Ezekiel 1-19 [28] 0849902274

Citation preview

WORD

BIBLICAL COMMENTARY VOLUME 28

EzelUCTION

His vision of the restored temple (40-43; 46:19-47:12) may be compared with Moses' vision of the tabernacle on Mt. Sinai (Exod 25:8-18). His legislation concerning the future worship there (43:18-46:15) stands closest to legislation given Moses after his ascent of Mt. Abarim (Num 27:12-29:40). His program of land distribution (47:13--48:35) may be compared with that of Moses (Num 34-36) carried out under Joshua (josh 13-23). J. D. Levenson has recently stressed the Mosaic role of Ezekiel. Already a document of the first century A.D., Lives of the Prophets, (jBLMS 1 [Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1946] 23, 38), stated: "Also after the manner of Moses he foresaw the fashion of the temple, with its walls and its broad surroundings. " The central place of the temple in the life of the restored nation must be viewed in relation to the total map of the area. The Mediterranean Sea forms the western boundary as far north as Hethlon (47:15), north of Tripoli; and its northern boundary cuts east to a point northeast of Damascus. The eastern boundary angles southwest to the Sea of Galilee, south of which the Jordan River and the Dead Sea form the eastern boundary. The southern boundary runs southwest from the southern end of the Dead Sea to Meribathkadesh (47:19), which is Kadesh-barnea. Not far from there it follows the Brook of Egypt to the Mediterranean. This area does .not correspond with any historical boundaries of ancient Israel, for it contains both too much and too little to reproduce the boundaries of the kingdom of Israel at their greatest expansion under David and Solomon. Phoenicia was not conquered by David or ruled by him. Hiram of Tyre was his ally, and we hear nothing of the area north of Sidon. But David did conquer Transjordan, which is entirely excluded by Ezekiel's ideal program. It seems that Ezekiel was drawing on ancient traditions that antedate the Conquest (described most fully in Num 34:1-12), which were never realized in the history ofIsrael. This total area is to be divided into twelve strips for the twelve tribes, with the intention that each would receive a strip of equal size between parallel lines extending from east to west. The arrangements of the tribes are therefore totally different from those of the settlement period described in the traditions ofJoshua and implied in subsequent history. The central portion, not assigned to any tribe, is 25,000 cubits wide (about 56 cm. [22 in.] here for each royal cubit), extending the total width of the country, from the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea. Seven tribes lie north of this strip and five south of it-Judah immediately to the north and Benjamin immediately to the south (the two tribes having changed places). In the middle of this sacral strip is a special holy portion, a square with sides of 25,000 cubits. This in turn is divided into three strips. The southernmost is 5,000 cubits wide and has in its middle the capital city Yahweh Shammah (45:6; 48:35). North of this lie two strips, each 10,000 cubits wide (45:1-5), one strip for the priests and the other for the Levites. In the middle of the priestly strip is the temple, 500 cubits square (45:2). Since the temple is assumed to be in the middle of the holy portion, the priestly strip is generally supposed also to be the central strip, with the Levites bordering it to the north and the strip containing the capital lying immediately to the south of it. However, since the overall description in 47:15-19 proceeds from north to south and the sacral area is described

mtroaucnon

XXXI

in the midst of this (48:8-20), and since the priestly strip is mentioned before that of the Levites, it seems probable that the priestly strip lies along the north side of the holy portion, and that the Levitical strip lies between the priestly area and the strip containing the capital. With the temple to be placed at Jerusalem, the new capital Yahweh Shammah ("the Lord is there," 48:35) lies 7.7 km. (4.8 mi.) south of the temple, at Bethlehem; but according to the other arrangement, it lies only 2.6 km. (1.6 mi.) south of the temple, near Beth-hacherem (modern Ramat Rahel), where excavations have discovered royal buildings from the late pre-exilic period (for the arithmetic, see Brownlee,IOVeB, 435). All the land to the east and west of the holy portion is assigned to the prince, the reigning descendant of David (45:7-8; 48:21-22). He is thereby self-supporting, not needing to exact taxes (45:8). This will prevent any crimes like Ahab's seizure of Naboth's vineyard (1 Kgs 21). Also, all property rights of non-Jews living anywhere in Israel are protected and safeguarded, for they are counted equal to those born as sons of Israel (47:22). This rule prevents oppression of the sojourner (22:7). Ezekiel was painfully aware of the desolation of the east half of the sacral portion, between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea. In his prophecy a holy spring in the temple area flows eastward to the Dead Sea, becoming a mighty river in the process and transforming the Judean wilderness into a paradise (46: 112). Even the Dead Sea will be sweetened and become a great fishing area, with only a few salt marshes preserved for their salt production (47:8-11). New Exodus. Only two years after Ezekiel's great vision of the restoration (i.e., in April, 571 B.C.), he uttered a new prophecy predicting Nebuchadrezzar's invasion of Egypt (29: 17-20}. This did not begin until 568 B.C.; but the invasion created new confidence in the prophet Ezekiel, so that at that time a group of Jewish exiles in Egypt "sprang forth" like "a horn to the house of Israel" (29:21). These are the people whom the prophet almost at once led back to the land of Israel. The first movement is indicated by the anti-Edomite oracles (chap. 35), which are introduced by the idiom of dispatch (35:2). The designed antithesis between the mountains of Edom (chap. 35) and the mountains ofIsrael (chap. 36) indicates that Ezekiel returned to Israel via Edom, the route necessary to bypass the area of actual, or imminent, conflict. This route is also reminiscent of the Exodus, which also brought the Hebrews into contact with Edom (Num 20:14-22; 21:4). Here too Ezekiel is playing the role Of the new Moses; he is leading a group of returning exiles who lay claim to the land by walking over it (36:12), while the prophet proclaims God's word, which wrests the land from its recent usurpers (35: 10-36:5). At this PQint, then, Ezekiel has become a new Joshua. RETURN TO GILGAL

The Valley of Dry Bones. In chap. 37 the valley strewn with the dry bones of Zedekiah's fallen warriors is the setting of Ezekiel's vision ofthe resurrected nation. Since this is near Gilgal, it is inevitable that he would have returned there also. The passage that once said so was evidently 1: I, which should stand before 37:1: "In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth

xxxii

INTRODlICTION

day of the month, I was in the midst of the n~lJ ("exiles" or "Gilgal"?) by the river Chebar. The hand of Yahweh was upon me, and He brought me out into the midst of the plain, and it was full of bones." Since Gilgal lay in ruins, Ezekiel may have written n~lJ here (with reference to the returning exiles) rather than Gilgal, implicitly renewing the pun of chap. 12. The use of n~1.:1 for "[returned] exiles" appears also in Ezra 8:35; 9:4; 10:6-8, 16. The Thirtieth Year of 1: 1. This has been reckoned variously, but most notably: (1) from the year of King Josiah's reform, (2) from the year of the prophet's birth, (3) from the year of King Jehoiachin's captivity. The third reckoning is preferred, since this makes the dating consistent with the others. The era is not specified, since this is the last, not the earliest, dating of the book. Evidently the heading has been brought forward from chap. 37, which in the career of the prophet is later than chaps. 40-48. This solution has profound implications, for it means that Ezekiel has imitated Joshua in leading his people back to Gilgal, for a new settlement of the land. Also "the thirtieth year" at this point agrees with our inferences from 29: 17-21 about the year of Ezekiel's exodus (568/567 B.C.). The Sprinkling of 36:25. As a part of an exilic sennon, this sprinkling would have only a vaguely eschatological meaning, but once Ezekiel had led the exiles home, fulfillment had begun to take place. Under these circumstanc:es, the prophet had to face the question of realization. Being a priest (1:5), there is no reason why he could not act as God's agent of purification; The call for "clean water" would be best satisfied by a river or spring (Lev 14:5, 51; 15:13). Any spring, such as Gihon at Jerusalem, would be suitable; but in view of the special significance of Gilgal, it may be that he led his little group of returning exiles to the river Chebar, whose perpetual spring would be a copious source of purifying water. Instead of holding a ceremony of circumcision (like Joshua), Ezekiel may have held a ceremony oflustral sprinkling, during which he proclaimed Yahweh's promise of the gift of the new heart. It is suggested, therefore, that upon first arriving at Gilgal, he repeated his old sermon of 36:16-36. Symbolic Actions. Such actions (chaps. 4-5) followed the accounts of the prophet's first visions; so also a symbolic action (37:15-20) followed his last vision. Hejoined two sticks labeled Joseph and Judah to indicate the reunion of the former Northern and Southern Kingdoms in their own land. This action suggests that among the returning exiles (or refugees) were descendants of the former Northern Kingdom. This theme of the reunited nation occurs in a balancing piece, 4:4-8. If this is dated to the time of chap. 4, Ezekiel's binding by the Lord (v 8) would prevent him from preparing his own meals, as he is supposed to do in 4:9-17. More probably, the interest of 4:4-X in the restoration of Israel and Judah reflects the final events in the prophet's life and his latest preaching (47:13-48:29). Just as he had given symholir meaning to the death of his own wife (24: 15-27), so his stroke of paralysis was interpreted as an atonement that made up for whatever was la ("her mother") is confusing in translation and is thus omitted. Likewise, nothing is lost, and something of the terseness ofthe Hebrew is gained by omitting "her" with daughter. See Notes above. 45 In terms of family relationships, Jerusalem has both a mother and sisters, and all are of Canaanite origin, the mother being Hittite and the father Amorite, as at v3. The inclusion of Sodom along with Samaria as sisters, means that the author takes v 3 quite literally. All three alike are of Canaanite origin. Sodom, unlike Samaria and Jerusalem, can in no sense trace its origin to Egypt (chap. 23), yet this provenance cannot be literally true of Samaria, which was first built by Omri (1 Kgs 16:23-24) in the early ninth century B.C. According to Israel's historians, however, the nation was strongly mixed with the blood of the aborigines (Judg 1:27-36; 3:1-6), so that the racial stock of ancient Israel was simply west Semitic, nothing distinctive that could be called Hebrew. Canaanite cities lived on even in the vicinity of Jerusalem. An alliance of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath-jearim made peace with Joshua and were not destroyed or expelled (josh 9:3-27). Saul tried to kill off the Gibeonites (2 Sam 21:1-6), and the people of Beeroth fled (2 Sam 4:2-3). J. A. Soggin, in commenting upon the assassination of Saul's son Ish-baal (2 Sam 4:5-8), has stated: "Probably, the murderers of Ish-baal were motivated by a desire to avenge some action which Saul had taken against the Canaanite enclaves still remaining within Israelite territory." (See IJH, 348.) In contrast with Saul's "zeal for the people Israel and Judah" (2 Sam 21:2), David was an assimilationist. (See IJH, 329.) According to A. Alt (Der Stadtstaat Samaria, BVSAWI 10 1/5 (1954) = KS 2 (1959) 258-302), Omri established Samaria as a Canaanite city-state in the middle of Israel. Herbert Donner has discussed this in Hayes and Miller, IJH, 401-7. He states: Samaria was planned from the outset as an independent city-state in which the Omrides would govern according to the Canaanite model, as city rulers, like the Davidides in Jerusalem. Beyond that, the coexistence, which has no analogy, of two capitals in the territory of the northern kingdom and the absence of any cult of Yahweh in Samaria point to still another conclusion, namely, that Samaria was to constitute the centre of the Canaanite part of the population and Jezreel the capital of the Israelite part. If this is correct, then the founding and enlargement of Samaria represented a well-planned step in national policy intended to provide a consistent dualistic solution of the Canaanite problem: in Samaria the kings from the house of Omri were kings over the Canaanite portion of the kingdom and in Jezreel they were kings of Israel (lJH, 403).

Donner suggests that there may have been a pre-Omride settlement at Samaria, which Omri leveled before building his city (ljH, 402). Despite considerable assimilation (on which see N. K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh [Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1979]), there were pockets of non-

246

EZEKIEL

16:44-63

assimilated pagans who survived into post-exilic times (Ezra 9:1) and became part of the ethnic rootage of the people we know today as Palestinians. We are to think of the three cities as representing three national entities in the land ofIsrael:jerusalem = judah, Samaria = Israel, and Sodom = Canaanites. It is for this reason that v 46 assigns "daughters" to each of the sisters. The surprising feature of v 45 is that each of the women is said to have "treated with contempt her husband and children." Sexual unfaithfulness is scarcely alluded to here. The husband(s) are not gods, nor even Yahweh. Although according to chap. 23, Samaria and jerusalem were both married to Yahweh, this could not be said of Sodom. It seems that these "husbands" are mentioned solely for the sake of properly identifying the "children." The idea of a city being the mother of its citizens was a widespread ancient idiom. Here, however, Ezekiel refers to literal children, precisely as in vv 20-22, the sacrifice of whom "was worse than all your whoring." Consequently, the "husbands" are the human fathers of the children. It is as if for the moment, jerusalem and her sisters personify the married female population of these cities and that the married men figure only as their husbands. The basic charge is not that. the women have been sexually unfaithful to their husbands, but that in scorning their children, they have condemned the fathenl of the children as well.. Only in this way can sense be made of the women's treating with contempt their husbands; for surely there can be no intention of assigning hostility between the girls' Hittite mother and Amorite father, which are purely literary personifications. . The awkwardness of the references to the "husbands" is probably due to editorial retouching. One should not reject in toto the references to "husband(s) and children." We need the mention of the children in order to understand what is that graver sin with which jerusalem is charged. Rather, we may posit for Ezekiel an original statement which said: "You are daughter to your mother who treated with contempt her children." Possibly this alone is authentic to v 45, with there being no reference to the sisters until v 46. "Treating with contempt" (n~¥,;1) probably includes more than child sacrifice, referring especially to the abandonment (exposure) of unwanted babies; for this verb harks back to the noun "contempt" of v 5, where it is said of infant jerusalem: "You were flung into an open field with contempt (7~~~) for your person." Thusjerusalem is said to be guilty of the same crime which metaphorically had been employed in the allegory of her own origin. The prophet wanted jerusalem to know that the kind of contempt for human life portrayed in vv 4-5 is no mere legendary motif employed by him in the development of his allegory, but that it was indeed a very real and grave crime of ancient Canaan, and one which jerusalem herself came to practice. Since this aspect of infant mistreatment does not figure in vv 20-22, one may infer that this crime became common at jerusalem only later during the siege of the city, when there was an acute shortage of food and too many mouths to feed. Under such stress, babies might be thrown away, or even eaten (5:1O)! According to the present text ofv 45, the adage "As mother, so daughter" would apply equally to jerusalem's sisters; for all are guilty of the same condemning of husbands and children; but v 44 restricts this gnomic relevance to jerusalem alone, and presently jerusalem is portrayed as much worse than

Comment

247

her sisters. Not every daughter takes fully after her mother, any more than does every son take after his father (chap. 18). 46 "Big sister" and "little sister" should normally mean also "older sister" and "younger sister." That cannot be the literal meaning here. Sodom existed in patriarchal times (Gen 14; 19), whereas Samaria was first built by King Omri of Israel. When Samaria was built, Sodom no longer existed; but that does not mean she could not for Ezekiel's purposes be treated as a sister ofJerusalem. Daughters may be born after one daughter is deceased. Before the destruction of Samaria in 721 B.C., Samaria was the larger city; and "she and her daughters" (i.e., Samaria and the lesser cities of Israel) constituted a larger and more powerful kingdom than Jerusalem and her daughters (the kingdom of Judah). Sodom was always a very small place, but by assigning her "daughters" Ezekiel has in mind the survival of unassimilated Canaanite communities inside Israel, as in Ezra 9: 1. Thus through the daughters, Sodom did live on as a contemporary of both Samaria and Jerusalem. The location of the cities as "north" and "south" of Jerusalem is quite correct. Literally, these directions are called "the left" and ~·the. right" of Jerusalem, since one oriented himself for the purpose of establishing directions by facing east. On this see above at 4:4, 6. 47-51 The character of Jerusalem is compared with that of her sisters. The dramatis personae having already been introduced in vv 45b-46, we are ready to see Jerusalem in relation to these. V 47 states at the outset that "within a short while you have become more corrupt than they." The "short while" is probably the period of history after the death in 609 B.C. of King Josiah, who had introduced important religious reforms. This history was passed over in silence in the allegorical history of vv 3-43, since it did not serve as an example of the "vile deeds" he was to relate (v 2), and because it had no lasting effect. Vv 48-50 take up the case of Sodom, Jerusalem's little sister. V 48 declares that Jerusalem and her daughter cities have behaved more wickedly than Sodom and her daughter communities. Vv 49-50 then tell us of the crimes of Sodom. V 49 is very remarkable in that it does not mention the homosexuality of the men of the place (Gen 19:4-5) but describes a lack of social responsibility for "the poor and needy" on the part ofa prosperous city. Some scholars have inferred from this that Ezekiel knew a tradition concerning Sodom that was quite different from that of Gen 19. Zimmerli goes so far as to argue that Ezekiel was not really thinking of Sodom, but of Jerusalem! Ezekiel, however, is interpreting not vv 4-5, but Gen 18:20-21; 19:13. In 18:20, "Yahweh said, 'Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave [I am about to undertake my judgment],' " The word used here for "outcry" (npl'l), as is true also of its related synonym npl'~ (in 19:13), always (or at least usually) refers to the outcry of the oppressed. This is exactly the situation of v 49; we are to think of the anguished cries to God of the "poor and needy" to whom the wealthy Sodomites afford "no help and encouragement," On this, Ezekiel is a very good exegete! "Gave no help and encouragement" is literally "did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." The verb "to strengthen" means not only to give material assistance, but also to give encouragement. For the latter sense one generally

248

EZEKIEL 16:44-63

finds the idiom "to strengthen the heart" (JJ" 1'In) but the converse charge leveled againstJeremiah (38:4) of "weakening the hands of the people" (N9l TJ 'i'-nN) means to discourage, to demoralize. Thus the "poor and needy" of Sodom and her daughters were so completely demoralized that they had no one to whom to turn, except to Yahweh. He heard their anguished complaints and came down to investigate the situation, since Yahweh is fully just and does not condemn on hearsay evidence. (It is in order to make this point that we meet the anthropomorphism of Genesis.) V 50 gives us an interpretation of Gen 18:20 and of its results: "I shall go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me; and if not, I shall know." V 50, "They became so arrogant that they committed abomination in front of me, and I removed them as soon as I saw it" not only interprets Gen 18:20, but it alludes to what Yahweh saw in Gen 19: 1-9, and to the consequent judgments visited upon the city. Hospitality to strangers was a virtue exemplified by Abraham (Gen 18:1-8) and Lot (19:1b-3), and a very important virtue expected of noble-minded people. Contrariwise, the oppression ofthe stranger as exemplified by Gen 19: 1-9 was, according to ancient Semitic custom, a very grave crime. Thus, "sodomy" (so-called) in Genesis is basically oppression ()f the weak and helpless; and the oppression of the stranger is the basic element of Gen 19: 1-9, of which the threatened homosexual attack upon the visitors in all its abhorrence was simply "the straw which broke the camel's back." Here I translate nJl'1n not as "vile deed," as elsewhere, but by the traditional "abomination," since this suits better an abstract meaning covering the total situation of Gen 19: 1-9, including the lack of the offer of hospitality of the kind given by Lot. In v 50b, "I removed them as soon as I saw it," the verb von historically does not mean "remove" in the sense of removing from one place to another, but of abolishing. Yet if we consider that the reference is not only to Sodom and her daughters of patriarchal times, but also to Canaanite communities still unassimilated into Israel, there may be a secondary reference to these places which also suffered the Chaldean devastation and whose population was decimated and dispersed, but not annihilated. "As soon as I saw it," in all its anthropomorphism, harks back to the visit of the angels to Sodom (19:1, 13); and yet Yahweh may be thought of as in some sense present (cf. Gen 19:24). The whole reproach of Sodom says nothing of the charge of treating with contempt her children (see above at v 45). Vv 48-50 are the worst possible insult that Ezekiel could have hurled at Jerusalem, for Sodom (or Sodom and Gomorrah) was the prime example of horrible sin and disaster in the whole of the Scriptures. The worst charge against Jerusalem by previous prophets was to equate her with Sodom and Gomorrah (!sa 1:10); but Ezekiel declares that Jerusalem was worse. The sins ofvv 49-50 were indeed horrendous, but not so bad as those ofJerusalem. V 51 deals with Samaria in a very summary way, partly because she will be dealt with in 23:5-8 and also because the auditor is supposed to be familiar with the earlier prophets Hosea, Amos, and Isaiah. Jeremiah also deals with the harlotry of Samaria, probably both idolatry and cultic prostitution (Jer

3); and he too declared: "Faithless Israel has shown herself less guilty than Judah" (v 11). Ezekiel was doubtless influenced by this prophecy. It is not simply that these sins were more commonly committed in Judah, but that Judah is guilty of even worse crimes. 52 "You too bear now your disgrace" is no longer a threat of punishment, for which one would expect the Hebrew imperfect ("you will bear"), but it is a command to Jerusalem to accept as just the punishment that she is already experiencing. To "intervene on the side of your sisters" is presented as a sin for which Jerusalem must undergo (or, has undergone) the judgment of siege, destruction, dispersion, and exile. Her intervention (T;1~~e) is a very strange sort of mediation, since (despite the targum, which is not to be construed literally here) it is not prayer on behalf of these evil cities, but the unintended result of her being so bad. Even that can be a mediation on behalf of Sodom and Samaria only because of the Lord's merciful intention of once again restoring Jerusalem. Since he is just, he must show the same kind of mercy to the lesser offenders. Thus already Ezekiel is building a bridge to the divine promises of vv 53-63. Jerusalem's intervention succeeds where that of Abraham failed (Gen 18:22-32). Jerusalem has made her sins "more revolting" than have her sisters. T;1:;Ll'J;1D (hiph) can also be translated you have made "more vile" or "more abominable"; but in this Hebrew root one senses the connotation of repugnance, horror, and shock-hence the word "revolting." "They now appear more righteous than you." The verb Pl~ in the qal is being used forensically, not as a description of actual character. The last clause of the verse is the summary and conclusion to the whole of vv 44-52. Here the same verb in the piel is used in the sense "acquit." (See B. Gemser, "The rib-or Controversy-Pattern in Hebrew Mentality," Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Noth and D. W. Thomas, VTSup 3 [Leiden: Brill, 1955] 120-37.) 53-55 These verses treat of the promised restoration of the three sisters, Sod om, Samaria, and Jerusalem. The idiom "I will restore the fortune of" (nlJ.1D in Q but n~:l1D in K) has sometimes been interpreted to mean "I will bring back the captivity of," which depends upon the reading n':lID. Yet that meaning is unsuitable in passages such asJob 42:10. More probably we are to think of a construction with the cognate accusative: "I will restore the restoration of. . . ." In the case of Samaria and Jerusalem, there were indeed captives taken into exile, but not in the case of Gen 19, although as fugitives Lot and his family became exiles from there. Except for this idiom, the qal of the verb :l lID "to return" is always intransitive; and curiously the Job targum from Cave 11 of Qumran interprets Job 42: 10 to .mean l~Dnl:l :lPN7 Nn7N :ln1 "And God returned toJob with compassion": i.e., "Yahweh returned with a (gracious) turning toward Job." The particle nN thus ceases to be the sign of the accusative and becomes the preposition (see J. P. M. van der Ploeg and A. S. van der Ploeg; Le Targum de Job, de la Grotte XI de Qumran [Leiden: Brill, 1971] at xxxviii, 3 on p. 86). The transitive sense, however, suits best the great majority of cases, including Ezek 16:53. The promised restoration of Samaria and of Jerusalem is not surprising, and it accords with 4:4-6; 37:15-22, but that of Sodom is! Zimmerli has noted that Sodom is supposed to be somewhere near the southern end of

the Dead Sea and that this region is to be included in the new Land of Israel (47:18). Recent excavations suggest that Sodom had been on the east or southeast side of the Dead Sea, which lay outside the restored land. Ezekiel, however, may have had a tradition that placed Sodom south or southwest of the sea and hence inside the land. In any case, except for Lot and his daughters, the original inhabitants of Sodom were destroyed. With Sodom on the east side of the sea, one might think of the place as being resettled by Ammonites and Moabites (the descendants of Lot and his daughters according to Gen 19:30-38). More probably, by "Sodom and her daughters" Ezekiel no longer means the archaic places mentioned in Gen 14:2 but all unassimilated Canaanite communities. He is thus dealing with the threefold character of the land of Israel: (1) the kingdom of Israel, (2) the kingdom of Judah, (3) and Canaanite inhabitants. Many of these latter worshiped the God of Israel along with other gods (14:7). In relation to Israel, they are sojourners and aliens, but they are to have an equal place with God's people Israel (47:22-23). Although Micah envisaged a religious freedom in which each people worshipped its own god (Mic 4:5), Ezekiel probably followed Jeremiah's viewpoint that all would forsake Baal for Yahweh (jer 12:16) and so "be built up in the midst of My people." In any case there is no need to think of the promised restoration of Sodom and her daughters as a purely rhetorical device for the shaming of Jerusalem; for why should Sodom be purely rhetorical and Samaria not? The shame which Jerusalem was subjected to in v 52 was that of ruin, devastation, and dispersal. There is to be a new shame on the part of the restored city, that of remorse for past sin, for having been so evil that her restoration required equally the restoration of the lesser sinners, Samaria and Sodom. "Your kindness to them" was wholly unintentional. 53 "In between them, I will restore your fortune." "In between them," or "in the middle of them," n~~~in~ has in mind the geographical relationships of Samaria and Sodom as north and south of Jerusalem, as in v 46. In Ezekiel's idealized map of 47:13-48:29, the tribes are no longer placed exactly where they were formerly, but some northern tribes are placed south of Judah, and the aliens (= Sodom and her daughters) reside in many tribes (47:22-23). Hence the locations of 16:46 are not to be construed strictly in the renewed Israel. 55 The result of the divine action of v 53 is that all parties are to return to their former situation, condition, and state. They will become as well builtup and prosperous as in their heydey. Presumably, however, they will be morally and spiritually transformed. This aspect of what is involved is passed over in silence, since it is the repentance of Jerusalem alone with which the prophet is here concerned, and his preaching is toward that end. 56 The use of Sodom as a paradigm of a wicked city and its punishment is well known (on this, see above on vv 48-50). "In your days of pride" might be rendered "in your heyday," if it were not that Jerusalem's pride . has brought her doom. Vv 56-58 describe the present situation of Jerusalem in contrast with the promised renewal (vv 53-55). The laying bare of her wickedness (v 57) refers to the city'S destruction for her harlotrous ways (vv 35-41), which was occasion

Comment

251

for the scorn of neighboring peoples (chap. 25; S5:10-S6:5). The addition of "the daughters of Philistia" may well be a gloss, but a correct one. Mention could also have been made of Ammon, Moab, and Phoenicia (25:S, 6, 8; 28:24). "Hooting at you" (ifJ;11N n1'ON,0), or "scorning you," is peculiar to Ezekiel and occurs again in 28:24,26. The cognate noun l!l~~ occurs in 25:6, 15; S6:5, used of Ammon, Philistia, and Edom. This is a vocal and taunting scorn. 58 jerusalem's "licentiousness" (ifUlll) and "vile deeds" hark back to vv 2-43. Note especially vv 2, 27, 43. 59 The marriage covenant of v 8 is recalled. V 60 continues this allusion and is reminiscent also of v 43 where Jerusalem is condemned "because you did not remember the days of your youth." Yet Yahweh declares: "I will remember my covenant (which I made) with you in the days of your youth and will establish with you a la,sting covenant." The covenant Yahweh remembers is the marriage covenant, 'which Jerusalem violated and rendered null and void. The Lord remembers this not as an agreement of binding force, but as a relationship which beyond all rational reason he yearns for once again .. Therefore, he will undertake to establish his new covenant with them, his "lasting covenant" (o,P n~' l). How can indeed it be lasting? It is only because of the new heart and the new spirit which is associated with this new covenant (11:19-20; S6:25-28). 6~ Jerusalem has had hitherto a very poor memory for the gracious work of God (v 43); but from henceforth she will ever remember with shame the inexpressible grace of her God who has restored her once again. Her'shame is not merely remorse over past sins, but embarrassment over such kindness . from him whom she has so deeply offended. The gift of her larger and smaller sisters to her as daughters is a way of stating that Jerusalem will be the capital of the land once more, all other cities, not merely small villages, being made subordinate to mother Jerusalem. Parallel to this unification of the nation under Jerusalem is the promised reunification of the nation under Davidic rule (37:15-22). The idea of the New Jerusalem becomes bifurcated in chaps. 40-48. At Jerusalem there will be built only the temple where the Lord's throne is (43:7), but the reigning "prince" will have another capital to be called Yahweh-shammah (48:30-35), which according to Ezekiel's design will be at a distance south of Jerusalem, perhaps at Bethleh~m. See the geographical specifications in 45: 1-8; 48:822; and my commentary in IOVCR (435). Is one to interpret the present passage as meaning that Yahweh-Shammah will be a daughter of the temple city where Yahweh reigns? Yet Yahweh's presence is assured in the politital capital, even though there is no temple there. More probably, the idea of the separation of church and state as represented by the two capitals came later in Ezekiel's thinking. The final phrase ofv 61 has been difficult to interpret. It is most commonly rendered "but not by thy covenant" (KJV, ASV) or "but not because of thy covenant" Ups), or words to that effect (Matthews, Cooke, RSV, Eichrodt, Nwr). A third variation is "but not outside your covenant," given above. NEB gives this paraphrastically as "and they shall not be outside your covenant." Other renderings have at their base one of the first two interpretations.

252

EZEKIEL

16:44-63

Another issue is which covenant is being discussed, the old broken covenant, or the new covenant. Commenting upon the KJV, A. B. Davidson has stated: This glory of receiving Samaria and Sodom and her other sister cities and nationalities for daughters shall not accrue to Jerusalem as the result of her former covenant with Jehovah, for that covenant of his she broke. It shall be like the new covenant itself, something altogether additional, an act of God's goodness in no way depending on former relations (v 62). This interpretation was accepted by J. B. Taylor. According to Eichrodt (201): "It is usually taken as meaning: 'but not because you have kept the covenant,' a sense which it must be admitted the words do not altogether convey." So construed, the reference is to the old covenant. Moffatt combined this phrase with the next verse in order to obtain the antithetical rendering: "It shall not be through your compact with me; no, I will ratify my own compact with you." Its antithetical juxtaposing "your compact" and "my own compact" IS suggestive; but what does it mean? Is he opposing the new covenant with the old covenant? Yet both came from the Lord, not by Jerusalem's initiative. Since we have already left behind t~e old covenant and mQved on to the new in v 60, we should more probably interpret the problematic phrase in relation to the new covenant. This meaning suits well Zimmerli's rendering "though not as participants in your covenant" (333); still, in his comment on p. 353 he puzzles over the future application: Does it mean that the two sisters will certainly be accepted, but not be made members of the same covenant, which would have in mind the permanent position of Jerusalem as the temple city (chaps. 40 ff)? Or is it to be understood as looking back so that Yahweh acts towards Sodom and Samaria beyond all that has hitherto been foreseen in the covenant? To be sure, the preposition 1T,l has various meanings, such as "from," "by," "because of," "from within" (on which cf. Zimmerli's rendering), and "outside." If one recalls the covenants with the patriarchs and with Israel, the covenants always apply to the children. Hence any covenant with Jerusalem would include her daughters. Theologically this agrees with 47:22-23. All the inhabitants are to be bound together with Jerusalem with the same covenant obligations and the same covenant blessings, even though Jerusalem is at their head as mother. This phrase was added as a safeguard against our assumption of too great a distance in the divine favor between the mother and the daughters. . 62 The recognition formula "you will know" is bringing us to the conclusion. On the interlarded interpretation of Yahweh, see above. 63 This experience of Yahweh's action in history will, as already stated in v 61, instill a deep sense of unworthiness. This contemplation of her sinful past and consciousness of amazing grace will prevent Jerusalem from ever opening her mouth in self-righteous pride, or in thankless complaint. God's forgiveness of all that Jerusalem has done awry is amazing, even though the Lord may feel that she has suffered enough for her sins (v 42). Yet why should he wish to renew the relationship of loving intimacy with one who

Explanation has not proved true in the past? All one can say is that God's ways are not our ways (Isa 55:6-9). Explanation

A lesson concerning jerusalem's evil past (vv 44-52) is drawn from the proverb "As mother, so daughter." Having had a Hittite mother and an Amorite father, little could be expected of her on this basis. Other daughters of the same mother were big sister Samaria and little sister Sodom. These, like their mother, had treated with contempt their husbands and children. Thus it would seem that, like Jerusalem, they both resembled the Hittite mother. This, however, .makes the text rather awkward; surprisingly, the cities are not viewed as consisting of both men and women, but as women only, for the men figure as the husbands of the cities. If the ethnic mother of them all spumed their ethnic father, this would lead to the rational result of saying that Hittite mothers scorned the Amante fathers and their children-not a very likely idea. Consequently, one conjectures that the original text of v 45 contained only the statement "You are daughter to your mother who treated with corttempt her children: Your mother was Hittite; your father, Amorite." The sisters did not come up for mention before v 46. The children are literal children, who were sometimes sacrificed to the god Molech (vv 20-22a) and were sometimes exposed (or abandoned) at birth (v 3). Reference to the fathers ("husbands") was inserted in order to make clear that the children are literal children, whereas the daughters of this Canaanite pair are cities. Jerusalem'S two sisters were Samaria and Sodom (v 46). This is surprising, since Sodom was non-Hebraic. In chap. 23, Samaria and Jerusalem are sisters, both being the husband of Yahweh. These two represent the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Sodom and her daughters are not simply Canaanite cities and villages that ceased to exist more than a thousand years before, for they like Samaria and Jerusalem along with their daughters are to be rebuilt and restored to their former prosperity (vv 53, 55). Sodom and her daughters therefore must represent a third element in the population of the land of Israel, the Amorite and Hittite enclaves that had not yet been fully absorbed into the Hebrew nationality. Philistines are not even mentioned in this connection, for they lay outside the land ofIsrael insofar as past history is concerned. Moreover, their recent hooting at the disaster that befell Judah (v 57) will bring their annihilation (25:15-17), so that they will not constitute a major element in future Palestine (contrast Zech 9:5-7). Sodom was chosen as the designation of the Canaanites by way of emphasizing still further the pagan character of the family to which Jerusalem belonged and by way of shaming Jerusalem. This shame is carried to the ultimate by the declaration thatJerusalem had become worse than her sister cities, than even Sodom of such ill repute. By being more wicked than her sisters, Jerusalem has made her sisters look righteous in comparison (vv 48-52). Sodom and her daughters were prosperous cities who neglected the poor and destitute. Jerusalem behaved twice as wickedly as Samaria and worse than Sodom. Does Ezekiel make this

254

EZEKIEL

16:44-63

charge because crime was more rampant in Jerusalem and among her daughters? Or is he indicting Jerusalem for more heinous crimes? V 52 favors the latter, and if v 45 is restricted to the briefer text restored above, we know that the "more revolting" sins were crimes against children. We should not suppose that such crimes were peculiar to Judah, exclusive of the Canaanite cities and villages of Ezekiel's day; for this was a Canaanite crime (16: 3-5, 44-45a); and how did Ezekiel know this if not from survival of Canaanite practice among Canaanites? This gives some validity to v 45ba; but the prophet at this point is thinking of ancient Sodom only, whose character he infers from Gen 18-19 alone, where it is only the oppressive behavior of the city that caused outcry against her to reach heaven. Nothing is said of ancient Sodom that would indict her for infanticide. If Jesus' reference to "little ones" is literal as well as symbolic (Matt 18: 1-6), then he too regarded crimes against children as among the worst. Induced abortion and infanticide were common in the pagan world in the time of ~hrist and the apostles; but Jews turned from this practice with horror. Josephus stated (Against Apion, ii.24.202): "The Law orders all the offspring to be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the fetus; a woman convicted of this is regarded as an infanticide, because she destroys a soul and diminishes the race." If for "the Law" (not explicitly mentioned in the Greek here) one substitutes "Scripture" (and "Law" can be used thus broadly), then Ezek 16 is the most adequate for this position, since in addition to child sacrifice it denounces the condemning of infants (vv 3, 45) although the prophet does not .explicitly mention contrived abortion. Voluntary abortion has become a heated issue in our day. A good anthology containing many and varied points of view on the subject is Abortion, the Moral Issues, E. Batchelor, Jr., ed. (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1982). Beverly W. Harrison, a zealous feminist, argues that women have "the right to choose abortion as a birth control means of last resort" (p. 225, within the context of pp. 210-26). She even states (p. 218): "Nor should we suppress the fact that a major means [sic] of birth control now is as it was in earlier times, infanticitk. And let no one imagine that women made decisions to expose or kill newborn infants casually." The most eloquent and convincing statement against the practice of induced abortion (in the view of the present author) is that of Karl Barth, reprinted on pp. 414-22 of the same book from Church Dogmatics, pt. 3, vol. 4; but he allowed abortion where the mother's life was at stake. Roman Catholic scholars are represented in the anthology, including some who favor allowing abortion in the early stages of pregnancy or in order to save the life of the mother. Rom 1:31; 2 Tim 3:3 list among the vices of current paganism and of the apostasy of the last times the crime of being aoroP'Yovr;, which is rendered by the KJV and the ASV "without natural affection," but as "heartless" (Rom 1:31) and "inhuman" (2 Tim 3:3) in the RSV. Some scholars think that it may refer especially to the practice of exposing unwanted infants (see the various commentaries) or even to abortion. According to Charles Hodge (Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, new ed. [New York: Armstrong and Son, 1909] 66), it refers to "those in whom the natural affection for parents or children is suppressed."

Translation

255

Jerusalem should be moved to shame not simply for her many and heinous sins, but also for their strange result, that of making her sisters Samaria and Sodom look good in comparison (vv 51-52). This was tantamount to intervention on their behalf before the Lord; for, if he is to restore Zion to her land (as he wishes to do), then he must restore her less wicked sisters. When their restoration has been carried out (vv 53-55), the now holy city will "be overwhelmed with embarrassment," seeing that her own wickedness has contributed to this incongruous result. jerusalem's own restoration (vv 59-62) will be a new covenant of divine mercy which, because it is irrational, defies comprehension. Even though Jerusalem will exercise hegemony as mother, her sister cities, which now become her daughters, will also share in the covenant duties and blessings. She will be so overwhelmed by God's grace that all arrogance and all faultfinding with God will be silenced (v 63). It is only such a city that can be the worthy metropolis (i.e., mother) of the whole land.

Riddle of the Great BirdS, Cedar, and Vine (17:1-24) Bibliography Caquot, A. "Le messianisme d' Ezechiel." Scm 14 (1964) 5-23. Driver, G. R. "L'interpretation du Texte Masoretique a la lumiere de la lexicographie." ETL 26 (1950) 337-53. Foster, R. S. "A Note on Ezekiel 17:1-10 and 22-24." VT 8 (1958) 37479. Greenberg, M. "Ezekiel 17 and the Policy of Psammetichus II." JBL 76 (1957) 304-9. Mendenhall, G. E. "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition." BA 17 (1954) 50-76. - - . "Puppy and Lettuce in Northwest·Semitic Covenant·Making." BASOR 133 (1954) 26-30. Tsevat, M. "The Neo·Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths and the Prophet Ezekiel." JBL 78 (1959) 199-204. Waldman, N. M. "The Wealth of Mountains and Sea: The Background of a Biblical Image." JQR 71 (1981) 17680. Zurro, E. "La raiz br~ II Y el hapax ·mibra~ (Ez 17:21)." Bib 61 (1980) 412-15.

Translation The word of Yahweh came to me, as follows: 0 man, propound a riddle, and indite an allegory to Israel, a 3 and say then, Thus says Yahweh: The greatest of vultures, with the largest of wings, the longest of pinions, the fullest of plumage, a pattern of colors, came to Lebanon. He took the crown of the cedar, 1

2

256

EZEKIEL

"

17: 1-24

and brought it to Commerce Land; in Tradersville he set it. 15 Then he took one seed of the land and put it in a fertile plot. (Like) a slip a by abundant water, (like) a willow b he set it6 that sprouting and becoming a a vine, trailing and low in height, it should tum its runners toward him, and its roots should remain beneath it. It became a vine, produced stalks, and put out branches. 7 There was a great eagle also, a with large wings and much plumage. Behold, this same vine pushed b its roots toward him and sent its runners to him, to water it more freely than its bed c of planting. 8 To a good plot, to a abundant water, it was thus transplantedthat producing branches and bearing fruit, it might be a vine of majesty. 9 Say then, Thus says Yahweh: Will it thrive? a Will not he tear out its roots and strip olP its fruit, that all its new shoots may wither? c (But not with great might d or a large army will he lift e it from its rootage.) 10 Although transplanted, can it thrive a when the wind from the east attacks it? Will it not surely b wither? In its bed c of (new) sprouting it will wither! 11 The word of Yahweh came to me, as follows: 12 Say now to the house of rebellion, Do you not understand these things? a Babel's king, lo, came to Jerusalem and took her king and officials and brought them home b to Babylon. 13 Then he took a royal seed a and made with him a covenant and brought him under oath. He removed the powerful of the land,

Notes

257

that the kingdom should be lowly, not rise in revolt, • but by keeping his covenant should abide. b 11 But he rebelled· by sending messengers to Egypt, to get him b horses and much men. Will he prosper or escape who does such things 7 Can he break the covenant and escape 7 leAs I live, is -the oracle of the Lord Yahweh, he shall surely die in the region of the king who installed him as king, whose oath he dishonored and whose covenant with him he broke. He will die inside Babylon. 17 It is not with a great army or a large company that Pharaoh will intervene for him· in the war, at a time when siege mounds have been thrown up and siege towers have been built to cut off many lives. 18 He dishonored the oath in order to break the covenant. Even though he had given his hand, he did all these things. He cannot escape! 19 Therefore, thus says Yahweh: As sure as I live, my oath which he despised and my covenant which he broke I am bringing on his head! 30 I will spread my net over him; he'll be caught in my snare! And I shall bring him to Babylon and enter into judgment with him there, because of his perfidy which he perpetrated against me,· 21 and with all his choice warriors. • Some b of his troops will fall by the sword, and the rest will be scattered to every wind, that you may know that I Yahweh have spoken. 22 Thus says the Lord Yahweh: But then I'll take from the crown of the cedar, • from its topmost shoots I'll crop a sprig; on a mountain high and lofty I shall place it, 23 0n Israel's high mount I shall set it outthat branches it may bear and fruit produce, to become a majestic cedar. Under it all beasts will dwell, and all birds will nest in its shade; • in the shade of its boughs will they dwell. 24 Then all wild trees will know that I am Yahweh, who laid low the tall tree, made tall the low tree, dried up the green tree, and made the dry tree sprout. I, Yahweh, have promised and will perform. 14

Notes La. On the assumption that vv 2-3aa comprise a 3/3/3 line, n'::l "house (of Israel)" is to be omitted. Perhaps '?IllD '?IllDl "and indite an allegory" may be shortened to the verb '?Illlll

258

EZEKIEL

17: 1-24

(cf. 16:44; 24:!! [as emended) for the verb without its cognate object). 5.a. MT np, a hap. Itg., is not represented in LXX· S, probably through failure to understand. It is probably cognate with S qw~ and Akk. qrl "shoot" (Driver, Bib !!5 [1954) 15!!). 5.b. MT nEl~EI~, another hap. Itg., means "willow" in Mishnaic Heb. The force of both words appears to be that the seed is treated as if it were one of these two. 6.a. MT 'nO] nD~O] "and it sprouted and it became" are generally repainted as juss of purpose 'n') nD~') "that it might sprout and become"; the factual statement is premature before v 6b. 7.a. This tr. has in mind the interpretation of the first bird as a vulture and the second as an eagle. So "another" (1nN, implied by LXX) is out of place. MT 1nN has the force of an indefinite article, as in Aram. Its use here downgrades the second bird as simply "a great eagle"; the absence of the def art from the description (contrast v 3) is significant. 7.b. The tr. assumes a meaning "stretched hungrily": see BDB, 495b, and Comment. Driver (ETL 26 (1950) !!43-44) derived from Arab. kafana "to spin, turn, twist," a sense evidently reflected in LXX here. 7.c. MT nlJ1PTJ should perhaps be read as a sg m1PTJ "bed" with a few MSS LXX S, unless the pi refers to irrigation channels. Zimmerli (356) suggests an error of metathesis from m11 PTJ.

"N

.

"P

8.a. Heb. "to" is used lit. and does not here stand for "by." 9.a. Heb. n"~n "it will thrive" in the context must be understood as a question with LXX Vg. Perhaps a prefixed interrogative n, read by some MSS, was lost by haplogr (cf. vv 10, 15). 9.b. The hap. Itg. OOp is rendered "strip off" in the light of the context. HAlAT, 1042, judges LOw's translation "make scaly" improbable. It may be a fonn of fliP "cut off." 9.c. MT adds Illrn "it will wither," absent from LXX-. It may be a g1 comparing the fonn in v 10. 9.d. Lit., "arm": cf. the sense of Aram. :l'11N in Ezra 4:2!!. 9.e. Heb. nl!UDTJ" is seemingly an Aram. type qal inffrom Nllll "lift, remove": cf. Greenberg, 313. lO.a. Metri causa NI"n "will it not" should be moved to precede 1ll::1'n "wither." lO.b. Contra S Vg the inf abs 1ll::1' is to be retained (for LXX see Ziegler, Ezechie~ Septuaginta, 159). lO.c. See note 7.c. 12.a. MT adds 111N "say," probably from v 12a through the similarity of NJ. "came" and NJ "now."

12.b. Heb. I'''N is perhaps to be omitted metri causa with Eichrodt (222). If retained, it means "home." 13.a. Lit., "(one) from the royal seed (=dynasty)"; ITJ is partitive. "against him," 14.a. MT appears to be short metrically, and one would like to add but for this there is no textual evidence (yet see 29:15). Cooke (188) omits the clause as a borrowing from 29:15. l4.b. The suffix of n1TJP" refers to the kingdom. The reading lTDP" in some Heb. MSS, referring to the covenant, is less likely. 15.a. Heb. IJ. "against him" is omitted in tr. solely for the sake of English rhythm. 15.b. Lit., "(for Egypt) to give him." 17.a. The tr. takes nlN nlllP in the sense "act in friendship toward (the judean king)." Green-· berg UBL 76 [1957] 308, n. 17) has urged that this idiom is always 'RI!l nlllP, but see Comment. The emendation of Graetz P'Ill" "will save" (RSV,JB) is not necessary. For NEB "protect," relating to Arab gaIiya, see Driver, Bib 35 (1954) 153. 20.a. V 20b sounds like a prosaic gl and indeed is omitted in LXX·. The facing of judgment in Babylon may be derived from jer 51:59, but inappropriately so, since at this point we are looking to later history. Ezekiel, at a time prior to Zedekiah's capture, conceivably could have explained v 20b in terms of the episode recorded in jeremiah. 21.a. For MT m1J.TJ, a hap. Itg., apparently "his fugitives," is probably (0 be read 11n::111 as a coil sg "choice warriors" (cf. 23:7;. Exod 15:4). The phrase may continue the preceding verse, as rendered above. Since according to 2 Kgs 25:5 the king's bodyguard met its doom "in the plains of jericho," this reference to their judgment in Babylon required revision. In view of the substitution elsewhere of "the land of the Chaldeans" for an original "Gilgal" (1:3), one may suggest an original reading here of "I shall bring him to Gilgal (n"J"J) and enter

""P

Form/ Structure/Setting

259

into judgment with him. . . and with all his choice warriors." This explanation would be after the event. either by Ezekiel or an editor-disciple. This suggestion. however. seems doubtful. after the parallel of 12: 1S. Heb. nN introduces the subject; see GKe. § 117m. and P. P. Saydon. fIT 14 (1964) 195. 199. 21.b. Heb. ('1J):l is taken as partitive: "among all . . . some." Perhaps '1J should be deleted as derived from 12:14. 22.a. MT adds ml1 n "lofty." to be omitted with LXX·. It also adds 'nnl1 "and I will put." not represented in LXX S: it was probably a variant to 'n'1nllll "and I will transplant" of the last clause, for which it may be substituted, so as not to repeat the same verb in v 2Saa. 23.a. V 2300 is to be restored as follows: n'n-'1J] l'nnn llJllll [1'1~:l] 119~-'1J[lllPl

The omissions may all be explained as parablepsis occasioned by homoioarcton. LXX attests n'n '1J "all beasts," and 31:6 suggests the verb lllPl "and will nest." Metfi causa 9JY'1J should be deleted (cf. 31:6). MT is supported by the longer expression in 39:4, 17; one cannot be sure of LXX, since 'lfc2:P 'lfliTliwew "every bird" may be the translator's contraction. The rendering inrb T,p.. I1.aCDI ailTofJ may suggest l'1l1 nnn "under his shadow," not ,'1l1:l "in his shadow," but textual feasibility favors the latter. For the anaphora ofv 13b as restored see 3:18.

FormIStnu:tuTe/Setting V 2 speaks of the chapter as both a "riddle"

(n1~n)

and an "allegory"

("Wll). On the latter tenn. see the commentary to chap. 15, also 16:44. On

the fonner, one may note the conundrum ofJudg 14: 12 and the hard questions the Queen of Sheba put to King Solomon (1 Kgs 10:1). Prov 1:5-6 employs both words in relation to sages: The wise man also may hear and increase in learning. and the man of understanding acquire skill, to understand a proverb ("Illn) and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles (tJni'n).

Riddles as hard questions find their place in royal courts as attested by 1 Esdr 3 and the Wisdom of Ahiqar. That riddles might take poetic form is shown by Judg 14:12 and also by the poetic answers Samsoq received in symbolic language (v 18; cf. also Ps 49:5 [4]). The symbolic language of chap. 17 would be enough to brand it as "allegory" but, in view of its unusually abstruse language, "riddle" gives it greater precision. The fact that birds and plants playa dominant role in the passage suggests the applicability of the category fable, on which cf. Judg 9:7-15; 2 Kgs 14:9. "Parable" is another translation of "I£)ll, but scholars prefer "para·" ble" for a story that is somewhat plausible and or natural-even though the point of a parable may be the strange behavior of one of its characters. With his riddle. Ezekiel addresses a political and international situation within Judah. King Jehoiachin had been taken hostage to Babylon, and Zedekiah is ruling as vice regent and as Babylonian vassal. Zedekiah, however, is conspiring with Egypt to break with his suzerain. The fact that Ezekiel uses such obscure language is well explained by the danger of openly attacking the Judean king. Many, to be sure, might divine his meaning, but since he spoke

260

EZEKIEL

17: 1-24

in metaphors,' it would be difficult to prosecute him for treason. Naturally, this explanation requires his presence in Palestine, not Babylonia. Rebellion was first considered in the fourth year of Zedekiah's reign, 594593 B.C. (assuming that both Jer 27 and 28 relate to the fourth year), but it would seem that Jeremiah's counsel came to prevail, and so Zedekiah made a trip to Babylon to reassure the emperor regarding his fidelity Uer 51:59). Greenberg suggests that he was being called to account by Nebuchadnezzar. (See his article, "Ezekiel 17 and the Policy of Psammetichus II," JBL 76 [1957] 304-9, esp. 306.) This was before Ezekiel began to prophesy. Psammetichus (or Psamtik) reigned from 594-588 B.C., and already in the first year of his reign (it appears) he was encouraging revolt in the petty states of Syria-Palestine. One incidental reference from a much later period, that of Darius I, indicates some kind of intervention into the area in 591 B.C. In a papyrus from EI Hibeh, an Egyptian priest states: In the fourth year of Per'o Psammetk Nefrebre' messages were sent to the great temples of Upper and Lower Egypt, saying, "Per'o goeth to the land of Khor [Syria·Palestine]: let the priests come with the bouquets (?) of the gods of Kemi [Egypt] to take them to the land of Khor with Per'o."

There has been debate since the publication of this document in 1909 by F. L. Griffith (Catalogue of the Demotic Papyri in the John Rylands Library, III [Manchester: University Press, 1909] 92-95) as to whether this was a purely religious pilgrimage, such as to the Egyptian shrine at Byblos, or whether it was military. Griffith even argued that "each Pharaoh, from Psammetichus I to Apries, warred in Syria" (p. 95). This seems improbable for Psammetichus II in particular. If, as will be argued below, vv 3-4 give an ironic twist to a visit of Psammetichus II to Phoenicia and Lebanon, in which he removed cedars and shipped them back to Egypt, the religious motivation was the ostensible purpose and the visit was peaceful, with no military goal-s at all. Yet to do thus under the nose of the Chaldean overlords carried with it a challenge to Babylonian suzerainty, which was not lost on the local rulers of the regian. A response to the Pharaoh's presence may well have been the dispatch of royal messengers to greet him and to inquire as to his ultimate purposes. If this conjectural reconstruction of the events of 591 B.C. is correct, then we need not come down to the time of open revolt on the part of Zedekiah (probably 589 B.C.) for the date of Ezekiel's riddle. The year 591 B.C. is the most probable date for the principal allegory (vv 16-17, 21, and perhaps 20b). In any case, the earliest explanations by the prophet would be to a few intimates among his disciples, not in public utterance in Jerusalem. 17:22-24 are not in the least obscurantist, once one is aware of the meaning of vv 3-10. This material, like chap. 16, features Yahweh as actor, as the divine "I." We are, therefore, outside the realm of riddle and are dealing with transparent allegory. This "I" was prepared for already in vv 11-21, so vv 22-24 are probably to be viewed as later than the interpretation of the riddle in vv 11-15, 19-20a. Yet, in the end, vv 22-24 provide an indirect critique of Zedekiah by denying him any dynastic role in relation to Israel's

Comment

261

future. He is not a bridge from the past to the future. but an obstruction which must be bypassed. Comment THE RIDDLE PROPER

(17:1-10)

2 See above at p. 259. 3 The Hebrew word l rDJ can refer either to the vulture or to the eagle. Yet not all birds designated as lflJJ looked alike. The flowing picture of v 3 most probably describes a vulture. the largest pradant (winged predator) of the area. The Hebrew language has no special comparative and superlative forms of the adjectives. but the prophet is striving to convey this idea by his repeated and consistent use of the article throughout this verse, in contrast with the second l flJJ (v 7). where the article is missing. If both birds were vultures, one might translate at v 3 "the greatest vulture." The more simply described bird of v 7, however, is probably an eagle. "Wings," "pinions," and "plumage" all relate to feathered areas of the bird. Pinions are the tip of the wing, which alone may be moved in guiding the bird while soaring. "A pattern of colors" (ntJP'"J iJ) also has the article, in a word which usually refers to colored cloth, especially embroidery. (Judg 5:30; Ezek 16:10, 13, 18; 26:16; 27:7, 16, 24; Ps 45:15 [14]). The use of "embroidered linen from Egypt" for sails (27:7) shows a possible allusion here to Psammetichus' displaying the colors in his visit to Lebanon in 591 B.C. (as suggested above). It probably would be adequate to render here "with the brightest of colors," thereby continuing the superlative tone, but if one thinks of patterns of color in embroidery, the present translation appears better. This aspect of the description has suggested to some scholars the colored mosaics portraying vultures and eagles in Mesopotamia. Yet Benjamin Mazar and his associates illustrated this passage by an Egyptian mosaic from the tomb of Queen Hatshepsut in Egypt (of the fifteenth century B.C.). (See B. Mazar, ed., Views of the Biblical World 3 [Chicago: Jordan Publications, 19591961] 171.) Pictures of that kind were intended to be pretty, but they were very far from real-life birds. Any ornithological identification of Ezekiel's first great l flJJ must be approached through his description. If eagles as well as vultures are to be included within this category, then certainly the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) is the most colorful, and it could be claimed that "the fullest of plumage" excludes the vulture with its bare head and neck. This bird is the largest of eagles, but not the largest of pradants, two species of vulture being much larger: the eared vulture (Torgos tracheliotus) and the griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus). According to Jehuda Feliks (Enc Jud 16:232), l rDJ should normally be construed to refer to the vulture, not the eagle. If one thinks of the vulture, then, one will interpret "the fullest of plumage" differently, for from Job 39: 13 the n~1J "plumage" as well as l IN "pinion" pertain to the wings. According to Fohrer (9), all three words including ~ JJ "wing" refer to special areas of the wing. Even if one objects, that this last term generally refers to the whole wing, the n:~m may still be distinguished from the pinions with

262

EZEKIEL

17: 1-24

their primary feathers and refer particularly to the secondaries. (On this, one may see the illustration of the bird in English dictionaries.) The following chart on comparative $izes of the largest vultures and eagles of the area is based upon data taken from Leslie Brown and Dean Amadon, Eagles, Hawks, and Falcons of the World (London: M. Joseph, 1955): Bird Torgos tracheliotus (eared vulture) GypsJulvus (griffon vulture) Aquila chrysaetos (golden eagle)

Sex ? ?

male female

Wing lengths

715-795 mm. 28.5-31.3" 690-750 mm. 27.17-29.53" 570-669 mm. 22.44-26" 626-705 mm.

Wing spans

2,580-2,620 mm. 8'5.6"-8'7.15" 2,431 mm. 8' 1,890-2,125 mm. 6'2.4"-7' 2.150-2,270 mm.

male female

?

125-146 mm. 4.9-5.75" 105-125 mm. 4.13-4.92"

82-110 mm. 3.23-4.33"

?

Aquila heliaca (sun eagle)

Tarsus

570-610 mm. 22.44-24" 610-665 mm. 24-26.18"

1,900-2,100 mm. 6'2.8"-6'10.7" I 2,050-2,110 mm. 6'8.7"-7' 3.54-4.33"

Jehuda Feliks (Nature and Man in the Bible [New York: Soncino Press, 1981]) does not mention the Torgos tracheliotus or give any comparative figures, so one does not know how to assess his figure of 10' for the wing span of the Gyps fulvus, whether this is an estimate or actual measurement, and how such a figure correlates with the average size bird. Brown and Amadon lead us to believe that the Torgos tracheliotus is the largest of the vultures. This bird is the largest pradant in most of Africa, and Brown describes its habitat thus: The drier parts of Africa from the northwest Sahara to Eritrea and south to the Cape Province. Has straggled to the Pyrenees and breeds rarely in the Dead Sea Basin in Israel. In thornbush, open plains and deserts, in rainfall rarely exceeding 30 inches (Eagles, 332a).

It is this reference to breeding in the Dead Sea Basin, with Jericho and Gilgal close by, that catches our attention. The description of the nest is also pertinent: "The nest is a huge flat structure built on top of a flat-topped thorn tree, usually Acacia, and sometimes on the lateral branch of a big Acacia. Where no trees exist it will build on crags." The Judean desert above the Dead Sea contains acacia trees, and the cliffs around the Dead Sea offer many crags for nesting. The nest "is made of sticks, six to eight feet across and about two feet thick, with a cup about three-and-a-half feet across in the centre lined with fur, often camel hair, bits of dung, and some grass" (332b-333a). The oases of En Gedi, Jericho, and Gilgal would be the closest areas for obtaining sticks for nests. It is therefore possible that Ezekiel had

Comment

263

seen this vulture and used it for the basis of his description in v 3. Feliks speaks of the Gyps fulvus as breeding rarely in the crags of Galilee, Carmel and Gilboa. With this bird, too, the prophet would have been familiar. It may be that "the pattern of colors" is sufficiently explained as a teasing and erroneous allusion to Psammetichus II, who has recently shown his colors in the area (as discussed above). Yet the illustrations given by Amadon in his joint book with Brown suggest an applicability of this metaphor in relation to the eared vulture. It is pictured on p. 327 (the front two birds), but it appears most strikingly on p. 331, where the white ruff around the neck connects with the breast and belly, their striations of brown and white forming a distinctive configuration. Beneath this area appear the white thighs. The wings are a dark brown, but they contain a short white streak against their leading edge. The griffon vulture overall contains more delicate shading of colors, yet the impression of the bird, when seen in flight, is not that of a colorful bird, for as Brown describes (325b): "in most of its range [it is] unmistakable, [being] the only large pale-colored vulture." The' fl)), whether eagle or vulture, represents the speed and rapacity of foreign conquerors Uer 4:13; 48:40; 49:22; Hab 1:8; Deut 28:49). Although Ezekiel makes a teasing allusion to a recent visit of Psammetichus to the area, his hidden reference is to King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. The statement that he "came to Lebanon" might be taken quite literally, for ancient rulers who reached Lebanon in their campaigns often boasted of felling cedars there. Habakkuk accused Babylon (or Assyria) of an ecological blow to Lebanon in attacks upon timber and wild animals there (Hab 2: 17). The removal of the crown of the cedar is a description adapted to the action of birds of prey, especially that of the eagle, which loves to decorate (or disguise?) its nest with sprays of greenery (see Brown and Amadon, 106-7). I have not noted this trait in connection with the vulture, but that makes little difference, since in any case we are concerned with the' fl)), some examples of which had this practice. The plucking of green twigs by the' rllJ is something Ezekiel had himself often witnessed. 4 "The crest with its twigs he cropped." This rendering is better than "the topmost of its twigs," for as the next clause "and brought it" indicates, "the top" (rDN') is synonymous with "the crown" (n"IJ~). The "twigs" are later interpreted as the royal "officials" (v 12). "Commerce Land" (11'lJ 1" N) and "Tradersville" (D"t:tl , '1') are substitutes for proper nouns and are intended to mystify all but the most perceptive listeners. The former would be heard as "the Land of Canaan." This term was used of the promised land, which became Israel, only in historical texts. In contemporary usage, it referred to Phoenicia. Canaan was the Semitic word for "purple," with allusion to the jurex shell from which costly purple dye was obtained. Translated into Greek, the term became Phoenicia. The Semitic term Canaan clung to the area down into Roman times, however; hence the Syro-Phoenician woman of Mark 7:26 is called a Canaanite in Matt 15:22. Since the Phoenicians were great traders, 11'lJ came to mean "commerce" and a "Canaanite" often designated a "trader" (Prov 31:24; Zech 14:21). That "the land of Canaan" usually referred to Phoenicia at the time of Ezekiel makes "Commerce Land" as an allusion to Chaldea truly esoteric.

264

EZEKIEL

17: 1-24

Similarly, "Traders ville" might refer to any center of international trade, including Tyre, the most prosperous of the Phoenician cities. Ezekiel himself was later to describe Tyre as "an international mart ('D"lJlm n~:tl) for many islands and coastlands" (27:3), and all those engaged in international commerce with the city are repeatedly called "your trader(s)" n:r:'1 Ub or 'I? 1 II b) in 27:12, 16, 18, 21, 36. One may also note the "merchant ships" of Prov 31:14. Thus in the historical context of 591 B.C., most auditors would think of a Phoenician city as Tradersville, but Ezekiel's cryptic reference is to Babylon. There are various examples in the Scriptures in which "1' ("city") is the prefix of a proper noun Uosh 15:62; 19:41; 1 Chr 4:12). This justifies the rendering "Tradersville." 5 "The seed of the land" makes no unambiguous reference to royal lineage, although that is the interpretation in v 13. The point is that a native ruler is put in place, and from Ezekiel's standpoint Zedekiah is no true successor of Jehoiachin, but a ruler pro tempore in place of Jehoiachin who is the titular king. At this point the prophet moves on in his history in a way that would refute and bewilder any auditors who may have interpreted vv 3-4 as speaking of Pharaoh Psammetichus II. One would need to go back and rethink these verses in order to understand the allusions to Judean history, and hence to perceive that "the crown of the cedar" (v 3) was Jehoiachin and that the "one seed of the land" referred to Zedekiah. The "fertile plot" (1'1l-n:r~) is also a "seed bed." Its fertility bodes well for the seed, as does also its "abundant water." The "fertile plot" is not Jerusalem, but Babylon, and Zedekiah's planting there is his solemn covenant and oath to be a loyal vassal to Nebuchadnezzar (v 13). One must not forget that Zedekiah made a trip to Babylon in 594 B.C. to explain away his previous rebellious activity and to renew his oath of fealty to Nebuchadnezzar Uer 51:59). Thus there is a partially literal meaning underlying the basically symbolic reference to the planting of the seed "by abundant water." This refers to the Euphrates, but Ezekiel's term is designedly ambiguous and need not refer clearly to "a wide stream" (as rendered in the JB). Hence, it is not surprising that even modern interpreters have failed to understand the allusion, some of them thinking of Palestine itself as abundantly watered by rain! (So Matthews, 61b; Cooke, 184; and Taylor, 144, citing Deut 8:7; 11:11.) 6 "Trailing and low in height" has been characteristic of grapevines in the hills of Palestine down to modern times; they are allowed to vine upon the ground, lest climbing too high they be blasted by the hot east wind (as in v 10; 19:10-12). "Turn its runners toward him" refers to Nebuchadnezzar, with whom alone Zedekiah must have diplomatic relations and to whom he must pay annual tribute. Nebuchadnezzar is not here conceived of as a bird in midair, but as one that has settled in its nest at Babylon. It does not matter, therefore, whether "its roots" are to "remain beneath itself [the vine)" or "beneath him [Nebuchadnezzar),,; for in either case Zedekiah is to stay put as a vassal to the power of the Euphrates. One may be surprised to find masculine suffixes referring to the vine in v 6a (literally, "his runners" and "his roots")' though beginning with v 6b the 19J ("vine") is properly feminine; for one is lingering on the male "seed,"

(;ommtmt

2H5

even after it is not mentioned as such, by way of allusion to the ruler installed by Babylon over Judah. 7 The verse introduces us to a second llDl which is sufficiently colorless that it might as well be a smaller vulture (like the Aegyptius monachus) or an eagle. All its attributes are inferior to those of the first bird, apparently a Torgos tracheliotus. It is "great" (?11 ~), but not "the greatest" ('11 ~n), "large of wings" (D'9lJ ?11~), but not "the largest of wings" (D'9lJn ?11~). It has "much plumage" (n:!nrJ.l), not "the fullest of plumage" (n:!mn N,n), and it is not said to have "a pattern of colors." Ezekiel, as explained in the notes, uses the article here for the superlative, and this llDl, in comparison with the earlier one, is not a superlative bird. Its description does not include any verbs of action, whereas vv 3-5 employ eight such verbs for the vulture. The only verb in v 7 is the existential "to be": "there was" ('n'l). It is not surprising that L. P. Smith should have sought to remove this unimpressive bird from the text altogether ("The Eagle(s) of Ezekiel 17," JBL 58 [1939] 43-50) as a confused literary doublet of the first (and in her view, only) bird. The "great eagle" did nothing worthy of the vine's attention in Ezekiel's presentation, and yet, according to our historical conjecture, the Pharaoh had recently (591 B.C.) gone to Lebanon and had removed cedars. Vv 3-4 represent the people's estimate of his accomplishment, but v 7a, "There was a great eagle," is Ezekiel's downplaying of his significance. This great bird had done nothing more than show that it was alive. Nevertheless, the vine "pushed its roots toward it." The verb m9J, a hap. leg. in Hebrew, means "to hunger [for]" in Aramaic. The verb is not used inappropriately here, for when roots are in search of water, they act as if hungry and thirsty. This is strange behavior on the part of a vine planted beside abundant water, where it is drenched as generously as a willow slip. Turning away from the Euphrates, the vine sends both "roots" and "runners" toward the eagle, for him (if possible) "to water it more freely than the [original] bed of its planting." This may indeed seem ludicrous, but it is not so silly as envisioned by some commentators, who visualize the eagle as airborne. W. A. Irwin (Problem, 110) laughs with scorn: But the end is not yet; still greater marvels await us: this vine displays the power to direct its roots toward a great eagle, apparently in full flight. Mere mortals raise their hands in salute. but this vine waves its roots aloft! And if one be captious toward this interpretation, how does it ease matters if one understand that the vine pushed its roots underground toward the eagle? Did the eagle then sit in one place for weeks or months while the vine roots grew toward him?

To this last question, which Irwin raised only in jest, the answer is "yes," and it is important to an understanding of the action to perceive that it is so. The only predicate used of this bird thus far is the verb "to be." Isaiah had spoken of Egypt as "Rahab who sits still" ( or "Dragon Do-nothing") in 30:7, and Jeremiah later called the Pharaoh "Noisy one who lets the hour go by" (46: 17). Thus the silence of Ezekiel on the eagle's activities is deliberate and conveys an important part of the meaning of the allegory. Still this empha-

266

EZEKIEL

17: 1-24

sizes the abstruseness of Ezekiel's language; he might have said explicitly that the eagle did nothing but sit still, but that would have made his allegory too patently wooden. Even Zimmerli (326b) has regarded a fixed position as "completely mysterious" and unrealistic. The assumed fixed position of the first great bird in v 6 is that of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, when not campaigning. He came to Judah in 597 B.C. and has not been back. 8a The effect is the transplanting of the grapevine to a new plot (Egypt), "to abundant water" (the Nile). The two bodies of water were probably suggested by Jer 2: 18: And now what do you gain by going to Egypt, to drink the water of the Nile? Or what do you gain by going to Assyria, to drink the water of the Euphrates?

Since the time of that prophecy, the situation has changed. Babylonia has replaced Assyria as the power on the Euphrates, and Zedekiah stands to gain by drinking the water of the Euphrates, and that alone. Although it is the king who determines the nation's policies, he affects the course of the nation. We must therefore consider that the vine stands for the nation, and not solely for the king. This is particularly clear later, when the destruction of the vine (v 10) represents the death of the nation. The representation of Israel as a vine accords with Ps 80:9-10 [8-9], where the vine was transplanted by the Lord from Egypt to Canaan. The present reverse action of the vine, transplanting itself to Egypt, is in violation of the warning in Deut 17: 16 against causing the people to return to Egypt. 8b The three-beat clause at the end of v 8, after five phrases and clauses of two beats, serves to emphasize the vine's purpose that "it might be a vine of majesty." One does not know how much, if any, of this language may come from songs sung by vinedressers, but the descriptive term n'J J~ ("of majesty") anticipates in a contrasting way the messianic cedar which will truly be "majestic" (l '':J'~). This adjective has the connotation of being "regal." When the vine hungers for "majesty," it is yearning for royal splendor, symbolized by its abundant foliage and fruit. 9-10 The identity of the bird in v 9, should, by its nearest context, be the eagle of v 7. Yet, because of the seemingly violent action, most have interpreted it as being the first bird. Still, v 9b contains a caution against this wrong inference by denying that the action of v 9a was achieved "with great might and a large army." We learn later of the Pharaoh's encouraging Zedekiah in his intentions by providing him with cavalry (v 15), but this did not involve direct military action. If we retain the imagery of the vine, we see that what the Pharaoh did succeed in doing was to uproot it from its planting by the Euphrates. The stripping off of its fruit is the bargain received by the Pharaoh in exchange for his aid to Zedekiah. The Letter of Aristeas (13) states that prior to the Persian conquest Judean soldiers "had been sent to help Psammetichus in his campaign against the Ethiopians." This datum agrees also with Ezekiel's metaphorical assertions that harlot Jerusalem had bribed all her paramours, including Egypt, to fornicate with her (16:26-34).

Comment

207

"And wither all its new shoots?" is more difficult to explain. Dorll it mean that the help sent Egypt actually weakens the vine. so that it will have lell strength to confront the wrath of Chaldea? Where are these "nrw lIhoou"? Most probably they are beside the Nile. being the new growth of militancy on the part of Zedekiah. as fostered by Psainmetichus. V 9 is introduced by the question "Will it thrive?" And this question is enlarged in the fuller question ofv 10: "Although transplanted. can it thrive. when the wind from the east attacks it?" This transplanting does not refer to the planting of the seed by abundant water in v 5. since the verb is unsuitable for that. Nor does it refer to the removal of the government headquarters from Jerusalem to Egypt. a perplexing thought arising from making the place of the first abundant water to beJerusalem. Rather, it refers to the transference of political allegiance from Babylon to Egypt. This has not yet taken place. but the first diplomatic approaches between Judah and Egypt may lead to this-to an open rupture of relations with Babylon, as happened in 589 B.C. In visual imagery we may think of the vine's new roots in Egyptian soil by the Nile. Will· these be sufficiently strong to maintain the life of the vine which at its other end has broken its rootage at the Euphrates? Can the vine when uprooted at its east end survive through the water supplied it at its west end? Will not the east wind scorch and destroy the whole vine? In weather tenninology, one thinks of the east wind as blowing from the North Arabian Desert, which lies between Palestine and Babylon. This wind is known in most of the Mediterranean world as the sirocco, but to the Arabs of Palestine it is known as the hamsin ("fifty"), since in popular lore there are fifty days each year that are afflicted by this wind. The east wind symbolizes Chaldea, or the might of Nebuchadnezzar, as in 19:12 and 27:26. "Its bed of sprouting" (F1lJ T,l~ n.n ll) recalls a similar expression "its bed of planting" in v 7, which designates the Babylonian seed bed, but it would not be sufficient that the vine wither away in relation to Babylon. It must dry up altogether. When once the vine is uprooted from the Euphrates (as seems imminent), it will be blasted in its entirety. Consequently, we must interpret this as the vine's "bed of [new] sprouting" by the Nile. Failure to understand this has led several scholars to delete v 10 as secondary: thus Bertholet, Fohrer, Eichrodt, and Zimmerli. Bertholet deleted both 9b and 10. I. G. Matthews understood correctly here: "Transplanting, the term used for the new allegiance, endangers the life of the vine." Ezekiel was no stranger to viticulture for, as 19:10 shows ("Your mother [nation] was like a vine of your vineyard"), Ezekiel had his own vineyard, planted by abundant water. In such circumstances, he knew the tendency of vines to transplant themselves by taking root in new places on damp soil. Normally, however, they would not go great distances in search of water, when good soil and moisture were close at hand. INTERPRETATION OF THE RIDDLE

(17:11-21)

Gustav Holscher (Hesekiel) once wrote: "The poem is, as for example also Bertholet has remarked, so clear in itself, that it required no interpretation." That is not entirely true, since as explained above, the poem is a riddle,

268

EZEKIEL

17:1-24

and no transparent allegory. Yet the prophet would not have explained it immediately, especially not in Jerusalem, where his life or liberty would have been imperiled. One may take note here of the company of revolters whom Ezekiel accused of murder at Jerusalem (11:1-13), as also the amazingly brief castigation he hurled at the king in 21 :30-32 [25-27]. Eventually he did explain the riddle to close associates and disciples, but not everything in vv 11-21 is from the same time and place. Wherever the explanations are on target, we must suppose that they come from Ezekiel himself. We need, also, the change to the divine "I" of this material in order to move into the final section of the allegory (vv 22-23). 11 The formula of word-event suggests not only a new literary unit, but also a fresh command from the Lord, telling him to explain the riddle. 12 The command to speak to "the house of rebellion" to rebuke them for their lack of understanding clearly alludes to 12: I, where the rebelliousness of the people is the cause of their lack of perception. This, indeed, is literally true, for it is this rebelliousness which led them down the bewildering path of wrong interpretation, by supposing that the first great bird is Psammetichus, rather than Nebuchadnezzar! "Do you not understand these things?" reads literally: "Do you not understand what these things are1" The prop~t does· not follow this up by equational statements, but by the time he finishes, his auditors can compose their own: " 'The greatest of vultures' is Nebuchadnezzar." " 'Lebanon' is Jerusalem." "'The crown of the cedar' is Jehoiachin." " 'Commerce Land' is Babylonia." " 'Tradersville' is Babylon," etc. The equation of Jerusalem with Lebanon was natural in view of the cedars used in building the temple (I Kgs 6:9-10, 15-20) and the palace (7:2-3, 7, 11-12). The latter called "the House of the Forest of Lebanon" was. the royal residence and would be where the Babylonian king came to apprehend Jehoiachin. The predicted Assyrian attack upon Jerusalem (in Isa 1O:27b32) is followed by a statement of the Lord's felling of the forest of Lebanon (10:33-34), followed in turn by the promise of a new king from the stump of Jesse. Thus it would be possible in the extant order of materials in Isaiah to argue that Lebanon there is also Jerusalem and that the shoot from the stump of Jesse springs from the felled royal tree at Jerusalem. However, many scholars regard Isa 10:33-34 as referring to the Lord's defeat of the Assyrians, who are as haughty as Mount Lebanon and its cedars. The targum interprets Lebanon in Hab 2: 17 as the temple at Jerusalem and IQpHab xii, 3-4 applies the term to the Qumran sect. See G. Vermes, "The Symbolical Interpretation of Lebanon in the Targums: The Origin and Development of an Exegetical Tradition," JTS 9 (1958) 1-12; Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961) 26-39; and Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, SBLMs 24 (1979) 199-20 I. "Her king" is Jehoiachin who was exiled in the spring of 597 B.C. "Her officials" are mentioned in 2 Kgs 24:12, 14. 13 The verse refers to Zedekiah (2 Kgs 24: 17), whom Nebuchadnezzar made "swear by God" that he would be a loyal vassal (2 Chr 36:13). 14 "He removed the powerful of the land" may be intrusive here. In any case, v 14 expresses reason for the covenant and oath entered into by

Comment

269

Zedekiah, and not only for Nebuchadnezzar's reason in exiling "the powerful of the land." 15 The rebellion of Zedekiah is mentioned in 2 Kgs 24:20 (=Jer 52:3); 2 Chr 36:13. The "messengers" sent to Egypt are the "roots" and "runners" sent to the "great eagle" of v 7. The watering that Zedekiah sought is here explained as his desire that Egypt might "give (so lit.) him horses and much men," i.e., provide him with cavalry. Thus Egypt was "to water it more freely than its bed of planting." The covenant with Nebuchadnezzar probably placed a limit upon the military strength of Zedekiah, as for example forbidding the acquisition of cavalry. This is a precious notice with regard to Zedekiah. Isaiah too (31: 1, 3) had condemned the acquisition of horses from Egypt, but at a time when Judah was an independent state and when turning to Egypt was not rebellion but showed lack offaith in 'the Lord (cf. Deut 17: 16). Vv 15b, 16, 18, 19-20 stress the importance of keeping an international agreement. No allowance is made for the fact that the covenant was made under duress, as Nazi Germany did in repudiating the Treaty of Versailles. Many pacifists of America at that time, while not exonerating Hitler, believed that the Nazi rebellion against Versailles was understandable, if not justified. In the belief of the Hebrew prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Nebuchadnezzar was an instrument of divine wrath against Judah, and that therefore she should submit to him as to the will of God. Also, an oath of agreement with another nation, even one reached through deception by that nation, was not to be foresworn (cf. Josh 9:16-21). Vv 16-21 give the answer to the questions ofv 15b. Will Zedekiah's revolt succeed? Can he disregard his sworn covenant and escape the wrath of God? As long as these verses are all taken as simply an answer to the questions of v 15b, there is no problem with them, but if one tries to relate them more intimately to the allegory, lack of correspondence arises; vv 9-10 do not refer to the exile of Zedekiah to Babylon, but to the disastrous results of the pro-Egyptian policy of Zedekiah upon the nation. The grapevine is more than Zedekiah; it is also the nation, and vv 9-10 concern the demise of Judah and not the exile of Zedekiah. Since Zedekiah determined Judean policy, and because the ultimate decision in abrogating the Babylonian alliance rested with him, v 15 not unnaturally singles him out for blame. This the prophet may have developed further. Vv 16-18 are prose, and poetry reappears in vv 19-21. Both Cooke and Eichrodt regard vv 16-18 as secondary, so that vv 19-21 should form the continuity with vv 12-15. Bertholet regarded only v 18 as secondary. Herntrich saw in this passage a composite development. 16 "Whose oath he dishonored or despised." The latter is perhaps more literal for nlJ., but in legal language "to dishonor" an agreement is the way one shows scorn for it. 17 If truly interpreted of Pharaoh, the verse reflects a knowledge of the intervention of Psammetichus' successor Hophra Uer 44:30; called Apries by Herodotus). This intervention ofJanuary 587 B.C, resulted in a temporary lifting of the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar Uer 37:5-10), during which Jeremiah tried to pay a visit to his hometown of Anathoth (37: 11-

270

EZEKIEL 17: 1-24

15) and. Ezekiel went to Egypt (29:1-2). The battle took place somewhere south of judah, probably in the northern Negeb, and Hophra was roundly defeated and withdrew. According to the metaphor of Ezekiel, he received a broken arm (30:20-22). Disillusionment with Hophra is expressed in Lam 4: 17. According to most scholars, v 17 reveals a knowledge of later events and is, therefore, a case of post eventum interpretation. G. A. Cooke, on the other hand, raised the possibility of "Pharaoh" being an interpolation~ so that "deal with him" (so lit.) may receive a hostile meaning and refer to the siege of jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. He rejected this as unsuitable to the context, and rightly so; does one throw up siege mounds or set up siege towers without the support of a great army? Nevertheless, Greenberg had adopted this meaning in order to interpret the text as actual prediction in advance of the Chaldean invasion. Ezekiel expected Nebuchadnezzar to deal with Zedekiah with only a small military contingent. Greenberg (308, n. 17) argues that Ezekiel uses nlN only in a hostile sense (7:27, 16:59; 22:14; 39:24) and that n~ is Ezekiel's use of the expression in the friendly sense (20:44). Yet the text of Ezekiel frequently uses nlN where purists insist he should use n~ (or T;1~ when joined); andjer 21:2 employs the preposition nlN in a statement similar to that of.Ps 109:21 where one reads 'l:lN. Either pronunciation was correct, and there is not sufficient reason in the text of Ezekiel for the distinction desired by Greenberg. 18 The verse is interesting in its reference to the use of the hand in an oath. Was this a handshake, as one might infer from 2 Kgs 10:15, whereby one pledged consent (Lam 5:6; Ezra 10:19), or submission Uer 50:15; 1 Chr 29:24; 2 Chr 30:8)? One also swore by raising the hand as in the idiom of 20:5-6. 19-21 These verses are in some ways similar to vv 16-18. In both Yahweh swears by his life ("As I live"; vv 16, 19). Both indict Zedekiah for violating his oath (vv 18, 19). In both he is to go to Babylon (vv 16, 20), but v 16 is more precise with its prediction that he will die there. Both of these statements are in prose and appear to be dependent upon 12: 13b. V 20a might also be borrowed from 12:13a, to which it owes its poetic character, but more probably it is simply language of which Ezekiel was fond, since it forms a necessary link to v 21 which is poetic and is only a parallel to 12:14, with much of its language being dissimilar. One concludes that vv 19-21 constitute the original continuation of vv 11-15. See here Herntrich (Ez.echielprobleme, 102) who consigned vv 16-18 to a redactor, with the original interpretation being resumed by vv 19-20. 19 The agreement of submission to Nebuchadnezzar compelled him to swear by God (the Hebrew God), as implied by 2 Chr 36:13. It appears that Hittite practice had been for vassals to swear by the gods of both nations (Korosec, Hethitische Staatsvertriige, Studien 60 [1931] 95), but Assyrian practice was to ignore the gods of the vassals (G. E. Mendenhall, "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition," BA 17 [1954] 60), whereas later Babylonians had vassals swear by their own gods (Mendenhall, "Puppy and Lettuce in Northwest-Semitic Covenant Making," BASOR 133 [Feb. 1954] 26-30, with attention here to n. 16, p. 30). According to 2 Kgs 24: 17, "The king of Babylon made Mattaniah, jehoiachin's uncle, king in his stead, and changed his name

Comment

271

to Zedekiah." Both are Yahwistic names (iah = Yah, short for Yahweh), but his old name means "Gift of Yahweh," a name lacking moral implications. The new name means "Righteousness of Yahweh," and since this name was given him by his Babylonian overlord, it seems probable that he made the new king ofJudah swear by the righteousness (P1~) of Yahweh that he would remain true to his oath. The Lord says that he is bringing "my oath" and "my covenant" upon Zedekiah's head, not as frequently "the turning back of the evil deed upon the head of the evil doer" (Zimmerii, 366a), but the implementation of the oath itself whereby the vassal invoked the wrath of God upon himself in case he violated his oath. 20-21aa Most scholars have seen v 20 as a gloss, but few have seen the first phrase of v 21 as its continuation. (See above in the notes.) At issue is whether this is prophecy after the event or whether this is genuine prediction, since the prophecy was not quite literally fulfilled, in view of the fact that the scene of Zedekiah's judgment by Nebuchadnezzar was at Riblah, en route to Babylonia (2 Kgs 25:6-7;Jer 39:5-7; 52:9-11), and not at Babylon (so Hemtrich. Kaufmann. and Greenberg). A glossator, however, could have been influenced by the close parallel of 12:13 and therefore have referred to Babylon as the ultimate scene of the divine judgment. Inasmuch as this material is unattested by LXX and since it interrupts the flow of the poetic context, this has seemed to be a most reasonable explanation. Nevertheless, one must not too easily strike out prose interpolations in poetry as nonEzekielian, for often they embody later interpretative comments by the prophet himself. Their absence from LXX frequently constitutes a special problem, since there may be good literary grounds for their omission (cf. Introduction) . In the present case, one may consider a new suggestion that vv 20-21a constitute an interpretation by the prophet himself, from his close perspective at Gilgal, where he was residing at the time. It makes a lot of sense to correct so as' to read: "And I shall bring him to Gilgal and enter into judgment with him there. . . and with all his choice warriors." In this case the thought would be similar to that of 11: 11: "At the border of Israel I'll judge you." There, as a prophecy dealing with the approaching invasion of the Chaldeans, it meant that the commanders who have been so smug about their safety inside Jerusalem will be drawn forth to face the enemy at the border and will die there. In the aftermath, this prediction could be applied quite appropriately to the death of some of these officers in the plains of Jericho (v 20a; 2 Kgs 25:5) and not only to what happened subsequently to some at Riblah (2 Kgs 25:6-7; Jer 39:5-7; 52:9-11). In the present case, then we may be dealing with the battle near Jericho. By analogy. the replacement of "Gilgal" by "the land of the Chaldeans" has occurred at 1:3, just as "the exile" has replaced "Gilgal" at 3:11. When Ezekiel returned from Egypt with an exile band "few in number" (Jer 44:28) (on which see Introduction), he visited the plain near Gilgal and saw the dried bones of the fallen warriors there (37:1-2). Neither 2 Kings nor Jeremiah locates the scene of the battle any closer than "the plains of Jericho," which includes the Gilgal area, but why should the army be trapped there rather than near the el-Maghtas Ford oppo-

272

EZEKIEL

17: 1-24

site Jericho? The probable reason is that the Chaldeans had placed troops at the fords of the Jordan to prevent King Baalis of Ammon from intervening onJudah's behalf Uer 40: 14), for the Ammonites were also in rebellion against Babylon (21:23-37 [18-32]). Finding their way blocked at el-Maghtas, the troops were heading north when perhaps they were met by other troops coming south from the ed-Damieh Ford (near Adam). Meanwhile troops from Jerusalem caught up with Zedekiah's fugitive army in the plain opposite Gilgal. Ezekiel's metaphorical statement "I shall spread my net over him; he'll be caught in my snare" was quite literally fulfilled, so we cannot blame him for later alluding to how apt these metaphors were by reference to the precise location of the battle (cf. also 19: 18). When interpreted in this way, the prose interpolation of vv 20-21 a is no interruption in the narrative flow from v 19 to 21 a~-b: but it leads directly to the scene of the slaughter. Against this interpretation, one may press 12:13, as also the editors may have in equating an original "Gilgal" with "exile" and hence with "Babylon"; but the original parallelism between the passages may have been only formal, not identical. The earlier passage dealt with the place of Zedekiah's death, whereas the present passage deals with the scene of divine judgment at the time of his capture. 21 "All his choice warriors" are the same as "all his troops" (12:14; but probably originally here, simply "his troops"). Hence the RSV is not far from the original sense in its combined expression "all the pick of his troops." Only specially chosen troops went forth with the king, while others remained behind in Jerusalem, so as not to leave the city without any defense Uer 52:25), the intention being that they might rescue the city in case the Chaldeans withdrew; but the Chaldeans left a sizable army behind to keep the city under siege, until finally Nebuzaradan returned a month later with enough troops to dispose of the city (2 Kgs 25:8-20; Jer 52: 12-26). Kings, Jeremiah, and Ezek 12:14 speak generally of the Judean army's being dispersed, and hence 17:21 is a precious notice to a slaughter which preceded the rout. One final question remains: does the overall interpretation presented in vv 12-21, poetry alone or poetry and prose together, deal adequately with the vine? If the vine is Judah and not just Zedekiah, it is not enough to have Zedekiah exiled (vv 16 and extant 20), or even to have his army dispersed (v 21), for the destruction and withering away of the wine (v 10) calls for more than this. Rather than use this inadequacy for rejecting the genuineness of all this material, as Holscher did, one is now in a position to find a solution. Ezekiel often repeated himself, with whole verses in identical or similar form being repeated in parallel oracles. Thus we have seen two different ways of portraying the threefold fate ofJerusalem in 5: 1-4, each of which was followed by the interpretation of 5:5-8. The repetition was reduced to one occurrence, and the two different symbolic actions were blended together in an unseemly manner. In the present case, the parallel passages of chap. 12 (vv 13-14 + 19b-20-on which see Comment) and chap. 17 (vv 20-21 + loss) both originally depicted the desolation and depopulation of the country, but this description was allowed to stand only once, at 12: 19b-20. V 21 co~cludes with the recognition formula, a favorite way to conclude

Comml'ttt

an oracle in Ezekiel. It also expresses the prophet's confidence that the Lord has truly spoken. On that he bets his own life, just as Yahweh in his oath lays his own life on the line (v 19). CONCLUDING ALLEGORY OF

HOPE (17:22-24)

Unlike the riddle ofvv 3-10, this allegory needs no explanation, for anyone understanding vv 3-21 has the key for understanding all the rest. Its firstperson speech is prepared for in vv 19-21, and so we are to think of the chapter arising in precisely the present order of the text, except for the insertion ofvv 16-18 and 20b-21aa, which are editorial in origin. 22 "But then." Normally the copula has the adversative meaning when standing in immediate sequence to a statement to which it is antithetic. On the other hand, there is something strange about "Thus says the Lord" being followed with a word having the copula (1) before it. The whole passage is a brilliant antithesis to vv 3-10 and the intervening interpretation. "I shall take the crown of the cedar." Here we have divine action, whereas in vv 3-10, there was only creaturely action. By this one has moved from riddle to allegory, for immediately we have the identity of the principal actor. We already know from the above explanation that "the crown of the cedar" is Jehoiachin in the Babylonian exile. But it is not he who is to be returned to Jerusalem, but "a sprig" "a delicate, a tender one"). This means a son or descendant of Jehoiachin. Such a person was Zerubbabel, the son of Jehoiachin in whom Haggai and Zechariah hoped, and this passage no doubt encouraged them in this hope. This has sometimes led to the suggestion that expressions of messianic hope in Ezekiel were composed about that time. During Ezekiel's pre-exilic ministry, he once called upon Zedekiah to "remove the crown until he come whose is the right, and to him I give it," 21:31-32 [26-27]. This suggests the possible return of a contemporary scion of David, hence Jehoiachin himself. If the present passage as we have it comes from Ezekiel, therefore, we should probably think of some period during his exilic ministry, most probably in Egypt where he had the most time to mull over old prophecies and to com template Israel's future. "On a mountain high and lofty I shall place it." This designation has replaced "Lebanon" of v 3. If, as one would suppose, it designates the same place, namely Jerusalem, this is not in precise agreement with the placement of Yahweh-shammah, the new political capital of chap. 48, which lay some distance south of Jerusalem. Either this "mountain" is used more generally for the central ridge of Palestine, or this expression of hope is earlier than chaps. 40-48 (which mostly were composed late in the prophet's exile). The latter seems more likely. This would point to Ezekiel's early exilic prophecy rather than to his post-exilic ministry. 23a "On Israel's high mount." This expression designates the temple mount in 20:40; cf. 34:14. Ezekiel may have been familiar with the prophecy of the exaltation of the temple mount in the last days (Isa 2:2 = Mic 4:1). "That branches it may bear and fruit produce." We need not harbor any suspicion regarding the cedar's producing of "fruit," for does it not bear seed? Moreover, this was an attribute to which the vine aspired (v 8); and

en,

274

EZEKIEL 17: 1-24

what Zedekiah realized only meagerly and for a brief time must belong to the permanent splendor of the glorified king of the future. "To become a majestic cedar." On the term "majestic" as indicating the regal character of the tree, see v 8. The coincidence of the word 1 '113 with Isa 10:34b, "Lebanon with its majestic tree ("11S~) will fall," suggests that Ezekiel interpreted this verse of Isaiah with reference to the felling of the Davidic dynasty at the exile, and this in his thinking is represented by the vulture which in Ezek 17:3-4 removed the top of the cedar. Likewise, although the metaphor is different, the Lord's transplanting of the sprig of the cedar to Jerusalem corresponds with the new shoot from the stump of Jesse in Isa 11:1. 23b On the expanded text, see Notes. Who are these beasts and birds? Zimmerli is doubtless correct in his observation: "The description used of the mountain of God, the paradisal place of God's presence (cf. to 28:11f.), and the 'world tree' under which aU the creatures of the earth gather (ef. to 31:1ff.) stems from the language of myth." A similar picture is given in Dan 4:9 [12]. The earliest due to Ezekiel's meaning is Isa 11:6-9, since as already noted in the Comment on v 22, it would seem that Isa 10:34 and 11: 1 may already be pictured in Ezekiel's allegory, and vv 6-9 come along appropriately for the conclusion. Are the animals of Isa 11:6-8 literal or symbolic? One might argue that Isa 11:9 has in mind human subjects, "full ofthe knowledge of the Lord. " Yet the introductory "for" of v 9b is probably explaining the harmlessness of the beasts as the consequence of the pervasive knowledge of the Lord on the part of the human inhabitants of the country. This is a reward for godliness. Parallelism between '1'1 Nn "land" or "earth" and "all my holy mountain" favors the more restrictive meaning here, "for the land will be full of the knowledge of the LORD." If one turns to Ezekiel himself for a parallel, 31:6 lists birds, animals, and great nations dwelling in the shade and shelter of the Pharaoh of Egypt. Jeremiah had said of Nebuchadnezzar that "the beasts of the field" as well as "all nations" will serve him Uer 27:6-7; 28:14), and with this Dan 2:38 agrees. One would think that that settles the matter, that the birds and animals represent all of nature at peace with the future king of Israel. All creatures, including man, will be one in paradise restored. Still there is another way of viewing the scene. Are not these birds which nest in the tree the antithesis of that great bird of prey which removed the crown of the cedar to ornament its own nest in Babylon? If so, one may consider taking the birds as other nations, who will no longer prey upon Israel. A similar argument could be based upon Ezek 34, where "the beasts of the wild" who prey upon the "sheep" are surely the nations who attack Israel (v 5). Yet the promise of 34:29 of safety from both nations and beasts is probably to be construed literally, for during Israel's past experience fierce, and sometimes rabid, beasts were sent by the Lord as a punishment (5:17; 14:15,21). In the messianic age, these fierce animals must be tamed, and also find a place as protected animals. The shade of the messianic king will be their haven. Thus there is good reason for interpreting these birds and beasts literally, although a possible antithesis between the great vulture and the birds suggests the allegorical

Explanation

275

meaning. Perhaps then the birds and beasts are both literal and symbolic. The following verse may favor the symbolic meaning. 24 "All wild trees" (lit., "trees of the field," or better, "of the wild"). These are certainly the antithesis of the cedar of v 3 and most especially of the majestic cedar of v 23a. Since the cedar represents the Davidic dynasty, these trees of v 24 must represent the human dynasties of the earth. Foreign kings will marvel at the power of God in laying low the tall tree (which happened when Jehoiachin was exiled), in making tall the low tree (which will happen when a scion ofJehoiachin flourishes like a mogestic cedar of Lebanon). He "dried up the green tree" in the withering of the vine, Zedekiah (vv 910), and he will "make the dry tree sprout" when the languishing crown of. the cedar no longer resides in Babylon, but on Israel's high mount. The important thing to note is that other kingdoms do exist, as symbolized by the "wild trees." These kingdoms live side by side. They are not at war with one another, and they all recognize the power of Yahweh over human history. Foreign nations are not here portrayed as the subjects of Israel's. king. This accords with the territory assigned Israel and her princely ruler in 47:13-48:29, for although this is a vast domain embracing all of Lebanon and much of Syria, it is far from universal. Other nations must exist outside this domain. Within this kingdom, Gentiles will be protected subjects with rights equal to those of the Israelites (47:21-23). Perhaps others will flow to Jerusalem as godly pilgrims in fulfillment onsa 2:2-4 (= Mic 4: 1-4), flocking there like the birds and beasts of v 23. It will not be temporal power of any earthly ruler which will unite the world and bring universal peace, but faith in Israel's God. Explanation

We often think in terms of abstract concepts and cold logic or devote ourselves passionately to the achievement of ideals. Seldom do we think pictorially as did the ancient Hebrews. When a biblical passage is hard to understand, the key to understanding is often to be found in imagining the scene with the mind's eye. Several years ago I had the idea of doing this with visual images on paper. What was needed was an artist who could illustrate Ezek 17 in a painting. Mary Hughes (the wife of doctoral candidate Edward Hughes at the Claremont Graduate School) came to my rescue and produced the desired painting. Not every event of this chapter could be portrayed in a single picture, for the details are too numerous, and without a Walt Disney the scenes are static, not in motion. The great vulture which hovers overthe scene at the top is King Nebuchadnezzar, who is drawn and colored after available pictures of the eared vulture for its head, neck, and breast. The overall pale appearance of the bird is more like the griffon vulture. One can sense the power and movement of that bird in Mary's painting. The dominant place of this pradant corresponds with the dominance of the king of Babylon in the time of Ezekiel. It holds in its claws the crown of the cedar in the same way most pradants carry away prey, though not the vulture. Tradersville is portrayed at the right of

276

EZEKIEL

17: 1-24

the picture, in keeping whh archaeological sketches of ancient Babylon. The Euphrates River flows through the city, and one sees growing there the crown of the cedar that Nebuchadnezzar planted after temoving it from "Lebanon" (= Zion). To the surveyor's scheme of ancient Babylon, Mrs. Hughes has produced a doublet in three dimensions, in which she imagines the river as paved over, but flowing under the city like the Abana in modem Damascus (2 Kgs 5:12). This may not be historically accurate, but it is necessary to show the unity of the city, lest one suppose somehow that the river has cut a swath through the city. The most important picturing is that of the grapevine. We see it growing by the Euphrates, where the great vulture planted it; but crazily it has dispatched its roots and branches to another great bird, the king of Egypt. which sits on the ground presiding over the Nile, immersing in it the roots of the vine which have reached it there. It is in a position to uproot the vine from the Euphrates by laying hold of the portion of the vine above ground that has reached the eagle at the Nile; it is not with physical power that it uproots the vine, but with diplomatic suasion and military promises. Thus in effect it is the vine itself that lifts the roots of the vine from the soil of Babylon. We can see this beginning to take place in the bare roots near the city of Babylon. From. Babylonia will sweep the furious hot wind of destruction! This is portrayed as issuing from the mouth of the vulture, and this wind has already begun to scorch the' grapevine at the east end. It will soon blast and destroy the whole vine. In the lower scene we see the majestic cedar, which is portrayed with the appearance of a cedar of Lebanon. "Every bird of every wing," according to the Hebrew text, is attracted to the tree, and Mary's silhouettes portray a variety of body and wing shapes. Close examination will disclose the presence of some birds nesting in the tree. Beneath the tree, nearly camouflaged from sight by the way they blend into the scenery, are all the animals of Isa 11:~ 7 and 65:25. As the exegesis above has shown, there is reason to believe that Ezekiel was influenced by !sa 10:33-11:9 in the overall depiction of the allegory. Thus the painting in its three panels represents for Ezekiel the recent past (the upper panel), the present circumstances of political duplicity and imminent doom (the central panel) and the messianic future (the bottom panel). Another way of viewing the painting is to notice the great arc that connects at the right top, middle, and bottom. At the top is seen the cedar of David from which has been plucked its crown. This is carried to the right, where we see it growing at Babylon; at the center bottom, we are shown the result of God's action in transplanting a sprig from the Babylonian cedar to the high and lofty mountain in Israel. We do not see the Lord at work in transporting the sprig or in planting it, but only the result of his endeavors. Tracing this great arc from top to bottom, we are bypassing the vine (Zedekiah), and that is part of the message of Ezekiel, for Zedekiah belongs neither to the history of the legitimate kings of Judah nor to the messianic future of that dynasty, for the line of David will not be traced through him, but through J ehoiachin who resides in exile, precisely as in Matt 1: 12. Zedekiah is a tragicomic figure who in a sense is what the whole picture is about, for the great arc reveals him as being left out of any real place in history. He

Translation

277

is only a crazy vine that does not know its place but spreads itself in unnatural ways and in the end is withered by the hot east wind-a parenthesis in an ongoing history that passes him by. Ezekiel was.a poet with a vivid imagination who has given us a verbal cartoon in his allegory of chap. 17. Mary Hughes has artfully painted this allegory so that it can be seen. This pictorial exegesis should give us a powerful argument for viewing the basic contents of the whole chapter as a unity. If Ezekiel at first composed and delivered only the allegory of vv 1-10, there was implicit in the planting of the crest of the cedar in Babylon the ultimate possibility of his return to Jerusalem (or of the return of one of his sons); for the dynasty of David, however much humbled, still lives on. Vv 22-24 needed to be composed by Ezekiel sometime in order to complete the portrayal, for the picture is not complete without the concluding allegory of those verses. The portrait of all creatures peacefully seeking shade and shelter in and under that tree is a foregleam of that kingdom for whose coming we pray. Cf. Lam 4:20; Matt 13:31-32; Rev 22:23-26.

The Popular Proverb on Sour Grapes

(18:1-32)

Bibliography Fontaine, C. R. Traditional Sayings in the Old Testament: A Contextual Study. BLS 5. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982. Geyer, J. B. "Ezekiel 18 and a Hittite Treaty of Mudilis II." ]SOT 12 (1979) 31-46. Hammershaimb, E. "De sure druer: Nogle overrejelser til Ez kap. 18." DTT 43 (1980) 225-34. Joyce, P. M. "Individual Responsibility in Ezekiel 18?" Studia Biblica 1978. 1. Papers on Old Testament Themes. ]SOT Supplement 11. Sheffield: Dept. of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, 1979. 185-96.Junker, H. "Ein Kernstiick der Predigt Ezechiels, Studie tiber Ez 18." BZ 7. Knauf, E. A. "Dagesch agrammaticum im Codex Leningradensis." BN 10 (1979) 31-46. Lindars, B. "Ezekiel 18 and Individual Responsibility." VT 15 (1965) 452-67. Nunes Carreira, J. "Raizes da linguagem profetica de Ezequiel." Est Bib 26 (1967) 275-86. Schenker, A. "Saure Trauben ohne stumpfe Zlihne: Bedeutung und Tragweite von Ez 18 and 33:10-20 odeI' ein Kapitel alttestamentlicher Moraltheologie." Melanges D. Barthelemy, ed. P. Casseui et al. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1981. 449-70. Weinfeld, M. "Instructions for Temple Visitors in the Bible and in Ancient Egypt." Scr Hier 28 (1982) 224-50. Zimmerli, W. "Deutero-Ezechiel?" ZAW 84 (1972) 224-50. Zyl, A. H. van. "Solidarity and Individualism in Ezekiel." OTWSA (1961) 38-52.

Translation

3

The word of Yahweh came to me saying: 2 What· is the matter with you who cite this proverb concerning the land ofb Israel: "If fathers eat C sour grapes, the teeth of sons will grate"? As I live! is the Lord Yahweh's oracle, You will have no excuse anymore to quote this proverb in Israel!

278

EZEKIEL

18: 1-32

• All persons are my very own. The father as a person and the son as a person are both mine. Only the person who sins is condemned to die. Ii If a person could be counted righteous, he has done justice and righteousness; 8 has never feasted on the mountainsnor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel; has not defiled the wife of his neighbor, and avoids sex b with a menstruating wife; never wrongs anyone, returns to the debtor his pawn;never engages in robbery, shares his food with hungry, covers naked with clothing; 8 never lends for interest, nor exacts payment with usury; backs away from all oppression, always practices true justice between man and man. 9He has walked - by my laws and kept my ordinances in order to do them. b He is righteous; he shall surely live!-the oracle of the Lord Yahweh. 10 But what if he begets a vicious son, who sheds blood and commits an,· of these [wrongs], 11 and neglects all these [duties], - who instead. feasts on the mountains and defiles the wife of his neighbor; 12 wrongs the poor and needy, engages in robbery, does not return the debtor his pawn; lifts his eyes to idols and practices the occult; 13 lends for interest and collects usury--can he live?He shall not live. He is guilty of all these vile deeds; he shall surely be put to death b--and the blame for his own shed blood will rest on himself. 14 But suppose he begets a son who has seen all the sins which his father committed, and after seeing them • does no such things: 15 has never feasted on the mountains nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel; nor - never defiled his neighbor's wife, 18 nor wronged anyone; has not required any pawn, nor ever engaged in robbery; has shared his food with hungry and covered naked with clothing; 17 has backed away from any extortion,and has exacted no interest or usuryhe has carried out my ordinances and walked by my laws. This man shall not die for his father's crime. He shall surely live! 18 As for his father, because he has practiced extortion, has robbed a brotherand has done what is not good among his people, he dies for his own crime. 19Still you ask: Why should not the son be punished for the father's crime? But the son has practiced justice and righteousness, has kept all my laws and done them. He shall surely live! 20 Only the person who sins shall die; no son shall be punished for the father's crime.

Notes

279

The righteous is responsible for his own righteousness, and the wicked a is to blame for his own wickedness. 21 And yet, if the wicked turns from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my laws, and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live! He shall not die. 22 None of his transgressions which he committed shall be remembered against him. Because of his righteous behavior he shall live. 23 Have I any delight at all in the death a of the wicked? is Yahweh's oracle, and not rather in his turning back from his ways b that he may live? 24 But what if the righteous goes back on his righteousness and engages in wrongdoing, like all the vile crimes which the wicked commits, can he behave like this and live? a None of his righteous behavior b will be remembered. Because of his disloyal behavior and because of the sin he has sinned, he therefor shall die. 25 Yet you complain: The way of the Lord a is unjust. b Listen now, 0 house of Israel. Is not my way just? Are not your ways unjust? 26 When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits wrong, he dies for this. a Because of his own wrongdoing he shall die. 27 And yet, when the wicked turns from his wicked behavior and practices justice and righteousness, he keeps himself 28 because he has considered and turned away from all his transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live. He shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel complains: The way of the Lord is unjust. Is not my way just, a 0 house of Israel1 Are your ways unjust? 30 This is why I shall judge you, each one according to his own ways, 0 house of IsraelThe Lord Yahweh's oracle. Turn around and turn back a from all your transgressions, lest crime be your downfall. b 31 Free yourselves from your transgressions, however you incurred them; a and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit, for why will you die, 0 house of Israel? 32 Because I have no pleasure in the death of the dying, runs the Lord Yahweh's oracle, do turn back and live. a Notes 2.a. LXX S prefix "son of man." It is difficult to judge whether MT has omitted the address to avoid direct attribution of the proverb to Ezekiel as well as to the people, or whether the address simply illustrates a tendency of the tradition behind LXX. It may be that MT is an editorial compression of a heading in which the prophet was commanded to address this to the people. 2.b. LXX implies 'J:l:l "among the sons of," but MT should be retained as the more difficult reading. 2.c. LXX S Vg reflect 17:JN "they eat" (pf) by assimilation toJer 31:39. Distinctive readings, as here in MT, should be given preference. For the impf in a conditional clause see GKC, § 159b. 6.a. W. R. Smith's emendation to Din 7):1 "(meat) with the blood" (cf. Lev 19:26; I Sam 14:32-34) is ill-founded. When the expression occurs at Ezek 33:25, the meaning is rather "by bloodshed you eat"; seeJBL 89 (1970) 399-402. 6.b. S implies :::11 p "approach" (pf) but the impf of MT is to be maintained: a habitual relationship is involved. 7.a. MT :::I m 1n7:ln is problematic. The fern form of the first word is a hap. leg. although in post-biblical Heb. it is the standard term; the masc 7:::1n occurs in vv 12, 16. Heb. :::1m is also a hap. leg. In Aram. and Mishnaic Heb. it means "debt, indebtedness." The relation of the two terms is difficult; "his pledge as to indebtedness" (BOB, 295a) or "his debt-pledge"

280

EZEKIEL

18:1-32

(Greenberg, 329; cf. 16:27). A common emendation is :1:U .,:III "the debtor's pledge," as the Vrs. seem to imply, perhaps corrupted by pseudo-dittogr of 'n/m and confusion of '/1. Heb. :1'n is itself post-biblical: since a hap. leg. is involved, perhaps a fonn :1 m may be postulated, and so the Vrs. may imply :1m n":1n. For the stylistic variation n":1n/":1n in chap. IB, cf. m"u/n"u "robbery" in vv 7, 12, 16 (Greenberg, ibid.). B.a. Heb. rll'N" rll'N 1':1 "between man and man" occurs where a three-beat phrase is expected: LXX has a fullertr. which implies lmn 1':11 rD'N 1':1 "between a man and his neighbor." A less drastic solution would be to read Ill'N 1':1"1 for MT rD'N"; cf.JoeI2:17; Isa 59:2. 9.a. For MT ,"n' "walk," a pf ,"n is to be read, in accord with the parallel 1 TlrD "keep" and with v 17. MT has suffered dittogr of '. 9.b. MT nTlN "deal faithfully" is just possible, but most scholars read onN "them," as LXX implies and as in v 19. MT is a mechanical slip caused by nTlN in v. B. 10.a. MT nN can hardly be "brother" or an interjection "alas." P. Rost (OLl 7 [1904] 4BOBI) took (1nN)Tl nN as an abbreviation standing for the correct n"NTl 'TnN. Greenberg's expedient is perhaps better: to take it as an uncorrected erroneous start of 'TnNTl (331). Heb. 'TnNTl is a recognized expression: see BDB, 5Bla; many MSS improve the Heb. by reading nnNTl (cf. Lev 5:13). Vv lOb and Iia are often taken as variants. Greenberg, ibid., explains them as alternative solutions to the puzzle of how to negate a list containing both positive and negative statements. Cooke (199-200) and Greenberg delete v lOb (also RSV), as influenced by Lev 4:2; 5:13. Zimmerli deletes v lla on the authority of S as an amplification ofv lOb concerning the father and referring to the content of vv II b-13a: "when he himself had not done all this." MT can stand as dealing first with sins of commission and then with sins of omission. I La. See the previous note. 13.a. MT 'm "and he shall live" is rather abrupt and brief as an apodosis to the longprotasis of vv 10-13aa, especially as it has to be understood as a question. LXX suggests an inf abs ,.n (=n'n), as in v 2B, in which case the athnach should be moved to n'n'. But this may be another case of stylistic variation. 13.b. There is some MS and much versional support (cf. BHS) for mn' "shall die," as in vv 17,21,24, 2B. MT accords better with the following clause (cf. Zimmerli, 372). 14.a. The repetition of the verb nN1 "see" reads somewhat awkwardly, so N'J~] "and is afraid," read by many MSS and implied in LXX Vg, is attractive. Greenberg, ibid., regards the longer form of the verb as deliberate, suggesting a different meaning, "taking thought." Was the tenn a marginal alternative for N')~] "and he has seen" (cf. v 2B), which intruded into the text? Probably it is resumptive, as in the tT. (Zimmerli, ibid., notes that the verb N1" unlike nN1, is not used frequently in the book). Significantly no mention is made of punishment which might have triggered fear. 15.a. In place of nN there is much authority for nN' "and . . . " (see BHS; cf. v 6), but asyndeton is common in the book. 17.a. The tr. "extortion" may imply a repointing of MT "afflicted" as 'HI "affliction": see Comment. The clause in MT means to refrain from oppressing the afflicted (Keil, 254; cf. 10:22). However, in the context, the corresponding v B is determinative and suggests a reading "'lln "from iniquity," as LXX implies (cf. v 24). Greenberg (332) considers that the mention of the hungry and naked in v 16b suggested the error ']ll; the three terms occur in Isa 5B:7. It is more likely that ']ll was a comparative gl on rD'N "anyone" in v 16, in the light ofv 12, which was subsequently taken as a correction of "'ll. IB.a. MT nN "brother" is not represented in LXX nor in the parallel v 7 (cf. v 12). Perhaps n N "t J was an error of auditory transmission for iT"t J (Wevers, III), in accord with v 7. Reference to a fellow-Israelite as a brother is confusing in a context discussing a father and his son. 20.a. Q lllll1 n "the wicked" achieves correspondence with p''Tsn "the righteous" earlier. Consistency is expected. Perhaps P''TS should be read, an anarthrous reading being the more difficult. 23.a Heb. 1:11rll:1 in v 23b suggests mTl:1 "death," as in v 32 and 33:11, rather than a direct object, although it is semantically possible. Some MSS read n1Tl:1. 23.b. LXX S Tg imply a sg 1:J1 'Ttl "from his way," which some prefer in accord with the parallel 33: II; assimilation to the pi in v 25 may have occurred. 24.a. MT 'm nrllll" "do and live," omitted in LXX S, disturbs the sequence of thought (Cooke, 201). Perhaps nrllll', originated as a variant for Illll'1 earlier, later incorporated into the text, while 'm is a comparative gl relating the text to v 13, whose language overlaps with

FonnlStructurelSetting

2HI

v 24ajJ. Yet, as Eichrodt (234) observes, the development is wholly parallel with vv 21-22, where the issue of life and death is settled before the non-remembrance of his earlier behavior is stated. 24.b. The pi of Q. 1'npU "his righteous behavior" is supported by LXX and required by the following pi verb. 25.a. For 'llN "Lord" see Comment here and in v 29 and also Wevers, 111. 25.b. For the verb l:m "be just" see Comment and Greenberg, 333-34. 26.a. MT on'~p "for them," not attested in LXX S, may be a gl whose pi suffix points back to the disloyal behavior and sin of v 24 (Zimmerli, 373). Greenberg (334) sees a reference to implicit iniquitous acts, appealing to an analogous onJ in 33:18. 29.a. Whereas vv 25 and 29a seemingly deliberately distinguished between the Lord's "way" and the people's "ways," v 29b deviates by using the pi for both parties. The issue is complicated by the sg verb in v 29bjJ, which suggests that the text is not in order. Probably the verbs ll:m' and pn' "be just" became inadvertently reversed. LXX in v 29ba and many MSS S Tg Vg in v 29bjJ so suggest. In consequence ':n 1n "my ways" in v 29ba was pointed as a pi instead of a sg. 30.a. For lJ'ronl "and turn back" cr. 14:6. 30.b. The translation follows the Masoretic accentuation. LXX with a pi verb takes "your transgressions" as subject: "lest they become an iniquitous cause of downfall." This construction is supported by 7: 19. The Heb. may bear this meaning, the sg being merely a case of attraction to the predicate. :n.a. Heb. OJ "(with which you transgressed) by means of them" may look back at all the various sins mentioned in the chapter, in agreement with the preceding "all." Two MSS have '::l "against me," which LXX also supports, as in Jer 33:8. 32.a. LXX· omits 1'm 1::l'ronl "tum back and live" and indeed its position after the concluding oracular formula suggests that it is not original. It may have been a marginal note summarizing the theme of the pericope (Wevers, 112).

Form/Structure/Setting Unlike chaps. 16-17, chap. 18 is no allegory. The 'rDD ("proverb" or "allegory") it cites at 18:2 (like that of 16:44) is a proverb rather than an allegory. Yahweh's reply to it is a moral and theological discourse which takes the form of a disputation and ends with a call to repentance. In the first major division of the chapter (vv 2-20), the proverb proper (v 2) is disputed propositionally in vv 3-4. Then in the next succeeding verses (5-18) the proposition that each suffers only for his own sins is traced out through three successive generations, from a righteous grandfather, to a wicked son, to a righteous grandson (vv 5-18). This major division concludes with an answer to an objector (vv 19-20), which ends the original proposition ofv 4. The second major division (vv 21-29) is no longer concerned with successive generations of diverse moral character, but with changes in the life of the individual (vv 21-24). A wicked man repents and becomes righteous. A righteous man backslides and becomes wicked. Each will be judged by God on the basis of what he becomes; what he had been no longer counts. Israel's objection that the way of Yahweh is therefore unjust forms the basis offurther disputation (vv 25-29). The chapter ends with an earnest plea for repentance (vv 30-32), a plea already anticipated at v 23. The argumentation of the whole chapter has thus reached its goal. From the direction and goal of the whole discourse it appears that the old proverb "If fathers eat sour grapes, the teeth of sons will grate" had

282

EZEKIEL

18:1-32

been used by the people to argue that repentance would be useless in averting the disaster that jeremiah and Ezekiel were predicting. God's sovereignty over every soul and his compassion for every person declares "Nol Do repent and live."

Comment THE SOUR-GRAPES PROVERB AND THE LORD'S INVALIDATION OF IT

(18:2-4)

After the statement of the word-event (v I), the prophet and his contemporaries are rebuked in v 2 for quoting a popular proverb: "If fathers eat sour grapes, the teeth of sons will grate." Regardless of whether we translate "on the land of Israel" or "concerning the land of Israel," the proverb has to do preeminently with the people of Palestine in their destiny. In either case the language is odd, for why does this need to be said? It probably has been placed here to mark the regular alternation between city and land, between jerusalem and the land of Israel, which was one of the principles of organization of the present book. The previous allegories (chaps. 15-17) gave prominence to jerusalem. Now it is time for a concerning the land, and chap. 18 seemed suitable for that, since it never mentioned jerusalem. This may be one reason for placing the passage here, despite its dissimilar type of )rDD. Chap. 19 with which it is conjoined does not mention the city either, and hence the titular insertion "concerning the land of Israel" applies well to that chapter also. In citing the older form of the proverb, Ezekiel deals with the pre-exilic situation. In society, this would be a popular maxim for cautioning parents with regard to their behavior, lest they bring harm to the next generation. It is not this, however, to which Ezekiel objects, but to the perverse usage by. which one infers that if past generations were as wicked as Ezekiel claims (2:3; chaps. 16, 20, 23), then it will be of no use "to repent in order to avert the doom he predicts. They say in effect: "Of what use is repentance? Our fate is already sealed by the sins of the fathers." Against this Ezekiel directs a lengthy disputation. In later circumstances, as encountered by jeremiah (31 :29-30) and doubtless also by Ezekiel, the proverb had become an explanation of present suffering. Therefore the tense of the verb was altered: "Fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of sons now grate." jeremiah does not so much deny the validity of the proverb as project a new order of sociey in which the proverb will be no longer applicable. Such a visitation of the sins of parents upon their offspring can have no place in the ideal tomorrow. The Lord tells Ezekiel that this proverb is already invalid. The coming judgment will befall the wicked only, whereas the righteous will be spared (as in chap. 9). This judgment will be a divine sifting whereby the surviving righteous will constitute the Israel of the future. The Lord's reply deals with his sovereign claim over every "soul." The word !DEll is not to be translated here as "soul" in the common sense of the word today, but as in Exod 1:5: "And all the souls [i.e., persons] that came out of the loins of jacob were seventy souls" (KJV). It is the meaning

.,ron

Comment

2SS

"persons" which is adopted for the translation of v 5, even though for the sake of idiomatic English one varies the expression from a more literal wording: "The person of the father and the person of the son are both mine." "Only the person who sins is condemned to die" states a principle of jurisprudence instituted by King Amaziah of Judah (2 Kgs 14:5-6) and prescribed by Deut 24:16. Literally, this reads: "Behold, the soul that sins, it shall die." "Shall die" is legal terminology for a pronouncement of the death penalty. EXAMPLES OF YAHWEH'S JUST JUDGMENT OF SUCCESSIVE GENERATIONS

(18:5-18) Yahweh's sovereign intention for every succeeding generation is traced through three generations: the first, righteous (vv 5-9); the second, wicked (vv 10-13); and the third, righteous (vv 14-18). Such alternations of character are well illustrated by successive kings ofJudah, but Ezekiel is dealing theoretically in his depiction, not with allusion to particular persons. 5-9 The righteous generation. Such depictions sometimes occur in connection with the liturgical (or ceremonial) entrance into the temple, as is shown in Ps 15; 24:3-6. The conception being instilled by such psalms is that of Ps 118:20: "This is the gate of the LORD; the righteous shall enter through it." One is not to suppose that each person is subjected to an investigation as to his worthiness to enter the temple, but rather ,that the words as uttered at the time of the processional serve the purpose of teaching that only such people are really worthy of entering God's house. The application of this was left to everyone's conscience (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-29). The liturgy of the gate may well explain the language of Isa 33:14-16, in which it is all taken in great eschatological seriousness. Mic 6:8 with its eloquent brevity is a less certain example. Ezek 33:5-8 is probably to be interpreted· against such a background, as has been argued by Gerhard von Rad (" 'Righteousness' and 'Life' in the Cultic Language of the Psalms," The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays [New York: McGraw Hill, 1966] 243-66.). It is on the basis of this being a tra.ditional piece, unadapted to the situation of the exile, that these prophets would explain the presence of sins in v 6 which are peculiarly Palestinian. Why does Ezekiel condemn the "lifting of eyes to the idols of the house of Israel" and not the worship of the idols of Babylon, whereas the exilic Isaiah ridiculed Babylonian idolatry (46:1-2)? Ezekiel himself could also speak of "the idols of Egypt" (20:7-8) when dealing with Israel in that situation. Why not now "the idols of Babylon," with all their seductive power, if Ezekiel is now among the Babylonian exiles? Then too, the eating ofsacrificial meals upon the mountains is not at all pertinent to the broad plain of Babylonia. This too refers to cui tic practice in the land of Israel. It is probably true that we are here dealing with a traditional piece of oral literature, but if Ezekiel is in the exile, why does he not adapt it to the new situation? Interestingly, nearly all ofvv 5-8 can be read as a poem in 3/3 rhythm.(with some possible two-beat clauses), and it is so translated above. One important exception is the clause: "nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel." If we limit this to "nor lifted his eyes to idols" (as in v 12), the

284

EZEKIEL 18: 1-32

clause will become of proper length to fit the poem. Yet it is probably this exception to rhythmic regularity that reveals this passage as a traditional piece. Ezekiel is adapting this poem to his own situation, to that of Judah in which a peculiarly Israelite form of idolatry appears, which he labels as "the idols of the house ofIsrael" (as in 8: 10). Naturally Ezekiel has prefixed the antithetical copula "but." As Ezekiel employs this material, it is no longer part of the liturgy of the gate, but it is used in the context of divine judgment. All Israelites (or Judeans) encounter the judgment of God (as in chap. 9), and each is awarded life or death according to his character. The character of each human example is analyzed first (as in vv 5-8) and then the divine verdict is announced. The verdict, when fully given, consists of three elements: (1) characterization of the behavior just described (here 9a); (2) characterization ofthe person being examined (as in 9ba); and (3) the announcement of the decision, release or punishment (as in 9bt3). All three of these elements occur in v 9, and they stand out as the prose of the divine declarative statements ofthe divine judge, in contrast to the poetic description of the righteous person which precedes. The first major part, analysis of the man's character, may reflect the customary appearance of character witnesses before the judge. It is testified that this man possesses those qualities of life proclaimed at the liturgy of the processional entrance into the temple. It is important to see that v 9a is not an extension of the list of virtues given in vv 5-8, but it is rather their summation and evaluation on the part of the divine Law-Giver and Judge. They reveal a kind of person who "has walked by my laws and kept my ordinances." Therefore the person is characterized as P''T~, "righteous." He is not simply "innocent," though this is part of the meaning, but "he is righteous." He possesses the positive qualities needed by every member of Israel who will survive the coming judgment. Therefore, "he shall surely live." The language "he shall surely live" or "he shall surely die" belongs to that part of the verdict which may be called the judicial decision. Since in jurisprudence acquittal and sentence are distinguished from one another, we need a broad category here to include either possibility, ':iudicial decision." We are not here concerned with mere acquittal, a declaration of innocence whereby one is released from punishment. We are rather concerned with the quality of person who will be included within the life of the new Israel. This has been eloquently declared in vv 5-S. Most of the moral attributes of such a person are defined in the legal language of the Pentateuch. 5 "But a man, if he prove righteous" (so literally) may be compared with Noah as 'a righteous man' (Gen 6:9), whom Ezekiel mentions in 14:14, 20, "practices justice and righteousness" (cf. v 19). 6 "Has never feasted on the mountains." Eating before the Lord in festive celebration is prescribed by Deuteronomy (12:7, IS), but this excludes worship at the high places referred to here. Jerusalem is charged with this sin in Ezek 22:9. "Nor lifted his eyes to the idols" recurs in vv 12, 15, and 33:25. One lifts his eyes to God in Ps 123:1, and in Deut 4:19 toward the sky in idolatrous worship of the heavens. Presumably one had raised his eyes to the elevated bronze serpent (Num 21 :9), which having become an idol, was

Comment

285

destroyed by King Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:4). "Has not defiled his neighbor's wife" refers to a sin charged against Jerusalem (22: 11) and against the survivors on the ruins of the country after 587 B.C. (33:26). Cf. Lev 18:20; 20:10. "Avoids sex with a menstruating wife" is more literally: "And to a menstruating woman (or, wife) he does not come near." This sin is charged against Jerusalem in 22:10 and is prohibited by Lev 15:19; 18:19; 20:18. 7 "Never wrongs anyone" may be compared with 22:7, 12, 29 (a crime of "the people of the land") and with Exod 22:21-24; Lev 19:15, 25:14. "Returns to the debtor his pawn" recurs in 33: 15. This duty is stressed in Exod 22:25; Deut 24:6, 10-13, 17. "Never engages in robbery" refers to a sin frequently condemned in the Bible. This sin is charged against "the people of the land" (33:29) and employs the cognate accusative as also in Lev 5:23. "Shares his food with hungry" recurs at v 16. It is a virtue inculcated by Deut 15:7, 11; Isa 58:7. "Covers naked with clothing" recurs at v 16, a duty stressed by Job 31:19; Isa 58:7. 8 "Never lends for interest" recurs as a virtue at v 17 and in Ps 15:5. The sin recurs at v 13, and in 22:12 it is a crime with which Jerusalem is charged This is prohibited in Lev 25:36 and in Deut 23:20-21 [19-20] except that it may be exacted of the foreigner. Nehemiah later had strong words on the subject (5:7). "Never exacts payment with usury." "Interest" is literally "bite" nl4lJ) , and the word here translated "usury" is literally "increase" (n'~1l3). Both are prohibited in Lev 25:35-36. The question is whether these are synonymous or are to be distinguished. "Backs away from all oppression" is literally "turns back his hand from oppression," which is not idiomatic in English. The rendering "withholds his hand" (RSV) suits better a description of the righteous than "hath withdrawn his hand" of the KJV. One seeks a verb that is more forceful than "withholds" to translate J 'Ill'. For this reason "backs away" has been chosen. The verb probably refers to a physical movement of revulsion (cf. Isa 33:15). This virtue recurs at v 17. All ofthe behavior of the righteous man is thus seen to correspond to the precepts of the Law, much of it appearing in similar language. It is abundantly clear that as the Lord declares in v 9: "He has walked by my laws and kept my ordinances." On the basis of this assessment of the man's behavior, the person himself is declared righteous and is granted the right to live. "The oracle of the Lord Yahweh" marks the end of this section of the treatise. 10-13 These verses take up the alternative case, in which the righteous man begets a son who is vicious. We are confronted here with a long protasis followed by a briefapodosis, the question "can he live?" (v 13a). This situation is clarified in English by introducing the words "what if" before the protasis. We are told at the outset that he is wicked, "a vicious son," a man given to violence (rl ~-1 :;J). His further description as one "who sheds blood" illustrates this proclivity. That kind of crime is not even mentioned among the evils from which the righteous man abstained, but it is dominant in 22:112. Despite the attempt in v I06-Ila to summarize antithetically all the vices and virtues mentioned in vv 6-8, most of these are mentioned in vv 11 b13a. Two consecutive kinds of action mentioned in 6a, feasting on the mountains and the lifting of eyes to idols, are torn apart, the latter being postponed until the end of v 12. Thus feasting on the mountains is now paired with

286

EZEKIEL

18: I-S2

"defiles the wife of his neighbor." This suggests that at such idolatrous feasts, it was not simply the presence of cult prostitutes that rendered worship at the high places abominable, but the practice of promiscuity. Then at the end of v 12, we see that "he lifts his eyes to idols and practices the occult." Here is a new element whose insertion was made possible by the new pairing of vices. nJl'J1n ("abomination") is here used for shocking cui tic behavior, like that depicted in chap. 8. We are now ready for the verdict in v 13b. "He has committed [i.e., he is guilty of] all these vile deeds" (nlJ.l'J1n) implicitly characterizes the man himself as vile. Therefore, "he shall surely be put to death. " Why this variation? Is this speaking of a societal norm, that capital punishment should be imposed? Certainly death is prescribed for many of these crimes in the Mosaic Law (cf. Lev 20:9, II, 13, 16, 27). The answer to this question becomes acute in the next statement: "and the blame for his own shed blood will rest upon himself." In other words, the executioner is not guilty of murder, for the criminal has brought this punishment upon himself. He is guilty of suicide by the course of behavior he has followed. Who then is the executioner who is being exonerated? Is he Nebuchadnezzar, who with his army will attack the nation? Or is he the local community in accordance with legal procedures? 14-17 We come now to a third generation son, who retLirns tothe ways of his grandfather. He has seen all the sins of his father, but does not follow them. According to another reading (on which see the above note), "he fears and does no such things." This might mean that the punishment of the father acts as a deterrent upon the son, but it would be greater virtue on the part ofthe son if, instead of being merely afraid, he perceives the father's behavior as abhorrent. The behavior of this man can also be arranged poetically, with results similar to those of vv 6-8. A numeration of the clauses will facilitate the discussion. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

15has never feasted on the mountains nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel; has never defiled his neighbor'S wife, 16 nor wronged any man; has not required any pawn, nor ever engaged in robbery; has shared his food with hungry and covered naked with clothing; 11 has backed away from any extortion, and has exacted no interest or usury.

This is clearly a reworking of the list of twelve virtuous actions, or inactions, of vv 6-8. The first three are the same, but the third is paired with the first of v 7 (= no. 4 at v 16), after the omission of the last one of v 6. The remainder of the list in v 16 agrees with the listing in v 7. V 17 substitutes , J~ "extortion" for "W "oppression." Actually both refer to oppression of some kind, and it is difficult to know the exact meaning. The first two abstentions of v 8a are reduced to one (no. 10) in v 17. Two basic distinctions in the list characterize the whole: (1) All verbs are perfect whereas in the earlier list all but the first three are in the imperfect tense. (2) The copula occurs

Commmt

287

before each of the even-numbered virtues, as listed above, but it is absent from the odd-numbered ones. In other words, each new couplet is asyndeton; and it is this feature that indicates that no. 4 of v 16 needs to be paired with no. 3 of v 15, so that there is an antithetical relationship between nrDN "wife" and rD'N "man." From the occurrence of this same clause in v 7, one prefers the rendering "anyone," which is used there. Since v 17b continues without any contrast in tense to the preceding statements, it is less clear that we have here a declaratory statement rather than a prolongation of the list of virtues; but in view of the examples of vv 9 and 13, it is probably to be interpreted as declaratory, as an overall assessment of the man's character. The order of the clauses concerning "ordinances" (tPl:IElrDl'l) and "laws" (mpn) is reversed, and the one concerning the "ordinances" is shortened from "he has kept my ordinances in order to do them" to "he has done [i.e., has carried out] my ordinances." Thus, by all these variations, Ezekiel has changed the emphasis from point to point, especially in the way he has paired the materials in contrast with the earlier section of vv 6-8. The verdict is expanded in v 17b, so that it is stated both negatively, "he shall not die for his father's crime," and positively, "he shall surely live." What is then the significance ofthese differences? Are they purely stylistic, or have they been made for new emphases? Is Ezekiel introducing variations of his own to a traditional list (vv 5-8), or is he altering a list of his own composition? The imperfect tenses of nine verbs after the first three in vv 6-8 are more suitable to an entrance liturgy than a series totally in the perfect, as in vv 15-17. In such cases, other liturgies of the gate use the active participle (Pss 15; 24), of which the imperfect mood is a close parallel. Yet obviously, in describing the second righteous man, Ezekiel is deliberately minimizing exact repetition through his variations, which introduce new emphases as well. CONCLUSION TO FIRST PART

(18: 18-20)

After the precise examples are related, vv 18-19 round out the argument with regard to the second and third generations. The man of the second generation is wicked and dies for his own crimes , whereas his son as righteous is immune to punishment. This second description of the wicked father is very brief indeed, much of the previous condemnation of him being summarized simply as "he has done what is not good among his people." V 19 returns then to the case of the wicked man's righteous son: "Why should not the son be punished for the father's crime?" This question would be raised by persons who accept the sour grapes proverb as entirely just, perhaps because in their own understanding of human justice it is proper to punish children for the sins of their parents. (Concerning this, see v 29 below.) The prophetic response in v 19b sounds like a simple restatement of what had been said previously at v 9, and other language appears also to be a deliberate harking back to the very beginning. The first generation righteous man was described as one "who practices justice and righteousness" (v 5a), and this language has not been repeated again until v 19. "He has kept all my laws and done them" compresses v 9a by omitting the reference to "ordi-

288

EZEKIEL 18: 1-32

nances" (the second member ofthe pair), while using its verbs alone in connection with the "laws." Thus we have no exact repetition. If we view v 19b as mere repetition, despite variations in language, we miss the point. First of all, the copula (1) should be understood antithetically: "But the son . . . . " Then, too, the purpose is not to tell us something new but to impress upon us once more the exemplary conduct of the son, with the expectation that the justice of the divine acquittal of the righteous son will appear self-evident. V 20 then expands upon the last statement of v 4, the proposition that "only the person who sins is condemned to die." Here we have an eloquent summary, given in regular, rhythmic phrasing, laying out fully the completely personal character of divine justice. The harking back in vv 19b-20 to language and ideas of vv 9, 5, 4 is an inclusional wraparound, which tells us that with v 20 we have completed the first major section of this chapter (vv 2-20). POSSIBILITIES OF CHANGE WITHIN ONE INDIVIDUAL (18:21-32) 21-29 The first part of the chapter was developed from the theme of changes in character between father and son. Now the second part takes up possible changes of character, both for better and for worse, within one and the same individual, examining also the consequences of these changes. Ezekiel proceeds in his argumentation with clear casuistic formulation (as in 3:17-21). First there is the case of the repentant wicked person (vv 2123) and then the case of the backsliding righteous person (v 24). Vv 21-22 introduce into the discussion for the first time the words "sins" (T1~l!JD) and "transgressions" ('[]':Prc~). We have not really missed them, as examples of such evil conduct have been mentioned. Yet this change of language is very suitable to the theme of repentance. So to label these wrongful acts is supposed to touch the conscience and act as a subtle appeal to repent. The inducements for repentance are: (1) remission of the death penalty under which the wicked person lives (v 21b); (2) complete forgiveness (v 22); and (3) the compassion of Yahweh, who derives no joy from punishing the wicked, but much joy from the repentance of the wicked (v 23). V 24, like 3:20-21, is concerned with the case of the righteous. Just as the wicked are forgiven completely once they repent, so the righteous person is no longer credited for righteousness when he "goes back on his righteousness and engages in wrongdoing." "None of his righteous behavior will be remembered." He has been guilty of "vile crimes," "disloyal behavior," and "sin." "He therefor [sic] shall die." Literally, the Hebrew says: "because of them he shall die." The rare English "therefor" expresses exactly the same meaning for '[]~ without appearing redundant. (With the accent falling upon the second syllable, the pronunciation is not the same as that of "therefore.") Having stated these cases propositionally, the Lord through the prophet now defends the justice of his action (vv 25-29). This passage answers the complaint of the people: "The way of the Lord is unjust." The fact that , n~ "Lord" occurs alone, both at v 25 and v 29, without the Tetragrammaton mn' constitutes a major problem, for this is contrary to the practice of Ezekiel elsewhere in the book. One may try to resolve the problem by explaining this as a saying of the people, and not of Ezekiel; yet elsewhere the people

Comment are quoted also as using the name of Yahweh (8: 12; 9:9). Who are these special people who have the habit of avoiding the Tetragrammaton? Were they people of a much later date than Ezekiel, who showed their piety by regarding the divine personal name as too sacred to pronounce? Yet they are not at all pious in what they say, regardless of their name for God. One may try to dismiss this passage as banal in its recapitulations and make it a late interpolation; however, it fits well into the context and builds toward the final call for repentance. Likewise, 33: 12-20 with its numerous dependencies on chap. 18 has a summary of 18:25-29, which twice (as here) uses , liN ("Lord") alone (vv 17-20). One may thus argue that the disputation is relatively early, probably too early for the pietistic practice of avoiding the use of the Ineffable Name. Therefore, one suggests that in 18:25, 29, and 33: 17, 20, the divine name was altered by pietistic scribes, who allowed the people to express their objections, but who substituted' liN for mil' in order not to associate (even in the mouth of the wicked) the charge of iJ1iustice with the most sacred name of all. The passage is to be considered as authentic, but as slightly modifed by O'l~;i)O 'J~jj'T:1 "corrections of the scribes." The divine reply to the charge of injustice is: "Is not my way just? Are not your ways unjust?" Different people from their own perspectives make the charge, and at the same time the Lord's reply means different things to these various objectors. Probably the most numerous objectors are those who make the charge only implicitly by their use of the sour-grapes proverb. Some of them may even accept the aphorism without question, without sensing any injustice in this system of retribution. It is a traditional position they simply accept, but to do so is to acquiesce to an unjust providence. Others accept it with resignation, using it as an excuse for nonrepentance. The national fate, as they see it, is already sealed. At a still later date, these same people will quote the proverb with bitterness, disclaiming all responsibility for their present calamity and openly insinuating the injustice of providence. In these varied circumstances, either consciously or unconsciously, the people attribute injustice to God. "Are not your ways unjust?" as applied to them means: "You are suffering for your own unjust behavior and not at all because of the sins of your forebears or because of some perversity on God's part." Another kind of objector has been met already in v 19, who asks: "Why should not the son be punished for the fathe·r's crime?" The retort "Are not your ways unjust?" undercuts the arguments of those who believe that sons should suffer for paternal sins. These are people who condone unlimited revenge and practice a jurisprudence that includes the criminal's family in the direct punishment for a crime. Such retribution was prohibited by Deut 24: 16, and yet some individuals still condone this practice, arguing that the worst possible punishment for a criminal is to punish his family as well. This was the rationale of King Nebuchadnezzar in slaying the sons of Zedekiah before the eyes of their father (2 Kgs 25:7). There may even be another reason for claiming that "the way of the Lord is unjust." Biblical exegetes of our day are not immune to expressing this criticism, as they think Ezekiel overdoes it in making a person's status before the Lord depend wholly upon his moral status at the moment, as if one always teetered precariously between salvation and damnation, all depending

290

EZEKIEL

18: 1-32

upon whether one has repented of his most recent sin. Rather, God should assess a person's total life, weighing the good against the bad, and should judge him accordingly. In fact, the metaphor of weighing is present in the use of the verb 1:m, which was used for weighing upon the balances. In the mythology of ancient Egypt, at death a person's heart was weighed against the feather of truth, and one's eternal destiny was decided accordingly. In ancient Israel, Yahweh was conceived of as weighing the actions of men in this world (1 Sam 2:3; Prov 16:2;Job 31:6; Dan 5:27). From this one perceives that the charge that God's way is 1:;)U~ ~7 means in metaphorical terms that "the Lord's way is not balanced on the scales of justice!' Divine punishment is disproportionate and overbearing. Implicitly, those who make this charge are putting the Lord's own retribution in the scales, as if they are to pass judgment against him, whereas in reality it is they who are to be weighed in the balance, and their ways are found to be U:;)U~ ~7. The insinuation that human good should be balanced against human evil in the judgment of any person would mean that there can be no deathbed repentance with any assurance of salvation, for the evil committed in a lifetime of sin would be mitigated only slightly. Similarly, those who commit a serious crime only near the end of their lives, after many years of noble living, should be punished only mildly, if at all. One recalls here the rebuke of Matt 20: 15: "Is your eye evil [i.e., stingy] because I am good [i.e., generous]?" In any such discussion, one must recognize that Ezekiel does not consider here the case of the person who commits only minor sins or only one serious crime (as he lists several such evil deeds). For the sake of clear and consistent casuistic reasoning, he is considering persons as totally good or as totally evil at the moment of their judgment. There is no calculation of how much good or how much evil anyone has done. The only question is: Is this person qualified now to become a member of the new Israel? Can he be enrolled in such a society, or is he to be excluded? (cf. 13:9). Meanwhile, by the process of judgment, both in Jerusalem (chap. 9) and in the diaspora (20:3438) the Lord is weeding out the wicked from his own garden of righteousness (Isa 60:21). If the teaching of Ezekiel seems stringent, it nevertheless serves the ardent purpose of calling the sinner to repentance and of admonishing the righteous to remain true. If anyone perishes, it will be "because of his own wrongdoing" (v 26). As long as there is life, the possibility ofrepentance and a lifting of the sentence of death is open to all (v 27). V 29 returns to the issue of v 25. The proposition that the fault lies with Israel's perception and not with divine justice is reasserted. People who charge God with injustice fail to see God's goodness because of their own blinding injustice. This wraparound marks off vv 25-29 as a distinct thought-unit. 30-32 These verses are closely connected with the preceding, for the concluding call to repentance (vv 30-32) grows out of the proposition just established-that the people are unjust. Because of this they will be punished (v 30a), and consequently they need to repent, "lest crime be your downfall" (v 30b). Literally, this reads: "lest it become for you a stumbling block of iniquity." One crime trips one into committing another crime, and by such sins one stumbles and falls into apprehension and punishment, even death. This call to repentance is furthered by the earnest plea to cast off the burden

Explanation

291

of transgressions, literally: "Throw from off you (C;f2P,T.1 ~:I'7~0) all your transgressions." Transgressions constitute an unbearable burden under which one staggers, stumbles, and falls. They comprise a heavy yoke of servitude, but if one wills to do so, he can free himself. The people are also exhorted to "make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit." It is not without some justification that the RSV renders: "Get yourselves a new heart . . . "; for the verb ntDlI, which normally means "to do," or "to make," can in commercial usage mean "to acquire." "Make" is better here, however, for it reveals the contrast with Ezekiel's later understanding that the "new heart and the new spirit" are wholly the gift of God, whereby one may walk by God's laws and obey his ordinances (11:19-20; 36:26-27). Without such obedience, one is under the sentence of death: "Why will you die, 0 house of Israel?" This motivation for repentance is complemented by the Lord's plea: "Because I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies [for his sins], do turn back and live." God is never happy with the unrepentant sinner. He does not even enjoy punishing him. His love and compassion cry out: "Do turn back and live."

The familiar proverb "If parents eat sour grapes, the children's teeth will grate" (so to be worded in the broader perspective) may have served a useful purpose as a warning to parents, and there is much truth in it. From the sociological perspective, the visitation of the sins of parents upon subsequent generations (Exod 20:5; Deut 5:9) contains truth. If God is sovereign over his creation, is it not he who has made it that way? This is a double-sided coin, however, for it is not just evil but also good that is passed on to future generations. It is this organic unity of man in all his generations that makes human progress possible. It is for this that God has declared that humankind is inextricably one with all earlier and all succeeding generations, and in the long view of history justice triumphs over wrong and truth over error. This is good. Meanwhile our sins bring much pain and suffering to ourselves and to others, both now and in the future. Repentance cannot halt all the forces of evil we have set in motion, but it can set in motion other forces for good, which in God's providence may overtake and ultimately supplant the evil for which we are responsible. Ezekiel does not dispute the organic unit of society, as his monotonous surveys of the rebelliousness of each succeeding generation of Israel (as in chaps. 16, 20, 23) imply. What his argumentation declares is that it need not be so, that repentance of traditional and deeply ingrained sin can reverse the slippery trail whereby we slide into oblivion. Our repentance is not only personal, but a reversal of the ways of the fathers (2:3-5). Repentance is a repudiation of traditional sin, a bold breaking with the past and a daring innovation. For this reason, repentance in later Judaism took the form of confessing one's own sins and also the sins of the fathers. This was a way of saying, "Though certain practices are traditional, they will not be continued by me" (Ezra 9:7; Neh 9:2; Dan 9:16; and the Qumran Rule of the Community [or, Manual of Discipline] i,25-ii,l; cf. 1 Pet 1:18-19).

EZEKIEL

18:1-52

Ezekiel's disputation was not intended as a purely moral or intellectual discourse on divine justice, but as a means of getting individuals to accept responsibility for their own lives, to dare to venture forth in righteous living, in reversal of the behavior of wicked parents, and even in complete reversal of what they had themselves been. One's future is not to be held hostage to the character of previous generations, nor even to one's own personal depravity. If one dares, if one wills, one can break the shackles of sin and become a new person. In this, it may seem, Ezekiel was too optimistic, for in the end he saw that the new heart and the new spirit are solely the gift of Yahweh (11: 1920; 36:26). Yet the need for divine grace can never be fully realized until one has accepted first of all one's own responsibility. When one has tried and failed, then one learns that something more is needed-reliance upon God for the miracle of regeneration and sustaining grace. Then, too, human freedom and divine grace must in some way coexist and interpenetrate the one with the other, so that no philosopher, theologian, or psychologist can separate the one from the other; but the word of God has a way of penetrating the inseparable complexities of human nature and of bringing conviction to the heart (Heb 4:12). The converse of the repentance' of the wicked is the backsliding of the righteous, and for both it is a matter of life and death. "He shall surely live," or "he shall surely die," is the language of criminal law arid that of judicial verdict. Yet God is not simply a stern judge, for his heart aches for the sinner and his chief joy is in the repentance of the sinner (cf. Luke 15:10; 2 Pet 3:9). Yet wherein consists that life and death of which Ezekiel speaks? The seeming lack of reality in the promise of life to the repentant in the midst of threatened doom and present suffering has led some scholars to interpret Ezekiel eschatologically. Also contributing to this was a misunderstanding of the soul language (as at v 4): "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (KJV), but on this see above Comment. Among those who interpreted eschatologically are Holscher (96) and Herrmann (113-14). I. G. Matthews objected: The usual language of eschatology is entirely absent from the chapter, and vss. 21-29 would fit poorly with such an idea. . . . Both words are intensive. Life carries with it the joy and thrill of living in the favor of God, while death signifies the opposite. It implies the listlessness of debility, the weariness of disillusionment, the loneliness of the outcast. Death is that dull, drab life that is out of favor with man and God. Ezekiel's call to all to tum and repent, and make a new heartfor Yahweh 'is merciful-does not go beyond realities of life in this world (p. 66a).

Zimmerli (" 'Leben' und 'Tod' im Buche des Propheten Ezechiel," ThZ 13 [1957] 494-508), has developed this idea at length. From any point of view, there is much truth in this position, for to know the living God for only a brief while surpasses in the joy and inspiration it brings the whole of existence without him. In the knowledge of God there is a quality oflife which supersedes all concepts of time as one basks in the light of eternity. To have known God only in this life, with nothing further to look forward to, is enough to give life worth and meaning (cf. Ps 16:11; 23:4-6; 73:23-26).

What Ezekiel had in mind initially was a survival of the Chaldean invasion. It was not simply the commonly held view that God prospers the righteous and punishes the wicked. for the survivor can hardly be said to prosper. He is like the man. who (according to Jer 21 :9; 38:2), if he surrenders to the Chaldean army. "will have his life as a prize of war." Years of hardship await the survivors of the Chaldean holocaust, even exile and dispersion. Such people may not prosper in any material way; yet as Ezekiel later came to know, the presence of the Lord "will become for them a sanctuary, briefly, in the lands to which they have gone" (11:16). Still. did it really work out that way in history? Did the righteous and the righteous alone survive the cataclysm? Many righteous must have been among those who succumbed to the sword, famine, and pestilence, as is noted in 21:8 [3]. The hardships that Ezekiel's own wife endured may have contributed to her early death (24:15-18). Elsewhere the prophet reckons with a survival of the wicked even at Jerusalem (14:22); but they will undergo further testing and judgment in the diaspora (5:12; 15:6-7), with only the righteous being allowed to come back into the land of Israel (20:35-38). Even here the prophet's theological idealism did not stand the test of history as it later unfolded. Does that mean that Ezekiel was wrong? Not necessarily, for his perception was in reality an assertion of the perfect justice of God; and if one holds that, in spite of the contradictions of human experience, then in the end one needs an eschatology, a doctririe of immortal life for weal or for woe. The full knowledge of this doctrine needed to await times of persecution, when in desperation one turned from the "macabre dance of death" to the only possible vindication. that of resurrection life (Dan 11 :35; 12:2-3). This faith does not remain one of simple pious imagination. for it has been validated by the resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor 15:19-20).

The Lord's Allegorical Laments over the Fallen Nation (19:1-14) Bibliography Beentjes, P. C. "Ezechiel 19: Motive und Struktur." Bijdragen 35 (1974) 357-71. Brownlee, W. H. "Two Elegies on the Fall of Judah (Ezekiel 19)." EOR Numen Supplement 21. Leiden: Brill, 1972.93-103. Dahood, M. "Ezekiel 19:IO and Relative ki." Bib 56 (1976) 96-99. Gordon, E. I. "Of Princes and Foxes: The Neck-stock in the Newly Discovered Agade Period Stele." Sumer 12 (1956) 80-84. Kobert, R. "Zwei textkritische Bemerkungen zu Ezechiel." Bib 41 (1965) 217-18.

Translation 1

2

As for you, a take up a lament for the ruler b of Israel and say: What was your mother? A lioness amid lions 7

EZEKIEL

8

6

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

19: 1-14

She couched· in the midst of young lioru; she raised her whelps; she elevated· one of her whelps; a young lion he became, and he learned to capture prey; b man he devoured. The natioru heard· about him, in their pit was he caught. They brought him in fetters b to the land of Egypt. When she saw that she had waited, • and her hope had failed, she took then one b of her whelps, made him a young lion. He prowled among the lioru; a young lion he became, and he learned to capture prey; man he devoured. He lay in wait near dwellin~s and frightened their toWnJ. • Earth and all in it were alarmed at the sound of his roaring. Then natioru set • upon him from provinces round. They spread over him their net; in their pit was he caught. They clamped on him a callar and brought him • to the king of Babylon, and brought him into fortresses- b that his voice should be heard no more C upon Israel's hills. Your mother was like a vine of your vineyard,· planted by water. . She was fruitful and luxuriant by reason of much water. A strong main stem she got as a scepter· for rulers. Its height shot up among the clouds. b It appeared in its height with numerous tendrils; but uprooted in wrath, she was thrown to the gTound. The wind from the east wilted her branches; • they're stripped Offb and withered. Her strong main stem, the fire coruumed it.

Nott.~

18

So now sM is planud in a des"t, in a land of drought. • Fire came out of hw stem; hw brancMs· it consumed. So she has no strong main stem, no scept" to rule. This is a dirge and was used as a dirge.

Notes l.a. The addition "son of man" in the Alexandrian and Catena traditions of the LXX and also S is most probably secondary; cf. the note on 18:2. l.b. LXX implies a sg ~pIIJJ "ruler" for MT's pI. The latter is preferred by Cooke (206) and Zimmerli (388), while Greenberg (349-50) finds the former attractive. Haplogr ofyodh would . explain the error in MT, if such it is. 2.a. MT accentuates as if the lines were 3/3, 2/2, but in this dirge a 3/2 rhythm is expected. The athna~ is thus to be moved back to m"N "lions" (Zimmerli, ibid.; cf. the layout in BHS). Greenberg (350) defends MT. 3.a. For this rendering see Driver, Bib 35 (1954) 154, and Comment. S.b. Mttri causa c"t1-9't1~ is to be repunctuated 9't1 9ntl~ "capture prey" here and in v6b. 4.a. Although MT's qal ,pDfD" "and heard" is well attested, the action of the nations is inadequately indicated. However, the solution lies in literary critiCism, not textual emendation; see Comment. 4.b. In place of the expected 3/2 rhythm, 2/2 is found. See Comment. 5.a. MT n~n1J "waited" is commonly emended to n~Nl1 "was made foolish, baffled" with Comill. See Comment. 5.b. LXX ciX~OI' implies 'Uij "another" for MT "UI$ "one," but the latter may be authentic as a stylistic phenomenon. "One" suggests that there were other whelps from which to select, and possibly a new litter is envisaged. an original 11Ulnr~ij :q:1 7.a. The tr. assumes for MT r,nn on',p, "11llD~N ,.'")t\V OO'1~1 (for the form :1':):1 = ::11tl=1 cf. I Sam 15:5). A corrector wrote l' above the line as a correction for N of 'IN. The l' was later mistaken as a correction for the preceding ::1, yielding the reading p"l :1, attested by Tg ('''~N'). Then ml'O~N (one word) had to be read, dialectical for 111J01 N, as in lsa 13:22. If the young lion "demolished fortresses," then surely he must "lay waste their cities," not merely frighten them. Hence ,.',nn was corrected to ::1'1nn; ::1 and,. closely resemble each other in the ancient script. The suff,. (11110~N) perhaps arose at some later point in the textual transmission via dittogr of the following conjunction. Also, since 111JO~N could be misinterpreted as "widows" under the influence of 22:25, 31' " was later misread as "knew sexually, raped"; I and' resemble each other at all stages of the Heb. alphabet. For other solutions see Zimmerli, 389, and Greenberg, 351-52. 8.a. Heb. 1111" is to be interpreted as intransitive, "attack," with C. C. Torrey (Pseudo-Ezekiel, 76, n. 27) and Greenberg (352); cf. the use of O'!D in I Kgs 20:12. 9.a. For MT m~:;I~ "they brought him," the tr. reads m~:;I7] "and . . . " with LXX. The exact repetitions came from variant uses of the lament: see Comment. 9.b. MT m"~D::1 "into fortresses" is retained and not emended to 11\'~ljI~ "into prison": LXX does not necessarily imply a different reading. 9.c. MT 1'31 "more" should perhaps be omitted with LXX mttri causa. lO.a. For MT ;rJ;l1~ "in your blood" ;rT;q;;l "your vineyard" is read with two MSS, assuming J/::1 and '/1 errors, although the suffix is difficult and so is a presumed development from a straightforward text to so strange a reading. It is indirectly supported by LXX ~ ~ w /JOtl. which apparently presupposes 1'0' J "like a pomegranate." The rendering "in your likeness" (ASV mg. and JPS; cf. Tg) does not make for clarity. J. A. Bewer UBL 72 [1954] 159) read 'J 0'1::1 1EUJ "like a vine full of shoots because" (cf. v 14; 17:6), adopted by Dahood (Bib 56 [1975] 96-99), who took 'J in a relative sense ("which"). ll.a. For the pi forms in MT, sg should be read with LXX: t1~1(,l ... nlJTJ Rt'iJ71. MT

1'''''

1'''''

~ZEKIEL

1Y: 1-14

too soon alludes to a plurality of rulers, which should await O'~~b "rulers." The sg pronominal suffixes in v lla/3-b refer to nlm "stem." 11.b. The sense "clouds" is required here and in 31:3, whether by assuming that MT o'n:Jp (usually "thick boughs, tree tops") can have this sense or by reading n:Jp (cf. HALAT, 735a). Driver (Bib 19 [1938] 178) explained the term in 31:3 as a mixed form composed of the rare 111:JP and the common O':JP, both meaning "clouds." 12.a. The following pi verbs require a reading n'i:J "her branches" for MT n', SI "her fruit." The emendation is indirectly supported by LXX Ta. EK.AEK.Ta. aiJT~, here and in v 14, misreading as n":J (cf. Cant 5: 15; 6:9, 10; Amos 5: 11). For the confusion see the note on v 14 below. 12.b. LXX E~Ec'iIK.!1&7oClll for MT lP' SInn implies a hithp, not of Pill "be righteous" (Zimmerli, 391) but of iPSI "punish" (cf. 9:1 LXX). 13.a. The 3/2 rhythm suggests that Nlllll "and thirst" be deleted with LXX·. 14.a. MT n"51 n'i:J "her branches her fruit" is a conRated text. LXX rightly lacks the second term; accord with the 3/2 rhythmic context is secured thus. After the conRation the first term was construed with n1:lT.ln "out of the stem of her branches." O~llll "out of her stem" needs to be restored, so that n'1:J is the object of the following verb.

Form/Structure/Setting What unites this chapter to chap. 18 in editorial arrangement is the solemn conclusion of the latter: "I have no pleasure in the death of the dyi~g." The following dirges, which are placed in Yahweh's mouth, are the laments of the grief-stricken God of Israel over the consummated doom of the nation. The chapter consists of two complementary lamentations, which may also be called dirges or elegies: 19:1-9 and 19:10-14. The former has had a co~­ plex history, most easily discerned when one seeks to identify "your mother" (lDN) at vv 2 and 10. If one reads the singular "prince of Israel" v 1, it becomes possible to see in "your mother" a direct address to this man, be he Jehoahaz or Zedekiah. Since Hamutal was the mother of both of these Judean kings (2 Kgs 23:31; 24:18), she would be the lioness whose whelps are these two exiled kings. The reference to Jehoahaz is clear in v 4b; and, assuming a reference to the queen mother, the allusion to Zedekiah also becomes transparent. In vv 10-14, however, the mother can only be the kingdom of Judah. As a vine she puts forth a strong main stem (the Davidic dynasty) as "a scepter for rulers." Its arrogant growth has exposed itself to the east wind. Not only is the haughty stem punished, but the vine as well. The fate of the vine is that of the nation, not that of an individual (vv 12-14). "Your mother" then can only be Judah (alias Israel). In this case, it is best to see the person addressed as the prophet himself, to whom the Lord speaks in uttering his own elegy over the stricken nation. Although some scholars have assigned different authorship to the two elegies or have disassociated them by assigning them to different periods in the prophet's career (see commentaries), there are good reasons for viewing them as complementary compositions by Ezekiel, with the mother in each case being the nation. First consider the symbolism. The lion was an established metaphor for Judah (Gen 49:9; 1 Kgs 10:19-20), as was also the vine (Gen 49:10-12), or more generally of Israel (Mic 5:7 [8]; Ps 80:7-12 [8-13]). The first elegy is incomplete without the second, for it laments primar~ ily (or more directly) the mother, whose success or failure is measured by

Form/Structure/Setting the fate of her sons. Yet the destiny of the mother herself does not appear until the second elegy (vv 10-14). This complementary relationship requires that both laments be composed at the same time and that the mother be identical in both, the nation. Yet, if this is so, one must ask why Jehoahaz and Zedekiah should be singled out as young lions, for the two rulers who brought the nation to ruin by rebelling against Babylon were the half-brothers Jehoiakim and Zedekiah. Moreover, that the non-brothers Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin, each of whom ruled only three months, should be celebrated as young lions would constitute all lack of historical realism on the part of the prophet and would contradict the unity of the chapter, in which the mother's ruin dates to 587 B.C. and not to 597 B.C. Hitherto, I have sought to clarify the picture by treating v 4b as an interpolation. Rhythmically this line appears to be 2/2, in departure from the regular 3/2 of the prevailing context; and a comparison with the parallel of v 9aa confirms the excessive brevity of v 4ba. The precision of v 4b(J, "to the'land of Egypt," is matched by a redundancy in the middle of v 9, "They brought him to the king of Babylon" (v 9a(J), which spells out in fuller detail the more cryptic "they brought him into strongholds" (v 9ba). Hence it is clear that both v 4b and v 9a(J reveal editorial tampering. Yet, as frequently is the case in Ezekiel, editorial additions do not necessarily mean the non-genuineness of the elements inserted, for variant or parallel compositions were often combined editorially in an effort to abbreviate. On rare occasions, elements of text which would be incompatible with another were even omitted. Thus, if 4b comes from a source that portrays the doom ofJehoahaz, this would displace any portrayal of the special doom ofJehoiakim in the other source. On the other hand, where no important conflict existed, the sources could be simply conflated, as in v 9. The laments in final analysis are three: (1) vv 1-9, with the mother the nation and the young lions as Jehoiakim and Zedekiah; (2) vv 10-14, with the mother the nation; (3) vv 1-9 in revised form, with the mother as Hamutal and the young lions as Jehoahaz and Zedekiah. The first two were inseparable halves, and they were most probably composed by Ezekiel in late summer or early fall of 587 B.C. soon after the captivity of King Zedekiah. The first line of v 14 suggests an allusion to Ishmael, who assassinated Gedaliah at the new capital at Mizpah (2 Kgs 25:22-25; Jer 40:13-41:3). This means that either this allusion is an update soon after the composition of the twin elegies in their original form, or that it dates their composition after Gedaliah's assassination. As the exegesis will show, the former is more probable. The local color of the story of the two young lions is precisely that of the Jordan valley, for lions inhabited the thickets along the Jordan River Uer 49:15; 50:44; Zech 11:3) and are reported to have lived,there down to the time of the Crusaders. Any lion in the lower Jordan Valley where Ezekiel lived (see Introduction) was a potential menace to three nations who had common borders at the river: Ammon, Moab, and Judah. Any effort to hunt down a particularly dangerous beast would simply drive it across the border into one of the other countries, whence it could return. International cooperation would certainly be required if the beast were to be subdued. The most striking feature of the lion episodes, the joint action of nations, finds its

298

EZEKIEL

19:1-14

Sit: im Leben in the lower Jordan and nowhere else. Likewise, the oasis of Jericho and Gilgal depended upon irrigation for its agriculture, so that Yahweh's address to the prophet in v 10, "Your mother was like a vine of your vineyard planted by water," suits the same geographic context. The third lament, which before the editors unified the material probably appeared either immediately after the original form of chap. 19 or at some later point, can be explained as by Ezekiel only by placing it in the context of the prophet's stay in Egypt. He had gone there in 586 B.C. or 585 B.C., and it is reasonable to suppose that Jehoahaz was still living there and was spoken of as "the prince ofIsrael" by Ezekiel (v 1). In 609 B.C., at the time of his three-month reign, Jehoahaz was twenty-three years old (2 Kgs 23:3134). His birth occurred, therefore, in 632 B.C. In 586 B.C., he would have been only forty-six years old, and his mother, who may have been only sixteen years older, could have been as young as sixty-two. Her exile to Egypt at the same time as her son is very unlikely since the record of 2 Kings does not mention it. In contrast, the exile of Jehoiachin's mother, Nehushta, was a notable event worth chronicling (2 Kgs 24:8, 12, 15). For the same reason, the non-mention of her exile among the Judean captives of 587 B.C. (2 Kgs 25:6-7, 18-21) indicates the improbability of her exile to Babylon. A priori one might surmise that she had died a natural death in Jerusalem, but it is also reasonable to suppose that before the Chaldean invasion of early 588 B.C. she was sent for safety to live with her son Jehoahaz in Egypt. Ezekiel himself mentions the sending of ambassadors to Egypt (17:15), and the dispatch of the queen mother with such a delegation would have added to their prestige. In this case, Hamutal too could still have been alive at the time of Ezekiel's descent into Egypt. Her death there, perhaps in her sixties, would have afforded him an opportunity to adapt his elegy on the lioness and her whelps for use as a real funeral dirge for her. The old words "as for you, what was your mother" would no longer be addressed to the prophet himself by the Lord, but to the surviving Jehoahaz, who now for the first time (for his mother's sake) became identified with the first young lion. Perhaps also in making their acquaintance in Egypt, the prophet had acquired a respect for both, and his lament over Hamutal was in part a commiseration of her bereaved son. Comment

The basic commentary has already been given in the preceding section. Here we shall deal with interpretative details which clarify the interpretation arrived at there. THE ADDRESS

(19: 1-2aa)

V 2 may be restored to the expected 3/2 rhythm of the subsequent context by prefixing nnNl: "As for you, what was your mother?" As first received by the prophet, this would have been the abrupt beginning which he heard from the Lord, which introduced both elegies. As he related his experience to others, he would have prefixed: "The word of Yahweh came to me, saying,"

Comment

299

which no longer survives at v I, because of the desire tojoin the lamentations more directly to chap. 18. When that desire arose, the most probable opening read: "As for you, take up a lament over the house of Israel and say: The word of Yahweh came to me, saying, As for you, what was your mother?" This "lament over the house of Israel" would make for an immediate connection with 18:31-32: "Why will you die, 0 house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of the dying." Displeasure at death was often expressed in a lament, such as David's lament over Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam 1: 1727). The Targum of Jonathan interprets correctly the mother as the nation. When vv 1-9 were adapted by the prophet as a distinctly separate elegy at the death of Hamutal, an appropriate beginning would have been: "The word of Yahweh came to me, saying: As for you, 0 man, take up a lamentation for the prince of Israel, and say to him: As for you, what was your mother?" A variation on this could have read: "Take up a lamentation and say to the prince of Israel" (see 32:2). This does not exhaust the possibilities, but one should stay as close to the extant beginning of the chapter as possible. THE ELEGY ON THE LIONESS AND HER WHELPS (19:2-9) 2 A number of scholars interpret the initial nn "what" in v 2 as an exclamation. Cooke cites Gen 28: 17 and Isa 52:7 as examples of this exclamatory use. Those verses, however, argue against the common translation "What a lioness was your mother!" (Matthews, RSV, Eichrodt, Zimmerli, etc.), for in that case the word order should have been lDN N'~7 nD. Cooke himself avoided that difficulty by rendering: "How was thy mother a lioness among lions'" An exclamatory beginning for an elegy was stylistically in vogue, but usually with n::l'N (Lam 1:2; 2:1; 4:1) or If'N (26:17; Isa 14:4, 12), and one may compare the exclamatory refrain in 2 Sam 1: 19, 25, 27. To interpret in this way, however, is to overlook v 10 which as an answer to "What is your mother?" is closely linked. Two answers to the question are given: "A lioness" and, more fully, "Your mother was like a vine of your vineyard." This difficulty would not exist in a possible reuse of the first elegy alone upon the death of Hamutal, in which case the altered word order suggested above could have been deemed appropriate. The interrogative beginning of the lament as first spoken probably shows the influence of the riddle "in the formulation of allegory, and the prophet speaks of both together in 17:2. There, however, it is not the prophet who asks the question, but his hearers atv 12. 3aa "She elevated one of her whelps" to leader of the pride, as conjectured by Driver (Bib 35 [1954] 154). This seems better than "She brought up one of her whelps," as if she succeeded in raising only one cub. So understood, we have a parallel to v 5b. 3aP "A young lion he became," not simply in the sense of becoming physically mature, but attaining the characteristics of the predator (cf. 22:25). It was the lioness who taught her cubs the art of hunting. 3b "He learned to capture prey," or, more literally, "to raven ravin." To attack the flocks would provoke an angry response by shepherds, but to attack people would be even more grave. As applied to Judean kings, the

soo

EZEKIEL 19:1-14

metaphor implies that any nationalistic revolt on the part of the puppet king at Jerusalem would involve liquidating any Chaldean officials or soldiers in residence as well as pro-Babylonian Judeans (cf. 11:1-7; Jer 41:1-3). 4 The clause "The nations heard about him" is weak and is insufficient to explain "in their pit was he caught." For this reason, most scholars emend U'Qr(l? "heard" to U"l;lr(l~. Initially this was understood to mean "The nations cried out against him" (cf. AT, RSV, NAB) in order to stir up group action, or "The nations shouted at him" (NEB). The latter understanding is that of Cooke, who explains: "like hunters or beaters trying to rouse a lion by their shouts; cf. the image in Isa 31:4, where shepherds make cries to induce a lion to give up its prey." Against this understanding, however, Zimmerli cites the usage of the verb for summoning ("levying"), as in 1 Kgs 15:22; Jer 50:29 (with "unto") and 51:27 (with "upon"). In this case, with "nations" the object of the verb, the translation of Zimmerli and Clements is "Then they levied nations against him," concerning which Zimmerli comments: "The subject remains mysteriously indefinite." In the case of the third person plural indefinite, which is more common in Aramaic than in Hebrew, the better rendition would be: "Then were nations summoned against him." Still one cannot avoid the question, who did the summoning? God in no way figures in the allegory, so it is not fitting to suggest it was he. What remains a mystery in connection with Jehoahaz would be crystal clear in the case of Jehoiakim, where at the human level it was the Chaldeans who summoned the aid of the local puppet regimes of Syria, Moab, and Ammon in laying siege against Jerusalem (2 Kgs 24:2). Most probably this is, the original reading and meaning ofthe verse. One will recall here the geographic situation in the lower Jordan where Moab, Ammon, and Judah all bordered upon the "jungle of the Jordan" which was inhabited by lions. It required concerted efforts of these nations to capture or subdue one. In such an original reference to Jehoiakim, Jehoahaz (v 4b) played no part; ~nd hence v 4b which departs from the contextual 3/2 rhythm should be elided; but is that satisfactory? Would not one expect the fate ofJehoiakim to be described more fully? One may suggest something like the following:

'N

'1'

The nations were summoned against him, in their pit was he caught. [They hurled their javelins at him; he died in that hole.]

Some such picture would fit the circumstance of jerusalem's siege and the death ofJehoiakim in December, 598 B.C. (cf.Jer 22:18-19). Benaiah, a hero of David's time, won fame for descending into the pit in order to slay a lion (2 Sam 23:20). The killing of the lion would be the usual outcome of its entrapment in a pitfall. Since Jehoahaz was not besieged at Jerusalem, but was enticed to visit Riblah and was apprehended there and taken into exile to Egypt (2 Kgs 23:33-34), v 4 in the new application needed to be radically different, for which one may suggest something like the following:

Comment

gOI

.. The nations heard about him; [in alarm they took counsel. They prepared a pitfall;] in their pit he was caught. 'b They brought him in fetters to· the land of Egypt.

For appropriate language to express the action of the nations, compare Ps 2:2; 7:16; 9:16 [15]; 35:7. If the fuller description of the nations' plotting moved into 2/2 rhythm (as conjectured above), this would link up with v 4b, so that that 2/2 line would not appear isolated. 2/2 rhythm is probably also to be read in vv 11-12, although preceded and followed by 3/2. If some such larger text of v 4 once described the action of the nations in connection with Jehoahaz, why the textual omission? One may think of accidental omission, but since the editors were under a strong compulsion to amalgamate and to condense, the reason for the shorter text of v 4a may well have been the brief form of the elegy as directed against Jehoiakim. The terse statement was preferred, except that it needed to be accommodated to the circumstances of Jehoahaz, so nmw' was read instead of llP'DW'. 4b "They brought him in fetters (O'nI!~) to the land of Egypt." Cf. 2 Kgs 23:32: "Pharaoh Necho bound him" (lnl0N'l). The "fetters" (lit., "hooks") are interpreted in the Targum as "chains" -9 28:49 29:9-11 31:11 32:23-24 34 34:3

INDEX OF BIBLICAL TEXTS 285 285 138,220 121 266,269 197 231 89· 225 237

9:7-15 13:6 14:12 19:10-12 20:6

2~9

9 259 224 234

Ruth 2:23 3:9

43 22~

xxxvii

236 285 236 283 181 263 77 89 89 197 xxvii

2~:6-9

1 Sam ..l 2:3 10:6 11:15 15:11 17:46 19 22:6 23 26:19 26:20

98,290 xxxiv 89 69 207 69 232 69 163 164

Joshua 2:13 2:18 2:21 3-4 3:14-17 4-5 4:2-3:8 4:4-7 4:f>-7 4:9-10 4:19 4:20-24 5:1 5:2 5:2-9 5:9 5:10 5:11 5:13 6 6:22-25 7:26 6-11 8:1 8:29 8:30-35 9:3-27 9:5 9:16-21 10:1-11 10:22-27 11:23 13-23 15:8 15:62 15:63 16:10 17:12-13 19:41 23:16

242 83 83 181 43 123 42 42 42 42 42, H. 83 42 181 60 83 35 42. H. 181 43,45 29,85 45. 119. 123, 181 83 39 181 28 39 44 245 229 269 224 181.227 181 xxx 224 264 224.226 226 226 264 127

Judg" I 1:21 1:27-36 3:1~

5 5:26-31 5:SO

181 226 226.245 226. 245 37 SOl 261

2 Sa ..",l 1:17-27 4:2-3 5:6-7 6:5 6:17 II 14:26 15:2 15:24-36 16:17 18:17 19:4-5 21:1~

23:20 24:1

299

14:~

225

14:19 111:29 16:5 t6:S--18 16:7 16:7-9 17:4 17:17 17:31 18:4 18:14-16 18:18 18:21-24 19:1-3 20:12-19 21:3-9 21:6 21:7 21:10 22 23:10 23:13-14 23:1 f>-20 23:29 23:31 23:31-34 23:32 23:33-35 23:33-34 23:34-35 24:1 24:2 24:8 24:10-12 24:10-16 24:12 24:14 24:15 24:17 24:18 24:20

89 227 226 8S 233 227 229 39 85 245 300 204

SOl 225 225 225 229 268 268 268 268 268 141 ISO 18 181 89 228 259 228 235 296 228 235 227 231 229,232 89 151 SOO IS9 xxxiv. ISO 136

ISO 138 ISO 130 xxxiv 25 1~3

192 xxxi 204 174 82

2 Kings 2:5 2:11 2:23-24 3:15 3:27 4:38 5:12 6: 1f>-17 6:16-17 10:15 11:19 12:17

245

1 Kings 1:11-32 1:33 !:S8 1:45 3:2 6:9-10 6: 1f>-20 7:2-3 7:7 7:11-12 8 8:10-11 8:27 8:56 8:65 10 10:1 10:1-10 10:14-15 10:19-20 10:23-25 10:25 10:27 1I:f>-8 11:7 12:1 12:26-29 15:22 18 18:12 18:21-45

18:26 18:26-29 18:41 18:45-46 18:46 19:13 19:18 20:SO 21 22:19-23 22:SO

24:20b-2~:2

25:1 25:1-4 25:3-7 25:3-21 25:4

xxvii

39 85 xxxiv

231 xxvii 276 143.165 18 270 233 xxviii 283 207

xui;;•• 2'1 234 195 235 233 231 231 286 235 233 233 69 234 235 2S1 132 xx 135.166 231 229 xlvii 23S.235 296 298 301 233 65.300 235 233. 235. 236 300. SOl 298 303 213 268.298 268 298 235. 268. 271. 302 296

269 235 301 213 172 xxvii 233

IndIx of Biblical TIXes 2&:~

2&:4-7 U:& 25:~7

25:6-7 25:7 25:8-20 25:8-21 25:18 25:22-25 25:22-26 25:24

UII &02 17&, U8 272 271, 298, &05 289 272 298 "155 297 215, S04 xxix

15:~

IS:II 16:1 21:1 21:2 21:16 29:24

242 264 89 227 227 204 1S7 lSI 270

2 Ch.....icla

1:2-5 1:5 5:5 5:ISb-14 12:7 24:2' 28:5 28:18 50:8 '1:1 '2:&0 !I5:!-II 55:6 55:7 ":10-15 55:11 55:11-12 54:1 54:5 55:21 56:6 56:7 56:9 56:10 56: IS 56:18

89 229 89 ISO 245 157 251 255 270 89 225 555 251 132 501 501 255 7S 7S 27 SOl 172 501 172 268, 270, 506 172

Ezra

1:7 2:1 2:59 4:1 4:1-8 4:25 7:9 8:25 8:51 8:55 9:1 9:54 9:4 9:7 10:5 10:6 10:6-8 10:7 10:8

172 4 xxvi 4 xxxvii 258 xxix 77

xxix xxxii. 4

246,247 40 xxxii 291 89 4 xxxii 4 4

xxxii, 4 270

N,lwrniah 1:4 7:61 9:2 11:1 13:28-52

77 xxvi 291 157 xxxvii

&/"" 5:12

I Chronicla 2:16 4:12

10:18 10:19

!IS

IS7

Job 1:2 1:4 1:111-19 2:13 5:17 9:55 21:S 2':2 2&:6 51:6 51:11 '1:19 51:55 5':IOb 57:5 57:22 58:10 59:15 59:IS 42:10 42:11 42:15

207 242 207 59,40 27 219 40 219 xliii 290 254 285 14S 22 106 17 106 262 207 249,2SO 242 207

Psalwu

2:2 7:16 8:5 9:16 11:1 15 15:5 16:2 16:11 18 18:7-15 18:10 25:4-8 25:5 24 24:5-8 26:10 29 51:24 55:7 55:21 55:25 42:7 45:12 46:14 48:2 49:S SO:12-15 SI 68 ?!I:2!-26 80:7-12 80:9-10

&01 501 xliii,25 501 115 285,287 285 290 292 57 10 10 292 2SO 287 285 254 ISO 264 501 102 102 14 261 42 ISO 259 251 506 57 292 296 266

80:9-14 80:18 84:11 87:5 90:9 105:!-S 106:25 109:21 118:20 119:52 119: ISO 121:4 125:1 135:5 157:1 159:9-10 148:7 148:9 148:14

&05 2& 158 158

'0

106 186 270 285 168 254 138 284 224 58,59 164 IS 15 IS

ProWl'In

1:!>-6 8:2 9:5 9:7 10:25 21:2 21:27 24:9 25:11 25:12 27:9 51:24

259 252 252 S6 254 85 254 254 24S 56 250 265

EccllJi4IlIJ

1:7 4:20 10:16 58:55 59:14

120 SO SO 245 245

I,aiah 1:1 1:2 1:7-8 1:10 1:11 1:16 1:2!>-27 2:2 2:24 5:1-7 5:2 5:7 6 6:2 6:5 6:8 7 7:17 8:11 8:20 8:25 10:27-54 1O:5!!-11 :9 10:54 11:1 11:6-7 11:6-9 11:22 15:7 14

117 96 255 248 xlvi 27 258 275 228 50S 21S 121 25 12,151 17 19 254 59 xxxiv 85 96 268 276 274 274 276 274 106 89 xlvi

S14 14:4 14:12 14:IS 16:9-20 20 • 20:4 23:12 28:5 29:8 50:1-7 50:7 51:1 51:1-S 51:5 51:4 S2:7 55:14-16 54:1 56:6-9 57:29 58:14 59 59:5-8 40:5 40:6 40:26 41:20 42:5-7 42:6 45:27 45:56 46:17 47:9 47:18 49:5-6 49:6 SO:4-1O SO:6 51:9-10 51:20 52:7 52:11 52:13-55:12 55 55:4 55:5-6 55:7 55:12 55:15 55:6-9 55:1~1I

57:7 57:15 58:6 58:7 58:12 59:1 59:11 60:5 60:21 62:5 64 65 65:17 65:25

INDEX OF BIBLICAL TEXTS 299 299 ISO 109 2SS 180 505 108,109 50, S2 255 265 269 2SS 269 SOO 254 28S 96 2SS SOl 50 256 185 19,24 19,24 159 55 51 51 69 69 26S 224 250 51 51 51 86 65 255 299 172 51 xxxv, 51 57 51 51,86 xxxviii. 51, 69 285 255 65 97 100 194 285 186 70 50 12 290 240 57 97 201 276

j...."iM

1:4-5 1:4-10 1:6 1:7-8 1:8 1:9 1:10

22 22 22 22 28,55 22, SO, 65 22

1:11-12 1:11-19 1:15 1:13-19 1:14-16 1:l?a 1:17b 1:18-19 2:18 2:56 3:16 4:15 5:12 6:17-21 7:16 7:S1 7:SI-S2 9:9 9:18-19 10:9 11:11 11:13 11;16 12:16 15:27 14:14 14:14-15 15:16 15:17 18 18:1-11 19:5 19:5-6 21:2 21:9 22:18-19 25:18 25:22 25:25-52 25:55 25-32 25:12 25:50 26 27-29 27:5 27:6-7 27:18 28:14 29 29:5 29:5-6 29:10 51:15 51:29-50 51:51-54 52:55 52:39 54:9-16 56 56:10 57:5 57:5-8 57:5-10 57:5-15 57:11-15 58:2 59:5-4 39:4-7 59:5-7 59:10 40:7-45:7 40:15-41:5 40: 15-41: 10 40:14

22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22, SS 2SS, 255, 266 2S5 201 265 214 SO 69 201,251 2S1 50 50 250 127 2SS,2S9 9 205,259 254 194 18 21,52 xxxiv 215 215 201,231 231 270 295 300 25 25 18 176 214 67 109 58 189 502 274 69 274 xxiv,70 1S5 xxiv 70 50 xxiv, 282 164 201,251 156 194 52,255 155 xxviii 2SS 255 269 xxviii

295 175 172 271 165 215 297 504 272

41-43 41:1-3 41:4-8 42:2 4S:8-44:50 44 44:12 44:18 44:28 44:50 48:22 48:28 48:SS 48:40 49:15 49:22 SO:15 SO:29 SO:44 51:14 51:27 51:59 52:S 52:6-11 52:7-9 52:7-11 52:8 52:9-11

'52:1~1I

52:12 52:12-16 S2:25

xxix 300 xxxvii 69 214 1S2 xxviii 1S2 271 255,269 lOS liS 109 26S 297 26S 270 300 297 109 300 258, 260, ~ 269 172 159 S02 175 271 1!i9 IIIIix

272 272

La_lions 1:2 2:1 2:9 2:19 4:1 4:17 4:20 S:6

299 299 122 2SS US, 299 270 277 270

Eulill xxi, xxiii. xxv, xxxiii, xl, xli, xliii, 4, 17,29, 151, IS2 1-2 xxxviii I-HI I 1-24 xxxix, 1 1:1 xxi. xxiv, xxvii. xxxi. xxxii, xxxviii. xl, 18,42 1:1-5:17 I 1:1-2 152 1:1-5 xix, 1,4,58,54 1:2 xx, xxi, xliv, 26 1:5 xxi, xxvi, xxvii, xxxii, xli, 26, 42, 271 1:4 xxvii, 10, 11,59,92 1:4b II 1:4-3:21 6 1:4-22 55 1:4-28 6,22,54, lSI 1:5 10 1:5-9 11 1:7 10,11 1:8 12, SS 1:10 10, II, 17, 151 1:11 11, IS 1:12 11 1:15 10, II, 14, 17, 148, ISO 1:14 10,17 1:16 10,11 1:17 12 1:18 17,148

IndIx of Biblical T",ts 1:18. 1:18b 1:19-22 1:22 1:2~5

1:24 1:24-25 1:25 1:26 1:26-28 1:27 1:28 1:28b 1:40 2-5 2:1 2:1-5:11 2:1-5 2:2 2:5 2:5b 2:5-5 2:5-7 2:5 2:5-7 2:6 2:6-7 2:7 2:8 2:8-5:5 2:8-5:11 2:9 2:9-10 2:9-5:5 2:10 2:11 2:20 2:21 3 5:1 3:1-11 5:4 5:4-9 3:4-11 3:5 3:!>-9 3:!>-11 5:6 3:7 3:7-9 3:8 3:8-9 3:9 3:10-11 3:10-21 3:11 xix. 3:12 3:12-15 3:12-16. 3:14 3:15 xix, 5:15b 3:1!>-16 3:16 3:16-21 3:17 3:17-19 3:17-21 3:18-19 3:20-21 3:21 3:21-22 3:22-5:17

IS IS IS 10,17, IS 14 xli, 17,57 15,16 1S,19 10, 12,29 11, 17 10, 12, 14, 15,29 10, 12, 14, 18,25, '2, 48 19,24,54 xl xxi,27 xliii, 22, 24, 25, 40 19 22.24 xliii, 25, 55 xxviii. xliii. 24. 25. 96. 282 ·26 22,291 54 27.28 27 24, 55, 51. 79, 154. 185 22. 28, 55. 58 28,55, 114 Sf 28,52,47,95, 128 4,22 25 18.29 xxi xxxv, 51, 51, 179 27 25 25 xxxv. xxxviii xlv, so. 51 31 xliii, xlv, 33, 54, 55 22,54 52.55 25,24 55 55 24. 55. 54. 55 21,25.24 51 xix, xlv, 15,21,25 53 25, 28, 49, 134 34,114 143 xxxviii, xlv, 4, 26, 27, 40. 55, 195,272 57. 39 xxxiv, 129 56 xix, 20, 40, 166, 168 xxiv, xxvi. xxxviii. 39, 40, 47, 49 18 38,41,129 29, 47. 52, 53 27,46,55 26.29 48,49 xxiv. xxxv, 29, 56, 81, 288 49, WI 48, 49, 50. 288 131 xxxviii

51, 52, 53

5:H-2S nxvili, 5, 4, 10, 55 S:22-24e M 5:22-27 xxxviii, S, 52, M, 79, 92, lIS, 175 5:22 xxvi, xxvii, xl,S, 59, 41, 52 5:25 56 54,55 ':25b-24. 5:25b-24b xxxviii 5:24 xxiv ':24b-26 52 5:24e-27 xxxviii 5:24d-27 54,209 5:25 xxxiv, 51, 52, 1M 5:26 28,51 5:27 26, 27, 28, 55, 95 4 xnii. 80. 85, 124. 177. 178. 180 4-5 xxxii. xxxv. 52. 58. 77. 78. 91. 92, 95,102 4-7 125, 175 4-24 xxxviii 4:1 xxiii,59 4:1-2 76 4:1-5 181 4:1-5:4 xxviii 59-74,75 4:1-8 4:5 59.64, 100 4:4 xxxii,247 4:4-6 xxxvi, 244, 249 4:4-8 xxiv, Dxii, xxxiii, 32, 51 4:5 xxxix,51 4:6 xxxiii. 51, 247 4:7 xxviii 4:8 xxxii. xxxvi. 52, 76, 82 4:9 59 4:9-16 181 4:9-17 xxxii,74-79 4:15 66 4:15-17 59,90 4:14 31,57 4:16 177, 181 4:17 178 4:25-27 272 5 59. 76.95. 94, 99, 102. 178. 181 5-7 179 5:1 58 5:1-4 77,79-86 5:1-8 275 5:2 76,90 94.99.100 5:' 5:4 58 5:5 173 5:!>-17 59. 77. 87-95 5:6-10 155 5:10 77,82, 162, 181, 246 5:11 106 xxvii, 81, 85, 295 5:12 5:17 96,207,274 6 94-104, 124,257 6-7 93 6:1 52,195 xxxiv, 97, 164 6:1-7 6:1-12 103 xxviii, xliv, 105 6:2 6:5 106. 179,218 6:4-5 120 6:8 112, 192 6:8-9 xxvii 6:8-10 90, 92, 95, 98 6:8-12 103 6:9 203 6:11 xxviii 6:11-12 93, 101, 123, 181 6:11-14 175 104, 112,214 6:13 6:15-14 105-4

81.5 6:14 106,1611,114 7 94, lot, 104-27, 108, III 7:1 115 7:1-4 104-7 7:1-9 108 7:2-4 108 7:5-9 107-10 7:7b 116 7:9 1S8 7:10-27 110-24 7:12-14 8,117 7:15-27 119 7:16 191 7:25 1S7 7:24 xxxvii 7:26 128 7:26-27 181 7:27 270 8 xxiv, xxxiv, xxxvi, xxxviii, xxxix, 23, 58.125-40.127.158.156.164.168. 220.286 8-10 xxxiii, xxxix, 18, 149, 165, 166, 167 8-11 xxi. xxv, xxxviii. 124. 125. ISO. 142. 156. 168, 177.257 8-12 125 8:1 xxiv, xliv,S, 158. 201 8:1-5 29,59 8:2 xl,9.10 8:2-5 25.156 8:2-4 145 8:5 xxii, xxiv, xxxviii, 5. 25. 84. 129, 158. 166.168 8:5-4 142 151, 141, 149, 152 8:4 8:6 152 8:7-13 135 8:8 xxiii 8:10 201.284 128, 141, 144, 155 8:11 xxxiv, 141,289 8:12 55,155 8:14 8:16128, 156, 141, 144, lSI, 152. 157, 161 8:16-17 165 8:17 168 8:18 142 9:0 ISO 9 50, 140-46, 208, 209, 282, 284 9-10 xxi, xxxviii, xliii, 131, 142, 143, 145, 162, 165 xxxix 9-11 9:1 127 9:1-2 ISO 9:2 233 131, 149, ISO, 151 9:5 9:4 162,165 9:4-6 214 9:4-11 81 9:7-8 161 9:8 31.69, 155. 155 9:8-10 163 112, 115, 127; 157, 289 9:9 9:9-10 69,168 9:9-11 xxxviii 138,168 9:10 9:11 165 xxxiv, xl, 10, 17,56, 146-53 10 10:1 142 10:3 142 10:4 36 10:5 9 10:9 10,142 10:12 9 142,165 10:19

S16 10:20-22 xxvi 10:21 10 xxiv, xxxviii, 127, 151, ISlI-68 II 11:1 xxxiv, xxxviii 11:1-7 500 xxxviii, 58, 142, 145,268 11:1-15 185 11:4 11:5 201,202 11:5-12 107 11:7 174 11:9 174 11:9-12 155 11:11 271 11:12 26 11:13 xxiii, xxiv, xxxviii, 51, 57,69,129, 165 1I:llI-21 145 11:14-20 xxxviii. xxxix. 69 11:15 xxiii, xxiv, 179 11:16 xxvii,293 11:17-20 xxiv, xxxv 251,291,292 11:19-20 11:20 204 11:22-23 17 11:25 xxxiv xix. xxvii, xxxiv. xxxviii. 4, 11:24 175 12 95,124,275 12:1 268 12:1-6 123 12:1-7 xxxv, 58, 85 12:1-9 xxvii. xxxv 12:1-14 181 12:1-16 169-76, 177 12:1-2058,85, 124, 169, 177, 180, 181 xxiv 12:2 12:2-5 190 xxi,I79 12:3 64,179 12:lI-7 xxiii. xxvi, 41 12:5 xxvi, 41, 141 12:7 12:7-8 129 12:8-16 173 12:10 xxxv, 85 12:10-20 xxvii xxvii, xxxv, 52, 179 12:11 12:12-14 302 12:12-16 xxxv 270,272 12:15 270,272 12:14 93,103 12:15-16 12:16 100 xxviii,76, 181 12:17-19 xxviii, xxxv, 77, 177-81 12:17-20 31,52 12:18 76,181 12:19-20 12:21-13:23 182 xxiv, 182-83 12:21-28 12:24 186 12:24-25a 186 12:26-28 182 13 18l1-84 15:1-16 184-95 15:2 197 15:2-15 196 13:lI-5 197 13:5 114 15:6-7 196 13:9 290 13:10 196,197 13:10-15 197 13:12 172 13:13 304 15:llI-17 xxxvii 13:16 196,200

INDEX OF BIBLICAL TEXTS 15:17 xxviii, xliv, 55 15:17-19 58 15:17-25 19l1-98, 200 15:18 51 14 186, 199-205,201,209,215 14:1 xxiv, 128 14:3 128,201 14:4 201 14:7 201 14:7-8 226 14:10 162 14:12-15:8 214 14:12-20 xxxiv. xxxvi J 14:12-25 205-10 14:15 25,214 14:14 284 14:15 214,274 14:16 214 14:17 25 14:18 162 14:19 25 14:21 25,207,274 14:21-25 xxxiy, xxxvi. 214 14:22 214,295 14:25 99 15 ·208, 209, 211-15, 238, 245, 259 15-17 xxxv, 282 15-19 211,212 15:1 215 15:6-7 295 15:7 UKvi 15:16 50 15:50 68 15:33 xxxiii. 68 16 180,215-41,221,281,282,291 16:1 xxxiii xxiv, xxv, xxxiii. 58, 68 16:2 I 6:lI-l 4 222 16:5 246 16:10 261 16:13 261 16:15-17 135 16:15-54 228 16:18 261 16:2l1-29 252 16:26-34 266 16:27 254 16:30-54 254 16:31 99 16:35-43 235 16:40 113 16:42 88 16:45 254 16:44 259,281 16:44-6S 242-55 16:46 250 16:45 88 16:58 254 16:59 270 16:60-63 238 16:61 114 17 233, 255-77, 281 17:1 xxxiii. 68 17:1-10 261 17:2 299 17:5-4 274 17:5 505 17:5-6 506 17:6 255 17:7-9 235 17:8 503 17:10 xxxviii, 167, 304 17:11-21 xxxiv, 268 17:llI-14 235 17:llI-15 302

17:llI-19 506 17:15 65,209,298 17:llI-l7 US 17:20-21 302 17:21 xxvii, 175, 272 17:22-24 273 18 xxiv, xxxiv, xxxvi, 50, 162,209,214, 247,277-93,296,299 18-19 xliii 18:2 xxiv, SO 18:2-4 282 18:6 225 18:12-16 xxxvi 18:18-20 286 18:21-52 288 18:22 49 18:24 49 18:30-52 81 18:51 164 18:31-52 162,299 18:32 505 xxxv, 51, 282, 29l1-506 19 19:1-2 298 19:2-9 299 19:4b 65 19:10 267 19:10-12 264 19:10-14 505 19:11-14 112 19:12 xxx";;;, 167, 2&7 19:14 ~ 19:18 272 74,282,291 20 20:1 xxiv, xliv, 128, 201 20:4-32 26 20:5-6 270 20:7-8 283 20:8-52 67 20:27-51 xxxiv 20:28 104 20:31 231 20:52 xxiv, 26, 20 I 2O:3l1-58 84 20:54 xxvii. xxxiii 20:35 67 20:55-58 295 20:38 21,189 26 20:40 20:41 xxvii xxiv 20:41-44 20:45 99 20:44 270 20:45 94 21 94 21:1-12 195 xxviii. xliv, 96 21:2 21:7 xxviii. xliv 209,293 21:8 xxxv, 31 21:11-12 185 21:14 21:17 31 21:18-20 41 21:2l1-25 xxviii 21:2l1-28 xxvii 21:24 233 21:26 233 21:30-52 268 21:51-52 273 185 21:33 22 180 22:1-12 285 22:1-22 164 22:2 xxiv, xxv, 58 22:2-16 219 22:6-12 xxxiv, 115

Index of Biblical Texts 22:7 22:9 22:11 22:12 22:14 22:18 22:24 22:2& 22:26 22:29 22:50 25 xxxv, 74. 220, 221. 245,

•••i,28& 154,284 254, 285 28& 270 18& 159,207 299 127 28& 186,192 246, 253, 282,291 xxxiv 67 248 133 256 2S5 254 114 254 254,256 254 xxxvi. xxxvii 254 254 xliv xxxv, 157

2S-51 23:1-5 25:S-8 25:5-21 25:17 2S:I9-20 25:21 25:24 25:27 23:29 2S:S5 23:56-49 25:44 23:48-49 24:1 24:1-14 24:2 XX\' 24:5-14 61 24:15 254 24:15-18 293 24:15-24 xxix, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxviii, 52, 55,56,209 24:15-27 257 24:15-28 xxiv. xxxii. ! 1 24:16-18 58 24:18 129,141 24:21 115,121 24:22-25 &2 24:25b 178 24:24 xix, 52, 54 24:25-27 xxvi. xxix, xxxiv. 41. 56, 57, 209 24:40 156 25 xxix 25-28 xxix 25-52 xxxix, 26, SS '25-48 xxxix xxviii, xliv, 101 25:2 25:2-5 24 25:5 xxviii 25:6 251 25:8 xxviii 25:13 25 25:15 251 25:15-17 255 xxviii, xxix 26-28 xxxvii, xliv 26:1 xxviii,IOI 26:2 26:8 xxxvii 26:15 30 26:16 89,261 26:17 299 27 xxxv 27:2 50 27:5 xxviii,264 27:7 261 27:12 264 27:16 261, 264 27:18 264 27:21 264 27:24 261 27:26 xxxviii, 167,267,504

27:32 27:55 27:56 211 28:1 28:2 28:3 28,7 28,:11 28:14 28:19 28:11 28:12 28:12-17 28:25 28:24 28:24-26 28:25 28:26 28:21 29-52 29:1 29:1-2 29:1-9 29:1-12 29:1-1'/; 29:2 29:5 29:8 29:9 29:9-12 29:11 29:16 29:17 29:17-20 29:17-21 29:21 50:1-19 50:2 50:2-5 50:14 50:16 30:20 30:20-22 50:20-26 50:25 50:51 51 ":1 51:2 51:6 51:10-14 51:14 52 52:1 32:1-16 32:2 52:10 52:15 52:17 52:17-32 52:18 55 55:1-6 55:1-9 53:1-20 55:2 55:2-6 55:6 33:S-8 55:7-9 55:8 55:8-9 55:9 55:10

817

50 89 264,50S xlvi 24 xxviii, xxxiv xlvi 207 xxxvii 274 laD 89.303 24 xxxiv, 30 xlvi 230 28.251 xxxix I

xxvii

251 xxviii. xliv 209 xxviii. xliv, 174, 175 xliv 255 65 xxviii xxviii, xxix, xxxiv, xliv. 24

xxviii 25 xx\'iii 214 25 30 xxix, xliv. 54

xxix, xxxi xxxii, xxxvi

xxxi. xxxvi xxix

185 114 xxxvi

xxxvi xliv 270 xxviii,255 xix xxviii

xxxv, 304 xliv, 274 xxxiv, 24 91 304 26 xxxvi xliv xxviii xxix, 24, 299 89 214 54

xxviii 30 xxxv. xxxvi. xxxviii xxxvi xxiv, xxxv xxiv, xx~v xxxvi 47,49,96 115 283 xxxvi. xli. 48 47,48 113 47,49 xxiv, 50

SS:I()"II SS:I()"20 5':11 58:12 S5:12-2O 83:1& 83:17 33:20 83:21 55:21-22 83:22 33:2S-29 33:26 35:28 55:29 55:30 53:S()"'1 SS:SO-SS 54 54:1-10 54:2 54:5 54:& 54:7 54:8 54:10 54:11 54:11-16 54:11-51 54:12 34:15 54:14 54:15-16 34:16 54:23 34:25-51 54:29 55 55:1-56:15 55;2 55:10 55:10-56:5 55:11 55:12 55:15 56 56-57 56:2 56:5 56:5 56:9 36:10 56:10-12 36:12 36:13 36:16-20 36:16-21 56:16-58 36:17 56:19 56:22 56;23-58 56:25

I&S, 182 50, HI, 11&

.11 XXKY;

289 28& xxxvi,289 289 xxi. xxix. xliV xxi, 41, 56, 57,9',209 xxvi. 129 xxiv, 214 285 214 285 xxxvi. 195.21S 114 xxxv 274 xxxv xlv. 31. 185. 188.218 207 xxxiv 255 207 xlv xlv xxxiv. xxxv, xli xxiv xxvii xlv 275 xlv xix, xli xli, xlv xxxv 274 xxxi, SS xxxvi xxviii, xxxi, xliv xxviii. 21

xxxi

114 xxviii 156 xxxi xxiv xxviii,lOI 185 251 189 26,156 25 xxxi xxviii xxiii,105 117 xxxv 26 xxvii xlv 182 xxxii 56:2~27 241 56:25-28 251 56:26 292 36:26-27 205,291 36:28 204 56:51 99 56:52 xlv 37 xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii. xxxviii, xlv. 4, 70, 95 57:1 xxvii, xxxi, xxxiv, 3, 4, 5, 41,156, 161,168 57:1-2 175,271

~U8 57:1-10 S7:1-14 S7:7 51:9

S7:1O

INDEX OF BIBLICAL TEXTS xxviii

xxxii 141 185 141 xxiii, xlv, 26, SO xxxii 250,251 xxxv, 68, 244 70 26 xlv xli. xlvi 204 xli. xlv, xlvi 204 xx, xxii. xxxv, xli, xlvi, 96 xxviii. xxxvii 70 xxviii, xxxvii. xli, xliv xxxvii, xlvi 201

51:11 57: I !>-20 57:1!>-22 87:1!>-23 51: 1!>-28 51:16 51:19-23 57:22 37:23 • 51:24 ' 87:27 88-89 88:1-89:16 38:1-39:24 38:2 88:8 88:10 38:14-16 xlvi 88:17 xxxvii 38:19 xlvi 38:21 xlvi 39 xlvi 39:4 207 89:8 xxxvii 39:17 207 39:24 270 39:25 xxxiii, 26, 244 89:2!>-29 xxxiii,70 40--43 xxx 40--47 xlii 40--48 xxi, XXV. )lxix. xxxi, xxxiii, xxxiv, xxxvi, xlvi, 70,135,251,274 40:1 xliv, 4, 83, 166 40:2 xxxviii, xlii. 5 41--42 xliii 42:2 55 42:14 147 42:15 135 43:1-5 143 43:1-7a xxxix 43:2 35 43:2-5 xlvi 43:3 xxvi, xxxiv, 17, 18,42, 131 43:4 233 43:4-5 133 43:7 xlvi,251 43:18-46:15 xxx 44:1 233 44:2 xlvi 44:4 xxxix, 233 44:15 xxxvi 44: I !>-27 xxxix 44:16 231 44:2!!-31 xxxvi 44:24 114 45--46 xliii 45:1-5 xxx 45:1~ xxxvi,25. 45:2 xxx 45:6 xxx, 26 45:7 xlii 45:7~ xxxi 45:8 xxxi 45: 1!!-25 228

45:18-25 45:20 45:21 46:1-2 45:1-12 46:6 46:9 46:19-47:12 47:2 47:7-12 47:8-11 47:13--48:29 47:15--48:35 47:15 47:1!>-17 47:1!>-19 47:17 47:19 47:21-23 47:22 47:22-23 48 48:1-3 48:8-20 48:8-22 48: I !>-22 48:21-22 48:30-35 48:35

xlvi 114 xxix, II 28S xxxi xl 255 xxx 238 xlvi xxxi xxxii, xlii, 70, 250, 275 xxx, 244 xxx 104

xxx lOS

xxx xxxiv xxxi 252 xliii,275 18

78 274 219 274 304 23 23 88,290 6!;

xli xli xli, xliii, 25 77 291 xxviii 293 210,293

229 181 112 186 84 xxvii 56 30

69 23 1S3 109 186

Jrmah

Micah

xxxi

1:1 2:4 4:1-4 4:1-5 4:1 4:5 5:7 6:6-8 6:8

54 157 99

4

50 t'7&

m

275 250 296 xlvi 283

Nahum

I 3:10

51 233

HabaAM

1:8 1:12 2:17 3 3:10

263 ISS 268,268 37 38

Ztphaniah 240 4 230 ISS 232 225 225 254 99 233,235 207 213

JOtI 1:1 1:1!!-14

7:1~

7:7 7:13 8:3 9:11

xxx

Hosea 1-3 1:1 2:8 2:10 2:17 2:18-20 3:3 6:9 9:1 12:1 1S:8 14:7

2:8 2:9 3:9-10 4:3 4:11 5:5 5:10 5:16

251 xlii xlii, UI xxx, xxxi

197 120

A.....

1:2a 3:6-9 3:10

0......1 1:8-18 2:38 3:19 4:9 4:10-14 5 5:5 5:27 6 7:13 7: I !!-14 8:17 9:3 9:16 11:17 11:35 12:2-3

2:28-29 4:18

4 157

1:1 1:18 9:1-7

4 113 18

Zechariah 3:2 7:1-5 7:5 7:13 8:19 9:!>-7 10:2 11:3 12:3 14:8 14:21

84 305 67 127 305 253 194 297 xlvi

xlvi 263

Index of Biblical Ttxts

SI9

B. Old Teltament Apocrypha and Pleudepigrapha Sirach 24:11 41:2 45:23

I EM-54 8:20 15:31-32 15:22 17:5 17:12 18:1-6 24:6 25:51-46

276 24 224 115 241 xli 277 263 24

xli 254 122 210

MarA 7:26 1S:7

24 41 30 58 25

1:31 5:8 9-11 10:7 10:15 12:1-2 13:14

263 122

167 167 56 230 230 24 xxviii, xlv 224 292 153 xli, xlv

2:13 7:29-31 9:16b 11:27-29 15:19-20 15:58

254 241 xlvi 134 197 241 241

215 119 50 283 293 210

240 23

Galatians 5:17 3:26 3:27

67 66 241

John 1:14 3:29 3:36 10 10:1-18 10:11 10:16 1O:2!>-29 10:30 11:2 11:52 12:3 12:28-31 15:1-11 19:30

32 240 153 xli xli, xlv 306 xli xli xli 230 66 230 150 306 70

Ephl,ians 2:1 4:22-24 5:2!>-27

241 241 240

PhiliptJians 2:!>-11

18

Coumians 3:9-14

241

2 Timoth, 3:3

254

Acts

2 6:8-7:58 7:6 7:56

197 58 67 xli

Htbrnls

1:3 2:10 4:12

19 230 292

xlvi xlvi xlvi

Ja.... 50 159

1 Pet" 1:3-4 1:18-19

141 291

2 Peter 3:9

2 Corinthians 11:12 12:1-5

8:10 8:13 9:23-10:4

1:13-15 5:17

R....ns

I Corinthians

Luu 4:1 4:14 6:26 7:38 7:46 9:35 9:51 10:32 15:10 17:34 19:10

9:4 10:5-6 10:9-16 21:27-36 26:16

292

Rewlalion

1:5 1:10 1:12 1:13 1:15 3:4-5 4 4:1 4:3 4:5 4:6 4:6-9 4:7 4:9-10 4:11 5:1 5:5 5:6 5:8-iO 5:9 5:11-14 6:7 7:2-3 7:13-14 9:1S 10:4 10:8 10:8-11 11:8 14:1 16:1 18:4 18:21-23 19:9 19:13 19:17-21 20:8 21:2 21:7

19 24 24

xli xli 241 17 24 II 17 17

xli 17 17 17 17 306 306 17 306 17 24 145,153 241 24 24 24 32 146 145, 153 24 24 303 240 17,19

xlvi xli, xlii, xlvi 240

xli

320 21:10 21:16

INDEX OF BIBLICAL TEXTS xlii xlii

21:22 22:1-5

xlii x1yi

22:9 22:25-26

25 211

D. Dead Sea SeroUs 1QpHa6

1:5-4 4QpNah

2:5

Rult of rill Communi"

Psal... 268

xxvii

151

96

1:2S-2:1

291

Index of Key Hebrew Words UTN nNn/TlN 1mnN III'N u'n')N I"N nu:! :lJ U'U n')J')J/n')u '),')J mnT 1'T Tn nln l"n Illn 'lin ')nlDn

11 102 242 8 5 134 97,229 232 26 xxv-xxvii. xxxii, xxxviii, 5,55, 167, 171,258 97 10,15 253 108-10 30,114 190 97 155 16

T' ')Npln' :llll' I Ill;) nUTp/nIl'TID:l p') 1')D')

\1D :lIll'1l mN'D/nN'D

',Il ')m

,m

N'lIIl ,lIIl

120,195 xix

39-40 26l1-M xxvii, xxxviii, 167 90 251 11~18

131 5,10,15 28 xxvi xotvi, 5, 38 122,176 261

I'll n')l1 TUII

10,106 201 151

PT~

n1'ElJ

249,271,284 109,115

')lP nJ'P I"P

14, 19, 24, 57 30,223 108-9

II'P'

13,25,37, 130, 158 36 232 IS 150 249-50 122, 188, 190

nn 01'

nil'

n'lIo O':l'O

13 21,28

'Till :llill Ul')IIJ

":lll

231 60,75

m:lllln

\111

101-2, 106, 248, 286

Ezekiel 1- 19 The turbulent time ofIsrael's exile in Babylonia is the setting for this scholarly analysis of the Old Testament book of Ezekiel. At a time when all that Judah and Jerusalem held dear was under assault, Ezekiel was set as a "watchman on the walls" to warn Israel that her disobedience would result in cenain destruction. Although Prof. Brownlee's untimely death interrupted the concluding ponions of this study, his editors have put it in a fmal form that is wonhy of the acclaim already won by this series. Here the author critically examines the form, style, historical background, theology, and current relevance of this crucial piece of Hebrew prophecy. After carefully examining critical arguments challenging the book's unity, he concludes that the message of the text as we have it is to be respected. The author finds special significance in the frequently repeated saying that the prophet "sets his face toward" those to whom he is to prophesy. This formula impels Ezekiel not only to rebuke Israel but the oppressing nations as well. Considerable attention is also given to the sections of Ezekiel which look toward the Last Days. Their similarity to passages in the book of Revelation, as well as the way the title "son of man" is applied both to Ezekiel and to Jesus, is carefully noted. Another intriguing aspect of the book is the analysis of the prophet's symbolic actions - cutting and scattering his beard, lying paralyzed for days, joining two sticks to predict the reunion of the nonhern and southern kingdoms ofIsrael. Against some critics, Dr. Brownlee defends the soundness of such actions by reminding us that rather than being mentally ill, Ezekiel was seized upon by God to deliver dramatic messages fittingly illustrated by such symbolic behavior. WILLIAM H. BROWNLEE was Professor of Religion at the Claremont Graduate School until his death in 1983. Widely recognized for his many writings on the prophet Ezekiel, he held the Th.B. and Th.M. degrees from Pittsburgh-Xenia Theological Seminary and the Ph.D. from the Depanment of Religion of Duke University's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.

ISBN 0-8499 -0228-2

II

90 0 0 0>

9 780849 902284 I111111111111