Eze 38–39 sees Israel already at peace, dwelling in security, having been restored from the sword. Such would not be in harmony with the Battle of Armageddon. Since this battle is not mentioned in Rev 19 explicitly, perhaps the events of Rev 19 do not relate to Armageddon but specifically to the demise of the beast as foretold in Eze 38–39. Armageddon had already been treated in Rev 14 and 16. Therefore, though the Messiah may conclude the events of Armageddon with his return, the next event in a possible transition period between the conclusion of the Tribulation and the beginning of the Millennium would be this defeat of the beast who sought to make one final attempt to secure Israel’s land.
Why would John not mention Gog in Rev 19 if this passage is a fulfillment of Eze 38–39? The last mention of the beast by John had been in Rev 17. If John used the name Gog in Rev 19, the readers would have been unaware of who he was in the Rev 19 context. By using the name “beast” and at the same time making explicit allusion to Ezekiel’s Gog invasion in the unique feast of the birds, John apparently sought to equate the beast with Gog for his readers. Then his readers would see the events of Rev 19:17–21 as a fulfillment of the Gog prophecy, which helps establish the exact time when Eze 38–39 will occur.
Significantly, in addition to the specific allusion between Rev 19 and Eze 39 found in the “bird supper,” none of the details of Eze 38–39 is violated in the Rev 19 context. Though the Rev 19 passage aids in determining the fulfillment and the time of Gog’s invasion and defeat in Eze 38–39, other factors are involved in seeking to gain a complete perspective of these issues. Interpreting the time of these events in the prophetic program of the end times is a most difficult issue, which has resulted in several different positions. (For a more complete treatment, see EBC, 6:937–40.)
The majority of expositors see the events of Eze 38–39 taking place after the Millennium as described in Rev 20:7–10. The strong argument for this position is the explicit reference to Gog and Magog in Rev 20:8. The context of the Millennium would surely satisfy Israel’s peaceful, prosperous, and safe dwelling. Restoration would have already been accomplished. Nations would be present to observe “Gog’s” rebellion. Time would surely be available for the burial of bodies and the burning of weapons.
Objections, however, have been raised against this view.
1. It is argued that Gog is a northern coalition while in Revelation the armies come from the four corners of the earth. But it should be noticed that Gog brings with him nations from every point of the compass (38:5–6).
2. It is maintained that Ezekiel says nothing of Jerusalem, whereas John states that the nations encompassed the beloved city. In answer it should be observed that John’s mention of the “beloved city” does not conflict with Ezekiel, for he states that Gog comes on the mountains of Israel, which most certainly include Jerusalem.
3. It is believed that the burning of the weapons and the disposal of the bodies militate against these events at the end of the Millennium, since the Great White Throne Judgment immediately follows. However, the chronology of Revelation does not demand immediate sequence of events, especially in Rev 19–20. A transition period here is plausible.
Therefore, it seems that Rev 20:7–10 is also a fulfillment of Eze 38–39. The fulfillment can be seen in two far moments: one in Rev 19:17–21 and one in Rev 20:7–10. The connection between Eze 38–39 and Rev 19:17–21 lies in the singular concept of God’s defeat of the great final attempt of the Evil One to once again possess the land of Israel. Revelation 19 finds the attempt thwarted in the destruction of the beast and his armies (Satan’s major representative on earth), whereas Rev 20 sets forth Satan’s fall as the completion of this theme. Both are the last and greatest enemies of Israel. John only summarized the events in each case, since the full description had been recounted in Eze 38–39. The allusion to the great feast in Rev 19 was used by John to bring to his readers’ attention the events of Eze 38–39, with which they would have been familiar. The term “Gog” was not used so as not to confuse the identity of the beast. On the contrary, in Rev 20 the explicit equation is made between Satan and Gog so that the readers also would identify Satan’s rebellion with the events of Eze 38–39. Both passages describe attempts by Israel’s greatest enemies, the beast and Satan, to possess the land of Israel and to nullify God’s promise.
c. The summary of the six night messages (39:21–29)
21–29 Gog’s destruction provides the climax of Ezekiel’s six messages of encouragement delivered to the exiles the night prior to the fugitive’s arrival with the news that Jerusalem had fallen. Gog’s defeat would be the Lord’s final display of his glory among the nations as he restored Israel to the Promised Land. All other nations would stand in awe at God’s punishment on Gog.
These six messages have stressed God’s covenant promises to Israel, especially those concerning the land. When Israel experienced God’s marvelous faithfulness in restoration and protection against Gog, she would know without question from that day forward that the Lord was her God, the only true God, and that there was none other. In turn the nations would know that the Lord had not been a weak God when he sent Israel into exile; rather they would observe that he cared enough to set his face against Israel because of her sin of unfaithfulness to him. Likewise, the nations would observe that it was God’s grace and faithfulness that brought Israel back from among the nations, gave her the Promised Land, and enabled her to live safely on that land without fear of oppression. In this way the Lord would show himself holy in the eyes of the nations. He was jealous for his name not to be profaned, as when the nations construed him to be as other gods. The Lord would never again turn his face from Israel and allow someone to oppress her! No one would bring terror on Israel again! God would cleanse Israel, removing her shame and sin and then pouring out his Spirit on her in accord with the new covenant. All Israel’s covenants would be fulfilled. She would live securely forever under the peace covenant administered by her king, the Messiah!
B. God’s Glory Returns (40:1–48:35)
The description in these nine chapters of a temple, the filling of that temple with God’s glory, a sacrificial system for worship in that temple, priestly functions, and the tribal and priestly allotment of land is rather clear to the reader. But what does it all mean? Should these chapters be interpreted literally or figuratively? Since this portion of the book contains some very puzzling and difficult concepts that cannot be ignored, it is wise to examine some basic issues to determine as accurate an understanding of the text as possible.
Is Ezekiel 40–48 Historical or Future? These chapters have been interpreted as referring to the temple of Solomon, Zerubbabel, or Herod, or to a future temple in the Millennium or in the eternal state. Some interpret the section allegorically as teaching about the church and its earthly blessings and glories, while others understand the passage to symbolize the reality of the heavenly temple where Christ ministers today.
The historical fulfillments do not fit the details of the passage. The temples of Solomon, Zerubbabel, or Herod do not share the design and dimensions of the temple described in chs. 40–42. The worship procedure set forth in chs. 43–46, though Mosaic in nature, has not been followed in history in exactly the manner described in these chapters. The river that flows forth from the temple in 47:1–12 has never flowed from any of the three historical temples mentioned above. The only comparisons to this river are seen in Ge 2:8–14 and Rev 22:1–2 (cf. Isa 35:6–7; Joel 3:18; Zec 14:8). The geographical dimensions and tribal allotments of the land are certainly not feasible today, nor have they ever been followed in times past. Geographical changes will be necessary prior to the fulfillment of chs. 45, 47–48. Therefore, one should not look to historical (past or present) fulfillments of these chapters but to the future.
The figurative or “spiritualizing” approach does not seem to solve any of the problems of these chapters; rather, it tends to create new ones. When one abandons a literal interpretation, different aspects of a passage mean whatever the interpreter desires. Even apocalyptic visions such as those found in these chapters require a normal grammatical-historical hermeneutic. To interpret them in any other manner contradicts the interpretative guide in the vision who warns Ezekiel that he must write down all the minute details concerning the plan for the temple and its regulations so that these details might be considered carefully and followed in every aspect (40:4; 43:10–11; 44:5). Therefore a figurative approach does not suit the issues of Eze 40–48.
The general time frame of these chapters can perhaps be best understood in light of the development and flow of Ezekiel’s argument in the entire book. He has shown the presence of God’s glory in the historical Jerusalem temple and its departure from that temple because of Israel’s sin of breaking the Mosaic covenant. The fall of Jerusalem and the captivity in Babylon were the consequence (chs. 4–24). After declaring how the nations would also be judged (25:1–33:20), Ezekiel encouraged the Jewish captives through six night messages of hope (33:21–39:29). In these he informed them that the Messiah would restore them to their Promised Land in the future and become a true shepherd to them. They would be cleansed and all their covenants would be fulfilled. Even in the end times, after the land prospers and Israel dwells securely in it, some will try to take the Promised Land away from Israel and profane the Lord’s name; but the Lord will not permit it (chs. 38–39). It would seem logical, therefore, for Ezekiel to conclude the logical and chronological development of his prophecy by describing the messianic kingdom and the return of God’s glory to govern his people (chs. 40–48) rather than suddenly reverting back to some historical period, whether immediately following the Exile or during Herod’s temple, or to some undefined idealistic temple.
Ezekiel appears to have been contrasting the past and contemporary desecration of the temple and its regulations with the future holiness and righteousness of the temple and its functions—a format Ezekiel also used in chs. 33–39. The correct future procedure would bring shame and conviction on Ezekiel’s contemporaries (43:6–12; 44:5–16; 45:9–12). This again points to a future fulfillment of these chapters.
God’s glory is a most important feature of Ezekiel’s prophecy. Its return to the new temple in 43:1–12 is the climax of the book. The context implies that this can only occur after Israel has been restored to the Promised Land and cleansed. The stress is on holiness. Holiness had not characterized Israel as a people heretofore; and Israel would not be a holy people in accord with God’s standard until after they had been restored to the Promised Land and cleansed in the Messianic Age (ch. 36). When God’s glory returns, it will remain in Israel’s midst forever (43:6–7). The development of this unifying factor in Ezekiel’s prophecy argues strongly for a future fulfillment of chs. 40–48.
Finally, the entire context and argument of the Scriptures concerning God’s outworking of his redemptive plan in history place these chapters and the aspects mentioned above in the time of the consummation of all history. This is perhaps best seen in the river of life that flows from the temple to bring healing to the land (47:1–12). This concept is first seen in Ge 2:8–14 in the Garden of Eden, the perfect environment of God’s holiness. With sin, this garden and its river were removed. But when God concludes his redemptive program and brings full salvation to humankind with eternal life through Jesus Christ, his Son, it is appropriate that the river of eternal life will again flow to demonstrate full healing on the earth. This conclusion to the full circle of God’s redemptive program is also shown in Rev 22:1–6 (cf. Isa 35:5–6; Joel 3:18; Zec 14:8).
Therefore, the context and argument of the book of Ezekiel as well as the development of God’s redemptive program all argue strongly for a future fulfillment of the events of Eze 40–48 in the end times.
Does Ezekiel 40–48 Relate to the Millennium or to the Eternal State? It is first necessary to understand the prophetic perspective of the OT prophets. Their predictive revelations concerned two main issues: the time of the judgment and discipline that were to come on Israel because of her perennial sin and breaking of the Mosaic covenant; and the ultimate period of blessing, following Israel’s judgment, when Israel would be restored to the Promised Land, cleansed of her sin, and brought into the messianic kingdom. At that time all of Israel’s covenants would be fulfilled, and she would live in perfect security under the divine rule of the Messiah.
The OT prophets tended not to make distinctions within the period of discipline and judgment. Rather they portrayed near and far aspects of this time in the same passage. The discipline would begin with the Babylonian captivity and would continue till the end time. Some distinctions were observed, but chronological relations were seldom delineated.
Similarly, the prophets did not make distinctions between the Millennium and the eternal state when describing the period of messianic blessing. Further distinctions are primarily the result of progressive revelation disclosed in the NT, especially in the book of Revelation, though some distinctions are implied in the OT prophets (e.g., Da 9–12). Ezekiel, like his contemporaries, intermixed these various elements in his prophecies of judgment and the future kingdom. Undoubtedly this contributes to the difficulty in distinguishing the Millennium and the eternal state in these chapters.
In light of the whole Scripture, it appears that the Millennium is like a preview or “firstfruits” of the eternal state. Therefore, because the two are alike, they share distinct similarities. Yet because they are both different revealed time periods, they likewise reflect some dissimilarities. Since the OT prophets, like Ezekiel, frequently failed to see distinctions, one should be careful about stating that Eze 40–48 is describing only the Millennium or only the eternal state. One must look to the NT for any further clues for delineation, whenever such are given.
John uses many OT prophetic concepts and images in Revelation, as observed above in his allusion to the “bird supper” of Eze 38–39. Revelation 21–22 speaks of the eternal state, and there are definite allusions to Eze 40–48 in this portion of Revelation, with striking similarities. Both writers receive apocalyptic visions on a high mountain with an intercepting messenger present, holding a measuring rod to measure various structures (Eze 40:2–5; Rev 21:2, 10, 15). Both visions portray waters flowing forth toward the east, with trees alongside and leaves for healing (Eze 47:1–7, 12; Rev 22:1–2). The names of Israel’s twelve tribes are written on the city’s twelve gates in both visions (Eze 48:31–33: Rev 21:12), and three gates each are found on the east, south, north, and west sides of the city respectively (Eze 48:30–34; Rev 21:13).
In addition, however, there are equally clear dissimilarities between the two passages. The city’s dimensions are different (Eze 48:30–35; Rev 21:15–17). The waters that flow toward the east have different sources: the temple in Ezekiel (43:7; 47:1–5) and God’s throne in Revelation (22:1, 3). It might appear that these sources are really similar since Ezekiel maintains that God’s throne is the temple; but John, in his vision, declares that God’s throne is in Jerusalem. The temple and the city of Jerusalem are distinctly different entities in Ezekiel (45:2–4; 48:10, 15–17), and in the Revelation vision there is no temple (21:22; 22:3). Since a major aspect of Eze 40–48 is the temple and its regulations, perhaps this would argue for Ezekiel’s discussion to reflect the Millennium more than the eternal state. The tribal allotments of Ezekiel include the sea as the western boundary (47:15–20), whereas in Revelation John declares that the sea no longer exists (Rev 21:1). That is, Ezekiel’s tribal boundaries could not exist in the eternal state if the sea no longer existed. These dissimilarities suggest that Ezekiel’s vision is more concerned with millennial concepts than the eternal state, whereas the Revelation vision is focused on the eternal state.
The river flowing east from the temple likewise appears to be millennial since the source is different from Revelation. But here the similar nature of the two passages is perhaps best observed. Ezekiel may very well be giving a glimpse of the eternal state with this similar facet. Perhaps what is seen in the Millennium will also be seen in the eternal state, though with slight modification. Since the Lord will take the place of the temple in the eternal state, the river could flow out of the millennial temple as the throne of God in Eze 47 and out of the throne of God, distinct from a temple, in Rev 22.
It seems, therefore, that Ezekiel 40–48 is primarily describing the millennial temple, its regulations for worship, and the tribal allotments. The Millennium is only a beginning, sort of a microcosm, of the eternal state and a transition into it. Consequently, to observe reflections of Eze 40–48 in the picture of the eternal state revealed in Rev 21–22 should be expected and should not surprise the reader.
Is Not the Existence of a Temple, Priests, and a Sacrificial System a Retrogression to OT Modes of Worship? A grammatical-historical hermeneutic will see a real temple, real sacrifices, and real priests functioning in the millennial context. When these are closely examined, it becomes evident that they are Mosaic in nature, though omissions and modifications are present. But the NT states that Jesus Christ died once and for all on the cross for all sin. There is no need for a further sacrifice for sin. Likewise, the Lord’s Table is designed to bring remembrance of the Lord’s death to the worshipers. Why go back to OT modes of worship set forth under the old covenant when the new covenant has been instituted?
An examination of Ezekiel’s purpose, especially in this section, combined with a comparison of the Levitical worship concepts with those of Ezekiel and of the NT will help us solve some of these dilemmas. Ezekiel was a priest; thus he frequently looked on issues in his prophecy from a priestly perspective. He would be expected to view the new worship principles from his vantage point with a temple, sacrifices, and priests involved. Likewise, God normally reveals himself in terms of the culture and perspective of those receiving his revelation. Such could be expected here.
The recipients of this vision are described as “the house of Israel.” This terminology is used by Ezekiel to describe Israel at any time in her existence—past, present, or future. Apocalyptic literature of the OT was to be a source of hope and encouragement in a time of discouragement. Revelation that a temple would be rebuilt in the messianic kingdom to which God’s glory would return and in which the nation would worship the Lord as he had commanded would surely be an encouragement. Should not the description of worship in the messianic kingdom be in terms both understandable to Israel as well as in keeping with the covenant worship of her God?
In Eze 37:15–28 all the covenants given to Israel would be fulfilled at the time of her restoration to the Promised Land and the institution of the messianic kingdom. This includes the Abrahamic, Davidic, new, peace, and Mosaic covenants. The covenant formula of the Mosaic covenant—“they will be my people, and I will be their God”—will be operative as Israel walks in the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant, cleansed under the new covenant and experiencing the eternal reign of her king, the Messiah, under the Davidic covenant (37:23–26; cf. Ex 19:5–6; Lev 26:12; Dt 26:18–19; Jer 30:18–22; 31:33; 32:36–40). Because Israel was in a relationship with God through the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, she had always been expected to worship the Lord in holiness. Her entire worship procedure was designed to point her to God’s holiness and to her need to be holy before him (cf. Leviticus). The basic emphasis throughout Eze 40–48 is on God’s holiness. The holiness of the Lord’s temple and the worship of him are contrasted with the profaning of his name and his temple in Israel’s past worship. Israel would have a final opportunity to worship God correctly—in the purity of holiness. Such worship would demonstrate that Israel had truly been redeemed and cleansed.
Ezekiel 40–48 presents only the Hebrew perspective of millennial worship. This does not preclude other worship forms from also existing and being carried out (cf. Lk 22:18). The manifestations and functions of all God’s covenants do not contradict but rather complement one another. Israel will finally be a people of God, living and worshiping in the holiness revealed in the Mosaic stipulations. The omissions and modifications from the Mosaic system observed in Eze 40–48 are undoubtedly present to enable the various aspects of the covenants to harmonize.
But is not the presence of a temple anachronistic? In answer, the existence of a temple as a place of worship is the normal concept from an OT perspective. Likewise, without a temple complex sacrifices cannot be offered properly. Therefore, the temple will be necessary for worship (Eze 43–46).
Ezekiel sets forth two major purposes for the millennial temple. First, the temple will provide a throne for God among his people (43:6–7), the residency of his glory (43:1–12) from which he will rule over his people. Second, the temple complex will reflect God’s holiness by its walls of separation, various courts, and temple divisions (40:5; 42:14–20). The design of the structure will cause the people of that day to be ashamed of their iniquities. Therefore, a temple structure should not prevent or hinder other worship forms that may exist in the Millennium (e.g., the Lord’s Table), unless one divides the periods of God’s working so that only certain architectural forms can be used for the worship of God at a given time. There have been a variety of structures in which Christians have worshiped in the church age. There seems to be no scriptural concept that forbids a Christian from worshiping in a temple built to almighty God. A temple, in and of itself, does not appear to be anachronistic.
A second major difficulty is the relationship between Ezekiel’s sacrificial system and the NT teaching of Christ’s death as a finished and complete work for sin. To understand the issues, we must describe Ezekiel’s millennial sacrificial system. In doing so, we will compare it to the Mosaic system. Almost all aspects of the Ezekiel system are identical with Mosaic procedure. It is primarily the omissions, with some modifications in keeping with the purpose of Ezekiel’s worship, that compose the differences.
Although the general phrase “all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel” is used in 45:17, only three festivals are explicitly mentioned in these chapters: Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Tabernacles, and, by implication, the Feast of Firstfruits. Passover (45:21–24) began on the fourteenth day of the first month (Nisan), and the people were to eat unleavened bread for seven days (cf. Ex 12:1–30; Nu 28:16–35). The “leader” offered a sin offering each day along with a grain offering for himself and for the people of the land (cf. Nu 28:22–24). Daily the leader also offered a burnt offering with its grain offering (cf. Nu 28:19–21, 23–24). These items parallel those in the Levitical system. Likewise, Ezekiel declares that the same offerings as those made for Passover will be made for the Feast of Tabernacles for a similar length of time (Eze 45:25). Numbers 29:12–38 only differs by adding a daily drink offering. This festival began on the fifteenth day of the seventh month and lasted for seven days, as prescribed in the Mosaic system. In addition, Eze 44:30 states that “the best of all of the firstfruits . . . will belong to the priests.” This does not necessarily imply a Feast of Firstfruits but is the only mention of the idea of firstfruits in the Ezekiel system.
The offerings and sacrifices to be used in worship and consecration of the temple make up most of the Ezekiel system. In addition to the offerings of the various festivals, the Israelites will be required to offer daily to God burnt offerings with their accompanying grain offering in the morning (cf. Ex 29:38–42; Lev 6:12; Nu 28:3–7). The Mosaic procedure required this offering daily, both in the morning and in the evening, along with a drink offering. Offerings on the Sabbaths, new moons, and all appointed festivals will include the burnt offering, grain offering, and drink offering in Ezekiel’s worship (45:17; cf. Lev 23:37; Nu 28:9–15). Only on the observance of new moons did the Mosaic list add the sin offering. Ezekiel also declares that the priests are to sacrifice for the leader a burnt offering and a fellowship offering on both the Sabbath and the new moon (46:2–7; Nu 29:39). The leader may also offer a freewill burnt offering and fellowship offerings on the Sabbath (46:12).
Ezekiel’s temple is purified (“atoned for”) on the first and seventh days of the first month (of each year?) with a sin offering (45:18–20). Similar procedures are outlined in the Mosaic system but with the addition of burnt offerings and fellowship offerings (cf. Nu 7:87–89; 2Ch 7:1–10; 29:20–24). When the altar of burnt sacrifice is built, it will be cleansed, consecrated, and dedicated for seven days with both burnt offerings and sin offerings (43:18–25; cf. Ex 29:36–37; Lev 7:14). After the seven days, the altar may be used for regular offerings (43:27). This passage is silent concerning whether the altar’s cleansing and consecration are to be repeated. Finally, Israel will make a special contribution of grains, oil, and animals for the leader to use in the regular atonement for the house of Israel (45:15–17; cf. Lev 9:17–21). The atonement offerings are the sin offering, grain offering, burnt offering, and fellowship offering. No time is specified as to how often or when such atonement is to be made.
The priesthood in Ezekiel is composed of the Levites as helpers in the maintenance, administration, and function of temple worship; but those of the Zadok line will be the only ones permitted to minister before the Lord with the most holy things (44:5–16). The other Levites are denied this privilege due to their past unfaithfulness in carrying out the duties of the sanctuary. There is no high priest. The only stated priestly functions are the slaughter, washing, cooking, and eating of various sacrifices (40:38–42; 42:13; 44:29; 46:20; cf. Lev 7:7; Nu 18:8–10).
Therefore, most stated aspects of the worship procedure in Ezekiel are like those of the Mosaic system. The major omissions include the absence of a Day of Atonement, an ark of the covenant, the Feast of Weeks (or Pentecost), a high priest, and a full, ministering Levitical priesthood. The absence of the Day of Atonement and of the ark of the covenant where the atoning blood was sprinkled suggests that the work of propitiation has already been accomplished. One would think these items would have been included in the millennial system of Ezekiel, since they were extremely important factors in the Mosaic system. Being an argument from silence, however, it is difficult to be certain or to make any significant argument. The lack of a high priest may point to the high priesthood of Jesus Christ, who will be ruling in the Millennium (Heb 4:14–5:10; 7:11–8:13).
In other words, the millennial worship system is distinctly different from the Mosaic system only in that certain Mosaic elements are omitted or modified, most likely because of Christ’s finished work on the cross. Millennial sacrifices are also discussed elsewhere by the OT prophets (Isa 56:6–7; 60:7, 13; 66:20–23; Jer 33:15–22; Zec 14:16–21).
The question whether these sacrifices are efficacious is crucial. The Mosaic covenant was given to a people who had already entered into a relationship with the Lord in the Abrahamic covenant. The Mosaic covenant was not given to bring one into a relationship with God but to demonstrate how one in that relationship was to live holy before him. True worship grows out of a personal relationship with God.
The Mosaic worship system, therefore, was to be used by those in a relationship with God. Never did the sacrifices and offerings deliver one from sin. They were never efficacious for the Israelite or anyone else. Rather, the sacrifices were picture lessons and types of the Messiah’s work, whereby he would atone for all sin in a propitious manner through the sacrifice of his own blood once and for all. The sin and guilt offerings were reminders of one’s personal inherent sin and the need for cleansing from that sinfulness by the shedding of innocent blood. These offerings were observed in much the sense in which a believer today confesses sin (1Jn 1:9) in light of the finished work of Christ for sin. The believer’s confession itself is not efficacious; it is only Christ’s finished work that provides forgiveness of sin. Confession, however, reminds a believer that he or she sinned and that the sin has been forgiven by Christ’s blood. The sin and guilt offerings, therefore, reminded the Israelites that they were sinful and that they needed the Messiah’s innocent blood, typified in the animal, to cleanse them of their sin and to bring forgiveness from God.
The burnt offering pictured the offerers’ commitment to the Lord. It was voluntary, even as commitment is today. The burnt offerings required daily and at other festivals were constant reminders that the Israelites needed to be totally committed to their Lord. The fellowship offerings reflected the offerers’ thanksgiving to God and the peace that existed between them and God. Certainly believers today are to express their thankfulness to God for the various blessings bestowed on them because of their relationship with the Lord.
The concept of atonement creates a major problem for many with the sacrificial system in Ezekiel. The Hebrew verb means “to atone by offering a substitute” (GK 4105), which is always used in connection with the removal of sin or defilement. When a sacrifice for atonement was brought in the Mosaic system, it was brought because God required it, not because of the initiative of the offerer (Lev 10). God alone gave forgiveness and cleansing, not the sacrifice. Ultimately, the basis for forgiveness and cleansing was the work of the Messiah’s innocent blood as the ransom for the penalty of death. The sacrificial animal could not offer an efficacious ransom; rather, the atonement sacrifice was only a picture lesson of Christ’s finished work.
All mentions of “atonement” in Eze 40–48 relate to the concept of purification or consecration of the temple or altar with the exception of two references. The atonement of the people is mentioned only in 45:15–17. There the concept is the same as that in the Mosaic system: a picture lesson of the ultimate atoning work of Christ when he would pay the ransom price of his blood to atone for sin and provide forgiveness of sin once and for all.
The Mosaic Day of Atonement for sin (cf. Lev 16:21–22, 30, 31) occurred annually in OT times, but it will not be observed in the Millennium. But sin will still occur in the Millennium among the house of Israel. Therefore the atonement offerings for the leader and the people will be a marvelous reminder of the work that the Messiah accomplished on the cross to enable their sin to be forgiven. It will also remind them that they are sinful people who need that redemption provided through the innocent blood of Christ. The sacrifices in Ezekiel are memorials of Christ’s work even as the Mosaic sacrifices were picture lessons and types of the work he would do. Neither is efficacious.
The writer of Hebrews in chs. 7–10 discusses the relationship between the Mosaic sacrifices and the work of Christ. It is instructive to examine these chapters, for they confirm the argument stated above. The law required that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there was no forgiveness (Heb 9:21–22). This is observed in both the Mosaic and the Ezekiel systems of atonement. But the elements of the tabernacle (temple) and its furnishings were only copies of heavenly things (9:23); and though they needed to be purified with sacrifices, the real need of purification would be made by Christ’s sacrifice, of which these things were only copies (9:24–28). These aspects of the Mosaic covenant were only a “shadow” (i.e., a picture) of the things that were coming; they were not the reality itself (10:1). Because the Mosaic covenant dealt here in shadows, the Mosaic system could never make its worshipers perfect through the repeated sacrifices that never could take away sin (10:2–4, 11). The sacrifices cleansed only outwardly as a picture (9:11–14); Jesus inwardly cleanses our consciences from the sinful acts that lead to death (10:8–14). If the Mosaic sacrifices could have cleansed its worshipers and made them perfect, those sacrifices would have stopped once and for all, but they could not (10:2). Therefore they were continued as regular reminders of sin, because it was impossible for the blood of animals to take away sin. Jesus offered himself once for the sins of humankind. The reality of the pictures had come, even as promised in the new covenant (7:27).
The writer of Hebrews goes on to say that where sins have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. Understood in the context of Hebrews described above, there is no longer the need for the picture lessons and reminders, now that the reality of Christ’s efficacious blood sacrifice has been offered once and for all. However, the writer of Hebrews does not declare that pictorial sacrifices and festivals absolutely can no longer be observed as reminders and picture lessons of what Christ did after his singularly efficacious sacrifice has been completed. Since the sacrifices and festivals in the OT system were only pictures themselves, they never conflict with the sacrifice of the Messiah. They never were and never could be efficacious.
Likewise, the sacrifices in the millennial system described by Ezekiel are only picture lessons and reminders of the sin of humankind and of the only efficacious sacrifice for sin once and for all made by Christ. The millennial sacrifices will be both reminders to believers in millennial worship and picture lessons to unbelievers born in the Millennium. That is their purpose. On the basis of the OT role of the sacrifices and the argument of the writer of Hebrews, it does not appear that the pictorial sacrifices of the Mosaic system or the memorial sacrifices of the millennial worship conflict with the completed work of Jesus’ sacrifice for all sins once and for all on the cross.
In addition, the very observance of the Lord’s Table is an argument in favor of this memorial view. The observance of the Lord’s Table is not a substitute for Christ’s death and does not in that sense conflict with the finished work of Christ. As a memorial, the Lord’s Table will apparently be celebrated with Christ present in the messianic kingdom (Millennium) when Christ returns (Mt 26:29; Mk 14:25; Lk 22:18). If the Lord’s Table is a memorial and the sacrifices of the Ezekiel system are memorials, the two should not in any way conflict with each other but should be able to coexist. One, of course, may ask why both need to be observed if they perform the same role. Perhaps the Lord’s Table is the primary memorial to those believers of the church age while the sacrifices in Ezekiel will be the primary commemoration of the Jews in the Millennium, though nothing certainly prohibits any of the singular people of God—Jews or Gentiles—from participating in the worship of either memorial.
In summary, the sacrificial system in Ezekiel’s worship will be used as picture lessons to demonstrate the need for holiness in the consecration and purifying of the temple and the altar. They will be visual reminders of human sinfulness and one’s need for redemption, as well as pictorial memorials of the finished and completed sacrifice of the Messiah who provided atonement for humankind once and for all. Thanksgiving to God will be visually expressed in the fellowship offerings. In addition, the sacrifices will provide food for the millennial priests (44:29–31), even as they did for the Mosaic priests. Priests will be necessary in the millennial worship system to conduct the sacrifices for the leader and the people. Priests will also carry out all the necessary ministries of the temple. Their main role, however, will be to demonstrate to everyone in the Millennium the distinction between the holy and the profane (Eze 44).
A Summary of the Argument of Ezekiel 40–48. Thirteen years have passed since Ezekiel had encouraged the exiles with the six messages of restoration hope (33:21–39:29). Then, through an apocalyptic vision, Ezekiel gives a final encouragement by describing the nature of the messianic kingdom. This vision is the culmination of the book, revealing the climax of God’s working with Israel throughout history. God establishes Israel as a holy nation to worship him and demonstrate his person. When God originally created Israel, three elements were essential for her existence: a people, a government, and a homeland. When God reestablishes Israel as a nation in the messianic kingdom, these same three elements must exist. God will regather the people through the great restoration described in chs. 34–37. He will then give Israel her new government (guidelines for living) and establish her in the Promised Land forever (chs. 40–48).
The reestablishment of Israel’s government is described in chs. 40–46. The center of her new life will be the Lord himself, who will return in glory to rule in her midst (43:1–9). The need for a residence for God’s glory will be fulfilled in the construction of the millennial temple described in detail in chs. 40–42. Here God will reign with the temple as his throne (43:7), just as he had done previously in the tabernacle and then the temple. The regulations in 43:13–46:24 describe how the priests, leaders, and the people are to live holy lives. Requirements and functions are outlined; and Israel is charged to perform these regulations in an unerring manner, thereby demonstrating God’s holiness (43:10–11; 44:5–8).
The description of Israel’s restoration to the Promised Land is given in ch. 36. Then in chs. 47–48 the Lord demonstrates how he will continually heal, bless, and refresh the land in its perfect state through the river of life (47:1–12; cf. Ge 2:8–10; Rev 22:1–3). Tribal borders will be established, and land will be set aside for the priests, leaders, city, and the sanctuary. With Israel reestablished in the land of blessing, the Lord will reaffirm his eternal presence with them in a new name for the city (Jerusalem): “THE LORD IS THERE” (48:35). The Lord will be there forever!
1. The setting of the apocalyptic vision (40:1–4)
1–4 There are four essential elements in the literary setting of an apocalyptic vision: the date, the identity of the vision’s recipient, the location of the vision’s recipient, and noteworthy circumstances under which the vision was received.
The date of this apocalyptic vision has four aspects. (1) Ezekiel expressed it in terms of his normal calendrical system, using the reference point of Jehoiachin’s deportation into Babylonian exile: 597 B.C. This vision was received in the twenty-fifth year of Jehoiachin’s captivity, or in 573 B.C.
(2) The vision was received at the beginning of that year. Israel had two different calendars. The civil calendar began in the fall month of Tishri; the religious calendar began in the spring month of Nisan. The religious calendar is preferable since Ezekiel was a priest and the concerns of the apocalyptic vision relate to religious matters. Thus the date would be March/April 573 B.C.
(3) The vision was received on the tenth day of the month. If this is the month Nisan, then the tenth day is the very day the people may have begun to prepare for the Passover four days later. Whether they actually observed the Passover or not in exile is not known, but surely they would be contemplating Israel’s redemption out of Egypt and the creation of their nation. This vision, then, would be an encouragement that the Lord would complete his purposes for the nation in the messianic kingdom.
(4) The vision was received in the fourteenth year after Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians, in 586 B.C. This also would corroborate the date of 573 B.C.
The second major element of the setting of an apocalyptic vision is the identity of the vision’s recipient. Though Ezekiel’s name is not given in these verses, the copious use of the first person pronoun in light of the context of the entire book certainly argues strongly that the recipient was Ezekiel.
The third aspect of the setting of this vision is the location in which it was received. Ezekiel saw the vision from a very high mountain in Israel, from which he could see a city to the south. Neither the mountain nor the city is identified. However, Ezekiel was taken into the city, where he then saw the temple’s construction in detail. In light of the geography of Ezekiel’s day, the city was most likely Jerusalem. To identify a high mountain to the north of Jerusalem, however, is not possible.
The final aspect of a literary setting of an apocalyptic vision is the noteworthy circumstances under which the vision was received. A divine messenger with the appearance of bronze was present. He was carrying both a measuring rod and a linen measuring cord. He exhorted Ezekiel to pay careful attention to all that he would be shown, because this vision was being given to him so that he might tell it in detail to the “house of Israel.”
2. The apocalyptic vision (40:5–48:35)
a. The millennial temple (40:5–42:20)
A divine messenger guided Ezekiel through the temple complex, beginning on the outside and working gradually inward through the outer and inner courts to the temple sanctuary. He provided an abundance of details, especially dimensions. These plans and specific dimensions are accurate enough to enable plans to be drawn and models to be constructed with a fair degree of accuracy.
(1) The outer court (40:5–27)
5 Many dimensions of the temple are given in chs. 40–42. The normal cubit was the distance between the tip of the middle finger and the tip of the elbow—approximately eighteen inches. The handbreadth was the measurement of the hand’s width at the base of the fingers—normally about three inches. The divine messenger guiding Ezekiel carried a measuring rod six cubits long. The long cubit was composed of one normal cubit plus a handbreadth, or eighteen inches plus three inches. Since the measurements in this portion of Ezekiel were made with this measuring rod, it can be assumed that the “cubit” in Ezekiel was normally the “long cubit” of twenty-one inches.
The examination of the temple complex began on the outside, where the messenger showed Ezekiel a wall that completely surrounded the complex. The wall was one rod high and one rod wide, or six long cubits for each dimension—approximately ten and one-half feet.
6–16 Ezekiel was taken to the eastern outer gate of the temple complex. The divine messenger explained the gate’s design and dimensions in detail (see Fig. 1). The description began from the outside of the gate and worked inward. The gate was composed of seven steps (E) that led up to the gate from the outside. Perhaps these were the equivalent of the “entrance” mentioned in v.11. If so, the entrance steps measured ten cubits wide and thirteen cubits long. The north and south outer gates have the identical dimensions of the east gate (cf. vv.20–27). The gate’s outer threshold (OT) measured ten cubits wide and six cubits deep. The entire gate system resembled the multiple entry gates archaeologists discovered from the Solomonic period. There were several guard rooms (cf. 1Ki 24:28; 2Ch 12:11), or alcoves, on either side of the inner part of the Solomonic gate. In this gate there were three alcoves (A) on either side of the inside of the gate, each six cubits square with a wall (FW) one cubit high in front of each. The dimension of the walls (S) separating the three inner alcoves was five cubits. The gate’s inner threshold (IT) was one rod deep (six cubits), like the outer threshold.
A “portico” (P; GK 395), or vestibule, on the inside of the gate faced the courtyard. It was eight cubits wide with a two-cubit doorjamb facing the temple. Verse 14 can be understood to give the total dimensions of the portico if all sides (both widths and both lengths) were measured. There would be a total of sixty cubits (eight cubits wide by twenty-two cubits long). On the other hand, if “porticoes” refers to doorjambs or pilasters, sixty cubits could be the height of each doorjamb of each gate. There were windows, or parapet openings (O), in each alcove and in the portico; but the number and exact location of each are uncertain. The only decoration mentioned was palm tree designs, found on the inner walls of the alcoves and/ or on the doorjambs.
The overall dimensions of the gate system were twenty-five cubits wide by fifty cubits long.
17–19 The courtyard (see Fig. 2) had a pavement strip (LP) the width of the east gate’s length: fifty cubits. The pavement formed a border all around the outside edges of the outer court and was known as the lower pavement. Thirty rooms (R) were on this pavement around the outer court. The dimension of the outer courtyard from the inside of the outer eastern gate to the inner eastern gate was said to be one hundred cubits. The same dimension separated the north and south outer gate systems from their corresponding inner gates (40:23, 27).
20–27 The outer northern and southern gate systems were exactly identical with the outer eastern gate (cf. vv.6–16).
(2) The inner court (40:28–47)
28–37 In the examination of the inner court, the guide first discussed the gates, then the rooms for preparation of the sacrifices, next the rooms for the ministering priests, and last the general dimension and character of the inner court.
Figure 1
Gate Systems for all Gates of the Outer Court
Key: | |
FW |
Wall (barriers, borders, space) (40:12a) |
A | Alcoves (side rooms, guard rooms) (40:7a, 10a, 12b) |
P |
Portico (portch, vestibule) (40:7c, 8–9, 14) |
S |
Walls separating alcoves (40:7b, 10b) |
OT |
Outer threshold of the gate (40:6, 11) |
IT |
Inner threshold of the porch (40:7c) |
O |
Windows (parapet openings) (40:16) |
E |
Steps (40:6b, 22b, 26a) |
Overall height, length, and width of the gate (40:13–15)
The guide showed the three gates to the inner court to Ezekiel in a counterclockwise direction, beginning at the south gate. Each of these gates was identical in its dimensions and basic design with the three gates of the outer court. Two distinct alterations were made in the inner gate design over that of the outer gate. All inner gates had their porticoes facing outward toward the outer court rather than on the inside. In addition, each stairway leading up to an inner gate system had eight steps rather than seven. Verse 30 indicates that the portico dimensions of the inner gates were five cubits by twenty-five cubits. However, this dimension does not harmonize with the dimensions of the porticoes in the outer gates; and the text states that the dimensions were the same between the inner and outer gate systems, excluding the two exceptions just mentioned. Perhaps the best solution is that the dimensions of the portico of the inner gates varies slightly from those of the outer gates.
38–43 As Ezekiel and the divine messenger were standing beside the northern inner gate system, the messenger described the rooms (W) and tables (T) to be used for the preparation of the sacrifices. There was a room located beside the doorjamb outside each inner court gate. This means each room (W) was in the outer courtyard beside the stairs leading up to the portico of the inner gate. Here the burnt offerings were to be washed for ceremonial cleansing. Though the word for “gateway” is plural in v.38, it is singular in v.39. The implication is that the two tables on either side of each inner gate portico were for the slaughter of offerings. On these four tables (T) in each portico, the burnt offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings—the only sacrifices requiring an animal or bird to be killed—would be slaughtered. The significance of the offerings is discussed above in the introduction to this section and below where these sacrifices are mentioned in the worship ritual.
Key: | |
A |
Altar (40:47b) |
WB |
Building of the separation yard (41:12, 13b, 15) |
K |
Kitchen for priests to boil sacrifices (46:19–20) |
OK |
Kitchens for priests to boil people’s sacrifices (46:21–24) |
LP |
Pavement strip (40:17–18) |
PB |
Priests’ chambers (42:1–14) |
R |
Rooms in outer court for storage or priests’ quarters (40:17) |
PS |
Rooms for singers (priests) (40:44–46) |
T |
Tables for slaughter of sacrifices (two at each point) (40:39–43) |
TEM |
Temple proper (40:48–41:11, 13a, 14, 16, 23–26) |
W |
Rooms for washing offerings (40:38) |
Inner court (40:44–47a) | |
Outer court (40:17–19, 23, 27, 39–43) | |
Width from outer gates to inner gates (40:19, 23, 27) |
The northern inner gate had some furniture unique to it. Two additional tables (T) for slaughter of sacrifices were placed on either side of the stairs outside the north inner gate in the outer courtyard. This made a total of eight tables both outside and inside the north inner gate. Four additional small tables of dressed stone, one and one-half cubits square and one cubit high, on which the utensils for slaughtering the sacrifices would be laid, were distributed around the northern inner gate. Double-pronged hooks were placed around the portico’s wall.
44–46 Inside the northern and eastern inner gates were rooms (PS) for the priests of the sons of Zadok. They were the only ones of the Levitical priesthood permitted to minister directly to the Lord. The exclusion of Levi’s other descendants from this ministry is explained in ch. 44. The Hebrew states that the rooms were specifically for singers. Though other functions are mentioned for the priests who resided in these rooms, singing was a priestly function in OT temple worship (cf. 1Ch 16:4–6; 23:5; 2Ch 29). The rooms that faced south on the inside of the north inner gate housed the priests who ministered in the temple. The room that faced north on the inside of the east gate housed those priests who ministered primarily at the altar of sacrifice.
47 The inner court courtyard was one hundred cubits square. The altar of sacrifice (A; see ch. 43) was in front of the temple (TEM).
(3) The house of God (40:48–41:26)
48–49 The divine messenger moved next to the temple structure itself (see Fig. 3). The fourteen-cubit-wide entrance of the sanctuary was reached by a flight of stairs. Facing the entrance (EP) Ezekiel observed five-cubit-wide doorjambs (PJ) protruding three cubits from the inside of the temple wall on either side. Pillars (PL), perhaps similar to Joachin and Boaz of Solomon’s and Herod’s temples, stood in front of the doorjambs, one on either side. As Ezekiel stepped into the temple’s portico (EP), he saw a room twenty-cubits wide by eleven cubits.
41:1–2 The outer sanctuary (OS), or Holy Place, consisted of a room twenty cubits wide by forty cubits long. Its ten-cubit-wide entrance (ET) was bounded on either side with six-cubit-wide doorjambs (TJ) on walls that protruded from the side walls of the chamber by five cubits on each side.
3–4 Ezekiel moved into the inner sanctuary (IS) through a six-cubit-wide entrance (EH) with two-cubit-wide doorjambs (HJ) on walls seven cubits wide. As Ezekiel viewed the twenty-cubit-square room he was told that this room was “the Most Holy Place.” By narrowing the entrance ways to the portico (40:48), to the outer sanctuary (41:2), and to the inner sanctuary (41:3) from fourteen cubits, to ten cubits, to six cubits, respectively, the architect focused the worshiper’s eyes on the Most Holy Place, the center of worship.
5–11 A six-cubit-thick wall (W) surrounded the entire temple. Next to this wall, but not attached to it, were ninety side rooms (SR), four cubits wide and constructed on three stories. The thirty rooms on each level became wider as one moved higher up through each story. Stairs joined the three stories from bottom to top. These side rooms (SR) had an outer wall (W) five cubits thick, and they all rested on a six-cubit-high foundation on either side of the temple proper. This foundation extended an additional five cubits beyond the temple’s outer wall to the edge of the foundation. Entrances to these side rooms were only on the north and south sides of the inner court (see Fig. 2) of the temple structure. Twenty cubits separated these side rooms from the priests’ chambers (PS in Fig. 2).
12–26 A separate building (WB in Fig. 2) was west of the temple proper, seemingly next to the western wall of the temple complex. Its function is unknown. The structure was seventy cubits wide by ninety cubits long with a five-cubit-thick wall all around. With its five-cubit wall on either side plus its ninety-cubit length, the building was exactly one hundred cubits across from north to south, exactly the same width as the inner court to the east of the temple proper.
The decorations of the temple structure consisted of windows all around the portico, the outer sanctuary, and the inner sanctuary. All the inside walls of each aspect of the temple structure were covered with a wood wainscoting up to the windows, and the windows were covered too. These wooden inner walls, as well as the outer walls, were carved with cherubim interspersed with palm trees. Each cherub had two faces, one each facing the palm tree on either side of it. The faces were those of a man and a lion. Though the cherubim may symbolize the guardianship of God’s holiness, any significance of the palm trees is uncertain.
The only furniture in the temple was a wooden altar, three cubits high by two cubits square. The divine messenger called it “the table that is before the LORD.” This altar was much smaller than the altar of sacrifice (cf. 43:13–17). Some have suggested that this was the altar of incense that sat before the veil of the Most Holy Place in the Mosaic system. The altar of incense symbolized the saints5 prayers in the tabernacle.
Both the entrance to the outer sanctuary (ET in Fig. 3) and the entrance to the inner sanctuary (EH) had rectangular doors. These were double doors, hinged with two leaves for each door. The doors to the outer sanctuary were carved with cherubim interspersed with palm trees, similar to the outer walls.
The entire temple complex was of great beauty and symmetry.
(4) The priests’ buildings (42:1–14)
1–9 There were two buildings (PB in Fig. 2) in the outer court just outside the inner court, one on the north and one on the south. The building was one hundred cubits long, east to west, and fifty cubits wide, north to south. The northern building lay parallel to the outer court pavement to the north and the inner court’s north wall that it abutted. It was three-storied with many rooms and galleries on each floor. The two lower stories had pillars as structural supports. The rooms on the third floor were smaller, though the third floor had larger galleries than the middle and ground floors. All rooms appeared to have doors on the north side. The lower floor had an entrance on the north with a ten-cubit wide and one-cubit long step in front of it (cf. vv.11–12). The building’s lower floor also had an eastern entrance, in front of which was a wall parallel to the east end of the building. Perhaps this wall provided a separation from the rest of the activity of the outer court, giving privacy.
10–12 The southern building was similar to the northern building in every facet, providing perfect symmetry, which was a hallmark of the overall design (see the NIV note on v.10 for the reading of “south” instead of “eastward”).
13–14 These two buildings provided a holy place where the ministering Zadokian priests could eat the holy offerings and change from their holy ministering garments to everyday clothes. The priests were to eat portions of the grain offerings, the sin offerings, and the guilt offerings. This building also provided a place to store these portions of the sacrifices. The priests would leave the priestly garments in these buildings. In doing so they would continue to distinguish between the holy and the profane.
(5) The measurement of the temple area (42:15–20)
15–20 The divine messenger brought Ezekiel outside the entire temple complex through the east gate. Ezekiel was shown the vast area that would be set aside for the sanctuary. It measured five hundred rods square (cf. NIV note), almost a square mile. Some immediately reject the term “rod” (16.5 feet) and replace it with “cubit,” the standard of measure in these verses. However, such an alteration is contrary to 45:2, which declares the temple environs to be “500 . . . square.” Neither the term “rod” nor “cubit” is stated. Ezekiel 45:2 does state that a border of fifty cubits provides an open space around the “500 . . . square” area. Ezekiel’s explicit use of the term “cubit” seems to have been to distinguish cubits from the rods of the “500 . . . square” area as already revealed in 42:15–20. Some argue that an area five hundred rods square (about 1.5 miles square) would be too large and not fit the topography. But Zechariah and other prophets demonstrate that the whole Palestinian topography will undergo geographical modifications at the beginning of the Millennium. No good reason appears to reject the term “rod” in these verses.
Key: | |
ET | Entry to the temple (outer sanctuary) (41:2a; cf. 41:23–25) |
EH | Entry to the Most Holy Place (inner sanctuary) (41:3; cf. 41:23–25) |
OS |
Holy Place (outer sanctuary) (41:2b, 21 b) |
IS |
Most Holy Place (inner sanctuary)(41:4) |
EP |
Potico (porch, vestibule) (40:48–49) |
PL |
Pillars (40:49) |
HJ |
Projecting wall (jamb, post) of the entry to the Most High Place (41:3) |
PJ |
Projecting wall (jamb, post) of the porch (40:48) |
TJ |
Projecting wall (jamb, post) of the temple proper (41:1) |
SR |
Side rooms of the temple sanctuary (41:5b–11a) |
S |
Space left around the temple (platform) (41:11b) |
W |
Wall of the temple (41:5a) |
Overall dimensions of the temple with yard on either side (41:13a, 14) | |
Windows (41:16 26) on the porch side chambers and decoration (41:16–20 |
This large area provided a separation space between the holy (the temple complex and its worship) and the common (or profane) terrain of everyday life. Israel had frequently forgotten to make this distinction in her past history.
b. The return of the glory of God to the temple (43:1–12)
1–5 Ezekiel was then brought to the outer court’s east gate where he looked out toward the east. Here he would see the most important aspect of this entire apocalyptic vision: God’s glory returning to the temple!
The glory that Ezekiel saw had the same likeness of God’s glory that he had seen in his inaugural visions on the river Kebar (chs. 1; 3) and that had departed from the temple during his announcement of destruction on Jerusalem (chs. 8; 10–11). Since Jerusalem’s destruction, God’s glory had not been present in Jerusalem or among his people. Israel had been under discipline in Babylonia and would remain under discipline until the end times. Then she would be cleansed and restored to the Promised Land by the Messiah. God’s glory would not fill Zerubbabel’s temple or the temple of Herod (cf. Hag 2:7).
The recipients of Ezekiel’s messages and visions would undoubtedly be encouraged by this vision. This vision made it clear that God’s glory would return after Israel was cleansed and after the millennial temple had been constructed according to the divine plan given in chs. 40–42. It would be similar to the dedication of the tabernacle (Ex 40:34–35) and the Solomonic temple (1Ki 8:10–11; 2Ch 5:13–14; 7:1–3), when God’s glory filled them. What a glorious climax to God’s good and wonderful plan for Israel! Ezekiel saw the marvelous glory of God coming from the east, entering the east gate, and completely filling the temple. It caused the entire land to become radiant with God’s glory. The sound of its coming was just like the sound of rushing water Ezekiel had heard coming from the cherubim’s wings in the previous visions of God’s glory (cf. 1:24). God had indeed returned to dwell among his people!
6–12 The significance of this vision of God’s glory was so important that the Lord himself interpreted it to Ezekiel. The temple was to be God’s throne and residence among the Israelites forever. The promises of chs. 33–37 would be fulfilled when God’s glory returned. The glory of God would fill the temple, and God’s holiness would permeate the entire temple complex. This, in turn, would be instructive both for Ezekiel’s contemporaries and for the house of Israel living in the Messianic Age. At that time Israel would never again defile the Lord’s holy name (cf. 39:7) through her religious prostitution in the temple precinct (cf. 2Ki 23:7) and the burial of the corpses of kings in their high places. Israel had religiously defiled the Lord’s name through her idolatrous practices. Therefore the Lord used this vision to exhort his people in Ezekiel’s day to put away these defiling practices.
Ezekiel’s contemporaries would be ashamed of their sins when they heard of this vision and saw the new temple design with the promised return of God’s glory. Likewise, millennial Israel would be ashamed for all her past sins as she reflected on the holiness of God’s glory and the perfection of the new temple design in contrast to Israel’s past unfaithfulness and defilement. The Lord instructed Israel in the vision’s interpretation to follow carefully the detailed plan of the millennial temple in its construction so that God’s glory might fill it.
There was only one basic law for the temple area: all the area on the temple mountain would be holy. The stress would be on God’s holiness and his place of rule and residency. Holiness would be the emphasis in the Millennium. All worship structures and regulations were to demonstrate God’s holiness. A continual contrast would be observed between the holy and the profane. The Messiah would judge unholiness with the rod of iron (cf. Ps 2:8–9; Rev 2:27; 12:5; 19:15)!
c. Temple ordinances (43:13–46:24)
(1) The altar of sacrifice: description and dedication (43:13–27)
13–17 The basic design of the altar of sacrifice is clear (see Fig. 4). It was to be located in front of the sanctuary in the inner court (A in Fig. 2). The altar is described from the bottom to the top. The bottom portion (B in Fig. 4) of the altar was composed of a one-cubit-high base with a one-cubit-wide gutter around the altar. The gutter had a rim of one span length (approx, nine inches). On top of this base were three sections of the altar. Next to the base was a two-cubit-high section (I), sixteen cubits square with a one-cubit ledge around it. This ledge formed a gutter one cubit wide with a one-half-cubit-high rim. The middle section (E) was four cubits high and fourteen cubits square, including a one-cubit-wide ledge around it. The hearth (H), four cubits high and twelve cubits square, formed the altar’s top portion. One horn (HA) projected from each of the four corners. Steps (S) led to the top on the east side, though the dimensions of the stairs are not given. These steps were in contrast to the altar of sacrifice under the Mosaic system, where it was forbidden to go up by steps on the altar (Ex 20:24–26). This millennial altar was very large: approximately thirty-one and one-half feet square at the base by approximately nineteen and one-quarter feet high!
18–27 After the altar of sacrifice was constructed, it would be necessary to cleanse and dedicate it. Cleansing was needed because everything associated with humankind partakes of sin and needs to be cleansed, especially if it is to be used in the worship of the Lord. A similar cleansing and dedication took place with the altar of sacrifice of the tabernacle (Ex 29:36–37; Lev 8:14–17) and the altar of Solomon’s temple (2Ch 7:9).
The ritual cleansing and atonement for the altar took seven days. On the first day a special sin offering of a young bull was made by the Zadokian priests. They were to take some of the blood of the sacrifice and put it on the four horns of the altar, the four corners of the altar’s upper ledge, and all around the rim. This sin or purification offering would cleanse the altar from its sinfulness, thereby making atonement for the altar. Atonement here has the idea of wiping away or cleansing, after which the altar would be holy (cf. Lev 8:14–15). The remainder of the sin offering was burned in a designated part of the temple area (cf. 42:20) but outside the sanctuary precinct per se (Lev 8:17).
On the second and succeeding five days, the priests offered a sin offering of a male goat without defect, to continue to purify the altar. After this ceremonial cleansing, the priests symbolized the altar’s consecration by offering a young bull and a ram, both without defect and sprinkled with salt, as a burnt offering before the Lord. With these offerings each day for the prescribed seven days, the altar would be atoned for and cleansed (cf. Ex 29:36–37).
After the seven-day ceremonial cleansing and dedication of the altar of sacrifice, the priests would begin to present the burnt offerings and fellowship offerings on the altar for the people. Not only would the Lord then accept their offerings because they had properly consecrated the altar, but he also would accept the worshipers. What a glorious truth! Because of the Messiah’s sacrifice, all who believe are accepted!
(2) Regulations for the east gate (44:1–3)
1–2 The outer east gate (cf. 40:6–16) was to remain closed permanently. This was done because of reverence for the gate’s special sanctity, for it was the gate through which the Lord entered into the millennial precinct in his glory (cf. 43:1–4).
3 Only the “prince” (GK 5954) was permitted to enter this gate. He must enter and leave by way of the portico from the outer court only. His only function within that gate was to eat bread in the presence of the Lord, but exactly which meal or for what purpose is not stated.
The identity of this “prince” has been a puzzle. The English word “prince” connotes royalty. However, the Hebrew word is best translated “leader.” This leader is not the Messiah, because he would make a sin offering for himself (cf. 45:22); such is not possible for the Lord Jesus (cf. Heb 4:15). In addition, this leader would have natural children (46:16), another impossibility for the Messiah. The leader was a man, but his identity remains unknown. He functions as the people’s leader in their millennial worship, almost like a high priest, but not having the same role and function.
(3) The priests and the service of the temple (44:4–16)
4–5 The emphasis in this vision had been on God’s glory and the resulting holiness that was required in all aspects of millennial worship. Ezekiel was brought again to see the Lord’s glory filling the temple, and his immediate response was reverence and awe as he fell prostrate in worship. The Lord undoubtedly used this experience to impress again on Ezekiel the importance of holiness, for holiness must characterize the priests and their actions.
The priests would instruct the rest of the people in holiness, teaching holiness by their lives, their priestly function, and their word. For this reason Ezekiel was exhorted to watch and listen carefully to all the temple regulations, especially those concerning the entrances and exits. There the priests would contact both the common life in the people and the holiness of the temple’s inner court and sanctuary. There they would meet and serve the people.
6–9 The religions of the ancient Near East frequently used foreign captives as temple servants to aid the priests. The Lord’s rebuke of Israel in these verses reflected ancient Israel’s adoption of this practice. This custom was first observed in Israel when Joshua made the Gibeonites temple servants (Jos 9:23, 27). Israel seems to have continued this practice through the time of Ezra (Ezr 8:20). However, the Mosaic covenant stated that foreigners who were uncircumcised in flesh and heart were not to minister in the temple as priests, along with all other Israelites not of the Aaronic line (cf. Nu 3:10). Perhaps originally some of these foreigners had been circumcised both in the flesh and in the heart so that they could enter the temple area lawfully and make an offering (cf. Nu 15:14). Certainly Isa 56:3, 6 indicates that such would be possible in the messianic kingdom (cf. Zec 14:21). But Israel had broken the Mosaic covenant with the detestable practice of having foreign temple-servants not only entering the sanctuary but also taking charge of the temple duties. By their handling priestly functions related to the holy things, they had desecrated the temple. But these foreigners should never have been permitted to take over the priests’ functions.
Key: | |
H |
Altar hearth (43:15–16) |
E |
Enclosure (43:14, 17) |
I |
Interior (43:14, 17) |
B |
Bottom (43:13) |
HA |
Horns of the altar (43:20) |
S |
Steps (43:17b; cf. 40:47b) |
The Mosaic covenant called for all to be circumcised in their hearts as well as in the flesh, the sign of the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Lev 26:41; Dt 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:25). There must be a change of heart toward the Lord and his ways, a true circumcising of the hardness of the heart’s foreskin. This was necessary for both Israelites and foreigners if they were to enter into a proper relationship with the Lord. Therefore, an explicit command was given: No foreigner, uncircumcised of heart and flesh, could enter the temple, not even those living in Israel. However, the implication was that any foreigner circumcised in heart and flesh could enter as any other person, but he could not function in any manner as a priest.
10–14 The Lord now clarifies who could minister in the millennial temple and in what manner. The Levites would be in charge of the temple gates, where they would slaughter the burnt offerings and other sacrifices for the people and assist them in their worship. The Levites would also be responsible for all work done in the temple, perhaps those duties previously handled by foreigners.
Limitations were placed on Levites’ ministry. They would not be permitted to serve the Lord as priests nor would they be allowed to come near any of the Lord’s holy things, especially his most holy offerings. They would serve neither in the inner court nor in the temple itself. The reason for this restriction was explicit. As a group they had strayed from the Lord in the past and had pursued idolatry. In so doing they had also led the nation into this sin (cf. ch. 8). They were to be held accountable for their past transgressions, even as they had been warned in Nu 18:23. They must bear sin’s consequences and shame.
15–16 The descendants of Zadok were first placed into major priestly functions under Solomon (1Ki 2:26–35), though this had been foretold in 1Sa 2:35. They alone had remained faithful to their duties in the Lord’s temple when all the rest of Israel had gone away from the Lord. Because of their faithfulness then, the Lord would give to them that singularly unique ministry before him in the millennial sanctuary. They alone would stand before the Lord to offer sacrifices. They alone would be permitted to enter the temple and come near the Lord’s table to perform his service of worship (exactly which “table” is meant is not certain). Chapters 45–46 indicate that the sons of Zadok would bring the sacrifices for the prince and the people daily, on the Sabbaths, and at the appointed festivals. What a great privilege and blessing would be theirs because of their past faithfulness to God’s laws!
(4) Ordinances for the Zadokian priesthood (44:17–31)
17–19 Various regulations and functions for the Zadokian priests are spelled out in the remainder of this chapter. The clothing worn when ministering highlights the holiness of their ministry. Linen was to be worn when these priests entered the inner court to serve (cf. Ex 28:42; Lev 16:4). The linen not only depicted purity by its whiteness, but its coolness kept the priests from perspiring and thereby becoming unclean. In addition to the outer linen garment, the priests wore linen undergarments and a linen turban.
When the priests left the inner court to go out among the common people, they were required to change their clothes (cf. Lev 6:11), leaving their linen garments in the sacred rooms so designated (42:1–14). In this way they would not improperly make the people holy with their ministering clothes. Contact with a holy thing consecrates. A person or object enters into the state of holiness by touching a holy thing and thus becomes subject to the restrictions of holiness to which other holy people or objects are subject (Ex 29:37; 30:29; Lev 6:27; cf. 21:1–8). This rule concerning leaving the linen garments in the sacred rooms would aid in maintaining a clear distinction between the holy and the profane.
20–22 The Zadokian priests were not to shave their heads or allow their hair to grow long. It was to be trimmed properly. Shaving the head was often associated with pagan religion in which hair was offered to the gods to establish a relationship. Long hair could depict mourning. Priests were not to practice idolatry or pagan mourning rites (cf. Lev 10:6; 21:5, 10). As this hair regulation was a sign of holiness for the priests in the Mosaic system (Lev 21:6), so it would be in the millennial system.
No priest was to drink wine while ministering before the Lord (cf. Lev 10:9). He was to make sure that he had full control of himself when performing the Lord’s service. This was holiness.
A Zadokian priest was permitted to marry an Israelite virgin or the widow of a priest. This would maintain the holiness of marriage. He could not marry any other widow or a divorced woman. This restriction, which had been true for the high priest in the Mosaic system, would now be applied to all priests (cf. Lev 21:7, 14).
23–24 The above regulations would enable the priests to teach the Israelites the difference between something holy and something common through the visual lessons of their priestly lives. In addition, these priests would serve as judges for any dispute, making their decision according to God’s ordinances. They were always to keep God’s laws and every decree concerning the appointed feasts and the Sabbaths, the sign of the Mosaic covenant.
25–27 There would be individuals entering the Millennium with natural bodies from the tribulation period. These, of course, would ultimately die physically, though physical life will be much longer during the Millennium (cf. Isa 65:20). A priest was defiled by coming near a dead person, and so this was forbidden, except in a case of a member of his immediate family (Lev 21:1–3). When a priest cared for a dead family member, he would be defiled; it would be necessary for him to be cleansed according to biblical guidelines (cf. Nu 19:11–19) and wait seven days, the period of cleansing. When a priest returned to minister in the inner court after defilement and cleansing, it would be necessary for him to offer a sin offering as a purification for himself.
28–31 All provisions for the priests would be made by the Lord. He would be their inheritance and their possession. No other possessions were to be given to them except those specified in these verses. The priests’ food would be provided by the Lord through the people’s offerings. The priests would eat from the grain offerings, the sin offerings, and the guilt offerings. They would also partake of everything devoted to the Lord by the Israelites, the best of all the firstfruits, all special gifts, and the ground meal of the people (cf. Nu 18:10–13). On “devoted” things, see comments on Lev 27:1–34, also v.28; Nu 18:14. The priests were not allowed to eat anything that had been torn by a wild animal or was found dead (cf. Lev 17:5; 22:8; Dt 14:21). The Israelites were promised blessing for their faithful giving to the priests in this way. There is always blessing in giving to the Lord!
(5) The sacred area of the Holy Land (45:1–8)
1–8 A specific portion of Israel’s land in the Millennium would be set aside as a sacred area for the priests and the sanctuary. The entire area would be a contribution to the Lord by Israel. That land would not really belong to the priests but to the Lord. In this sense, also, the Lord would continue to be the priests’ inheritance.
This contribution to the Lord for a holy area would measure twenty-five thousand rods by twenty thousand rods. The NIV translates “cubits” rather than “rods” as the standard of measure (see comment on 42:15–20). Actually no word for a standard is given in the text; this is because the standard of “rods” had already been given in 42:15–20. We can assume that Ezekiel understood this to be the measurement and only noted the exception to it in the measurement of a fifty-cubit-wide open area around the five hundred-square-rod sanctuary area.
This twenty-five thousand rods by twenty thousand rods area was further subdivided into two equal areas, twenty-five thousand rods by ten thousand rods. One was a sacred portion for the Zadokian priests who were to minister to the Lord in the temple (cf. 44:15–16; 48:9–12). Here they would place their houses. In the center of this area would be the five-hundred-rod square area for the sanctuary, the Most Holy Place. This five-hundred-rod-square area would have a fifty-cubit-wide border of open land all around it as a barrier to separate it from all else. This would stress the holiness of the sanctuary area.
The other twenty-five thousand rod by ten thousand rod area would belong to the Levites who would assist the Zadokian priests in the temple (cf. 44:10–14; 48:13–14). They would use the area for their towns. This entire area would run parallel to the portion for the Zadokian priests, immediately to the north (cf. 48:8, 21).
Another area of twenty-five thousand rods by five thousand rods, adjoining the Zadokian sacred area to the south, would provide for the city (cf. 48:15–19, 30–35). This city is most likely Jerusalem, though no name is given. The city area would belong to the entire house of Israel.
Finally, an area was allotted to the “prince” (see comment on 44:3). His portion was the land immediately to the east and west of the entire sacred area composed of the Levites’ portion, the Zadokian priests’ portion, and the city area (cf. 48:21–22). It would parallel the tribal boundaries of Judah and Benjamin.
Ezekiel concludes this section by declaring that Israel’s millennial leaders would no longer oppress God’s people as leaders had done in the past (cf. 11:1–13; 14:1–11; 20:1–23:49; 34:1–10). They would allow the people to possess their own land according to their tribes without attempting to confiscate land (cf. 48:1–29).
(6) The role of the prince in the Millennium (45:9–46:18)
9–12 The concluding verse of the preceding section implied that the leaders in Israel’s past and in Ezekiel’s day had seized property that was not theirs (cf. 46:18). Therefore, Ezekiel exhorts his contemporary princes (leaders) concerning their violence and oppression in which they used unjust and inaccurate scales and standards of measure. This kind of unrighteous conduct must stop in Ezekiel’s day. It would not exist in the messianic kingdom.
The proper standards of measure are given. Just as linear measurements of the ancient Near East were not as accurate as those of today, so this was true of volume measurements. Ezekiel delineates the proper standard of volume measure in the terms of his day. An ephah (approx, one bushel) was a dry measure equivalent to a bath (approx, nine gallons), a liquid measure. Both were equivalent to one-tenth of a homer (approx. ninety gallons or eleven bushels), which was the basic standard of volume measure. Ezekiel also exhorts his contemporaries to make sure that their scales and measures were accurate according to this standard.
Likewise, Ezekiel clarifies the proper standard for weights. One shekel weight (approx. two-fifths of an ounce) consisted of twenty gerahs (approx. one-fiftieth of an ounce). Sixty shekels comprised one mina (approx, twenty-four ounces). It was important that the leaders of the people be just in all their business dealings.
13–17 Contrary to the unrighteous behavior of Israel’s past leaders, Israel’s “prince” (see comment on 44:3) in the Millennium would be faithful to the Lord’s righteous requirements. One of his duties would be to make atonement for the people.
“Atonement” (GK 4105) is a word that carries many connotations. Most view this term theologically with a sense of expiation for sin of a person or a people. Such was the picture lesson of the Day of Atonement in the Mosaic system (cf. Lev 16). It has also been observed that the concept of atonement may stress purification, especially when atonement was made for things. In either case, the atonement rituals of the Mosaic system and those of the millennial system described in these chapters were picture lessons and reminders of humanity’s sinfulness and their need for a complete cleansing from sin and forgiveness through the efficacious atoning sacrifice of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The full and complete provision for forgiveness of sin was provided once and for all by Jesus Christ’s shed blood.
The Israelites had made a special contribution of materials for the tabernacle’s construction (cf. Ex 25:2–7; 35:5, 21, 24; 36:3, 6). In a similar manner Israel in the messianic kingdom would make a special contribution of grain, oil, and sheep to the prince, from which he would, in turn, make atonement for them (cf. Ex 30:13–15; Lev 1:4). The contribution from each Israelite was one-sixth ephah (about one-sixth bushel) out of each homer (approx. eleven bushels) of wheat or barley that was harvested, one-tenth of a bath (about one gallon) of oil from each cor (or liquid homer—approx. ninety gallons) of oil each would have, and one sheep from every flock of two hundred that had been fed on Israel’s well-watered pastures.
From this contribution the prince would provide grain offerings, burnt offerings, and fellowship offerings for the people’s atonement (cf. Lev 9:7; 10:17). The general statement of v.15 is further specified in v.17. The prince would bring burnt offerings, grain offerings, fellowship offerings, sin offerings, and drink offerings to make atonement for Israel at each of her festivals, her new moon celebrations, and her Sabbaths. These rituals of atonement were commemorative of the complete and finished saving work of Christ for sin through the sacrifice of himself (see introductory comments on chs. 40–48). They were in no way efficacious. What praise and worship they would give to the Lord for his gracious provision for sin as they viewed these sacrificial reminders in worship (cf. Rev 5:7–14)!
These acts of commemoration of atonement were limited to the weekly Sabbath, the new moons, and all appointed festivals of Israel (cf. Lev 23:1–41; Nu 28:1–29, 40). There is no special Day of Atonement in the Millennium. That special day had its full fruition in the special day of efficacious atonement provided by Christ on the cross. The people also were not asked to contribute any bulls, goats, or rams that would later be specified as the animals for sin and burnt offerings (cf. 45:21–25; 46:2–8, 11–12). Though the data are insufficient, perhaps these animals for the atoning sin and burnt offerings were provided by the prince (cf. vv.18, 22; 2Ch 31:3), not by the people, in order to symbolize that God alone could make that provision. The offerer in the Mosaic system was reminded of the substitute death for his own sins when he brought his own animal for his sin offering, except on the Day of Atonement, when all the sins of the nation were atoned for symbolically. In the Millennium the stress seems to be that God provides the substitute, insofar as the prince provided from his own resources the bulls, rams, and male goats.
18–20 It was also the millennial prince’s annual duty to purify the temple sanctuary. On the first day of the first month (Nisan) of the religious year, the prince was to bring a sin offering of a young bull without defect to purify the temple sanctuary (cf. Lev 16:16, 33; 22:20). This was necessary because of humankind’s sin that would defile the temple’s holiness. Even the Zadokian priests, being human, could sin. Therefore the temple sanctuary had to be cleansed annually through this atoning (purifying) sacrifice as a reminder to all of the holiness of God and his sanctuary (cf. 2Ch 7:1–10; 29:20–24). In the ceremony the priest would take blood from the sacrificial bull and place it on the temple’s doorposts (cf. 41:21—where the priests enter), on the four corners of the upper ledge of the altar of sacrifice, and on the gateposts of the inner court. This would be repeated on the seventh day of the month. Through this ceremony the temple was purified symbolically for the coming year so that all might continue to worship the Lord in holiness and purity.
21–25 The prince led in the observance of the Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles. These were the only two feasts specifically mentioned in the worship procedure of Ezekiel.
The Passover (cf. Ex 12:1–14; Lev 23:5–8; Nu 28:16–25) was observed in a manner similar to its observance under the Mosaic system. The Day of Passover would be celebrated on the fourteenth day of the first month (Nisan). The prince would provide a sin offering for himself and the people in commemoration of Christ’s work. The Feast of Unleavened Bread would then continue for seven days, during which no one was to eat unleavened bread. Each day the prince would make a daily sacrifice of seven bulls and seven rams, all without defect, as a burnt offering to the Lord. In addition the prince would offer daily a male goat as a sin offering for the whole nation (cf. Nu 28:19–24). A grain offering of one ephah mixed with one hin of oil would accompany each burnt offering. These procedures followed closely those of the Mosaic system.
The Feast of Tabernacles began on the fifteenth day of the seventh month (Tishri) and lasted for seven days (cf. Lev 23:33–43; Nu 29:12–38). The same daily sacrifices made for Passover would be made also for the Feast of Tabernacles. This observance provided a continual reminder of God’s gracious fulfillment of his promise to bring Israel securely and permanently into the Promised Land. Surely the Israelites would give praise and thanksgiving continually to God for this!
46:1–8 The Sabbath and the observance of the new moon would be part of the worship ritual during the Millennium. It may seem incongruous that the Sabbath, the sign of the Mosaic covenant (cf. Ex 31:13, 16–17), would be observed in the millennial kingdom when it is not observed during the church age under the new covenant. Is this a retrogression in God’s purposes? Not if it is understood that all God’s covenants would be fulfilled and operative in the messianic kingdom (cf. 37:15–28). The Mosaic covenant would find its fruition in the messianic kingdom in that Israel finally would be God’s people and he would be their God in a relationship that was to exist under the Mosaic covenant. That the pictorial sacrifices had their reality in the work of Christ does not nullify the relationship of Mosaic covenant that is a holy one. The Mosaic covenant showed Israel how to live a holy life in a relationship with God, and that type of life is still valid under the new covenant (cf. Jer 31:33–34; Ro 8:4). Therefore, for the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant to be fulfilled side by side is not incongruous. Ezekiel, however, was looking at the situation only from his perspective under the Mosaic covenant.
Just as work was to be done for six days and on the Sabbath the Israelite was to rest, so for six days the inner court’s east gate would remain closed but on the Sabbath it would be open for worship. On the Sabbath the prince would lead again his people in worship. He would enter the inner court’s east gate and stand by the gate post, enjoying a position not possessed by the people. Though the specific post is not clear, it is likely the doorjamb of the portico, since the tables for the slaughter of offerings were in the portico. Here the prince would bring his burnt offerings and fellowship offerings for the priests to sacrifice, since he could not enter into the inner court (cf. Nu 29:38). The burnt offering consisted of six male lambs and a ram, all without defect and each accompanied by a grain offering composed of one ephah of flour for the ram but as much as desired for the lambs. One hin of oil was to be mixed with each ephah of flour (cf. Nu 28:9–10). The makeup of the fellowship (thanksgiving) offering is not stated, since it was normally a freewill offering of whatever the offerer chose to bring. The prince would worship at the gate’s inner threshold and then return in the same way as he entered. He would not enter the inner court. The people would worship at the east gate in the Lord’s presence as the prince performed these sacrifices and worshiped within the gate.
The procedure for worship on the new moons was exactly the same for worship on the Sabbath except that the makeup of the burnt offering added a young bull along with the animals offered on the Sabbath (cf. Nu 28:11–15).
9–12 When Israel came to worship at the time of the appointed feasts (cf. Lev 23:37), the prince participated with the people, going in to worship and leaving whenever they did. The people entered through either the north or the south gate when they worshiped. They were not to return through the gate that they had entered but were to exit through the gate opposite from where they had entered. By entering one gate and leaving through its opposite, the flow of the festive crowd was regulated and confusion eliminated. Whether these gates were the outer or inner temple gates is not stated, though it would seem to be the inner court gates, since the people had normal access to the temple’s outer court. If so, this is the first instance of others besides the priests entering the inner court. However, if the outer gates were in view, the arrangement of entering by one gate and leaving by its opposite would pertain only to these special days, probably because of the masses.
The sacrifices offered on these appointed feasts and festivals were specifically enumerated when each festival was discussed, or they were not specified. It is again stressed that a grain offering of one ephah of flour must accompany each bull or ram offered, and as much flour as desired must accompany the sacrifice of a lamb (cf. v.7). If the prince desired to make a freewill offering of a burnt offering of consecration or a fellowship offering of thanksgiving, the east gate was to be opened specially for this act of worship and then closed when he finished. This was the only exception to that gate remaining closed throughout the normal six days. The prince was to present his freewill offerings in the same manner as he made offerings on the Sabbath.
13–15 There were, therefore, three occasions for sacrifice: major festivals, freewill offerings of the priest, and daily offerings. In the daily offerings the prince also led the people. Each morning he would present a burnt offering of a one-year-old lamb without defect, accompanied by a grain offering of one-sixth ephah of flour and one-third hin of oil. Under the Mosaic system the daily burnt offering was offered both in the morning and in the evening. Here the offering was to be made only in the morning, though the reason was not stated. This daily burnt offering, which demonstrated the commitment of God’s people to him, was to be a daily reminder of that commitment.
16–18 Inheritance was extremely important to the Israelite. Many laws had been established to guarantee that an Israelite retained family property. This concept continues in the messianic kingdom, at least in the case of the prince. Any inheritance given to one of his sons would remain with that son’s descendants (that the prince has sons argues against his identity as the Messiah). Anything given to a servant would revert to the prince in the Year of Jubilee (“the year of freedom”; cf. Lev 25:10; 27:24). Ezekiel also stresses that the prince was not permitted to take other people’s property and make it part of his inheritance as Israel’s past leaders often did (cf. 34:3–4; 1Ki 21:19; Mic 2:1–2). No one was ever to be separated from his property.
(7) The priests’ kitchens (46:19–24)
19–24 Ezekiel was brought out of the inner court to the north side of the outer court. He was led to the entrance of the building (PB in Fig. 2) that contained the rooms where the priests ate the most holy offerings and changed their garments (cf. 42:13–14). The rooms in this building faced north (42:1–5). Here the divine messenger showed Ezekiel the place at the end of these sacred rooms where the priests would cook guilt offerings and sin offerings. Here they also baked the grain offerings and ate all the offerings. This way the priests would not have to take these offerings into the outer court to cook them and thereby consecrate the people (cf. 44:19).
There were four kitchens (OK in Fig. 2) in the four corners of the outer court, each forming a court in itself. Each of these kitchens was forty by thirty cubits. There was a stone ledge around the inside of each room under which fireplaces were built. These ample kitchen facilities enabled the priests (probably the Levites, cf. 44:10–14) to cook the people’s sacrificial meals.
d. Topographical aspects of the Millennium (47:1–48:35)
It is appropriate to conclude this prophetic book with a discussion of the land of Israel during the Millennium. In the Abrahamic covenant God promised to give Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as their national land (Ge 12:7). The acquisition of that land was accomplished through Joshua’s conquest. In the Mosaic covenant, God promised that Israel would appropriate the Abrahamic covenant blessings as the people obeyed the Mosaic covenant stipulations (Dt 7:12; 8:2). One of those blessings was the land of Canaan. However, throughout her history Israel consistently broke the Mosaic covenant, so that the people were removed from the Promised Land and scattered among the nations, especially Babylonia. Ezekiel prophesied of God’s future promise to restore the people of Israel to their Promised Land, to cleanse them, and to give them a new heart, followed by salvation bliss in the land (36:24–40). Never again would Israel lose her land (ch. 39).
A fitting climax to the book, therefore, is to have Ezekiel describe the character of Israel’s land during the Millennium with, perhaps, glimpses into the eternal state. The divine messenger would show Ezekiel the river that would heal the land. Then he would clarify Israel’s boundaries and tribal allotments during the Millennium.
(1) The temple river (47:1–12)
1–12 Ezekiel was brought in his vision to the temple’s entrance, where he saw water streaming eastward from under the south side of the temple-entrance threshold (41:2). The stream passed by the south side of the altar of sacrifice in the inner court, through the outer court, and out the temple complex along the south side of the outer eastern gate. The divine messenger took Ezekiel to explore the extent of this stream. The messenger used a measuring line to mark off four one-thousand-cubit intervals (approx, one-third of a mile each). At each one-thousand-cubit interval the messenger took Ezekiel out into the stream to examine its depth. The depth increased at each interval from ankle deep, to knee deep, to waist deep, and finally, at the four-thousand-cubit mark, to such magnitude that it could not be crossed. This river continued to flow southeasterly toward the Arabah, the desolate Jordan Valley rift that extends south to the Red Sea (modern Gulf of Aqabah). The river flowed into the Dead Sea and caused that sea to become alive.
The basic purpose of this divine river was to bring life. Many trees lined its sides. Every kind of fruit tree grew on both sides. Their leaves never withered and their fruit was perennial, bearing every month of the year because the divine river watered these trees. Their fruit provided food and their leaves provided healing. The entire Dead Sea and the Arabah were healed by these waters, causing the Dead Sea to swarm with marine life to the extent that fishermen fished its entire length from En Gedi to En Eglaim, catching a great variety of fish. The Arabah bloomed (cf. Isa 35:1–2, 6–7; Joel 3:18). Only the swamps and marshes were not healed; they were left to provide salt for the people. Everywhere else the river brought its life-giving power.
This river is similar to the rivers in the Garden of Eden and the eternal state. In Ge 2:8–10 God provided a river that gave life to the land in that perfect environment. That life-giving river dried up with the fall of humankind. In Ezekiel and Revelation, the full redemption of the land would be completed (cf. Ro 8:19–22). Once again the divine life-giving waters would flow from the source of God’s residence, the temple, and heal the land.
The river in Rev 22:1–2 (cf. Zec 14:8) is similar to the one described in Eze 47. Though Rev 22:2 only mentions the tree of life on either side of the river, it seems that the word “tree” in that context is most likely used in a collective sense. No variance then exists with the trees in Ezekiel, only further clarification. As the tree of life was beside the river in the Garden of Eden, so the tree of life in abundance will be beside the life-giving river in the eternal state, if not in the Millennium. The variance between Ezekiel’s account of this river and that of John in Revelation centers on the river’s source. God is the source of both rivers; but Ezekiel saw the river issuing from the temple, whereas John saw the river coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb (a temple did not exist; cf. Rev 21:22). The river in Rev 22:2 also flowed down the city’s street, which seems difficult, though not impossible, in the Ezekiel account. Regardless of whether the visions of Ezekiel and John speak of the same river (in the Millennium and the eternal state) or of two different rivers (one in the Millennium and one in the eternal state), both are similar in purpose. The source of the land’s redemption and healing came from God and his throne. He would heal the land in the Millennium and in the eternal state. After all, the Millennium is the doorway to the eternal state.
(2) Divisions of the land (47:13–48:35)
13–14 Ezekiel first sets forth the manner in which the land would be distributed. It would be divided equally among Israel’s twelve tribes. Two portions would go to Joseph in the form of tribal allotments for his two sons: Manasseh and Ephraim (cf. Ge 48:5–6, 22); the tribe of Joseph had been divided into two tribes to replace Levi. Thus there were twelve tribal land divisions of equal proportions. The tribe of Levi had become the priestly tribe, and in the Millennium they would have a special land for their residence (cf. 45:1–8; 48:8–14). The principle of equality would prevail. Any past abuses of inequity would be remedied.
The Lord reminds Israel that the reception of any portion of the Promised Land by a tribe was strictly on the basis of God’s promise. None of them had done anything to deserve an allotment. God had promised the inheritance of this land in his covenant with Abraham (cf. Ge 12:7; 15:7, 18–21; 17:8).
15–20 Israel’s national boundaries in the Millennium are similar to those of ancient Israel (cf. Nu 34:3–12). The borders followed known place names from Ezekiel’s day and were given in such detail that they are without question to be taken literally.
The boundary started at the north, and each side is described in order clockwise. The north border started at an unspecified point on the Great (Mediterranean) Sea, though the remainder of the description suggests that that point might be around the mouth of the present-day Litanni River. This border followed an easterly direction in between the unknown boundaries of Damascus on the south and Hamath on the north to the site of Hazar Enan. The sites of Berothah, Sibraim, and Hazer Hatticon have not been located. Hamath and Zedad (perhaps modern Sadad southeast of Homs) as well as the area of Hauran have each received at least tentative identification.
The land’s eastern border ran between the Hauran and Damascus districts to the Jordan River, where it followed the river south of the eastern (or Dead) sea. The southern border extended from Tamar (southwest of the Dead Sea) through Kadesh-barnea, to the wadi of Egypt (present day Wadi el-Arish), which it followed to the Great (Mediterranean) Sea. The western boundary was the Great Sea. By contrast, the land of God’s people in the eternal state will have no sea, since the sea will no longer exist (Rev 21:1). Old Testament Israelite boundaries included two and one-half tribes in the Transjordan.
21–23 Further guidelines for the distribution of the land are given to treat the question of allotment as it relates to aliens in Israel’s midst. Aliens who had settled within Israel in a given tribe and had borne children (indicating their permanency) were to be included in that given tribe when the land was distributed. These aliens were to be treated as if they were native Israelites. In this Israel would obey the Mosaic covenant (cf. Lev 19:34).
48:1–7 Each tribal area was declared to be equal, according to 47:14. Each would have parallel borders on the north and south and would stretch from the west boundary to the east boundary, in equal sizes, one next to the other. The allotments were listed for the tribes beginning at the north and progressing south. The order has no conformity to any other in Israel’s history. The tribes that originated through Jacob’s wives’ handmaids were placed on the outer extremities, whereas the tribes from Rachel and Leah were in the center of the land (cf. Ge 35:23–26). The faithful tribes of the southern kingdom of Judah—Judah and Benjamin—would have the privileged positions next to the land’s special sacred portion.
8–14 A portion of the land–25,000 rods wide (see comments on 42:15–20; 45:1–8) and having the same length as the tribal allotments from east to west—was set aside by the people as a special contribution to the Lord (cf. 45:1–8). This special portion was composed of four distinct parts: the sacred area given to the Zadokian priests (vv.9–12), the Levites’ land (vv.13–14), the city land (vv.15–20), and the prince’s land (vv.21–22).
The special contribution to the Lord for the sacred area of the Zadokian priests was 25,000 rods long on its north and south sides and 10,000 rods long on its east and west sides. The Lord’s sanctuary would be in the center of this territory (cf. 45:4c).
To the north of this Zadokian portion would lie the Levites’ land. This territory would have the same dimensions as that of the Zadokian priests mentioned above. The Lord did exhort the Levites to make sure that they did not sell, exchange, or in any way allow this land to pass to others because it belonged to the Lord. It was holy to him.
15–20 Land set aside for the city would be 25,000 rods long on the north and south sides and 5,000 rods long on the east and west sides. This land would be used for the city, houses, and pasture. The city would be in the exact center of this portion. It would be 4,500 rods square with a strip of land 250 rods wide all around it on each side. This land strip would be used for the city’s pastureland. The city’s total dimensions with its border would be 5,000 rods square (cf. v.15; 45:6). The remainder of the land on either side of the city would be used for growing food for the workers in the city. These two equal segments would be 5,000 rods long on the east and west sides and 10,000 rods long on their north and south sides. Workers from every tribe who lived in the city would farm this land.
The entire area that included the Levites’ land, the Zadokian land, and the city land would form a combined area 25,000 rods square.
21–22 The land on either side of this 25,000-rod-square sacred area would be given to the prince (cf. 45:7–46:18). His land areas to the east and west of the sacred portion would extend to the national boundaries, east and west, as did all the tribal areas. The property of the Levites and priests, along with that of the city, would lie in the center of the prince’s land. The entire sacred area and the prince’s land would lie between the tribal allotments of Judah to the north and Benjamin to the south.
23–29 The tribal allotments of Israel’s land south of the land’s special portion are stated in these verses.
30–35 The city in the center of the 10,000 by 5,000 rod section south of the priests’ sacred area is not named, but most likely it is Jerusalem (cf. Zec 14:8). In keeping with the dimensions given in vv.15–19, Ezekiel declares that the distance around the city, minus its pasture strip, would be 18,000 rods. The main emphasis in this section is on the city’s twelve gates, each named after one of Israel’s tribes (cf. Rev 21:12–13). There were three gates on each side of the city. The descendants of Leah were on the north and south sides. On the north the three gates were named Reuben (the firstborn), Judah (tribe of David), and Levi (tribe of priests). On the south the three gates were named Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun. The three gates on the east were named after Rachel’s two sons, Joseph and Benjamin, plus Dan, the son of Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid. The three gates on the west were named after the descendants of the two handmaids, Zilpah and Bilhah: Gad, Asher, and Naphtali.
The city was square, and the city in Revelation also is square (actually, it is a cube; cf. Rev 21:16). These likenesses between them have caused some to identify them with each other. However, additional data in Revelation should cause some hesitancy about a quick decision. If the two are not identical, they certainly demonstrate that the characteristics of the Millennium and those of the eternal state are similar.
Ezekiel concludes his great prophecy by giving the city a name, a name that the city would have from that day forward: “THE LORD IS THERE” The Lord would reside forever with his people. Never again would they be separated from him through discipline. Forever Israel would live as God’s people and he as their God! This name would characterize God’s city just as in Hebrew thought any new name gave a new character to its recipient.
The Old Testament in the New
| OT Text | NT Text | Subject |
| Eze 1:4–10 | Rev 4:8–8 | Four living creatures |
| Eze 3:1–3 | Rev 10:9–10 | Eating a scroll |
| Eze 9:4 | Rev 7:3 | A mark on the forehead |
| Eze 14:21 | Rev 6:8 | Four dreadful judgments |
| Eze 20:41 | 2Co 6:17 | Separate from the world |
| Eze 27:27–32 | Rev 18:13–19 | Destruction of a sinful city |
| Eze 36:22 | Ro 2:24 | God’s name cursed among Gentiles |
| Eze 37:27 | 2Co 6:16 | God living with us |
| Eze 38:1–39:16 | Rev 20:8–9 | God and Magog |
| Eze 39:17–20 | Rev 19:17–21 | Food for the birds |
| Eze 40:1–2 | Rev 21:10 | Vision of new Jerusalem |
| Eze 40:3 | Rev 11:1 | Measuring the temple |
| Eze 43:2 | Rev 1:15 | Voice of rushing waters |
| Eze 47:1, 12 | Rev 22:1–2 | Flowing waters and fruit trees |
| Eze 48:30–35 | Rev 21:12–13 | Twelve gates of the city |