"I will be King over you!": The Rhetoric of Divine Kingship in the Book of Ezekiel 9781463236113

Citation preview

“I will be King over you!”

Gorgias Biblical Studies

59

In this series Gorgias publishes monographs on the history, theology, redaction and literary criticism of the biblical texts. Gorgias particularly welcomes proposals from younger scholars whose dissertations have made an important contribution to the field of Biblical Studies. Studies of language and linguistics, the archaeology and cultures of the Ancient Near East, Judaism and religion in general each have their own series and will not be included in this series.

“I will be King over you!”

The Rhetoric of Divine Kingship in the Book of Ezekiel

Terry R. Clark

9

34 2014

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2014 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2014

‫ܚ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0286-6

ISSN 1935-6870

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Clark, Terry Ray. I will be king over you! : the rhetoric of divine kingship in the book of Ezekiel / by Terry Clark. pages cm. -- (Gorgias biblical studies, ISSN 1935-6870 ; 59) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4632-0286-6 1. Kings and rulers--Biblical teaching. 2. Bible. Ezekiel--Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. BS1545.6.K5C53 2014 224’.4066--dc23 2014031702 Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..................................................................................... v Acknowledgments ................................................................................... ix Abbreviations ........................................................................................... xi Chapter One: Introduction ..................................................................... 1 The Book of Ezekiel and Rhetorical Analysis ............................ 6 Prior Rhetorical Analyses of Ezekiel ............................................ 7 The Scope of This Study .............................................................. 12 The Method of Rhetorical Analysis ............................................ 18 Chapter Two: Rhetorical Arrangement, Genre, and Purpose ......... 25 The Visions of 1–3, 8–11, 40–48 ................................................ 28 Ezekiel 1–24, 25–32, 33, and 34–48 ........................................... 30 Chapters 1–24 .......................................................................... 32 Chapters 25–32 ........................................................................ 39 Chapters 33–48 ........................................................................ 46 The Overall Purpose of the Book of Ezekiel ........................... 50 Conclusion ...................................................................................... 54 Chapter Three: Historical, Ideological, and Rhetorical Context ............................................................................................ 57 Rhetorical Situation of the Book of Ezekiel ............................. 61 Divine Kingship in Israel ............................................................. 63 The Historical and Ideological Context of Ezekiel .................. 65 Divine Kingship and the Rhetorical Situation of Ezekiel ....... 79 The Exile as Ideological Crisis .................................................... 82 A Closer Look at Ezekiel’s Intended Audience........................ 93 Chapter Four: Rhetoric of Divine Presence and Absence.............101 Ezekiel 1:4–3:15: Yahweh’s Initial Appearance to the Priest Ezekiel .......................................................................101 Rhetorical Unit, Arrangement, & Genre ...........................101 Rhetorical Situation of Ezekiel 1:4–3:15............................107 Rhetorical Strategies: Logos/Ethos/Pathos .....................109 Rhetorical Synthesis ..............................................................116 v

vi

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Ezekiel 8–11: Yahweh Departs from the Jerusalem Temple .................................................................................120 Rhetorical Unit, Arrangement, & Genre ...........................120 Rhetorical Situation of Ezekiel 8–11 ..................................124 Rhetorical Strategies: Logos/Ethos/Pathos .....................125 Rhetorical Synthesis ..............................................................128 Ezekiel 40–48 (40:1–43:1–12): Yahweh Returns to Dwell in the Promised Land .............................................129 Rhetorical Unit, Arrangement, & Genre ...........................129 Rhetorical Situation of Ezekiel 40–48 ................................134 Rhetorical Strategies: Logos/Ethos/Pathos .....................135 Rhetorical Synthesis ..............................................................138 Chapter Five: Rhetoric of the Exodus and Yahweh’s Reputation ....................................................................................145 The Exodus Traditions and Israelite Identity .........................147 The Exodus and Yahweh’s Reputation (Ezek 20:1–44) .......150 Rhetorical Unit, Translation, Arrangement, and Genre ..............................................................................150 Rhetorical Situation ...............................................................164 Rhetorical Strategies: Logos/Ethos/Pathos .....................167 Rhetorical Synthesis ..............................................................191 Chapter Six: Rhetoric of Paradise and the Underworld .................193 Ezekiel’s Oracles against the Nations ......................................196 Paradise Lost by the King of Tyre (Ezek 28:11–19)..............201 Rhetorical Unit, Translation, Arrangement, and Genre ..............................................................................201 Rhetorical Situation ...............................................................210 Rhetorical Strategies: Logos/Ethos/Pathos .....................215 Rhetorical Synthesis ..............................................................223 Paradise Lost by the King of Egypt (Ezek 31:1–18) .............224 Rhetorical Unit, Translation, Arrangement, and Genre ..............................................................................224 Rhetorical Situation ...............................................................233 Rhetorical Strategies: Logos/Ethos/Pathos .....................233 Rhetorical Synthesis ..............................................................238 The Rhetoric of Paradise in Ezekiel 36 and 47 ................240 Conclusion ....................................................................................243 Chapter Seven: Rhetoric of Yahweh as Shepherd ..........................245 The Shepherd Kingship of Yahweh (Ezek 34:1–31) .............246

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

Rhetorical Unit, Translation, Arrangement, and Genre ..............................................................................246 Rhetorical Situation ...............................................................264 Rhetorical Strategies: Logos/Ethos/Pathos .....................269 Rhetorical Synthesis ..............................................................285 Chapter Eight: Conclusion..................................................................289 Bibliography ..........................................................................................291 Index .......................................................................................................309 Biblical References ......................................................................309 Subjects .........................................................................................322

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my most sincere appreciation to Dr. Mark K. George of the Iliff School of Theology for introducing me to the method of Rhetorical Analysis and contributing to my great love for the Book of Ezekiel. Your influence in shaping me as a scholar will forever be treasured. I would also like to thank Dr. Scott Howard of the University of Denver for being such an encouraging and supportive mentor during my days as a PhD student. You were the epitome of grace, both inside and outside the classroom. I thank both the Iliff School of Theology and the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs for invaluable teaching opportunities during my earliest years as an instructor. I thank my first Hebrew Bible mentor Dr. Paul Redditt for initially fanning the flame of my love for the prophets, and for continuing to encourage and inspire me as friend, mentor, and scholar. I thank my students at Georgetown College for their attention and insights as I continue to refine my understanding of Israel’s immeasurably important sacred texts, which never cease to amaze me with the relevance of their messages for our modern day world. I thank Georgetown College for giving me such a wonderfully free and collegial environment to teach in and for supporting my continuing development as a scholar. Thanks to Gorgias Press for giving me the opportunity to publish my views in the present volume. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Melonie Schmierer-Lee, Acquisitions Editor, for help in preparing this manuscript for publication. And finally, I would like to thank my beautiful wife Natalie and my sons Corwin and Wesley for all the hours of patience while my attention was directed on something other than family during the completion of this work.

ix

ABBREVIATIONS AOAT AB ABD AfOB ANET

AnSt ARAB ArOr AS ASOR ATSHB

BARead BASOR BBR BETL BibOr BIFAO BJS BM

Alter Orient und Altes Testament Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992. Archiv für Orientforschung: Beiheft Ancient Near Eastern Texts: Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3rd edn. Princeton, 1969. Anatolian Studies Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. Daniel David Luckenbill. 2 vols. Chicago, 1926–1927. Archiv Orientální Assyriological Studies American Schools of Oriental Research Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: a Guide to the Background Literature. Kenton L. Sparks. Peabody, 2005. Biblical Archaeologist Reader Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin for Biblical Research Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblica et orientalia Bulletin de l’Institute français d’archéologie orientale Brown Judaic Studies Foster, Benjamin R. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 3rd edn. Bethesda, 2005. xi

xii BO BRev BZAW CBET CBQ CBQMS CHJ

ConBOT COS CQR DBI DDD

Di ErIsr ETSSt FCBS FOTL FRLANT HAR HAT Hermeneia HSM IBC ICC

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!” Bibliotheca Orientalis Bible Review Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series The Cambridge History of Judaism. 4 vols. Edited by W. D. Davies et al. Louis Finkelstein. Cambridge, 1984–2006. Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series The Context of Scripture. Edited by W. W. Hallo. 3 vols. Leiden, 2003. Church Quarterly Review Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Edited by Leland Ryken et al. Downers Grove, 1998. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd rev. ed. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. Van der Horst. Grand Rapids, 1999. Dialog Eretz-Israel Evangelical Theological Society Studies Fortress Classics in Biblical Studies Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Hebrew Annual Review Handbuch zum Alten Testament Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible Harvard Semitic Monographs Interpretation: A Biblical Commentary for Teaching and Preaching International Critical Commentary

INTRODUCTION IDB IEJ Int JAOS JBL JCS JSJSup JSOT JSOTSup JSS KTU

LAI LCL LHBOTS MDB NIBC NICOT OAN OBO OBT OLA Or OTL PTMS RB SANE

xiii

The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick. 4 vols. Nashville, 1962. Israel Exploration Journal Interpretation Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. AOAT 24/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976. 2nd enlarged ed. of KTU: The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. Münster, 1995 (= CTU) Library of Ancient Israel Loeb Classical Library Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Mercer Dictionary of the Bible New International Bible Commentary New International Commentary on the Old Testament Oracles against the Nations Orbis biblicus et orientalis Overtures to Biblical Theology Orientalia lovaniensia analecta Orientalia Old Testament Library Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series Revue Biblique Sources from the Ancient Near East

xiv SBLMS SBLSBL SBLSP SBLSymS SBS SHBC SIR SOTBT SOTSMS SP SPOT ST STAR TDOT TJ Transeu UBL UUA VT VTSup WBC WMANT YNER ZÄS ZAW

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!” Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Studies in Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary Studies in Religion (University of North Carolina Press) Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology Society for Old Testament Studies Monograph Series Sacra pagina Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament Studia Theologica Studies in Theology and Religion Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Trinity Journal Transeuphratène Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur Uppsala Universitetsårskrift Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Yale Near Eastern Researches Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION The historian’s chief tasks — reconstructing the past and explaining why it happened — are exercises fraught with peril, because they can never be completed to perfection. One’s best efforts may only produce an outcome that achieves a degree of probability (preferably a higher degree, rather than a lower one). A more credible outcome is less likely, on the whole, when only a limited amount of resources is available for assisting the endeavor of reconstructing “what really happened.” In the case of examining an artifact like the Book of Ezekiel, the task of determining what happened is rather simple  someone(s) composed a book! Here, the major task is to seek clarity on the question of why something happened. Why was the Book of Ezekiel composed? What was its originally intended purpose? Or, as I like to state the questions for the students in my college classes, “Why do we have what we have? Why was this material composed, preserved, and for whom?” And then, of course, all of these questions lead to the most central question for any biblical interpreter: “How should we read this material?” As a biblical scholar who greatly values the historical quest, my starting point for interpreting biblical texts is an attempt to read for the original author’s and/or ancient editor’s purpose(s). And of course, as a modern day person far removed from the culture of the ancient world, this task is not simple. Biblical texts are always received by later generations as products that have been, to some degree, shaped by the hands of those who collected, organized, and passed on their content for their own ideological purposes. There is no way of knowing for sure how a text might have looked in any kind of “original” form, or if it is even appropriate to postulate such a thing, since many ancient texts grow out of originally oral tradition, and may change significantly over time. The actual production of a text might happen rapidly in response to one, major 1

2

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

crisis or concern, or it might occur very slowly through a gradual process of accumulation, passing through a number of scribal and editorial hands before any kind of “final” product emerges. Thus, within the bounds of a single text (in this case understood as a biblical book), one might encounter a variety of ideological concerns, which could reflect various editorial hands. This can result in a great deal of internal conflict in a single text, especially when a final editor or preserver does not care to edit the text for anything akin to our modern notion of logical consistency. The book you are now reading takes all of this into consideration, but it still attempts to read an ancient text, in this case the Masoretic Text of the Book of Ezekiel, to see if the final product might contain a coherent argument. 1 Scholars have long noted the degree to which the Book of Ezekiel has been organized by one or more editorial hands. The text appears to be rather polished. It exhibits multiple levels or types of organization. And yet, however many editors may have contributed to the task, the final product contains a great degree of coherence in terms of the agenda and writing style. But important questions remain. Why was it organized in this particular fashion? How should it be read? What message or messages is it intended to convey, and for whom? Is there a central argument, a coherent thread that runs through all 48 chapters? Are there certain topics or motifs that recur throughout? The argument here is that MT Ezekiel does provide the reader with a coherent message that may be deduced by approaching the text as an act of rhetoric. That is, Ezekiel is primarily intended to convince the intended reader to believe and/or do something, and the text itself is the single greatest key to deciphering its originally intended (i.e., historical) purpose. This purpose revolves around a persistent assertion of Yahweh’s sovereignty, an idea that is found either explicitly or implicitly throughout the entire biblical book. It is my conviction that, by focusing on this thread, one may come to a better understanding of the intended purpose of the Book of Ezekiel, and therefore a greater understanding of the rhetorical situation to which Ezekiel serves as a response. Of course, one might also attempt to read other extant texts of Ezekiel, such as Septuagint Ezekiel, with the same goal in mind. 1

INTRODUCTION

3

The greatest danger in this endeavor is the temptation to embrace circularity in one’s analysis. The text is used to establish a rhetorical situation that called it forth. And yet, it is easy to assume from the start to know too much about the rhetorical situation and therefore read into the text an assumption one already holds. However, this particular text contains clues that not only point to a situation that existed for the originally intended audience, it also excludes information that one might expect to find if it intended to address other audiences, and this may provide an important way to set limits on how far into the future one should look for its original purpose(s). For example, few scholars would argue that any part of Ezekiel was composed prior to the Babylonian exile that began in 597 BCE. But how long after that time might material have been added? I would argue that one topic glaringly absent from the text is any reference to the Persians conquering Babylon under the leadership of King Cyrus of Persia in 539 BCE, when Cyrus liberated the Israelite exiles. Why would no reference be made whatsoever to this incredibly important and relevant event if it had already occurred, especially if it is referred to in other post-exilic biblical texts (2 Isaiah, Ezra, 2 Chronicles, and Daniel)? Nowhere does the Book of Ezekiel deal with the future in such a way as to suggest knowledge of this event. Instead, when Ezekiel does deal with the future, its general orientation is extremely idealistic rather than practical, if not outright idyllic. Normally, a lack of evidence serves as a poor means of argumentation, but in this case, the lack of any mention of Cyrus, coupled with an idyllic approach to the future of Israel makes a rather strong case for a completion date prior to the year 539 BCE.2 Ezekiel 43–48 does contain material reflective of specific priestly concerns that some might consider practical. But there is little evidence to suggest that the prescriptions here were closely followed or implemented later in Israelite history when temple worship in Israel was reinstated, except perhaps that Zadokite priests continued to be favored over Levitical priests, and that secular political authorities were to have more limited influence over or involvement in temple worship in the Second Temple Period. Clearly, the promise of a new, idlyllic Davidic king (cf. Ezek 34) was never fulfilled, nor was the vision of a new division of the Promised 2

4

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Thus, it is not only possible, but also perhaps even probable, that one may legitimately place rather firm parameters around the rhetorical situation, including the historical setting, that gave rise to the Book of Ezekiel. The work as a whole attempts to deal with a situation that pertained to the original Israelite exilic community and the first generation of Babylonian-born Israelites, dwelling in Babylon between the years 597 and 539 BCE. This is the perspective from which the current work will proceed with its analysis. Thus, there should be no mystery concerning the purpose of the book you are currently reading. It has primarily been written to explore the original intention of the Book of Ezekiel. The process is far from being an exercise in certainty. Instead, it represents an attempt to move more in the direction of probability by employing a particular type of methodology that, in my estimation, has not yet been applied in a rigorous enough manner. This is the methodology of rhetorical analysis, which will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. The next idea that guides the current work surrounds the role of a particular motif that was pervasive in the ancient Near East, and is pervasive in the Book of Ezekiel. This is the motif of divine kingship. Like other cultures in the ancient Fertile Crescent, ancient Israel imagined the divine realm as being organized in a hierarchical and monarchical fashion, much as the human realm was organized.3 Under normal circumstances, one deity was chiefly in charge of the divine realm, just as the human king was in charge of most well organized human societies. Whether human or divine, kings were surrounded by a retinue of servants that either implemented the will of the monarchs or, on some occasions, sought to overthrow their rule.

Land among the traditional twelve tribes (Ezek 48). For more on the unity of the book and dating prior to the end of the sixth century BCE, cf. Paul Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary (New York: T & T Clark, 2009), 16, 219– 221. 3 Roughly speaking, the Fertile Crescent refers to a fairly well watered, forward-leaning C-shaped stretch of geography running from Egypt to Babylon, or the Nile River Valley to the Persian Gulf.

INTRODUCTION

5

This was the standard way of ordering society, and disruptions in this order led to chaos until a new regime emerged to replace the old one. In ancient Israel, as in other ancient Near Eastern societies, the human king’s rule was intrinsically connected to that of the divine king, and a disruption in the former’s position and power naturally led to speculation about the position and power of the latter. In the case of Israel’s history in the early sixth century BCE, just such a disruption occurred when the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar (alternately spelled Nebuchadrezzar) conquered the state of Judah in 597 BCE, deposed the Israelite King Jehoiachin and much of his royal administration, and appointed his own despotic ruler from among the native populace (i.e., King Zedekiah, of the same royal family). This was the event that also brought the priest Ezekiel to live in exile, led to his supposed appointment by Yahweh as a prophet to the exilic community in Babylon, and eventuated in the construction of the prophetic Book of Ezekiel as a rhetorical response. Thus, the Book of Ezekiel represents a unique way of construing a crisis precipitated by the Babylonian exile, and serves as an attempted rhetorical solution. The critical role played by the motif of divine kingship in the Book of Ezekiel has been recognized by prior scholars. The most thorough rhetorical analysis of Ezekiel to date is provided in Thomas Renz’s 2002 publication, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. In this work Renz claims that, “all chapters [of Ezekiel] can be said to presuppose the kingship of Yahweh.”4 However, Renz provides very little detail to demonstrate the way the motif of Yahweh’s kingship operates as a means of argumentation. By way of contrast, in this book, I examine Yahweh’s kingship from the perspective of rhetorical analysis in order to highlight the argumentative strategies and purposes of those units of text in which the motif is most powerfully present, whether that presence is expressed implicitly or explicitly. The remainder of the current chapter briefly reviews the history of rhetorical research on Ezekiel. It then discusses the method of rhetorical analysis to be employed in the remainder of the proThomas Renz, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel (Boston: Brill, 2002), 129. 4

6

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

ject. Chapter two provides a brief discussion of the rhetorical arrangement and rhetorical genre of Ezekiel, and what these suggest about the rhetorical purpose of the book. Chapter three discusses the rhetorical context or situation that underlies the Book of Ezekiel as a whole, addressing that situation as primarily an ideological, theological, and cultural crisis resulting from the Babylonian conquest of the Israelite kingdom of Judah in the early sixth century BCE. Chapters four through seven provide detailed rhetorical analyses of various rhetorical units of text in which the motif of Yahweh’s kingship is most prominent. Chapter eight concludes the project with a synthesis of the insights gleaned from all that precedes it, and an evaluation of the unique contributions of the project as a whole.

THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL AND RHETORICAL ANALYSIS Rhetorical analysis recognizes that nearly all acts of human communication have an argumentative nature to them. That is, they attempt to persuade their intended audience in some way to agree with their authors. This book employs a classical version of rhetorical analysis to understand the argument or message of a text in light of the historical setting in which it was originally composed or in which it reached its final form. The operating assumption is that all texts arise in response to particular historical situations, which they interpret, reflect, and respond to in their own unique ways. This relationship between context and text may be described as a “problem-solution,” “question-answer,” or “crisis-resolution.” A classical approach need not merely employ ancient categories of rhetoric in order to analyze the nature of a text’s argument. As the study of human rhetoric progresses, so also do the analytical tools available to the scholar for understanding texts as argumentative forms of communication. Thus, the emphasis here is not so much on rhetoric as an art form or merely a method for literary analysis. This book employs both classical and modern categories of rhetoric to focus attention on the argumentative strategies in the Book of Ezekiel. In other words, what ideas does the Book of Ezekiel attempt to convince the intended reader to agree with, how are those ideas communicated, what do they suggest about the perceived situation or crisis of the original author(s), and how do they relate to what modern day readers think they know about the rhetorical situation of the book’s composers and intended readers?

INTRODUCTION

7

PRIOR RHETORICAL ANALYSES OF EZEKIEL A brief review of prior rhetorical analyses of Ezekiel will situate the present work academically. In 1988, James Arthur Durlesser completed a dissertation titled The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel, which consisted of a rhetorical analysis of allegorical oracles in Ezek 15, 16, 17, 19, 23, 27, 29:1–6a, 32:1–16, 33, and 34.5 Emphasis was placed upon the role of important metaphors that operated in these oracles, keeping in mind the “rhetorical triangle” of author, text, and audience. While acknowledging that these oracles “originated at a particular time and were written for a specific rhetorical situation,” Durlesser concluded that “allegory as a literary medium [has] a remarkably universal quality.”6 Durlesser noted that “the covenant relationship between Yahweh and the people of earth was always an important theme in the oracles,” no doubt a result of the fact that this covenant relationship, in the time which the oracles were composed, was being called into question by the historical realities of the exile.7 Lawrence Boadt published a number of works on Ezekiel that also employ a rhetorical methodology. His 1986 essay “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgment” sought a “single, coherent ‘message’ from Ezekiel” that could overcome the limitations of prior form-critical approaches that had dissected the text into individual and unrelated parts.8 In this article, Boadt uses linguistic and thematic arguments to assert that the collection of oracles against foreign nations in Ezekiel 25–32 “relate to the basic prophetic message that must be traced back to Ezekiel’s own ministry.”9 In addition, there is a “planned unity” to the canonical form of the work that originally sought to “rework the religious tradition, James Arthur Durlesser, The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel (Ph.D. diss., University of Pittsburgh, 1988). 6 Durlesser, Rhetoric of Allegory, 362. 7 Durlesser, Rhetoric of Allegory, 361. 8 Lawrence Boadt, “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgment,” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (ed. Johan Lust; BETL 74; Leuven: Leuven University Press: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1986), 182–200. 9 Boadt, “Rhetorical Strategies,” 198. 5

8

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

the myth, of Israel in order to re-establish the authority and power of Yahweh as the only god.”10 Thus, Boadt sees a central, polemical message behind all of Ezekiel, including the oracles against the nations, which asserts Yahweh’s sovereignty in the face of political, religious, and social threats to the identity of the people of Israel. In 1990, Boadt followed up his earlier essay with an article emphasizing another major portion of Ezekiel in “The Function of the Salvation Oracles in Ezekiel 33 to 37.”11 Here, he continues the argument that the Book of Ezekiel contains a unified rhetorical “‘program’ of Ezekiel [the historical prophet] himself.”12 Essentially, Boadt sees these oracles continuing the emphasis on Yahweh’s sovereignty found in the judgment oracles of Ezek 25–32, and he suggests the following thematic structure for the entire corpus: (1) The oracles of judgment in chaps. 1–24 explain the justice in Israel’s subjection to domination and exile by its enemies; (2) the oracles against nations in chaps. 25–32 reestablish the divine mastery over arrogant pride of these nations who do not merely punish but want to possess God’s chosen people and their land; (3) the oracles of hope and visions of the future aimed at Israel in chaps. 33–48 will restore the special relationship of blessing that God had promised in the covenant.13

Boadt concludes that the Book of Ezekiel is not a loosely organized collection of prophetic oracles and narratives with “extensive later adaptations,” but instead is an orderly work with an “over-

Boadt, “Rhetorical Strategies,” 199 (Boadt’s italics). I deal with the problematic nature of the terminology of myth below, along with my own decision to bracket its use, but for the moment, suffice it to say that “myth” has become a popular designation for certain ancient Near Eastern traditions that Ezekiel employs or adapts, just as “mythmaking” has, in some scholarly circles, become a descriptor for what the Book of Ezekiel was at least attempting to do. 11 Lawrence Boadt, “The Function of the Salvation Oracles in Ezekiel 33 to 37,” HAR 12 (1990): 1–21. 12 Boadt, “Salvation Oracles,” 1. 13 Boadt, “Salvation Oracles,” 5. 10

INTRODUCTION

9

arching theological conception behind it.” 14 I make a similar argument here on the basis of an analysis of the pervasive motif of Yahweh’s kingship in Ezekiel, recognizing its intention to establish the sovereignty of Yahweh for its intended audience. In 1996, Boadt published his “Mythological Themes and the Unity of Ezekiel,” where his search for an overarching rhetoric for the entire collection centers upon Chs. 38–48.15 Building upon the work of Ellen Davis (Swallowing the Scroll, 1989), he argues that the whole of Ezekiel serves a “paradigmatic” or teaching purpose of explaining “God’s ‘new’ ways as a result of the Exile and captivity in Babylon.”16 Here, his emphasis is primarily upon what he calls the “mythopoeic” [mythmaking] work of Ezekiel.17 In this approach, the popular ancient Near Eastern combat myth (Chaoskampf), a cosmic struggle between the forces of creation and chaos that eventuates in the creation or recreation of the world, is adapted by the composer(s) of Ezekiel in an attempt to create a mythology of Yahweh that can explain and supersede the recent catastrophe of the exile. Following the work of Bernard Batto, Boadt claims that the oracles against the named nations in Ezek 25–32 and against anonymous future enemies in Ezek 38–39 are Boadt, “Salvation Oracles,” 21. Lawrence Boadt, “Mythological Themes and the Unity of Ezekiel,” in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible (eds. L. J. de Regt, J. de Waard, and J. P. Fokkelman; Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum; Eisenbrauns, 1996), 211–231. 16 Boadt, “Mythological Themes,” 215. Cf. Ellen Davis, Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy (JSOTSup 78; Sheffield, Almond Press, 1989). 17 Boadt draws upon the following works to argue that Ezekiel consciously adapts extant mythical tradition to make a theological statement about Yahweh in response to the exilic crisis: Michael Astour, “Ezekiel’s Prophecy of Gog and the Cuthean Legend of Naram Sin,” JBL 95 (1976): 567–579; Susan Niditch, “Ezekiel 40–48 in a Visionary Context,” CBQ 48 (1986): 208–224; M. Nobile, “Beziehung zwischen Ez 32, 17–32 und der Gog-Perikope (Ez 38–39) im Lichte der Endredaktion,” BETL 74 (1986): 255–259; and Bernard F. Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1992). 14 15

10

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

designed to demonstrate Yahweh’s universal sovereignty, in the process making both historical and meta-historical claims about the ultimate reality of Israel’s god. Together, these enemies represent all the forces of chaos arrayed against Yahweh and his people, and the ultimate defeat of these enemies, depicted with so-called mythological language, “suggests that Ezekiel’s purpose in organizing the book as a whole involves establishing a counter ‘myth’ for Israel.”18 As such, the prophetic book’s central purpose is rhetorical and theological, responding to Yahweh’s supposed defeat by the patron deity of Babylon (Marduk) and his damaged reputation in comparison to the patron deities of those nations which escaped destruction by Babylon in the sixth century BCE. Ezekiel’s method, according to Boadt, is literary and rhetorical, constructing a myth based upon a typical ancient Near Eastern pattern of divine chaosvictory-enthronement, which is found in MT Ezek 25–48. This new Yahwistic myth responds to the exiles’ temptation to abandon their traditional patron deity and assimilate to Babylonian society. It does so by reasserting Yahweh’s authority and sovereignty over his exiled people.19 While Boadt makes an important contribution to the study of Ezekiel by highlighting the existence of mythological themes, it is difficult to conclude that the reader should therefore interpret the bulk of the corpus as an exercise in mythopoesis. The multiple genres of the texts in Ezekiel 25–48 by themselves do not support such an interpretation. One would expect a more coherent, straightforward, mytho-poetic cycle depicting the mighty acts of Yahweh if in fact the author(s) intended to create a new Yahweh myth. Instead, it might be more appropriate to consider much of the material in the Book of Ezekiel as an exercise in theological

Boadt, “Mythological Themes,” 229. Boadt also references his earlier work, Ezekiel’s Oracles Against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32 (BibOr 37; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), 176–177, in which he highlighted unique vocabulary connections between 1–24, 25–32, and 38–39 to argue for the unity of the corpus. 18 19

INTRODUCTION

11

apologetics, that is, an attempt to defend the legitimacy of continued faith in Yahweh as the sovereign lord of Israel. Thomas Renz’s 2002 publication, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel, treats the entire corpus of Ezekiel as a coherent rhetorical unit, analyzing it for the light it sheds upon the following: the rhetorical crisis or situation from the composer’s (or composers’) perspective; the rhetorical disposition and argumentative arrangement of the corpus, the rhetorical techniques or strategies used to change the audience’s thinking; and the rhetorical effectiveness, which analyzes how well the text responds to the rhetorical situation by alleviating the perceived crisis. Renz concludes that the Book of Ezekiel is a coherent argument that interprets the historical prophet’s ministry for a particular audience, which Renz defines as the generation of exiles immediately following the prophet’s own generation. 20 Renz understands the overarching rhetorical situation of Ezekiel as a crisis of identity-maintenance for the exiles, who now find themselves dislocated from Jerusalem, the socio-political and religious center of Judean society.21 Ezekiel’s argument, according to Renz, is designed to urge readers “to become Israelites in the full sense, that is, the people of Yahweh that will be restored in the land of Yahweh,”22 even if, for the moment, the exiles are destined to reside in Babylon. Hence, the primary concern of Ezekiel is exilic Israel’s ethos, “the self-understanding and belief-system of the community,”23 which must be clarified and reinforced if the exiles are to avoid being totally assimilated into Babylonian society. The central thesis of the larger prophetic project is that “the exilic community is to define itself not by the past but by the future promised by Yahweh,” a future that has as its beginning and end “the acknowledgement of Yahweh’s kingship.”24

Renz, Rhetorical Function, 15. Renz, Rhetorical Function, 45. For a more detailed discussion of the exilic crisis, see my discussion of the rhetorical situation below. 22 Renz, Rhetorical Function, 53. 23 Renz, Rhetorical Function, 55. 24 Renz, Rhetorical Function, 249. 20 21

12

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

It can be seen then, by this short summary of prior rhetorical analyses of Ezekiel, that scholars have noticed thematic and rhetorical unity in the corpus for several decades. In addition, scholars have also zeroed-in on the importance of reasserting Yahweh’s sovereignty, and the necessity of maintaining faith in Yahweh in the face of the threat of assimilation to Babylonian society. However, in spite of Renz’s recognition of the central role of Yahweh’s kingship in the rhetoric of Ezekiel, his book spends very little space focusing attention on those passages in which this motif is most implicitly and explicitly present. Hence, a major purpose of the current work is to fill this gap in modern day rhetorical analysis of Ezekiel.

THE SCOPE OF THIS STUDY This book, like the works of Boadt and Renz, acknowledges the important role of Yahweh’s kingship in Ezekiel’s response to the exile. But it seeks to analyze in greater depth, and therefore better clarify, the rhetorical function of Yahweh’s kingship by scrutinizing those texts in which the motif is most prominent. 25 This study demonstrates not only that Yahweh’s kingship plays a critical role in the way Ezekiel understands the crisis of exile, but also the way Ezekiel presents a rhetorical solution to that crisis. This study analyzes the Masoretic Text of Ezekiel without resorting to unnecessary emendations on the basis of other texts or translations. The assumption here is that the MT represents a unique piece of ancient Israelite rhetoric, and provides the modern scholar a valid unit for rhetorical study. Admittedly, the textual history of the Book of Ezekiel is a matter of some debate, but at present, there is no scholarly consensus on the place of the Masoretic Renz’s lack of focus on the rhetoric of divine kingship in Ezekiel is quite surprising, especially in light of the fact that in one of his early footnotes (Ch. 1, n. 36, p.12), commenting on prior rhetorical approaches to Ezek 28 and 29, states, “A rhetorical critic needs to know that certain myths are used and will explore what the purpose of their use was.” This book seeks to follow up on that advice with a more comprehensive examination of the rhetorical function of so-called mythological material in Ezekiel. 25

INTRODUCTION

13

Text in relation to the LXX text and other (fragmentary) texts of Ezekiel (e.g., Papyrus 967).26 However, as argued above, there is no convincing evidence to place the MT later than just prior to 539 BCE, and therefore it will be treated in its entirety as a product of the sixth century BCE. Regardless of the as yet imperfectly understood textual history of Ezekiel, the MT makes sense when read as a product of the sixth century BCE, and the agreement between the MT and the Qumran manuscripts support the “antiquity of the [Masoretic] text it represents.”27 While the scope of this project is limited to the rhetoric of Yahweh’s kingship in MT Ezekiel, it does address rhetorical topics that are related to, and that contribute to, this central motif. These include such things as divine presence and absence, divine abandonment and return, paradise, the underworld, divine name theology (including the prolific recognition formula: “then you will know that I am Yahweh”), the exodus, and honor and shame. Many of these topics have already been treated in some fashion by other scholars, some under the rubric of “myth.”28 My approach, as much as possible, avoids the term “myth” in recognition of the difficulties inherent in defining this term as representing a distinct genre in any broadly accepted way. The emphasis here is on the way divine kingship functions rhetorically in Ezekiel rather than mythically. Largely in response to Renz, I contend that the rhetorical function of Ezekiel cannot be understood without analyzing in For the most recent analysis of P967, cf. Ingrid E. Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions (New York: Brill, 2012). 27 Joyce, Ezekiel, 48. Joyce, idem, asserts that “there seem to have been two early divergent textual traditions, Hebrew and Greek.” Joyce, idem, 49, also rightly concludes that “the quest for original, ‘pure’ form of the text must ultimately be regarded as an abstract ideal.” 28 On the mythic analyses of these themes, cf. Batto, Slaying the Dragon. Ch. 4: “The Exodus as Myth,” 102–127. For a more thorough treatment of myth in ancient Canaanite and Israelite culture, cf. N. Wyatt, Myths of Power: a study of royal myth and ideology in Ugaritic and biblical tradition (UBL 13; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996). 26

14

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

more depth the major rhetorical topics found throughout the corpus. Here, I examine a rhetorical topic found in all major units and also in multiple sub-units of Ezekiel, demonstrating how Yahweh’s kingship provides coherence for the larger corpus.29 Generally stated, my thesis is that the motif of Yahweh’s kingship plays a central role in the rhetorical purpose of the Book of Ezekiel.30 But I also focus in some detail upon how the motif Here, the composite nature of Ezekiel is acknowledged, but also kept in mind is the particularity of the historical context in which the larger work of MT Ezekiel was eventually completed. As Renz (Rhetorical Function, 9–15) argues, the finished product of Ezekiel was intended to address the continuing theological crisis for a second generation of exiles in Babylon, a crisis of identity that did not differ greatly from that of the first generation of deportees. My emphasis differs slightly by emphasizing that identity maintenance is far less in mind than the immediate need of identity rescue or salvage. I suggest that the bulk of Ezekiel reflects a sense of urgency in responding to the threats of disorientation and disbelief following the deportations and destruction of Jerusalem that argues for a first generation audience as much or perhaps more so than a second generation. Toward this goal, Renz’s own work at times may be seen to support my argument better than his own, as evidenced in one of his concluding remarks [based upon the work of Daniel Patte, “Charting the Way of the Helmsman on the High Seas: Structuralism and Biblical Studies,” in The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God’s Control of Human Events (ed. James L. Crenshaw and Samuel Sandmel; New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1980), 183]: “the book [of Ezekiel] is more concerned with … manipulating the audience so as to make them believe rather than to make them do something” (246). Here and elsewhere throughout his work, Renz touches upon the way Ezekiel is more concerned with clarifying and establishing the proper foundation for Israelite identity than with providing specific strategies for identity maintenance in a foreign land (cf. 42–50). In his estimation, “the exilic parts of the book (which seem to make up at least the great bulk of the book) and the prophet addressed essentially the same social and social-psychological situation,” (42) all of which seem to raise questions about why the central rhetoric of Ezekiel should be addressed originally to a late exilic versus an early exilic audience. 30 When referring to Yahweh’s kingship in Ezekiel as a motif or topic, I in no way intend to say that the author(s) of Ezekiel consciously con29

INTRODUCTION

15

works argumentatively in various key sections of Ezekiel. The purpose of the motif is to preserve the traditional faith and identity of the exilic remnant. Both Yahweh’s reputation and exilic identity are placed in jeopardy by the exile and by the destruction of Jerusalem, and Ezekiel is designed to rescue these things by building Yahweh’s ethos or reputation among his exilic people. Thus, Ezekiel is, by and large, an ethos-oriented argument designed to encourage the exiles to remain faithful to their traditional, patron deity. Ezekiel employs a variety of argumentative strategies to accomplish its overall purpose. In those passages where divine kingship is a prominent motif, the strategies are designed to build Yahweh’s ethos by arguing for such things as his compassion, faithfulness, honor, justice, patience, or sovereignty. The predominant form of the rhetoric is judicial — it is designed to assist the reader in properly judging or evaluating the nature of Yahweh’s character, but the predominant purpose is ethical, because it seeks to establish Yahweh’s dependability as an object of faith. This approach understands the overarching rhetorical situation of Ezekiel from a cultural and ideological perspective because the prophetic book itself treats the crisis of exile in this way. As Renz points out, “the book [of Ezekiel] is concerned more with the self-understanding and belief system of the [exilic] community than with pragmatic or political advice.”31 What Renz means by this is that Ezekiel shows little concern for giving practical advice to the reader on the details of day-to-day living in exile. There is little to no attention given to economic matters, to the everyday struggles for survival, or even to the practice of regular worship in Babylon, things one might expect from a work composed among people who intended to stay in Babylon long-term. Instead, Ezekiel is more immediately and generally concerned with the faith and identity of the exilic community, with their avoidance of idolatrous (i.e., foreign) modes of worship. The threat of religious assimilation to Babylonian society is a major concern in the text. Assimilation to sidered this merely to be a motif. Rather, I believe it was assumed to be a matter of reality in the worldview of the author(s), but one that at least some of the intended audience had begun to doubt. 31 Renz, Rhetorical Function, 55.

16

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

foreign religious practices is consistently treated in Ezekiel as idolatrous and therefore a rebellion against Yahweh. The best way to understand the threat of assimilation for Ezekiel’s intended audience is to consider the prevailing understanding of corporate human identity in the ancient Near East (ANE). Identity in the ANE was centered upon the idea of divine patronage in which a relationship was established between the deity, as divine sovereign, and his people, understood as the deity’s vassals. This worldview imagines a hierarchical relationship between a people and their chief deity, and is structured much like ancient suzerainty treaties between human kings and the people they ruled.32 From this perspective, the supreme deity of a given pantheon functions as a divine king in the heavenly realm, sometimes exercising power over other deities. The divine monarch interacts with the mundane realm by entering into a covenant relationship with an earthly people. The covenant usually involves appointing an earthly monarch to rule the people on behalf of the deity. The human king serves as the deity’s regent in the mundane realm, and acts as a mediator or guarantor of the people’s service and worship of the deity through proper administration of a cult of the god. The human king also serves as mediator and guarantor of divinely granted blessings like Cf. George E. Mendenhall, “Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East,” BA 17 (1954): 26–46, 49–76; Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (Rome: Pontificio Ist Biblico, 1963); J. A. Thompson, “The Significance of the Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Pattern,” TynBul 13 (1963): 1–6; Herbert B. Huffmon, “The Treaty Background of Hebrew Yada’,” BASOR 181 (1966): 31–37 Hayim Tadmor, “Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East: A Historian’s Approach,” in Humanizing America’s Iconic Book (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 127–152; Delbert R. Hillers, “Rite: Ceremonies of Law and Treaty in the Ancient Near East,” in Religion and Law (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 351–364; Noel Weeks, Admonition and Curse: The Ancient Near Eastern Treaty/Covenant Form as a Problem in Inter-cultural Relationships (London: T & T Clark International, 2004); Gary M. Beckman, “Hittite Treaties and the Development of the Cuneiform Treaty Tradition,” in Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006), 279–301. 32

INTRODUCTION

17

fertility and protection of the kingdom, and he seeks to ensure that justice and peace prevail in the land granted by the god to the people.33 Much of the rhetoric of Ezekiel suggests a recognition that the covenant established between Yahweh and his people during the period of the exodus is now in jeopardy, and this jeopardizes the identities of both parties. The dependability and viability of Yahweh as Israel’s divine sovereign is defended throughout Ezekiel as a way to redeem Yahweh’s reputation and preserve for both Israel and Yahweh their identities. As a whole, Ezekiel is best understood as employing a variation of an ancient rhetorical strategy referred to by Aristotle in his work The “Art” of Rhetoric. It is, in essence, an argument by and for ethos, that is, an argument based upon and designed to bolster the “moral character” or dependability of the speaker. Normally, with this strategy, “the orator persuades by moral character when his speech is delivered in such a manner as to render him worthy of confidence.”34 However, Ezekiel presents Yahweh as the primary speaker, who persuades not simply on the basis of his previously established character, although this is extremely important when Ezekiel references the history of Yahweh’s relations with Israel (cf. especially Ezek 20). The text attempts to establish Yahweh’s good character by depicting him as a deity that justly punishes the wicked (both Israel and other nations) but that also will one day redeem his faithful followers. In doing so, the text attempts to clarify for the audience the true nature of Yahweh’s character. In other words, the ethos of the deity is not a given in Ezekiel, nor is the ethos of Daniel Block discusses the “inseparable bond among national patron deity (Yahweh), territory (land of Canaan), and people (nation of Israel)” as an “inviolable” triangle in his Ezekiel Chapters 1–24 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, 1997), 7. For a more thorough discussion of this triangular relationship in the ancient Near Eastern context, cf. idem, The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology (2nd ed.; ETSSt; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000). 34 Aristotle, The “Art” of Rhetoric (trans. John Henry Freese; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), 17. 33

18

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

the prophet through whom Yahweh speaks. Both are positions for which the text provides arguments to the reader. Thus, a key rhetorical goal evident in all three major sections of the Ezekiel corpus (1–24; 25–32; 33–48), when examined in light of Yahweh’s kingship, is a rehabilitation of the deity’s reputation in order to persuade the audience to continue placing trust in Yahweh or to return to faithfulness. This highlights that the preservation of the worshiping community as the unique patrons of Yahweh is of ultimate concern, and this preservation is intrinsically tied to the preservation of Yahweh as the only legitimate Object of worship.

THE METHOD OF RHETORICAL ANALYSIS It would be a mistake to assume that, because a classical rhetorical approach is used here to analyze Ezekiel, the ancient author(s) were familiar in any formal way with the tools of classical rhetoric. The methods employed in this book build upon the recognition that certain argumentative techniques can be found in various human cultures throughout history and across geographical boundaries. In utilizing a rhetorical approach here, I am initially following in the footsteps of New Testament scholar George Kennedy, as adapted by Hebrew Bible scholars Thomas Renz and Glenn Pemberton. 35 Kennedy promotes a return to classical rhetoric, as elaborated by Aristotle in The “Art” of Rhetoric. According to Pemberton, this approach emphasizes, “rhetoric as suasion,” rather than the mere “elucidation of compositional features.”36 For Pemberton, “rhetoric is the means by which a speaker/writer attempts to persuade an audience in favor of her/his own view of reality (ideology), against other competing ideologies.”37 Furthermore, Pemberton notes that Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, and idem, Comparative Rhetoric: An Historical and Cross-Cultural Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). Cf. Renz, Rhetorical Function, and Glenn D. Pemberton, “The Rhetoric of the Father: A Rhetorical Analysis of the Father/Son Lectures in Proverbs 1–9” (Ph.D. diss., The Iliff School of Theology/The University of Denver, 1999). 36 Pemberton, “Rhetoric of the Father,” 66. 37 Pemberton, “Rhetoric of the Father,” 62. 35

INTRODUCTION

19

“the essence of rhetoric … is mental or emotional energy that arises from the basic instinct of self-preservation.”38 Such an approach is highly relevant for the study of Ezekiel, because the context of the Babylonian captivity presented the Israelite exiles good reason to exercise a self-preserving instinct. It presented a competing religious ideology (if not multiple ideologies) in the form of imagistic, and therefore idolatrous, worship. And, at least for Ezekiel, it presented a serious threat to the traditional religious identity of Yahweh’s patrons by way of cultural assimilation. The so-called “basic instinct of self-preservation” referred to by Pemberton resounds throughout the text of Ezekiel when studied from a rhetorical perspective. For both Kennedy and Pemberton, rhetorical analysis of any text should including the following: 1) establishing the text and textual boundaries of individual rhetorical units, sometimes providing a translation of each unit; 39 2) determining the rhetorical “arrangement of the text, i.e., its subdivisions, the persuasive effect of these units, and how they work together,” 40 3) defining the rhetorical situation of each unit, in which the “speaker usually faces one major rhetorical problem, i.e., one major obstacle that must be overcome in order to persuade the audience;”41 4) analyzing the argument of the text, including its assumptions, “stylistic devices,” rhetorical strategies, and key topics;42 and 5) concluding with a review and synthesis, which asks whether the text “successfully meet[s] the rhetorical situation and problem” and whether “the analysis of details [is] consistent with the argument of the unit as a whole.”43

Pemberton, “Rhetoric of the Father,” 70. Pemberton, “Rhetoric of the Father,” 67. 40 Pemberton, “Rhetoric of the Father,” 68–69. The purpose of this is not to engage merely in a review of “stylistics,” but rather “to define the function of these devices within the argument as a whole” (69). 41 Pemberton, “Rhetoric of the Father,” 67. 42 Pemberton, “Rhetoric of the Father,” 69. 43 Pemberton, “Rhetoric of the Father,” 69. Pemberton’s summary is based entirely upon Kennedy’s discussion in New Testament Interpretation 38 39

20

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

For both Kennedy and Pemberton, the analysis of the argumentative strategies (artistic proofs) of a text is based upon technical Aristotelian concepts. Artistic proofs, according to Aristotle, are those arguments created by the so-called “art” of the rhetor.44 These are limited to three universal types, which Kennedy labels ethos, logos, and pathos.45 These correspond to the following strategies: 1) ethos — appeals to the moral character of the speaker; 2) logos — appeals based upon the logic or message of the speech itself; and 3) pathos — appeals to the emotions of the audience.46 Because ethos is such an important strategy for Ezekiel, it is helpful to review Kennedy’s understanding of this strategy. Ethos means “character” and may be defined as the credibility that the author or speaker is able to establish in his work. The audience is induced to trust what he says because they trust him, as a good man or an expert on the subject. In Aristotelian theory ethos is something entirely internal to a speech, but in practice the authority which the speaker brings to the occasion is an important factor.47

Kennedy helps to highlight here one of the fascinating circumstances surrounding ethos in Ezekiel. The historical prophet, who is treated in the book as the mediator for Yahweh’s communications, must be defended as a reliable source of revelation for the reader. While the prophet is depicted at times as having a certain amount of authority for the elders of the exilic community (8:1, 11, 12; 14:1; 20:1–3), the text emphasizes repeatedly the overwhelming pressure exerted upon him by the “hand of Yahweh” (1:3; 3:14, 22; 8:1, 3; 33:22; 37:1; 40:1), apparently in an attempt to legitimize the prophet’s speech and symbolic actions as the exact words and will of the deity. As such, the ethos of prophet and deity are intricately through Rhetorical Criticism (SIR; Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 33–38. 44 Aristotle, The “Art” of Rhetoric, 15, and discussed in Pemberton, “Rhetoric of the Father,” 77. 45 Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 15. 46 Aristotle, The “Art” of Rhetoric, 17. 47 Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 15.

INTRODUCTION

21

tied in the text, but ultimately in such a way as to have the prophetic persona eclipsed by that of the deity. The book presents Yahweh as the chief speaker, whose authority is in one sense a given, yet in another sense in jeopardy and therefore in need of demonstration and defense. Logos, according to Pemberton, “refers to the logical or rational development of the argument in the discourse,” which uses inductive or deductive forms of reasoning, both of which “are drawn from topics or places a rhetor may look for material to develop his/her argument.”48 In my approach here, individual units of text are examined for their internal logic, as well as for the contribution(s) they make to the progression of a larger, logical argument in the prophetic book as a whole. The criterion for selecting the individual rhetorical units for study here is the implicit or explicit presence of the topic of Yahweh’s kingship. Pathos, according to Pemberton, refers to the way speakers seek to “stimulate or manipulate” the emotions of their audience in order “to achieve their rhetorical goals.”49 These might include the manipulation of fear, promise (pleasure), or both.50 Ezekiel primarily uses the pathos of fear in the first major part of the collection (Chs. 1–24) to threaten further judgment against the exiles for their idolatry and rebellion. The second major unit of text (Chs. 25–32) employs a pathos of resentment toward foreign nations in order to convince the audience to agree with Yahweh’s judgment and condemnation of them. In the third, more future-oriented portion of the book (Chs. 34–48), Ezekiel primarily uses elaborate promises to instill hope in the exilic community. While Renz and Pemberton have already proven the value of Kennedy’s approach for studying texts in the Hebrew Bible, it is also well-suited for studying a particular rhetorical theme or topic that is pervasive in a given book of the bible. It is in this sense that the current project differentiates itself the most in scope and method from the work of Renz. Pemberton, “Rhetoric of the Father,” 78–79. Cf. also Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 20–21. 49 Pemberton, “Rhetoric of the Father,” 81. 50 Pemberton, “Rhetoric of the Father,” 81. 48

22

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

The steps for my rhetorical analysis of Ezekiel in the remaining chapters will be as follows. (Ch. 2) Rhetorical Arrangement, Genre, and Purpose of Ezekiel — This chapter provides a brief survey of the structural characteristics of the Ezekiel corpus that demonstrate its overarching design. It will also note the basic rhetorical genre of each major unit, which refers to three of the most widespread types of rhetoric: judicial, deliberative, and epideictic. Judicial rhetoric passes judgment on some matter, and seeks audience agreement with the author’s judgment. Deliberative rhetoric encourages the audience to take some specific, observable course of action in response to the speaker’s urging. Epideictic rhetoric encourages the audience to adhere to a particular set of values. (Ch. 3) Historical, Ideological, & Rhetorical Context — This step provides a discussion of the ideological ramifications of the exile that comprise the general rhetorical situation of the Book of Ezekiel. This discussion will be done in full recognition of the fact that, while helpful for identifying the general setting for the rhetoric of Ezekiel, ultimately the primary resource for understanding Ezekiel’s argument and the crisis for which it is designed to respond is the text itself. Insight into the historical context in which a biblical text arose, derived from extra-textual witnesses, can inform, but must not be allowed to eclipse, the insights derived from rhetorical analysis of the biblical text itself, since the latter brings one closest to the real, immediate concerns of the author(s). Thus, for the purposes of rhetorical analysis, the text’s own view of history should take precedence, but this may be informed by other historical sources. This is by necessity, since the ultimate goal is not some idealistic or unrealistic notion of the “real” or “objective” history behind the text, but instead is to attain clarity on the text’s own unique, subjective perception of historical circumstances and its response to them. It is helpful to delineate between the rhetorical situation within a text, which refers to the way the text, at the literal level, presents the reader with what may be a contrived version of the rhetorical situation, and the rhetorical situation behind a text, which refers to the real problem or crisis the text is designed to resolve. It should not be assumed that the two are always equivalent. The interpreter should be aware that every aspect of a text is a product of the creator, and may represent rhetorical artifice. Even when a text appears to provide a clear and straightforward description of its own rhe-

INTRODUCTION

23

torical situation, the interpreter must analyze this alongside the entire argument of the text before concluding that any such description should be interpreted in a literal fashion. There are times when a text’s own description of the rhetorical situation simply does not provide a reasonable or thoroughly understandable setting for what the larger text argues. In other words, the crisis for which the text provides a reasonable solution does not always logically fit the rhetorical setting one finds at the literal level of the text. As a result, in the final stage of exegesis for each unit of text in my exegetical chapters, the most logical rhetorical situation of each unit will be addressed. Likewise, the most logical understanding of the situation of the entire Book of Ezekiel is revisited in my final chapter. (Chs. 4–7) Analysis of Divine Kingship in Ezekiel — This step offers a detailed examination of rhetorical topics related to Yahweh’s kingship, as they occur in specific, well-defined units of text in Ezekiel. Chapters 4–7 will perform each of the following tasks on the rhetorical units it analyzes: a) translation, unit, arrangement, and genre; b) rhetorical situation; c) rhetorical strategies; d) rhetorical synthesis.51 These tasks are designed to delineate the rhetorical units, explain their arrangement and genre, address their rhetorical situations, explain their rhetorical strategies, and synthesize all the findings. The pattern I follow in the analysis of individual units of Ezekiel follows the pattern I employ to survey the larger book. The analysis of rhetorical strategies in Chs. 4–7, as in Kennedy’s and Pemberton’s approaches, includes the classical categories of logos, ethos, and pathos. 52 These will be used to treat such topics as divine presence and absence, and divine abandonment and The one exception to this pattern is that, for the sake of saving space, the analysis in chapter 4 will not provide a translation of the vision reports in Ezek 1–3, 8–11, and 40–48. 52 Cf. Pemberton’s treatment of these strategies in “Rhetoric of the Father,” 77–81. The argument here is not that the author or authors of Ezekiel were necessarily aware of the rhetorical strategies they were employing, however much creative artistry is reflected in the text. Aristotle treats these basic strategies of rhetoric as tools that occur universally in the course of argumentation. 51

24

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

return (Ch. 4), the exodus and Yahweh’s name/reputation, and the role of honor-shame rhetoric (Ch. 5), paradise and the underworld (Ch. 6), and Yahweh as divine shepherd (Ch. 7). One complication with this project’s comprehensive approach is that some of the topics related to divine kingship in Ezekiel occur in multiple units of text. For example, paradise is a theme in Chs. 28 and 31 of the Oracles against the Nations, as well as in Chs. 36 and 47 of the salvation section. As a result, a few of my exegetical chapters will briefly review other units of Ezekiel in which a particular theme appears. (Ch. 8) Conclusion — This chapter synthesizes all the prior rhetorical analysis, discussing the way in which the findings of chapters 4–7 relate to the discussions of rhetorical arrangement, genre, purpose, and situation in chapters 2–3. It also highlights the unique contributions my book makes to the study of Ezekiel, and to future rhetorical analyses of biblical texts.

CHAPTER TWO: RHETORICAL ARRANGEMENT, GENRE, AND PURPOSE For the purposes of rhetorical analysis, an examination of the arrangement of a text involves attention to the way the text has been organized so that a central argument may be persuasively communicated to an intended audience. The rhetorical genre (or disposition) “pays attention to the basic issue at stake in a text,”1 which in a long, complex book like Ezekiel, may shift from one unit or subunit to another, even as a central argument may hold the entire corpus together. The basic issue of these smaller units may then be related to the basic issue of the larger work, if indeed the larger work is coherent. This chapter will focus more broadly upon the rhetorical arrangement, genre, and purpose of Ezekiel in order to provide the perspective of a rhetorical overview of the entire prophetic book prior to examining smaller rhetorical units in more detail. My hope is that the claims made here will be confirmed by the findings of the chapters that follow. My contention here is that the chief issue holding the rhetoric of Ezekiel together is a concern for Yahweh’s ethos or reputation, and its significance for exilic faith and identity. To use the analogy of “The Forest and the Trees,” we might say that the Book of Ezekiel is a rhetorical forest that contains a great many trees/texts that are characterized by a concern for building trust in Yahweh among the intended audience. The book is arranged to build Yahweh’s ethos in the first two major sections (Chs. 1–24 and Chs. 25–32) with mostly judicial rhetoric designed to convince the reader that Yahweh is sovereign over the fate of 1

Renz, Rhetorical Function, 14.

25

26

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Israel (1–24) and her neighbor nations (25–32), ruling both with consistent and appropriate justice. The last major section (Chs. 34– 48) contains mostly ethical/ethos rhetoric designed to endear the reader to Yahweh by characterizing him as more than just a god of justice, but also as a god of promise, who will provide for the true Israel (i.e., the exiles) a glorious restoration in the future. Bridging these two thematic units (justice in 1–32 and promise in 34–48) is the transitional material in Ch. 33, which contains judicial, deliberative, and ethical rhetoric that reaffirms Yahweh’s just nature, calls the exiles to repentance, and reminds them of Yahweh’s desire to rescue Israel. Understood this way, the central direction and overarching function/purpose of all the rhetoric in Ezekiel should be understood as epideictic, because it is employed in the service of encouraging the intended Israelite audience to maintain faith in Yahweh, the ongoing sovereign of their fate. Recognizing and acknowledging the value of remaining a faithful follower of Yahweh is the book’s chief goal for the intended reader. To break down this “forest” a bit more, closer examination reveals that the Book of Ezekiel displays a number of rhetorical, organizational features. These include a series of three elaborate visions of Yahweh’s glory in 1–3, 8–11, and 40–48, large blocks of material focused on the theme of judgment against Israel (1–24), judgment against the nations (25–32), and salvation for Israel (34– 48), and a series of date formulas that give the book the appearance of a rough, but fairly consistent, chronology of the prophet’s exilic career. Drawing upon the widespread ancient Near Eastern motif of divine abandonment, the vision reports of the prophet’s encounters with Yahweh are designed to emphasize Yahweh’s freedom and sovereignty by depicting his mobility and his control over seemingly chaotic human events. The visionary depiction of the deity’s presence with or absence from his people helps to explain Israel’s political circumstances as the result of Yahweh’s favor or disfavor for Israel’s behavior, rather than just being the result of the exigencies of political life in the ancient Near East during the sixth century BCE. In the opening vision of Ezek 1–3, judgment against the exiles for their rebellious behavior is an important theme, as is Yahweh’s kingship (he appears on a mobile throne) and the ethos of Ezekiel the priest, who gets commissioned as a prophet to the exilic com-

RHETORICAL ARRANGEMENT, GENRE, AND PURPOSE

27

munity. In the next vision of 8–11, judgment against the Judean remnant is justified by the religious abominations of the Judean leadership and common people in Jerusalem, and restoration is promised to the exilic remnant. The closing vision of 40–48 depicts the restoration of Israel back in the homeland, and centers on the return of Yahweh’s presence to dwell forevermore in Israel’s midst. For the reader, the date formulas attached to many different oracles have the rhetorical effect of grounding the text in the real history of the exilic community. The earliest date is found in 1:1, and refers to Ezekiel the priest’s prophetic call on July 31, 593 BCE.2 The two latest date formulas are found in 40:1 and 29:17. The former refers to the vision that closes the corpus on April 28, 573 BCE, and corresponds to the Babylonian New Year festival. The latter refers to April 26, 571 BCE, and corresponds to Nebuchadnezzar lifting his siege of the city of Tyre. When reading Ezekiel from beginning to end, the date formulas do not occur in a perfectly consistent chronological fashion, as 4 of the 13 are out of order. Here is the sequence in chronological order, with those out of order in bold: 1:1; 8:1; 20:1; 24:1; 29:1; 30:20; 31:1; 33:21; 26:1; 32:1; 32:17; 40:1; and 29:17. This feature is best explained by a final editorial concern for thematically grouping oracles against Tyre and Egypt (26–32) together in the oracles against foreign nations (OAN). As a whole, the date formulas give the impression that the book of Ezekiel chronicles the career of the historical prophet, including his interactions with Yahweh and other first generation exiles. That such a collection would be preserved, in spite of whoever may have composed and/or edited the material, suggests that the prophet had a significant reputation among at least some of the exiles, and that his teachings were valued by them as an appropriate way to understand and respond to the exilic crisis and the destruction of Jerusalem.

Cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, 28–29, for an estimation of modern equivalencies for the dates in Ezekiel and important historical events to which they correspond. 2

28

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

THE VISIONS OF 1–3, 8–11, 40–48 Ezekiel opens with a vision report that describes a theophany of Yahweh, and which concludes with the prophet’s commissioning (1:1–3:11).3 The vision appears to depict the deity in his heavenly realm, a position supported near the end of the vision where the prophet exclaims, “Blessed is the Glory of Yahweh in his place” (3:12; italics mine). This suggests that Yahweh’s chief dwelling place is in heaven, not on earth, and paves the way for Yahweh’s removal of his glory from the Jerusalem temple in the vision of 8– 11. Thus, the opening of the book immediately and implicitly begins to refute the idea that Yahweh’s sovereignty is undermined by the destructive events taking place in the homeland, where his earthly dwelling is located. Yahweh’s heavenly throne is intact, as are his freedom and sovereignty. In the prophet’s second vision report, Ezekiel is transported to Jerusalem to witness the departure of Yahweh’s glory from the temple, an event that represents the deity’s chosen response to Israelite apostasy (8:1–11:25).4 In effect, Yahweh abandons the JudeOn the appearance of Yahweh as theophany, cf. such works as Jorg Jeremias, Theophanie: d. Geschichte e. altestamentl. Gattung (WMANT 10; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977); C. Grizzard and M. E. Tate, “Theophany,” MDB, 908 and “Presence,” MDB, 709; Bernard Renaud, La theophanie du Sinai: Ex 19–24: exegese et theologie (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1991); T. Hiebert, “Theophany in the OT,” ABD 6:505–511; Jeffrey J. Niehaus, God at Sinai: Covenant and Theophany in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (SOTBT; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995); F. Polak, “Theophany and Mediator: The Unfolding of a Theme in the Book of Exodus” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: redaction, reception, interpretation (ed. Marc Vervenne; BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1996), 113–147; Victor Hurowitz, “From Storm God to Abstract Being: How the Deity Became More Distant from Exodus to Deuteronomy,” BRev 14:5 (1998): 40–47. On Ezekiel 1 as theophany, cf. Leslie C. Allen, “The Structure and Intention of Ezekiel 1,” VT 43 (1993): 145– 161. 4 It should be noted that 11:14–20 includes a message of hope for the exiles, including Yahweh’s presence with them (v. 16), their return to and possession of the land of Israel (v. 17), a new heart allowing them to 3

RHETORICAL ARRANGEMENT, GENRE, AND PURPOSE

29

an remnant and affirms his presence with the exiles as a “temporary sanctuary” (11:16) for the duration of their captivity. This vision ends with a promise that the exiles will be brought back to possess the land of Israel and to have their covenant with Yahweh reaffirmed (11:17–20). The vision upholds Yahweh’s sovereignty over the destiny of all Israelites, but especially the exiles, who will comprise the future, true House of Israel. Hence, against all odds and other evidence, the future of Israel belongs to the exiles.5 The last major unit of the corpus (40–48) is an elaborate vision report that opens with the prophet witnessing the return of Yahweh’s glory to the Land of Israel to take up residence in a new temple (40:1–43:12).6 Like the vision of 8–11, it promises restoration for the exiles, and the blessings of Yahweh’s presence among them (cf. 47:1–12; 48:35). The rhetorical genre of the vision reports is predominantly judicial in the sense that they encourage the reader to pass judgment on the character of Yahweh, the prophet, the Judean remnant, and themselves. But they are also ethical and epideictic in the sense that they encourage the reader to acknowledge Yahweh’s just character follow Yahweh properly (vv. 18–20a), and an affirmation of the covenant (20b). 5 If we are to take the books of Ezra and Nehemiah at face value, this proves to be the case both politically and religiously, since it is an exilic remnant with Persian backing that takes over leadership of the homeland and rebuilds the (vassal) nation of Judah (Jehud) in the early post-exilic era. This alone, however, does not provide solid evidence that this particular portion of the Book of Ezekiel was composed in the Persian, post-exilic period. It would not be surprising to find among the Israelite exiles, especially those who previously held high positions of authority and power in Judah, the hope that one day they would return to resume power in the homeland. In fact, this hope might have been more prominent earlier in the exile rather than later. 6 For an in-depth examination of this theme in Ezekiel, cf. John F. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel (ed. William Henry Propp; Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 7; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000).

30

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

and adopt the perspective of Yahweh and the text. The perspective and values of the exiles are consistently treated in Ezek 1–24 and 33 as being in opposition to Yahweh’s, and therefore in need of correction. Even in the closing vision the exiles are reminded of their past mistakes (43:10) and their need to put away their idolatries (43:9). The opening vision encourages the reader to affirm the authority of Yahweh and his prophet, and to agree with the explanation of the exile as Yahweh’s just punishment of his rebellious people. It authorizes all that follows in the prophetic book as the deity’s teaching on how to interpret the exile and how to respond to it. The vision initiates the characterization of the exilic community as a stubborn, “rebellious house,” and this motif dominates the first 24 chapters of the book, as well as Ch. 33. The second vision teaches the reader that Yahweh’s presence resides with the exiles, not the Judean remnant, and that the destruction of Jerusalem is Yahweh’s just punishment. However, idolatry must be avoided if the exiles are to escape the fate of the homeland and have a future as Yahweh’s people. Again, the predominant genre is judicial, but the epideictic purpose of encouraging adherence to Yahweh remains, just as the ethical strategy of demonstrating Yahweh’s just character continues. The final vision is judicial in the sense that it emphasizes the need for Yahweh’s people to acknowledge the deity’s holiness. It should also be considered deliberative, since it calls for continued shame on the part of the exiles for their past mistakes. However, like the prior visions, it seeks to build the ethos of Yahweh as worthy of Israel’s trust by elaborating on the utopian nature of the promised restoration. The overall purpose is epideictic, because it ultimately seeks to preserve the faith of the exilic community.

EZEKIEL 1–24, 25–32, 33, AND 34–48 The first 32 chapters of Ezekiel contain an explicit and almost exclusive emphasis on judgment (1–24 vs. Israel; 25–32 vs. foreign nations), while the last major block of material contains an almost

RHETORICAL ARRANGEMENT, GENRE, AND PURPOSE

31

exclusive emphasis on Israel’s salvation (34–48).7 A few salvation oracles are interspersed throughout the judgment sections of the book, but for the most part these apply only to the faithful, exilic remnant that learns how to acknowledge Yahweh’s holiness.8 The fairly consistent movement from judgment to salvation is not uncommon for Israelite prophetic books, which typically address a perceived crisis for Yahweh’s people with a “word of Yahweh” that explains the crisis as the deity’s judgment of his people, and that calls the people to repentance. In Israelite prophetic books, threats to Israel’s well being usually arise as a result of huMoshe Greenberg, Ezekiel, 1–20 (AB 22; Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1983), 3–5, discusses a supposedly ancient division, evidenced in the “tannaitic bipartition of the book into dooms and consolations” and “an otherwise enigmatic statement in Josephus (Antiq. 10.5.1 [79])” by which the oracles against foreign nations were considered as a guarantee of Israel’s salvation, hence they belonged to the second of a two-part division of Ezekiel into oracles of judgment (Chs. 1–24) and oracles of salvation (Chs. 25–48). There are minor exceptions even to such a two-part division. In Chs. 1–24, one finds some hopeful and/or salvific promises to Israel (3:21; 11:14–20; 14:10–11; 16:53–55, 59–63; 17:22–24; 18:5–9, 14–18, 21–23, 27–28; 20:40–44), but these first require Israel’s judgment, obedience, repentance, and/or shaming. In Chs. 33–48, one finds a number of judgment oracles (vs. the “shepherds” of Israel in 33:23–29; 34:1–10, 20–22; vs. Edom in 35:1–15; vs. Gog in 38:1–39:20), but it can be argued that these are ultimately good tidings for most Israelites. In addition, one finds a further exception to a strict three-part division by recognizing that the oracles of judgment against the nations contain an explicit promise of salvation for Israel in 28:25–26. 8 Cf. 14:22–23, which promises that some will survive the catastrophes afflicting Jerusalem, proving that Yahweh is just; 16:60–63, which promises a new covenant between Yahweh and his people; 17:22–24, which promises a new, exalted monarchy in Israel one day; 18:5–20, which promises that Yahweh judges the individual, rather than on a corporate basis; 20:34–44, which promises that Yahweh will restore some, but purge others, and that Israel will learn from and correct her mistakes in the future, properly acknowledging Yahweh’s sovereignty; and 28:25– 26, which promises that the exiles of Israel will be returned and restored, while their enemies will be judged. 7

32

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

man sin, as either its natural consequence or as a direct response on Yahweh’s part to instill justice in the mundane realm. Ezekiel offers a variation of this theme for the exilic community, seeking to alleviate their (and Yahweh’s) identity crisis by reaffirming Yahweh’s relevance in the midst of the Babylonian captivity. A persistent theme throughout the corpus is the need for the exiles to accept Yahweh’s sovereignty over their fate. This acceptance is best demonstrated by the avoidance of idolatry, the latter of which serves as a signifier of all things foreign, encapsulating and representing exilic fears of assimilation. Chapters 1–24 The first large block of material in Ezekiel 1–24 is primarily concerned with establishing Israel’s guilt and rebellion against Yahweh, therefore justifying the people’s punishment as a righteous response on the part of the deity. 9 The vision reports of 1–3 and 8– 11 implicitly answer questions about the apparent absence or weakness of Yahweh in light of Israel’s defeat by Babylon. This defeat includes the destruction of the deity’s earthly “house” in Jerusalem and the exile of many of Yahweh’s followers. The visions address concerns about Yahweh’s sovereignty, presence, and availability to the exilic community by depicting the deity’s enthroned presence, his temporary movement away from Jerusalem, and his special relationship with the newly appointed mediator in the person of Ezekiel the prophet. The visions confirm the reality of Yahweh as a living god who continues to relate to his covenant people in exile through the mediation of a prophet, and who promises a full restoration of their identity by reuniting them with their deity and their land.10 Note the key term used to refer both to the remaining Judahites and the exilic community in this section, ‫בת ְמ ִרי‬, ֵּ “rebellious house,” which occurs in 2:5, 6, 7, 8; 3:9, 16, 27; 12:2, 3, 9, 25; 17:12; 24:3. In addition, as Renz, Rhetorical Function, 59, notes, the noun ‫מרה‬, “rebel” occurs in 5:6 as an accusation against Jerusalem and in 20:8, 13, and 21 as an accusation against the exiles and their ancestors. 10 On this nexus of ancient Near Eastern identity, Cf. Block, The Gods of the Nations; idem, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, 7–8. Again, on 9

RHETORICAL ARRANGEMENT, GENRE, AND PURPOSE

33

The overarching theme of Ezek 1–24 is that exilic suffering is the result of Yahweh’s just judgment of his own people. The rhetorical genre or disposition of this unit is largely judicial, because the bulk of the material seeks to convince the reader of Yahweh’s sovereignty over Israel’s fate as well as the just nature of his punishment. However, the themes of sovereignty and justice reflect an ethical strategy of building Yahweh’s reputation for a disappointed, dislocated, and disillusioned community that has, up to this point in history, defined itself as the patron people of Yahweh. The texts in this unit implicitly defend the deity against charges of impotence and injustice by depicting Yahweh as purposely orchestrating Israel’s demise and placing the blame for Israel’s woes on Israel’s idolatry. While the visions of 1–3 and 8–11 implicitly argue for Yahweh’s sovereignty by depicting him as seated upon his heavenly throne, Ezek 20 provides the most explicit reference to Yahweh’s kingship in the entire book (v. 33). The chapter begins with a second incident (cf. Ch. 14) in which the elders of the exilic community approach the prophet in order to consult with Yahweh (v. 1). What follows in 20:2–32 is the first part of a speech by Yahweh that interprets the entire history of the covenant people as idolatrous, and ends with a statement that both reveals and refutes the current, worthless intentions of the people to “be like the [other] nations, like the tribes of the countries, and worship wood and stone” (v. 32. The text implies that the charge of idolatry and the the primacy of concerns over divine presence, cf. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 2000. For some scholars (cf. Ch. 1, n. 32), the final vision report, with its emphasis on the so-called return of the deity to a supposedly new Temple, for the purpose of residing forevermore in the Promised Land with his chosen people, represents the culmination of the Chaoskampf pattern, in which the victorious warrior-god is rewarded with his own cultic center. For the most recent treatment of Ezekiel from the perspective of myth, cf. Paul E. Fitzpatrick, The Disarmament of God: Ezekiel 38–39 in Its Mythic Context (CBQMS 37; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2004), who sees Ezek 38–39 as depicting the final chaos battle that will pave the way for the victorious Yahweh to build his new temple and reestablish his cult in Israel.

34

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

desire to assimilate the worship of images pose a very real threat to the integrity of the exilic community. Yahweh’s explicit claim of sovereignty over the exiles in 20:33: “As I live, says the Lord Yahweh, surely with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out, I will be king over you,” adapts the exodus tradition’s promise of deliverance for Israel in spite of her ignorance and unbelief, and draws upon the more general emphasis in the Book of Exodus on acknowledging Yahweh (cf. Exod 3 and 6). Exodus 6:2–9 depicts an earlier Israelite crisis of knowing, in which Yahweh tells Moses how he should be introduced to his captive people: God spoke again to Moses and said to him: “I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as “El Shaddai,” but by my name “Yahweh” I did not make myself known to them. I also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they resided as aliens. I have also heard the groaning of the Israelites whom the Egyptians are holding as slaves, and I have remembered my covenant. Say therefore to the Israelites, “I am Yahweh, and I will free you from the burdens of the Egyptians and deliver you from slavery to them. I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. I will take you as my people, and I will be your god. You shall know that I am Yahweh your god, who has freed you from the burdens of the Egyptians. I will bring you into the land that I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; I will give it to you for a possession. I am Yahweh.” Moses told this to the Israelites; but they would not listen to Moses, because of their broken spirit and their cruel slavery.11

Italics mine. As Walther Zimmerli, I Am Yahweh (trans. Douglas W. Stott; ed. Walter Brueggemann; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 8, has noticed, “The relationship between the two accounts is unmistakable.” Note the use of Yahweh’s “mighty hand,” “outstretched arm,” and “mighty acts” both in the book of Exodus and in the book of Deuteronomy: for Yahweh’s “mighty hand,” cf. Exod 3:19; 6:1, 2; 32:11; Deut 4:34; 5:15; 6:21; 7:8, 19; 9:26; 11:2; 26:8; for “mighty acts”: Exod 6:6; Deut 3:24. 11

RHETORICAL ARRANGEMENT, GENRE, AND PURPOSE

35

Ezekiel 20 contains its own emphasis on the divine name and reputation that thus far in the corpus is only emphasized implicitly by the repeated use of the recognition formula.12 Here, as in certain salvation oracles in Ezekiel, the key motivation for Yahweh punishing his people is concern for his name, which has been tarnished by Israel’s disobedience. This is made clear in four different verses in Ch. 20 (vv. 14, 22, 39, 44). Commenting on the topic of Yahweh’s name in Exod 6:7, Zimmerli states, “The most profound intention of the divine action on behalf of the people will be fulfilled when the following insight emerges: ‘You shall know that I am Yahweh.’”13 Convincing the exiles to acknowledge the reality and relevance of the patron deity is an important rhetorical goal of Ezekiel’s own repeated use of the recognition formula, where it is often coupled, as in the Book of Exodus, with the motif of Yahweh’s concern for his reputation (cf. Exod 9:16; Ezek 20:9, 14, 22, 39, 44; 36:20–23; 39:7, 25; 43:7–8). Ezekiel attempts to move the reader to acknowledge Yahweh’s name as an affirmation of Yahweh’s sovereignty over his people’s destiny. But unlike Zimmerli, who concludes that the goal of the recognition formula is not to achieve among Ezekiel’s intended reader an “objective, historical state of affairs, but rather…the recognition of Yahweh’s self-revelation precisely in his name,” I contend that the purpose of Ezekiel’s rhetoric is indeed the very opposite.14 It is to move the intended audience to affirm the validity and practicality of continuing faith in the patron deity as a real, historical presence in the midst of real historical threats to their identity as Yahweh’s patrons. In other words, it is to affirm a real historical claim in the midst of a real historical crisis in an efFor the importance of the divine name and/or reputation in Exodus, including passages in which the enslaved people appear not to know the god Yahweh by such a name, and those suggesting that Yahweh is motivated by a desire to make his name known also to the Egyptians, cf. Exod 3:13–22; 4:1–9; 6:1–9; 7:5, 17; 8:10, 22; 9:14, 29; 10:2; 14:4, 18; 16:6, 12; 18:11; 29:46; 31:13. For the most thorough treatment of the recognition formula, cf. Zimmerli, I Am Yahweh. 13 Zimmerli, I Am Yahweh, 10. 14 Zimmerli, I Am Yahweh, 10. 12

36

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

fort to effect a real, historical difference in the lives of the exiles. And we might even go so far as to say that accomplishing this will likewise effect a real historical difference in the life of Yahweh, in the sense that the deity will retain a worshiping audience capable of promoting his reputation among the nations. The repeated references in Ezekiel to idolatry, rebellion, and unfaithfulness on the part of the exiles bears out that the crisis of exilic assimilation to Babylon was very real, and it was met in Ezekiel by rhetoric calling for acknowledgement of Yahweh’s sovereignty that would result in covenant fidelity to the name of Yahweh (and retention of an Israelite identity), even while captive in a foreign land. Doing so would mean that the exiles not only acknowledge the divine name, but also continue to identify themselves as the patron people of Yahweh. Such use of the recognition formula in Ezekiel reflects a belief that the exodus tradition has faithfully documented the reality of Yahweh as Israel’s deliverer in the past and as the source of Israel’s national identity. Those who acknowledge Yahweh affirm that they are still the covenant people of Yahweh, and that they may continue to be so (at least temporarily) in spite of their foreign captivity. Ezekiel’s use of the recognition formula is an attempt to assert the active presence of Yahweh in the midst of the exilic crisis, calling the audience to remember the former power of Yahweh’s presence for dictating the course of Israel’s history. The emphasis upon the deity’s zeal for his reputation in Ezek 20 argues for the deity’s identification with the Yahweh of old, whose prior acts of deliverance should not be forgotten. It also implies that Yahweh’s character and behavior are consistent. The same deity that punished the Egyptians for faithless and exploitative treatment of Israel is now punishing his own people for acting faithlessly. The logic of using the recognition formula in a context of judgment is to communicate that the current course of history does not negate the reality and relevance of Yahweh and his ongoing covenant with Israel. Chapter 24 stands as the last word of judgment against Israel as a corporate entity, recording “in the ninth year, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month” that “the King of Babylon laid siege to Jerusalem” (vv. 1–2). In vv. 3–14, Yahweh commands the prophet to speak a parable to the “rebellious house” (v. 3), which is probably referring once again to the exilic community, for which the parable explains the justice of Yahweh’s punishment.

RHETORICAL ARRANGEMENT, GENRE, AND PURPOSE

37

Jerusalem has become so unclean it must be consumed by fire. The city’s condemnation is merely in accordance with its own unjust behavior (v. 14). Verses 15–27 relate a shocking symbolic action that the prophet is commanded to perform when Yahweh causes the death of his wife. He is not to show any outward signs of mourning (v. 16). His behavior demonstrates the proper way for the exiles to respond to the death of Jerusalem — without mourning (vv. 19– 24). The remaining verses (25–27) return to the theme of the prophet’s dumbness that was first mentioned in 3:26, and predict that on the day Jerusalem’s destruction is reported by a refugee from the city, the prophet will no longer be silent. What immediately follows Ch. 24 is a collection of oracles against foreign nations that delays the report of the city’s destruction until Ch. 33 (vv. 21– 22). To summarize the rhetorical nature of Ezek 1–24, the bulk of the material is judicial in form, and is intended both to credit Yahweh for Israel’s current travails, but also to justify these divine actions of punishing Israel. Yahweh is exonerated of any wrongdoing, because his people are merely reaping what they have sown. Since Yahweh is ultimately the source of Israel’s punishment, and must withdraw his protective presence from the temple before a foreign power may defile it, his sovereignty over Israel is affirmed. To recognize that Yahweh is the just cause behind Israel’s present woes is to begin the work of rebuilding the divine ethos, and should lead one to begin aligning oneself with Ezekiel’s rhetorical perspective. This also highlights how Chs. 1–24 contribute to the overarching epideictic purpose of the larger prophetic book. Both Renz and Fishbane reach similar conclusions concerning the material in Ezek 1–24. Fishbane claims that, for Ezekiel (the prophet), Zion’s fate was sealed … What concerned him essentially, however, was the religious psychology of the Judeans in exile … YHWH’s concern is to be “known” by his disregarding people. In this sense, Ezekiel’s prophecies reveal with sharp clarity what is also the ironic rhetorical strategy of all Israelite prophets: to bring a faithless and unknowing people to covenant allegiance and consciousness of YHWH’s Lordship … So

38

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!” viewed, the whole thrust of Ezekiel’s visions and predictions is to challenge the people with divine intentions, so that, at the least, they will know this god as the author of their doom. For Israel, then, Ezekiel’s ultimate lesson is that there is no escaping the covenantal judgment and providence of YHWH, who will be made known to them even against their will.15

As Fishbane recognizes, for the exiles to “know this god as the author of their doom” is to acknowledge Yahweh’s sovereignty over them. In addition to the judicial emphasis on recognizing Yahweh’s justice and sovereignty in Chs. 1–24, one also encounters a certain amount of deliberative rhetoric in the form of implicit and explicit calls for repentance (3:21–27; 13:22; 14:6, 10–11; 18:21–32). The sin most clearly addressed is that of idolatry, although false prophets are condemned in Ch. 13, and violence against the weak is mentioned in Ch. 22. The appropriate response elicited from the exiles by this material is a return to strict covenant fidelity with Yahweh, an epideictic goal realized by the avoidance of further sin, but also exemplified deliberately by adherence to Yahweh’s statutes and ordinances.16 The judicial rhetoric of Ezek 1–24 makes clear that Yahweh has faithfully guided Israel’s past, and is still faithfully guiding Israel’s present, in spite of her consistent rebellion. In what may be labeled an ethos-oriented rhetorical struggle, the ethos of Yahweh is pitted against the ethos of the exilic community. Israel must be shamed into submission to allow Yahweh to attain the honor he requires in order for him to serve as an appropriate object of faith and worship for such a downtrodden community. Such is the politics of honor and shame in the ancient Near East, more of which

15 Renz, Rhetorical Function, 92, citing Michael Fishbane, “Sin and Judgment in the Prophecies of Ezekiel,” Int 38 [1984]: 131–150. 16 A concern with following Yahweh’s ordinances and/or statutes in Chs. 1–24 (5:6, 7; 11:12, 20; 18:9, 17, 19, 21; 20:11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25) can also be found in Chs. 33–48 (33:15; 36:27; 37:24; 44:24).

RHETORICAL ARRANGEMENT, GENRE, AND PURPOSE

39

will be said in the chapters that follow, where more explicit language of shame will be examined. The central message of Chs. 1–24, which provides the intended reader with the proper lens for interpreting the initial ideological challenges of the exile, also sets the stage for the rhetoric of Chs. 34–48, in which Yahweh promises to continue to be relevant to the life of the exiles as he faithfully guides their future. But prior to this third and last major block of material, the reader encounters the second next major section of the corpus in the oracles against foreign nations (OAN). The emphasis on future salvation, in which the ethos of Yahweh is argued in much more positive ways, is purposely placed after the OAN in order to achieve a particular rhetorical effect of clarifying the extent of Yahweh’s sovereignty and the extent of his just judgment. Chapters 25–32 At first glance, Ezekiel’s OAN appear to interrupt the progression of the book from emphasizing Israel’s judgment (which culminates in the promise of imminent destruction for Jerusalem), to emphasizing Israel’s future restoration.17 According to Greenberg, some A similar rationale has been prevalent among those who understand Chs. 38–39 as a late addition and an interruption in the so-called logical progression of the salvation section of the book (cf., e.g., M. C. Astour, “Ezekiel’s Prophecy of Gog and the Cuthean Legend of NaramSin,” 567–579. However, the recent approach of Fitzpatrick, Disarmament, 82–12, emphasizes the “logic” of this final battle with the forces of chaos (i.e., Gog and his allies), on the basis of mythological patterns, claiming the appropriateness of this material immediately preceding the construction of a new temple and the establishment (in this case reestablishment) of the victorious deity’s cult in the vision of Ezek 40–43. Cf. also M. S. Odell, “‘Are You He of Whom I spoke by My Servants the Prophets?’ Ezekiel 38–39 and the Problem of History in the Neobabylonian Context” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pittsburgh, 1988), 181–185, where, according to Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 426, the historical context out of which the prophecy arose and its proper placement amidst other salvation oracles in the final form of the text is better appreciated. 17

40

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

ancient scholars made sense of Ezekiel’s final arrangement by understanding the judgment of the nations as the beginning of Israel’s salvation.18 In this approach, Yahweh is understood to put Israel’s enemies in their proper place in Ezek 25–32, and to teach Israel not to place faith in foreign alliances, but rather to depend solely on Yahweh for security. Other scholars understand the primary purpose of the OAN as providing a foil or negative example by which Israel is to gain insight about the futility of hubris and the futility of opposing the will of Yahweh.19 This latter purpose appears to be perhaps one valid way of understanding the rhetorical function specifically of the oracles against Tyre and Egypt, where the sin of hubris is an explicit indictment. But it is difficult to agree that hubris would have been a significant problem among the displaced and disheartened exilic community, where these oracles originally arose. A different explanation will emerge here. My rhetorical approach treats the current location of the OAN as reflective of an important, purposeful decision by the book’s editor(s). It serves a critical rhetorical function for the intended audience of the book, who may benefit from encountering at this stage in the corpus a rather comprehensive treatment of Yahweh’s judgment of the nations. The OAN accomplish the following rhetorical purposes. 1) They condemn most of Israel’s neighbors and promise punishment for nations that may have tempted Israel to rebel against Babylon, Yahweh’s just instrument of punishment. These nations have hisCf. Greenberg, Ezekiel, 1–20, 4–5. However, Greenberg, idem, 5, considers this an oversimplification of Ezekiel’s structure, since both “doom and consolation” are important themes in Chs. 25–32. Unfortunately, lacking here is a clear explanation of just how such doom and consolation works rhetorically. 19 Cf., e.g., Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48 (WBC 29; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1990), xxiii, again, lacking a clear explanation of how such a “foil” functions rhetorically. Furthermore, this claim seems to contradict what Allen, idem, 67, says later about the function of the OAN “as a powerful fivefold statement of Yahweh’s purpose to reveal himself on the side of his suffering people.” 18

RHETORICAL ARRANGEMENT, GENRE, AND PURPOSE

41

torically tempted Israel to commit idolatry and to depend upon foreign political solutions instead of solely trusting in their own patron deity. 2) The promise of punishment for the nations seeks, through rhetorical means, to remove the possibility that they might continue to serve as objects of hope and stumbling blocks for Israel’s future relationship with Yahweh. 3) Some of the oracles set up foreign kings/nations as foils, teaching Israel not to admire or mimic them, but rather distrust their hubristic behavior. 4) The oracles bolster the argument, already begun in Chs. 1–24, that Yahweh is a god who justly punishes the guilty, including here the sinful foreign nations. 5) This teaches by implication that Yahweh is not only in charge of Israel’s destiny, but also that of the other nations. 6) This suggests even further that Yahweh’s sovereignty extends well beyond the confines of the Promised Land (an argument seen in the visionary rhetoric of Chs. 1–3; 8–11). 7) The logical conclusion of such argumentation is that Israel should place her faith in no other power than Yahweh. The OAN build upon a number of arguments that began in the first major section of Ezekiel. The deity’s just nature is affirmed because, just as Yahweh punishes Israel’s disobedience, he also punishes foreign nations when they oppose his will. Because he has the power to do so, his sovereignty is seen to extend beyond the confines of his patron people Israel. These lessons are meant to discourage the exiles from placing their destiny in any other hands than those of Yahweh, least of all the hands of foreign nations or their gods, the latter of which have already been described in 20:32 as merely “wood and stone.” The OAN begin in Ch. 25 with separate, short oracles against Ammon (vv. 1–7), Moab (vv. 8–11), Edom (vv. 12–14), and Philistia (vv. 15–17). Each nation is charged with a specific abuse that apparently was committed following Israel’s misfortune at the hands of Babylon in 597 or 586 BCE. Each nation is a foreign power that was, unlike Babylon, not designated by Yahweh as an instrument of punishment for Israel. But each either took advantage of (Edom and Philistia) or rejoiced over (Ammon and Moab) Israel’s misfortunes at the hands of Babylon. Thus, each behaved inappropriately and in opposition to Yahweh’s intentions. The implied message is that Yahweh, as Israel’s divine patron and suzerain, is in charge of tending to Israel’s destiny, including her correction for covenant abuses. The oracles also imply that Yahweh’s sovereignty

42

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

extends beyond the confines of Israel, as does his concern for justice. Therefore, Yahweh will punish other nations who mock or take advantage of Israel in the midst of her divinely orchestrated (and temporary) demise. The remainder of the OAN are comprised of a large collection against Tyre and Sidon (Chs. 26–28), two cities that represent the Phoenician kingdom, and a large collection against Egypt (Chs. 29–32). Each collection makes use of so-called mythological metaphors that contrast the themes of creation and destruction, order and chaos, hubris and downfall. Historically speaking, each also deals with a foreign nation that, unlike the nation of Israel, successfully withstood to a considerable degree the full destructive force of Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon in the sixth century BCE. The oracles against Tyre and Egypt end with a depiction of the death or utter destruction of their respective king, delivered in the form of a ‫קינָ ה‬, ִ “dirge/lament,” although in each case the genre has been highly adapted. While the form of a dirge is used in each collection, along with certain primeval motifs (the guardian cherub in 28:11–19; the cosmic tree in Ch. 31),20 the purpose is not to provide an actual lament or alternative creation myth, but rather an oracle of judgment against a rival king. In light of the theological perspective put forward in the first major section of Ezekiel, in which Nebuchanezzar is Yahweh’s chosen instrument of punishment (Ch. 21), the reader should interpret the fall of the Tyrian and/or Egyptian king as good news rather than bad. Here, the literary form of a funeral song functions more as a tool for celebrating the anticipated downfall of one’s own (or Yahweh’s own) enemy. This is because any foreign alliances Israel may have secured in order to oppose the King of Babylon represent opposition to the will of Yahweh. Ultimately, such intentions are misguided, and indicative of Israel’s failure to trust in Yahweh alone. The foreign nations, especially major powers like Phoenicia and Egypt, represent sources of false or inappropriate hope for Israel’s future, and not only will they be defeated, but they Ronald M. Hals, Ezekiel (FOTL 19; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 200, highlights the function of royal mythology in each, and sees the core of 28:11–19 as a creation myth. 20

RHETORICAL ARRANGEMENT, GENRE, AND PURPOSE

43

must be humbled in order for the people to redirect their attention to a proper relationship with Yahweh. An oracle in the OAN that, at first glance, appears misplaced, is found in the concluding section of Ch. 28 (vv. 20–24). This material appears to disrupt the balance between the collections against Tyre and Egypt. The verses present a short oracle against Sidon, Tyre’s sister city, and are followed in vv. 25–26 by a prophecy of salvation concerning Judah. As Renz notes, the structure of the oracle against Sidon is similar to that found in the oracles of Ch. 25, where one encounters rather short pronouncements of judgment against four of Israel’s smaller neighbors.21 While no specific reason is given for Sidon’s punishment, the reference in v. 24 to a future that no longer will allow “a pricking brier or piercing thorn” among Israel’s neighbors “links Sidon with the nations condemned in chap. 25 for their malice against Israel.”22 Thus, it appears that a prophecy against Sidon, in the style of those found in Ch. 25 against Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia, has been placed here to treat the prophecies against Phoenicia as a group. This may also reflect the perspective that, much like Egypt, Phoenicia was considered a major power in the region of Syria-Palestine, and one that perhaps in alliance with Egypt opposed Babylonian hegemony (and Yahweh’s will) in the sixth century BCE. The word of blessing for Israel (28:25–26) immediately following the oracle against Sidon serves three purposes. First, it promises a future in which Israel’s immediate neighbors, specifically those who “treated them with contempt” (v. 26), will no longer trouble her, suggesting its appropriateness at this juncture in the collection, immediately before material dealing with the more geographically remote land of Egypt. Second, it introduces the key motif of the Promised Land, which serves as a bridge to the collection of oracles against Egypt, an empire notorious for a prior captivity of Israel and the delay of their full possession of the Land. Third, just prior to the concluding section of the OAN, where the most dominant military power in the region (i.e., Egypt) is addressed, this blessing highlights the ultimately positive nature of 21 22

Renz, Rhetorical Function, 97. Renz, Rhetorical Function, 97.

44

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Yahweh’s universal judgment that these oracles are intended to convey to the exiles, and foreshadows the comprehensive treatment of Israel’s future enemies in Chs. 38–39. Yahweh’s judgments are not only appropriate, but also ultimately designed to benefit his corporate people by weeding out those unworthy of being called Israel (cf., esp., Ezek 11, 20, and 34) and removing the obstacles to faithfulness that foreign nations represent. The rhetorical form of the OAN is judicial, and the central rhetorical strategy is ethical. The audience is encouraged to agree with (i.e., pass judgment on) the appropriateness of the text’s condemnation of the nations, because the texts focus upon their abuse of opportunity and power, as well as their hubris, all of which have affected in negative ways the current political, social, and/or theological situation of Israel. Yahweh’s ethos is improved by the emphasis on his sovereignty and justice, but not simply because his power and judgment extend far beyond the borders of the Land of Israel, but rather because they are exercised upon other nations, and not just Israel in exile. The OAN build the ethos of Yahweh by implicitly defending him against charges of impotence and injustice, including the charge of punishing his own people more severely than they deserve (cf. Ch. 33, where Yahweh quotes the exiles as charging him with being unjust to them). Here, Yahweh appears to be a more consistent and universal judge, rather than a divine patron with limited jurisdiction. Here, Yahweh is the enemy of all the wicked, and the foreign nations are treated as the true enemies of Israel, who exploit her when the opportunity arises, who lead her astray with false hopes of political salvation, or who delude themselves into thinking they can oppose the will of Yahweh. Ezekiel 25–32 promise that these nations will receive their due reward, just as Israel is currently experiencing her deserved fate.23

The only apparent inconsistency here is that in Ezek 20, Yahweh claims to have repeatedly withheld from Israel her just reward (i.e., annihilation), for the sake of not tarnishing his own reputation. Thus, in actuality, Israel deserves every bit of punishment she receives, and anything less than total destruction is something to be greatly appreciated. By way of contrast (an understatement), Ezekiel 34–48 will go on to elaborate the 23

RHETORICAL ARRANGEMENT, GENRE, AND PURPOSE

45

In the course of addressing the opportunistic aggression, unneighborly taunts, and false political hope offered by the surrounding nations, Ezekiel’s OAN are arranged to deal, in progressive fashion, with those nations considered the greatest economic and military powers in the region. As such, Phoenicia and Egypt promised the greatest hope of political aid to Israel, but also posed the greatest threat of leading her astray from sole reliance on Yahweh (in addition to being a bigger disappointment for failure to deliver significant aid against Babylon’s aggression). However, in addition to these, the political successes of Tyre and Egypt (or lesser failures) in the midst of Israel’s outright conquest by Babylon, posed a special problem for Ezekiel’s theology of Yahweh’s sovereignty, and therefore called forth more elaborate collections of oracles to argue that these foreign nations, like Israel, are also subject to Yahweh’s rule. The oracles respond to very real political circumstances with a theological claim for Yahweh’s incomparability. The judicial rhetoric encouraging the reader to pass judgment on the abuses and hubris of the foreign nations functions synthetically with the ethos strategy of demonstrating Yahweh’s hegemony over, and just treatment of, the foreign nations. Babylon is treated as Yahweh’s instrument of punishment, and is nowhere in Ezekiel condemned for treating Israel more harshly than she deserved, in contrast to the treatment of Babylon in the other major prophetic books of Isaiah (cf. Ch. 14) and Jeremiah (cf. Chs. 50–51). In their current location, the OAN represent a developing rhetorical strategy or an ongoing argument that is strategically arranged. Placing the promises of judgment for the nations immediately after the promises of judgment for Israel is intended to convey that Israel’s punishment as Yahweh’s elect is to be understood within a larger, more universal context of divine justice. The material functions as an argument by and for the ethos of Yahweh. Here, Yahweh becomes known as the just ruler of all nations, the Great Divine King, but this is for the express purpose of further demon-

utopian future Yahweh has in store for those exiles that remain faithful during these trying times.

46

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

strating the appropriateness of Israel’s own covenant faithfulness to this god of all nations. Chapters 33–48 Ezekiel 33 provides an important rhetorical bridge between the judgment material in Chs. 1–32, and the salvation material of Chs. 34–48. This bridge serves as a transition point that addresses, once again, the concern with Yahweh’s justice (vv. 1–20) and reflects doubt among the exiles about the possibility of ever repossessing the Promised Land (vv. 21–33). The material that follows in Chs. 34–48 addresses a variety of concerns about Israel’s future, keeping in sharp focus the failures of the past. These concerns include Israel’s history of failed leadership (especially royal leaders), and the solution offered by Yahweh’s initiative to reestablish himself as the divine shepherd of his people in Ch. 34. The material in 35:1–36:15 reflects concern over the rise of the kingdom of Edom in the wake of Israel’s national disaster. Ezekiel 36:16–38 addresses anxiety over Israel’s ability to fulfill their covenant requirements any better in the future than in their past. It reemphasizes (cf. Ch. 20) that Yahweh’s concern with his reputation (vv. 17–23, 32) will be the foundation for his guaranteeing Israel a lasting restoration (36:24–38). This return to the topic of the Yahweh’s reputation is also a rhetorical return to the ethos strategy of Ezek 20. It signals that the promises of renewal are designed to inspire respect for and devotion to the patron deity. Here, Yahweh demonstrates that in spite of Israel’s unfaithfulness and shameless behavior, he will behave consistently and dependably by honoring his covenant promises. Verses 1–14 of Ch. 37 address doubts about the possibility of truly reviving the corporate people of Israel after the devastation they have suffered. The community is imagined here as a valley full of desiccated corpses that the miraculous intervention of Yahweh will recreate and bring back to life. The remaining verses (15–28) promise a reconstitution and reunification of twelve Israelite tribes (vv. 15–23), as well as a leadership role for a future Davidic ruler (vv. 24–28) referred to as ‫מ ֶלך‬, ֶ “king,” in v. 24 and ‫נָ גִ יד‬,

RHETORICAL ARRANGEMENT, GENRE, AND PURPOSE

47

“prince/ruler,” in v. 25.24 The use of a lower title in v. 25 clarifies that this king, unlike many former ones, will play his proper role as the representative servant of the divine king Yahweh. In a very subtle way, this reminds the reader that Yahweh alone will be acknowledged as the true sovereign of Israel in the ideal future, even as the monarchy is upheld as a legitimate human institution. Chapters 38–39 — the so-called Gog pericope — address concern over the possibility of future threats that foreign armies might pose for the reconstituted people of Yahweh. They do so by depicting the final victory of the divine warrior, Yahweh, over any remaining mundane foes. This material also paves the way for the deity’s triumphant return to take up residence again in an earthly temple among his people in the vision of Chs. 40–43. This is in keeping with the basic Chaoskampf pattern found elsewhere in ancient Near Eastern literature, witnessed most clearly in the Baal cycle from Ugarit, where Baal builds his temple and is acknowledged as king of the pantheon after his victories over the chaos gods Yam and Mot.25 The rhetorical strategies employed here are judicial and ethical. The exiles should judge Yahweh worthy of their continued allegiance, because he will one day eliminate all remaining threats to the peace and prosperity of his restored community. The rhetorical purpose continues to be epideictic, encouraging the reader to adhere to the value of covenant fidelity with Yahweh. The rhetorical function of the extensive vision in Ezek 40–48 is similar to what immediately precedes it. In the form of a visionary tour of the future Land of Israel that is most explicit in 40:1– On the range of meaning for the term ‫נָ גִ יד‬, cf. G. F. Hasel, “‫נָ גִ יד‬,” TDOT, 9:187–202. 25 Cf. Nicolas Wyatt, “Arms and the King: The Earliest Allusions to the Chaoskampf Motif and their implications for the Interpretation of the Ugaritic and Biblical Traditions,” in ‘There’s such Divinity doth Hedge a King’: Selected Essays of Nicolas Wyatt on Royal Ideology in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature (SOTSMS; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2005), 151–189; idem, Myths of Power. For the primary literature in translation, cf. idem, Religious Texts from Ugarit (2nd edition; The Biblical Seminar 53; London; New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003). 24

48

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

43:11 and 47:1–12, this large block of material begins by depicting the glorious return of Yahweh to reside in a new temple in the land of Israel (40:1–43:11). It then transitions to a section of more deliberative rhetoric that provides a number of guidelines for ensuring that the restored Israel never again violates Yahweh’s holiness (Chs. 43:12–46:24). The guidelines also play a judicial role in that they clarify where Israel failed in the past to properly respect Yahweh’s holy nature. Following this is a return to the prophet’s visionary tour, where he witnesses the utopian effects Yahweh’s future presence will have on the fertility of the Promised Land (47:1–12). This is followed by a description of how the reconstituted nation will organize itself geographically (47:13–48:35) through the redistribution of tribal lands, and even includes dimensions for the perimeter of the future capitol. The vision abruptly ends in 48:35 with the notation that the city where Yahweh’s earthly temple will reside in the future will be called “Yahweh is there,” which reemphasizes the point that Yahweh will thenceforth be an abiding presence with his earthly people, and that they truly will repossess the Promised Land. It is possible that such a positive, forward-looking vision was intended as deliberative rhetoric to raise support for an exilic remnant to return to Palestine to begin rebuilding the homeland. 26 However, because the closing vision for the most part lacks explicit, specific, and practical advice about how to rebuild the homeland, it seems more likely that the rhetoric here is primarily intended to continue building the ethos of Yahweh among his exilic people by offering utopian promises for the future. The effect is to encourage faith in the present by offering a glimpse of what the future ultimately holds for the dislocated community. An important motif found earlier in the corpus, which recurs in the salvation section of 34–48, is that of shame. This topic first emerged in Ezek 7:18, and was developed further in 16:27, 52, 54, Klaus Baltzer has made a similar argument about the original purpose of Deutero-Isaiah. Cf. Klaus Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah (Hermeneia; trans. by Margaret Kohl; ed. by Peter Machinist; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001). 26

RHETORICAL ARRANGEMENT, GENRE, AND PURPOSE

49

61, and 63. The language of shame is explicitly used in reference to Egypt in 32:24–30, and resurfaces in the context of restoration promises to Israel in 36:32 and in the vision of Yahweh’s return in 43:10–11.27 The technique of contrasting the nations’ shame with Yahweh’s honor serves to build the deity’s ethos in the OAN. Contrasting Israel’s shame with Yahweh’s honor serves simultaneously as a form of judicial, deliberative and ethical rhetoric. It teaches that Israel’s disobedience to Yahweh is a sign of shameless behavior that dishonors and degrades the deity’s reputation as well as that of the exiles; it encourages the exiles to be ashamed (i.e., become shameful) as a sign of their agreement with Yahweh’s perspective, and as a first step in submitting to the deity’s will; and finally it builds the ethos of Yahweh among his people by depicting him as a god who is rightfully concerned about his honor and status among his own people and among the nations, and who will uphold his honor by punishing those who dishonor him. Renz is basically correct in his assessment of the relationship of Chs. 1–33 to Chs. 34–48 when he writes that “the first thirtythree chapters have outlined the basis for the future: Yahweh’s commitment to the honour of his name.”28 This is the foundation for Yahweh’s fidelity to his prior covenant promises to Israel. The material in Chs. 34–48 then elaborates that Yahweh will uphold his honor not simply by punishing his wayward people, but also by redeeming them. Ultimately, the motivation and rationale in 34–48 (cf. 36:20ff; 39:7, 25; 43:7–8) for Yahweh’s salvific promises is no different than that offered for Yahweh’s multiple deeds of judgment (cf. 20:9, 14, 22).29 Yahweh is concerned about his ethos, his divine and universal reputation. As such, the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s vision of the future will rest solely on the initiative and faithfulness of Yahweh.30 Cf. also the explicit reference to the shame of the Levitical priests in 44:13. While not explicit, the King of Tyre is also shamed by his fall from grace in 28:16–19. 28 Renz, Rhetorical Function, 105. 29 Note that Yahweh also promises salvation on the same basis in 20:44. 30 Cf. Renz, Rhetorical Function, 106. 27

50

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

THE OVERALL PURPOSE OF THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL This cursory examination of the rhetorical arrangement, genre, and purpose of the major units of Ezekiel suggests that the book’s preoccupation with the past and the future is intended to influence the present experience of the exilic reader. “While the book ostensibly looks at the past (pre-destruction) and the future (restoration) much more than at the present situation (exile), it deals with the past and future to make a point for the present.” 31 The purpose of the judicial rhetoric in Chs. 1–24 and 25–32 is not simply for the exiles to condemn their past with Yahweh and condemn other nations, for this might simply serve to justify the actions of a god who is no longer relevant now that the covenant has been irretrievably broken. Instead, Ezekiel treats the kingship of Yahweh over the exiles as an ongoing reality, whether the exiles like it or not (cf. 20:32ff.). Furthermore, Ezek 34–48 looks ahead to a period of idyllic restoration in order to convince the reader, for the time being, to remain faithful to Yahweh because Yahweh will be faithful to Israel. This helps the reader evaluate (or reevaluate) Yahweh’s character as honorable. Renz classifies the future-oriented sections of Ezekiel as deliberative, “not in the sense that the community is expected to take an initiative themselves, but in the sense that they are asked to identify with Yahweh’s future action.”32 Key here are the words “identify with,” since it is my contention as well as Renz’s that the central goal or purpose of the corpus is epideictic, namely, to convince the exiles to continue identifying themselves as the people of Yahweh. But the exiles cannot accomplish this simply by initiating some new behavior. In fact, Ezekiel calls the implied audience to avoid idolatrous behavior rather than practice something new. However, there is a stance that the individual is encouraged to adopt (or refuse to abandon), and that is the affirmation that “I am Yahweh” (i.e., Yahweh is still sovereign). The emphasis on knowing Yahweh correctly and acknowledging his active role in the disastrous conflict between Judah and 31 32

Renz, Rhetorical Function, 57. Renz, Rhetorical Function, 57.

RHETORICAL ARRANGEMENT, GENRE, AND PURPOSE

51

Babylon in the early sixth century BCE provides a critical component to the larger epideictic concern running throughout Ezekiel. This concern is repeatedly signaled by the occurrence of the recognition formula in the midst of, and in conclusion to, a great number of literary units. 33 Commenting more generally on epideictic rhetoric, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, in their book The New Rhetoric, note that: Epidictic discourse sets out to increase the intensity of adherence to certain values, which might not be contested when considered on their own but may nevertheless not prevail against other values that might come into conflict with them. The speaker tries to establish a sense of communion centered around particular values recognized by the audience, and to this end he uses the whole range of means available to the rhetorician for the purposes of amplification and enhancement. In epidictic oratory every device of literary art is appropriate, for it is a matter of combining all the factors that can promote this communion of the audience.34

One of the purposes of this book is to help readers understand how Ezekiel fulfills an epideictic purpose by providing material in which “the speaker turns educator.”35 The text displays an intense concern with defending the identity and reality of the culture, community, or particular way of life of its audience, which, as Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca suggest, is commonly the emphasis of epideictic speech. Epideictic is often “practiced by those who, in a society, defend the traditional and accepted values, those which are the object of education, not the new and revolutionary values which stir up controversy and polemics.”36 Epideictic is the type of Renz, Rhetorical Function, 66–68. Ch. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver; London/Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1971), 51. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 19–20; 31; 36–37, refers to the form or genre of a rhetorical piece as its “species.” 35 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 51. 36 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 51. 33 34

52

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

rhetoric that Ezekiel as a whole best represents because even though deliberative and judicial forms of speech comprise the bulk of the individual units, these are ultimately employed in the service of a larger epideictic goal.37 This is not to ignore or downplay the importance of deliberative rhetoric in Ezekiel. Erika Moore, commenting on Aristotle’s concept of deliberative speech, clarifies that it does in fact “urge” the audience either to perform or avoid some specific action, and this rhetoric often carries the sense of urgency and immediacy for its implementation in the present moment. 38 Ezekiel’s rhetoric does have an urgent quality about it, being directed toward an immediate and pressing concern, but that concern is the preservation of the exilic community’s faith in Yahweh and identity as Yahweh’s people. But like most acts of rhetoric that humans engage in, Ezekiel does not explicitly state its intended purpose. Instead, it must be deduced from the text through rhetorical analysis. As I hope to show in more detail in the remaining chapters, Ezekiel as a whole is aimed at preserving the uniquely Israelite (i.e., Yahwistic) nature of the exilic community by strategically influencing the community’s evaluation of their patron god. Throughout Ezekiel, one finds multiple attempts to build the audience’s approval of and confidence in the key speaker, the divine king Yahweh. As such, a strategic argument by and for ethos, focusing upon the consistency, dependability, nobility, and sovereignty of Yahweh, unfolds in various sections of the corpus, becoming most prominent in those for which the topic or motif of divine kingship is likewise most prominent. The deliberative rhetoric of the admittedly few explicit calls for repentance suggests a realization that the exiles do possess the freedom not to acknowledge Yahweh, and are free to engage in unfaithful behavior. They may continue to be a “rebellious house.” But can they be obedient? Apparently, the text is not concerned with presenting a consistent answer. It is more concerned to preRenz, Rhetorical Function, 57–58. Aristotle, The “Art” of Rhetoric, 1.3.1358b, cited by Erika Moore, “A Rhetorical Analysis of the Use of Popular Sayings in the Book of Ezekiel” (Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 2003), 63. 37 38

RHETORICAL ARRANGEMENT, GENRE, AND PURPOSE

53

sent Yahweh in a consistently favorable light, and is content to contrast the deity’s freedom and faithful behavior with the repeatedly poor choices of Israel. The exiles are treated in some texts as only being capable of changing their attitude toward Yahweh, not their behavior (cf. 11:19; 36:26), hence the need for Yahweh to give them a new heart capable of obedience. After Ch. 33, there are no more explicit calls for repentance. However, it may be the case that the continuing calls for shamefulness serve as implicit commands to obedience. The salvation chapters continue to admonish the exiles to be ashamed of their sinful past, and the closing vision issues a final call for some form of obedience to the new “law of the temple,” which apparently is designed to preserve the deity’s and the people’s holiness in the age of restoration (cf. 43:11–12). Overall, and in spite of the presence of some deliberative rhetoric, Ezekiel is more concerned with developing the ethos of Yahweh. This concern provides a continuous thread that binds the entire collection together as a cogent and coherent argument. The goal of upholding Yahweh’s sovereignty and justice often eclipses any explicit concern for divine compassion (the exception being Ezek 34; cf. especially the “bad laws” in 20:25) or free will. To the modern reader, Yahweh may appear to be obsessed with his own reputation, as this concern even serves as the main motivation for the promises of salvation. This extreme emphasis on divine ethos makes the most sense, rhetorically speaking, as a direct response to the questioning of Yahweh’s place and power in the sixth century BCE. Much in the same way that the railings against syncretistic worship by various eighth century prophets most likely derives from the reality that a considerable amount of Israel’s popular worship at the time was indeed syncretistic, Ezekiel’s emphasis on Yahweh’s reputation most logically derives from the fact that Yahweh’s ethos had suffered severe damage in the wake of Babylonian displacement and destruction. Still, the deeper question must be posed as to the primary purpose or end of the ethos rhetoric in Ezekiel. It is not simply, as other scholars have suggested in response to the more explicit references to Yahweh’s name in Chs. 20 and 36, “the vindi-

54

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

cation of his [Yahweh’s] reputation.”39 Instead, one should look deeper to the rhetorical role this emphasis must play in preserving exilic faith. A three-step approach in Ezekiel for rebuilding Yahweh’s ethos, which corresponds to the three major blocks of material in the book, is: 1) to convince Israel that her punishment is deserved, that it comes from Yahweh, and that Yahweh is faithful and just to deliver it; 2) to convince Israel that Yahweh is universally sovereign and he administers universal justice by punishing the nations as well as Israel; and finally 3) to convince the exiles that despite their unworthiness, they are still Yahweh’s elect, and Yahweh will bring about a glorious restoration for those who continue to identify themselves as his people.

CONCLUSION This preliminary overview of the rhetorical arrangement, genre, and purpose of Ezekiel has argued that Ezekiel’s rhetoric seeks to build the ethos of Yahweh in a number of different ways. These include the repetition of the recognition formula, which exemplifies the educational and epideictic nature of the project. This formula repeatedly reminds the reader that the project is chiefly concerned with the reader properly understanding that Israel’s history is under Yahweh’s control (in spite of historical events that might suggest otherwise). Yahweh deserves recognition and respect for his mighty deeds, whether they are acts of judgment or salvation. Unlike the gods of the nations, which are merely wood and stone, Yahweh is a living god, the universal sovereign who controls the destinies of all nations (or at least those that interact with Israel), and who will not have his plans thwarted or his name forever tarnished by the poor exercise of free will on the part of his covenant people. Anyone who doubts Yahweh’s sovereignty needs a reorientation to understand properly Israel’s past, its present struggle, and its glorious future. The Book of Ezekiel implies that the character and reputation of Yahweh are at stake as much as the destiny of Yahweh’s chosen 39

See, for example, Joyce, Ezekiel, 29.

RHETORICAL ARRANGEMENT, GENRE, AND PURPOSE

55

people, and that both will be redeemed by Yahweh’s initiative and power. The central or overarching rhetorical strategy of Ezekiel is to build the divine ethos so that the exilic community will acknowledge that Yahweh is sovereign and trustworthy. The purpose is no less than the preservation of the exilic community’s identity as the unique patrons of Yahweh. The validity, viability, and vitality of the exilic community’s faith hang in the balance. While Ezekiel explicitly says very little about such things as the nature of its intended audience, the identity of the author(s) or editor(s) of the text, the logic of the text’s arrangement, or the specific crisis the text seeks to resolve, it nevertheless accomplishes a number of rhetorical tasks. Whether these things are contrived or not to some degree, the text presents itself as a faithful, autobiographical chronicle of the historical prophet’s career, depicting his various interactions with Yahweh and other Israelite exiles, including his symbolic actions and his supposed visionary experiences. As is typical for the genre of Israelite prophetic books, it presents a great number of oracles that purportedly are Yahweh’s own wordfor-word communications with/through the historical prophet. The Book of Ezekiel supposedly honors and preserves the legacy of the historical prophet, and attempts to build the prophet’s and the book’s ethos by arguing that the prophet’s ministry derives from nothing but the hand of Yahweh upon him. Likewise, the book argues for the legitimacy of Yahweh as Israel’s god, for the value of remaining faithful to Yahweh in exile, and for the futility of choosing any alternative religious response to the exile. While most all of these arguments are delivered implicitly rather than explicitly, together they support the conclusion that the Book of Ezekiel is chiefly concerned with preserving the Yahwistic faith and identity of the exiles. In the next chapter, I will attempt to trace in general ways the historical, ideological, and rhetorical context in which most, if not all, of the material in MT Ezekiel appears to have been composed, and discuss how this relates to our understanding of the rhetorical crisis for which the book attempts to serve as a rhetorical response.

CHAPTER THREE: HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT The bulk of the current chapter is dedicated to a general discussion of the historical and ideological contexts of the Book of Ezekiel, which in turn inform the rhetorical analysis of individual units of text in the chapters that follow (4–7), especially in regards to the rhetorical context or situation that lies behind each unit. But first, some preliminary comments about the differences between historical, ideological, and rhetorical context are in order. In rhetorical analysis, the term “rhetorical situation” refers to the crisis, problem, or conditions that call forth a rhetorical response. A rhetorical response is designed by an author or speaker to resolve a perceived crisis, solve a perceived problem, or at least alleviate the conditions that are believed to have led to a perceived crisis or problem. The rhetorical situation of a text must sometimes be inferred from the rhetorical response alone, because sometimes the response does not explicitly name the problem for which it seeks to serve as a solution. In such cases, the problem behind a text must be constructed by the rhetorical analyst through his/her own examination of the text’s argument. Alternatively, even if the text does provide its own explicit perspective of the rhetorical problem, one might still choose to reconstruct the rhetorical situation if one has reason to be suspicious of the text’s perspective. In addition, when it is available, extratextual data (cultural, historical, ideological, etc.) might prove helpful for making a determination of the situation that calls forth a particular rhetorical response. The rhetorical crisis as understood from the perspective of one particular text need not perfectly correspond to, or perfectly corroborate, other sources of historical or rhetorical data (i.e., other texts) written in a similar historical context. Nor does this suggest 57

58

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

that a lack of corroboration between texts should lead the analyst to conclude that one is necessarily more accurate than the other, or that one responds to real historical circumstances and the other to imaginary circumstances. Rather, it is to accentuate the fact that each text offers its own unique window through which to view a particular historical moment, just as each text also offers its own unique rhetorical response to that perceived moment. This highlights the need for the rhetorical analyst to distinguish carefully (at times) between historical and rhetorical context. The two are not necessarily equivalent, although they could be in the event that a text construes the rhetorical crisis to which it responds in the same way the historian understands the crisis on the basis of historical research. One of the approaches of historical criticism is to use extrabiblical data derived from archaeology, comparative literary study, socio-cultural research, etc., to inform one’s understanding of a biblical text by making reference to the larger historical and ideological context in which it is believed to have been composed. Another approach of historical criticism is to use the text itself as a dependable window for accurately viewing the situation in which it was written. To some extent, every historical approach is imperfect. Each is influenced by the ideological bias of the historian. Each in isolation runs the risk of oversimplifying the situation or allowing preconceived notions to dictate the interpretation. With any rhetorical analysis, one must be wary of methodological circularity and eisegesis (i.e., reading into the text what one already expects to find). But studying the external context in conjunction with the text itself can often provide helpful perspective. One should explore whatever insights may be gleaned from outside the text, while also avoiding predeterminism and reductionism about the rhetorical situation. The text should be allowed to speak for itself, to have its own unique perspective on its historical context, but one must sometimes make a careful distinction between the explicit ways a text provides the reader a rhetorical situation — which may simply represent rhetorical artifice on the part of the author — and the implicit ways a text reveals a rhetorical crisis. The two are not always equivalent. Likewise, texts or rhetorical units are not always logical, consistent, and coherent upon close examination, and they cannot always be interpreted literally. In other words, the way a text explicitly and/or literally presents a rhetorical situation is not al-

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 59 ways consistent with or coherent in light of the larger rhetorical context, especially when one focuses upon the question, “For what potential problem would this argument provide a solution?” Or, as I less formally pose the question to my students, “Why do we have what we have?” “For whom was this originally written, and why?” This suggests a potential problem for anyone who attempts to draw firm conclusions about the rhetorical situation of a text prior to evaluating the text itself rather thoroughly, and without first thinking through the ramifications of what the text is saying explicitly and implicitly, not to mention taking into serious consideration what is known about the rhetorical situation from extrabiblical sources. For example, Ezek 20 contains a scenario in which certain exilic “elders” of Israel approach the prophet Ezekiel in order to consult with Yahweh. The reason for the consultation is never specified. Yahweh responds initially, at least at the literal level of the text, by refusing to be consulted, yet he proceeds to give Israel a great deal of insight, at least from his perspective, about their rebellious past, then also about their rebellion in the present, and finally about the prospect of them being rebellious in the future. He refuses to be consulted on their (the exiles’) terms, yet he winds up consulting them on his own terms. Yahweh reaffirms his sovereignty over the fate of his exilic people (“I will be king over you” or “I am ruling over you”), and at the literal level tells them that what they are considering or planning to do, namely worship other gods (i.e., “wood and stone”) will never happen. And by the end of Ezek 20, Yahweh has, perhaps sarcastically, commanded Israel to go ahead and worship other gods if they really want to, but the consequences will be that they will play no part in the future of God’s people. This is indeed a very complex rhetorical unit that should be examined carefully in light of historical context. Its rhetoric cannot be understood properly in merely straightforward or literal terms. For example, Yahweh refuses to be consulted, and yet he winds up giving lots of advice and/or insight. Yahweh claims to rule over or to control the fate of his exilic people, and yet the chapter as a whole explicitly affirms Israel’s consistent rebellion against Yahweh throughout history. Also, the larger literary context of Ezek 1–24 is primarily concerned with justifying the exile as Yahweh’s appropriate punishment of Israel, and it is only logical to conclude that the reason these texts exist is that the exile must have called into ques-

60

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

tion Yahweh’s control over the fate of his human patrons, rather than affirming it. Furthermore, Yahweh claims in Ezek 20 that the exiles will never worship wood and stone, and yet the text appears to be working very hard to dissuade the intended audience from doing this very thing. What the text often claims at the literal level only makes sense if in fact these claims were already being questioned by the intended audience. “What we have” (i.e., reaffirming Yahweh’s sovereignty over the exiles) in Ezek 20 begs the question, “Why do we have this?” (i.e., because Yahweh’s sovereignty is actually being questioned). Thus, we must keep in mind that some rhetorical units simply should not be read in isolation from their surrounding literary and rhetorical contexts, and the implications of the text must at times outweigh the explications for the sake of rhetorical analysis. While many biblical texts have undoubtedly undergone complex processes of composition and redaction, and the Book of Ezekiel is no exception, eventually the contents of MT Ezekiel were preserved as a unified book, with its own unique rhetorical arrangement and message. My contention here is that the arrangement of MT Ezekiel reflects a logical, linear, progressive argument that may actually reflect the historical prophet’s own unfolding theological and apologetic interaction with his exilic audience. By seriously considering what we think we know today about the exilic experience in Babylon, and seriously analyzing Ezekiel as an act of rhetoric, we can better understand the biblical book’s original intention. In chapters 4–7 of this book, I include a step called rhetorical “synthesis,” in which I address the question of the rhetorical effectiveness of various units in Ezekiel, in order to determine how adequately they might have provided a solution for the rhetorical crisis to which they seem to have been a response. There is a danger with this endeavor. Just as one might lean too much upon extratextual, historical evidence to draw conclusions about the rhetorical situation lying behind a text, and therefore ignore important ways that the text itself might uniquely construe the crisis that called it forth, one can also lean too simply and too heavily upon the way the text might explicitly (yet sometimes artificially) depict its own rhetorical situation. Furthermore, this can also lead to flaws in the way one evaluates the rhetorical effectiveness of the rhetorical unit as a whole.

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 61 A safer approach is to delay drawing final conclusions about the rhetorical situation and rhetorical effectiveness until one has performed an in-depth analysis of the argument of the text. It may be the case that the solution provided by the argument of the text does not really resolve the rhetorical crisis as it is explicitly presented. Alternatively, it may be the case that the real rhetorical situation should be understood differently from the way the text explicitly presents it. The interpreter may or may not find clues in the larger text for resolving such an incongruity, but careful consideration of all the possibilities should guide the analysis.

RHETORICAL SITUATION OF THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL In the case of Ezekiel, modern scholars are largely in agreement about the general nature of the rhetorical situation that gave rise to the text’s composition. Viewed alongside other biblical and extrabiblical texts, as well as archaeological data, Ezekiel provides a coherent picture of the central rhetorical crisis facing the exilic community in Babylon.1 This view of the crisis does not purport to For a sampling of literature on the exile, cf. Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968); Thomas M. Raitt, A Theology of Exile: Judgment/Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977); B. Oded, “Judah and the Exile,” in Israelite and Judaean History (ed. John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 435–488; Ralph W. Klein, Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979); James D. Newsome, Jr., By the Waters of Babylon: An introduction to the History and Theology of the Exile (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979); Daniel L. Smith, The Religion of the Landless: The Sociology of the Babylonian Exile (Bloomington: Meyer-Stone Books, 1989); Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period (vol. 2: From the Exile to the Maccabees; OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994); idem, Israel in Exile: the History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. (trans. David Green; SBLSBL 3; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003); Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, “Reassessing the Historical and Sociological Impact of the Babylonian Exile (597/587–539 BCE),” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (ed. James M. Scott; JSOJSup 56; ed. John J. Collins; New York: Brill, 1997), 7–36; idem, A 1

62

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

be the only legitimate way to understand the challenges of Israel’s exile. It is MT Ezekiel’s view, which imagines the crisis of exile in an extremely ideological and theological way. Ezekiel treats the exile almost exclusively as a crisis of faith, resulting from covenant disloyalty on the part of Israel. The solution Ezekiel provides is likewise found in the arena of faith: Israel must remain faithful to her traditional patron deity, Yahweh, or suffer the loss of her identity as Yahweh’s patrons. The key to remaining faithful to Yahweh, according to Ezekiel’s implicit rhetoric, is to understand the true nature of the deity’s character and acknowledge his continuing sovereignty over the fate of his people. Yahweh’s kingship plays a central role in the way Ezekiel depicts the deity, and in the way Ezekiel goes about building the deity’s ethos among the exiles in order to encourage their covenant loyalty to him. Yahweh’s kingship is an extremely important concept in ancient Israel. In the southern kingdom of Judah, it plays a central role in the royal ideology and in the nation’s self-understanding. They are the human patrons of Yahweh, and they live in a covenant relationship with him. Judahite identity, especially for the societal elites who benefited most from participating in and supporting the royal administration of the kingdom, was based upon the view that Yahweh as divine king sanctioned and upheld the rule of the Davidic monarch. In addition, King Yahweh provided protection and prosperity for his patron people through the vehicle of the human king’s administration. As a result of such notions, Yahweh’s sovereignty over Israel is naturally threatened or called into question whenever Israel’s autonomy as a nation is disrupted. Such was Biblical Theology of Exile (OBT; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2002); Iain Provan et al, A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville; London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003); Abraham Malamat, History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues (Boston: Brill, 2004), especially Part Four: Twilight of Judah and the Destruction of the First Temple, 277–337; Oded Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005); Mario Liverani, Israel’s History and the History of Israel (BibleWorld; trans. Chiara Peri and Philip R. Davies; London; Oakville: Equinox, 2007), esp. 203–247.

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 63 the case with the Babylonian hegemony over Judah that manifested in the sixth century BCE, which had merely replaced the previous dominance exerted by the Assyrian Empire after they conquered the Northern Kingdom of Israel in 722/721 BCE.

DIVINE KINGSHIP IN ISRAEL Where did the idea of a kingly god originate, and how did it come to be adopted as a central motif for understanding the god Yahweh in ancient Israel? How did it come to be the dominant component of royal ideology in the Judahite administration? Patrick Miller points out that “as a divine title or epithet, ‘king’ originally meant one god as ruler over other gods. That was true in Ugarit, Egypt, and Mesopotamia.”2 The roots of the concept of divine kingship may be found in a: Mythological pattern discerned in such texts as the Babylonian Creation Epic and the Baal-Anat cycle at Ugarit, in which the god fought against hostile and chaotic forces (associated with sea or death), achieved victory, and was rewarded with the building of a house (temple/palace) as an eternal abode.3

Patrick D. Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel: ed. Douglas A. Knight; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), 10. For classical treatments of kingship in the ancient Near East, cf. Ivan Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1943); Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society & Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948); S. H. Hooke, Myth, Ritual, and Kingship: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the Ancient Near East and in Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958). For recent treatments, cf. various essays in John Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTSup 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); Marc Zvi Brettler, God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor (JSOTSup 76; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989); and John Pairman Brown, Ancient Israel and Ancient Greece: Religion, Politics, and Culture (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), esp. Ch. 2: “Divine Kingship, Civic Institutions, and Imperial Rule,” 49–80. 3 Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel, 10. 2

64

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

In Miller’s estimation, ancient Israel primarily understood Yahweh’s victory over chaos “in terms of human communities,” that is, in reference to victory over Israel’s human foes, “although mythopoeic categories were sometimes explicitly the vehicle for describing the battle and victory (e.g., Isa. 51:9–11).”4 Imagining Yahweh as warrior and king also occurred in the context of cultic activity, “where the procession of the Divine Warrior into the sanctuary was a celebration of Yahweh’s kingship.”5 Miller understands “that in the premonarchical and monarchical periods the central [religious] act was the procession of the ark, on which was enthroned ‘the King of glory,’ into the temple,” which constituted an annual “celebration of Yahweh’s victory and rule.”6 Eventually, this procession “served to confirm and validate the establishment of Zion as the dwelling of Yahweh and the Davidic king as the anointed agent of Yahweh’s rule.”7 This reality in ancient Israel is demonstrative of a widespread phenomenon in the ancient Near East by which the institutions of human kingship and divine kingship were closely related. 8 The huMiller, The Religion of Ancient Israel, 10. Cf. with other passages where Yahweh is depicted as defeating personified forces of chaos, such as Isa 27:1, Ps 74:12–15, and Ps 89:9–10. Cf. also Bernard F. Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (1st edn; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992). 5 Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel, 10. 6 Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel, 11. 7 Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel, 11. 8 The scholarly literature on notions of human kingship (what I am referring to here as royal ideology) and divine kingship (what I refer to here as royal theology) in the ancient Near East and in ancient Israel is vast. For a sampling of more modern works, cf. Leland Ryken, et al., eds., “King, Kingship,” DBI: 476–478; Baruch Halpern, “Kingship and Monarchy,” The Oxford Guide to Ideas & Issues of the Bible (2001): 268–271; Jacob Neusner and William Scott Green, eds., “Kingdom of God, Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period: 450 B.C.E. to 600 C.E., 2:370–371; Henri Cazelles, “Sacral Kingship,” ABD 5:863–866; M. Tsevat, “King, God as,” IDBSup: 515–516; Keith W. Whitelam, “King and Kingship,” ABD 4:40– 47; idem, “Israelite Kingship. The royal ideology and its opponents,” in 4

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 65 man king’s rule was derived from and dependent upon the favor of a deity, the latter of which was often imagined as a monarchical ruler of the divine realm. In this worldview, the pious or obedient human king served as an immediate extension of the deity’s will in the mundane world, promoting the deity’s cult and instituting justice in his earthly kingdom.

THE HISTORICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF EZEKIEL Understanding the prevailing religious ideology of the Judean elites who came to comprise a significant segment of the sixth century BCE exilic community helps to explain why the Book of Ezekiel The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study (Ed. R. E. Clements; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 119– 139; R. E. Clements, God and Temple (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965); Helmer Ringgren, “Behold Your King Comes,” VT 24:2 (1974): 207–211; J. J. M. Roberts, “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition;” idem, “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire;” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays: Papers Read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 5–7 December, 1979 (ed. Tomoo Ishida. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 93–108; idem, “In Defense of the Monarchy: The Contribution of Israelite Kingship to Biblical Theology,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, S. Dean McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 377–396; idem, “The Enthronement of Yhwh and David: The Abiding Theological Significance of the Kingship Language of the Psalms,” CBQ 64:4 [2002]: 675–686; William W. Hallo, “Texts, Statues and the Cult of the Divine King,” in Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986 (VTSup 30; Ed. J. A. Emerton; New York: E. J. Brill, 1988), 54–66; Brettler, God is King; Wyatt, Myths of Power; W. G. Lambert, “Kingship in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTSup 270; Ed. John Day; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 54–70; Paul M. Joyce, “King and Messiah in Ezekiel,” King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. John Day; JSOTSup 270; Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 323–337.

66

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

draws so heavily upon the motif of Yahweh’s kingship in its response to the exile. Prior to the sixth century, the official religion of Israel’s southern kingdom focused its religious ideology and practice upon the presence of Yahweh above the Ark of the Covenant in Jerusalem and then later in the Jerusalem temple where the Ark was housed.9 This attention can be traced back to King David’s choice of Jerusalem as the capitol of his administration (cf. 2 Sam 5:6–10), and Solomon’s construction of the Jerusalem temple for the purpose of officially housing the Ark of the Covenant (cf. 1 Kgs 6:1–8:53). The Ark came to serve as the central symbol of Yahweh’s presence among his people in Judah, and its construction is depicted as dating back to the time of the exodus from Egypt (cf. Exod 25:10–22; 37:1–9). The Judean exiles of the sixth century BCE, especially those deported with the priest Ezekiel in 597, carried with them a sense of identity that was largely based upon the royal ideology and royal theology of the southern kingdom of Judah. These carried forward a sense of Israelite identity that incorporated the earlier tribes’ covenant with their patron, warrior-deity Yahweh, who dwelt among them, during and shortly after the exodus, in a tabernacle or tentshrine (Exod 25:8–9; 33:7–11). By the time Israel evolved into a monarchy (monarchies after the nation split), Yahweh’s role was understood to be that of a divine king, with the deity dwelling among his people in various temples, the most prominent being Dan, Bethel, and Samaria in the north, and Jerusalem in the south. According to Pentateuchal tradition, Israel’s relationship with Yahweh was originally established through a covenant with the ancestral patriarch Abraham (Gen 15; 17), and included promises of innumerable descendants and a land they could call their own. This covenant was confirmed to Abraham’s descendants (Gen 27:27–29; 28:13–15; 32:29), reconfirmed through the prophet Moses (Exod 3:1–18; 6:2–8; 19:2–8; 20:1–24:8), and eventually, in the southern Kingdom of Judah, politically institutionalized through divine promises granted to the Davidic monarchy (2 Sam 7:1–17). Cf. the procession of the Ark with David in 2 Sam 6 and Josiah’s reform in 2 Kgs 23:1–27; cf. also Provan et al., A Biblical History of Israel, 275–276. 9

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 67 After the fall of the northern kingdom, the presence and worship of Yahweh became centralized in Judah, and the Jerusalem temple came to be considered, at least by the Deuteronomic school of thought, as the only legitimate place of worship. Yahweh’s power was believed to have been, by divine choice, uniquely apparent in the Jerusalem temple. The concept of Yahweh’s covenant provided Israel with a sense of identity and a sense of history with the deity. This history includes, especially in the Sinai traditions, an emphasis on Yahweh’s abiding presence. This presence was located either in a mobile tabernacle or tent-shrine during the exodus period, an apparently more stable, regional shrine or “House of God” during the period of the judges (Josh 6:24; 18:1; Judg 18:31), or, for Judah, in the more permanent Jerusalem Temple (cf. 1 Kgs 6). In both northern and southern kingdoms, Israelite identity came to be dependent upon and represented by a new element, the human king, who served as a mediator between god and people. The idea that the king was an adopted son of the deity endowed him with divine authority and the responsibility to serve as the god’s vice-regent on earth. While not made explicit in the promises to David in 2 Sam 7:1–17, the grant of this position to David’s descendants was eventually elaborated in various royal psalms as carrying the duties of ruling and protecting the deity’s covenant people, and also leading them in appropriate covenant piety. 10 This latter duty included guarding against idolatrous practices by admonishing and enforcing the avoidance of syncretism and any other form of worship deemed foreign in nature or threatening to the people’s sole devotion to Yahweh. As Halpern and others have made clear, not only the relationship between Israel and Yahweh in particular, but generally speaking, the relationship between the human and divine realms throughout the ancient Near East, were “modeled as one of royal domination from the very outset.”11 The earthly monarch’s domi10

Cf. Yahweh’s promise to Solomon in 1 Kgs 9:1–9, and Pss 2 and

72. Halpern, “Kingship and Monarchy,” 268. Cf. also Whitelam, “Israelite Kingship,” and Patrick D. Miller, “The Sovereignty of God,” in 11

68

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

nance was dependent upon the favor and invested power of the divine monarch. This model of the way heavenly and mundane realities relate was commonly understood in ancient times to have derived from a heavenly pattern.12 Miller notes that monarchy was believed to have been an archetypal form of governance based upon the way the gods interacted and organized themselves in the heavenly realm. This ideology was widely adopted in the ancient Near East to explain the role and authority of both human and divine kings. The office of divine king often incorporated a number of related roles in the ancient Near East, including those of warrior and judge, and ancient Israel reflects this understanding in its conception of Yahweh.13 The role of earthly king followed suit. As Whitelam puts it, “the representation of the Israelite king’s ideal roles incorporates many features which are frequently associated with kingship throughout the ancient Near East. The king’s role and functions are the same as his deity, Yahweh, in the cosmic hierarchy.”14 Whitelam adds the role of “priest” to the list of duties for the earthly king (although most kings fulfilled this role through the royal maintenance of a class or caste of priests), and it should also be recognized that building or creating is one of the king’s divinelysanctioned tasks, clearly modeled after the deity’s own work in creating an orderly world.15 In fact, it is often as a direct result of the warrior god’s victory over the divine forces of chaos — a concept referred to by scholars as Chaoskampf — that the god is granted the authority to establish his own particular order or rule over both idem, Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays (JSOTSup 267; ed. David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 406–421. 12 Miller, “Sovereignty,” 407. 13 Miller, “Sovereignty,” 407–421. 14 Whitelam, “Israelite Kingship,” 130. 15 Whitelam, “Israelite Kingship,” 130, adds the role of “priest” to the human king’s duties, as it relates to the responsibility to rightly order the society’s worship on behalf of the deity. On deity’s role as creator, cf. Halpern, “Kingship and Monarchy,” 269.

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 69 divine and earthly realms. Victory over chaos in the form of defeating enemy armies also becomes a major duty of the earthly king. Miller offers important reflections on this pattern for broadly understanding both the royal ideology and royal theology of ancient Israel: These metaphors [God as king, judge, and warrior] are not simply interesting ways of imagining God. They are controlling symbols that shape Israel’s life and are the conceptual grounding for the politics of God … the God of the Old Testament is to be understood in political terms, that is as one who has to do with the affairs of the human world and the divine world, who is seen as the creator and guarantor of order and control in the universe (the Great King), the one whose power in and over the affairs of humanity and the gods effects that control (the Warrior Commander) and the moral ground of history and its end (the Righteous Judge) … it is power in behalf of just rule that Israel saw in its God and that God asserted in Israel’s history and institutions (cf. Isa. 2.1–4; Mic. 1–4).16

It is largely because of this political understanding of Israel’s god that the exile demands a response addressing the issue of Yahweh’s political authority. Thus, in Israel, as in other ancient Near Eastern nations, royal ideology and royal theology were intrinsically tied together, with royal ideology referring to that collection of assumptions by which a king’s rule is justified, legitimated, and maintained,17 and royal theology referring more specifically to the notions surrounding divine kingship. Typically, in ancient Israel, royal theology involved the idea that the chief deity was a heavenly king who exercised his rule over the earth by appointing a human monarch to act on his behalf.18 It was the divine kingship that sanctioned and supported Miller, “Sovereignty,” 419. Whitelam, “King and Kingship,” 40–48. 18 Whitelam, “King and Kingship,” 43. For a book length treatment of the notion of Yahweh as king in ancient Israel, cf. Brettler, God is King. While offering a useful survey, Brettler’s treatment of Yahweh’s kingship as simply a “metaphor” must be questioned. The so-called metaphor’s 16 17

70

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

the human king’s reign, and the royal theology therefore that functioned as the central component in the royal ideology. Also, in typical ancient Near Eastern fashion, Zion theology refers to the belief that Israel’s divine patron resided (i.e., was a real presence) in some sense in the human (Davidic) king’s capitol city, and from there exercised his rule over his elect people. A corollary to the belief in Yahweh’s abiding presence in Jerusalem was the idea that Yahweh would defend his capitol and his covenant people, not allowing the sanctity of his earthly abode or the safety of his earthly people to be violated. According to J. J. M. Roberts, who has written extensively on the Zion tradition in Israel, Yahweh’s decision to dwell in Jerusalem has implications for Zion’s “topography,” “security,” and “inhabitants.”19 Zion becomes a synonym for Jerusalem and at times is even personified as Yahweh’s daughter, who collectively represents the Israelite people. Topographically, rhetorically, theologically, and again typically speaking, Zion represents the world’s highest mountain and a unique earthly stronghold from which Yahweh rules over his human patrons (cf. Pss 24; 46; 48; 76; 78:68–69; 125:1; 132:13; Isa 24:23; Jer 31:12; Joel 3:17; Obad 1:21; Mic 4:7; Zech 8:3). 20 From Zion, Yahweh guarantees the protection of his elect from both mundane and divine forces of chaos, and promises one day to bring about peace and prosperity for all who will abide in covenant fidelity with the Great Divine Suzerain of the entire world. 21 In this widespread occurrence in the ancient Near East suggests that it was considered a reasonable way for understanding literally the order of the universe. 19 Roberts, “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire,” 93–108. For his most recent publications on the Zion tradition, cf. the collective volume The Bible and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), and “The Enthronement of Yhwh and David, 675– 686. 20 Cf. Lamonte M. Luke, “Zion,” MDB: 985–986. Cf. also Mare, “Zion,” ABD 6:1096–1097; Levenson, “Zion Traditions,” ABD 6:1098– 1102. 21 Roberts, “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire,” 94.

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 71 conception, Jerusalem functions not only as the center of Israel, but also as the “navel” of the earth (cf. Ezek 38:12) and even the center of the universe — the location of the axis mundi connecting heaven, earth, and the underworld.22 From here flow all the human necessities of fertility and life. In this conceptual framework, the earthly king, like his patron deity, plays a central role in the order of the cosmos, as Keith Whitelam makes clear: “A central feature of the [ANE] royal world-view was that the cosmos was divinely ordered and that monarchic government and society were the mundane counterparts of this heavenly ideal.”23 Whitelam explains that the Israelite king’s function in earthly society mirrored that of Yahweh in the heavenly realm.24 In fact, the two functioned as allies; just as Yahweh’s rule of the heavens guaranteed that the cosmic or spiritual forces of chaos would be held in check, so the king’s rule on earth, as Yahweh’s divinely sanctioned regency, guaranteed that earthly forces of Richard J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (HSM 4; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), 135, 183, is much more cautious with his assessment here, but does note that the LXX of Ezek 38:12 translates ‫ ַטבּור ָה ָא ֶרץ‬as ὀμφαλὸν τῆς γῆς, “navel of the earth.” For further discussion of this term/concept, cf. Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25–48 (trans. James D. Martin; ed. Paul D. Hanson with Leonard Jay Greenspoon; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 310–311; Marco Nobile, “Ez 38–39 ed Ez 40–48: i due aspettie complementari del culmine di uno schema cultuale di fondazione,” Anton 62 (1987): 141–171, esp. 147; and most recently, Fitzpatrick, The Disarmament of God, 107. Following Nobile, Fitzpatrick explains the “mythic” significance of Jerusalem as “navel of the earth” in the Gog pericope (Ezek 38–39): “This center, symbol of all that sustained harmony in the universe, will be assaulted by all the forces of chaos, these forces knowing, as they do, the significance of their victory for destroying the order of the cosmos as established by its Creator.” Thus, as “cosmic center” Jerusalem is the stronghold not only of Israel’s creator-deity, but key to the very order and maintenance of the universe against the forces of chaos. 23 Whitelam, “Israelite Kingship,” 128–129. 24 Whitelam, “Israelite Kingship,” 129. 22

72

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

chaos would likewise be contained so that an orderly, peaceful, and life-producing society might be fostered.25 To challenge the divinely appointed human sovereign in the ancient Near East was tantamount to challenging the deity, and might result in eliciting the deity’s wrath for interfering with a hierarchy of order by which the earthly and heavenly realms were intrinsically tied. According to Miller, “the imagery of Yahweh as king predates Israel’s own experience with human kingship” and “the human king as the centerpiece of the divine government on earth continues long after Israel’s own government was no longer under kings.”26 Miller supports this claim by arguing that Yahweh’s kingship is in view in many of the most ancient pieces of Israelite poetry (cf. Exod 15:18; Deut 33:4–5; Num 23:21; Ps 68:24).27 In addition, Yahweh’s kingship plays a key role in the evaluation of human kingship in the Deuteronomistic History, including the story of Gideon’s refusal of monarchic rule over the Israelite tribes in Judges 8:22–23 and Yahweh’s claim that Israel has rejected him as king in 1 Sam 8:7. Even if one disputes the claim that the concept of divine kingship in Israel predates the Israelite monarchy, it is still critical for understanding royal ideology after the establishment of Israelite kingship. Roberts, like Miller, understands royal ideology and royal theology in Israel to converge in a way typical of the ancient Near East.28 Commenting on Israel’s similarity to ancient Mesopotamian civilizations, Roberts claims: In Mesopotamia the human king was easily accepted as the agent or regent of the real king, the deity. Thus, in the Assyrian enthronement ritual, one stresses that the real king is Asshur, but the human king is allowed his place in the scheme of Whitelam, “Israelite Kingship,” 129. Miller, “The Sovereignty of God,” 420. 27 Miller, “The Sovereignty of God,” 407. 28 For the most recent bibliography, cf. J. J. M. Roberts’s “Solomon’s Jerusalem and the Zion Tradition,” in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (ed. Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew; SBLSymS 18; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 163. 25 26

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 73 things nevertheless. Likewise in Babylon, the real king is Marduk, but his human agent is still permitted the title of king of Babylon. The accommodation of human kingship to divine kingship appears to have taken place without any serious theological friction. Moreover, once Israel developed the monarchy, it related the human king and the divine monarch to each other in precisely the same way as had been done in Mesopotamia.29

For Roberts, “the portrayal of Yahweh as king, already attested in Exod 15:18, played a vital role in the formation of the Israelite people and probably functioned polemically in their struggle against the Canaanite city-states.”30 However, it was primarily during the time of David’s and Solomon’s monarchies respectively that the contours of this tradition were set. It was during this period that “royal theologians under state sponsorship put together a theological system, fashioned out of a mix of native and borrowed motifs that one may refer to as the Zion Tradition, with a view to legitimizing and undergirding the Davidic state.”31 The core affirmations of this tradition are as follows: (1) Yahweh is the great king, or suzerain, not only over Israel but over all the nations and their gods; (2) Yahweh has chosen the Davidic house as his human agents for the divine rule and Roberts, “In Defense of the Monarchy,” 383–384. Roberts, “Solomon’s Jerusalem,” 169, notes that “the rise of deities to imperial prominence in the ancient Near East is usually associated with the actual political rise of the deity’s city or country. It is not unusual to find a linkage between the rise of the deity to divine kingship, the election of his human king, and the elevation of his royal city. A classic example is the elevation of Marduk, Hammurabi, and Babylon in the prologue to the Code of Hammurabi … Imperial ideologies are easily created in times of political success.” What I find most interesting about the Book of Ezekiel in this regard is the way it asserts an imperial ideology of Yahweh in a time of political failure. More is said on this topic below under the rubric of “divine abandonment.” 30 Roberts, “Enthronement of Yhwh,” 676. 31 Roberts, “Enthronement of Yhwh,” 676. 29

74

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!” has confirmed that choice with an eternal covenant; and (3) Yahweh has chosen Zion as his royal city, as the earthly dais of his universal rule.32

The most important extant sources for these theological positions, according to Roberts, are Psalms 18, 47, 68, 76, and 82, all of which should be dated to the historical period of David and Solomon, certainly the timeframe for which their composition makes the most sense.33 Even if one chooses to locate them later in the preexilic era, the likelihood that the Zion tradition was well known and widely accepted by the time of Ezekiel’s composition should not be doubted. The “self-serving nationalistic interest [that] is implicit in its [Zion tradition’s] very formation,” to borrow Roberts’ phrase, makes little sense for a time when other, foreign powers ruled over the people of Israel or Judah.34 Roberts, “Enthronement of Yhwh,” 676. Ben C. Ollenburger, Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult (JSOTSup 41; Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1987), 15, elaborates a four point cluster of tenets for the Zion tradition, based upon the prior work of Edzard Rohland, “Die Bedeutung der Erwählungstraditionen Israels für die Eschalologie der alttestamentlichen Propheten,” (D. Theol. diss., University of Heidelberg, 1956), 142: “1. Zion is the peak of Zaphon, the highest mountain (Ps 48.3–4); 2. The river of paradise flows from it (Ps 46.5); 3. There Yahweh triumphed over the flood of chaos waters (Ps 46.3); 4. And there Yahweh triumphed over the kings and their nations (Pss 46.7; 48.5–7; 76.4, 6–7).” The last of these points has special significance for understanding the final conflict with the nations depicted in Ezek 38–39, for which cf. Fitzpatrick, The Disarmament of God, especially Ch. 4 “Ezekiel 38–39, Cosmogony Completed, A Covenant of Peace Fulfilled,” 74–112. 33 Roberts, “Enthronement of Yhwh,” 677. 34 Roberts, “Enthronement of Yhwh,” 678–679. However, such negative evaluations of royal ideology as merely a form of pseudo-piety intended to manipulate the masses can be overemphasized. As Ollenburger, Zion the City of the Great King, 138, argues, “while it is also characteristic of the texts from the Jerusalem cult tradition which reflect the notion of Yahweh’s exclusive prerogative [i.e., exclusive kingship] that he alone wins victory, this victory is never said to result in the exaltation of 32

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 75 Roberts elaborates on the significance of each major tenet of the Zion tradition. First, the notion of Yahweh as the “Great King” derives most basically from Israel’s own utilization of the mythical Chaoskampf pattern, whereby Yahweh creates an orderly universe after having defeated the primeval forces of chaos. 35 This is demonstrated, for example, by Psalm 74:12–17: Yet God, my king, is from ancient time, working salvific deeds in the midst of the earth. You divided Yam with your might; you shattered the heads of the dragons above the waters; you crushed the heads of Leviathan; you appointed him food to the denizens of the wilderness; you broke open the spring and the river; you dried up perennial streams; to you belongs the day; yes, to you belongs the night; you established the luminary and the sun; you affixed all the boundaries of the earth; the summer and harvest you fashioned.

Yahweh’s “imperial rule” is founded upon his very act of creating the universe, according to Roberts, and “is anterior to and, therefore, not dependent on Israel, the Davidic monarchy, or the fate of Jerusalem. Yahweh’s authority over the other nations arises out of the fact that he created the whole world, including these nations, not out of Israel’s historical conquest of them (Pss 95:2–5; 96:3– 10).”36 As one might surmise even prior to reading the Book of Ezekiel, the belief in Yahweh’s sovereignty, which was grounded in the deity’s creative and life sustaining acts, and abiding presence in Jerusalem, would need reinforcement among the exilic community, as well as the Judean remnant. Especially for the Babylonian exiles, the breakdown of an orderly universe that supposedly had Yahweh’s abiding presence at its center would have been painfully apparent.

the [human] king, nor is the participation of the king in this victory ever described.” For a thorough discussion of these texts, cf. Ollenburger, idem, 81–144. 35 Roberts, “Enthronement of Yhwh,” 679. 36 Roberts, “Enthronement of Yhwh,” 680.

76

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

A clarification of the Israelite doctrine of Yahweh’s presence may be found in the theology of the Psalms. Here one finds the perspective that the foundation of Yahweh’s universal throne, and the principle which holds the forces of chaos at bay, is nothing less than the deity’s righteousness and justice: “Yahweh is King! Let the earth rejoice; let the many coastlands be glad! Clouds and thick darkness are all around him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne” (Ps 97:1–2).37 The second major tenet of the Zion tradition, the special election of the Davidic house, represents, according to the biblical tradition, an eternal covenant (2 Sam 7:12–17). This is confirmed by various Psalms that speak of the Davidic king’s adoption by Yahweh (Pss 2:2–8; 89:27; 110:3).38 However, the earthly king, in order to maintain his throne, was still expected to exercise the same righteousness and justice as Yahweh himself:39 I will sing of loyalty and of justice; to you, O Yahweh, I will sing. I will study the way that is blameless … I will walk with integrity of heart within my house; I will not set before my eyes anything that is base. I hate the work of those who fall away; it shall not cling to me. Perverseness of heart shall be far from me; I will know nothing of evil. One who secretly slanders a neighbor I will destroy. A haughty look and an arrogant heart I will not tolerate … whoever walks in the way that is blameless shall minister before me. No one who practices deceit shall remain in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue in my presence. Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of Yahweh. (Ps 101:1–8)

The third major tenet of the Zion tradition is Yahweh’s choice of Jerusalem/Zion as his earthly dwelling place.40 Roberts rightfully stresses the polemical use of such ideology “to legitimate the temple in Jerusalem against rival cult centers within the Davidic state as Roberts, “Enthronement of Yhwh,” 680. Roberts, “Enthronement of Yhwh,” 682. 39 Roberts, “Enthronement of Yhwh,” 683. 40 Roberts, “Enthronement of Yhwh,” 685. 37 38

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 77 well as to legitimate it against the imperial claims of the capitols of rival states (Pss 2:6; 68:17; 78:67–69; 132:13–17).”41 In Israel, in place of a cult image, the Ark signified Yahweh’s presence, and appears to have been designed, at least in part, to respond polemically to the widespread notion in the ancient Near East that the deity actually resided in (indwelt) his/her cult image.42 The Ark was not intended to serve as an image of the deity, but rather served as a throne or visible seat for the deity’s invisible presence, although functionally speaking this may have made little real difference.43 In accordance with this aniconic variation on ancient Near Eastern views of divine presence, Ezekiel shows a concern for clarRoberts, “Enthronement of Yhwh,” 685. For a detailed discussion of the role of the cult image in the ancient Near East, cf. Michael B. Dick (ed.), Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: the Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999) and various essays in Neal H. Walls (ed.), Cult Image and Divine Representation in the Ancient Near East (ASOR 10; Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2005). On the role of the cult image in the Babylonian Akitu (New Year’s) festival, cf. Julye Bidmead, The Akitu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia (Gorgias Dissertations Near Eastern Studies 2; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2004). 43 Cherubim thrones are well attested in the ancient Near East, especially in Phoenicia. Cf. Othmar Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: eine neue Deutung der Majestatsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4 (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 84/85; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977); Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God In Ancient Israel (trans. Thomas H. Trapp; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 168 and other references there; Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “YHWH SABAOTH — The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays: Papers Read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 5–7 December, 1979 (ed. Tomoo Ishida; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 109–138; idem, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in its Ancient Near Eastern Context (ConBOT 42; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995); idem, “Israelite Aniconism: Developments and Origins,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed. Karel Van Der Toorn; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1997), 173–204. 41 42

78

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

ifying that the prophet’s description of Yahweh’s glory in the visions of 1–3, 8–11, and 40–43 is merely an approximation. The visions convey the idea that Yahweh’s glory, even if invisible to the ordinary (non-prophetic) eye, does reside in the Jerusalem temple in the vicinity of the Ark (cf. also Chs. 8–11; 40–43), but is not bound or limited to this location. This understanding of ancient Israelite thinking about Yahweh’s normally invisible presence is consistent with the fact that archaeologists have failed to uncover evidence of divine male images in the vicinity of Jerusalem. By and large, the worship of Yahweh in ancient Israel truly was aniconic, and the official religious stance, at least among the religious establishment in Jerusalem, taught that Yahweh, whose permanent throne was in heaven, was also present above the Ark in the Jerusalem temple.44 Roberts points out the practicality of a theology of divine presence for supporting the self-interest of the Jerusalemite priesthood as well as the Davidic king, including its elaboration via the myth of paradise, which suggested that the capitol was the seat of all the land’s fertility.45 However, he also notes that, when coupled with the opinion that Yahweh’s presence guaranteed the city’s security, Zion theology was “subject to misuse” as a source of false hope against enemy invaders (cf. Jer 7:2–15).46 This was primarily because the tendency in Israel was to ignore a key component of this theology, namely the righteousness and justice upon which Yahweh’s rule was based, and which served as an ethical requirement for the deity’s patrons as well.47

Of course, evidence suggests that the worship of Asherah in Israel certainly was iconic. Cf. 1 Kgs 14:15, 23; 2 Kgs 18:4; 23:6. For a concise description of Asherah in scripture and archaeology, cf. David Penchansky, Twilight of the Gods: Polytheism in the Hebrew Bible (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005), Ch. 8, “Asherah and Archaeology,” 75– 89. 45 Roberts, “Enthronement of Yhwh,” 685. 46 Roberts, “Enthronement of Yhwh,” 685. 47 Roberts, “Enthronement of Yhwh,” 685. 44

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 79

DIVINE KINGSHIP AND THE RHETORICAL SITUATION OF EZEKIEL Mark K. George has helped to clarify further the nature of Israelite identity in relation to Yahweh and his designated human king. He convincingly shows that, in ancient Israel after the establishment of the monarchy, the human king came to be considered both the embodiment of the deity for the people as an adopted son of Yahweh, and as “the embodiment of the people,” the progenitor who makes all of Israel the deity’s descendants.48 Both functionally and ideally, the human king mediates the divine rule over all Israel through his administration of justice, his implementation of laws that have a divine origin in the decrees of Yahweh, and his protection of the homeland through a human army that mirrors the divine, invisible armies of Yahweh. For George, the stability of Yahweh’s identity as patron deity and divine progenitor is no more or less stable than the identity of his patron people, because the two parties are bound together by covenant obligations.49 And historically speaking, this identity suffers instability whenever Israel as a nation faces political instability. “Questions of identity, of ‘Israelite’ and ‘Israel,’ are of great concern in the Hebrew Bible, and … are continually being constructed, de-constructed, and re-constructed.”50 George demonstrates how the discourse on kingship in 1 Sam 8 – 2 Sam 7 “constructs” a particular identity for the human king, and in the process, “create[s] and construct[s] knowledge about, and the identity of, Israel and Israelites.”51 By creating and promoting the idea of the king as a divinely appointed and thereby uniquely important individual, who would pass on this role to his descendants, the so-called “national

Mark K. George, “Body Works: Power, the Construction of Identity, and Gender in the Discourse on Kingship” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1995), 122. For further support, George refers his readers to Ps 2, Deut 32:18, and Hos 11. 49 George, “Body Works,” 123–125. 50 George, “Body Works,” 129. 51 George, “Body Works,” 130. 48

80

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

identity” would be established and maintained, “thereby providing continuity in Israel’s identity.”52 The relevance of George’s work here is its application to the understanding of Yahweh’s identity and Yahweh’s role as divine king for constructing and maintaining continuity in the identity of Israel as a unique, recognizable, and unified people. The identity of Yahweh as Israel’s divine king plays just as critical a role, if not more so, than the human king in establishing Israelite identity. As George points out, the establishment of “kingship ends (or attempts to end) the fluidity in Israel’s identity and re-affirms and reenforces the unity of Israel.”53 This is especially true when one considers the role of Yahweh as the author and initiator of the covenant relationship that establishes Israel as a unique people, and that works toward “re-enforcing” unity through religious requirements. What is also true is the gravity of any threat to the continuity or stability of Israel when either the human or divine king’s rule is interrupted. Such a situation seriously threatens the continuity of the entire nation’s identity.54 It is just such a threat that comprises the rhetorical crisis facing the exilic and Judean communities when a foreign power like Babylon disrupts the human king’s and divine king’s relationship with one another, and with their people. The Babylonian conquest of Judah calls into question Yahweh’s fulfillment of his covenant obligations to his human regent and to his patron people. Whenever the stability of the nation is disrupted, potentially so is the identity of the covenant people of Yahweh and the notion of Yahweh’s sovereignty. The Book of Ezekiel is a response to just such a disruption, and represents a new “discourse” that includes a strategic, rhetorical attempt to re-construct Yahweh’s and Israel’s identities. Just as George considers the king’s identity as the “theological embodiment of the nation,” 55 here I argue that Ezekiel treats the divine king’s true identity and ethos as the “embodiment” of what it George, “Body Works,” 131. George, “Body Works,” 132. 54 George, “Body Works,” 133. 55 George, “Body Works,” 135. 52 53

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 81 means to be the people of Israel. As such, the clarification of Yahweh’s identity and reconstruction of Yahweh’s ethos stand at the center of the prophetic book’s rhetoric. As George rightly concludes, “histories play a role in shaping and constructing the self-understandings of those who produce and continue to use them.” 56 In Ezekiel, one encounters a rhetorical response to a real historical crisis in which the text re-imagines and “re-embodies” the image of Yahweh for the exilic community in such a way as to re-build the divine ethos, reaffirm divine sovereignty, and preserve the identity of god and people. A helpful way for better understanding the relevance of this perspective on identity for the study of Ezekiel is provided by Daniel Block. In his work The Gods of the Nations, Block discusses the crisis that the exile created for southern Israelite royal ideology and royal theology by making reference to the typical relational matrix or triangle of deity-nation-land that existed in the ancient Near Eastern world.57 His model highlights the “inseparable bond” that existed between a nation’s patron deity and that deity’s people, a bond cemented by the gift of a specific territory to the people, and the deity’s residence in the midst of that territory. In volume one of his Ezekiel commentary, Block delineates four “pillars” of orthodoxy that together constituted the foundation for Judean faith in Yahweh, in accordance with his conception of ancient Near Eastern identity. 1) An irrevocable covenant was established between Yahweh and Israel in the Sinai experience (cf. Exod 19; Ezek 16:8, 59–62; 20:37). 2) Yahweh, as owner of the Land of Canaan, gave this land as an everlasting possession to Israel (cf. Exod 3:8, 17; 23:20–30). 3) Yahweh established an everlasting covenant with King David (cf. 2 Sam 7:4–16). 4) Yahweh designated Jerusalem as his official, earthly residence (atop the holy temple mount = Zion; cf. Ps 78:68, 132:13).58 One should note here the combination of Sinai and Zion traditions concerning both the deliverance of Israel from bondage in George, “Body Works,” 143. Cf. Block, The Gods of the Nations, 17–33; idem, Ezekiel Chapters 1– 24, 7–8. 58 Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, 8. 56 57

82

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

the exodus story and the stance that Yahweh’s dwelling place was in Jerusalem (upon Mt. Zion). This is reflected in the conclusion to the Song of Moses found in Exod 15:1–18, a text that combines a celebration not only of Yahweh’s status as a protective, warrior deity (v. 3) who delivers his people from the Egyptian army, but also the planting of his people atop his mountain sanctuary in the Promised Land (v. 17). The song concludes with an affirmation of Yahweh’s kingship: “Yahweh is king (‫ )מלך‬forever and ever” (v. 18). In addition, as the exodus tradition teaches, when Yahweh’s rule over his people is jeopardized by an enemy threat, the enemy (e.g., Pharaoh’s army) will be eliminated. This idea of divine protection is a critical component of the Zion tradition, with its understanding of Jerusalem’s inviolability on the basis of the deity’s abiding presence, symbolically established when King David brings the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem.

THE EXILE AS IDEOLOGICAL CRISIS The exile and the destruction of Jerusalem had the effect of calling into question not only Yahweh’s ability to rule effectively in Zion, but also the entire theological narrative of Israel’s history, which included Yahweh’s election, deliverance, and establishment of a chosen people in the Promised Land. This challenged the entire exodus and conquest tradition so central to Israel’s corporate identity.59 Ezekiel the man, an individual whose priestly lineage was integrally tied to the Jerusalem cult and its royal ideology and theology, was among those Judeans who found themselves dislocated, disenfranchised, and disoriented by the exile. Yet he acquired a new leadership role in Babylon as a prophet of Yahweh, receiving oracles and visions that were written down, collected, and edited, and that adapted prior traditions in an effort to preserve Yahweh’s repIn Exod 6:7, the confirmation that Yahweh is truly God will be the arrival of Israel into the Promised Land. Hence, loss of this land may legitimately be interpreted as loss of this god, resulting in the loss of the people’s identity as this god’s covenant nation. Clearly, Ezekiel, like Exodus, treats the identity of the people and their god as intrinsically tied together, and post-587, both are in need of rescue. 59

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 83 utation and sovereignty as Israel’s divine king. This material sought to re-orient traditional Israelite theology to the new, disastrous events of the sixth century BCE. As the emphasis on Yahweh’s kingship in the Book of Ezekiel makes clear, Israel’s defeat naturally called into question Yahweh’s sovereignty over his people. The book teaches that the foundation of Yahweh’s throne, which lay in the execution of righteousness and justice in the universe, has negative ramifications not just for Israel’s enemies, but also for the elect when they choose not to conduct themselves in accordance with strict covenant expectations.60 Yet, at times the book suggests that, even granting the notion that Yahweh imposed the exile as a punishment for his people, the exiles still questioned the righteousness and justice of this divine act (cf. 18:25, 29; 33:17, 20). Ezekiel devotes a great deal of space, essentially the bulk of Chs. 1–24, to clarifying the failure of Israel to attend to these moral and theological priorities. After promising Yahweh’s exercise of justice against the nations in Chs. 25–32, the book shifts its focus to promise a future in which the deity’s ethical standards will only be met when Yahweh himself transforms the will of his people (cf. 11:19–20; 36:26–27). But before this will happen, the people must face punishment at the hands of a foreign enemy summoned by Yahweh himself (17:12–20; 21:3, 18–24, 27; 24:2–14). Scholars are somewhat divided on the actual quality of life experienced by the exilic community in Babylon. Some have stressed the more “pleasant” (for lack of a better term) conditions of exile under Babylonian hegemony in comparison to that of the preceding Assyrian administration. The Assyrians used a policy of relocation that included both the exportation and importation of conquered peoples within the expanding Assyrian territories in an attempt to discourage revolt and replace a sense of native identity with that of belonging to a larger, Assyrian empire.61 On the mobility of Yahweh’s throne, cf. the visions of Ezek 1–3, 8–11, and 40–43. For a statement of Yahweh’s righteous anger against Israel for her idolatry, cf. Ezek 20:33–35. 61 Cf. Mario Liverani, “The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire,” in Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires (ed. Mogens Trolle 60

84

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

It is apparent from reading Ezekiel that the Babylonian exiles, by way of contrast, benefited from being relocated together in Babylon, where they were allowed a certain degree of autonomy. This is evident from the persistence of at least two forms of native, Israelite leadership, prophetic and elder, in their exilic community (Ezek 8:1; 14:1; 20:1, 3).62 In effect, the exiles were allowed to maintain certain traditional forms of community, which likely aided the preservation of their corporate identity, in spite of serious theological challenges that were presented to their traditional belief system.63 The prophet Jeremiah’s letter to the exilic community (Jer 29:1–23) also suggests a certain degree of freedom and potential for prosperity under the Babylonian regime, as it encourages the exiles to “build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat what they produce;” and “take wives and have sons and daughters … multiply there, and do not decrease” (vv. 5–6). Renz surmises that most of the exiles “became land tenants of the king,” while those who were skilled craftsmen were used for Larsen; Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 7; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979), 297–317; Albertz, Israel in Exile, 47–52. According to M. A. Dandamayev, “Babylonia in the Persian Age,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism (vol. 1; ed. W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 326–342 (329–330), the Assyrian kings indeed “attempted to spread the worship of their tribal god Ashhur in the countries they conquered.” However, Provan et al., Biblical History of Israel, 377 (n. 80), take a more cautious approach to claiming a “general policy” for Assyrian hegemony, including deportation strategies, suggesting that the Assyrian treatment of various states “is far from revealing consistency of thought or action.” Regardless, in the case of northern Israel, natives were forced to relocate to various places in the larger empire, and foreigners were brought in to replace them, the latter of which contributed to southern Israelites considering the northerners as foreigners. 62 Albertz, Israel in Exile, 98–111 (“The Babylonian Golah”), discusses the situation of the exiles in Babylon, claiming that “all in all … the exiles appear to have been treated leniently” (99). Cf. also Dandamayev, “Babylonia,” 338–339. 63 Cf. Renz, Rhetorical Function, 42–49.

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 85 some of Nebuchadnezzar’s many building projects.64 He also refers to Dandamayev’s assertion that “in a number of cases these aliens [in Babylonia] were accommodated in quite large communities in special quarters of the cities and even had their own popular assembly. In Nippur and its neighboring districts, for instance, each ethnic group was guaranteed a particular territory on which to live.”65 The now famous Murashu documents from the later Persian period bear witness at least to some degree of eventual Jewish prosperity in the region.66 But perhaps most importantly, later Israelite history bears out the success of the exiles in maintaining a unique sense of identity, and in eventually producing a large enough contingent of returnees to establish a Persian province of Jehud (Judah) in the homeland after the liberation of Cyrus in 539 BCE.67

However, none of this is to say that exilic life was easy. Daniel L. Smith-Christopher has emphasized in multiple works the harsh reality of Israel’s life under Mesopotamian hegemony, arguing that Babylonian policies concerning the treatment of conquered peoples were, by and large, much the same as Assyrian.68 The return of a Renz, Rhetorical Function, 43. Renz, Rhetorical Function, 44, citing Dandamayev, “Babylonia,” 338–339. 66 Cf. T. Fish, “The Murashu Tablets,” in Documents from Old Testament Times (ed. David Winton Thomas; London; New York: T. Nelson, 1958), 95–96. 67 Unlike the exiles of Samaria who, according to Elias J. Bickerman, “The Babylonian captivity,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism (vol. 1; ed. W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 342–358 (343), “did not migrate to the Holy City after the rebuilding of the Temple to worship their common Deity, the God of the patriarchs and of Moses.” 68 Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile; Smith, Religion of the Landless. By contrast, David S. Vanderhooft, The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets (HSM 59; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 104–111, argues, on the basis of textual and artifactual evidence, that, unlike the Assyrians, “the Babylonians … did not practice … crossdeportation,” neither did they micromanage their holdings in the “south64 65

86

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

distinctively Israelite community to Judah under Persian sponsorship after 539 BCE, and the existence of the Murashu archive, may indeed argue for the success of at least some of the Babylonian exiles (and their descendants) in avoiding total assimilation and integration into Babylonian society, but this alone does not negate the severity of exilic suffering. However, at least in comparison to the exiles of the Northern Kingdom of Israel after the Assyrian destruction of 722 BCE, some members of the Judean community in Babylon were able to survive the experience as a distinct religiopolitical entity. Even while acknowledging the validity of Smith-Christopher’s work in redirecting scholarly attention to the physical, psychological, and social aspects of exilic suffering under Babylon, most scholars still understand the greatest threat posed by the sixth century conquest of Judah to have been ideological. With all due respect to their physical and psychological suffering, the greatest danger facing the Judean exilic community was the possibility that it would become absorbed into the Babylonian empire and effectively cease to exist, as scholars believe happened earlier, for the most part, to the northern tribes of Israel at the hands of Assyria in the late eighth century BCE. The exile is believed to have been most threatening in its potential to change not just religious practice, but more importantly, the foundational belief system of the captives. This would undoubtedly have led to drastic threats to the identity or self-understanding of the people. For some scholars, the foundation for biblical Israel’s identity has proved to be a matter of debate. Niels Peter Lemche posits a purely mythical source for the Israel of the bible, by which is meant that the ancient Israel one encounters in its pages is a late (exilic/post-exilic), imaginative creation of a supposedly ethnically distinct people that is projected back into an earlier historical era. The ern Levant” in such a way as to establish “a systematic economic plan for exploiting its resources” (110). Instead, it appears that their primary concerns were the settlement of exiles in “discrete enclaves” in undeveloped or underdeveloped regions of the heartland (such as around Nippur), and the creation of loyal vassal states as buffers to protect against greater potential enemies (such as Judah situated between Babylon and Egypt).

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 87 somewhat “artificial” creation of identity that this represents is not a unique historical occurrence in Lemche’s view, since “any ethnic group is a part of a continuum of ethnic groups with overlapping borders, with probably many identities, held together by a founding myth or set of myths, and narratives about how this particular group came into being.”69 For Lemche, so-called biblical Israel is no more ancient than the exilic period. Yet, this theory fails to pay due attention to the contours of the ethnically distinct people that existed prior to the exile, including the important role played by their religious ideologies, which seem to have contributed so much strength to their survival in and beyond the exile. Kenton L. Sparks provides, by way of contrast, a study that seeks to justify the truly ancient foundations for a distinctive, pre-exilic Israelite people as he examines both biblical and non-biblical sources for evidence of Israelite ethnicity. 70 In contrast to Lemche, Sparks concludes that “ethnicity seems to have played a secondary role to Israelite and Judean concerns about religious identity.”71 This correlates with the view of Daniel Block, who claims, as previously discussed, that ancient Near Eastern identity was chiefly founded upon a community’s most central religious convictions, including its understanding of the people’s relationship to their patron deity. This deity was believed to act as divine suzerain, who granted his people a specific tract of land upon which they resided as vassals. This also suggests that what most scholars have long since concluded to be the most threatening aspect of the exilic crisis, namely, the threat to one’s identity as a result of interrupting normal relations between deity, land, and people, is indeed correct. The greatest threat posed by the exile for the prophet Ezekiel, his contemporaries, and their descendants should be understood in the context of ideology, in this case royal ideology and royal theology, Niels Peter Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition (LAI; London: SPCK; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 20. 70 Kenton L. Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study of Ethnic Sentiments and Their Expression in the Hebrew Bible (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998). 71 Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel, 325. 69

88

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

the core of which was composed of Israel’s convictions about Yahweh’s dwelling on Mt. Zion and the concomitant promise of Zion’s inviolability. Renz claims that “the immediate question after the deportation [of Israel] was whether one should prepare for eventual return to the homeland or for staying in Babylonia.”72 He bases this claim upon the letter of the prophet Jeremiah to the exiles in Jer 29, assuming that the first reaction of the exiles to deportation would simply have been a concern for when they would be going home. Without disregarding the validity and immediacy of this concern, Ezekiel’s emphasis on Yahweh’s sovereignty suggests a somewhat different rhetorical focus, and perhaps one that was more persistent as the exile dragged on. The more critical questions initially addressed by the biblical text are, “Where is Yahweh?” and “How and why did the exile happen?”73 Chapters 1–24 of Ezekiel are chiefly devoted to answering these questions by focusing on Yahweh’s character, Yahweh’s presence with the exiles, and on Israel’s sinfulness, the latter of which requires severe divine punishment. However, these questions seem to have been eclipsed after the Jerusalem temple was destroyed in 586 BCE, to be replaced by a new set of concerns, including: 1) questions about the justice of Yahweh’s punishment, especially in light of the prosperity of other nations (cf. Ezek 25–32); 2) the ability of the exilic community to continue living as Yahweh’s patrons in Babylon (cf. Ezek 33); and 3) whether or not Israel really has a viable future with Yahweh worthy of their continued patronage (cf. Ezek 34–48). Answering these questions is the chief concern of the three major sections of the prophetic corpus, read in a chronological fashion. Given the nature of Israelite ideology in the sixth century BCE, one begins to understand why the historical reality of the exile created such a challenge to the faith and identity of the prophet Ezekiel, his fellow Judean deportees, and their early Babylonian descendants. As Albertz explains about the impact of Babylon’s sixth century conquest of Judah:

72 73

Renz, Rhetorical Function, 48. Cf. the tone and content of Lam 5:19–22; Ps 137:1–9.

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 89 The fall of the Judean monarchy and the destruction of Jerusalem were a severe blow to the official Jerusalemite theology of king and temple, with its massive appeal to Yahweh in support of state power. The guarantee that the Davidic monarchy would endure forever (2 Sam 7) and the central tenet of Zion theology, that the presence of Yahweh on Mount Zion made the city impregnable to external enemies (Pss 46:2–8 [1–7]; 48:4–8 [3–7]; 76:4–6 [3–5]; 2 Kgs 18–20; Mic 3:11), had been refuted by the course of history.74

Beyond the naturally occurring disorientation and doubting of one’s personal worldview as a result of the Babylonian military conquest, Daniel L. Smith’s assessment of official Mesopotamian hegemonic policy in the eighth–sixth centuries includes the assumption that Assyria and Babylon alike imposed the worship of Asshur and Marduk respectively upon their newly conquered subjects.75 While this claim clearly goes beyond the best historical evidence available, the conclusion that Marduk had defeated or at least driven off Israel’s patron deity would not have been unexpected, even among the exiles, while it would certainly have been the prevailing view among native Babylonians. In this environment, the temptation to abandon one’s patron deity, who now seemed irrelevant if not completely non-existent, and to assimilate to one’s new surroundings, must have been immense. 76 The hierarchy of world order upon which Judean corporate identity had been based (divine king-human king-people) had disintegrated, or to use Block’s conception, the ideological pillars that supported Judah’s official triangular worldview (deity-nation-land) had been toppled. Given this environment, as Bickerman warns, we should not underestimate the temptation that Babylonian religion presented for the exiles, especially if they considered themselves far away from the presence of their patron deity. In Psalm 137:4, we read the lament, “How could we sing Yahweh’s song in a foreign land?” In Ezek 11:15, Yahweh speaks to the prophet, saying, “Mortal, Albertz, Israel in Exile, 133. Smith, Religion of the Landless, 27. 76 Smith, Religion of the Landless, 30–31. 74 75

90

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

your kinsfolk, your own kin, your fellow exiles, the whole House of Israel, all of them, are those of whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, ‘They have gone far from Yahweh.’” And in Ezek 20:32, Yahweh says to the exiles, “What you are thinking will come to pass, it will not happen, when you say, ‘Let us be like the nations, like the tribes of the lands, serving wood and stone.’” These verses reflect the reality that exilic life involved a very real temptation to assimilate to Babylonian society, including Babylonian religion. Commenting on the religious devotion of the Babylonians to their gods, who were believed to be vitally present within their divine images, Bickerman states: These idols were revered with fervour and with great magnificence. The believers lavished on them praise which used the same expressions as the Hebrew Psalms and prayers. They spoke of Bel, who grasped the hand of the fallen, and of Belit, his spouse, who released the captives. These idols could impoverish the rich and make the poor wealthy; they were both terrible and merciful. “Who except for you is Lord,” asked the Babylonian priest addressing Marduk, “god of heaven and earth.”77

Such religious devotion would no doubt have appeared as justified in light of the extensive military victories of the Babylonian army under Nebuchadnezzar. Exploring the ideological challenge of the exile further, one should not ignore the important contributions of Paul D. Hanson’s “Israelite Religion in the Early Postexilic Period.” Here, Hanson uses social scientific insights on the nature of human reactions to calamity to inform our understanding of the Judean crisis beginning in 597 BCE for the implied audience of Ezekiel.78 According to 77 Bickerman, “Babylonian Captivity,” 354. Of course, there is no way of knowing to what extent the Jewish exiles interacted with native Babylonians on a daily basis or during times of religious celebration, but the Murashu documents, even though dated to the Persian period, argue against any notion of strict isolation, at least as far as the commercial realm was concerned.

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 91 Hanson, “the Temple, both as home of the cult and symbol of Yahweh’s presence in the land, was a master symbol in the religious faith of the Jewish inhabitants of Judah on the eve of the Babylonian invasion.”79 As such, with the destruction of this so-called “master symbol,” Hanson argues that Judah experienced a “classical case of social anomie” arising from the ideological disorientation and outright challenge the exile and destruction of Jerusalem presented to southern Israel. The thing we seem least able to tolerate is a threat to our powers of conception, a suggestion that our ability to create, grasp and use symbols may fail us. Man depends upon symbols and symbol systems with a dependence so great as to be decisive for his creatural viability and, as a result, his sensitivity to even the remotest indication that they may prove unable to cope with one or another aspect of experience raises within him the gravest sort of anxiety.80

If in fact the Jerusalem temple played such a central role in the worldview of the exiles, then the destruction of Jerusalem must have severely called into question, if not utterly demolished, their sense of identity. As Hanson recognizes, “it is no accident that the literature of the exilic and early postexilic periods frequently deals with the themes of chaos and creation,” since these themes are evidence of the very real faith struggles of their authors. 81 If nothing else then, the texts that Israel produced in the midst of, and following, the exile bear witness to the severity of the event for Judahite identity. Hanson goes on to refer to what S. Langer has labeled the “uncanny” as an apt way to capture the crisis of meaning for the

Paul D. Hanson, “Israelite Religion in the Early Postexilic Period,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. Patrick D. Miller, Jr.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 485–508. 79 Hanson, “Israelite Religion,” 489. 80 Hanson, “Israelite Religion,” 489, quoting Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 99. 81 Hanson, “Israelite Religion,” 490. 78

92

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

“fundamental system of thought and belief that had sustained the [Israelite] people in their own land”: [Man] can adapt himself somehow to anything his imagination can cope with; but he cannot deal with Chaos. Because his characteristic function and highest asset is conception, his greatest fright is to meet what he cannot construe — the “uncanny,” as it is popularly called … Therefore, our most important assets are always the symbols of our general orientation in nature, on the earth, in society, and in what we are doing: the symbols of our Weltanschauung and Lebensanschauung.82

I concur with Hanson that the so-called “physical and economic hardships” faced by the exiles, while “severe” (to say the least for those used to playing the role of societal elites in Jerusalem), were eclipsed by the “far worse … threat posed by the new situation to the fundamental system of thought and belief.”83 This “system” should be understood as the political-religious worldview on which Israelite identity was based, Block’s triangular relationship between deity, nation, and land in which the divine king, Yahweh, reigned from above over his vassal people. The truth is, we know very little about the life-situation faced by the exiles, especially prior to the Persian takeover, including the degree to which they were capable of participating, if at all, in normal Babylonian society. Were they considered agricultural slave labor, resident aliens, government advisors, or some combination of the above, depending on their level of education? Was their role an evolving one that gradually improved over time? It is doubtful that anything close to citizenship or full participation in Babylonian Hanson, “Israelite Religion,” 490, citing S. Langer, Philosophy in a New Key (4th ed.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960), 287, (italics Langer’s) as used also by Geertz in The Interpretation of Cultures. 83 Hanson, “Israelite Religion,” 490. Hanson goes on to elaborate here on L. Festinger’s term “cognitive dissonance” (A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1953] as a means of describing the threat of chaos to the political, religious, and social order of ancient Judah, a threat that made her “vulnerable to complete assimilation to the captors.” 82

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 93 society was even possible for the exiles, at least not until after Persian hegemony. So, the focus of our attention should remain on the threat of religious acculturation, rather than on other factors, especially since this is the focus of the Book of Ezekiel. With this in mind, the strain to the exiles’ “analytical,” “physical,” and “moral” capacities, resulting in a sense of “bafflement,” “suffering,” and “intractable ethical paradox,” respectively, would, according to Hanson, “necessitate changes varying all the way from minor adjustments, to major changes, to outright abandonment of Yahwistic tradition in favor of other options.”84 These “other options” threatened to place the intended audience of Ezekiel in a position of outright rebellion against the patron deity. Yet such a response threatens the identity of the exiles as much as that of Yahweh because the two are intrinsically tied. Hence, the widespread phenomenon of ethos argumentation in Ezekiel suggests that the temptation to abandon Yahweh was the primary crisis facing the intended audience, and is the real rhetorical situation lying behind the prophetic book. The rhetorical response to this crisis is a composition dedicated to preserving identity, the historical identity of Yahweh as Israel’s god, and the identity of Israel as this god’s chosen people.

A CLOSER LOOK AT EZEKIEL’S INTENDED AUDIENCE It is difficult to provide a detailed portrait of Ezekiel’s intended audience, but the book does provide clues for the development of a general outline. The text is almost exclusively written from the Hanson, “Israelite Religion,” 490–492, again borrowing from the concepts and language of Geertz, Interpretation of Cultures, 100. Here (492), Hanson refers parenthetically to Jer 44:16–18 as evidence that at least some Judahites who remained in the land after the fall of Jerusalem had chosen to abandon their worship of Yahweh in favor of, apparently speaking, a more fruitful worship of the “Queen of Heaven” (Astarte/Ishtar). Similarly, as I believe this book shows, the rhetoric of Ezek 20:1–44 strongly suggests that the greatest threat for the exilic audience was not divine abandonment of Israel by Yahweh, but the opposite, namely, Israel’s abandonment of covenant fidelity to their deity, an option that had already proved to have disastrous consequences. 84

94

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

perspective of a first person account of the exilic prophet. This could be a convention, or it could reflect, as Ellen Davis argues, that Ezekiel the prophet, formerly trained for the Jerusalem priesthood, was the first Israelite seer to record his own oracles and vision reports, and even edit them.85 However, the text never makes an explicit claim about itself in this regard. The clearest evidence of an editorial hand other than the prophet’s is found in 1:3: “The word of Yahweh truly came to Ezekiel, the son of Buzi, the priest, in the land of the Chaldeans, beside the Chebar River, and there the hand of Yahweh was upon him.”86 The use of the Qal infinitive absolute in combination with the Qal perfect form of the verb in ‫הי ֹה ָהיָ ה‬,ָ “it really/truly happened,” suggests a felt need on the part of the editor to argue for the veracity of the prophet’s oracles and visions. This hints that a certain amount of skepticism about the prophet’s status was expected from the intended audience. Further evidence along this line is found at 33:30–33, where the prophet is heard but not heeded by his fellow exiles, being treated more as an entertainer than a genuine messenger of Yahweh. Expectations of resistance from the intended audience also color the characterization of the exiles as a “rebellious house” in the call narrative (and beyond). It appears that such reaction to the prophet’s authority had its origin in the original audience of the historical prophet, and carried over to the intended audience of the prophetic book. Not only does the book imply that the historical prophet is the source for all the material contained therein, but the date formulas suggest that a significant amount of material in the book (if not all) derives from the period of forced exile prior to the liberation of Cyrus of Persia in 539 BCE. The book implies in 1:1 that the prophetic call arrived in the priest Ezekiel’s thirtieth year, and occurred on July 31, 593 BCE (1:1–2). The latest dated oracle in the Davis, Swallowing the Scroll, 37. Steven Tuell, Ezekiel (NIBC 15; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 276–281, convincingly, and summarily, argues that the so-called “Law of the Temple” in Ezek 43:10–46:24 reflects a later editorial hand (or later hands). Cf. also Steven Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40– 48 (HSM 49; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). 85 86

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 95 book is April 26, 571 BCE (29:17). The next latest date at the beginning of the closing vision is April 28, 573 BCE (40:1). The lack of fulfillment of certain prophecies in the text argues further for a date of final composition that does not go much beyond the latest date in the book. The prophecy of Tyre’s utter destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, which was not fulfilled, is addressed in the latest dated prophecy in the corpus (29:17–19). Here, Egypt is given to Nebuchadnezzar as a consolation prize for his inability to conquer Tyre. However, the failure of Nebuchadnezzar to take Egypt, and thus the failure of the prophecy in 29:17–19 to find fulfillment, is never addressed in the corpus. While this may represent an argument from silence, it is likewise difficult to imagine why the text would not reflect any reference to the liberation of the exiles, and the beginning of the fulfillment of Yahweh’s promises to restore the exiles’ fortunes, if the composition of the book was not completed prior to 539 BCE. This is consistent with the utopian nature of the salvation promises throughout the Ezekiel corpus, and also the lack of practical advice addressing day-to-day life in exile. All of these realities about the nature of the text suggest an earlier stage in the life of the exilic community as the setting for the bulk of the writing and editing, when faithfulness to Yahweh primarily consisted of avoiding any assimilation to Babylonian society, and hope for the survival of the covenant community primarily centered on returning to the homeland and reestablishing temple worship. In Ezekiel, the prophet is depicted as being approached repeatedly by the elders of the exilic community to serve as a source of divine consultation (8:1, 14:1; 20:1). This suggests that he held some amount of authority and respect by these leaders of the community, at least for a time. But the messages Ezekiel delivers (from Yahweh) to the elders are consistently negative, accusing the exiles of idolatry. The emphasis on temple worship and priestly matters in the closing vision suggests the possibility that a school of priests became convinced of the legitimacy of the prophet and may have preserved his oracles and vision reports as an authoritative explanation for the exile and ideological guide for keeping the Israelite exilic community distinct religiously during the exilic and/or post-exilic period. The material might also have served as propaganda for their intention to reorganize Israelite society around the authority of the Zadokite priesthood. Furthermore, the consistently

96

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

negative depiction of these elders may suggest some amount of conflict between various groups of exiles vying for authority over the exilic community, especially between elders and priests. Important rhetorical motifs in Ezekiel imply a certain amount of audience familiarity with Israelite traditions concerning the story of the exodus from Egypt (Ch. 20), Sinai and temple theophany (Chs. 1–3, 8–11, 40–43), and paradise/Eden (Chs. 28, 31, 36, 47). The complex organization and linear rhetorical arrangement of the text might further imply the expectation of a well-educated reader, in addition to a well-educated editor. This suggests further the possibility that Ezekiel was composed and preserved by an educated, priestly class, to be used as a theological teaching tool for an elite class of literate exiles. This may have been intended originally for priestly families, or, alternatively, it may have been used as a text to teach literacy to the children of other educated exiles. In light of the widespread belief that the majority of exiles taken in 597 BCE consisted of the upper class royal administration of King Jehoiachin, it should not be surprising that the literacy rate would be fairly high among the exiles, and that literacy would be an important concern among the community. Finally, it should be noted that Ezekiel does not present a thoroughly consistent portrait of the exilic community. The collection is episodic, giving the reader glimpses of exilic attitudes at various stages of the community’s life in Babylon. At first glance, the portrait appears to be of a completely rebellious and idolatrous community in Chs. 1–24, but the repeated approach of the elders in this material suggests at least some degree of respect among the exiles for Yahweh and his prophet, and a desire for some amount of religious direction from them. Yet, the portrait in Ezek 20 is of a community disillusioned and frustrated by their exile, and seriously considering the option of assimilation to Babylonian modes of worship (v. 32). Couching this glimpse of the exiles in the context of a message of harsh judgment for rebellion in 20:1–33 might confirm the validity of their desire to abandon Yahweh for being too heavy-handed. Perhaps harsh or desperate times appropriately call forth harsh or desperate rhetoric. In Ezek 18:25, 29 and 33:17, 20, the reader encounters a community that is depicted as having finally acknowledged the prophetic message that they deserve their exile, but they are still questioning Yahweh’s larger principles of justice. Prior to Ezek 34,

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 97 where the exiles are treated more as victims rather than criminals, the exiles in Ezek 33 appear to need further convincing of the legitimacy of the prophet and, if not the appropriateness of Yahweh’s punishment, at least the severity. But after Ezek 33 these issues are never again explicitly addressed. In Ezek 34, the exiles are treated not as rebellious, but as the oppressed and scattered sheep of Yahweh’s flock, which were mistreated and driven off not by their divine owner, but rather by their own abusive kings and the elite members of the former Judean society. This is truly a puzzling way to depict the audience when one considers that a good portion of the exiles should fit the category of former elites from the Land of Judah (i.e., the so-called “haves” rather than the “have nots” of the former Judean society). But then, it is always possible that Ezek 33 and 34 reflect exilic communities that are demographically and significantly different. In accordance with later waves of displacement corresponding to Babylonian aggression in 587/586 and 582 BCE, it is possible that the makeup of the exilic community in Babylon changed by including larger numbers of common laborers in the forced migrations of 587/586 and 582 BCE.87 Hence, different texts and different times may represent different rhetorical situations and call forth different rhetoric, even if the ultimate rhetorical goal of Ezekiel remains unchanged. Scattered throughout the corpus, the reader finds an emphasis on the need for Israel to be ever mindful or “ashamed” of its sinful ways, sometimes in reference to present sin, sometimes in reference to the past, suggesting their need either to be encouraged to repent or to avoid repeating prior mistakes. This rhetoric of shame eventually reflects a turning point in the attitude of the intended audience, because one finds an emphasis on present sin in 1–24, and 33, and an emphasis on past sin in 34–48. Likewise, the rhetoric of repentance in Ezek 18 and 33 emphasizes Israel’s need to For clarity on possible distinctions of the various forced migrations of Judah at the hands of Babylon, cf. John J. Ahn, “Forced Migrations Guiding the Exile: Demarcating 597, 587, and 582 B.C.E.” Pages 173–189 in By the Irrigation Canals of Babylon: Approaches to the Study of the Exile; Edited by John J. Ahn and Jill Middlemas; Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 526; New York: T & T Clark, 2012. 87

98

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

change (18:31: “Cast away from yourselves all your transgressions with which you have transgressed, and fashion for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit!”), yet 11:19–20 and 36:26 emphasize that Israel is incapable of obedient behavior unless Yahweh himself gives them a new heart.88 These differences in the attitude of the exiles may simply reflect the episodic nature of the literature, which was composed over time and which gives the reader various glimpses of the exilic community during the time of the prophet’s ministry among them. It seems that the final form of the corpus chronicles a significant period of time in the relationship between the prophet and his fellow exiles, in which many of them initially needed to be convinced that the exile was deserved, and later needed to be convinced that fidelity to Yahweh in exile promised a better future than assimilation to Babylon. If Ezekiel chronicles any significant amount of real history concerning the ideological challenges faced by the Babylonian exiles over time, then we should probably not expect to find a perfectly consistent theology across the corpus. Overall, Ellen Davis’s treatment of the intended audience of Ezekiel provides the most satisfying approach for rhetorical analysis, because her emphasis is not so much on reconstructing the originally intended reader as on understanding the text’s larger intention of producing an ongoing readership: The writer mentally calls forth an audience and then devises structural means by which their attention can be engaged. In this way the text itself becomes the instrument whereby the audience — drawn theoretically from all potential readers and hearers — is constituted. The author’s task, then, is not so

88 It is possible that these texts are later editorial additions, which might explain their different perspective on Israel’s ability to repent. But there is tension elsewhere in Ezekiel between the depiction of Yahweh as radically sovereign over Israel’s fate and the recognition that Israel still has the freedom to choose or reject Yahweh (cf., esp., Ezek 20).

HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND RHETORICAL CONTEXT 99 much to address a previously identifiable social group as to create a new community.89

Davis puts more attention on the epideictic purpose of the composition, which may be designed to address more than just one, particular, historical audience. In the case of Ezekiel, the content of the text is designed to reflect a setting within the first generation of exiles, who have rather immediate theological concerns that need to be addressed if their traditional faith is to survive. But the text also preserves the history of the prophet’s struggles with this original audience, which is instructive for a potential audience of faithful Yahwists among future generations of exiles, who need to be taught the proper basis of their identity by explaining where they have come from, and where they will be going. Clearly, Ezekiel reflects the need for a faithful reader among the first generation of exiles, but the book should also be understood as an attempt to create faithful readers among the ongoing exilic community. Of course, none of this is inconsistent with the argument of the text concerning Yahweh’s kingship. Israelite identity, for the first generation of exiles and for future generations, requires the affirmation of Yahweh’s sovereignty. This affirmation continues to explain the initial deportation as Yahweh’s just punishment of his people, while the promises of restoration allow the evolving exilic community to consider their life in Babylon as a temporary situation that will one day be eclipsed by the restoration of their own land and their return to it.

89

Davis, Swallowing the Scroll, 73.

CHAPTER FOUR: RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE This chapter examines the rhetoric of divine kingship in the visions of Yahweh’s glory found in Ezek 1:4–3:15; 8–11; and 40–48. These vision reports narrate the prophet’s encounters with the enthroned deity, and depict Yahweh as the divine judge and King of Israel, who is sovereign over Israel’s fate. They explain that Israel’s defeat by Babylon and future restoration are both part of Yahweh’s plan. They also mediate the deity’s presence for the exiles in the midst of their captivity. All of these purposes help to build Yahweh’s ethos for the sake of preserving the faith of the exilic community.

EZEKIEL 1:4–3:15: YAHWEH’S INITIAL APPEARANCE TO THE PRIEST EZEKIEL Rhetorical Unit, Arrangement, & Genre1 The opening vision of 1:4–3:15 is demarcated at the outset by the explicit reference to a prophetic event of seeing, that initially sounds like a natural event: “Then I looked, and behold, a storm wind was coming from the north” (1:4). The conclusion is designated in 3:15 by Yahweh’s spirit bringing the prophet back to dwell among the exiles beside the Chebar River, which clarifies that this is a visionary experience. This is confirmed by 3:16 where a new word event formula occurs: “And it happened at the end of seven days that the word of Yahweh came to me …” The prophet, apWhile the remaining exegetical chapters provide translations of the texts under examination, due to the great length of the vision reports, this step is omitted here. All translations of biblical material are my own. 1

101

102

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

parently stunned by his visionary travel to the heavenly realm, returns in 3:15 to his dwelling among the exiles, where he sits in a catatonic state for seven days. The vision is dominated by first person speech, and is clearly delineated from the third-person language of 1:1–3, which serves as a general introduction to the entire book, and is probably penned by a later editor. Rather abruptly at 1:4, the reader encounters a shift to first person language when the prophet supposedly begins recounting his own vision. The new word-event formula found at 3:16 begins the recounting of a new revelation that runs through 3:27 and serves as a follow-up to the call vision by clarifying the nature of the prophet’s mission to the exiles. The rhetorical arrangement of the vision in 1:4–3:15 is rather complex. The unit opens with a theophany in 1:4–28 in which Yahweh appears in glory and power. The deity is described as a divine warrior-king, seated upon his chariot throne. The vision then takes a noticeably negative turn with the prophet’s call narrative. The prophet is fed a scroll filled with “lamentation, mourning, and woe” (2:10), and surprisingly, he finds it “sweet as honey” to the taste (3:3). The message of judgment for the exiles appears to be quite agreeable to him, or it may be the case that simply any communication from Yahweh for those living in exile is perceived as a positive thing for those who likely felt cut off from their deity. The prophet also responds positively to the experience of being in the awe-inspiring presence of Yahweh, exclaiming in 3:12: “Blessed is the Glory of Yahweh.” Later, this reaction turns to consternation in 3:14 when the experience ends and the prophet is returned to his exile in Babylon.2 Overall, the arrangement represents a prophetic reversal of what the original audience would have most preferred from their patron deity, namely, a positive message of impending rescue. That Yahweh appears at all in glory and power would likely, and initially, signal a positive, reassuring message to the Babylonian captives. This negative reaction may also serve as the typically occurring element of disputation found in the prophetic call narrative. Cf. Norman Habel, “Form and Significance of the Call Narratives,” ZAW 77:3 (1965): 297–323. 2

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

103

However, rather than coming to champion the cause of his oppressed people, Yahweh confounds any hope for a short-lived captivity when he commissions the prophet as the deity’s representative adversary to the exiles. In its final arrangement, the opening vision still serves as a fitting introduction to the prophetic person Ezekiel, who will act as a new, prophetic authority figure for his community. It is also a fitting introduction to the predominantly judgment-oriented material that follows in Ezek 3:16–24:27. Rhetorically, the vision exhibits a dual nature as judicial and ethical. In the midst of bolstering the ethos of Yahweh and prophet as authoritative speakers, and authorizing the entire book as a genuine divine revelation, Yahweh is presented as just executor of Israel’s punishment. This is clear as the vision initiates the book’s characterization of the exiles as a “rebellious house.” Any doubts about the deity’s justice, power, and sovereignty are muted by this emphasis upon the character of the exiles as idolaters. Yahweh, who was likely on trial in the minds of some of his dispossessed people, quickly turns the tables on the exiles and puts them on trial for their responsibility for the current predicament. The vision’s combination of theophany and prophetic call is not unlike the arrangement found in the prophet Isaiah’s call vision (Isa 6:1–13).3 But unlike Isaiah’s commissioning, the deity initially While it is beyond the scope of this project to provide a thorough examination of the phenomenon of theophany in the biblical and extrabiblical traditions of the ancient Near East, the following works refer to the motif (if not the literal term) of “theophany” to describe the prophet’s initial encounter with Yahweh: Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC 28; Dallas: Word Books, 1994), 14–38; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel (Interpretation; Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990), 17–23; Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, 103–111; G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1960), 8–30; Greenberg, Ezekiel, 1–20, 53–54; 80–81; Hals, Ezekiel, 15; Klein, Ralph W. Ezekiel: The Prophet and His Message (Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament; ed. James L. Crenshaw; Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988), 16–28; Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 77– 100; Niehaus, God at Sinai, 254–279; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24 (Hermeneia; trans. 3

104

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

appears on his throne in Ezekiel with no explicit connection to the Jerusalem temple. This begins an implicit argument for Yahweh’s freedom and sovereignty that seeks to clarify his connection with the homeland, and teaches that the only sure basis for finding security in the deity’s presence is covenant obedience. This argument continues in the visions of 8–11 and 40–48. References to the theophanic elements of “storm, fire, and radiant aura” (1:3b–4, 13–14, 26–28a) are woven rather seamlessly into a larger vision of the enthroned deity, the latter of which includes references to the wheels of a chariot (1:15–21), a platform (1:22), a human-like figure seated on a throne (1:26–28), and four composite, cherub-like creatures beneath the platform (1:5–12, 23– 25), supporting and propelling the throne. 4 The most prominent features of the throne theophany in 1:5–12, 15–21, and 22–25 are the motifs of divine mobility and radiance.5 Hals comments on the purpose of Ch.1 with the following: The basic purpose … is the attempt to synthesize via symbolism the heritage of God’s universal sovereignty and dwelling in heaven with the localization of his presence in Jerusalem … The most noticeable connections here to heaven as God’s abode are the sky-blue color beneath the throne as a natural link to the heavenly ocean (see Exod 24:10) and the elements of a storm theophany in vv. 4, 13, 24, and 28 … This particular vision as a part of a vocation account aims to assure the despairing prophet, and through him his fellow exiles, that Yah-

Ronald E. Clements; ed. Frank Moore Cross, Klaus Baltzer, Leonard Jay Greenspoon; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 118–131; Jeremias, Theophanie. 4 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 20. Allen, idem, 36–37, notes an intriguing iconographic parallel to this majestic appearance of Yahweh in a full-color ninth century BCE ceramic depicting the winged god Asshur, armed with an archer’s bow, surrounded by fire and perhaps a rainbow, and floating just beneath rain clouds apparently heavy with hail stones. For a colored reproduction, cf. A. Parrot, Ninevah and Babylon (London: Thames and Hudson, 1961), 227. 5 Hals, Ezekiel, 14.

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

105

weh’s presence is not confined to Jerusalem. That God’s presence is not thus confined is a powerful way of preparing for the following message of God’s continuing purpose with the exiles.6

Hals understands the purpose of the vision as authorizing the subsequent career (i.e., preaching) of the prophet, anticipating already the opposition that would be faced from the exilic “house of rebellion.”7 But the rhetoric goes beyond merely authorizing the prophetic messages that follow in the Book of Ezekiel. It is the beginning of that message in the sense of commencing the text’s argument about Yahweh’s authority and relevance for the exilic community. The elements of storm, cloud, and fire are typical of the storm theophany, “a literary tradition that was basically derived from mythological descriptions of the storm or war god in ancient Near Eastern religious contexts, and already had a long history of literary usage in Israel.”8 One of the key uses of such a depiction is to “convey a threat.” Here the threat is the one “that Yahweh poses to his covenant people” as a result of their continuing rebellion (i.e., idolatry), which signifies their violation of the covenant. 9 Yet, Hals, Ezekiel, 16. Hals, Ezekiel, 20. 8 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 24. Allen, idem, 24–25, lists the following parallel passages with one or more of the same motifs: Nah 1:3b; Ps 18:13 (Eng. 18:12); 2 Sam 22:11 = Ps 18:11 (Eng. 18:10), 13; Zech 9:14; Job 38:1; 40:6; Pss 50:3–4; 77:18–19 (Eng. 77:17–18); 97:2–5; Isa 4:5; 19:1; Hab 3:4, 11. Niehaus, God at Sinai, 142–180, discusses “Pre-Sinai Theophanies,” apparently meaning, from a literary-canonical perspective, those that occur in the book of Genesis prior to the story of Moses and Israel in Exodus. These he lists as Gen 1:2; 1:27–30; 2:15–17; 3:8; 9:14 (and the supposed parallel in Ps 29:1–11); 15:12–16, 17–18. 9 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 25. Of course, the call of Isaiah the prophet in Isa 6 also involved a vision of the enthroned deity (v. 1) and included elements of smoke (v. 4) and burning coals (vv. 6–7), all in a commissioning that emphasized Yahweh’s desire to judge his wayward people (vv. 9– 13). Cf. also Amos 1:2; 2:4–5. 6 7

106

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

in order for Yahweh to pose a threat to the exiles, he must be a vital presence in their midst. Another Hebrew text where a powerful threat is posed to the people of Israel by their own god’s stormy presence is found in Exod 19:9–21.10 There, the children of Israel were preparing to gather at the foot of Mt. Sinai for a formal introduction to their divine king, just prior to the reception of the laws that would govern their renewed covenant relationship with the god of their ancestors. An interesting parallel between this passage and Ezek 1–3 is the role each theophany plays in authorizing the prophet’s authority as a leader for his respective community. This is seen most clearly in Exod 19:9: “Then Yahweh said to Moses, ‘I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, in order that the people may hear when I speak with you and so trust you ever after.’” A similar event takes place in Ezek 2:9–3:4, when the prophet receives a scroll from the hand of Yahweh upon which is written “lamentation and mourning and woe” (2:10). In the latter case, the prophet receives from Yahweh’s own hand the negative message of punishment that the prophet was to deliver to his fellow exiles about their own fate, and that of their fellow Israelites who remained in Judah. Other parallels to the Book of Exodus may be found in Ezekiel’s opening vision. Exodus depicts Yahweh as the divine warrior who delivers Israel from exile in Egypt after introducing himself to his people with the supposedly new, personal name of Yahweh (cf. 3:14–15; 6:2–8). It includes the call of the prophet Moses (3:1– 4:17) and his dealings with a rebellious people (cf. the ‘golden calf’ episode of 32:1–35), which ultimately lead to the creation of Israel as a priestly nation (Exod 19:5–6). In comparison, Ezek 1–3 includes the appearance of Yahweh as a warrior-king upon his chariot throne, the call of a new prophet during a new time of Israelite captivity in a foreign land, and the introduction of the emphasis Cf. also the lesson on Gen 3:8 by Jeffrey Niehaus, “In the Cool of the Day?” in Gary D. Pratico and Miles V. Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Hebrew Grammar (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 397–399. Here, according to Niehaus, Yahweh poses a threat to Adam and Eve following their sin in the Garden of Eden, and approaches them in a “stormy wind.” 10

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

107

upon Israel as a “rebellious house.” If one looks ahead to the concluding vision of Ezek 40–48, one eventually encounters the promise of a new priestly nation in the restored Land of Israel after Yahweh’s victory over the people’s final enemies (cf. Ezek 38–39). Rhetorical Situation of Ezekiel 1:4–3:15 Just prior to the opening vision report, introductory information places the historical setting in the time of the exile (1:1: “among the exiles”; 1:1, 2: on the fifth day of the fourth month in the fifth year of King Jehoiachin of Judah’s exile, i.e., 593 BCE).11 The only 3rd person editorial comment in the entire book that clearly reflects a hand other than the historical prophet occurs at 1:3, a verse testifying that the book as a whole is about Ezekiel the priest, son of Buzi, to whom the word of Yahweh came in the land of the Chaldeans, to the exiles dwelling beside the Chebar River. Other details about the rhetorical situation must largely be inferred from the vision itself. That this introduction was enough to make the vision understandable to the original audience suggests that the exile itself, which included the deported Judean king Jehoiachin, serves as the central rhetorical crisis. The reference to the priest Ezekiel’s thirtieth year may further suggest that this dislocated priest from Jerusalem, in the very year he would normally have assumed official priestly duties, now has no cultic center in Babylon in which to serve his god. This highlights an important theological aspect of the exilic crisis that is in the author’s mind, namely, how to maintain worship of Yahweh (and Israelite identity) in a foreign land. The commissioning responds to the vocational concerns of the disenfranchised priest by providing him a new office in which to serve his deity, and through which to mediate the deity’s presence for the rest of the exilic community. The need to alleviate a crisis of divine presence (more accurately, divine absence) is an Cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, 82, agrees with Origen’s original proposal that the “thirtieth year” refers to the age of Ezekiel at the time of his inaugural vision. This coincides with Num 4:30, which considers age 30 the time when priests were officially “induct[ed] into their office.” 11

108

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

important aspect of the rhetorical situation. It is answered by the establishment of the prophet as a legitimate medium of Yahweh’s presence, which also authorizes all the oracles and vision reports that follow in the rest of the book. The crisis of divine presence also includes questions about how and why the exile ever occurred. The prophet’s vision of Yahweh enthroned “in his place” (3:12) teaches that Yahweh is not limited to manifesting himself in his earthly dwelling in Jerusalem, but reigns supreme from his heavenly realm. In addition, other references in Ezekiel to places where Yahweh appears (e.g., Jerusalem) make it clear that Yahweh is free to manifest himself wherever he chooses. These include the reference to Yahweh’s glory standing “there” in the valley (3:23) like the glory the prophet saw beside the Chebar River; the reference to Yahweh being a “temporary sanctuary” to his people in the lands where they are exiled (11:16); and the naming of the new Jerusalem of the future “Yahweh is there” in 48:35. Determining where Yahweh dwells is an important exilic concern. The theophanic portion of the vision affirms Yahweh’s kingship over his people even in the midst of the human king’s exile, and reflects the need for the book to address concerns over Yahweh’s sovereignty. However, the opening vision makes clear that Yahweh’s kingship is not similarly in jeopardy. The implication here is that the rhetorical situation is an exilic community in need of education about the cause of the exile, and in need of a dependable educator whose authority can be demonstrated. The commissioning of the prophet authorizes Ezekiel’s message of judgment as Yahweh’s official perspective on the matter of the exile, and likewise authorizes the remainder of the material in the prophetic book as divine revelation for all prospective readers. The concern with authorizing the prophet is explicit in 2:5: “whether they listen or not … they will know a prophet is among them,” and this concern frames the entire judgment section of Ezek 1–32. The idea is explicitly revisited in 33:30–33, shortly after the announcement that the city of Jerusalem has fallen (33:21). Yahweh promises to make the Land of Israel a desolation (33:27– 29), and claims that, when this comes to pass, the exiles will know that a prophet is among them (33:33). Thus, the need to authorize

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

109

all of the argumentation in Ezekiel is also an important element of the rhetorical situation in the opening vision. Rhetorical Strategies: Logos/Ethos/Pathos The most prominent logical strategy at work in the opening vision is best understood in relation to what Perelman and OlbrechtsTyteca refer to as a rhetoric of “presence,” and this is combined with the strategy of “illustration.”12 Together, these allow Ezekiel’s dramatic portrayal of the divine presence to be understood as a strategic “preliminary selection of the elements that are to serve as the starting point of the argument” of the entire book, whereby the “elements” are uniquely “adapt[ed]” to the book’s specific “purpose.”13 This preliminary selection of material is done with a conscious reflection on theophany traditions shared between speaker and intended audience. As Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca put it, such shared traditions function similarly to “the corpus of knowledge recognized by those trained in a scientific discipline; it will be the whole juridical system within which a legal decision is fitted.”14 This helps to highlight the judicial nature of Ezekiel’s opening vision, which uses vivid theophanic language and elements drawn from familiar traditions of the manifesting deity in order to create a “frame of reference” by which the author helps the reader pass judgment on a particular topic. The purpose for referencing such shared traditions here in Ezek 1–3 is not simply to exercise the audience’s memory of Yahweh’s prior appearances to his people. Instead, it is to make the deity present in a new act of theophany in response to a crisis created by the perception of the deity’s absence, and thereby illustrate the reality of Yahweh’s sovereignty as the divine king who rules from his heavenly throne. Thus, the vision assists the reader in judging the character and nature of Yahweh, and it begins by demonstrating the deity’s relevance simply by depicting his glorious presence. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 115–120 and 357–362, respectively. 13 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 115. 14 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 115. 12

110

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca discuss the strategy of illustration in the context of “relations establishing the structure of reality.”15 The effect of such rhetoric here is to correct a misunderstanding about reality by demonstrating that Yahweh is still Israel’s divine king, who appears to the priest Ezekiel, and by means of prophetic mediation, becomes present to the intended reader. At a time when, for all practical purposes, Yahweh appears to be absent and impotent, the vision of his glory suggests a different reality. The use of highly descriptive theophanic imagery in the vision “endows these elements with a presence, which is an essential factor in argumentation.”16 In essence, the vision report attempts to convince the audience of the reality of Yahweh’s sovereignty by providing a first person account of an encounter with the exalted god. In this account, the prophet interacts with the deity, falling down (1:28), eating (3:2–3), and emoting (3:14), and the deity at times seizes control of the prophet, picking him up (2:2; 3:12) and transporting him to and from (3:14) the heavenly realm. The vivid description of the deity “[acts] directly on [the audience’s] sensibility,” making Yahweh “present to the consciousness” and thereby helping Yahweh “[assume] … an importance that the theory and practice of argumentation must take into consideration.”17 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca further explain this strategy of presence with the following: One of the preoccupations of a speaker is to make present, by verbal magic alone, what is actually absent but what he considers important to his argument or, by making them more present, to enhance the value of some of the elements of which one has actually been made conscious.18

The opening vision in Ezekiel, like the visions that follow, is designed to “enhance the value of” Yahweh as one of its most critical elements of argumentation. This is a key piece of its larger ethosPerelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 350–362. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 116 (emphasis their own). 17 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 116–117. 18 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 117. 15 16

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

111

oriented strategy and its epideictic purpose of enhancing the value of continued faith and obedience to Yahweh. Thus, logical and ethical strategies merge in the vision’s illustrative emphasis on divine presence. It is not so much that the presence of Yahweh provides the means by which the text gains authority for making some other, unrelated argument. To a great degree, the presence of Yahweh in Ezekiel’s visions is the argument, demonstrating implicitly the deity’s vitality and relevance. The starting point for this argument is to make Yahweh a palpable presence through the report of the prophet’s own firsthand experience. With this technique, Yahweh’s “presence, at first a psychological phenomenon, becomes an essential element in [Ezekiel’s] argumentation.”19 Vivid illustration of the living, immanent deity is an important way of “increas[ing] presence by making an abstract rule concrete.” 20 In this case, the abstract concept and faith-based affirmation that Yahweh is sovereign is demonstrated more concretely for the reader through the mediation of the prophet’s unique vision. The purpose of making the abstract more concrete is to: Strengthen adherence to a known and accepted rule, by providing particular instances which clarify the general statement, show the import of this statement by calling attention to its various possible applications, and increase its presence to the consciousness … it should strike the imagination forcibly so as to win attention.21

Thus, in the case of the opening vision, the so-called “rule” that Yahweh is sovereign, an abstraction already familiar to the intended audience, is illustrated for those who likely doubt the veracity of Yahweh’s “rule” over his people. The vision report in 1–3, like those in 8–11, 37:1–14, and 40–48, provides a “particular instance” to illustrate the validity of Yahweh’s sovereignty over his people, here demonstrated through the example of the deity seizing control of one member of the exilic community. This works to “increase Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 117. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 360. 21 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 357. 19 20

112

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

[the] presence” of Yahweh and the claim of his sovereignty “to the consciousness” of the reader. And just as Yahweh’s spirit “forcibly” seizes the priest Ezekiel in the narration, so the vision as a whole attempts to “strike the imagination [of the reader] forcibly” in order “to win [their] attention” and maintain their attention for the remainder of the book. Establishing the presence of Yahweh as the source of the prophet’s revelations is an important ethos-building element. The remainder of the corpus will continue to argue that the chief speaker in the book is not really the prophet, who narrates his experiences in the first person, but instead is essentially the deity who speaks in the first person through the mouth of the prophet. This is an attempt to authorize the prophet, the deity, and the entire prophetic book as a dependable source of divine revelation. Once this is established, other modes of argumentation may follow, including the messages that dominate the remainder of the corpus: Yahweh’s sovereignty, Yahweh’s justice in judging Israel and the nations, and Yahweh’s honorable salvation of Israel, however undeserved. The foundation for making other arguments about Yahweh is first to direct due attention to Yahweh as a god who is present and active in the midst of his people. The prophet’s active participation in the visionary event helps to establish the reality of Yahweh’s presence and the reality of the vision as a whole. This first occurs in 1:28 when the prophet falls on his face in deference before the glory of Yahweh. Later, he takes from the deity’s hand a scroll containing divine judgments, and proceeds to eat it, finding the taste as sweet as honey (2:9–3:3). Later, the prophet reacts bitterly to being swept up and returned to dwell among the exiles at the conclusion of the vision in 3:14.22 All Other examples may be found in the visions of 8–11, 37, and 40– 48. The prophet prophesies against the Judean leaders in the midst of his second vision, and, as a result, Pelatiah drops dead (11:4–13). In the wellknown prophecy of 37:1–14, the prophet speaks Yahweh’s life-giving words over the valley of desiccated bones, and thereby symbolically resurrects the life of Yahweh’s people. Finally, the prophet takes a tour of the future, restored temple and land of Israel in 40–48 (40–43, 47:1–12), making that future more palpable and believable to the audience. 22

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

113

of these depictions of the prophet’s activity are demonstrations of presence designed to make the reality of what the vision depicts more palpable for the reader. Another important purpose for the prophet’s reactions to Yahweh, both in the context of the visions as well as in the symbolic actions, is to serve as a role model for the reader, a form of “argumentation by example,” which also works to establish a particular structure of reality for the audience.23 What the text considers real and valuable through the example of the prophet is what the audience should likewise consider. The prophet’s emotional responses of admiration and respect to being in the presence of the deity (bowing, praising), and his anger about being removed from the deity’s presence and returned to dwell among the exiles, serve also as pathetic appeals for the audience in the midst of the “argument by example.” Furthermore, in the context of the larger call narrative, where the prophet’s task is to stand in opposition to the rebellious exiles, the emotional appeals and role modeling represent a rhetorical strategy known as association-dissociation. By contrasting the prophet’s behavior with that of his contemporaries, the reader is encouraged to identify with the prophet’s (and Yahweh’s) attitudes and values, and to reject those of the “rebellious house” of Israel. Here, the prophet as role model teaches the reader the appropriate way to respond to Yahweh in general (with respect and obedience), how to respond to Yahweh’s judgments (as sweet medicine, rather than bitter), and how to respond to living among other, rebellious Israelites (i.e., with consternation). Thus, the reader is encouraged to associate with the prophet’s example, and dissociate with the example of his opponents. The emphasis on Yahweh’s judgment and justice that begins implicitly in this opening vision, and which follows in more explicit fashion in the oracles of 3:16–27; 18; and 33, provides a means of contrast with the unjust rhetoric of the exiles also encountered in Ezek 18 and 33. This, in combination with the pervasive emphasis on Israel’s rebellion and idolatry, leads Kutsko to conclude that the threat of idolatry in the exilic community lies at the heart of Ezeki23

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 350–357.

114

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

el’s rhetoric.24 In his estimation, the central concern of the text is to combat the ongoing threat of idolatry, a sin for which Israel was currently experiencing exile and destruction at Yahweh’s hand. The vision of the deity’s self-initiated departure from Jerusalem (8–11), the destruction of Yahweh’s “symbolic dwelling place” (i.e., the temple), and the use of the derogatory term ‫ּלּולים‬ ִ ִ‫ג‬, “dung piles,” to describe the images of other deities all work together, according to Kutsko, to provide “an extended argument that Yahweh alone is God, contrary to all appearances.”25 This also suggests that an important aspect of the rhetorical situation of the entire corpus is the need to discourage assimilation to Babylonian religious life. The threat of assimilation presented an identity crisis for both Yahweh and the Israelites living in Babylon. The opening vision of For references to ‫ח ָמס‬,ָ “violence,” cf. 7:11, 23; 8:17; 12:19; 22:26; on idolatry, cf. the following: ‫ּתֹוע ָבה‬, ֵּ “abominations” (5:9, 11; 6:9, 11; 7:3, 8, 20; 8:6, 9, 13, 15, 17; 9:4; 11:18; 12:16; 14:6; 16:12, 22, 36, 43, 50, 51, 58; 18:12, 13, 24; 20:4; 22:2, 11; 23:36; 33:26, 29; 36:31; 44:6, 7); ‫גִ ּלּול‬, “idols” (6:4, 5, 6, 9, 13; 8:10; 14:3, 4, 5, 6, 7; 16:36; 18:6, 12, 15; 20:7, 8, 16, 18, 24, 31, 39; 22:3, 4; 23:7, 30, 37, 39, 49; 30:13, 33:25; 36:18, 25; 37:23; 44:10, 12); ‫שּקּוץ‬/‫ץ‬ ִ ‫ש ֻּּק‬, ִ “detestable thing(s)” (5:11; 7:20; 11:18, 21; 20:7, 8, 30; 37:23). Cf. also Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 25–76, for a discussion of other terms referring to idolatry in Ezekiel, such as ‫במֹות‬, ָ “high places”; ‫גִ ְבעה ָר ָמה‬, “high hill”; ‫אשי ֶה ָה ִרים‬ ֵּ ‫ ָר‬, “mountain tops”; ‫ ֵּעץ ַר ֲענָ ן‬, “green tree”; and ‫ ֵּא ָלה ֲע ֻּב ָּתה‬, “leafy oak.” 25 Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 150–151. For a more detailed discussion of ‫ּלּולים‬ ִ ִ‫ ג‬in Ezek, cf. idem, 28–36. According to Kutsko, 26, “the charge [of idolatry] is present in every major division of the book” (cf. the table on p. 29). As such, “the polemic against idolatry is fundamental to the prophet’s overall message and to his hearers’ experience, both past and present” (28). As Kutsko further notes (32), Ezekiel contains 39 of the Hebrew Bible’s total 48 occurrences of the term ‫ּלּולים‬ ִ ִ‫ג‬. He goes on to argue (32–34), based upon the work of Daniel Bodi, “Les gillûlîm chez Ézéchiel et dans l’Ancien Testament, et les différentes practiques cultuelles associées à ce terme,” RB 100 (1993), 481–510 (482), that the connotation most likely intended by the term in Ezekiel was a doubleentendre meaning “round,” like both an idol stone, and also a piece of “excrement.” For further research, cf. H. D. Preuss, “‫ּלּולים‬ ִ ִ‫ ג‬gillûlîm,” TDOT 3:1–5. 24

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

115

Yahweh’s ‫כבֹוד‬, ָ “glory,” provides an important means of contrast with the worthless images of the Mesopotamian gods. Here, ‫ָכבֹוד‬ should be understood in its full semantic range, including “glory,” “honor,” “power,” “value,” and “weightiness,” all of which contrast with the worthlessness of the idols of the nations, the latter of which are merely “wood and stone” (20:32), or worse, excrement.26 Later in the corpus, in the judgment oracles against the nations in Ezek 25–32 and 38–39, the superiority of Yahweh over other political entities further emphasizes the futility of trusting in foreign powers and their patron deities, rather than Yahweh. 27 In essence, the only real future for Israel depicted in Ezekiel is one in which the exilic believer maintains utter dependence upon Yahweh by avoiding all forms of idolatry. In summation, without explicitly positing the idea of Yahweh’s sovereignty, the text illustrates the deity’s freedom, power, and control in the vision reports and symbolic actions of the prophet.28 The illustration of Yahweh’s sovereignty by relating an elaborately detailed vision provides the reader with “a particular case … [that] corroborates the rule … [and which] can even … state the rule” in cases where the rule is communicated implicitly rather than explicitly.29 In the case of Ezekiel, where the so-called “rule” or proposition is not made explicit, the illustration or demonstration of Yahweh’s rule over Israel is effectively depicted rather than simply stated (the one exception being Ezek 20:33, which is discussed in detail later in this book). This technique may be attributed to the speaker’s/writer’s hesitancy to draw explicit attention to the position he is attempting to refute (i.e., Yahweh’s apparent weakness). Instead, Ezekiel chooses to “expatiate at length on the significance and importance of certain unquestionable elements, instead of implying or merely Cf. M. Weinfeld, “‫כבֹוד‬,” ָ TDOT 7:22–38. For a more thorough discussion of certain oracles against the nations and Yahweh’s superiority in comparison to foreign deities and kings, cf. Chs. 6 and 7 of this book. 28 This is also seen in the promises of punishment to Tyre and Egypt that are elaborately illustrated in Ezek 26–28 and 29–32. 29 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 360. 26 27

116

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

mentioning them. By dwelling on them longer, the speaker increases their presence in the minds of his hearers [thereby] … accentuating a point by spending more time on it.” 30 This explains the amount of space dedicated to vision reports in Ezekiel that demonstrate Yahweh’s sovereignty over Israel’s fate, rather than merely delivering oracles that explicitly repeat such a claim. Finally, the pervasive emphasis on idolatry in Ezekiel suggests another way to understand the visions of Yahweh’s glory, as employing the strategy of the “appearance-reality pair.” Yahweh’s appearances to the prophet demonstrate a reality that the exiles had no doubt questioned, and that was no doubt challenged by the likely public appearance of Babylonian forms of worship before the eyes of the exiles. This worship would have included the images of Babylonian deities, the presence of which would suggest to the exiles a divine reality that challenges Yahweh’s sovereignty. Ezekiel combats the notion of the superiority of Babylon’s gods by providing a visionary image of Yahweh whose glory, power, freedom, and sovereignty persist in spite of Babylon’s political hegemony over Israel. Rhetorical Synthesis While the presence of Yahweh serves as a beginning of the solution to Ezekiel’s unique understanding of the crisis of exile, it is not enough for the deity merely to appear and provide a temporary show of strength and majesty. Such imagery alone, while critically important for demonstrating divine sovereignty, could not assuage the offended and disappointed sensibilities of the exiles. These required some further means of argumentation. In fact, the argument alone that Yahweh is sovereign over Israel’s fate makes the exile even more perplexing unless it is accompanied by an emphasis on Israel’s disobedience, which constitutes just cause for punishment. Thus, the argument that the punishment fits the crime, which is implicit in the emphasis on Israel’s rebellion, plays an important role in the opening vision, and introduces the central theme of what follows in the remainder of the larger unit of Chs. 1–24. 30

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 144.

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

117

Doubts about Yahweh’s presence explain the need for authorizing a local messenger to further mediate the deity’s immanence, and further explicate the deity’s intentions for the exiles. Yahweh’s presence could not be mediated by a local priest through the normal cultic activities performed in a divinely sanctioned temple, at least not in Babylon. But Yahweh would be an ongoing presence for the exiles through the vision reports and oracles of a local prophet, whether communicated orally during the prophet’s lifetime, or afterwards in textual form. In the midst of providing a solution to the problem of Yahweh’s apparent impotence for failing to protect his covenant people from foreign enemies, the legitimation of Yahweh as sovereign presented its own unique theological problem, requiring the accompanying apology for the exile as a just punishment orchestrated by Yahweh himself. Ezekiel moves quickly to focus attention upon the nature of the exilic community as rebellious and therefore worthy of divine judgment. This is a common element of the motif of divine abandonment found throughout the ancient Near Eastern literature, which typically serves to uphold the notion of divine sovereignty in the midst of national disaster.31 On the basis of an implicit argument for divine sovereignty and justice in the opening vision, the larger goal of building Yahweh’s ethos in Ezekiel is initiated. It is the glorious depiction of the deity as an immediate presence to the prophet that serves as the most powerful element for building the divine ethos in the call narrative. The depiction of Yahweh as an active presence to the prophet in Babylon refutes any charge of divine impotence, as well as any notion that Yahweh’s presence was limited to his residence on Zion or to the vicinity of the Ark of the Covenant. It also begins to refute any charge that Yahweh was defeated, driven off, or destroyed in battle by the deities of Babylon, since the vision portrays Yahweh as capable of appearing in a foreign land that would quite naturally have been under the jurisdiction of other local divine patrons.32 Cf. Block, The Gods of the Nations. There is room for speculation on some of the theological implications of Ezekiel’s depiction of the enthroned deity, especially concerning 31 32

118

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

The vision confirms that Yahweh has not been unseated from his throne, which refutes any claim that Israel’s deity no longer rules his own people. Instead, Yahweh is depicted here as a divine warrior-king, astride his chariot throne, perhaps even equipped with his weapon of choice (the bow of 1:28), and on the march to war. However, as one quickly learns, Yahweh rides out not to confront Babylon, but to confront his own people. The effect is to build among the intended audience of exiles an ethos of respect for the patron deity, who still exhibits relevant authority and power. The appropriate response is not gratitude. The theophany is designed to effect submission rather than the hard-headedness and hard-heartedness (3:7) already present in the exilic community. Hence, the rhetorical situation lying behind the opening vision, and the entire unit of Ezek 1–24, is apparently an audience much like that faced originally by the historical prophet: people too stubborn to trust in Yahweh’s perspective of the exile as a just punishment for a rebellious community, and people who need to be convinced of the ethos of Yahweh and his prophet in order for them to respond favorably to a call for repentance and obedience. In a historical setting in which the exiles might logically conclude that Yahweh is no longer worthy of patronage and worship, the commission of the prophet establishes a connection with Yahthe degree to which the exiles might have held common ancient Near Eastern notions of how deities were understood to have related to their human-made images. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 103–123; 157–169, presents a helpful survey of ancient Near Eastern literature on the topic of the divine abandonment, the capture, and the return of divine images, including an appendix that surveys all known references to the “removal, repair, and return of divine images” in the chronicles of Mesopotamian kings (plus the Persian Cyrus). Ezekiel’s visions most likely depict Yahweh seated upon a heavenly throne, since their descriptions do not match any known description of the Ark. While it is not known if the Ark of the Covenant was ever deported to a foreign land, Ezekiel clearly implies that Yahweh is not bound to any physical representation of his throne, since he freely moves back and forth between Babylon and Israel in the prophet’s visions, as does the prophet.

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

119

weh by which an intricate argument for divine ethos can be constructed. Through agreement with this argument and the values it defends, Israelite identity in exile might yet be preserved. This message of preservation is made most explicit later in the vision of dry bones in 37:1–14, where the prophet’s words are the vehicle for breathing new life into the desiccated community, but it is hinted at already in the syllogistic discussion of life and death immediately following the opening vision (3:16–21), where Yahweh tells the prophet: “If you teach a righteous man that the righteous should not sin, and he does not commit sin, he will live because he was instructed; and you, your life you have saved” (v. 21). This oracle, which immediately follows the prophet’s commission, is intended as an implicit, deliberative warning for the wicked to turn from their evil ways (3:19), and is also intended to reassure the righteous that their faithful behavior will receive its due reward (3:21). The implication of both promises is that Yahweh, and no other god, is still the giver and taker of life, the one who controls Israel’s destiny. Hence Israel should pay attention: “Thus says the Lord Yahweh: let those who will hear, hear; and let those who refuse to hear, refuse” (3:27). While the opening vision strikes many modern readers as bizarre, there is nothing unusual about a divine chariot or cherub throne in the ancient world.33 The vision demonstrates a synthesis of traditions concerning Yahweh as divine warrior/storm deity and Yahweh as an enthroned king in Zion. Evidence of the synthesis can already be found in numerous biblical texts.34 The twist here is that Yahweh’s appearance in Ezek 1–3 is not to fight on behalf of his people, but to contend further with Israel, who has already been defeated, subjugated, and/or captured by Babylon. The rhetorical situation at the beginning of the corpus reflects a need to establish a respectable ethos for both deity and prophet that will authorize the rest of the book’s rhetoric. However, some-

Cf., e.g., Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 50–51, illus. 44, 45. 34 Cf. the discussion of Zion traditions in Ch. 2 of this book. 33

120

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

what surprisingly, Yahweh appears in wrath rather than peace in order to accomplish this. 35 In the commissioning of the prophet, and in most of what follows in 4–24, one encounters further attempts through judicial rhetoric to highlight Israel’s rebellious behavior, past and present, and to encourage the reader thereby to dissociate himself/herself from this. Thus, there is a deliberative purpose behind much of the judicial material. The call to attention in 3:27, “Let those who will hear, hear; and let those who refuse to hear, refuse; for they are a rebellious house,” suggests that at the time of the composition of Ezek 1–3, the intended audience had not fully interpreted the exile as a sign of their failed allegiance to Yahweh, but more likely as a sign of Yahweh’s failed allegiance to them. Thus, much that the historical prophet originally preached is still valid and timely, because the exilic community still needs to heed his message of judgment as a reminder of the dangers of assimilating to Babylonian society.

EZEKIEL 8–11: YAHWEH DEPARTS FROM THE JERUSALEM TEMPLE Rhetorical Unit, Arrangement, & Genre According to Hals, an analysis of the rhetorical arrangement of Ezek 8–11 must take into account that the unit includes multiple, smaller vision reports in which the prophet witnesses the following: abominable worship practices in the Jerusalem temple (8:1–18); Yahweh’s intervention to order Jerusalem’s destruction, which then symbolically begins to take place (9:1–11); the glory of Yahweh in the temple (10:1–22); and the departure of Yahweh’s glory prior to Jerusalem’s actual demise (11:22–23). However, one should not overemphasize the parts, missing in the process the significance of In contrast to the function of the bow as a sign of peace between god and humanity, such as in the Flood tradition of Gen 9:14–16, the image of the bow here is an ominous sign of Yahweh’s march to war, closely resembling a famous image of Assur, whose drawn bow is an extension of the glorious brightness surrounding the deity. Cf. again Parrot, Nineveh and Babylon, 227. 35

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

121

the whole. The larger unit of Ezek 8–11 is rhetorically arranged to follow the pattern of a visionary tour with multiple scenes. It is best treated as one, long vision report with a well-defined beginning (8:1–3) and a well-defined end (11:24–25). The beginning of the unit is signaled by the new date formula and the notation that the hand of Yahweh fell anew upon the prophet (11:1). The unit concludes with the notation that the vision left the prophet (11:24) and he reported what he saw to the exiles (11:25). A new word event formula in 12:1 signals the beginning of a new rhetorical unit, and it involves a command from Yahweh for the prophet to perform a symbolic action. Important elements of the vision are the disputation speech that imagines the city of Jerusalem as a cauldron in 11:1–13 and the prophecy of salvation for the exiles in 11:14–21. Both might, at first glance, appear redactional, but their purpose revolves around the prophet becoming an active tool of Yahweh’s judgment, and an important mediator on behalf of the exilic community, bringing the divine word to bear on the communities of Israel (i.e., Jerusalem and its inhabitants; the exiles) to which the vision applies. In addition, these elements continue some of the same rhetorical strategies found in the vision of 1–3, including justifying Israel’s woes (and Yahweh’s judgment) by emphasizing the rebellion of the Judean remnant, and encouraging the reader to dissociate from the attitudes of the those Israelites (both at home and abroad), who fail to realize that the only real future lies along the path of covenant fidelity to Yahweh. Regardless of its compositional history, all of 8–11 is now placed within the context of one, overarching visionary experience of the prophet, and is treated here as one rhetorical unit. There are obvious and intentional connections with the vision of 1:4–3:15, apart from the rhetorical strategies employed, the least of which is the description of Yahweh’s chariot throne in 10:1–22, especially vv. 9–22. The chronology of the book is such that the opening vision in Ezek 1–3, in which the priest Ezekiel is commissioned as a prophet, precedes Yahweh’s departure from the Jerusalem temple in Ezek 8–11. This suggests that Yahweh is not in any way bound to the land in which his temple resides, and he may travel abroad, even to Babylon, without officially abandoning his land or temple, such as takes place in Chs. 8–11.

122

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Because Yahweh’s glory departs from the temple in the vision of 8–11, heading eastward, one might suppose that the vision reports are chronologically out of sequence, since Yahweh’s departure from Jerusalem takes place after the prophet’s inaugural vision. The date formulas attached to the visions of 1:4–3:15 (month four of year five) and 8–11 (month six of year six) suggest that this is not an appropriate way to understand the author’s/editor’s intention. In fact, since the vision of 8–11 depicts the departure of Yahweh from Jerusalem taking place after the deportation of 597 BCE, the reader is to assume that Yahweh was present in Jerusalem during the initial surrender of the city, and that his presence there actually protected the city and temple from destruction at that time. This is confirmed when 8–11 depicts Yahweh’s departure prior to the actual destruction of Jerusalem, including the temple, that occurred at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE. In addition, the glory of Yahweh in the vision of 8–11, after exiting the temple, appears to come to rest above the Mount of Olives, just east of the Jerusalem (11:23), as if the deity perches there to observe and orchestrate the city’s destruction. The sequence of events in the vision of 8–11 include the prophet witnessing multiple abominations (idolatrous practices) in the Jerusalem temple (8:5–18), and the obstinacy of the Judean leaders, who claim that Yahweh has already departed the homeland, and therefore does not see what they are doing (8:12).36 Block notes the irony here, since the vision affirms that Yahweh does indeed see (as does the prophet and the text’s reader), and his glory has not yet departed.37 The quotation of Judah’s leaders in 8:12 suggests that, like the opening vision, the location of Yahweh is an Perhaps, from the Judahite leaders’ perspective, the conquering of Judah by Babylon alone in 597, even without the city’s destruction, was evidence enough that Yahweh had abandoned them. Regardless, as Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, 276, points out, Ezekiel’s vision here, along with a number of “extrabiblical texts … assume[s] a symbiotic relationship among deity, land, and people … attribute[s] the divine abandonments directly to the wrath of the gods … [and believes] that divine wrath was precipitated by the wickedness of the deity’s subjects.” 37 Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, 273–274. 36

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

123

important theme, and like the exilic remnant, the Judeans are tempted to resort to the worship of foreign gods in order to alleviate a (mis)perceived crisis of divine abandonment. Yahweh’s judgmental response to the homeland is not conducted without just scrutiny. The prophet witnesses the deity placing a protective mark upon the righteous, ensuring that the intended audience knows that the deity’s punishment is just (9:3–6). This continues an emphasis throughout 1–24 and 33 on Yahweh’s justice, teaching that Yahweh punishes only the unrighteous. It also suggests an important aspect of the rhetorical situation of this unit: in the midst of arguing that Yahweh is in control of the exile and the destruction of Jerusalem, questions still persist about the punishment fitting the crime. The vision ends with a prophecy of salvation for the exiles (11:14–24) that includes the explicit promise that Yahweh will be a “temporary sanctuary” for them in the countries where they have been scattered (v. 16). The use of the term “sanctuary” evokes memories of the exodus event, where Yahweh is said to have dwelt among his wandering people in a tent-shrine or tent of meeting (cf. Exod 15:17; 25:8; 36:1; Lev 4:5–6; Num 4:15). Later in the corpus, Ezekiel uses the term “sanctuary” to refer to a new temple in Israel whereby Yahweh’s presence will dwell among his people in the restoration (cf. 37:26: “I will set my sanctuary among them forevermore”; cf. also 44:1ff; 47:12; 48:8, 10, 21). Lacking other references to the term in Ezekiel, 11:16 suggests that Yahweh’s presence will temporarily dwell among his people for the duration of their new captivity, but the text never clarifies exactly how this presence will be constituted. While Ezekiel does provide a blueprint of sorts for a new temple in the future Land of Israel, nowhere does the text, like the Book of Exodus, suggest building a tabernacle for exilic use in Babylon. The most explicit symbols for Yahweh’s presence among the exiles in Babylon are Ezekiel’s vision reports. In spite of the harsh message of judgment for the homeland, the vision of 8–11 is a message of hope for the exiles. It promises Yahweh’s presence in the midst of exile and a return to the Promised Land (11:17), a cleansing of the land of idolatry (11:18), and Yahweh’s gift of a new heart (11:19) for the purpose of helping the returnees remain obedient in the future to their covenant obligations (11:20). Thus, the text reaffirms the validity of the covenant bond between Yahweh and the exiles (11:20). The vision’s conclu-

124

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

sion balances (if not outweighs) the negativity of the message of destruction for the homeland that immediately precedes it in 8:1– 11:13. Thus, regardless of the editorial history of the vision, the final form contains a rhetoric that shifts in tone from negative to positive for an exilic audience. In the process, the vision demonstrates Judah’s idolatry, Yahweh’s justice in punishing only the unrighteous among them, Yahweh’s control of the homeland’s destruction, and Yahweh’s freedom to abandon the homeland temporarily to dwell among the exiles. The emphasis on divine presence here, unlike the opening vision, takes on a much more favorable and salvific tone for the exiles, if not for the Judean remnant. Rhetorical Situation of Ezekiel 8–11 The vision of 8–11, like that of 1–3, gives little explicit detail on the historical reason for the event, and nothing significant is known with any surety about the date provided (September 18, 592 BCE).38 The prophet does appear to have assumed some amount of authority among the exiles, as evidenced by the fact that the exilic elders sit before him in 8:1, seeking a divine communication. Here, unlike Ezek 14 and 20, the elders are not chastised for their idolatry when seeking to consult with Yahweh. Instead, the emphasis is upon the idolatries taking place in Jerusalem. This, coupled with the emphasis on the Land of Israel, suggests that the overriding concern in this vision is anxiety over the fate of the homeland, and how Judah’s fate will affect that of the exilic community if they ever do return home. Whether or not the vision is an example of ex eventu prophecy, the date formula at 8:1 at least represents to the reader a setting prior to the city’s destruction, and this is designed to build the ethos of the prophet when the city actually falls in 586 BCE. A similar purpose is served by the prophet’s utterance in the midst of the visionary experience at 11:13, which apparently causes the death of a Judean leader, Pelatiah. This demonstrates the divinely invested power of the prophet, and, while speculative at best, may have cor-

38

Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, 29.

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

125

responded to a report about this leader’s death that at some point reached the exilic community. Because the vision of 8–11 focuses its attention on the fate of the homeland, it is reasonable to conclude that the intended audience, much like the elders in 8:1, had questions about Judah’s status that the vision sought to answer. Added to this are concerns about the location and/or presence of Yahweh, the status of the exiles in relation to Israel’s covenant with Yahweh, and the possibility of an eventual return to the homeland. The vision implies that many members of the Judean remnant failed to learn from the example of the first deportation/displacement in 597 BCE. Judah’s leaders are depicted as having misinterpreted that event as a sign of Yahweh’s departure from the land. The vision also implies that Yahweh is dictating the fate of all his people, including the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple precinct. This is an attempt to answer questions about Yahweh’s sovereignty that are not explicitly raised, but that are no doubt present among the intended audience. Furthermore, the level of depravity evident in the Judean leadership’s syncretistic worship justifies the harsh punishment that eventually befalls the city. It is also likely that the Judean leaders serve as foils for the exilic community to warn them of the dangers of practicing such idolatry as their kinsfolk in Judah. Rhetorical Strategies: Logos/Ethos/Pathos The vision of 8–11 continues the theme of Yahweh contending with Israel by depicting the deity’s abandonment and judgment of the Judean remnant. This clarifies that the destruction of Jerusalem is Yahweh’s doing. The tone here is ultimately hopeful for the exiles, unlike that in the opening vision, due to the closing promise of salvation, which contrasts sharply with the rest of the material in 1– 24 (excepting the positive message of 20:40–44, although there is still a strong judgment theme here). While the hope engendered by the promise of salvation in 11:14–20 is suggestive of a rhetoric of pathos, it should be noted that the oracle concludes with an implicit word of warning that contrasts the fate of the faithful with that of the idolatrous: “But to those whose heart goes after detestable things and abominations, their ways I will bring upon their heads, says the Lord Yahweh” (11:21). This highlights the continuation of a deliberative rhetoric

126

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

of dissociation, by which the reader should be deterred from choosing a path of rebellion in light of the appalling behavior of the Judean temple authorities (8:1–18). These leaders act as negative examples to deter the intended audience from wanting to associate with the defiling behavior of the blind and ignorant Judeans. While the promise of salvation for the exilic remnant contrasts with the fate of the Judeans, it also represents more than just deliberative rhetoric. It attempts to establish a more favorable evaluation of Yahweh by depicting him as more favorably disposed toward the exiles. This is an ethos-building strategy, with the epideictic goal of moving the exiles to trust their future to Yahweh’s plan for them, a plan that remains invisible except for the revelations of the prophet in exile. The depiction of Yahweh abandoning his temple as a result of the idolatry and violence of the temple leaders is dissociative rhetoric in another sense. It is intended to help the audience sever any remaining emotional ties to the homeland that would lead to further distrust of Yahweh in the exilic community, and further doubts about Yahweh’s sovereignty over the nation’s fate. On a more positive note, the vision’s statement that Yahweh will be a “temporary sanctuary” for the exiles, along with the promise of their restoration, represents an associative strategy that is ethical in its intention. By associating with the message of the text, the exiles also associate themselves with Yahweh. By dissociating themselves from what the text deems idolatry, and affirming Yahweh’s just punishment of the homeland, the exiles will secure for themselves a future worth waiting for. In the meantime, Yahweh will be with them in the midst of their new wandering in the wilderness of the nations. The demonstration of Yahweh’s discriminating judgment between innocent and guilty is designed to bolster further the deity’s ethos, and suggests that Yahweh is also trustworthy in his judgment of the exiles. The demonstration of the effective power of the prophet’s words, which can strike the guilty dead and move the deity to preserve an Israelite remnant (cf. 11:13), builds the ethos of the prophet as an effective mediator of divine power and authoritative advocate for the exiles. This material also clarifies that Yahweh’s sympathies lie with those Israelites, especially the exiles, who avoid idolatry.

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

127

Ezekiel 9:8 and 11:13 contain the most passionate and personal responses of the prophet to the actions of Yahweh in the entire corpus, even as the larger vision of 8–11 upholds the justice of Yahweh’s judgments against Israel. Twice in this vision, the prophet falls on his face and cries out to Yahweh on behalf of the Judean remnant: “Ah, Lord Yahweh! Will you destroy the entire remnant of Israel as you pour out your wrath upon Jerusalem?” (9:8); and “will you utterly annihilate the remnant of Israel?” (11:13). At first glance, the prophet may appear to be primarily concerned with the Judean remnant, which the vision depicts as currently facing the deity’s wrath. But implied in these questions is the larger issue of the survival of Israel as a whole, and the question of which remnant community deserves to be called the real Israel. By the vision’s end, this issue has been resolved, as Yahweh promises that the future of Israel lies with the exiles. Clearly, Ezek 8–11 is concerned with the relationship between the exilic and Judean remnants, including the exilic community’s hope of someday returning to reclaim their lost property (11:3, 15), which apparently the Judeans have taken for themselves, an act justified by the notion that the exiles were, in fact, deported for their disobedience to Yahweh. 39 But the vision as a whole clarifies This notion on the part of “the inhabitants of Jerusalem” in 11:15 that those exiled in 597 have gone far from the presence of Yahweh implies that the Judahites believed the deity was still present in the Promised Land after the first Babylonian incursion. However, this perspective is incongruent with that held by both the temple elders and inhabitants of the land in 8:12 and 9:9 that Yahweh had already forsaken Judah and no longer sees what takes place there. It is possible that Ezekiel, for rhetorical effect, purposely depicts the Judeans as holding contradictory positions on the matter of Yahweh’s whereabouts. Or perhaps the text wants to suggest that the Judeans are trying to have it both ways, conveniently arguing either for Yahweh’s abandonment or his continuing presence, whichever way benefitted them most at any given time. Regardless, it is likely that the exilic remnant itself held the view, at least for a time, that they had indeed gone far from the presence of Yahweh when they were relocated to Babylon, and this is one of the primary notions that Ezek 8– 39

128

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

that exilic hope should not be based upon events taking place in the homeland. Instead, the way to the future lies in a new exodus with Yahweh (in the wilderness of a foreign nation) that will culminate in a new or re-entry to the Promised Land for those who remain faithful. Rhetorical Synthesis The vision of 8–11, while related to the vision of 1–3 in its emphases of Israelite idolatry, the Glory of Yahweh, and the ethos of both Yahweh and his prophet, introduces a new rhetorical element by contrasting Yahweh’s assessment of and favor towards the exilic and Judean remnants. This helps to build the ego and ethos of the exiles as well as Yahweh, and as a result, helps to endear the exiles toward their divine patron in a way that the opening vision does not. Similarly, Yahweh and his prophet are adamantly opposed (3:8–9) to the rebellious and stubborn exiles in Ezek 1–3. But in 8– 11, the prophet intercedes on behalf of the Judean remnant, which leads to a promise of salvation for the exiles, albeit one that concludes with a reminder that a frightening fate awaits those whose hearts are bent toward abominable behavior (11:21). Thus, new strategies emerge in Ezek 8–11, just as certain prior concerns and strategies see further development. The concern for building the ethos of Yahweh and his prophet continues, but the predominantly negative tone of the rest of Chs. 1–24 is briefly interrupted in 11:14–21 by a limited prophecy of salvation. Even though Yahweh abandons his earthly temple and executes judgment on the wicked, he does not abandon or condemn all of his people. The theme of divine presence continues here to defend Yahweh’s sovereignty in the midst of the homeland’s ongoing political struggles, and it maintains an emphasis on Yahweh’s justice. Here, the vivid depiction of idolatry in the temple justifies the ongoing persecution of the homeland by Babylon as an event under Yahweh’s control, thereby bringing the destructive consequences 11 seeks to refute in an attempt to encourage their continuing faith in Yahweh.

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

129

of 586 BCE into the realm of Yahweh’s orderly rule over history. It also provides the final form of the book with another structural and rhetorical element whereby divine abandonment can be followed later in the closing vision with the hopeful depiction of divine return, another instance of ethos-building rhetoric for Yahweh. Ezekiel 8–11 suggests a rhetorical situation in which exilic attitudes toward the destruction of Jerusalem, including Yahweh’s temple, needed to be addressed. Questions about whether the socalled punishment truly fit the crime (technically, whether the crime truly fit the punishment) are answered in the affirmative by the degree of depravity depicted here among the temple administrators in Jerusalem and the Judahite people at large. Trust in Yahweh and the prophet’s preaching is justified by the severity of the abominations being committed in the homeland, but fear that Israel as a people might be utter annihilated is mollified. The destruction of Jerusalem, which may have caused enough resentment of Yahweh to foil the prophet’s initial preaching of repentance, may now give way, in light of Judah’s immense idolatry, to exilic gratitude by Yahweh’s measured response, because only the guilty are condemned in the events of 586. Yahweh’s abandonment of his temple is designed to move those exiles tempted to abandon Yahweh to reconsider and return to covenant fidelity. Such deliberative rhetoric is aided by Yahweh’s favorable slant toward the exiles, which should encourage them to dissociate from the practices that led to their deportation in the first place. It is as if those judged in the exile of 597 actually receive a chance at redemption not offered to those currently in the homeland. Ironically, those who appear to have gone far away from the deity are now actually much closer to the sanctuary of his presence.

EZEKIEL 40–48 (40:1–43:1–12): YAHWEH RETURNS TO DWELL IN THE PROMISED LAND Rhetorical Unit, Arrangement, & Genre The rhetorical unit of 40–48, of which 40:1–43:12 is the first major section, is clearly delineated as a new vision report by the date reference in 40:1, which sets this event in modern terms as April 28, 573/572 BCE (the tenth day of the first month of the twenty-fifth year of exile, and the fourteenth year since Jerusalem’s destruction

130

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

in 586).40 The larger unit of 40–48 that closes the prophetic corpus has the appearance of much expansion, but the initial vision of Yahweh’s return to the Promised Land in 40:1–43:12 is a piece roughly parallel in size to that of 8–11. The closing vision is arranged as a tour of a new temple in the Land of Israel, and it concludes shortly after the prophet witnesses Yahweh’s glory returning from the east, whence it had departed in 8–11. It is purposely designed as a conclusion to the earlier vision in its emphasis on divine presence. Here, Yahweh’s glory, which was absent from the Promised Land for a time (cf. 11:16), now returns, and comes to dwell in a new temple in the midst of Judah. Rather than being set in the present moment, as was Ezek 1–3 and 8–11, Ezek 40:1–43:12 is set in the future, and gives a glimpse of what the exiles may look forward to. It promises the return of the exiles, as well as Yahweh, to the Promised Land, which is made clear when the land is redistributed among the former Israelite tribes (cf. 47:13–48:34). The arrangement of 40:1–43:12 is even more explicitly based upon the model of a visionary tour than 8–11. Here, the prophet is guided by a divine messenger on a rather thorough tour of the new temple (a tour of the land outside the temple takes place in an expanded piece in 47:1–12). Measurements are taken along the way, and an explicit command is given to the prophet to report the details of the vision to his exilic audience in 40:4 and 43:10. The purpose of detailing the temple’s form is to shame the exiles for their past offenses (43:10) and to ensure not only that they act differently in the future by observing its new prescriptions for religious observance, but also to ensure that they act more faithfully in the present. The plan is somehow to be implemented (43:11): ‫וְ יִ ְש ְמרּו ֶאת־‬ ‫ל־חּק ָֹתיו‬ ֻּ ‫ת־כ‬ ָ ‫ל־צּורתֹו וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫אֹותם ָכ‬ ָ ‫וְ ָעׂשּו‬, “so that you may preserve its entire plan and follow all of its instructions.” This statement about implementation has led to much scholarly debate about proper interpretation. Some consider the plan to On the date of the vision, cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 1– 24, 29, and idem, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 511–513. Block firmly dates the destruction of Jerusalem to 586, and dates the book’s closing vision to 573. 40

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

131

be essentially rhetorical, designed to shame the intended audience into obedience rather than to prescribe a literal plan for building a new temple in the homeland: The precision in the measurements, the presence and size of the gateways, the emphasis on purity, the centrality of the altar, and the strict regulations controlling access to the inner court are designed to shame (klm) Ezekiel’s exilic audience for past abuses (43:10).41

It is probably rash to conclude that because less emphasis is placed on vertical dimensions in the temple tour, the task of building a structure like the prophet describes would be impossible. Such a conclusion is based on the assumption that vertical dimensions are as important in ancient blueprints as horizontal. There may simply be less reason to worry over the details of vertical dimensions, because it is the horizontal plane that matters most for Israel to serve Yahweh properly in the future. If Yahweh truly is sovereign over Israel’s fate, as the Book of Ezekiel takes great pains to establish, then the greatest threat to Israel’s future (much like the greatest hope) is Yahweh himself, who could once again break out in judgment if Israel violates his demand for holiness. In an effort to help Israel avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, the new temple serves as a reminder that Yahweh must be approached with great caution.42 There appears to be an intrinsic connection between physical detail and moral lesson in the vision, as temporal and spatial issues are intertwined, and these are then supplemented by more technical ritual prescriptions in the editorial insertion of 43:13–46:27. In the vision proper, the prophet travels into the future to glimpse, and report back on, what that future promises for Israel’s relationship with Yahweh, but in the process, the vision teaches what the exiles must attend to in the present in order to achieve such a future. IsBlock, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 511. For a thorough treatment of the religious and social implications and intentions of this vision, cf. Kalinda Rose Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40–48 (SBL Dissertation Series 154; Atlanta: Scholars Press 1996). 41 42

132

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

rael must acknowledge and respect Yahweh’s holiness in order to avoid dishonoring the deity and ever again suffering a fate like the one they currently face. Hence, the future temple is a reminder of what was wrong with the past, and what must be right in the future. Properly understanding this lesson should lead to a response of shame on the part of the audience, both now and ever after. Shame, in this sense, serves a positive epideictic purpose; it is a sign that the audience intends to adhere to a value system that honors Yahweh appropriately. It designates the proper orientation that Israel should take in relation to their covenant patron. It includes the acknowledgment of prior guilt, the acknowledgement of Yahweh’s sovereignty, and the intention to respond in obedience to covenant obligations.43 At the end of the temple tour, the prophet witnesses the return of Yahweh, who takes up residence again in the Promised Land. The deity then charges the prophet with the duty of reporting the vision’s details to the exiles. Unlike the vision of 8–11, there is no indication that the prophet returns to report to the exiles what he has seen, but the text itself fulfills this purpose for future generations. In fact, there is no formal conclusion to the vision report whatsoever. The vision simply ends in 48:35 with Yahweh’s message that the new Jerusalem will be named “Yahweh is there.” This lack of a formal ending is designed to keep the audience looking forward to the hope of Israel’s full restoration as Yahweh’s covenant people. Block points out the importance of the location of the vision in relation to its larger literary context, as well as the importance of the date formula immediately prior to the vision report. The date coincides with the annual Babylonian New Year festival, and therefore: Functions polemically against pagan notions of the supremacy of Marduk as celebrated in the akītu festival. Many in Ezekiel’s audience had undoubtedly been enamored by these festivities, Understood this way, shame functions in Ezekiel analogously to the recognition formula “then they will know that I am Yahweh.” Both have to do with acknowledging Yahweh’s sovereignty over Israel. 43

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

133

especially in the wake of Yahweh’s failure to defend them … this prophecy proclaims anew the reign and rule of Yahweh.44

By placing the vision of 40:1–43:12 immediately after the ultimate victory of Yahweh over foreign nations in 38–39 in MT Ezekiel, Yahweh’s taking up residence in his new temple “aligns these prophecies with the Baal and Marduk myths, which have the residence for the deity built after major victories over the enemies.”45 This suggests that the particular rhetorical arrangement of Chs. 38–48 in the MT provides an eschatological sequence of events including the return of Israelite exiles to the Promised Land, the ultimate defeat of Israel’s enemies, and the eternal dwelling of Yahweh with his people. In an extremely creative way, the closing chapters of Ezekiel incorporate the Chaoskampf pattern demonstrated most clearly in the Baal Cycle, where Baal triumphs over Prince Yam and then builds his own temple.46 Here, MT Ezekiel uses a variation of this pattern to project a glorious future for the Israelite people, a future secured by Yahweh’s final defeat of the enemy nations. This event will redeem his honor in the eyes of all onlookers, including Israel. Such a rhetorical arrangement provides a plan for the intended audience to note, preserve, and implement, and whose primary function is to emphasize Yahweh’s incomparable holiness. The people may begin, figuratively speaking, to implement the plan in the present by paying attention to it and being ashamed of their past behavior. This shame should prevent the audience from embracing idolatrous behavior ever again. Thus, while promising hope for restoration in the future, the plan also serves as a foundation for hope in the present, and as inspiration for the exilic community to transform its behavior in the present.

Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 513. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 510. 46 Cf. KTU 1.1–1.4. For an accessible, critical English translation, cf. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit. For a more thorough treatment of this pattern and its implications, cf. Susan Niditch, Ezekiel 40–48 in a Visionary Context. 44 45

134

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Finally, keeping in mind the relation between this vision and those of 1–3 and 8–11, Ezek 40:1–43:12 concludes a sequence of divine abandonment and return. Ezekiel draws upon this motif to demonstrate Yahweh’s presence in relation to his covenant people in order to explain the catastrophe of the exile and to preserve a community still in doubt about its future as Yahweh’s patrons. The sequence of events in the vision reports teaches that it was Israel’s own sin that led to her disaster, yet Yahweh, on the basis of his own honor, will still redeem his people and maintain the covenant. The motif of divine abandonment and return serves as an apology for the exile, and attempts to rebuild the ethos of the patron deity for a suffering community by simultaneously preserving the traditional identity of the deity and his earthly patrons. Rhetorical Situation of Ezekiel 40–48 What is gleaned from a rhetorical analysis of the arrangement of the vision in its larger literary context is a much clearer understanding of the perceived historical crisis it seeks to resolve, a crisis that, to a great extent, revolves around questions of divine presence, divine sovereignty, and insecurity about the people’s future. The rhetorical solution for the exiles’ most pressing problem revolves around Yahweh’s absence and/or presence and the proper way for Israel to relate to Yahweh as his people. Engendering hope for the restoration of Israel, a hope dependent upon their reconciliation with Yahweh, is at the heart of the message in Ezek 40:1–43:12. Here we find an implicit promise of renewal and return, yet one in which Yahweh’s holiness and the holiness of his people is still a central concern. Knowing Yahweh properly should lead to reverencing Yahweh appropriately. Achieving both of these will guarantee that the destructive history of the exilic period will not repeat itself, and will eventually be reversed. Such concerns suggest that the intended audience of the final vision was in need of reassurance that Yahweh really would reestablish the exiles in their homeland, and return to dwell with them as their divine patron, renewing their covenant partnership and preserving their tradition identity in the formulation of godpeople-land. These concerns would be quite understandable if, as the date formula suggests, the exiles were already at least in their fourteenth year of waiting since Jerusalem’s destruction, waiting for some visible sign of Yahweh’s real intervention on their behalf. But

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

135

the relevance would persist at least until the restoration period that began with Cyrus’s liberation of the exiles in 539 BCE. The vision teaches that a permanent residence in Babylon is not Yahweh’s long-range plan for the exilic community. Here, a full restoration of the people is imagined as necessarily involving their restoration in the Promised Land, and therefore Babylon could never compare as a long-term substitute. What is absent in the vision, and absent everywhere else in Ezekiel, may be as instructive as what is present, namely, any provision for a substitute cult of Yahweh in the Land of the Chaldeans. The text consistently treats the exile as temporary, and the future it envisions in the homeland as permanent. This suggests that the threats of cultural assimilation and loss of a distinctively Israelite identity are important aspects of the rhetorical situation lying behind Ezekiel’s visions of the future. Lest the exiles grow too comfortable with life in Babylon as they “build houses and live in them, plant gardens and eat their produce; take wives, and become the fathers of sons and daughters … multiply there and not decrease,” as the prophet Jeremiah counsels (Jer 29:4–6), Ezekiel cautions against the exiles becoming too comfortable with life in Babylon, because it is destined to pale in comparison to the life in store for them back in the tradition homeland. Rhetorical Strategies: Logos/Ethos/Pathos Ezekiel’s response to exilic despair over the potential destruction of Judean identity was to promise an ongoing relationship with Yahweh and to clarify the conditions necessary for that relationship to continue during a temporary exile. The exile itself is imagined as a process by which the rebels of Israel will be purged and the purified survivors will constitute the Israel of the future. Those who prove themselves worthy will eventually receive from Yahweh the qualities of character necessary to fulfill, long-term, his covenant demands: And I will give to them one heart, and a new spirit I will place inside of you, and I will take away the heart of stone from their flesh, and I will give to you a heart of flesh, in order that they may walk in my statues, and my judgments they may keep and fulfill; then they will be my people and I will be their God. (11:19–20)

136

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

This promise of hope, reemphasizing Yahweh’s covenant relationship with Israel, appears in the vision of divine abandonment of the homeland in Ezek 8–11 and in the vision of return in Ezek 40– 43. In the latter vision, one finds the return of Yahweh’s glory to the Promised Land and the return of the rhetoric of presence that began in the opening vision. The vision implicitly promises that Yahweh’s exile from the land, like that of the Israelite exiles, is only temporary. He will take up residence once again in a temple, and his glory will never again depart from his land or people: “this is the place of my throne and the place for the soles of my feet, where I will reside among the people of Israel forevermore” (43:7). A form of dissociative rhetoric is at work in this vision that is not unlike that found in Ezek 8–11. Here, the reader is encouraged to look ahead to dwelling in the land again, which is a subtle way of discouraging him/her from associating too much with the culture of Babylon. Just as Yahweh will return to the Promised Land, so should the exiles dwell upon the thought of return. Ezekiel does not provide a picture for the exiles of an indefinite future in Babylon, and this is indicative of a strategy to combat the increased threat of assimilation that might accompany thoughts of an indefinite stay in a foreign land. In spite of the pathetic goal of instilling hope and confidence in a future with Yahweh that is ultimately designed to retain faithfulness in the deity for the present moment, there is also a strong emphasis in Ch. 43 on shame as the appropriate exilic response to Yahweh’s glorious, holy, and faithful return. The ethical goal of building confidence in and appreciation for Yahweh for a future return is balanced by a continuing concern with the threat of idolatry. Shame becomes the sign by which the exiles may demonstrate that prior mistakes are at the forefront of their memory, and it becomes the means by which Israel may avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Shame is evoked by the very design of the future temple: You, son of Adam, describe the temple to the house of Israel, and let them be ashamed of their iniquities, and let them measure the pattern. And when they are ashamed of all that they have done, describe to them the form of the temple and its pattern and its exits and its entrances and all its design and all its ordinances. And all its form and all its laws write before

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

137

them so that you may preserve its entire plan and follow all of its instructions. This is the law of the temple, the top of the mountain around all its border is absolutely holy. Behold, this is the law of the temple (43:10–12).

The best way to understand the explicit temple measurements in the vision is not as a literal building plan. Rather, in conjunction with the priestly and princely regulations (Chs. 44–46) and the reapportionment of the land (47:13–48:29), these elements are intended to highlight Israel’s need to pay more attention to the holy nature of their god. Understanding Yahweh’s holiness and Israel’s failures in the past to appreciate Yahweh’s uniqueness should result in shame on the part of the reader, and this shame becomes the proper foundation for preserving Israelite identity now, while dwelling in a foreign land, and also in the restoration to come. In spite of sometimes providing detailed measurements, by and large the vision is idyllic. It depicts a new temple on an undisclosed Israelite mountain (40:2), a paradisiacal land (47:1–12) that will be reapportioned among the restored twelve tribes (48:1–35), a new king/prince with limited powers (44:3; 45:7–9; 16–17; 22–25; 46:2–18; 48:21–22), and a reinvigorated and dominant Zadokite priesthood (40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11). The details of the temple structure and regulations surrounding temple duties, as well as the image of a future community with the temple at its center, all suggest a priestly writer. This is consistent with the rest of the book, in which a priest-turned-prophet mediates Yahweh’s will for the exilic community. Maintaining a sense of divine sovereignty is another important piece of the text’s ethical rhetorical strategy. Just as the visions of 1–3 and 8–11 demonstrate the sovereignty of Yahweh over Israel’s past and present fate, the vision of divine return in 40–43 offers evidence that Yahweh will reign over Israel in the future. Yahweh’s abandonment, destruction, and return to the Promised Land all occur at the deity’s initiative. Yahweh is in control of his own destiny and also that of his covenant people. As seen in the opening vision, the need to establish a good reputation for Yahweh eclipses any concern over establishing a negative reputation for the exiles, and this allows the explicit references to Israel’s shame that occur for the first time in Ezekiel 16 to recur even in the closing vision of the corpus. Yahweh’s holiness,

138

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

honor, and trustworthiness are of greatest concern in Ezekiel, and the ethos-strategy of building Yahweh’s reputation is advanced by the argument of Israel’s rebellion. In spite of acknowledging Yahweh’s need to transform the people’s hearts in order to guarantee their faithfulness in the future (11:19; 36:26), for the time being, shamefulness will demonstrate one’s commitment to Yahweh. Rhetorical Synthesis The implicit logic of divine abandonment and return highlights the importance of Yahweh’s presence in the entire corpus of Ezekiel, and this logic is most apparent in the visions of chapters 1–3, 8–11, and 40–48. The deity’s initial appearance to the priest Ezekiel in 1– 3 commissions him as a legitimate mouthpiece of the deity, explains the appropriateness of the exile, and initiates an argument for the ethos of Yahweh and his prophet, which also authorizes the rhetoric of the entire book. The vision of 8–11 interprets the destruction of Jerusalem and explains Yahweh’s favor for, and presence with, the exiles. The closing vision is the culmination of Ezekiel’s promises of restoration in 34–48, and depicts the final return of Yahweh to dwell forever among his people. Despite the inclusion of all the former Israelite tribes in the vision’s image of the restored community, the so-called blueprint for the future is delivered to the exiles in Babylon, not to the Judean remnant. The idea of “Yahweh’s absence from his people/ land/sanctuary was widely recognized” as a very real “possibility” in ancient Israel’s literature.47 Interestingly, in spite of promises by Yahweh to punish Israel, even to “expel them from the land … there is no mention of abandoning them” in the covenant curses

Block, The Gods of the Nations, 134–136, incl. nn. 46–51, lists the following passages: Deut 31:6, 17–18; 32:20; 44:25 (Eng. 44:24); Josh 1:5; Jdg 6:15; 1 Sam 12:22; 1 Kgs 6:13; 8:57; 2 Kgs 21:14; Isa 2:6; 8:17; 46:1–2; 54:8; 59:2; 64:6 (Eng. 64:7); Jer 7:29; 12:7; 14:9; 23:33, 39; 48:7; 49:3; Ezek 8:12; 9:9; 39:23, 24, 29; Joel 2:17; Mic 3:4; 7:10; Ps 42:4, 11 (Eng.: 42:3, 10); 78:60; 79:10; 94:14; 104:29; 115:2; Lam 5:20; Ezra 9:9; Neh 9:28; 2 Chr 24:20. 47

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

139

(cf. Lev 26:17, 24, 28, 30, 41, 43; Deut 28).48 Block concludes that Ezekiel’s extensive development of the motif of Yahweh’s abandonment is unique among the Hebrew Bible writings, and likely draws upon the motif’s importance in the larger Mesopotamian world in which the exiled priest now found himself. 49 In a rhetorical situation whereby a people’s chief gods were expected to “fulfill functions normally carried out by human monarchs: vanquishing enemies, providing care and security, and dispensing justice,” Ezekiel’s use of divine abandonment clearly serves the purpose of theodicy.50 The typical ancient Near Eastern understanding of the relationship of a deity to its image, which was crafted by human hands, was not that the deity was strictly bound to or limited by the earthly image. Instead, there was a “paradoxical” belief “that the deity is ubiquitous, at once localized in its temple as well as ‘in heaven.’ The image in the pagan temple is literally the seat and residence of

Block, The Gods of the Nations, 136. This is significant in light of the close affinity, generally speaking, between the covenant curses and Ezekiel’s judgments against Israel. As Block suggests, Ezekiel diverges in Chs. 8–11 from the theology of the Pentateuch’s covenant curses by developing the theme of divine abandonment. However, one must not overstate the case. Yahweh does not completely or finally abandon the covenant people, the Promised Land, and the temple, as the oracles and visions of salvation make clear. But it very well may be the case, as Block further notes (136), that the importance of the motif of divine abandonment in the Mesopotamian context of the Babylonian exiles influenced the author(s) of Ezekiel into making use of this theme. Certainly, it would have served as an effective apologetic and polemical tool for a community that hoped to maintain its unique religious identity in the midst of captivity. 49 Block, The Gods of the Nations, 136. 50 Block, The Gods of the Nations, 55. Block references the following biblical texts as demonstrative of these divine duties: Ps 44:5–8 (Eng. 44:4–7); Ps 29:10–11; Ps 96:10 (= 1 Chr 16:31); 99:1; Mic 4:7. Cf. also G. V. Smith, “The Concept of God/the Gods as King in the Ancient Near East and the Bible,” TJ (1982): 18–38, esp. 33ff. 48

140

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

the deity,”51 but this need not be the only seat where the deity resides. Ezekiel affirms this in the opening vision as well as the vision of 8–11. The overarching rhetorical strategy of divine presence connects all three visions of Yahweh’s glory, while they provide a rhetorical framework for the prophetic book. Just as the elders of the Judean remnant are wrong to conclude prior to the depiction of Yahweh’s departure (11:22) that “Yahweh does not see us; Yahweh has abandoned the land” (8:12; cf. also 9:9), so the exilic remnant is wrong to conclude, in accordance with the Judean remnant’s rhetoric, that they have gone “away from the presence of Yahweh” and that the land “has been given as a [permanent] possession” to the Judeans (11:15). Yahweh decides when and where to make his presence known, and he decides the current and ultimate fate of his land and people. Ezekiel’s visions suggest a rhetorical struggle for the exiles and the Judean remnant to determine the real location of the deity, and the real object of the deity’s favor. On the one hand, the Judean temple authorities are quoted as claiming Yahweh’s absence from Judah, which seems to justify their resorting to syncretistic worship practices (8:12). On the other hand, the inhabitants of Jerusalem claim that Yahweh has sent away the exiles, which justifies Judean claims to recently vacated land holdings (11:15). Thus, within the context of the vision of 8–11, two contradictory positions on Yahweh’s presence are put forward as representing the attitudes and convictions of the Judean remnant about Yahweh’s presence and favor. Both are wrong, since the vision clarifies that Yahweh did not depart from Jerusalem until just prior to the city’s destruction, and Yahweh’s favor rests with the exiles. It is the exilic remnant that, at least for the time being, will possess the “sanctuary” of Greenberg, Ezekiel, 1–20, 196. Cf. G. E. Wright and D. N. Freedman, eds., “The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East,” in BARead I (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1961), 152–154, 159, 164, 169–171; M. Haran, “The Ark and the Cherubim: Their Symbolic Significance in Biblical Ritual,” IEJ 9 (1959): 30–38, 89– 94, originally published in ErIsr 5 (1958): 83–90; idem, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 256ff. 51

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

141

Yahweh’s presence (11:16), while the incorrect assumption that Yahweh had departed the land becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yahweh’s decision to abandon his earthly temple and attack his own people “is a motif reminiscent of [a number of] extrabiblical texts.”52 But unlike other examples, Ezekiel uniquely emphasizes the deity’s initiative to change the hearts of his “subjects” (Ezek 11:18–21), as opposed to simply having his own divine change of heart prior to returning to his shrine, or as opposed to returning in response to the piety of one or more of his patrons.53 This divine initiative preserves the idea of Yahweh’s freedom and sovereignty without eclipsing the necessity for divine justice and human obedience. The rhetorical situations of all three theophanic visions present a number of ethical (i.e., ethos-related) concerns that apparently can most effectively be assuaged by emphasis on the divine presence, which appears with power and glory, with mobility, and within a context promising both judgment and salvation. All three visions depict an active deity who moves where he pleases and who controls Israel’s destiny. In none of the visions does the deity encounter any challenge from a foreign power, least of all Babylon, and the primary concern in all three appears to be the deity’s relationship with Israel and how that relationship will manifest itself. The depiction of Israel as an untrustworthy covenant partner places the people’s ethos in juxtaposition with Yahweh’s. Israel’s ethos is characterized in the first two visions as rebellious, and therefore worthy of punishment, the first focusing on exilic Israel, and the second on the Judean remnant. But the second vision also includes a promise of ongoing divine presence for the exiles, apparently acknowledging conflict between the two Israelite communities, one in exile and one in the homeland. The vision of 8–11 clarifies where Yahweh’s favor and a genuine Israelite future rest — with the exiles. In the last vision, viewed in its entirety in 40–48, Block, The Gods of the Nations, 141, and note 74 in reference to the goddess Inanna in the “Curse of Agade” and the gods of Sumer and Akkad in the “Tukulti-Ninurta Epic.” 53 Block, The Gods of the Nations, 142, also referring the reader to Ezek 36:16–32. 52

142

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

the future Israel is imagined as having been fully restored geographically, socially, and religiously. Even the fertility of the land will be ideal (47:1–12). As stated previously, the original core of the closing vision (40:1–43:12) emphasizes the return of Yahweh’s presence to a new cultic center, and is designed to create an ethos of shame among the exiles by reminding them of Yahweh’s holiness. The vision has been expanded by the insertion of more technical legal and ritual material by a priestly writer, and closes with a much more positive emphasis on the fruitfulness of the land when Yahweh returns, the restoration of all the historical tribes, and the promise of Yahweh’s enduring presence in a new capitol city. Thus, in its final form, while still emphasizing divine presence, the vision points ahead to the full restoration of Israelite identity on the basis of deity-landtemple, and the nature of the restoration is utopian. The central argument in Ezekiel that Yahweh is still sovereign and trustworthy is rhetorically and structurally supported by the motif of divine presence, including its manifestation as a form of divine abandonment and return. 54 This is by necessity, as Kutsko poignantly explains: An effective exilic theology must (1) account for the exilic experience; (2) maintain God’s transcendence in order to provide the vehicle for God to trespass borders; (3) employ an image of God’s proximity whose sentient quality the prophet can communicate to those who have no vision. Thus, Ezekiel’s description of the divine kābôd stresses the reality of God’s absence from the Temple and his presence in the people’s midst.55

Ezekiel’s use of divine abandonment and return very closely mimics the general pattern of the motif in other ancient Near Eastern literature. It was a popular rhetorical motif, used not only to serve the propagandistic intentions of those in power, but also, in some cases, served the emotional, psychological, and even spiritual needs Cf. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, especially his summary and conclusion in 150–156. 55 Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 152. 54

RHETORIC OF DIVINE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE

143

of the powerless, or less powerful, as a means of comfort and identity preservation. This motif makes claims for order in the midst of chaos, and this order is based upon the assumption that the divine and human realms are intrinsically tied, that deities are not ultimately bound to the general vicinity of their humanly constructed images, that deities quite often turn upon their disobedient subjects for cultic and moral sin, and that a people’s very identity is bound up in their relationship with their patron deity or deities. Using the motif in a somewhat typical fashion, Ezekiel argues that the exile of Israel and the destruction of the homeland are not the end of Yahweh or his people. Instead, they initiate a new exodus and wandering period in the wilderness of the nations, in which Yahweh will be a mobile presence with the people. Just as in the original exodus event, Yahweh will eventually bring his people back home to the Promised Land, where he will once again settle down in their midst. However, the motif of return in Ezekiel promises that never again will the deity abandon his people, because he will so fully transform their character with a new heart and spirit that they will never again fail to obey his cultic and moral statutes. In addition, the newly united people will equitably share a land so prosperous that it will resemble an Edenic paradise (47:1– 12), a paradise whose borders will remain secure because the deity has already removed any threat of future invasions (cf. Chs. 38–39).

CHAPTER FIVE: RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION This chapter demonstrates that Ezek 20 is an argument for Yahweh’s ethos in response to a crisis of trust in the deity among the Babylonian exiles. Yahweh attempts to correct a misunderstanding about his sovereignty over his rebellious people that goes all the way back to the time of the original exodus event. At the center of the argument is an explicit assertion by Yahweh of his ongoing rule over Israel, the only explicit claim of this kind found in the entire corpus. One of the key rhetorical strategies in this unit is to contrast Yahweh’s consistently faithful and honorable character with Israel’s consistently unfaithful and dishonorable character. Among the extant traditions Ezekiel draws upon for its argument in Ch. 20 is the story of the exodus and Israel’s wilderness wandering just prior to their entry into the Promised Land. Ezekiel adapts this tradition in order to reimagine the history of Yahweh’s relationship with Israel, and in the process to build Yahweh’s ethos. Yahweh is depicted as a sovereign, who has always worked to correct the rebellious nature of his wayward people, albeit unsuccessfully for most of their history. The Babylonian exile is just another attempt at divine discipline that is consistent with Yahweh’s character in the past. Therefore it should not perplex the exiles, nor lead them astray. In fact, the exile was promised long ago, and that promise is now being fulfilled (20:23). Ezekiel 20’s so-called “history of Israel” is a form of judicial rhetoric designed to encourage the exiles to affirm Yahweh’s version of Israel’s covenant past and also Yahweh’s evaluation of the current crisis of exile. It builds upon and further elaborates the recurring theme found throughout Ezek 1–24 of Israel as a “rebellious house.” The argument implicitly encourages the exiles to continue identifying themselves as the people of Yahweh, but also to break with their rebellious past and avoid the urge to become like 145

146

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

other nations, worshiping worthless idols, which are referred to throughout Ezekiel as ‫ּלּולים‬ ִ ִ‫“( ג‬dung piles”), but here are explicitly called “wood and stone” (v. 32). This argument seeks to preserve Israelite identity at a time when the people’s current experience of suffering has created a great degree of cognitive dissonance. The exile has called into question a version of Israelite history and identity that was chiefly grounded in the exodus story’s depiction of Yahweh as a god who rescues Israel from captivity.1 Ezekiel 20 attempts to re-educate the exilic community concerning the expectations of Yahweh and the real nature of his character and power. Yahweh’s sovereignty extends to wherever his people reside, and he is a god of honor, justice, and consistent covenant expectations. In this new divinely initiated captivity in Babylon, Yahweh, the god of Israel’s formative history, is confronting his people once again in the wilderness (of the nations) in order to establish or re-establish a proper covenant relationship with them. In order for the parallels between the situations of Israel’s past and present to appear stronger, and in order for the exile to appear less perplexing, Ezek 20 radically alters the story of the first exodus. Here it is claimed that Israel was idolatrous and rebellious against Yahweh even before the golden calf incident of Exod 32 (cf. Ezek 20:7–8). This allows the text to argue that Israel’s behavior has consistently been rebellious and undeserving of Yahweh’s covenant protection from the beginning, yet the covenant was established and upheld nevertheless. This is because Yahweh has been consistently faithful and gracious to his elect. Therefore, Israel should repent and entrust their present and future fate to this trustworthy god.

Of course, Judahite ideology at some point in history had no problem thinking of Yahweh as a god who would send the disobedient northern kingdom of Israel into captivity through the agency of Assyria. But apparently this kind of thinking had not been seriously applied to the southern kingdom, which tended to think of itself as exceptional and therefore safe from a similar fate. Ezekiel 16 and 23 will also reinforce the idea that Judah was not exceptional in this regard, and should have learned from the example of the northern kingdom. 1

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 147 In light of this adjusted version of history, the current exile should not be interpreted as a negation of Yahweh’s sovereignty over his people or a negation of the institution of the covenant. To a great extent, it is merely history repeating itself: Israel is once again being rebellious, and Yahweh is once again disciplining them. Thus, the rhetoric of Ezek 20 represents, first and foremost, an explanation and apology for the exile that upholds Yahweh’s sovereignty over Israel’s destiny, and maintains a positive ethos for the deity as gracious and faithful to his covenant obligations in spite of Israel’s covenant infidelity.

THE EXODUS TRADITIONS AND ISRAELITE IDENTITY Bernard Batto provides a useful way of understanding the contribution of exodus traditions to ancient Israelite identity. In his work, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition, he explains the exodus as a “foundational story” that becomes “elevated to mythic proportions in such a manner as to emphasize its paradigmatic character for all subsequent generations.”2 Batto is chiefly concerned with the exodus as “an ‘event’ of suprahistorical character,” that is, a story that served to define the nature of Israel’s identity and relationship to her deity. He places most emphasis on the deliverance at the Red Sea, which he translates, on the basis of philological and cosmological evidence, as the “sea of extinction,” or the sea at the ends of the earth. Here, the exodus is understood as a creation story that consciously draws upon ancient Near Eastern creation motifs such as the “West Semitic Combat Myth about the smiting of the sea-dragon.”3

2 Batto, Slaying the Dragon, 103. For an excellent and concise treatment of the development of the exodus tradition that claims “the main outline of the Exodus story surely pre-dates both D and P,” and also addresses the notion of the exodus as “charter myth,” cf. J. J. Collins, “The Development of the Exodus Tradition,” in Religious Identity and the Invention of Tradition: Papers Read at a Noster Conference in Soesterberg, January 4–6, 1999 (edited by Jan Willem Van Henten and Anton W. J. Houtepen; STAR 3; Assen, Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum, 2001), 144–155.

148

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

In Batto’s view, based primarily upon the Song of Moses in Exodus 15, the tale of the exodus is clearly a foundational myth that explains the identity of Israel as a people created by the benevolent activity of a warrior deity (15:3), who slays the enemy dragon (i.e., Pharaoh; cf. 15:4–10), plants his people upon his holy mountain (15:17), and establishes his throne upon this mountain, from whence he will rule forever as king of the universe (15:18). 4 Batto summarizes the message of the exodus by saying, “the emergence of Israel as a people during the exodus was due to a creative act by Yahweh equal to that of the original creation of the cosmos itself.”5 For Batto, the exodus functions mythopoeically as a definitive, narrative explanation for the creation of the people Israel, and as the source from which their identity as Yahweh’s patrons derives. Another useful approach to understanding the role of the exodus story in Israel’s self-understanding, which in no way contradicts the position of Batto, is provided by Ronald Hendel in his book Remembering Abraham: Culture, Memory, and History in the Hebrew Bible, especially in his chapter “The Exodus in Biblical Memory.” 6 According to Hendel, the story of “the deliverance from Egypt is the main historical warrant for the religious bond between Yahweh and Israel,” captured most succinctly in the claim of Exod 20:2 (cf. Deut 5:6) that Yahweh is the one “who brought you [Israel] out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”7 What Hendel considers most historical about this central theme for Israelite identity is how it functions as a “collective memory.” He borrows the terminology and idea of “mnemohistory” from the recent work of Jan Assmann in his book Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism to explain the difference between history as an Batto, Slaying the Dragon, 110–113. On Batto’s approach to the socalled Red or Reed Sea, cf. idem, “The Reed Sea: Requiescat in Pace,” JBL 102:1 (1983): 27–35. 4 Cf. Batto, Slaying the Dragon, 113–114. 5 Batto, Slaying the Dragon, 116. 6 Ronald Hendel, Remembering Abraham: Culture, Memory, and History in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 57–73. 7 Hendel, Remembering Abraham, 57. 3

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 149 account of factual events and history as referring to human memory: Unlike history proper, mnemohistory is concerned not with the past as such, but only with the past as it is remembered … Mnemohistory is not the opposite of history, but rather is one of its branches or subdisciplines … Mnemohistory is reception theory applied to history.8

Hendel highlights Assman’s emphasis on “the ways a culture ‘shap[es] an identity by reconstructing its past.’”9 Rather than focus attention on certain modern historical endeavors that dedicate countless hours to the goal of “accurately” reconstructing a socalled factual chronology of the past (i.e., what really happened), the emphasis in mnemohistory is placed upon the way the past as memory influences the present and/or the future. The value of such an approach for understanding the way exodus traditions function in Ezekiel is clarified by the following comment: “A mnemohistory of the Exodus will survey history and memory to discern their mutual and interrelated traces, to see how the remembered past is constructed and reinterpreted and how collective identity hinges on the remembered past.”10 The approaches of Batto and Hendel provide useful ways to understand how Ezekiel rather freely draws upon motifs from the past, sometimes radically revising them in an attempt to salvage or reconstruct a sense of Israelite identity among the exiles. Within certain limits, the traditions surrounding Moses, the theophanies on and around Sinai/Horeb, the giving of the Law, the wilderness wandering, the revelation of the divine name, and even Israel’s idolatrous behavior during the larger exodus event, are taken up by Ezekiel and re-framed in order to argue for the continuing relevance of Yahweh for Israelite identity. Yahweh, the traditional patron deity who defined Israel’s past, will continue to shape Israel’s present and future. Jan Assmann, Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 8–9. 9 Assmann, Moses the Egyptian, 14. 10 Hendel, Remembering Abraham, 59. 8

150

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Ezekiel reflects the assumption that many of the exodus traditions are part of the collective memory of its intended audience, and as such they become useful for achieving the book’s rhetorical goals. Yet Ezekiel 20 radically revises these traditions, turning them almost exclusively into a story of Israel’s covenant failures, rather than a story of Yahweh’s deliverance, in order to alleviate a crisis of identity that arises as a result of the Babylonian exile. This coincides with a crisis of divine ethos among those people who had based their self-understanding upon notions of Yahweh as creator, warrior, protector, deliverer, and king over Israel.11 Ezekiel 20 uses exodus traditions to build Yahweh’s ethos by emphasizing the deity’s history of faithfulness in spite of Israel’s consistent unfaithfulness.

THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION (EZEK 20:1– 44) Rhetorical Unit, Translation, Arrangement, and Genre 1 And it came to pass in the seventh year, on the tenth day of the fifth month, certain men from the elders of Israel came to inquire of Yahweh, and they sat before me. 2 And the word of Yahweh came to me, saying: 3 Son of Adam, speak to the elders of Israel, and say to them, “Thus says the Lord Yahweh: Are you coming to consult me? As I live, I will not be consulted by you, says the Lord Yahweh.” 4 Judge them. Judge them, son of Adam. Make known to them the abominations of their ancestors. 5 And say to them, “Thus says the Lord Yahweh: on the day I chose Israel, I raised my hand to the seed of the House of Ja-

Apparently, the Book of Ezekiel sees no contradiction or competition between Mosaic and Davidic/Zion traditions as far as the identity of the people of Israel is concerned. 11

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 151 cob, and I made myself known to them in the land of Egypt, and I swore to them, saying, I am Yahweh, your god. 6 On that day I raised my hand to bring them out from the land of Egypt to the land that I had spied out for them, flowing with milk and honey, its beauty greater than all other lands. 7 And I said to them, each of you cast away the despicable things of your eyes, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt. I am Yahweh, your god. 8 But they rebelled against me, and they refused to listen to me. No one cast away the despicable things of his eyes, nor did any forsake the idols of Egypt. So I decided to pour out my wrath upon them to fulfill my anger upon them in the midst of the land of Egypt. 9 But I acted for the sake of my name to prevent it being profaned in the eyes of the nations, among whom they were dwelling, where I was making myself known to them before their eyes by bringing them out from the land of Egypt. 10 So I brought them out from the land of Egypt and I led them into the wilderness. 11 And I gave them my statutes, and I taught them my judgments, by which the one who obeys will find life. 12 And I also gave them my Sabbaths as signs between me and them, so they might know that I am Yahweh who sanctifies them. 13 But the House of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness. They did not walk in my statutes, and they rejected my judgments — by which the one who obeys will find life, and they grossly profaned my Sabbaths. So I resolved to pour out my wrath upon them in the wilderness to obliterate them. 14 But I acted for the sake of my name to prevent it from being profaned before the nations, before whose eyes I was bringing them out. 15 I even swore to them in the wilderness not to bring them into the land that I had granted, a land flowing with milk and honey, its beauty greater than all other lands,

152

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!” 16 Because they rejected my judgments and they did not walk in my statutes, and they profaned my Sabbaths, because their hearts went after their idols. 17 But rather than destroying them, my eye had pity upon them, so I did not obliterate them in the desert. 18 Then I said to their sons in the wilderness, do not walk in the statutes of your ancestors, and do not follow their judgments, and do not defile yourselves with their idols. 19 I am Yahweh, your god; walk in my statutes, and preserve my judgments, and practice them. 20 And sanctify my Sabbaths, and they will serve as signs between me and you to acknowledge that I am Yahweh, your god. 21 But the sons rebelled against me. They did not walk in my statutes, and they were not careful to practice my judgments, by which the one who obeys them will find life. They profaned my Sabbaths. So I resolved to pour out my wrath upon them to satisfy my anger against them in the wilderness. 22 But I turned back my hand and acted for the sake of my name to prevent it from being profaned before the nations, before whose eyes I was bringing them out. 23 I even swore in the wilderness to scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the lands, 24 because they did not practice my judgments, and they rejected my statutes, and they profaned my Sabbaths, and their eyes were following the idols of their ancestors. 25 I even gave to them statutes that were not good and judgments by which they could not find life. 26 And I defiled them with their gifts when they caused to pass through the fire every firstborn of the womb, so that I might devastate them in order that they might know that I am Yahweh.” 27 Therefore, speak to the House of Israel, son of man, and say to them, “Thus says the Lord Yahweh, even in this your ancestors blasphemed me by committing treachery against me:

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 153 28 When I brought them to the land that I had lifted my hand to give to them, they looked upon every high hill and every green tree and they offered there their sacrifices, and they offered there the provocation of their offering, and they placed there their soothing odors, and they poured out there their drink offerings. 29 And I said unto them, ‘What is the high place where you are going?’ For its name is called Bamah even to this day.” 30 Therefore, say to the House of Israel, “Thus says the Lord Yahweh, will you continue defiling yourselves in the way of your ancestors and whoring after their detestable things? 31 When you offer up your gifts to pass your sons through the fire you are defiling yourselves before all of your idols even to this day. And I am to be consulted by you, House of Israel? As I live, says the Lord Yahweh, I will not be consulted by you. 32 And what you are thinking will come to pass, it will not happen, when you say, ‘Let us be like the nations, like the tribes of the lands, serving wood and stone.’ 33 As I live, says the Lord Yahweh, surely with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out, I will be king over you. 34 And I will bring you out from the peoples and I will gather you from the lands where you were scattered among them, with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out. 35 And I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples and I will enter into judgment with you there face to face. 36 Just as I entered into judgment with your ancestors in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will enter into judgment with you, says the Lord Yahweh. 37 And I will make you pass under the rod and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant. 38 And I will purge from you the rebels and the ones transgressing against me; from the land of their sojourn I will bring

154

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!” them out, but into the land of Israel they will not go. Then you will know that I am Yahweh. 39 Now you, House of Israel, thus says the Lord Yahweh, each of you, go serve your idols, and afterwards, perhaps you will listen to me, but my holy name you will profane no longer with your offerings and your idols. 40 For on my holy mountain, the mountain height of Israel, says the Lord Yahweh, there all the House of Israel will serve me in the land; there I will accept them and there I will seek your offerings and the best portions of all your holy sacrifices. 41 As a soothing aroma I will accept you when I bring you out from the peoples and I gather you from the lands where you have been scattered among them, and I will be consecrated among you before the nations. 42 Then you will know that I am Yahweh when I bring you to the land of Israel, to the land that I raised my hand to give to your ancestors. 43 Then you will remember there your ways and all your wanton deeds by which you were defiled, and you will feel loathing in your faces on account of all the evil deeds which you committed. 44 Then you will know that I am Yahweh when I deal with you on account of my name, not according to your evil ways and according to your corrupt deeds, House of Israel, says the Lord Yahweh.”12

Like much of the material in Ezekiel, Ch. 20 exhibits a complex arrangement suggestive of editorial expansion. While the chapter The MT of Ezek 20 ends with v. 44. Thematically, the oracle against the Negev that immediately follows in the English (20:45–49) begins a new section of material containing prophecies against the southland and the lands of Israel (21:1–24:14), which serve as transitional material to the next major collection of the corpus, the oracles against the nations in 25–32. 12

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 155 includes a “survey of Israel’s history” in vv. 1–29, it is more than simply an historical review.13 Hals treats the chapter as a “threepart prophetic proof saying,” one that “comes close to being essentially a new literary type, theological reflection, albeit presented as divine speech.”14 The so-called “historical survey … serves as the reason for the three announcements in vv. 27–44,”15 all beginning with the transitional term “therefore.” While Hals’s analysis is more concerned with form-critical rather than rhetorical categories, his insights are still helpful for understanding the rhetorical arrangement of the text, which is designed to reinterpret Israel’s past and preview her future in order to say something about the present situation.16 The review of the exodus has three parts: Yahweh’s election of Israel in Egypt and their rebellion there (vv. 5–9); Yahweh’s covenant with Israel in the wilderness and their rebellion there (vv. 10–17); and Yahweh’s affirmation of the covenant with the second wilderness generation and their subsequent rebellion (vv. 18–29).17 The purpose of Ezekiel’s historical review is to force Israel’s history “into a pattern which demonstrates with almost monotonous consistency how the Lord’s gracious, life-affirming acts met first with his people’s rebellion, a key word from the call vision of Chs. 2–3.”18 Thus, “Ezekiel imposes a uniformity upon” various “phases of Israel’s history” that, according to other written sources, were “inherent[ly] differen[t],” in order to argue for an “underlying pattern of guilt and grace.”19 Yahweh’s dealings with his people are thereby presented in such a way as to emphasize consistent guilt and rebellion on Israel’s part, and consistent grace on the part of Yahweh. The “underlying” (I might say the implicit, rhetorical) purpose is to characterize Yahweh as a god who has always dealt with Israel first and foremost for the sake of his honorable name, Hals, Ezekiel, 135. Hals, Ezekiel, 136–137. 15 Hals, Ezekiel, 136. 16 Hals, Ezekiel, 135. 17 Hals, Ezekiel, 135–136. 18 Hals, Ezekiel, 136. 19 Hals, Ezekiel, 136. 13 14

156

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

just as he is doing now in the context of the exile. 20 Thus, the review of history is at least as much concerned with Yahweh’s character and ethos as it is with Israel’s. The formulaic divine “self-introduction” of Ezek 20:5b (“I am Yahweh, your god”) serves as a “capsule of what Israel’s election means, following the pattern of Exod 20:2,”21 where Israel at Sinai was formally introduced to Yahweh for the first time and given the covenant regulations of the Decalogue (in the final form of MT Exodus). This is a covenant formula designed to remind the reader, at the outset, that Israel has always belonged to Yahweh, and should have always behaved accordingly. The further use of the formula in Ezek 20:7b, 19a follows its usage in the Holiness Code of Lev 17–26 “to indicate the essential role of the commandments as markers of Israel’s belonging to the Lord.”22 Hals summarizes the significance of this formula in Ezek 20: With his [Ezekiel’s] incorporation of this self-introduction formula into the RECOGNITION FORMULA, Ezekiel enables his announcements both of judgment and of promise to serve as striking demonstration of the continuity in Yahweh’s purpose. Even further, Yahweh’s binding of Israel to himself by means of his name logically includes both the risk of the profanation of that name by Israel’s disloyalty, and Yahweh’s motivation to act “for the sake of my name.”23

Hals, Ezekiel, 136. Hals, Ezekiel, 138. 22 Hals, Ezekiel, 138. Hals, idem, 140, also notes that the references to commandments by which Israel may find life (Ezek 20: 11, 13, 21) or death (Ezek 20:25) are “vividly reminiscent of the Holiness Code in general and Lev 18:5 in particular.” 23 Hals, Ezekiel, 138. Hals, idem, 140, also sees a “link to older Pentateuchal traditions” from the influence of Exod 32:12 (“golden calf episode) on God’s concern for the honor of his name in Ezek 20. In addition, Israel’s rebellion in the wilderness (Num 13–14) can be confirmed by the use of the verb ‫ּתּור‬, “spied out,” in Ezek 20:6. Cf. George W. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness: the Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions of the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968). 20 21

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 157 Hals’s analysis of the “intention” of the text emphasizes its “historical affirmation of [Israel’s] total depravity,” which not only presents a consistent characterization of Yahweh’s people as rebellious, but also helps to highlight the contrast with the presentation of Yahweh as a consistently faithful covenant partner. 24 In addition, the depiction of Israel’s history by means of a consistent pattern of divine grace — rebellion — divine grace suggests an order to the past, which is ultimately under Yahweh’s control, a control that persists in spite of the chaos of exile. This paints the exile as simply another normal event within an ongoing pattern of divine sovereignty. Yet, it is a pattern that now needs to be broken for the sake of Israel’s future. Here, an important message is that Israel’s rebellion needs to end in order to prevent Israel as a distinct historical entity from coming to an end. An important component of this negative historical pattern is Yahweh’s attempt to use limited destruction as instruction. Just as Yahweh sought to use “bad laws” and their resulting devastation to shock Israel into recognizing its god and obeying him in the past (Ezek 20:25–26), so the devastation of the Babylonian exile is taking place by divine design in order to teach Israel the error of her ways. Unfortunately, this approach has not yet yielded the intended result of lasting repentance. In addition, as Hals recognizes, Ezek 20 has the “underlying goal” of “exalt[ing] the grace of God.”25 Rhetorically speaking, this reflects a strategy of trying to build Yahweh’s ethos. The text emphasizes the deity’s consistent patience and refusal to abandon completely his unfaithful people. But the deity’s character is depicted as longsuffering, and not simply gracious. Instead, Yahweh here explicitly describes his motivation as being primarily a concern for his own reputation. He acts for the sake of his name, sometimes punishing, sometimes rescuing.26 The implicit problem, however, is Hals, Ezekiel, 141. Hals, Ezekiel, 142. 26 Recognizing this, one must qualify Hals’s claim (Ezekiel, 143) that “the present text presents a message which is in obvious harmony with that of chs. 34–37.” In Ezek 34 Yahweh’s motivation as divine shepherd does derive from a genuine concern for the well-being of his people, but 24 25

158

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

that Yahweh finds himself in a catch-22 situation. As goes the reputation of Israel, so goes the reputation of Yahweh, who cannot continue to be known without the continued existence of a faithful people. The chapter is arranged in such a way that the review of the past provides a foundation for making claims in the present about Yahweh’s relationship to Israel. The real foundation for this relationship is Yahweh’s sovereignty, which is explicitly asserted in v. 33 (“I will be king over you”; italics mine) in the context of addressing the threat of idolatry among the exilic community (vv. 27–33). The threat is also addressed by what immediately follows: a promise of purging judgment (v. 38), and a promise of salvation for those who survive the judgment (vv. 40–44). The salvation promise emphasizes that, in the future, Israel will properly evaluate herself before Yahweh by exhibiting a sense of self-loathing (v. 43). At one point in the chapter (v. 39), in response to Israel’s seeming proclivity to abandon their patron deity for other gods, Yahweh directly addresses the exiles, encouraging them to continue rebelling in what appears to be a bit of reverse psychology: “Now you, House of Israel, thus says the Lord Yahweh, each man, go serve his idols, and afterwards, perhaps you will listen to me, but my holy name you will not profane any longer with your offerings and your idols.” The purpose of this statement is not literally intended to encourage Israel to continue rebelling. The people who have consistently exhibited rebellious behavior are here being implicitly encouraged to break with the past and pay the respect that is due to their deity, or they should simply abandon him altogether.27 Those who refuse to make a clear choice for Yahweh will be rejected, excluded once and for all from the community of the elect. A decisive break with the past is the truly desired effect. By placing Yahweh’s explicit claim to sovereignty over the exiles (v. 33) at the center of the review of the past (vv. 1–29) and the preview of the future (vv. 34–44), Yahweh’s kingship becomes the in Ezek 36:20–23, much like Ezek 20, the central concern is upholding divine honor. 27 As Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 406, has rightfully recognized, contra Hals, Ezekiel, 143, who explicitly disagrees.

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 159 fulcrum for the entire argument. Yahweh’s kingship is the very foundation for Israel’s past, and the basis on which Israel will have a future if they will acknowledge his authority over them. To do otherwise is treated as irrational, because it will only lead to further judgment (v. 36) and ultimately will lead to the rebel being cast out from the community of Yahweh’s people and they will miss out on the restoration and return to the Promised Land. In other words, the exile will serve as a purging or refining of the People of Israel. The first subunit (vv. 1–29) begins with Yahweh being consulted in the year 591 BCE by the elders of the exilic community.28 This unit is labeled a word of judgment: “Judge them, son of Adam, judge them, and make known to them the abominations of their ancestors” (20:4). Worthy of notice here is the authoritative role of the prophet in the divine evaluation of the people. The text then reveals Yahweh’s perspective of the exilic community’s faith, which is characterized as idolatrous and consistent with the faith of Israel’s ancestors. By way of contrast, the text also subtly offers an evaluation of Yahweh’s character. This is accomplished by depicting him as an honorable god who has repeatedly withheld the severest of punishment for his patrons, even though it has been much deserved. The text implies that it would be less honorable for a deity to obliterate altogether his people, even if they deserve it, rather than relent from destruction. This section is both judicial and ethical in nature. Judgment is passed here on the character of both Yahweh and Israel, and the purpose is to gain audience agreement with the appropriateness of this judgment. Israel has left Yahweh with few alternatives. Verses 30–33 more directly address the exilic situation and serve as the heart of the unit. They are the linchpins that the historical review in vv. 1–29 and the promises of judgment and salvation in vv. 34–49 revolve around. These verses suggest that the exiles either were already thinking about abandoning their patron deity to worship other gods, or they were considering creating an image of Yahweh (wood and stone) to serve as a focal point of worship for

28

Hals, Ezekiel, 138.

160

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

their community in Babylon. 29 Either way, the text considers their intentions to be idolatrous and a rejection of Yahweh’s covenant demands, especially in light of the clear emphasis on prohibiting imagistic worship in both Exod 20 and 32, which are no doubt points of reflection for this unit. Yahweh responds by reasserting his sovereignty over his people, a sovereignty he will exercise by force. The claim to “rule over” them intends to discourage the exiles from considering any course of action in Babylon other than sole fidelity to Yahweh. Ironically, the deity that is supposed to be sovereign already over the fate of his people finds himself in need of pointing out this very reality. And this, of course, begs the question, “If Yahweh is truly in control, then why does he need to point it out?”30 Apparently, Yahweh’s sovereignty is not so apparent. The nature of the exiles’ idolatry remains somewhat ambiguous in the text. Ezekiel consistently treats the worship of images as the worship of foreign gods, which Yahweh will not tolerate (cf. 14:7). It is simply an abomination to worship Yahweh in the way other nations worship, because it waters down the sense of Yahweh’s uniqueness. This is made clear in Ezek 14:1–8, which is relevant for understanding Ezek 20: Certain elders of Israel came to me and sat down before me. And the word of Yahweh came to me, saying: son of Adam, these men have taken their idols into their hearts, and placed their iniquity as a stumbling block before them; shall I let myself be consulted by them? Therefore speak to them, and say to them, Thus says the Lord Yahweh: any of those of the house of Israel who take their idols into their hearts and place their iniquity as a stumbling block before them, and yet come before the prophet, I, Yahweh, will answer those who come with the Hals, Ezekiel, 139, advises caution about too quickly accepting the hypothesis of Georg Fohrer (and Kurt Galling), Ezechiel (HAT 1; Tübingen: Mohr, 1955), 108, that, “despairing of continuing in a situation of inability to worship Yahweh in Babylon … being cut off from his temple, the elders proposed the construction of an image of Yahweh.” 30 A comment made in private communication from Mark K. George, 27 January, 2008. 29

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 161 multitude of their idols, in order that I might seize the hearts of the house of Israel, all whom are estranged from me through their idols. Therefore, say to the house of Israel, thus says the Lord Yahweh: Repent and turn away from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations. For any of those of the House of Israel, or of the aliens who reside in Israel, who separate themselves from me, taking their idols into their hearts and placing their iniquity as a stumbling block before them, and still come to a prophet to inquire of me by him, I, Yahweh, will answer them myself. I will set my face against them; I will make them a sign and a byword and cut them off from the midst of my people; and you shall know that I am Yahweh. And they will bear their punishment, the punishment of the inquirer and the punishment of the prophet shall be the same, so that the house of Israel might no longer go astray from me, nor defile themselves any more with all their transgressions. Then they shall be my people, and I will be their god, says the Lord Yahweh.

Again, in a rather ironic twist, those who make use of divine images, even if for the ultimate purpose of drawing near to Yahweh, will find themselves further away. Or, alternatively, the point is made here that one cannot worship Yahweh except as the exclusive sovereign over their fate. One cannot worship both Yahweh and other gods, the latter being typically approached (at least formally or sacrificially) in Mesopotamian religion through the use of divine images. Any use of images estranges the worshiper from Yahweh. Here in Ezek 14, as in Ezek 20, Yahweh refuses to be formally consulted by those among his people who are guilty of such idolatry. They will not receive divine assistance with such practices, even though they will receive some amount of divine guidance about the inappropriateness of such practices. In other words, this does not mean that Yahweh will not respond at all, but that he will do so on his own terms. Because they already “have become estranged” (‫ )נָ זֹרּו‬from him (14:5) as a result of their sin, Yahweh promises that the end result of such practices will be for the deity to complete their estrangement by “cut[ting] them off” (14:8), at least if they will not repent. Thus, the rhetoric uses the promise of judgment to frighten the exiles (and the intended reader) into a more faithful way of relating to Yahweh.

162

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

While a promise to separate the idolater from the rest of the community occurs in both Ch. 14 and Ch. 20 (20:38: “I will purge from you the rebels and the ones transgressing against me”), a somewhat different situation is in mind in the latter text. Yahweh’s promise of judgment in Ezek 20 occurs only after placing it in the context of Israel’s long history of sin. This clarifies why it is a just fate, and why it demonstrates Yahweh’s consistency. At the same time, Yahweh’s explicit assertion of kingship over Israel, promising to control their fate whether they obey him or not, actually suggests the very opposite reality, namely, that his influence over his exiled people is rather weak, and in need of reinforcement. Hence, the text contains strong clues as to why its ethos rhetoric is necessary. In its intended purpose, this section is predominantly ethical and deliberative. Built upon a foundation of judicial rhetoric in the previous section that evaluates both the character of Israel and Yahweh, it proceeds by further characterizing the deity as sovereign for the purpose of encouraging the exiles to avoid idolatry. Ezekiel 20:34–38 are a synthesis of judgment and promise that envisions a new exodus by which Yahweh has led Israel into the wilderness in order to purge the rebels from his people (something Yahweh is said to have done once before in the previous wilderness tradition prior to Israel entering the Promised Land, according to Deut 1:26–43).31 This will fulfill the earlier promise from 14:8 to “cut off” from Israel the idolaters among them, making them a more pure community. Verse 39 is another direct address to the Interestingly, Deut 9:4–6 explicitly states that it was not because of Israel’s righteousness that Yahweh would conquer the Canaanites and give Israel the Promised Land. Instead, it was because of the wickedness of the nations already living there, which deserved to be punished. Here in Ezekiel, however, there is more direct emphasis on the contrast between the unrighteousness of Israel and the righteousness of Yahweh. Once again, here in Ezek 20, it is not for the sake of Israel that Yahweh will act on behalf of his people, but instead of Yahweh’s chief motivation for bringing Israel again into the Promised Land being the punishment of the nations, it will be a concern for upholding the honor of the divine name. It appears, therefore, that Ezek 20 has adapted a motif found in Deut 9 to make it more relevant for an exilic audience. 31

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 163 people in which Yahweh challenges them to continue being adulterous, immediately after having promised judgment for such behavior in vv. 34–38. One encounters here a very different divine command than one finds in Ezek 14. In the earlier passage, Yahweh issues an imperative for Israel to repent and turn from their wicked ways: “Therefore, say to the house of Israel, thus says the Lord Yahweh: Repent and turn away from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations” (14:6). Here in 20:39, the deity is either resolved to accept that a number of his people simply will not repent, and should therefore be cut off, or he is trying one last strategy — reverse psychology — to encourage repentance. Rather than re-issue an explicit call for repentance, he issues a threat of punishment and sarcastically encourages the audience to continue sinning. The real intention is apparent, however, when one takes careful note of the final clause: “afterwards, perhaps you will listen to me.” It suggests that the deity’s threats are intended to be more hyperbolic than literal. Rather than cut off the people entirely, Yahweh hopes his threat of further punishment will lead to a change of heart in his people. Thus, this section is implicitly deliberative, even without issuing an explicit call for repentance. The closing section of the chapter (vv. 40–44) is a promise of salvation for the faithful. The bridge that connects the negative reinforcement of promised punishment in vv. 34–38 with the positive reinforcement of the promise of a return to the homeland to worship Yahweh in acceptable ways is the challenge of v. 39. Both promises are designed to encourage the audience to reject idolatry and return to covenant faithfulness with Yahweh, which requires the utter rejection of idolatrous forms of behavior. Verses 40–44 envision a time in the future when the faithful remnant will be gathered to the homeland and there offer a form of worship acceptable to their deity (v. 41). Yahweh will prove faithful to the promises that originally granted the Land of Israel to the ancestors of the exiles (v. 42). Yahweh’s faithfulness will be confirmed by the self-loathing of the people when they remember their wanton ways (v. 43), and the people will affirm the sovereignty of Yahweh for acting not in accordance with justice, but for the sake of his divine reputation (v. 44). This section is therefore both ethical and deliberative. It seeks to endear the audience to Yahweh

164

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

on the basis of his promises, which is ultimately designed to convince them to remain obedient. In sum, the rhetorical arrangement of Ezek 20 is designed to address an ethical and epideictic crisis in the exilic community, a community depicted as being tempted to abandon Yahweh for the worship of “wood and stone.” This crisis is addressed in narrative and prose as the elders of Israel seek to consult the deity about an unnamed issue, for which they receive an unintended response that addresses the issue Yahweh considers the real problem facing the community. While idolatry is the explicit focus of the text, the more implicit problem is Yahweh’s loss of ethos among his people. Therefore, the rhetoric in Ezek 20 is a combination of judicial, ethical, and deliberative argumentation, all with an epideictic purpose. The reader is encouraged to pass judgment on past generations of Israelites for their idolatry, pass similar judgment on the current exilic community for repeating their ancestors’ mistakes, and acknowledge Yahweh’s consistent, honorable character for his well-meaning attempts to correct his people. These judgments are intended to build a sense of respect for the deity and a willingness to entrust the future to him. Yahweh is an honorable deity, who naturally must defend the honor of his name. Concern for his honor and reputation even overrides his sense of justice, and ultimately requires him to reject the option of entirely abandoning his people. The reader is implicitly encouraged not to abandon Yahweh, who is the only dependable and reasonable guide for Israel’s future. Yahweh alone has the power to bring something positive out of the suffering reality of exile, but following Yahweh into the period of restoration will require his people to abandon entirely any behavior Yahweh deems idolatrous. Rhetorical Situation The literary setting of Ezek 20 involves an incident, dated to the year 591 BCE, in which certain elders of the Israelite community approach the prophet in order to consult with Yahweh.32 Here, as On this date, cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, 29. The nearest, previous date reference in Ezekiel is found in 8:1 at the beginning 32

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 165 in Ezek 8:1, the prophet is treated as an acknowledged representative of the deity and capable of providing a word from the divine realm, which suggests his standing as a legitimate conduit for divine communication, at least for certain leaders in the community. The particular reason for the elders’ consultation is never made explicit. Regardless, the incident becomes an occasion for the deity to critique the supposed idolatry among his people in exile. In fact, the deity is angered by the attempted consultation, and refuses to be consulted by a people who continue to practice sin. Somewhat ironically, however, Yahweh then proceeds to counsel his people, but it is unclear whether or not the message actually addresses the initial reason for the elders’ approach. Fohrer and like-minded scholars argue that the exilic community was seeking divine permission to create an image of Yahweh as a focal point for their worship in Babylon, perhaps as a temporary substitute for the Ark of the Covenant.33 It is within the realm of possibility that, in light of Ezek 20’s other references to the exodus event, the people’s desire to “be like the nations and worship wood and stone” here is supposed to represent a new golden calf-like rebellion such as the one found in Exod 32. The exiles are, in a sense, already located in the wilderness of the nations, and have already been characterized as rebellious throughout the prior 19 chapters of Ezekiel. Exodus 32 treats the creation of a golden calf as outright rebellion against Yahweh, regardless of what the image was originally intended to represent (cf. Exod 32:7–8), and Ezek 20 treats the worship of the nations (i.e., worshiping other gods through images) as equivalent to worshiping only wood and stone, although Ezekiel never clarifies why exactly this is the case. Is it because the gods of of the prophet’s vision of Yahweh’s departure from the Jerusalem temple. The earlier incident supposedly took place on September 18, 592 BCE. According to Block, idem, 29, the incident in Ezek 20 took place on August 14, 591 BCE. Both events should probably be interpreted in relation to exilic concerns surrounding the second major Babylonian incursion of the homeland in 592 BCE. But the vision of 8–11 also more specifically anticipates the later and more destructive incursion of 587/586 BCE. 33 Fohrer and Galling, Ezechiel, 108, as cited by Hals, Ezekiel, 139.

166

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

other nations do not exist? Is it because they cannot be accessed through physical images? Much like the Book of Exodus, Ezekiel leaves no room for the worship of Yahweh to involve any kind of divine image, although we might disagree about the nature and function of the Ark of the Covenant, which was supposedly designed by Yahweh himself (cf. Exod 25:8–22). Yahweh’s refusal to relinquish his divine patronage of Israel in 20:33 implicitly argues for Yahweh’s incomparability, as well as Israel’s. Because Yahweh and his patrons are not like the other gods and other nations, Yahweh will not allow himself to be worshiped like other gods without his patrons paying a heavy price. The emphasis in Ezek 20 on Yahweh’s incomparability suggests that the rhetorical crisis lying behind the text involves the need to clarify a difference between, on the one hand, the exiles and their god, and on the other hand, the foreign peoples (and perhaps their deities) among which the exiles are now living. The supposed desire by some to “be like the nations” does suggest the erosion of Yahweh’s ethos among the exiles. Some in the community are apparently considering either the outright worship of other deities or at least a worship practice in which the use of divine images would prove helpful in some way. If the latter, this might further suggest the community’s need for some concrete manifestation of the deity’s presence in order for exilic faith to continue. This would represent a situation not unlike the idolatry of Israel at Sinai in Exod 32, where the people desperately sought assurance that their god was with them in the wilderness, and therefore resorted to constructing an image for that purpose. Worthy of consideration as well is the possibility that Ezek 20 provides a clue as to how at least some portions of the corpus were intended to function for the exiles, namely, as evidence of Yahweh’s presence with the exiled community. In this sense, textual representation may have come to serve as a substitute for a cult object (i.e., Ark), moving Israel further in the direction of becoming a “people of the book” rather than a people of temple worship. For whatever reason, there is no evidence that Israelite exiles ever constructed an image of Yahweh or a temple to Yahweh in Babylon, although newly emerging documentary evidence attests that a distinct town named “The City of

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 167 Judah” eventually emerged in Babylon, where a number of Judean exiles eventually located.34 The amount of material dedicated to characterizing Yahweh as faithful and Israel as unfaithful, coupled with the explicit claim of Yahweh’s sovereignty in 20:33, suggests that Ezek 20 functions in part as a defense of Yahweh’s character and his authority over his people. In addition, the promises of judgment for the unfaithful and salvation for the faithful suggest that the rhetorical purpose of the chapter is primarily epideictic, seeking to convince the intended audience to remain faithful to Yahweh. In order to do so, the deity’s sovereignty needs to be affirmed. But this also hints at a situation where either exilic loyalty to Yahweh is in jeopardy because of a temptation to “be like the nations,” or exilic adaptation to the worship practices of the surrounding culture (for the purpose of worshiping Yahweh) is the key threat. Both could easily be understood as threatening to move the exiles closer to a practice that the text considers foreign. This situation needs to be counteracted by the affirmation of Yahweh’s continued sovereignty over his people, a sovereignty that makes assimilation impractical because it will lead to further judgment. Even though Yahweh’s sovereignty should be understood as a given, the author feels the need for his text to make the point explicit. Hence, some doubt apparently remains among the exilic community about Yahweh’s character and relevance. Rhetorical Strategies: Logos/Ethos/Pathos Ezekiel 20 exhibits the traits of three, key rhetorical strategies designed to bolster the ethos of Yahweh. These are best understood as arguments for “consistency,” “incompatibility,” and “association-dissociation,” the latter of which also incorporates what Pe-

Robert R. Wilson, “Forced Migration and the Formation of the Prophetic Literature,” By the Irrigation Canals of Babylon: Approaches to the Study of the Exile (eds. John J. Ahn and Jill Middlemas; LHB/OTS 526; New York: T & T Clark), 125–138 [129]. Cf. also L. E. Pearce, “New Evidence for Judeans in Babylon,” Judah and Judeans in the Persian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 399–411. 34

168

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

relman and Olbrechts-Tyteca refer to as the “appearance-reality pair.”35 With the first of these strategies, the character of Israel and Yahweh are, respectively, treated as either consistently unfaithful or consistently faithful. Both parties’ characters are traced from the beginning of their covenant dealings prior to the exodus from Egypt, up to the present time. Since their Egyptian captivity, the Israelites have consistently behaved in idolatrous and dishonorable ways toward Yahweh. However, Yahweh has consistently behaved in merciful and honorable ways toward Israel. A unique aspect of the treatment of Yahweh’s character in Ezek 20 is that the deity’s motivation for behaving so consistently is made explicit. Israel’s motivation is simply not addressed, perhaps because behavior is all that really matters to Yahweh, or perhaps because the text does not want to entertain the possibility that Yahweh’s people might have a legitimate reason for turning to foreign deities (e.g., Yahweh’s failure to protect or provide for them). Instead of reacting with blind justice and annihilating his unfaithful patrons, Yahweh has repeatedly chosen to be merciful in order to preserve the honor of his name (vv. 9, 14, 22, 44). In fact, the text repeatedly emphasizes that the guiding principle for Yahweh’s interactions with his people is the need to preserve or redeem his own reputation. This response by Yahweh suggests that utterly destroying one’s patrons, even for the most abominable covenant infidelities, would ultimately lead to the deity’s dishonor. As the more powerful covenant partner, the divine suzerain is constrained to act on behalf of his chosen people, even if they do not deserve such treatment. This sheds light on the purpose behind Ezek 20’s use of a strategy of consistency to characterize the history of Israel’s dealings with her god: a question or doubt has arisen concerning the dependability of Yahweh’s character in relation to the plight of the exiles. The answer in the text is to argue for consistent character on the part of two parties in need of reconciliation, pointing out that On consistency, cf. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 195, 200, 478; on incompatibility, cf. idem, 195–205; on the appearance-reality dissociation, cf. idem, 415–450. 35

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 169 only one party is in the wrong. In addition, at a time in the life of Israel when the future appears rather precarious, the exiles may place trust in the consistent nature of Yahweh’s character, which is the only sure guarantee of a better future. Understood this way, Israel’s punishment is rather light in comparison to what she deserves. However, it is designed primarily as a form of discipline, that is, to correct improper behavior, rather than merely to instill justice. Were justice alone the concern, Israel would no longer exist, according to the rhetoric of Ezek 20. As the imperative of Ezek 20:19 makes clear, Yahweh’s punishment is intended to correct inappropriate behavior: “I am Yahweh, your god; walk in my statutes, and preserve my judgments, and practice them.” Here, honor and obedience have more value to Yahweh than justice, because justice alone cannot restore or maintain Israel’s patron-client relationship with Yahweh. Yahweh’s honor is intrinsically bound to the fate of his people, such that he cannot maintain a good reputation without their survival, and without them ultimately prospering. Given these constraints, the deity promises to act on behalf of his undeserving people, not wholly without judgment, but by providing an opportunity for some faithful portion of the exilic remnant to survive the current crisis and eventually be restored. In the process, the divine reputation will be restored in the eyes of the faithful remnant, as well as the eyes of the nations. Another key strategy in Ezek 20 involves an incompatibility argument that, while implied by the strategy of consistency, receives an acute focus in relation to the exilic community’s idolatry. This strategy intends to make clear to the exiles that the practice of consultation with Yahweh is simply incompatible with other, idolatrous practices, and therefore is unacceptable. Yahweh is incomparable, and should be treated as such. Worshiping him alongside other deities, or through practices by which foreign nations approach their gods (i.e., through divine images), is simply unacceptable. It is too risky for Yahweh to allow this, as religious assimilation to Babylonian society poses a threat to Israel’s unique identity as the exclusive covenant people of Yahweh. Therefore, Yahweh promises to purge the rebels from among his people (v. 38), just as he purged the rebels from Israel long ago in the wilderness wandering of the original exodus.

170

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

The incompatibility strategy is made most explicit in Ezek 20:31 where Yahweh states in no uncertain terms: When you offer up your gifts to pass your sons through the fire you are defiling yourselves before all of your idols even to this day. And I am to be consulted [italics mine] by you, House of Israel? As I live, says the Lord Yahweh, I will not be consulted by you.

Here, Yahweh makes clear that Israel must choose between proper relations with him or being cut off completely from his counsel. The exiles cannot blend their worship of Yahweh with foreign practices. The oath “as I live” represents the highest foundation upon which Yahweh may swear. Because the oath is based upon the deity’s own life, it implies for the sake of any doubters that Yahweh is alive and well, capable of fulfilling his vows and determining his people’s fate. This language hints at a third rhetorical strategy in the passage, the appearance-reality pair. The exiles who originally receive Yahweh’s oracle appear to have serious doubts about the deity’s ability to provide for their needs in exile, and about the practicality of exclusively worshiping a god who would allow them to wind up in captivity in a foreign land. In their despair and disillusionment, they apparently propose to “be like the other nations” and “worship wood and stone” (v. 32). Yahweh’s response is to deny them the opportunity to follow through with such behavior, while thinking of themselves as the people of Israel, because the result will be their expulsion from the covenant community. Verse 33 implies that they do not have any reasonable choice except to become faithful to Yahweh on Yahweh’s own terms, because their failure to do so will only result in further suffering. Thus, the appearance that the exiles actually have the option of “be[ing] like the nations” and worshiping “wood and stone” is not the reality, unless they are willing to be cut off completely from the source of their identity. Another use of the “appearance-reality” pair can be seen in Ezekiel’s treatment of divine images as being inherently nonIsraelite and nothing of real worth. While they may appear to be of some value to the exiles, in fact, they should be considered worthless, unclean, and outright repugnant, as seen in Ezekiel’s favorite reference to divine images: ‫ּלּולים‬ ִ ִ‫ג‬, “dung piles” (6:4, 5, 6, 9, 13; 8:10; 14:3, 4, 5, 6, 7; 16:36; 18:6, 12, 15; 20:7, 8, 16, 18, 24, 31, 39;

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 171 22:3, 4; 23:7, 30, 37, 39, 49; 30:13; 33:25; 36:18, 25; 37:23; 44:10, 12).36 Thus, in the case of Ezek 20:32, Yahweh’s citation of the exiles’ decision to “be like the nations” and consciously worship things that are merely “wood and stone,” as opposed to worshiping Yahweh exclusively, may not represent a literal quote of the exiles. Instead, it may simply be a rhetorical move on the part of the rhetor (Yahweh/prophet/redactor) to establish, without even entertaining alternative explanations, that the divine images of the nations truly do represent nothing more than the inanimate materials from which they are constructed. The result is that a topic that may have represented a genuine matter for debate among the exiles, namely, the reality and/or efficacy of worshiping the images of other nations, is presented as a settled issue, in accordance with the rhetor’s convictions. Similarly, in that same literary context, the issue of whether or not the exiles really even have the option of abandoning Yahweh in order to worship “wood and stone,” is rhetorically settled when Yahweh conclusively states that “what you [the exiles] have in mind will never happen,” at least in the sense of allowing the exiles to make a permanent decision to switch loyalties. This is because Yahweh promises to exert his kingship “with wrath poured out” (20:33) upon his so-called “rebellious house,” an act that will eventually lead either to the rebels of Israel being purged from Yahweh’s patron community (20:38) or the rebels being brought back in line with Yahweh’s covenant demands (20:37). Furthermore, this use of the appearance-reality pair is part of a larger rhetorical strategy designed to accomplish the goals of association and dissociation. Ezekiel 20 has as its ultimate goal the effective dissociation of the exilic community from any kind of worship or religious loyalty that might be categorized as foreign, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 179, explain “that in the interests of his argument, a speaker will [sometimes] endeavor to get the discussion on the plane he considers most favorable to himself by modifying the status of a particular data as he finds necessary.” Ezekiel’s approach to other gods and divine images demonstrates such an approach through the labeling of all such competition as merely inanimate objects or, worse still, excrement. 36

172

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

and therefore idolatrous. Israel’s history as reviewed in Ezek 20 has been one of consistent association with things deemed foreign, and such behavior is characterized as abominable, unfaithful, and worthy of annihilation. However, the text also implicitly acknowledges that the utter destruction of Israel will be detrimental to Yahweh’s reputation, and is therefore an impractical outcome. In either case, whether Israel abandons Yahweh for other gods or Israel is annihilated by Yahweh the end result will be the destruction of traditional Israelite identity as Yahweh’s patrons, and the destruction of Yahweh’s reputation as an honorable god with any remaining worshipers. The way to avoid this outcome is for Israel to dissociate herself from any practices that threaten her unique identity as Yahweh’s people. Thus, the appearance that they may “be like the nations” is not the reality, because the apparent lack of sovereignty on Yahweh’s part is only an illusion. In reality, Yahweh still exercises authority over Israel’s fate. Together, the strategies of consistency, incompatibility, appearance-reality, and association-dissociation suggest an attempt on the part of the author to redeem the deity’s reputation among his people for the purpose of preserving their traditional faith and identity. This is accomplished by clarifying the so-called “real” story of Israel’s covenant dealings with Yahweh, the “real” account of Israel’s and Yahweh’s characters, and reasserting the deity’s sovereignty over his people. Only then will a future be secured for those who have come to know themselves, and to be known by others, as the people of Israel. By depicting a god who refuses to destroy his people in spite of their repeated failures, by promising that Israel will never “be like the nations” (v. 32), and by promising restoration to those who survive Yahweh’s purging judgment (40–44), the text hopes to encourage the reader to associate with Yahweh rather than with the gods of the nations, even as they find themselves in the wilderness of the nations. Ethos-related concerns in Ezek 20 also surface in the context of the treatment of Yahweh’s name. A great deal has been written on the so-called “name theology” of the Deuteronomistic school, a term used to designate the way the Deuteronomistic History (Dtrh) sometimes contrasts the abiding presence of Yahweh with the mere

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 173 presence of Yahweh’s name among his people.37 The most explicit references to these competing sentiments in the Dtrh are found in 1 Kgs 8:1–9:9. King Solomon affirms that while Yahweh’s name dwells in the Jerusalem temple, the deity himself looks down upon the temple from his divine dwelling in the heavenly realm.38 In various visionary sequences, Ezekiel emphasizes the glory of Yahweh dwelling in the Jerusalem temple prior to its destruction (8–11), and the glory of Yahweh dwelling in Israel’s midst in the age to come (40:1–43:12; 47:1–12; 48:35: “Yahweh is there”). However, the larger prophetic book also focuses extensively on the name of Yahweh through the repeated use of the title of address ‫אד ֹנָי יְהוִ ה‬, ֲ “Lord Yahweh,” and with various forms of the recognition formula, “Then you/they will know that I am Yahweh.” These explicit references to the Hebrew word ‫שם‬, ֵּ “name,” are chiefly reserved for speaking of Yahweh’s reputation (20:9, 14, 22, 39; 36:20, 21, 22, 23; 39:7, 25; 43:7, 8). The title “Lord Yahweh” occurs a total of 217 times in Ezekiel. No other biblical book comes close to this number of total references, with Isaiah having 23, and Amos 22. The affirmation of Yahweh’s lordship through the mere repetition of the title therefore serves as a rhetorical statement of reality. Ezekiel assumes that this title is appropriate for Yahweh, whose sovereignty is thereby

Cf., e.g., Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomium-Studien (FRLANT 58; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947), 25–30; Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies (trans. Frederick H. Cryer; ConBOT 18. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1982); Sandra L. Richter, The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: lešakkēn šemô šām in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2002); Martin Rose, “Names of God in the OT,” ABD 4:1001–1011 (1002–1004). 38 According to 1 Kgs 8:10–11, after placing the ark in Solomon’s new temple, we read: “And when the priests came out of the holy place, a cloud filled the house of Yahweh, such that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of Yahweh filled the house of Yahweh.” However, beginning with 8:14, the narrative speaks not of Yahweh’s “glory” (8:11) residing in the temple, but instead his “name.” 37

174

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

treated as a given for the reader. It is never explicitly treated as a matter for debate. The recognition formula (“then you/they will know that I am Yahweh”), which functions somewhat synonymously with the title “Lord Yahweh,” occurs at least 86 times in Ezekiel, with only slight variation, and the formula is found in all three major sections of the book.39 It is always connected to some divine action promised by Yahweh, either of a punishing or saving nature. The recognition formula affirms that Yahweh is a living, active presence in the world, who exercises sovereignty over Israel and the rest of creation. Thus, a concern for Yahweh’s reputation not only plays a pivotal role in the rhetoric of Ezek 20, but also the larger book. The total number of times that some variation of the recognition formula occurs in Ch. 20 is seven (vv. 4, 12, 20, 26, 38, 42, 44). No other rhetorical unit of comparable size in Ezekiel contains the same number of occurrences of the root ‫ידע‬, “to know.”40 The Walther Zimmerli, I Am Yahweh, 30–31, notes that a total of 86 passages in Ezekiel include a basic Qal form of the verb ‫ידע‬, “to know,” with 78 holding closely to the structure of the recognition formula. According to my reckoning, the use of some version of the recognition formula breaks down the following way for the three major sections of the prophetic corpus: Chs. 1–24: 42 occurrences; Chs. 25–32: 19 occurrences; Chs. 33–48: 23 occurrences. The bulk of the occurrences are found in sections explicitly concerned with the fate of Israel (i.e., Chs. 1–24; 33– 48). The actual number of occurrences that explicitly address Israel’s recognition of Yahweh (as opposed to the nations’ recognition of Yahweh) is 48: Chs. 1–24: 5:13; 6:7, 10, 13, 14; 7:4, 9, 27; 39:28; 11:10, 12; 12:15, 16, 20; 13:9, 14, 21, 23; 14:8, 23; 15:7; 16:62; 17:21; 20:12, 20, 26, 38, 42, 44; 22:16, 22; 23:49; 24:24, 27; Chs. 25–32: 28:24, 26; 29:16, 21; Chs. 33–48: 33:29; 34:27, 30; 36:11 (here addressing the mountains of Israel), 38; 37:6, 13, 14; 39:22, 28. 40 The oracles against Gog in Chs. 38–39, which constitute a larger rhetorical unit of 52 verses, have the same number of occurrences. The units with the most occurrences of the root ‫ ידע‬are as follows: 7 in Ch. 20 (44 vv.); 5 in Ch. 25; 5 in Ch. 28; 5 in Ch. 37; 5 in Ch. 39 (7 in Chs. 38– 39). 39

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 175 emphasis on rightly understanding Yahweh’s and Israel’s character here highlights the epideictic concern of the present unit, just as this concern pervades the entire corpus. Ezekiel strives here to use a proper understanding of Yahweh to discourage the reader from engaging in idolatrous practices, because such things cannot provide the kind of dependable future that maintaining fidelity with Yahweh can. The emphasis on the divine name in Ezekiel has much in common with its emphasis in the exodus tradition from which it derives. According to Zimmerli, Exod 6 is the first occurrence of the recognition formula in the P narrative.41 This is in the context of an appearance of Yahweh to Moses to reassure him of the promise of deliverance after the first audience with Pharaoh apparently backfires, leading to even harsher treatment of the Israelite slaves (cf. 5:1–23): Then Yahweh said to Moses, “Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh: Indeed, with a mighty hand he will let them go; with a mighty hand he will drive them out of his land.” God again spoke to Moses and said to him: “I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name ‘Yahweh’ I did not make myself known to them. I also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they resided as aliens. I have also heard the groaning of the Israelites whom the Egyptians are holding as slaves, and I have remembered my covenant. Say therefore to the Israelites, ‘I am Yahweh, and I will free you from the burdens of the Egyptians and deliver you from slavery to them. I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. I will take you as my people, and I will be your god. You will know that I am Yahweh your god, who has freed you from the burdens of the Egyptians. I will bring you into the land that I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I will give it to you as a possession. I am Yahweh.’” (Exodus 6:1–8)

41

Zimmerli, I Am Yahweh, 7.

176

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

The relationship between this passage and Ezekiel 20:5–7 is unmistakable.42 Numerous scholars have addressed what it means to “know that I am Yahweh” in the exodus tradition. As Zimmerli, Gowan, and Propp have noted, the phrase “I am X” was commonly used in the ancient Near East as a formula of self-introduction on the part of kings or deities to their subjects.43 It can serve multiple functions, including simply identifying the speaker, confirming promises or threats on the basis of the speaker’s authority, making a statement of power/authority, and serving as an oath on the part of the speaker.44 Propp believes that this introductory formula is largely synonymous with the oath statement “as I [Yahweh] live,” citing the “clustering” of the two expressions in Ezek 5:11–17; 14:4–20; 17:16–24; 20:3–44; 33:27–29; and 35:4–15.45 Greenberg notes the connection between the raising of the arm and oathtaking, as does Kohn, the latter seeing Ezek 20:28 as a borrowing of Exod 6:8.46 Levenson sees this introductory statement by Yahweh as a vital piece of the so-called “covenant formulary” in the ancient Near East, in which the preamble of a suzerainty treaty begins with the suzerain identifying himself to the vassal.47 If in fact the introductory formula “I am Yahweh” and the recognition formula both have a covenant context in mind, and the Zimmerli, I Am Yahweh, 8. Cf. Zimmerli, I Am Yahweh, 15–16; Donald E. Gowan, Theology in Exodus: Theology in the Form of a Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 82; William H. Propp, Exodus 1–18 (AB 2; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 270–271. Cf. also Moshe Greenberg, Understanding Exodus (New York: Behrman House, 1969), 130–131. 44 Propp, Exodus 1–18, 270. Cf. also Greenberg, Understanding Exodus, 130–135. 45 Propp, Exodus 1–18, 271. 46 Greenberg, Understanding Exodus, 134–135; Kohn, “‘With a Mighty Hand,’” 161, n.12. 47 Jon D. Levenson, Sinai & Zion: an Entry into the Jewish Bible (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 27. As an example, Levenson references the “Treaty between Mursilis and Duppi-Tessub of Amurru,” in ANET (3rd edition; trans. A. Goetze), 203–205. 42 43

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 177 literary contexts of Exodus 3 and 6, and Ezekiel 20, share a similar interest in the covenant, then the acknowledgment and/or recognition of Yahweh by Israel and the nations within these texts likely serves a more specific rhetorical purpose of encouraging the intended audience to acknowledge Yahweh’s sovereignty. The reader may assume the position of Yahweh’s obedient vassal by associating with those characters in the text that choose an obedient response to the deity. This way of reading both Exodus and Ezekiel is based in part upon the fact that the recognition formula in both texts usually follows some divine act that demonstrates the power of Yahweh. This power is often in conflict with, yet demonstrably superior to, the power of other nations, the latter of which function as Yahweh’s and Israel’s enemy. In both Exodus and Ezekiel, the role of obedient vassal is expected from Israel and the foreign nations, although this expectation is met with varying degrees of fidelity.48 In both books, the acknowledgment of Yahweh by the nations is a high priority (cf. Exod 7:5, 17; 8:10, 22; 9:14; 14:4, 18; Ezek 38:16, 23; 39:6, 7, 23). Ezekiel develops this by making reference to a number of specific foreign nations that need to acknowledge Yahweh’s superiority (25:5, 7: Ammon; 25:11: Moab; 35:4, 9, 12, 15: Edom; 25:17: Philistia; 26:6: Tyre; 28:22, 23: Sidon; 29:6, 9; 30:19, 25, 26; 32:15: Egypt). In addition, Ezek 21:5 reflects a concern that all the nations properly interpret the exile as an event initiated by Yahweh: “That all flesh may know that I, Yahweh, have drawn my sword” (i.e., vs. Israel). This emphasis on Yahweh’s universal sovereignty does not nullify Israel’s special covenant relationship with Yahweh, but implies that Yahweh is king of all nations, or as Roberts has phrased it, “The Great King.”49

Babylon is the only foreign nation that Ezekiel treats as faithful to its suzerain (i.e., the Great King, Yahweh), although this may not be due to a conscious choice. Israel, on the other hand, is treated as consciously choosing to be rebellious. 49 Roberts, “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition,” 340–342; idem, “Davidic-Solomonic Empire,” 94–99; cf. also Ollenburger, Zion, the City of the Great King,” 23–52; John T. Strong, “Ezekiel’s Oracles against 48

178

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Another aspect of acknowledging Yahweh in Exodus and Ezekiel may be discerned in light of Levenson’s work on the suzerainty treaty. This pertains to the way knowledge of the covenant expectations is related to obedience on the part of the vassal. In the ancient Near East, this is typically made explicit in the recitation of the treaty formula when reference is made to the so-called “deposition” of the text, that is, the storage of the treaty in the possession of the vassal.50 Levenson cites a helpful example in which a suzerain explicitly states the expectation that his vassal “know” the terms of the treaty: “Furthermore, this tablet which I have set [forth] for you Ala[kšanduš], shall be re[ci]ted to you three times each year, and you Alakšanduš shall know it.”51 The goal here, of course, is not simply memorizing the terms of the treaty, but understanding and obeying them. As Levenson puts it, “One must know the treaty in order to fulfill it.”52 Thus, it is a covenant duty for the less powerful party to remember the terms of the treaty in order to be faithful to the contract. In Exodus and Ezekiel, one does not encounter recognition formulas specifically in reference to the terms of the Covenant, but rather in reference to Yahweh, the divine suzerain. However, it is still implied that knowing Yahweh will result in the vassal’s obedience, which is interpreted as exclusive allegiance to Yahweh. This is made clear by the extreme emphasis in Ezekiel on avoiding idolathe Nations within the Context of His Message” (Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1993), 44–51. 50 Levenson, Sinai & Zion, 29. 51 Levenson, Sinai & Zion, 29, citing Klaus Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings (Trans. David E. Green; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 84, who provides a partial translation of the treaty with Alakšanduš (F 5 §19, col. iii. 73–75). Levenson, idem, 29, n.15, also references Num 15:39[–40] in which Israel is commanded to “remember and do all my [Yahweh’s] commandments.” Levenson, idem, 34, goes on to suggest that Deut 31:10–13, which includes a command from Moses that a Torah recitation occur every seven years, may serve a similar role, namely, as a command for all Israel to remind themselves of the covenant stipulations. 52 Levenson, Sinai & Zion, 29.

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 179 try. It is also implied in the longer version of the recognition formula that includes the possessive phrase “your god” after “I am Yahweh.”53 The second person possessive pronoun highlights the sense of ownership that Yahweh holds over Israel. Ezekiel makes use of this longer version of the phrase at 20:5, 7. It appears to be the case then in Ezekiel that the Israelite who acknowledges Yahweh’s sovereignty may affirm this simply by saying “You are Yahweh.” In Exodus, the recognition of Yahweh’s sovereignty comes as the result of Yahweh’s mighty acts of deliverance on Israel’s behalf, including Yahweh’s punishment of those who oppose his will for Israel (i.e., Egypt). These divine actions are described as occurring through Yahweh’s exercise of his strong right arm (Exod 3:20; 6:6; 15:16). In Ezekiel, Yahweh demonstrates his sovereignty through the exercise of his strong arm in acts of punishment against his own people. Thus, Yahweh is to be recognized as sovereign in his mighty acts of judgment as well as salvation, regardless of the recipient. The goal of Yahweh’s recognition in Exodus and Ezekiel is the bolstering of the deity’s name or reputation (cf. Exod 9:13–16), but in Ezekiel there is also an emphasis on bringing the wayward vassal back into a relationship of covenant fidelity. The goal of full covenant obedience is treated in Ezekiel as something explicitly accomplished by Yahweh and primarily for Yahweh, not by and for Israel (cf. 20:34–44; 36:26–29). For Israel, such obedience is treated as unattainable without divine help. However, the calls for repentance and avoidance of idol worship in Ezek 1–24 and 33 imply that Israel, at some level, must cooperate with the deity. The way in which Yahweh exercises his sovereignty has consequences, and unavoidably becomes a basis upon which his reputation will be judged. Ezekiel 20 acknowledges this reality, which requires Yahweh to promise salvation for his people after disaster, even if they deserve annihilation. Therefore, even Yahweh’s merciful treatment of Israel usually follows from his concern for his

Cf. Exod 6:7; 16:12; 20:2; Lev 11:44; 18:2, 4, 30; 19:3, 4, 10, 25, 31, 34, 36; 20:7, 24; 23:22, 43; 24:22; 25:17, 38, 55; 26:1, 13; Num 10:10; 15:41; Deut 5:6; 29:6. 53

180

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

name (20:9, 14, 22, 44; 36:22, 32), rather than simply grace, mercy, or sympathy.54 Ezekiel 20 highlights the difficulties Yahweh encounters with managing his reputation when his covenant partner refuses to cooperate. This is because there is an honor-shame dynamic in place that limits the ways in which, and the extent to which, the divine suzerain may respond to an unfaithful vassal. Yahweh may not choose a course of action that would lead to the utter destruction of his people without simultaneously damaging further his own honor and reputation in the eyes of the nations. Thus, Yahweh’s concern for his reputation, first and foremost, necessitates that he reject the option of annihilating Israel. The implicit logic of the text is that Israel’s dishonorable behavior has left Yahweh little choice but to punish her ever more severely, including the punishment of exile, in an attempt to bring her into conformity with covenant obligations. Israel has earned her current troubles, and the only honorable and reasonable response is to repent in shame and submit to Yahweh’s authority. By demonstrating an attitude of shamefulness before Yahweh, the exiles may avoid being utterly cast out from Yahweh’s presence, and may restore both their own honor (at least to some degree) and also that of Yahweh. The text is willing to sacrifice notions of divine grace and mercy in order to establish Yahweh’s dignity and sovereignty. Any exilic disillusionment and disappointment with Yahweh’s performance as covenant protector are brushed aside by the emphasis on Yahweh’s damaged reputation. The text argues that Yahweh’s reputation has been tarnished because Israel’s continued rebellion has forced him into a situation in which he must punish them ever more severely if any sense of holiness and honor are to be maintained. If the punishment is to approximate the severity of the crime, it too must be severe. In fact, it demands annihilation, as the text repeatedly implies: “I decided to pour out my wrath upon them to fulfill my anger upon them in the midst of the land of Egypt” (v. 8); “I resolved to pour out my wrath upon them in the wilderness to obliterate them” (v. 13); “rather than destroying them, my eye had pity upon them, so I did not obliterate them in 54

Again, Ezek 34 appears to be the one exception to this rule.

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 181 the desert” (v. 17); “I resolved to pour out my wrath upon them to satisfy my anger against them in the wilderness” (v. 21). However, blind justice alone risks the potential backlash of driving one’s patrons further away and destroying one’s international reputation. This is acknowledged repeatedly in Ezek 20 with references to how the nations will view Yahweh’s actions (vv. 9, 14, 22, and 41). Apparently, a god who cannot control his own people without annihilating them is an ineffective deity. One also finds a concern with Yahweh’s reputation in the salvation-oriented material of Ezek 36:1–36. Here, in vv. 1–15, one encounters an address to the mountains of Israel in which Yahweh promises that they will no longer be accused of devouring their own people: Thus says the Lord Yahweh, because they are saying to you, “You are a devourer of people, and one who makes your nation childless,” therefore, you will not devour people again; never again will you make childless your nation. Never again will I cause you to hear the insult of the nations; and the reproach of the peoples you will not bear again. You will not cause your nation to stumble again, says the Lord Yahweh (vv. 13–15).55

This text may allude to Exodus 32, where Yahweh threatens to obliterate his own people. Ezekiel offers here a subtle commentary on the mountains as high places, that is, as sites of idol worship, where Israel was carried away from the proper worship of Yahweh. It should be noted that unlike the Exodus passage, in which Yahweh threatens to obliterate his people himself, Ezek 36 suggests that the personified mountains of Israel are the devouring force, perhaps in an effort to clarify that Yahweh is not at fault for causing the death of his people. While it may be the case that, from the perspective of the surrounding nations, the personified or even deified mountains of Israel have turned upon their own people, Ezekiel makes clear that Yahweh alone controls Israel’s destiny, and only gives Israel what she deserves, in accordance with his holy and just nature. Ezekiel also suggests that the reputation of the mountains of Israel has suffered as a result of the exile and destruction of the nation, just as Yahweh’s and the people’s reputations have suffered. This treatment of the 55

182

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

One might imagine that the charges leveled here against the mountains of Israel could also have been leveled against Yahweh for mistreating his people by sending them into exile and/or consuming them with his wrath. If one considers the personified mountains as representative of the rival deities that were worshiped upon them, Ezekiel may be understood to use the mountains of Israel in this passage as a clever way to deflect blame from Yahweh, the God of Mt. Zion, for Israel’s misfortunes. Here, ironically, the high places where rival deities were fed sacrifices are depicted as having fed upon their own worshipers. And yet, a critical reader would no doubt recognize the rhetorical inconsistency this presents in light of Yahweh’s own devouring wrath that has turned on Israel (cf. also 7:15; 11:7–11; 16:20; Ch. 21). Yahweh eventually promises to return Israel to the Promised Land in order to refute the charge of the nations that Israel’s god has either mistreated his people or in some way failed them: I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries; in accordance with their conduct and their deeds I judged them. But when they came to the nations, wherever they came, they profaned my holy name, in that it was said of them, “These are the people of Yahweh, yet they had to go out of his land.” So I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations to which they came. Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord Yahweh: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. I will sanctify my great name, which is being profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; then the nations will know that I am Yahweh, says the Lord

mountains may serve as another piece of evidence to support Block’s position that identity in the ancient world was intrinsically tied to the relationship between deity, land (here represented by the mountains), and people. Here, reputation is a more explicit concern than identity, but the two are intrinsically tied.

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 183 Yahweh, when I am sanctified among you before their eyes (36:19–23).

Once again, the motivation for the promise of salvation is centered on Yahweh’s reputation, not on divine grace. The rhetoric implies that Yahweh is not bound by any covenant obligation to rescue Israel because Israel has only received what it deserves. However, this does not ignore the very practical reality that expectations persist, from the perspective of both Israel and the nations, that a patron deity should not treat his/her people in such a harsh manner. The level of realism and practicality here is rather astounding. Yahweh must address this reality, even while arguing strenuously that he is more than fair in the treatment of his people. Hence, the deity (and the text) is forced to respond to what is apparently a very real situation of disappointment and disillusionment among the exiles in light of their deteriorating or, perhaps from their perspective, their now null and void covenant with Yahweh. The condescending attitude of the nations plays an important role in this rhetoric concerned with the ethos and morale of Yahweh and the exiles. The logic of the nations is, for all practical purposes, quite valid. There is good reason to question the feasibility of following a deity that wishes to annihilate his people, whether they deserve it or not. Ezekiel acknowledges the mocking attitude of the surrounding nations, and the damage the exile is doing to the faith of Yahweh’s people, but it responds in Ch. 20 by placing all the blame on the exiles. This is necessary to deflect attention away from any potential failure on Yahweh’s part. However, the implication is that Yahweh has good reason to worry about his reputation. While not a great deal of scholarly research has been done on the subject of honor and shame in the Hebrew Bible, some does exist, and may be supplemented by general research on the subject of honor and shame in the Mediterranean world.56 The values of The most relevant of these for our discussion are Saul M. Olyan, “Honor, Same, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and its Environment,” JBL 115 (1996): 201–218; Glatt–Gilad, “Yahweh’s Honor at Stake; Gary Stansell, “Honor and Shame in the David Narratives,” Semeia 68 (1996): 55–79; David D. Gilmore, “Introduction: the Shame of Dis56

184

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

honor and shame are pivotal for understanding the social world of the New Testament and “the Bible as a whole.”57 In one sense, shame may be understood as an emotional response to thoughts of guilt and remorse, and may be felt privately when one transgresses one’s own values, although most often it has a public or social component. That is, shame usually follows from an acknowledgement that one has violated a social expectation, especially when one’s violation is publicly made known. The saying, “Shame on X,” is an attempt to designate X as guilty and in need of acknowledging guilt and demonstrating shame or shamefulness for his/her misdeed. How one demonstrates shame or shamefulness varies from culture to culture, but it usually involves some amount of acquiescence to the value system of the larger community of which one is a part. The opposite of shamefulness is shamelessness, the latter designating a posture by which one fails to acknowledge one’s misdeeds and demonstrate the appropriate public response. Shamelessness brings dishonor or disrespect, meaning that one has failed to value the society’s expectations and in return the society refuses to value the offending individual. honor,” in Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean (ed. David D. Gilmore; Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Society, 1987), 2– 21; Gilmore, “Honor, Honesty, Shame: Male Status in Contemporary Andalusia,” in idem, 90–103; Stanley Brandes, “Reflections on Honor and Shame in the Mediterranean,” in idem, 121–134; Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts (ed. Jerome H. Neyrey; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 25–65; Jean G. Peristiany and Julian Alfred Pitt-Rivers, Honour and Shame: the Values of Mediterranean Society (The Nature of Human Society Series; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966); J. Pitt-Rivers, “The Anthropology of Honour,” in The Fate of Shechem, or The Politics of Sex: Essays in the Anthropology of the Mediterranean (Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 19; ed. J. A. Pitt-Rivers; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 1–17; J. PittRivers and J. G. Peristiany, Honor and Grace in Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). 57 Malina and Neyrey, “Honor and Same in Luke-Acts,” 51.

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 185 According to Olyan, the role of honor and shame in the Mediterranean world is to signify “relative social status,” which remains in a state of flux, as opposed to being set in stone. 58 Societies do not honor everyone equally. One of the important ways to gain honor in the ancient world is “through military victory (Exod 14:4, 17–18; 2 Kgs 14:10),” but this may also be “lost through defeat and exile, where it is replaced by shame (Isa 23:9; Nah 3:10; Lam 1:8).”59 In addition, the labeling of someone or something as either honorable or shameful often applies to covenant relationships, and may serve to highlight a covenant partner’s “conformity or nonconformity to covenant stipulations.”60 This may apply to treaties in which the partners are considered equals (i.e., parity treaties), as well as suzerain-vassal treaties, “even if the reciprocal nature of honor is not always made explicit.”61 Within a covenant setting such as that between Yahweh and Israel in the Hebrew Bible, a situation in which reciprocal honor and shame are expected, the goal of one who has been “diminished or despised by a treaty partner” is to humiliate the other. 62 This, in effect, is a means for regaining one’s own honor at the expense of the offending party. However, this is complicated somewhat by the fact that there existed a “hierarch[y]” by which the suzerain was expected to take “precedence” in receiving honor, and vassals found themselves having to “compete for position” in an honorshame system that the suzerain ultimately “controlled.”63 As a result, while the vassal was not allowed to do anything that might diminish the honor of the suzerain without this being interpreted as a covenant violation, the suzerain could in fact diminish the reputation of his vassals as long as he did not actually break any promises made to them.64 It is not reflective of a relation of parity.

Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 204. Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 204. 60 Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 205. 61 Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 205. 62 Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 206. 63 Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 206–207. 64 Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 207. 58 59

186

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Thus, there is an important role played by the public behavior of treaty members “or their representatives” in an honor-shame culture, all of which were expected to demonstrate faithfulness to treaty obligations. “Covenant relations were never static; they were maintained through the public inscription and reinscription of honor, or transformed by means of public diminishment or shaming.”65 The reason why public actions are considered so important, according to Pitt-Rivers and Peristiany, is because they “establish consensus as to ‘how things are,’” or in other words, they function as public statements about reality.66 In a very practical way then, in an honor-shame culture (at least public) actions really do speak louder than words. The ultimate purpose of shame, according to Lyn M. Bechtel, is “as a major sanction against [certain types of] behavior within society.”67 In opposition to the personal and individual role of guilt, shame is designed to modify behavior by “fear of psychological or physical rejection (lack of belonging), abandonment, expulsion, or loss of social position and relies predominantly on external pressure from an individual or group.”68 Bechtel summarizes her position with the following: In a group-oriented society people’s main source of identity comes from the group to which they belong. Consequently, Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 208. Pitt-Rivers and Peristiany, Honor and Grace, 2. 67 Lyn M. Bechtel, “The Perception of Shame within the DivineHuman Relationship in Biblical Israel,” in Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory of H. Neil Richardson (ed. Lewis M. Hopfe; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 79–92 [80]. Cf. also idem, “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming,” JSOT 49 (1991): 47–76; Margaret S. Odell, “An Exploratory Study of Shame and Dependence in the Bible and Selected Near Eastern Parallels,” in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective: Scripture in Context IV (Edited by K. Lawson Younger, Jr., et al.; Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 11; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon Press, 1991), 217–233; idem, “The Inversion of Shame and Forgiveness in Ezekiel 16.59–63,” JSOT 56 (1992): 101–112. 68 Bechtel, “The Perception of Shame,” 80. 65 66

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 187 the group is capable of exerting great pressure on individuals in order to control their behavior … The sanction of shaming functioned primarily (1) as a means of social control that attempted to repress aggressive or undesirable behavior; (2) as an important means of dominating others and manipulating social status; and (3) as a pressure that preserved social cohesion in the community through rejection and creating social distance between deviant members and the group.69

Therefore, while shame may simply represent an emotion, the act of shaming or demonstrating shamefulness represents a means by which an individual or society may designate and/or acquire honor or juxtaposed social value. Understanding the honor-shame value system is critical for recognizing the role played by the rhetoric of honor and shame in Ezekiel. The strategic use of honor and shame, which serves to diminish the social status or ethos of Israel and elevate the ethos or reputation of Yahweh, provides important clues to the rhetorical perspective from which Ezekiel was composed. The Babylonian conquest of Israel should be understood as having diminished Yahweh’s reputation in the eyes of Israel and the nations, because it represents failure on the part of Israel’s patron deity to fulfill his covenant obligations to protect his vassals. In the Mediterranean world, this would necessarily have led to Yahweh’s dishonor. Ezekiel’s response is to redeem the honor of Yahweh as suzerain by diminishing the honor of Israel as vassal, or in other words, shaming Israel by placing the blame for her situation upon her own shoulders, characterizing her as a disreputable and dishonorable covenant partner who must be punished by an honorable suzerain. This is accomplished in Ezek 20 by the rewriting of history, namely, Israel’s covenant history with Yahweh, in which Israel is now depicted as a covenant-breaker since before the exodus. Yahweh, by way of contrast, is characterized as honorable, longsuffering, and only grudgingly willing to institute the kind of severe pun-

69

Bechtel, “The Perception of Shame,” 81.

188

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

ishment that Israel has repeatedly deserved. Even so, Yahweh refuses to abolish the covenant and to abandon Israel. Ironically, the chief crisis in Ezek 20 is that now Yahweh is on the verge of being abandoned, because the exiles have so radically misinterpreted their own history. From Ezekiel’s perspective, it is not so much the course of history itself that is the problem, but an incorrect view of history that threatens both Yahweh’s identity and reputation, and also Israel’s. Ezekiel 20 represents an attempt, rhetorically speaking, to “turn the tables” on the exiles by “blaming the victim,” or more accurately, to reinterpret Yahweh as the victim, and Israel as the repeat offender. Thus, Yahweh’s honor may potentially be reclaimed here, but only at the expense of the exiles’ own sense of wounded pride. There is no room here for a mutual admission of failure by both covenant partners. This rhetoric is consistent with the assumption that “in general in the ancient Near East, people believed that if the gods were displeased with the behavior of their subjects, they would shame them in order to control their behavior, through national defeat or personal misfortune.” 70 As Bechtel further explains, once some sort of initial shaming has occurred, “one of the most prevalent impulses for a shamed person is to take revenge through counter-shaming to ‘save face’ as vindication for humiliation … By ‘getting back’ at the offender, the shamed person’s wounded pride is restored and there is a reversal of [social] positions.”71 Again, this suggests that Ezek 20 and other related passages emphasizing Yahweh’s reputation in Ezekiel represent a rhetorical situation in which Yahweh’s or Israel’s honor may only be reBechtel, “The Perception of Shame,” 82, following M. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria and Judah in the Eighth to Seventh Centuries B.C.E. Likewise, Bechtel (idem, 82) states that, “When a nation defeated its enemies, it attributed the victory to the superior power of its own god. Its enemies were believed to have been abandoned by their god, who either had been angered at the people or had bowed to the superior power of the victorious god of the enemy.” 71 Bechtel, “The Perception of Shame,” 86, following Karen Horney, Neurosis and Human Growth: The Struggle Toward Self-Realization (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1991), 103. 70

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 189 deemed at the expense of the other covenant partner. For Ezekiel’s intended audience, the message is that Israel must assume a position of shame or shamefulness as a necessary condition for surviving as the distinct people of Yahweh. For the exiles, shame is completely appropriate, if indeed Yahweh’s version of Israel’s covenant history is accurate. In fact, shame even becomes a good thing, because is serves as a key strategy for Israel’s survival. And somewhat brilliantly, it allows a community that was likely already ashamed of their captivity to think more positively about it, because now it is reinterpreted as a necessary path forward in the relationship with Yahweh. Thus, Ezekiel reflects a rhetorical struggle over honor and shame in which, according to Ch. 20, some exiles seek to reorient their lives, and perhaps regain honor for themselves, by abandoning the deity in order to worship what they perceive as being more honorable foreign gods made manifest in “wood and stone.” Alternatively, the prophetic text seeks to honor Yahweh by reinterpreting Israel’s history as consistently dishonorable and clarifying that the gods of the nations are worthless, inanimate objects. At least prior to Yahweh’s fulfillment of his restoration promises to the exiles, the ethos of Israel and Yahweh are treated in Ezekiel as if they are necessarily in competition with one another. Both parties now vie for the upper hand in the context of an honor-shame struggle that seeks to place the blame or shame upon the other. Ezekiel argues that, for the time being, Yahweh has the moral advantage and will have to shame his people by pointing out their guilt, thereby temporarily restoring his own honor. However, he also promises that future benefits in the form of physical return and economic prosperity will be forthcoming for those who are willing to assume the role of the shamed. But Israel cannot move forward at the expense of Yahweh’s honor. In fact, according to Ezek 36:31–32 and 43:10–11, Israel should forever play a subordinate role in relation to Yahweh, even though in the eyes of the nations both covenant parties will eventually have their honor and fortunes restored. Ezekiel eventually offers a win-win situation: Yahweh will preserve his identity as Israel’s god and have his honor restored when his people become faithful and are returned to their homeland. Israel will preserve its identity as Yahweh’s patrons and have their fortunes restored when

190

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

they acknowledge their prior and current status as disobedient servants and repent of their idolatry. One should notice that such honor-shame rhetoric remains consistent throughout Ezekiel, and explains Yahweh’s motivation for acting in both punishing and saving ways toward his people. This understanding refutes any charge that Ezekiel’s rhetoric is merely a form of punishing the victim, because it clarifies that it is Yahweh’s honor, as divine sovereign, that has been, most importantly, violated. In essence, Ezek 20 argues that Yahweh is the greater victim, and the one who has suffered the most shame, because Yahweh has always been the most (or only truly) honorable party. Thus, one should interpret the amount of emphasis on establishing Israel’s shameful ethos as standing in direct proportion to the need to reestablish an honorable and faithful ethos for Yahweh. If Ezekiel’s goal is to maintain an ethos of trust among the exiles in their traditional covenant partner, then from the perspective of an ancient Mediterranean or Near Eastern value system, such a rhetorical strategy should not surprise the modern reader. Certainly, it represents a bold argument on Ezekiel’s part, but it is quite possible, if not likely, that extremely harsh times have here called forth extremely harsh theology, and appropriately bold rhetoric. Even the emphasis on shame that runs throughout the salvation sections of the book serves to uphold the honor and credibility of Yahweh, without which there would be no remaining basis at all for the exilic people to maintain faith in him, and without which the result would be the loss of identity by both covenant partners. This is a loss that the Book of Ezekiel seeks at all costs to avoid. The threat represented in Ezekiel by the lack of properly knowing Yahweh is twofold. First, the identity of Yahweh is at stake. What the text fears most is not the actual death of Yahweh, but the effectual death of the deity that may occur when there is no longer a believing community that considers this deity to be their sovereign. For Yahweh no longer to be acknowledged or worshiped is to strip the deity of the title and prestige, if not the actual power, of godhood. In a very important way then, to be an unknown or unacknowledged deity is to be no deity at all, and this is a risk that the Book of Ezekiel cannot tolerate. This also explains why an explicit claim of Yahweh’s continuing sovereignty over Israel (20:33) follows the review of Israel’s covenant failures in 20:5– 29.

RHETORIC OF THE EXODUS AND YAHWEH’S REPUTATION 191 A second threat of knowing Yahweh improperly is that a loss of faith in Yahweh on Israel’s part will result in the loss of Israel’s own identity as Yahweh’s people. Assimilation to Babylonian society would then seem to be a foregone conclusion. The southern kingdom of Israel, the text seems to fear, would go the way of the northern kingdom as a result of the prior Assyrian conquest in the late eighth century BCE. Like the ten lost tribes of Israel before them, the Judean tribes would also be lost. Thus, from the perspective of rhetorical analysis, Ezekiel’s emphasis on the divine reputation represents an epideictic rhetoric that seeks to preserve a value system that stands at the very core of both Yahweh’s and Israel’s identities. Drawing upon the recognition formula and a keen interest in the divine reputation similar to that found in the Book of Exodus — a story that begins with Yahweh having seemingly become unknown to Israel in the midst of Egyptian captivity — Ezekiel responds to a similar crisis by reasserting the sovereignty and glory of Yahweh. Ezekiel attempts to preserve Yahweh’s reputation by creating and preserving a faithful remnant that will carry on the tradition of worshiping him. And one of the key ways this is done in Ezek 20 is by redeeming Yahweh as a deity worth worshiping. In addition, Ezekiel reasserts Yahweh’s sovereignty by the way in which the deity responds to the only-apparent religious freedom of the exiles in captivity. Yahweh answers the exiles’ identityrelated question of whether they should become like the nations, and worship wood and stone, by implying that they really do not have the freedom of making such a choice, at least not without facing severe consequences. Concerns with their own identity are eclipsed in Ezek 20 when the text shifts focus to the question of “Who is Yahweh.” The answer to this question is not to describe the essence of the deity in philosophical terms, but rather to focus on the authority and power of Yahweh as witnessed through his mighty deeds in the past, and as promised for the future. Yahweh is a god whose glory and honor will be tarnished further only at the risk of yet greater judgment, such as exclusion from Israel’s eventual restoration. Rhetorical Synthesis The Book of Ezekiel, in Ch. 20 and elsewhere, uses exodus motifs in order to preserve a tradition and living community of faith in

192

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Yahweh. At the same time, it radically alters the received tradition in order to preserve the identity of the community it addresses. The exodus motifs assert the sovereignty and honor of Yahweh in the midst of, and in spite of, evidence to the contrary. They exonerate Yahweh for Israel’s misfortunes and explain Yahweh’s deeds as deriving from a long history of concern for the divine reputation, a concern that eclipses Israel’s present situation which has been brought on by her own dishonorable behavior. The appropriate response for the exiles is to replace any questioning of Yahweh’s faithfulness, and any worship of other deities, with humility and shame. Israel’s punishment is deserved, and abandonment of Yahweh will only lead to further suffering and ultimately further shame. Seen through the lens of an honor-shame value system, the rhetoric of Ezekiel is an attempt to respond to the public dishonor that both Yahweh and his people are facing as a result of the Babylonian exile. How each party responds suggests a particular stance on reality, including the reality and relevance of Yahweh’s existence. Ezekiel 20 offers its intended audience a window through which to view Israel’s covenant history in a new light. This window on the past offers an interpretation of history that seeks to erase the contradiction between appearance and reality. Instead of Yahweh being on trial before the exiles and the nations for his apparent failure to prosper his people, it is Israel that finds itself on trial before a deity whose consistently honorable behavior should not be questioned. Yahweh, the true King of Israel, will rule over his people by sheer force if necessary, in order to preserve his own reputation. Such rhetoric suggests a crisis of identity deriving from a situation in which exilic loyalty to Yahweh was significantly waning. The effectiveness of the rhetoric may be measured, in part, by the fact that a remnant of the exiles did remain loyal to Yahweh, did value the supposed rhetoric of Ezekiel enough to preserve the prophetic book, and did reject full assimilation into Babylonian society. Yahweh did remain the divine king of this remnant community, for whom his honor and authority remained intact in spite of the difficult physical, emotional, and theological challenges the exile posed for the exilic remnant.

CHAPTER SIX: RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD The focus of this chapter is the implicit role of Yahweh’s kingship in texts where the topics of paradise and the underworld are also present. Paradise and the underworld serve as metaphors in Ezekiel for designating where Yahweh’s favor or disfavor toward the nations lies. Yahweh’s authority over paradise and the underworld demonstrates his power to bless and curse, to reward and punish those who choose to obey or disobey his will. Therefore, they also demonstrate Yahweh’s sovereignty over the fate of the nations, including Israel. This chapter examines in detail two texts from Ezekiel’s OAN that contain paradise and underworld motifs, and also briefly addresses the motif of paradise in Ezek 36 and 47. In addition, Ezek 33 is treated here as the interpretive key to understanding the rhetorical function of all the material in the OAN. Paradise and the underworld are motifs that help to build the ethos of Yahweh as the Great King, who rules over all nations. They appear in the OAN in Ezek 28:11–19 and 31:1–18. Here, they function rhetorically to explain that: 1) the apparent success of neighboring nations in the midst of Israel’s political struggles is temporary and dependent upon Yahweh’s approval; 2) Yahweh’s exercise of justice is consistent; and 3) Yahweh’s sovereignty is universal. The result of these implicit arguments is that Israel’s current struggles are placed within a universal framework of divine activity by which Yahweh justly rules the entire world. Israel is being punished no more severely than Yahweh punishes other nations. Thus, the destruction of Jerusalem must be understood as only one piece of Yahweh’s judgment of the world, and not some unfair, unique punishment, nor some unique failure, on the part of Israel’s god. Understanding Ezekiel’s use of paradise and the underworld is critical for understanding the role of the OAN as a separate rhetor193

194

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

ical unit of text, but also the rhetorical role of this collection in the larger prophetic corpus. The placement of the OAN just prior to the material in Ch. 33, where vv. 21–22 announce Jerusalem’s destruction, has puzzled many scholars because the content of Chs. 25–32 seems to interrupt the central focus of Chs. 4–24 on Israel’s guilt and the coming destruction of the homeland. It is possible that in an earlier arrangement of Ezekiel, the material that ends Ch. 24, which announces Jerusalem’s coming destruction and the justification of the prophet’s status as Yahweh’s mouthpiece, was immediately followed by the material in Ch. 33 in which Jerusalem’s destruction is actually announced (vv. 21–22). This is supported by the sense of immediacy in the message of 24:21: Say to the House of Israel, “Thus says the Lord Yahweh: Behold I am profaning my sanctuary, the pride of your strength, the delight of your eyes, and the object of your longing.”

In addition, 24:27 predicts that a messenger from Jerusalem will confirm the city’s destruction, and the prophet’s mouth, which had been closed (cf. 3:26–27; 24:17, 27), will then be opened as proof of Yahweh’s sovereignty.1 Ezekiel 33:21–22 then narrates the fulfillment of these predictions, as a refugee arrives from Jerusalem and confirms the city’s fall. At this time, the prophet’s mouth is once again opened. The most logical explanation for the final form of Ezekiel is that 33:1–20, a discourse on Yahweh’s justice, was composed in conjunction with the insertion of the OAN immediately following the material in Ch. 24. Thus, the OAN are intended to demonstrate the universality and fairness of Yahweh’s judging activity, just prior to the announcement of Yahweh’s harshest judgment of Israel, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem. To date, the best explanation scholars have provided for the placement of the OAN is that by focusing momentarily on the punishment of Israel’s enemies, Chs. 25–32 offer a sort of reprieve for the reader prior to announcing the arrival of Israel’s own worst The text suggests that the prophet’s mouth was periodically closed and then re-opened when Yahweh had an official word to deliver to the exiles. 1

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

195

punishment in Ch. 33.2 Thus, they serve as an emotional buffer for the shock of hearing about Jerusalem’s destruction. Taking such an approach assumes that the Book of Ezekiel was designed to be read in a linear fashion.3 The current arrangement of the text suggests a concern for more than just topical or thematic grouping of material, such as placing all oracles against nations in one location, or all oracles of judgment or salvation in one location.4 But it is quite likely that the intended readers of the Cf., e.g., Block, Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 3, who notes that 24:25–27 “climax[es] in the specific prediction of the city’s fall,” and suggests that the book’s editors “may have felt the need for a buffer between the prophet’s harsh pronouncements of judgment in chs. 4–24 (i.e., chs. 4–24 plus ch. 33) and the hopeful oracles of chs. 34–48.” For Block, the OAN serve as “indirect messages of hope,” an idea he sees expressed most clearly in the “fragment” of 28:24–26 (an oracle of salvation for Israel) that now separates the oracles against Phoenicia from those against Egypt. 3 This position has recently been argued most eloquently by Ellen F. Davis, Swallowing the Scroll. Davis argues that the prophet Ezekiel understood the prophetic office, for the first time in Israelite history, as expressing itself primarily by delivering Yahweh’s word through the medium of text rather than just oral speech (51). In addition, Davis argues that one’s focus on the editorial history of the text should never eclipse the appropriate conclusion that the final form of the text has its own intelligibility or “meaning” (26). However, the conclusion that the final form of the text displays a rhetorical logic does not require that the prophet himself composed the entire book and arranged its final form. 4 Renz, Rhetorical Function, 93–94, lists the following purposes for the OAN: 1) “underlin[ing]” Yahweh’s sovereignty, which responds to Israel’s loss of land and Nebuchadnezzar’s actions; a theological interpretation of history 2) Yahweh will punish pride and “malice,” which “by implication, affirms the fairness and righteousness of Yahweh’s own judgement” (94); 3) foreign nations may not take possession of the land that Yahweh has emptied for the sake of Israel’s punishment; according to Renz “this prepares the ground for what is anticipated in 28:25–26, at the heart of the collection chaps. 25–32, that Yahweh will gather his people and bring them back to the land;” 4) In the oracles against Tyre and Egypt, the “nature” and “futility” of rebellion against Yahweh “is exposed;” 5) Egypt will no longer serve as a source of false or futile trust for Israel. 2

196

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

book were already well aware of Jerusalem’s destruction in 586 BCE. The real need for the reader was to explain why Jerusalem’s destruction should not undermine belief in Yahweh’s sovereignty or faith in Yahweh’s character. The reader encounters in Ezekiel a progressively unfolding argument about Yahweh’s sovereignty, in which 1–24 argues that Yahweh is justly causing the exile and destruction of the homeland in response to Israel’s sin; Ezek 25–32 clarifies that Yahweh will also justly punish the nations, over whom he is also sovereign; and Ezek 33–48 reiterates Yahweh’s justice (33) and promises Yahweh’s sovereignty over Israel’s future (33– 48). The central purpose of the OAN in their current location is to convince the reader that the same principles of justice by which Israel is being (and has been) judged will be used by Yahweh to judge all nations of the world, especially Israel’s enemies. This provides an argument not only for Yahweh’s sovereignty, but also his consistency in the enforcement of justice. The exiles should not think too unfavorably toward Yahweh for his punishment of Israel because Yahweh will similarly punish other unfaithful nations. Hence, the final arrangement primarily serves as an argument for Yahweh’s ethos. This interpretation is consistent with the rhetorical purpose of paradise and underworld traditions within the OAN, where they demonstrate Yahweh’s unequalled rule in the universe. It also explains how the OAN, together with Ch. 33, provide a theological bridge to connect the judgment material of 4–24 with the salvation promises of 34–48. Israel has a future with Yahweh, in spite of her past failures, because Yahweh is a dependable deity who will not revoke his covenant promises.

EZEKIEL’S ORACLES AGAINST THE NATIONS Israel’s immediate neighbors — Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon — treated in clockwise fashion from the perspective of a Babylonian exile looking westward (i.e., back home), are summarily addressed and condemned in Ezek 25–28.5 Following this, 5

Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 5.

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

197

the only predominant military power in the region capable of opposing Babylon head-on, namely Egypt, is addressed in 29–32. All but Egypt are treated as enemies, either because they gloated over Israel’s destruction (Ammon in 25:3; Moab and Edom in 25:8), sought vengeance for prior disputes with Israel in her hour of need (Edom in 25:12; Philistia in 25:15), or sought to capitalize on Israel’s access to commercial wealth in some fashion (Tyre in 26:1).6 Egypt is treated as an undependable ally, a false source of political hope, even though she alone withstood Babylonian intentions of conquering the entire Fertile Crescent. Regardless, in her darkest hour, Judah received little significant help from Egypt with which to oppose Babylon. Based upon the content of the OAN, is it most probable that they were at least partially composed after the destruction of Jerusalem. This is because a number of them are presented as the reactions of surrounding nations to this very event (cf. Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia in 25:1–17, although the only explicit reference to Judah’s demise is in 25:3, which mentions the sanctuary’s profaBlock, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–32, 32, believes Israel controlled vital access of overland trade routes to and from Arabia and to the Red Sea that could now be exploited by Tyre, who already dominated trade by sea in the Mediterranean. For more detail on Tyre’s commercial success in the region, cf. Martin Alonso Corral, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre: Historical Reality and Motivations (BibOr 46; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2002). Corral argues that Jerusalem’s fall most likely would have paved the way for Tyre to expand its commercial dominance of the region even further. He also argues that because Tyre’s trade was done under the “aegis” of the Phoenician deity Melqart, and new temples to Melqart were built in the expanding Tyrian colonies throughout the Mediterranean, her commercial successes expanded the reputation and worship of Melqart (140). Thus, the expansion of Tyre’s trade would have posed a theological threat to the sovereignty and superiority of Yahweh, at least in the minds of Israelites (175). Finally, Corral also discusses the extent of Tyre’s military strength, which allowed the city to withstand a siege by Nebuchadnezzar that lasted 13 years, and ended with Tyre’s acquiescence to Babylonian hegemony, rather than the city’s destruction, unlike the situation in Jerusalem (57–65). 6

198

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

nation, the land’s desolation, and the House of Judah’s exile). According to the date formulas in the OAN, the oracle of judgment against Tyre in 26:1–21, which promises Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of the city, and the oracles against Egypt in 29:1, 30:20, and 31:1, all predate the announcement to the exiles of Jerusalem’s destruction (cf. 33:21, which dates this announcement to the 12th year, 10th month, and 5th day of the exile). 7 Thus, only the oracles against Egypt in Ezek 29:17–31 and Ezek 32 are actually dated after the announcement of Jerusalem’s destruction. The date formulas themselves imply that they refer to the day on which the prophet received the oracle. These facts suggest that, in spite of a fairly consistent chronology in the date formulas throughout the first 33 chapters of Ezekiel, the final form of the book was not dictated by a desire to provide a consistent history of events leading up to or immediately after the time of Jerusalem’s destruction. A greater concern for the OAN was to place together, prior to the announcement of 33:21, Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, 28–29, sometimes emending, provides the following schema for the date formulas immediately preceding, within, and immediately following the OAN, with their historical significance and modern equivalents: Ezek 24:1 (10th yr, 10th mo, 10th day of exile = Jan 5, 587; siege of Jerusalem begins and perhaps Ezekiel’s wife dies); vs. Tyre in 26:1 (12th yr, 11th month, 1st day of exile = Feb 3, 585; Babylon’s siege of Tyre begins); vs. Egypt in 29:1 (10th yr, 10th mo, 12th day = Jan 7, 587; Pharaoh Hophra temporarily relieves siege of Jerusalem); 29:17 (27th yr, 1st mo, 1st day = April 26, 571; Babylon’s siege of Tyre ends); 30:20 (11th yr, 1st mo, 7th day = April 29, 586; siege of Jerusalem); 31:1 (11th yr, 3rd mo, 1st day = June 21, 586; siege of Jerusalem); 32:1 (12th yr, 12th mo, 1st day = March 3, 585); 32:17 (12th yr, 12th mo, 15th day = March 18, 585); 33:21 (12th yr, 10th mo, 5th day = Jan 8, 585; announcement of Jerusalem’s fall to exiles). As Corral, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre, 58, points out, the oracle in 29:17 contains the latest date referenced in the Book of Ezekiel. The first three dates of the OAN are out of chronological order, making clear that other organizational criteria have guided the final form of the collection. However, this is not to say that the historical events of 587–571 are not critical for understanding the rhetorical situation lying behind these oracles. 7

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

199

the bulk of Yahweh’s promises of judgment against Israel’s neighbors, dedicating the most space and creativity to those against Tyre and Egypt, the only two powers that successfully avoided, respectively, total destruction and conquest by Nebuchadnezzar.8 As a result of their ability to avoid military conquest by Babylon (at least for a time in the case of Tyre), these two powers enjoyed greater economic prosperity during the early sixth century than many of the smaller city-states and nations in the Levant. There appear to be two main indictments of Tyre and two main indictments of Egypt in their respective collections of oracles. The city of Tyre is personified and collectively addressed in Chs. 26–27, the latter chapter using an extensive metaphor of Tyre as a merchant ship that eventually sinks in the midst of the sea. Tyre is charged with economic exploitation and opportunism in 26:2: “Son of man, because of what Tyre is saying concerning Jerusalem, ‘Hah, the gateway of the peoples is broken; it has swung open to me; let me be filled; she is laid waste.’” At 27:3 she is charged with pride: “You have said, ‘I am perfect in beauty.’” In 27:4–25, one reads of the vastness of her trade and wealth, just prior to the announcement of her destruction in 27:26–27. What ensues in 27:28–36 is a lamentation for Tyre by many who were involved with or who benefited from her trade. The oracles against Tyre conclude in Ezek 28:1–10 and 28:11– 19, two closely connected condemnations of the leader of the city, referred to as ‫נָ גִ יד‬, “prince” or “ruler” in the first passage and ‫מ ֶלך‬, ֶ “king,” in the second. In both passages the indictment is hubris, a form of pride that leads to outright rebellion, and which appears to be a further development of the charge of pride in 27:3. Block has convincingly argued that the two passages should be treated as a single thematic unit, even though their separate “word event” forCf. Corral, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre, 7, places Tyre and Egypt “in the same category of undefeated states,” in spite of the fact that Nebuchadnezzar seems to have taken some serious amount of control over Tyre after his siege. Apparently the King of Tyre was exiled to Babylon, and Babylonian troops were garrisoned in the city from that point forward (61). Regardless, the destruction promised for the city in Ezek 26:7–14 never took place, and Ezek 29:17–19 admits as much (58). 8

200

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

mulas in 28:1, 11 and separate direct addresses to the prophet in 28:2, 12, along with separate commands to speak to the leader of the city, suggest originally separate compositions.9 The basis for Block’s argument is that: 1) both address the leader of the city; 2) both include the charge of hubris; 3) both contain “lexical links” such as the occurrence of wisdom, beauty, splendor, trade, and lifting the heart; 4) both display the conscious use of homonymous roots: ‫חלָ ל‬, ָ “one slain” (v. 8), and ‫ח ֵּלל‬, ִ “to pierce/wound” (v. 9), along with ‫ח ֵּלל‬, ִ “to profane/defile,” in vv. 7, 16, 18; ‫ש ַחת‬, ַ “pit,” in v. 8 and ‫ש ַחת‬, ִ “to corrupt,” in v. 17); 5) there is a “complementarity of genre” in 28:1–10 and 28:11–19 that mimics the doom-lament pattern of Chs. 26–27; 6) and finally, a “refrain of inevitable and permanent doom” occurs at 26:21, 27:36, and 28:19, suggesting that the collection of oracles against Tyre is designed to be read as three major units rather than four.10 While this chapter will only provide a close exegesis of 28:11–19, I share Block’s conviction that the two oracles of Ch. 28 are thematically and rhetorically synonymous in certain ways, and that both are eminently concerned with addressing the leader of the city and his hubris. But it is not completely clear that both address the same leader, since a different Hebrew term is used for the city’s ruler in each passage. Throughout the Book of Ezekiel, the text will sometimes use the term ‫ נָ ִׂשיא‬or ‫“ נָ ׅגיד‬prince” or “ruler” to refer to various kings, apparently in an effort to demonstrate that Israel should consider Yahweh alone to be the real king ruling over the nation, while the human king should be considered an earthly regent of limited authority who rules on Yahweh’s behalf. In the oracles against Egypt, the first indictment is against Pharaoh’s hubris. In 29:3, 9 he is charged with assuming the role of creator of the Nile, taking credit for all the prosperity its dependable floodwaters bring. This parallels the indictment of hubris in Ch. 31, where Pharaoh is imagined as a cosmic tree that provided, temporarily, protection for all the nations, but which grew too high and proud (v. 10). Eventually, Pharaoh will be cut down by Yahweh’s instrument of punishment (vv. 11–12), which is clarified as Baby9

Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 88. Following Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 89.

10

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

201

lon in 30:10–11 and 32:11. The charge of hubris in Ch. 31 is closely related to the second major indictment of Egypt for being an undependable source of political/military aid for Israel. Egypt functions merely as a ‫ ִמ ְש ֶענֶ ת ָקנֶ ה‬, “a staff of reed” (29:6) or a source of misplaced trust (29:16), that breaks under pressure and pierces the hand that leans upon it. In their greatest hour of need, Egypt proved to be no significant source of protection for Israel or the surrounding nations. Therefore, Egypt will be cut down by the sword (30:1–12). Egypt will also experience her own exile (30:4, 23, 26), will have her idols destroyed (30:13), and will never again have a native ‫נָ ִׂשיא‬, a human “prince/ruler” (30:13) over their land. It appears that Tyre and Egypt receive special attention in the OAN because of unusual economic and military prosperity in the wake of Babylonian hegemony in the region, and each therefore represents a unique challenge or threat to the vitality of traditional Zion theology, because Israel’s fate is so much worse. Treated here more as enemies to Israel rather than potential allies, Tyre and Egypt each defy the will of Nebuchadnezzar and the will of Yahweh who wields this foreign king as his divine sword of punishment (cf. Ezek 21). Their impudence and insolence are considered hubris, and are depicted as a conscious and willful rebellion against the Great King Yahweh. Such rebellion will be harshly punished, no less so than Israel’s own rebellion.

PARADISE LOST BY THE KING OF TYRE (EZEK 28:11–19) Rhetorical Unit, Translation, Arrangement, and Genre11 11 The word of Yahweh came to me saying: 12 Son of Adam, raise a lament over the King of Tyre and say to him, “Thus says Lord Yahweh:

Interpretation of this passage hinges to a great extent upon how one treats the two major texts, MT and LXX. I have followed the MT here with no emendation, because I believe the MT makes sense without resorting to other texts. 11

202

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!” You were a perfect seal, Full of wisdom and flawless in beauty; 13 You dwelt in Eden, the Garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering:12 Carnelian, topaz, and diamond, Tarshish, shoham, and jasper, Sapphire, ruby, and emerald; And gold was the working of your timbrels and your settings;13 On the day you were created, they were affixed upon you;14 14 You [were] an anointed cherub,15 You were the guardian; And I set you on the holy mountain of God; You stood in the midst of fiery stones; You walked back and forth; 15 You were perfect in your ways, From the day you were created, Until injustice was found in you; 16 In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned; So I will make you profane in the mountain of God, and I will

12 “Covering” in the sense of adornment, in keeping with the metaphor of jewelry in relation to the seal, which most likely refers to a signet ring (cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 99, and 103–105). 13 Here, the Hebrew ‫ּת ֶפיָך‬, ֻּ “your timbrels,” appears to derive from the root ‫ּתפפ‬, “to beat,” suggesting, as in the REB translation, “jingling beads,” (as noted in Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 100, n. 52). 14 “Affixed” in the sense of setting a stone. Cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 100. 15 Here, along with Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 100, n. 55, I treat the pronoun in ‫ את־כרוב‬as a defective form of ‫אתה‬, “you” (cf. Num 11:15 and Deut 5:24). Cf. J. Barr, “‘Thou are the Cherub’: Ezekiel 28:14 and the Post-Ezekiel Understanding of Genesis 2–3,” in Priests, Prophets and Scribes, Festschrift J. Blenkinsopp (ed. E. Ulrich, et al.; JSOTSup 149; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 213–223.

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

203

destroy you, cherub,16 The one guarding from the midst of the fiery stones; 17 Your heart grew proud because of your beauty, Your wisdom you corrupted because of your splendor; To the earth I will cast you, Before kings I will set you down, to gaze upon you;17 18 You profaned your sanctuaries because of the abundance of your iniquities along with the injustice of your trade; Thus, I will bring out fire from your midst; I will cause it to consume you; And I will turn you to ashes upon the earth, before the eyes of all who look upon you. 19 All who know you among the peoples will be appalled at you; You will become a horror and you will cease to be, forever.”18

Translation difficulties have led to a great deal of variety in the interpretation of Ezek 28:11–19. Significant differences exist between the MT and the LXX, and many arguments exist to explain which text is more original, and which should be used to emend the other. 19 I have already discussed my reasons for working primarily with the MT, but as a reminder, from the perspective of rhetorical analysis, each text has its own integrity and contains its own unique “Make profane” in the sense of “banishing” the cherub (cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 101). 17 “Set you down” in the sense of demoting the cherub from his exalted position. 18 I use “flawless” in v. 12 and “horror” in v. 19 following the JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh: The Traditional Hebrew Text and the New JPS Translation (2nd Edition; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1999) to translate ‫ ָכ ִליל‬and ‫ב ָּלהֹות‬, ַ respectively. 19 For example, T. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (CBET 25. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000), 332–356, has argued that the LXX vorlage is based upon a more ancient Hebrew text, from which the MT, for theological reasons, has diverged. 16

204

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

argument. This does not mean that the question of which text is more original does not matter. But each text will provide evidence for its own unique rhetorical situation, and in this regard, the MT is as valid a text for analysis as any other. For the sake of consistency, I have chosen to analyze the rhetoric of the MT, a text we actually possess, not a text whose existence depends upon scholars reconstructing it on the basis of a Greek text. And, since I believe the MT to be a coherent text, I have tried to limit its emendation as much as possible throughout this book. Formally speaking, Ezek 28:11–19 has four parts: 1) v. 11, the word event formula, including the divine command to “raise a lament;” 2) vv. 12–14, which describe the state of the king/cherub prior to his disobedience; 3) vv. 15–17, which blend the indictments of the king/cherub with Yahweh’s promise of punishment; and 4) vv. 18–19, which further develop the indictment and punishment, and elaborate its consequences. The temporal motif with its “then-now” or “before-after” emphasis accomplishes two purposes. It not only acknowledges the reality of Tyre’s exalted and somewhat enviable position in the Levant, but it promises that this state of affairs will not last. It therefore provides a framework for the metaphorical contrast that lies at the heart of the unit’s rhetorical strategy, a strategy that relies heavily on paradise concepts to achieve its rhetorical effect. The rhetorical unit is clearly marked by the word-event formulas of vv. 11 and 20, each of which introduces a new message from Yahweh. Despite the charge to speak a lament on behalf of the King of Tyre in v. 12, and the “then-now” emphasis of the passage, this unit serves as an oracle of judgment, not as a genuine lament.20 However, it is clearly intended to reflect, along with 28:1–10, a similar pattern to that found in Chs. 26 and 27, with the first unit (Ezek 26 + 28:1–10) serving as an oracle of judgment upon the city and king, and the second unit (Ezek 27 + 28:11–19) serving as a lament upon the city and king.21 In addition, the conclusion of the oracles against Tyre in Ch. 28 takes place in v. 19 with a phrase that occurs at the conclusion of the first two

20 21

Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 102. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 28.

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

205

major units against Tyre in 26:21 and 27:36: “you will cease to be, forever.”22 The immediately preceding oracle in 28:1–10 uses the theme of hubris, accusing the prince of Tyre of presuming to be divine (28:2). Here, the emphasis is upon the overreaching of a human leader who represents the overblown pride of his entire nation, a nation whose great wealth and wisdom have led to its taking sole credit for the great fortune it has amassed (28:5). This leader is appropriately humbled by Yahweh, which suggests that the political and economic fortunes of the foreign nations are actually controlled by Israel’s patron deity, not by the patron gods of the nations, and not by their human kings. The upstart nation of Tyre is no exception, even though in the early sixth century BCE Tyre was somewhat effectively resisting Yahweh’s appointed instrument of punishment in the person and army of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and apparently exploiting Israel economically and perhaps even militarily (cf. 26:2 and the charge of “violence” in 28:16). The close relationship between the two distinct oracles in Ezek 28 has led some to interpret them synthetically. The first is a demonstration of Yahweh’s superiority over the human ruler of Tyre, represented by the term ‫נָ גִ יד‬, “prince,” in 28:2. The second is a demonstration of Yahweh’s power over the deity Melqart, who is represented by the term ‫מ ֶלך‬, ֶ “king,” in the phrase “King of Tyre” in 28:11.23 This approach is based upon the fact that the name

Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 28. Strong, “Ezekiel’s Oracles against the Nations,” 213, following Albrecht Alt, “The Formation of the Israelite State in Palestine,” in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (trans. R. A. Wilson; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966), 171–237 (195), argues that the term ‫ נגיד‬carries in numerous texts (1 Sam 9:16, 10:1, 13:14, 25:30; 2 Sam 7:8, 21; 1 Kgs 14:7, 16:7; Isa 55:4; 1 Chr 11:2, 17:7, 28:4; 2 Chr 6:5), including Ezek 28:2, the connotation of a leader appointed by Yahweh. Alt, idem, further argues that in this context, the term ‫ מלך‬implies a human ruler selected by the people. However, this understanding of ‫ מלך‬need not apply to the oracle of 28:11–19, where Yahweh clearly creates and appoints the guardian cherub. 22 23

206

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Melqart may be translated as “King of the City.” 24 According to Ribichini, the interpretation of Ezekiel’s cherub not as the human King of Tyre, but as Melqart, “makes good sense” in light of the deity’s character as a “city god,” eventually identified with the Greco-Roman Heracles/Hercules, a hero god who triumphs over the underworld.25 In support of this interpretation, Ribichini notes the possible connection between the cherub’s adornment of precious stones in the Ezekiel oracle (v. 12) and Melqart’s clothing “brightly decorated with the stars” according to the description of Nonnos of Panopolis in a fifth century CE work (Dionysiaca, Book 40, lines 367–369; 408–423; 578–579). This work supposedly depicts Dionysios’ visit to Tyre and his encounter with the god Melqart in his temple.26 If this identification is correct, the two oracles together depict the comprehensive sovereignty of Yahweh, who rules over the earthly kings of other nations in 28:1–10, and also their patron deity-kings in 28:11–19. The oracles against Egypt, where Pharaoh functions as human king and representative of all Egypt, as well as an incarnate deity, might serve a similar purpose.27 Thus, it could

Cf. C. M. Mackay, “The King of Tyre,” CQR 117 (1934): 239–258; Jan Dus, “Melek Sōr-Melqart? (Zur Interpretation von Ez 28:11–19),” ArOr 26 (1958): 179–185; S. Ribichini, “Melqart,” DDD 563–565. Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 90, disputes this interpretation, claiming that the use of melek elsewhere in Ezekiel always refers to human kings. Not surprisingly for a form critic, Zimmerli explains the variation in title for Tyre’s ruler on the basis of the separate origin of the two oracles. 25 Ribichini, “Melqart,” DDD: 563. 26 Nonnos, Dionysiaca (vol. 3 of 3; trans. W. H. D. Rouse; LCL 313; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963). In this work, Nonnos relates Dionysos’ supposed visit to the city of Tyre and encounters with the god Melqart/Heracles in his temple. 27 Pharaoh at least, as caricatured by Ezekiel, appears to think of himself as a rival deity (cf. 29:9 “The River [Nile] is mine, for I made it”). Here, in Ezek 29:3–16 and 32:1–16, he is imagined as a sea monster, that takes credit for creating his own dwelling place. His divinity is also present 24

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

207

be that extra space and emphasis is given to Tyre and Egypt in the OAN not simply for political reasons, but also for the theological reason that both nations, in some sense, have human kings that were believed to attain a degree of divinity upon accession to the throne. However, the idea that the human king acquired some amount of divinity upon being adopted as a son by the patron deity (and ascending the earthly throne) was probably not uncommon in the ancient Near East.28 Another possibility for interpreting Ezek 28:1–10 and 11–19 synthetically is simply to say that the “king” of 28:11–19 represents the same figure as the “prince” of 28:1–10, the first oracle promising the ruler’s demise and the second oracle creatively depicting it, each having originally derived from a separate tradition.29 This is Strong’s position, based upon his understanding of the way the term ‫ נָ גִ יד‬functions elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible to represent a class of ruler specially designated by Yahweh.30 The point of using two different titles for the ruler of Tyre in the two oracles may be to highlight somewhat differently in each oracle the idea that Yahweh has the authority to appoint and remove any ruler of Tyre. This would be communicated with the term ‫ נָ גִ יד‬in 28:1–10, and

by implication in the Exodus narrative with which the composer(s) of Ezekiel appears to have been quite familiar (cf. Ch. 20 and 29:8–16). 28 Cf. K. L. Knoll, “The Patron God in the Ancient Near East,” in idem, Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: A Textbook on History and Religion (2nd edn; New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013), 182–214. 29 So also Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 90. Strong, “Ezekiel’s Oracles against the Nations,” concludes that both are the same character, but on different grounds, namely that the term ‫ נָ גִ יד‬highlights the hubris of the prince in the first oracle, since he was a divinely appointed ruler over a portion of the “Great King’s” domain. 30 Strong, Ezekiel’s Oracles against the Nations, 213. Cf. 1 Sam 9:16; 10:1; 13:14; 25:30; 2 Sam 7:8, 21; 1 Kgs 14:7; 16:7; Isa 55:4; 1 Chr 11:2; 17:7; 28:4; 2 Chr 6:5. Cf. also Alt, “The Formation of the Israelite State in Palestine,” 195; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 220–221; M. Noth, The History of Israel (rev. ed.; trans. Peter R. Ackroyd; New York: Harper and Row, 1960), 169.

208

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

with the cherub’s/king’s creation (vv. 13 and 15) and appointment (v. 14) by Yahweh in 28:11–19. The disposition of Ezekiel 28:1–10 and 11–19, like the entire collection against Tyre, is judicial and epideictic. The intended reader is encouraged to pass judgment on the economic exploitation and hubris of Tyre. Any envy toward this prosperous city-state should be dispelled when Yahweh’s just punishment is enacted. Tyre’s fall will be commensurate with her prior success. Any resentment toward this rival power should also be turned into gratitude toward Yahweh for exercising judgment against them. The paradise motif in 28:11–19 credits Yahweh with Tyre’s wealth and beauty, and suggests that Israel’s own hope for any future achievement should be grounded in their relationship with Yahweh. All of the judicial rhetoric, which works to destroy the ethos of Tyre, simultaneously works toward building Yahweh’s ethos in the eyes of the intended exilic audience. Israel’s wealthy rival will fall, never to return. Her wealth comes not simply from her own ingenuity (her “wisdom” in the previous oracle), but from the source of all creative power, Yahweh. Yahweh, whose temporary favor for this foreign nation is depicted by placing the foreign king (whether human or divine) in Yahweh’s garden, can be depended on to punish Tyre’s misuse of divinely granted blessing. Yahweh apparently wields the power to bless or curse any nation that abuses its resources, and therefore Israel’s god is implicitly treated as universally sovereign. He may also be depended on to punish those who take advantage of Israel’s current struggles, and so Yahweh is also implicitly treated as having the authority to dispense universal justice. Much like other oracles in Ezekiel’s OAN, those in Ezek 28 highlight the superiority of Yahweh over any foreign leader who opposes his will. In the larger theological environment of the ancient Near East, where it was widely assumed that all peoples had their patron deities, the ramifications of Yahweh’s punishment of a foreign king would imply superiority over that king’s own patron deity unless explicit reference was made to a foreign deity handing

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

209

his king over to another god for punishment. 31 This latter option may not be appropriate for interpreting Ezek 28, or for interpreting any portion of the prophetic book, because nowhere does Ezekiel explicitly acknowledge the existence of any foreign deity. In fact, the reference to “wood and stone” in 20:32 suggests the outright denial of the reality of other deities. Throughout the book, Yahweh is explicitly treated as the only real divine force active in the mundane realm. Correlating with this, whenever a human king tries to assume divine status for himself, such as one finds in 28:2 and 9, and 31:10, he is severely punished. Immediately following the group of oracles against Tyre are two succinct divine statements that close this collection before the oracles against Egypt begin. These are 28:20–24, a judgment against the Phoenician city of Sidon, and 28:25–26, a promise to Israel that she will one day be re-gathered to live securely in the Promised Land once those who scorned her are judged. These oracles serve multiple purposes. First, they expand on the word of judgment against Tyre to include her sister city, suggesting a comprehensive judgment against Phoenicia as a whole rather than simply one Phoenician city. Second, they act as a bridge to the Egyptian oracles. Third, they act as a foretaste of the salvation oracles that will follow in the larger corpus after the discourse on justice in 33:1–20.32 For more divine abandonment rhetoric in the ancient Near East, cf. the Marduk Prophecy (COS I: 480–481), the building inscription of Esarhaddon (COS I: 641–646; ARAB 2:242–244); the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic (cf. Peter Machinist, “Literature as Politics: The Tukulti-Ninurta Epic and the Bible,” CBQ 38 (1976): 455–482); and the Cyrus Cylinder (COS II: 314–316). 32 Interestingly, 33:1–20, immediately preceding the announcement of Jerusalem’s destruction in 33:21, emphasizes the justice of Yahweh’s actions in punishing the guilty and rewarding the righteous. It is a fitting conclusion to the judgment theme in all that comes prior in the Ezekiel corpus, especially the oracles against the nations understood, as I argue here, from a rhetorical perspective. The real issue at stake in the OAN is the faithfulness and dependability of Yahweh, who exercises universal justice and punishes all who deserve it. It is the rhetorical context for 31

210

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

In sum, the rhetorical arrangement of the OAN places special emphasis on two local and perhaps allied powers that achieved the most success in defying the hegemonic intentions of Babylon. This posed a theological problem that Ezekiel addresses with elaborate collections of oracles that explain the real position of Tyre and Egypt, and all the other nations, in relation to Yahweh. The content of the oracles, juggling political and theological concerns, may be summarized as an argument for Yahweh’s incomparability. This message complements the argument in Chs. 1–24 that Yahweh controls the fate of Israel. Thus, Yahweh’s sovereignty is seen to extend universally, not being limited merely to his patron people and the geo-political region of the Promised Land. In addition, the promise of judgment for the nations in Ezek Chs. 25–32, immediately following the promise of judgment for Israel in Chs. 1–24, suggests a further argument concerning Yahweh’s just rule as sovereign deity of the ancient Near East. Yahweh not only justly punishes Israel, but he will also punish unjust foreign nations. This attempts to lessen the cognitive dissonance experienced as a result of Israel’s demise, which Ezekiel attributes to Yahweh’s own hand. The rhetorical effect is to place Israel’s punishment as Yahweh’s elect within the context of Yahweh exercising universal justice. The purpose is to encourage the audience to trust rather than abandon this just and powerful deity, whose authority knows no bounds. Such argumentation works complementarily with that found in Ezek 20. There, Israel was told, in essence, that she really does not have the choice of abandoning her deity. Yahweh continues to rule over her as king, refusing to allow her to “be like the [other] nations … worship[ing] wood and stone” (20:32). Rhetorical Situation Martin Corral provides the most comprehensive analysis of the original historical motivation behind Ezekiel’s oracles against Tyre, properly understanding the destruction of Jerusalem as Yahweh’s righteous and just deed, and this acts as the turning point for looking ahead to Yahweh’s acts of salvation.

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

211

thoroughly analyzing the economic and political reasons for Ezekiel’s condemnations. He notes that Tyre did not participate in the revolt against Babylonian rule by the Judahite king Jehoiakim in 598/597 BCE that led to the first Babylonian invasion of Judah and the exile of the priest Ezekiel, along with Jerusalem’s other elites.33 However, the same cannot so easily be said of the revolt by Judah’s next king, Zedekiah, which apparently led to Jerusalem’s destruction in 586 BCE. According to Jer 27:3, envoys from Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon met in Jerusalem early in Zedekiah’s reign to plot a revolt against Babylon. Zedekiah was supposedly summoned to Babylon several years later to renew his loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Jer 51:59; Ezek 17:13–21), but nevertheless, he eventually followed through on rebellious intentions, and the results were disastrous. Some scholars believe Tyre and Egypt were allies during and after this time, and that the promise of help from both entities fueled Zedekiah’s hopes for a successful revolt.34 If this were the case, then not only Egypt, but also Tyre, failed to offer any significant support during Jerusalem’s greatest hour of need. Egypt did apparently send some form of aid that brought a temporary reprieve to the siege of Jerusalem (cf. Ezek 17:15; Jer 37:5), but it was not to last. Ezekiel’s oracles against Egypt emphasize this nation’s lack of dependability as an ally. However, the oracles against Tyre place more emphasis on the nation’s extensive wealth and trade, although they also charge her with the sins of hubris (28:1–10, 17) and violence (28:16). Some have suggested that Tyre ultimately maintained, to the best of its ability, a policy of neutrality, looking out for its own best interests during the tumultuous years of struggle between the powers of Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon at the turn of the sixth century and shortly thereafter.35 33 Corral, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre, 38. Cf. also H. J. Katzenstein, The History of Tyre. From the Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C.E. until the Fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 539 B.C.E. (2nd ed.; Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev, 1997), 310–311. 34 Hayes and Miller, History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 413. 35

Cf. Katzenstein, History of Tyre, 310–319.

212

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Corral considers Tyre an exceptional object of derision in Ezekiel because there is no clear evidence of her failure to be a responsible political ally for Judah, unlike Egypt (cf. Ezek 29:6–7, 16). However, commercial ties between Egypt and Tyre, which may suggest political loyalties between the two powers, could imply that Tyre was expected to assist Egypt in her efforts to liberate the besieged Jerusalem in 587/586.36 Regardless, Ezekiel explicitly focuses on Tyre’s great commercial success and strategic location, both of which provided her the ability to maintain political neutrality and even hold out militarily for quite some time against Nebuchadnezzar’s hegemonic intentions. The city was practically an island fortress, standing approximately 600 yards off the coast of Phoenicia.37 It is possible that the exiles had, to some extent, taken heart in the political successes of Egypt and Tyre, holding out hope that Babylon would weaken and fade as a dominant power in the region of Syria-Palestine. If this were the case, then Ezekiel’s promise of Corral, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre, 57–85. D. B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 442, argues that during his reign, Pharaoh Psammetichus I (664–610 BCE) controlled coastal trade, including Phoenician areas, supervising their timber production and export. However, it is difficult to gauge the exact nature and degree of Egyptian political influence during the first two decades of the sixth century. According to Corral, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre, 76, n. 40, Egypt consistently encouraged and supported Phoenician revolts against Assyria in the seventh century. Also, Corral, idem, 85–90, notes that the Phoenicians supplied Babylon with various commodities, including timber, during the sixth century. Trade relations with Babylon or Egypt does not necessarily equate to a military alliance with either nation on the part of Tyre. Furthermore, the theory that Tyre should provide direct military assistance to Egypt in an armed conflict with Babylon assumes that Tyre possessed some significant means of military aid, which may not have been the case. Ezekiel’s oracles suggest that Tyre’s primary resources lay in her shipping industry and elaborate system of trade. 37 On Tyre’s easily defended city, cf. H. J. Katzenstein, “Tyre,” ABD 6:686–690. 36

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

213

Tyre’s and Egypt’s destruction at the hands of Yahweh would serve the purpose of “counter[ing] a mood of [misplaced] optimism among the Jewish exiles” and therefore encourage the exiles to place their faith more appropriately in the power of their god. 38 But more importantly, Corral argues that the depiction of Tyre in the Book of Ezekiel, especially in 28:11–19, points to a different attitude on the part of the exiles toward this local power, namely, resentment. Babylon besieged Tyre for 13 years during the reign of King Ethbaal III (ca. 591/590–573/572), and Corral considers this the most likely “King of Tyre” that eventually appears in the official court register of Nebuchadnezzar as a conquered and deported king.39 It is also likely at this time that Ezek 26:7–14 was composed, an oracle promising Tyre’s destruction. Because that destruction failed to materialize fully, a follow-up oracle was later composed in which Yahweh promises the destruction of Egypt as a “consolation prize” for Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Ezek 29:17–19). Corral suggests the reason for the Babylonian siege of Tyre as being the city’s value as a strategic military platform from which to pursue the conquest of Egypt, but notes that this does not necessitate the conclusion that Egypt and Tyre were allies at the time.40 If Babylon did seek the resources of Tyre for developing its own naval force for an attack on Egypt, then it would make great strategic sense to control this important seaport city. Corral goes on to highlight Tyre’s ability to oppress Judah economically by monopolizing trade in the region, and by control-

Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48 (WBC 29; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1990), 95. 39 Block, Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 31. Block, idem, 29, notes that the name Tyre, Hebrew ‫צּור‬, is derived from ‫צֹור‬, “rock,” because of the rock island on which the city rests. On the Babylonian court register, cf. D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, Schweich Lectures, 1983 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 73–75. 40 Corral, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre, 63. 38

214

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

ling the market on precious metals (66–139).41 In addition, he argues that Tyre’s expansion of trade was also responsible for spreading the reputation and worship of her patron deity, Melqart, since the Phoenicians tended to build new temples in their settlements, which then served the dual function of worship sites and commercial centers. This reality could also have contributed to the amount of attention Tyre receives in Ezekiel, because Melqart’s reputation would have appeared to be eclipsing Yahweh’s. While Melqart’s patrons were prospering, Yahweh’s were experiencing exile and destruction.42 Ezekiel’s oracles reflect an awareness of the theological problem created by Tyre’s temporarily successful opposition to Nebuchadnezzar. If, as Ezekiel argues elsewhere, Nebuchadnezzar is Yahweh’s instrument of punishment, and ultimately under Yahweh’s control (cf. 12:13; 17:12, 16, 20; 21:19, 21, 27; 24:2, 14; 26:7; 29:18–19; 30:10, 24, 25; 32:11), then Tyre’s and Egypt’s ability to survive in the face of Babylon’s war machine represented successful rebellion against Yahweh. Such obstinacy against the Great King of Israel needed to be explained and appropriately punished. Ezekiel maintains that Israel’s deportations and destruction are initiated by Yahweh, and executed through his divinely appointed instrument of punishment, Babylon. Ezekiel also maintains that just as Yahweh controls the destiny of the exilic community, so also he controls the destinies of other nations. Just as Israel’s rebellion against Yahweh resulted in punishment, so also would the Corral, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre, 66–139; on p. 128, Corral suggests that Joel 3:2–8, which charges Tyre with selling Judahites into slavery, may refer to events from this historical period as well. 42 Corral, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre, 139–140. In addition, Corral, idem, 139, notes that, on the basis of Ezek 28:2b, some scholars believe the kings of Tyre considered themselves a manifestation of the local deity, and therefore divine (Melqart literally translates “King of the City.” Cf. C. Bonnet, Melqart. Cultes et mythes de l’Héraclès Tyrien en Méditerranée (SP 8; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters; Presses Universitaires de Namur, 1988), 42– 47. This might explain Ezekiel’s charge of hubris in the oracle of 28:1–10. A similar belief about Pharaoh may lie behind the same charge in 29:3, 9, in reference to Pharaoh’s supposed claim to be the creator of the Nile. 41

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

215

impudent foreign nations reap their just reward. Since most of the foreign nations condemned in Ezekiel’s OAN — Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, and Sidon, specifically — were in fact destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, the more elaborate collections against Tyre and Egypt are likely intended to assure the exiles that a similar fate awaited these nations, in spite of their temporary belligerence. Since Ezekiel argues that Yahweh sends Israel’s unfaithful kings into exile, specifically referring to Jehoiachin and Zedekiah (cf. 17:1–21), a number of questions would naturally have arisen among the book’s exilic audience in response to the historical events of the sixth century BCE. What of the kings of the nations? Why is it that some foreign kingdoms seem to prosper, while Yahweh’s people languish in exile? What reason does Israel have for remaining faithful to Yahweh, when the patrons of other deities are apparently capable of surviving just as well, or better (cf. Ezek 20:32)? These questions, in light of what we know of the history of relations between Judah, her neighbors, and Babylon in the sixth century, appear to provide the rhetorical situation lying behind Ezekiel’s oracles against the kings of Tyre and Egypt. These oracles argue that Yahweh, who wields the powers of life and death, ultimately controls the destinies of all the nations, and will justly punish not just the rebels among Israel (a central focus for Ezek 1–24), but also the rebels among the nations. Ultimately, in light of the explicit focus on Yahweh’s justice in Ezek 33, the most obvious purpose of the OAN in Ezekiel is to answer questions about the nature and extent of Yahweh’s rule. The OAN, strategically employing the rhetorical topics of paradise and the underworld, seek to build the ethos of Yahweh as divine king by claiming his control over the forces of life and death for all nations, and promising his implementation of justice for all nations. Rhetorical Strategies: Logos/Ethos/Pathos The central strategy at work in Ezek 28 is that of illustration. The oracles have a point to make about the status of Tyre in relation to the status of Israel, but they do so primarily to make a statement about the status of Yahweh. In the larger world economy of honorshame, a culture in which the exiles now find themselves competing for identity and status, Tyre and Egypt both come out winners in comparison to Israel. However, as goes Israel on the world stage, so goes Yahweh. Thus, the rather elaborate metaphorical

216

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

treatment of the King of Tyre as a rich, guardian cherub in Yahweh’s garden illustrates the real status of Yahweh and his relationship to the foreign king (again, either human or divine). One way to redeem Israel’s and Yahweh’s honor is to dishonor their competitors. Ezekiel 28:11–19 attempts to do this by giving Yahweh credit for Tyre’s successes, while also arguing that these will be short-lived. The enemy is by nature a haughty, abusive, and rebellious servant, and Yahweh will punish this behavior just as he punished such behavior in the garden narrative of Genesis 2–3. Thus, the oracle of 28:11–19 serves as an illustration of the truth that life and prosperity are in the hands of Israel’s god, who may dispense them as he chooses, but who will also punish those who abuse his blessings. Tyre’s wealth and power are explained as Yahweh’s gifts, not as anything Tyre or Tyre’s patron god can take credit for, and they come with the responsibility to use them appropriately in the defense of Yahweh’s garden. Ultimately, this demonstrates that Yahweh is universally sovereign, and can be depended upon to exercise universal justice. Multiple metaphors in this unit describe the King of Tyre as an exalted creature who enjoys a special position in Yahweh’s universe. Theologically, this is not problematic because Yahweh is in charge of the foreign king, having created him (v. 13) and appointed him to his guardian position (v. 14), even if that position is depicted as the paradise garden (of Eden) on Yahweh’s holy mountain. Thus, it would make sense to see Ezek 28:11–19 as an elaboration on the role of the ‫ נָ גִ יד‬of 28:1–10, following Strong’s argument, that this term denotes an appointed leader. Ezekiel shows a great fondness for complex and compound metaphors. Here, the King of Tyre is described as a perfect seal or signet (v. 12), thereby connoting his role as an image and representative of Yahweh, the Great King. He is also a guardian cherub (v. 14). This shift in metaphor presents a multilayered image, and a profound understanding of the king’s position. It heightens the sense of responsibility on the part of the king to play his appointed role of taking care of Yahweh’s possession. The cherub is not the owner, but is charged with representing the interests of the owner. Because Yahweh is imagined as the king’s creator, and the king is created perfectly, full of wisdom and beauty, covered in precious stones and gold, Yahweh receives credit for all the glory, good fortune, and authority bestowed upon the king, including his

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

217

position as guardian of paradise. This suggests that Yahweh’s garden, a metaphor for prosperity, may be planted anywhere in the world, and Yahweh’s sovereignty and blessings extend universally. In addition, this connotes that the King of Tyre cannot take credit for his successes, as he attempted to do in the previous oracle (28:2, 6, 9), claiming divine status for himself. Verse 16 returns to the theme of Tyre’s trade, which dominates the condemnations of Chs. 26–27. Here, the explicit charges are ‫עוְ ָל ָתה‬, ַ “iniquity” (v. 15), and ‫ח ָמס‬, ָ “violence” (v. 16), although the specific referents are not clarified. The iniquity may refer to the hubris alluded to in v. 17: “your heart was exalted,” but one is left to wonder what sort of violence is committed by Tyre’s trade. Should this be understood as violence against the creator, another reference to the charge of hubris found in the previous oracle, or does it refer to the economic exploitation of other people, including Israel, along the lines of Corral’s argument for Tyre’s economic exploitation of Judah? The larger context of Chs. 26–28, with its emphasis on Tyre’s vast trade network, along with the immediately preceding phrase in 28:16: “in the abundance of your trade,” suggests that much of Corral’s interpretation is the more accurate approach. Regardless, the guardian cherub abuses his position and inflicts violence instead of being a protective presence. He grows proud of himself, forgetting that he is a created being appointed to his position by Yahweh. He misuses his gifts of adornment and wisdom, seeking personal gain. The ironic outcome will be that he will now suffer violence at the hand of his creator. Not only does he become a profane object in Yahweh’s garden, implying how corrupt a presence he has become, but he will be cast down and utterly destroyed. The charge in v. 17 that ‫גָ ַבּה ִל ְבָך‬, “your heart grew proud” (lit. “rose up”), is an exact and intentional reiteration of the charge of hubris from the previous oracle in 28:2. In addition, a slight variation occurs in 28:5: ‫וַ יִ גְ ַבּה ְל ָב ְבָך‬, “your heart grew proud.” In the second oracle, the pride is related to the cherub’s beauty, whereas in the previous oracle, the pride results from the prince’s wisdom, by which he acquires great wealth. In neither case is pride an appropriate response, since the wisdom and beauty can be stripped away at a moment’s notice by Yahweh.

218

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Verse 17 begins to elaborate the basis for the punishment already mentioned in v. 16. The cherub will be cast down from the mountain paradise in the sight of other kings. This is a fitting punishment for the sin of pride, publicly humiliating the one who is overly concerned with himself. It also introduces the element of shame, which plays a critical role in Ezekiel’s rhetoric, both here and elsewhere. Verse 18 builds even further on the indictment and punishment. Here, instead of the abundance of trade leading the foreign king to commit the sin of hubris, as in v. 16, the trade itself is depicted as unjust, leading to the king’s profanation of his own sanctuaries. This may be a reference to the temples of Melqart that Corral suggests were an important part of the infrastructure of Tyre’s growing trade relations throughout the Mediterranean, but if so, it suggests that Tyre’s profits were gained dishonestly, which results in her temples becoming unclean, and perhaps, carrying the thought to its logical conclusion, unfit even for a foreign deity. If nothing else, the implication of the oracle is that Tyre has become an unfit recipient of Yahweh’s blessing, which is the true source of the king’s prosperity in this second oracle. Yahweh brings forth a consuming fire from within the cherub to annihilate him, but does so publicly, making the king an object of scorn “before the eyes of all who look upon” him. Verse 19 concludes the oracle, not with a proof saying, but rather abruptly with a further elaboration of the king’s humiliation. Not only will there be nothing left of him to bury, which would have had serious ramifications for the afterlife if this refers to a human king, but the entire incident will result in the king becoming an object not just of derision, but outright horror to all who knew him before.43 This is a continuation of honor-shame rhetoric, for A common conception in the ancient Mediterranean worldview was that the state of the human body after death could have serious consequences for the state of one’s shade in the afterlife. Cf. the death of Saul and his sons, and the desire of the men of Jabesh-Gilead to collect their bodies, burn their defiled corpses, and properly bury their bones in 1 Sam 31:4–13. Cf. also with the events surrounding the death of Patroclus in Homer’s Iliad, books 22 and 23. It was common in ancient Israel to col43

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

219

such a death is perhaps the most dishonorable of all. There will apparently be no monument in the land of the living, and there may also be no shade in the land of the dead.44 This oracle, unlike the previous one concerning the human leader or prince of Tyre, makes use of a rather powerful pathetic appeal, the extent of which has largely gone unnoticed, or at least underappreciated, by previous scholarly works. This is in reference to the paradise metaphor of Yahweh’s garden and the foreign king who serves as its divinely appointed guardian. The godly garden functions as an allusion to the Garden of Eden, and apparently needs no explanation for the intended audience. Similarly, the metaphors of seal/signet and cherub receive no explanation in the oracle.45 Previous scholars have understood the primeval garden as a metaphor designed to contrast Tyre’s currently exalted state with her future demise. However, few have grasped the full significance of this paradise setting combined with the metaphors of signet and cherub when used to depict a foreign god or king. Here, the King lect all body parts of the deceased for proper burial, and to bury these with one’s kin in one’s own land (cf. the bones of Joseph in Gen 50:25; Exod 13:19; Josh 24:32). To have one’s body, including the bones, turned to ash was almost unheard of. It may suggest that no shade-like body would persist in the underworld. If this is the case, then it truly was equivalent to annihilation of the whole person. 44 For more discussion of the system of honor-shame that persists even in the afterlife (i.e., underworld), cf. the discussion below of Ezek 31. 45 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 177, note “that there is allusion when the interpretation of a passage would be incomplete if one neglected the deliberate reference of the author to something he evokes without [explicitly] naming it.” This may include “a cultural fact, knowledge of which is peculiar to the members of the group with whom the speaker is trying to establish the communion. There is generally a special affectivity attached to these cultural facts.” I would also include in this category certain traditions surrounding the topic of paradise, such as a guardian cherub (cf. Gen 3:24), and the garden paradise on Yahweh’s holy mountain, that apparently require no explanation to the intended audience in order for them to understand the implications of these images for the rhetoric of 28:11–19.

220

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

of Tyre is imagined as a perfectly created representative of Israel’s god, divinely appointed and with the role of guarding Yahweh’s garden paradise atop the deity’s holy mountain. The theological implications of this imagery are surprising, but are not so radical that they fail to make sense in light of the rhetorical situation of the Babylonian exiles. Here, Ezekiel argues that the reason for Tyre’s commercial success is divine appointment by Yahweh. The text fully acknowledges the exalted position of the King of Tyre, placing him in an extremely enviable position in the very Garden of Eden. Here, paradise is reinterpreted in a metaphorical way in order to allow a primeval, long-lost locale to represent the concept of Yahweh’s divine favor. This favor may be bestowed upon, and likewise withdrawn from, any human being or god, local or foreign. Yahweh is given credit for creating this king, but he may also destroy him if he fails to fulfill his divinely appointed duties.46 The initial reaction to hearing/reading vv. 13–15b of this oracle, from the perspective of an Israelite exile in Babylon, would no doubt be a combination of surprise, expectation, and revulsion. The expectation would derive from the announcement in v. 12 that what follows is a lament, leading the audience to expect the characteristic “then-now” structure that begins with the subject’s former glory prior to recounting his/her fall. However, this would not prevent some amount of perplexity and disgust over the description of the foreign king as Yahweh’s creation, including the recounting of his wealth and glory, with which the exiles were no doubt well aware. In effect, the imagery sets up a situation of incompatibility that is designed to shock the reader. Incompatibility, according to Olbrechts-Tyteca, is a rhetorical strategy in which the orator attempts to dispute certain “theses” by demonstrating that they “lead to an incompatibility, which resembles a contradiction in that it consists of two assertions between

46 Cf. Ps 82:17, where Yahweh is imagined as ruling over, punishing, and even killing the other gods in the divine assembly, as if they were merely humans, when they prove to be unjust or unrighteous.

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

221

which a choice must be made.”47 The incompatible motifs in Ezek 28:11–19 include the King of Tyre as the guardian of Yahweh’s garden, Yahweh as the source of Tyre’s prosperity, and the prosperity of Tyre in contrast to Israel’s suffering, especially in light of the argument here and elsewhere in Ezekiel that Yahweh is in control of the destinies of both. The purpose of juxtaposing these theologically incompatible motifs is to achieve a new sense of order in the midst of Israel’s chaos, a chaos exacerbated by Tyre’s prosperity in the midst of Israel’s poverty. Thus, the thematic incompatibilities in the text are merely an imaginative way of dealing with the very real ideological incompatibilities that faced any Israelite struggling to make sense of the argument, found throughout Ezekiel, that in spite of appearances, Yahweh is in control of Israel’s destiny and the destinies of the nations. Here, the incompatibility is resolved by the promise that even those nations currently prospering, perhaps at Israel’s expense, will be held accountable for their disobedience, just like Israel. The “then-now” structure of the oracle provides a means for eliciting an initial audience reaction of disgust and envy at the beginning of the oracle in response to the foreign king’s favorable treatment. But this is quickly replaced with celebration over the foreign king’s demise that is signaled in v. 15c with the phrase: “until injustice was found in you.” Here begins the indictment that will lead to Yahweh casting down the creature that formally had served as his guardian and signet. The contrast between the cherub’s lack of justice and Yahweh’s execution of justice against an Israelite enemy lies at the center of this oracle’s pathos rhetoric. It intends to endear the reader to Yahweh by replacing any sense of disappointment over the seeming lack of justice in Israel’s larger geopolitical environment with a sense of confidence or hope in Yahweh’s eventual punishment of Israel’s regional oppressors. The oracle teaches that Yahweh alone is the source of prosperity for all nations, not just Israel. Therefore, placing one’s faith in any other power is a futile course of action.

47

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 195.

222

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

The oracle as a whole acts as a parody of the lament genre. While the audience of royal onlookers referred to in v. 17, and perhaps others involved in trade relations with Tyre, might consider the king’s demise a genuine opportunity for remorse, certainly this oracle seeks to achieve the opposite emotional response from an Israelite reader. To celebrate the King of Tyre’s demise in response to this oracle is, in a sense, to celebrate the justice and power of Yahweh, and thereby begin achieving the text’s epideictic purpose. To hope for the foreign king’s fall is to affirm trust in Yahweh’s principles of justice, and Yahweh’s sovereignty over the world. The purpose of this ironic lament is not simply to predict the demise of Tyre’s King, nor magically cause it by uttering Yahweh’s words as a curse upon the enemy, but also to demonstrate Yahweh’s true character and acquire the reader’s respect for his sovereignty and justice. The illustration of Tyre’s defeat may alleviate, in some small measure, the sense of moral indignation felt by an exilic audience of former societal elites who have now gone “from riches to rags.” There is an implicit comparison here in the larger collection against Tyre between Israel’s economic and political fortunes and that of Tyre. Here in 28:11–19, the contrast between the exilic audience’s life in captivity and that of the King of Tyre in Yahweh’s garden intentionally works to draw the audience into an emotional struggle with the oracle’s opening imagery. But this emotional and cognitive dissonance actually helps to make the reader more receptive to the more critical message the oracle eventually delivers about the nature of Yahweh’s relationship with foreign nations, and the extent of Yahweh’s sovereignty. Yahweh is given credit not only for creating foreign kings/gods and endowing them with wealth, but also for delegating to them their duties. Thus, their positions and powers are derivative from a divine source, but not from any foreign deity. The nations and perhaps their gods, like Israel and her rulers, are answerable to Yahweh alone, who will hold them accountable for disobedience. Again, these messages support the implicit thesis that Yahweh is the Great King. As mentioned previously, nowhere does Ezekiel make explicit reference to the existence of the gods of the nations. This is perhaps due to a conviction that any explicit acknowledgement of their reality, however inferior they may be, would serve as an in-

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

223

conceivable concession to Yahweh’s potential rivals. Ezekiel typically acknowledges that at least the divine images of the nations are “wood and stone” (20:32), ‫שּקּוץ‬, ִ “detestable things” (5:11; 7:20; 11:18, 21; 20:7, 8, 30; 37:23), ‫ּת ָר ִפים‬, ְ “ancestral images” (21:21), or, most often, ‫ּלּולים‬ ִ ִ‫ג‬, “dung piles” (6:4, 5, 6, 9, 13; 8:10; 14:3, 4, 5, 6, 7; 16:36; 18:6, 12, 15; 20:7, 8, 16, 18, 24, 31, 39; 22:3, 4; 23:7, 30, 37, 39, 49; 30:13; 33:25; 36:18, 25; 37:23; 44:10, 12). One may extrapolate from this phenomenon a number of key convictions about the relationship between Yahweh and the nations. Ezekiel implicitly teaches that all the earth is ultimately Yahweh’s domain, and the kings and/or gods of the nations are temporarily delegated a portion of it only to guard and manage in accordance with Yahweh’s wishes. They should perform these duties with humility. Failure to do so will result not just in exile from Yahweh’s presence, a situation with which the oracle’s intended audience has already been threatened in Ezek 20:38, but in the case of the King of Tyre, will also result in death and annihilation.48 The central strategy of 28:11–19 is to provide an illustration of Yahweh’s character and nature. The purpose is to establish Yahweh’s reputation as a god of universal authority, universal rule, and universal justice. Grasping this is critical for understanding not only the rhetorical purpose of this particular text, but also its thematic and rhetorical relationship to the upcoming oracles against Egypt. Rhetorical Synthesis The cognitive dissonance resulting from the incompatibility of Tyre’s temporary prosperity during the early exilic period and Israel’s suffering demanded a response that was preserved in Ezekiel’s OAN. In Ezek 28:11–19, the solution, in contrast to the message of Chs. 3–24, was to give the exiles a reason to celebrate the just nature of their deity, rather than lament, as they witness the future downfall of a rival king. In the process of celebrating Yahweh’s justice against Tyre, the text is designed to move to audience to a Eventually, by way of contrast, the Book of Ezekiel (37:1–14) provides a vision of Yahweh’s reversal of Israel’s apparent, collective death, as the parched bones of the exilic people are re-strewn with flesh and receive the breath of new life from Yahweh’s spirit. 48

224

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

position of respect for and trust in the god who executes judgment upon their enemy. To some extent, the effectiveness of this argument depends on the audience affirming that “the enemy (Yahweh) of my enemy (Tyre) is my friend.” If the audience can agree with the text that Yahweh is the source of Tyre’s prosperity, and his judgment of Tyre is righteous, they might also find themselves willing to believe that Israel’s own punishment is just. Furthermore, they may be willing to believe that Yahweh is capable or reversing their own misfortunes, as Ezek 34–48 will argue. If the King of Tyre does fall, then surely Yahweh is just and powerful enough to reverse the exiles’ own fortunes. The overarching rhetorical goal is to lead the reader to a greater degree of trust in the divine rhetor, Yahweh. The long-term effectiveness of such a strategy may hinge on whether or not the deity actually delivers on the promised destruction of the enemy. Interestingly, in the case of the city of Tyre, total destruction never came during the exilic period, and Ezekiel even acknowledges this with an oracle promising to Nebuchadnezzar a bigger and better prize in the kingdom of Egypt (29:18–19). The modern day interpreter should not conclude that promises unfulfilled serve no long-term rhetorical purpose. The final 1/3 of Ezekiel contains promises for the future that were never fully delivered, at least not in the utopian terms in which they are elaborated. In this light, the oracles against Tyre and Egypt should not be judged too harshly. The promise alone that Tyre and Egypt would receive their due reward, if believed, could play an important role in encouraging the exiles to continue trusting in their patron deity in the midst of their own much-deserved suffering at Yahweh’s hand.

PARADISE LOST BY THE KING OF EGYPT (EZEK 31:1–18) Rhetorical Unit, Translation, Arrangement, and Genre 1 And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the third month, on the first day of the month, the word of Yahweh came to me saying, 2 “Son of Adam, say to Pharaoh, the King of Egypt, and to his horde, ‘To whom do you compare in your greatness?

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

225

3 Behold, Assyria, the Cedar of Lebanon; its branches and canopy were lush, giving shade and towering high; and its top parted the clouds;49 4 The waters made him grow; the Deep raised him high; her streams flowed around his root bed; she sent forth her channels to all the trees of the field;50 5 Thus, his height was greater than all the trees of the field; his boughs were more numerous, and his branches were longer, because of the abundant waters when he stretched forth his shoots;51 6 Among his branches all the birds of the heavens nested, and beneath his boughs every beast of the field multiplied, and in his shade all the great nations dwelt; 7 He was beautiful in his greatness, in the length of his branches, for his roots reached down to abundant waters; 8 The cedars in the Garden of God could not eclipse him, the cypress trees could not compare to his branches, and the plane trees could not compare to his boughs; no tree in the Garden of God was like him in beauty; 9 I made him beautiful in the abundance of his branches, and all the trees of Eden that were in the Garden of God envied him; 10 Therefore, thus says the Lord Yahweh, because you became proud of your height (for he set his top among the clouds and his heart became proud of his height); As cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 181, n. 17, explains, ‫עב ִֹתים‬, ֲ “clouds,” is a “mixed form” incorporating both feminine and masculine plural endings for ‫עב‬, ַ “cloud.” 50 As Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 182, clarifies, ‫מ ָט ָעּה‬, ַ “its habitation,” refers to the “bed” or ground in which the tree is planted, in contrast to the clouds as the location of the treetop in v. 3. 51 Here, I translate ‫ש ְּלחֹו‬ ַ ‫ב‬, ְ “when it stretched forth,” in the sense of the tree sending out its roots to drink, and finding abundant waters (cf. v. 7). 49

226

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!” 11 Now I will place him in the hand of the Ram of the Nations; he will surely do to him according to his wickedness; I have cast him out;52 12 And strangers, the terrors of the nations, will cut him down and they will abandon him on the mountains, and in all the valleys his branches will fall, and his bows will be broken in all the waterways of the land, and all the peoples of the earth will go down from his shade and forsake him; 13 Upon his trunk all the birds of the heavens will settle down, and upon his branches will walk all the beasts of the field; 14 So that none of the watered trees in their height will be lofty, nor will they set their tops among the clouds, nor will their rams stand up in their height, all the drinkers of waters, for all of them have been handed over to death, to the netherworld, in the midst of the sons of Adam, to the ones who go down to the pit.53 15 Thus says Lord Yahweh, on the day he goes down to Sheol, I will cause lamentation; I will cause the Deep to cover over him; I will hold back her streams, and the abundant waters will

Here, the “Ram of the Nations” figuratively refers to the chief conqueror of the nations, Nebuchadnezzar. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 189, translates ‫גֵּ ַר ְש ִּתהּו‬, which I have translated “I have cast him out,” as “I banished it,” but the sense of the verb is the same. 53 “Lofty” here is understood in the sense of prideful and rebellious. Here, I emend MT’s ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫א ֵּל‬, ֵּ “unto them,” to ‫א ֵּיל ֶהם‬, ֵּ “their rams” (i.e., rulers), which makes more sense in light of ‫איל גֹויִם‬, ֵּ “the Ram of the Nations” in v. 11 (cf. also Ezek 17:13). On this translation, cf. Margaret Odell, Ezekiel (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 393, and Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, HALOT (study edition; vol. 1 of 2; trans. and ed. M. E. J. Richardson; Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 2001), 40. Here, the reference to “their rams” refers to military leaders who serve on behalf of the other “watered trees” (i.e., rulers). All should learn from the example of Assyria’s/Pharaoh’s fall not to commit the same sin of hubris. 52

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

227

be stopped; and I will cause the Lebanon to mourn on account of him; all the trees of the field will wilt on account of him; 16 From the sound of his fall I will make nations quake, when I cause him to descend to Sheol with the ones going down to the pit; and all the choice trees of Eden and the best of the Lebanon, all the ones drinking the waters, will be comforted in the netherworld; 17 These also will descend with him to Sheol, to the ones slain by the sword; his right arm will dwell with his shade in the midst of the nations. 18 To whom do you compare in glory and greatness among the trees of Eden? You will be brought down with all the trees of Eden, to the netherworld; in the midst of the uncircumcised you will lie down, with those slain by the sword. This is Pharaoh and his entire horde.’” An oracle of the Lord Yahweh.

Ezek 31 is clearly delineated as a separate unit by the new date and word-event formulas of v. 1, and the concluding divine word formula of v. 18. The previous oracle ends at 30:26 with its own recognition formula, and a new oracle begins at 32:1 with new date and word-event formulas. The oracle of Ch. 31 divides into a “preamble” (vv. 1–2a), and an “oracle proper” with three parts: 1) the allegory of the cosmic tree (vv. 2b–9); 2) an announcement of judgment (vv. 10–14); and 3) an announcement of the tree’s descent to the underworld (vv. 15–18), with the latter two sections having their own “initial citation formulae.”54 The rhetorical question, “To whom do you [Pharaoh] compare?” (vv. 2a, 18), frames the allegory of the Assyrian king as a cosmic tree in vv. 2b–9, as well as the application of the tree metaphor to Pharaoh in vv. 10–18.55 The moment of transition from reflecting on the former kingdom to applying it to Egypt is signaled by the use of ‫ל ֵּכן‬,ָ “therefore,” in v. 10.56

Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 178. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 178–179. 56 Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 179. 54 55

228

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

The prophet is not commanded to raise a lament here as in 28:12, but there is mourning that takes place (31:15) as a result of the tree’s fall. Like 28:11–19, the content of the oracle exhibits a “then-now” structure, which romanticizes the Assyrian king, and then depicts his fall in order to describe the presently exalted state and coming demise of the Egyptian monarch. Ezekiel 31 is a fitting example of the doom oracle, with vv. 2b–9 serving as an indictment for hubris, and vv. 10–18 serving as an announcement of punishment. 57 While vv. 2b–9 may originally have been composed as a “song of praise” for a different setting, Block appropriately highlights the similarity between the two accusations in 31:10: ‫קֹומה‬ ָ ‫גָ ַב ְה ָּת ְב‬, “you became proud of your height,” and ‫וְ ָרם ְל ָבבֹו ְבגָ ְבהֹו‬, “his heart became proud of his height,” and the indictments against the prince/ruler of Tyre in 28:2 and 17: ‫גָ ַבּה‬ ‫ל ְבָך‬,ִ “your heart grew proud.” The important role played by so-called “notices of public reaction” in Ezekiel’s OAN that occur in the pattern of “accusationannouncement of judgment-public reaction” suggests another use of honor-shame rhetoric. 58 In response to a situation in which the reputations of Yahweh and Israel are at stake, the oracle promises that the nations will experience their own public humiliation. Ezekiel 31 is dated in modern terms to June 21, 586 BCE, two months after the date listed in the prior oracle that begins at 30:20, and this may coincide with the failed attempt of Pharaoh Hals, Ezekiel, 220; Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 180. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 180. Here, Block sees “clear affinities” between 26:15–21 and 31:15–18. Cf. also with the public reactions of 27:28–36; 28:19; 32:9–10, 16. The issue of public reputation, honor, and shame can apply in Ezekiel to the nations as well as Yahweh and Israel. On the larger issue of reputation in reference to Israel, Yahweh, and the nations, cf. Ezek 5:8, 14–15; 12:16; 16:14; 20:9, 14, 22, 41; 22:4, 16; 25:10; 28:25; 30:26; 32:9, 16; 34:29; 36:3–7, 15, 20–23, 30; 37:28; 38:16, 23; 39:7, 21, 23, 27. One must consider the possibility that, from a rhetorical perspective, the emphasis in Ezekiel on the nations acknowledging Yahweh as sovereign may serve primarily as a foil for the intended Israelite audience. If the nations will eventually acknowledge Yahweh, surely Yahweh’s own people should do likewise. 57 58

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

229

Hophra/Apries to lift Babylon’s siege of Jerusalem.59 There is a preponderance of so-called “prophetic perfects” in vv. 3–17, verbs signaling that the divine words of Yahweh in the oracle are guaranteed to find fulfillment.60 In addition, the command for the prophet to speak directly to Pharaoh and ‫המֹונֹו‬,ֲ “his horde” (v. 2), suggests the possibility that this, like other prophetic judgment oracles, may have been intended not simply as a message for the exiles, but also that the prophecy was a form of sympathetic magic. As such, the very act of uttering the divine word would initiate its fulfillment. In such a case, it would be appropriate to direct this “curse” toward its deserving object. Following Bodi, Block translates ‫ ֲהמֹונֹו‬in v. 18 as “his pomp,” rather than “his military” or “his horde,” seeing it as a reference to Pharaoh’s pride, in keeping with the theme of hubris and the tree’s beauty described in vv. 2b–9.61 In doing so, he unnecessarily limits the intended range of meaning of this term, and fails to pay due attention to the analogy between Egypt and Assyria from a historical-political perspective. The reason the two nations are compared here, and the reason why the cosmic tree is such an appropriate allegorical image for both, is that an alliance with either tree/country on the part of a smaller nation held out hope for military protection from other threats. The reason for pride on the part of these nations is precisely Assyria’s and Egypt’s military power. Israel, like other smaller nations, found herself caught between them at times, and challenged with the need to discern which might offer her the better ally. This interpretation is supported by the depiction of Egypt in Ezek 29. There, Israel is discouraged from trusting in Egypt, because she is merely a shaky and weak ‫ִמ ְש ֶענֶ ת‬ ‫קנֶ ה‬,ָ “reed staff” (vv. 6–7), and a false source “of confidence/trust” (‫)ל ִמ ְב ָטח‬ ְ for Israel (v. 16). Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 183, following K. S. Freedy and D. B. Redford, “The Dates of Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian, and Egyptian Sources,” JAOS 90 (1970): 462–485 (472). 60 Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 183. 61 Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 183; cf. Bodi, The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra (OBO 104; Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitatsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 119–125. 59

230

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

The war machines of Assyria and Egypt were great sources of pride and envy in their respective heydays, and it was tempting for the smaller city-states in the Levant to throw in their lot with whomever they believed would make the more rewarding, or less invasive, suzerain. This explains why Assyria serves as such an appropriate simile for depicting Egypt’s fall. If Assyria could fall from such a great height, then so could Egypt. The audience of the text should learn the lesson that Pharaoh has failed to grasp, namely, that one should not trust too much in oneself, or one’s political alliances, not when Yahweh is the one who controls the destinies of even the greatest of nations. The rhetorical arrangement of Ezek 31 is to begin by lavishing praise on Assyria and Egypt, despite their being two of Israel’s greatest historical enemies. The poem of 2b–9 is a beautiful song emphasizing the incomparable greatness of the two nations. Not unlike the creation theme found in 28:11–19, 31:9 clarifies that Yahweh, speaking here in the first person, is the creative force behind the greatness of the Assyrian tree: “I made it beautiful.”62 The same verse also notes that Assyria, as a cosmic tree, was an object of envy even of the trees in Eden, the Garden of Yahweh. Thus, once again the reader encounters a conscious adaptation of Eden traditions that here uses trees as symbols of fertility, protection, royalty, and perhaps even, in the case of the cedar, immortality and divinity.63 In v. 10, where the indictment begins, the oracle shifts from poetry to prose and the current object of Yahweh’s wrath (Egypt) is directly addressed for the first time, and charged with repeating the mistake of Assyria: “Therefore … because you towered high …” Verse 11 repeats the word “therefore” after the clarification of the indictment of hubris in v. 10, signaling not only a shift The emphasis here is my own. Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt, 100–102. Boadt discusses the widespread belief in the ancient Near East that the king was the source of life for his people, and also notes that some deities either manifested themselves as trees, or maintained sacred gardens that included special trees (cf. Gen 2–3; Gilgamesh’s quest for immortality in the cedar forest guarded by Humbaba in Gilg III). 62 63

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

231

back to speaking of Egypt in the third person, but also a shift in tense to the prophetic perfect. The elaboration of punishment in vv. 11–14 promises that Egypt will be “cut down” and consigned to the underworld, where all mortal powers eventually wind up. The reference to paradise, the “Garden of God,” should be understood metaphorically like 28:11–19, as referring to the deity’s dwelling place on high, which the tree seeks to rival in stature by putting its top among the clouds (vv. 3, 10). This geography highlights the gravity of the tree’s fall by providing an extreme contrast to the final resting place of the tree in the underworld, the latter representing the lowest “place” in the ancient Near Eastern cosmology.64 Verses 15–17 open with a new word event formula and elaborate the punishment as Yahweh sends the tree of Egypt to the underworld. This section clarifies that just as Yahweh took credit, in the first person, for creating the tree of Assyria, so Yahweh created Egypt and will also serve as Egypt’s destroyer. This is accomplished with a series of first person singular verbs in vv. 15–16 that describe the punishment: Thus says Lord Yahweh, on the day he goes down to Sheol, I will cause lamentation; I will cause the Deep to cover over him; I will hold back her streams, and the abundant waters will be stopped; and I will cause the Lebanon to mourn on account of him; all the trees of the field will wilt on account of him; from the sound of his fall I will make nations quake, when I cause him to descend to Sheol with the ones going down to the pit.

Verses 16–17 contrast the prior location/state of the tree with its new “planting” under the earth. The reference to all the other trees, including those that once resided in Eden, “being comforted” at the Pharaoh’s demise, suggests that whatever paradise they once resided in during the primeval period has long since passed away. For an illustration that just begins to capture this concept, and brief discussion, cf. Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 56–57. Note, however, that Keel disagrees with the concept or representation of the ancient Near Eastern world as a “closed system.” 64

232

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Here, the author demonstrates the freedom to adapt preexisting paradise traditions for new rhetorical purposes. While there is not here any explicit claim that the King of Egypt was “in” Eden such as we find in 28:13 with the King of Tyre, the metaphor of the cosmic tree suggests that, much like her predecessor Assyria, who functioned as the world-renowned “Cedar of Lebanon,” Egypt also dwells in a state of blessing or bliss that rivals the primordial Eden. The reason is because Yahweh caused Egypt to prosper in this way, just as he made Assyria beautiful (31:9). However, Egypt’s demise leads the previously departed trees of paradise to take comfort because their latest rival has now departed the land of the living. The oracle concludes by returning to the initial rhetorical question, here with a slight variation intended to highlight even further the contrast between “then and now.” This suggests that the appropriate tone should be rather sarcastic: “To whom/what do you compare in glory and in greatness, among the trees of Eden?” The implied answer is that Pharaoh does not compare at all to these trees, at least not any longer. He will find himself from this point forward in a greater state of shame than the trees of Eden. This is because he has been consigned to lie in state with those who are “slain by the sword” (vv. 17 and 18). This implies that the underworld has its own code of honor and shame that reflects the values that rule the land of the living. Some amount of honor is restored to the trees of Eden, which apparently lie in a different region of Sheol. The rhetorical questions of vv. 2 and 18 provide a rhetorical envelope for the entire oracle. The purpose is to use sarcasm to point out the absurdity of idolizing any nation, no matter how glorious they might seem at the moment. This is because the glory of all nations is short-lived. The final statement of interpretation: “This is Pharaoh and his entire horde,” clarifies that the material in the oracle that originally applied to Assyria now applies to Pharaoh and Egypt. In sum, the rhetorical arrangement highlights multiple layers of contrast between then-now, high-low, and honor-shame imagery and concepts. The paradise and underworld motifs play an important role in this rhetoric of contrast, demonstrating the limits of human striving, even for the greatest of mortal kings. Real glory and honor come as gifts of the divine creator, and are to be exer-

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

233

cised with humility. To reach beyond divinely appointed limitations will lead to one’s demise at the hands of the creator. These emphases clarify that the rhetorical disposition of the unit is judicial in the sense of encouraging the reader to pass judgment on the nation of Egypt, whose present glory is fleeting. While Pharaoh may look attractive at the moment, like Assyria, Egypt will soon fall from grace because of her pride. However, the rhetoric is also epideictic because the purpose of the judicial concern is to lead the reader away from trusting in any foreign power. Yahweh is credited here, much as in 28:11–19, with the prosperity of the foreign nations. But also, as in the case of Tyre, he exercises authority over his creation when it turns prideful and rebellious, instituting severe punishment. Although the verdict will not, as in the case of Tyre, lead to the foreign nation’s annihilation, Egypt and her armies will find themselves removed from the land of the living and eternally shamed in the underworld. Anyone placing trust in a foreign political power like Egypt, hoping to find peace and protection, will be sorely disappointed. Rhetorical Situation The clues Ezekiel 31 provides for understanding its rhetorical situation are the date formula in v. 1, the military comparison between Egypt and Assyria, and the surrounding literary context in which Egypt is treated as an undependable political ally in Ezek 29–32. These are enough for an exilic audience in the sixth century BCE (and beyond) to understand that sixth century Israelite faith in foreign alliances had been misplaced and needed to return to the patron deity Yahweh. Of course, such a message had long-term applicability for the future of the Israelite people, who needed to place their hope in Yahweh alone. Rhetorical Strategies: Logos/Ethos/Pathos As Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca make clear, in all argumentation, “the premises are only rarely explicit.”65 This is true in Ezekiel’s oracles against Tyre and Egypt. What is explicit in each passage 65

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 195.

234

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

under examination here is a metaphorical image of the foreign king that uses paradise imagery to describe him in grandiose terms. The description captures the sense in which the foreign king and/or his people have become an object of envy, scorn, or hope for Israel. The foreign king is a rival not only to Yahweh, but also for the affections of Yahweh’s people. Therefore, each king is depicted as a false object of faith, one that will fall to the earth or underworld, and therefore disappoint those who rely upon him for safety or security. As already seen, this is alluded to in the first oracle by imagining the King of Tyre as a cherub-guardian of Yahweh’s garden. Pharaoh likewise is depicted as a guardian figure, providing shade and protection for all the nations that dwell beneath him. But he is destined to pass away, just like his predecessor, Assyria, and he will disappoint those who depend upon him. As was the case with 28:11–19, the key strategies at work in Ezek 31 are illustration and incompatibility. Just as the King of Tyre, once he is found to be unjust, can no longer reside in Eden and continue receiving the divine blessings that correlate with his favored position, neither can Pharaoh retain his exalted position as the new “Cedar of Lebanon” once he oversteps the divinely imposed boundary of mortal limitation. The title “The Cedar of Lebanon” (emphasis my own), is apparently a metaphor for the position of divinely-appointed caretaker for the Syro-Palestinian region, a position formerly held by the kingdom of Assyria, and now having passed to Egypt, the new local military power in the Levant. Egypt had attempted to ally herself with Assyria in order to prop up this waning Mesopotamian power as a buffer against Babylon in the waning years of the seventh century BCE. But the endeavor failed decisively at the battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE. Egypt survived to challenge Babylon’s hegemonic intentions for the region, and therefore served as a source of political hope for Judah to cast off the Babylonian yoke.66 But as Ezek 31 implies, Egypt’s ascension is incompatible with the Great King Yahweh’s intentions for his vassal nations. Thus, he will bring the “Ram of

66

Cf. Corral, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre, 30–37.

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

235

the Nations” (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar) to cut Pharaoh down, just as he cut down Assyria. While illustration and incompatibility provide the central rhetorical strategies of Ezek 28:11–19 and 31:1–18, strong pathetic appeals are present in both as well. These appeals begin, inauspiciously enough for the modern reader, with the date formula of 31:1, because of its likely reference to Pharaoh’s failed intervention in Babylon’s siege on Jerusalem in 587/586. This provides the historical backdrop for understanding Pharaoh’s hubris in thinking he could foil Yahweh’s intentions to punish his people through Nebuchadnezzar (cf. 21:8–32). The historical references in Ch. 31 highlight the original intent of the oracle as a response to real events occurring in the exilic period, addressing the relationship of Israel to her occasional ally and overlord, Egypt. Pharaoh serves here as a negative example for all nations, just as Assyria before her, and illustrates the outcome of opposing Yahweh’s will. Verse 14 contains a statement of purpose that applies to both Assyria and Egypt, beginning with ‫ל ַמ ַען ֲא ֶשר‬,ְ “so that,” followed by the explanation that no leaders of nations should “be lofty,” because all have been appointed a limited lifespan.67 This helps to designate the entire chapter as an object lesson. It teaches a message that is consistent with Ezekiel’s emphasis elsewhere on Yahweh’s sovereignty, illustrating that all kings are subordinate to his rule. This is especially apparent in light of the rhetoric of 17:1–24, which refers to the Judahite kings Jehoiachin and Zedekiah. In fact, there are a number of thematic connections between Ezek 17 and 31 that should not be overlooked. Ezek 17:1–10 is an allegory of 2 eagles, a cedar tree, and a vine that is immediately followed by an oracle in 17:11–24 explaining its meaning. The eagles represent the kings of Babylon and Egypt. Here, the cedar is Israel, the topmost branch being king Jehoiachin and his administration, which was broken off and carried away to Babylon by king Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar takes a seed of the cedar, representing Zedekiah, and plants it, allowing a new vine to grow and thrive in Israel. But the vine stretches out to another This theme is consistent with the recurring address (94 times) to the prophet as “son of Adam” (i.e., mortal) in Ezekiel. 67

236

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

eagle, the King of Egypt, and therefore is disloyal to his vassal covenant with Babylon. The oracle conflates Yahweh’s covenant with Israel, on the one hand, and Nebuchadnezzar’s covenant with Zedekiah, on the other. It also conflates Babylon’s punishment of Israel with Yahweh’s (cf. 17:16, 18–19 and 17:19–21), thereby clarifying that Yahweh controls Babylon and considers Israel’s covenant infidelity to her Babylonian overlord a symptom of her covenant infidelity to Yahweh himself. Chapter 17 concludes with a message of salvation in vv. 22– 24, promising that a descendant of Jehoiachin will be planted in Israel and become a ‫ל ֶא ֶרז ַא ִדיר‬,ְ “noble cedar,” using the same arboreal term ‫א ֶרז‬, ֶ “cedar,” found in 17:3, 22, 23; 27:5; and 31:3, 8. Both 17:23 and 31:6 make references to birds living in the shade of a great tree, the first passage referring to the future King of Israel, the second referring to the soon-to-be-vanquished King of Egypt. Both chapters make references to ‫ל־עצֵּ י ַה ָש ֶדה‬ ֲ ‫כ‬, ָ “all the trees of the field” (17:24; 31:4, 5, 15), a reference to all the other surrounding nations. In both, Yahweh is affirmed as the one who brings down the tree that is high by the instrument of a foreign army, although in Ch. 17 the tree that was high is apparently Zedekiah, who was bold enough to rebel against Nebuchadnezzar, while in Ch. 31 it refers to Pharaoh, who simply became proud of himself. In 17:24 we read that “all the trees of the field will know that I am Yahweh; I will bring down the high tree, exalt the low tree, dry up the green tree and make the dry tree flourish. I am Yahweh; I have spoken, and I will do it.” In 31:15, with the fall of the great cedar and the holding back of the waters of “the Deep,” all the trees of the field, all of “the Lebanon,” languish and dry up (v. 15). Therefore, Ezekiel 17 and 31 contain similar metaphors and themes, which are directly related to historical events and to Israel’s relationship with foreign powers, as well as with Yahweh. Both passages imply that Yahweh is in control of all nations and the powers of life and death, including forces that dictate physical and political life and death. Both passages teach that reliance upon Egypt for political advantage is doomed to failure. Whether imagined as an eagle or the “Ram of the Nations,” Nebuchadnezzar is the instrument of Yahweh, and his victories (realized or expected) over Israel, Tyre, and Egypt are part of Yahweh’s plan. While Ch. 17 ends on a note of promise for those maintaining loyalty to the exiled king Jehoiachin, Ch. 31 makes a different sort

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

237

of appeal. The surviving nations (“trees of the field”) that surround and/or depend on Pharaoh may mourn his passing in 31:15, but the depiction of his fall to the underworld in 31:16–18 involves the comforting of the former nations (“trees”) that have already passed away. Pharaoh will be consigned to lie down with the uncircumcised, those slain by the sword (v. 18). This connotes an order to the underworld by which those who die dishonorably or who are dishonored after death in the land of the living also find themselves organized in ways that, for perpetuity, reflect this shameful state of affairs.68 This is confirmed when one examines the oracle of 32:18– 32, where the theme of Egypt’s dishonor in the underworld is elaborated. Here, the comparison with Assyria that began in Ch. 31 is resumed, but again in a highly ironic way. Just as Assyria once served as the epitome of beauty and honor, the prior “Cedar of Lebanon,” now she serves as Egypt’s predecessor in the most dishonorable location of the underworld, lying in the remotest parts of the pit (v. 23). The strategy of this ironic, emotional appeal is to depict Egypt not as an object of respect and honor for the exiles, but instead as an object of derision. The nation that once promised prosperity and protection for those living in its shadow now will dwell in the land of shadow, with nothing to offer its former patrons and rivals but the consolation of Egypt’s well-deserved indignity. The rhetoric of pathos is employed here for the sake of ethical ends. A positive ethos is first attributed to Egypt and Assyria through the metaphor of the great cedar in an attempt to honor Pharaoh, Israel’s most hopeful political ally in the first half of the sixth century BCE. Pharaoh’s reputation is built in “lofty” terms for the express purpose of tearing him down, demonstrating that he is a false source of hope for any who would depend upon him. The purpose is to build the ethos of Yahweh by comparison. Yahweh is credited both with making the great cedar initially enviable, yet also Cf. Daniel I. Block, “Beyond the Grave: Ezekiel’s Vision of Death and Afterlife,” BBR 2 (1992): 113–141, esp. 120–125. Cf. also Dale Launderville, “Ezekiel’s View of the Netherworld in Comparative Perspective” (Paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL; Washington, D.C., November 19, 2006). 68

238

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

with casting him down for the sin of hubris. Yahweh’s incomparability is therefore implicitly upheld. This comparison is signaled in v. 2 by the language of the rhetorical question, “To whom do you compare in glory and greatness among the trees of Eden?” The phrase ‫ּובג ֶֹדל‬ ְ ‫ב ָכבֹוד‬, ְ “in glory and in greatness,” reveals the unit’s concern with ethical matters, and the term “glory” is especially important in relation to the description of Yahweh’s appearance in the visions of 1–3, 8–11, and 40– 48. It is a term reserved in Ezekiel for describing a quality held by Yahweh alone (cf. 1:28; 3:12, 23; 8:4; 9:3; 10:4, 18, 19; 11:22, 23; 39:21; 43:2, 4, 5; 44:4). Glory is a quality applied only sarcastically to the King of Assyria (and implicitly Egypt) in 31:18. While Egypt will go down in infamy, Yahweh ultimately gains greater glory and greatness in the oracle as the author of her just demise. There are no explicit logical appeals in Ezek 31; the logic of the argument, much as in 28:11–19, is implicit. By making reference to Yahweh as creator in both 28:13 and 31:9, credit is given to Israel’s god for the financial and military successes of Tyre and Egypt. Just as Ezekiel explains that Israel’s disasters are the result of her rebellion and just punishment by the sovereign Lord Yahweh, the prosperity of the nations is credited to Yahweh. But lest the reader think Yahweh is too lenient in judging the nations, and too harsh with Israel, Ezekiel’s OAN teach that foreign nations are not treated significantly different from Israel. They will not escape punishment when they rebel against their creator. The nations’ hubris is incompatible with the nature of Yahweh’s sovereignty and must be punished. As stated previously, this teaches the doctrine of Yahweh’s incomparability in addition to demonstrating Yahweh’s consistent and just governance of the nations. By illustrating that Yahweh creates and controls paradise, as well as the fact that he holds the power to consign his enemies to the underworld, Ezekiel teaches that all historical exigencies affecting the fate of the nations, including Israel, reside in the domain of Yahweh’s control. In light of this treatment of Israel’s enemies, Israel’s own troubles gain new meaning and purpose, and Yahweh’s reputation is redeemed. Rhetorical Synthesis Using paradise imagery, Ezek 28:11–19 and 31:1–18 demonstrate an incompatibility that should be noticeable at first glance for an

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

239

audience already familiar with the paradise tradition found in Genesis, which depicts Yahweh as creator and ruler of Eden. The King of Tyre as guardian of Eden immediately presents a theological incompatibility for a traditional Yahwist. But it is an incompatibility that allows the text to acknowledge Tyre’s and Egypt’s prosperity and success, while still crediting Yahweh as the source of their blessing. Yahweh is affirmed as the creator and giver of prosperity, but also capable of withdrawing his favor and replacing it with a death sentence. This is an effective way of implicitly teaching that the real key to prosperity for the nations is garnering the favor of the Great King Yahweh, who will soon affirm his universally just rule when the current administrations of Tyre and Egypt fall. For an exilic audience, the claim that Yahweh controlled their destiny must surely have seemed incompatible with their current circumstances, the latter of which were no doubt all the more perplexing in light of the prosperity of their enemies. Even if one agreed with the argument of Ezek 1–24, that Israel was a rebellious house worthy of severe punishment, one might still have debated the extent of Yahweh’s justice and sovereignty on the grounds that the nations, who were equally idolatrous, were not receiving their due reward. This inequity needed to be addressed in order for Ezekiel to provide a comprehensive argument for Yahweh’s sovereignty and justice. When conjoined, the judgment of the nations in 25– 32 and the judgment of Israel in 1–24 depict Yahweh as the Great King, who is consistent and comprehensive in his application of justice. But none of this material precludes the argument for Yahweh’s favorable treatment of the exilic remnant in 33–48. In fact, by comparison with the treatment of the nations in 25–32 and 38– 39, Israel’s judgment is rather lenient. Regardless, the explicit treatment of Yahweh’s justice in Ch. 33 serves as a rhetorical bridge to discussing Israel’s future in all that follows. This clarifies that the primary rhetorical purpose of the OAN is Yahweh’s ethos, which must be bolstered in order for Israel to have a future. Ezekiel 33, much like Ezek 20, highlights the precarious nature of Yahweh’s reputation among the exilic community. Here, just prior to the announcement of Jerusalem’s fall, Yahweh makes his final and most passionate plea for Israel to repent, arguing that he in no way enjoys the execution of justice against his own people (v. 11): “As I live, says the Lord Yahweh, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Surely if the wicked one turns from his way

240

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

then he will live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways, for why should you die, House of Israel?” And yet, it should be acknowledged that the recognition of Jerusalem’s destruction must have served a devastating blow to the exilic psyche. The report of the city’s fate had a two-pronged effect: it affirmed the prophet’s prior preaching about the accountability and guilt of the exiles in the homeland’s fate, but it also effectively crushed exilic hope for a return to the life the exiles had known prior to 597 BCE. Judgment of this magnitude appears to have been interpreted as overkill on the part of Yahweh, and led the exiles to question how they could go on living with such a reality, at least living with the perspective that Yahweh was just and worthy of continued loyalty. But what options were left to those whose very identity had been so thoroughly demolished? What hope was left to salvage a sense of place and purpose? Without the rhetoric of Ezek 34–48, some form of religious assimilation seems to have been a foregone conclusion. The Rhetoric of Paradise in Ezekiel 36 and 47 While space does not allow here a thorough rhetorical analysis of Ezek 36 and 47, it is worth noting that Ezekiel uses paradise imagery outside of the OAN to promise a glorious future for the faithful community, a future of restoration in the Promised Land. Ezekiel 36:1–15 provides a divine address to the mountains of Israel that promises they will be fruitful and inhabited once again, and in Ezek 36:16–23, Yahweh gives the prophet a rationale for the promise. The mountains of Israel will be restored for the sake of redeeming Yahweh’s international reputation: I had concern for my holy name, which the House of Israel profaned among the nations when they went there. Therefore, say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord Yahweh: Not for your sake, house of Israel, am I doing [this], but for the sake of my holy name which you profaned among the nations when you went there (36:21–22).

This is followed by an oracle in vv. 24–38 that elaborates further on the future restoration mentioned in vv. 1–15: Israel will be gathered from the nations and returned to her land (v. 24); she will be cleansed from impurity (v. 25); she will receive a new heart (v. 26); Yahweh’s spirit will be placed within her, allowing her to obey his

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

241

statutes and ordinances (v. 27); Yahweh will renew his covenant with Israel and save her from her iniquities, bringing forth produce from the land and staving off famine (vv. 28–29); the land’s abundance will prevent the shame of famine from ever coming upon Israel again (v. 30); as a result of these blessings, the Israelites will remember their iniquity and loathe themselves (v. 31); all of this will happen for the sake of Yahweh’s reputation (v. 32); Israel will be cleansed, and the waste places will be rebuilt (v. 33); the land will be cultivated in the sight of passersby (v. 34), who will comment that the desolate land has become like the garden of Eden (v. 35); the nations will then know that Yahweh has made this happen (v. 36); Israel will be allowed to ask Yahweh to increase them like a flock (v. 37), and when they increase Israel will acknowledge Yahweh (v. 38). This elaboration of the restoration includes an explicit reference to paradise in v. 35 that provides an image of how glorious and fruitful Israel’s future in the homeland will be. Similarly, the closing vision of Ezek 40–48 includes a passage in 47:1–12 that depicts the miraculous fruitfulness of the land when Yahweh again resides in Israel’s midst. This appendix to the temple tour of the prophet found in 40:1–43:12 depicts the prophet being led by an angelic guide on a tour of the geography outside the future temple of Yahweh (cf. 40:2). A stream flows from the new altar, down the base of the temple (vv. 1–2), and eventually empties into the Dead Sea, turning it into fresh water (v. 8). It causes the fish to reproduce so abundantly that fishermen will line the banks of this new stream (vv. 9–10), and it causes trees to grow along its banks that will produce fruit year-round and produce leaves with healing properties (v. 12). While the literary contexts of the paradise imagery in Ezek 36 and 47 are quite different from that of the OAN, certain aspects of the implicit rhetorical message are similar. In both, one learns that Yahweh is the source of the earth’s fertility, and the deity’s presence can bestow such blessing that the land is transformed into a veritable paradise. In both chapters, the paradise imagery helps the reader understand the glorious future in store for those who remain faithful to Yahweh long enough to be included among those who return to the homeland. However, there are some other unique concerns that arise in Chs. 36 and 47. In Ezek 36:35, the comparison of the Land of Isra-

242

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

el to Eden is done by way of simile, and through the voice of foreign travelers. This, along with other references to the nations in 36:3, 6–7, and 15 highlights a concern with Israel’s ethos among the nations, rather than simply showing a concern for Yahweh’s ethos and the land’s fertility. Here, one finds that the nations not only helped to make Israel desolate, but now consider her an object of scorn. The concern with Israel’s reputation among the nations in 36:1–15 parallels the concern with Yahweh’s reputation in 36:16– 23. The Eden motif in Ezek 36 clarifies the extent to which the deity’s land will be transformed in the future; it will be re-cultivated and re-populated. It also argues that although both the people’s and Yahweh’s reputations will be redeemed in the eyes of the nations, the extent of the land’s new fertility will contrast so greatly with the past that it will remind Israel of her prior misdeeds, leading her to loath herself and therefore assume a proper orientation of shame before Yahweh (v. 31). While it may be inappropriate for Israel in the future to continue suffering shame before the nations, she should remain in a state of shame before Yahweh because of her past mistakes.69 This is a necessary state of affairs for Yahweh’s honor to be maintained in the future and for Israel to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. In 47:1–12, one finds not simply a verbal reference to paradise in the form of a simile. Instead, the reader is allowed to take a tour of Israel’s new paradise by seeing through the eyes of the prophet as he recounts his visionary journey. Here, the promise of paradise takes on more concrete shape and texture for the reader, who not only witnesses a picture of the future, but also imaginatively traverses it. The rhetorical effect is to make the future palpable,

The direct address in v. 32, “Be ashamed and humbled because of your ways, House of Israel,” should be understood as a clarification of how the exilic recipients of the promises in 36:15–30 should respond to receiving such undeserved promises for the future from Yahweh. Later, in Ezek 43:10–11, the exiles are to respond similarly with shame after having received from the prophet a description of the future temple of Yahweh in the land of Israel. 69

RHETORIC OF PARADISE AND THE UNDERWORLD

243

realistic, and dependable, and to make Yahweh a more desirable object of exilic faith.

CONCLUSION All the occurrences of paradise imagery in Ezekiel are reflective of an ethos strategy that seeks to solidify the exiles’ sense of attachment to Yahweh. In the OAN, the emphasis is primarily upon convincing the exiles that Yahweh wields the powers of life and death for all nations, and justly punishes them as well. Thus, his rule is universal, fair, and consistent. In the salvation sections, the emphasis is on reminding the exiles of the shamefulness of their idolatrous behavior, and creating a desire on their part to avoid any practice that might jeopardize their potentially glorious future in the Promised Land. Together, the rhetoric of paradise and the underworld serves an epideictic purpose, namely, to convince the exiles of the value of remaining true to their patron deity, who holds the forces of life and death in his hands, and who wants to bestow upon Israel a life more abundant than any they have ever known. Those nations that have exploited or led Israel astray will be appropriately punished, teaching that Yahweh’s punishment of Israel must be interpreted in the context of his judgment of all nations. The OAN show the extent of Yahweh’s power over life and death, and build the ethos of Yahweh as the universal divine sovereign. The fates of all nations, including Israel, lie within Yahweh’s domain. Thus, the only proper course of action for all who encounter these oracles is to acknowledge and obey Yahweh. As a trustworthy judge, Yahweh will reward and punish individuals on the basis of what they truly deserve. The strategy of the paradise and underworld motifs, whether used polemically in the OAN or in the context of salvation promises, is to support and clarify the nature of Yahweh’s kingship. This is in direct response to a rhetorical situation in which Yahweh’s sovereignty has been called into question or Yahweh’s justice has been disputed. Both divine qualities must be reinforced if the exilic community is to retain its identity as the people of Yahweh. The OAN teach that what Yahweh gives to foreign nations, Yahweh may take away, a message that is also applied to Israel in 1–24 and 33. This is, to an extent, the inverse of the argument that will follow the OAN in Ezekiel 34–48, the latter of which teach

244

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

that what Yahweh has taken away he may also give back (and then some). In its current arrangement, Ezekiel serves as a rhetorical roadmap for guiding the exilic community to a proper interpretation of past, present, and future for the very purpose of ensuring that Israel will in fact have a future as the people of Yahweh. This future hinges on the exiles’ proper evaluation of Yahweh’s sovereignty over all time and all space. Israel’s god is not simply a local, patron deity, whose power is limited to the Promised Land, but a deity exercising universal authority.

CHAPTER SEVEN: RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD Ezekiel details Israel’s future in Chs. 34–48 by providing a series of loosely connected oracles and vision reports that, in episodic fashion, depict what awaits those who remain faithful to Yahweh during the exile. A distinct concern with the triangular relationship between deity, land and people that lies at the foundation of Israel’s and Yahweh’s identity continues in this material. Ezekiel 34 begins the salvation section proper, and employs far more positive reinforcement than previous chapters in order to encourage the exiles to maintain covenant fidelity. The rhetoric here has some affinity with the OAN in that it promises punishment to those who mistreat the people of Israel. However, the condemnations of Ezek 34 are not directed toward the foreign nations, but Israel’s own leaders and the wealthier members of Israelite society, both of which have exploited their kinsfolk. Similarly, Ezek 34 blames the elites of Israelite society for the exile, rather than blaming the exiles themselves or the larger Judean community. Ezekiel 34 emphasizes the need for Yahweh to punish Israel’s kings for their inappropriate exercise of authority, including their irresponsible treatment of the weaker members of society. They have exploited those on behalf of which they were charged the duty of oversight and protection. In addition, the rich are allowed to exploit the poor by hoarding resources for themselves. The argument is presented primarily by means of shepherd and sheep metaphors that refer to the king and people, respectively. It culminates in the promise that Yahweh, as divine shepherd, will forcefully take control of his flock, drive off the bad shepherds, and appoint a new king who will rule in accordance with the divine will. In conjunction with this, Yahweh will also bless the Land of 245

246

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Israel with fertility in order to provide a rich pasture for his scattered flock when he brings them home. Ezekiel 34 contains some of the most positive, divine ethosbuilding rhetoric in the entire book. Building upon the idea in the previous chapter that Yahweh takes no pleasure even in the death of the wicked (33:11), Ezek 34 makes clear that Yahweh will surely champion the cause of the righteous. In fact, the reader encounters here a new argument that blames Israel’s kings for the exile, and which allows a new concept of righteous suffering to emerge among the exilic community. This also allows the exiles to imagine Yahweh more as a savior figure, whose just judgment is directed elsewhere. This helps to engender a sense of appreciation and trust toward the deity rather than resentment, which will fulfill the epideictic purpose of the text. This goal is supported further by the promise of a new era of covenant peace between god and people.

THE SHEPHERD KINGSHIP OF YAHWEH (EZEK 34:1–31) Rhetorical Unit, Translation, Arrangement, and Genre 1 Then the word of Yahweh came to me, saying, 2 Son of Adam, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy and say unto them, “Thus says the Lord Yahweh, Woe to the shepherds of Israel who tend themselves! Should the shepherds not tend the flock? 3 The fat you eat and the wool you wear; the fatlings you slaughter; the flock you do not tend. 4 The weak you have not strengthened, and the sick you have not healed; the injured you have not bound up, the stray 1 you have not returned, and the lost2 you have not sought out, but with harshness and cruelty you have driven them.3

Translating ‫( ַהנִ ַד ַחת‬literally, “the one having strayed”) as “the stray,” following Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 278. 2 Translating ‫( ָהא ֶב ֶדת‬literally, “the one being lost/perishing”) as “the lost,” again following Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 278. 1

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

247

5 So they were scattered because they were without a real shepherd, and they became as food for all the beasts of the field because they were scattered. 6 My flock went astray4 on all the mountains and on every high hill, and across the entire face of the earth my flock was scatThis verb can also connote one who is “carried off” (especially when occurring with the ‫ ִמן‬preposition). It is possible that here the verb implies a lamb that has been carried off by a wild beast, and the shepherd does not pursue. Cf. HALOT 1:2, “‫אבד‬,” no. 5. 3 Translating ‫ּוב ָפ ֶרְך‬ ְ as “and with cruelty.” Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 278, n. 37, points out that ‫“ פרך‬refers to the Egyptian oppression of Israelite slaves” in Exod 1:13–14, and occurs in Lev 25:43, 46, 53 in the context of warnings against the inhumane treatment of “a fellow Israelite.” 4 The root ‫ שגה‬can imply moral wandering, which clearly suggests a double entendre here in light of the formulaic use of “every high hill,” a reference to proscribed worship at the high places. Cf. HALOT 2:1413. As Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 278, n. 41, points out, “The verb is never used of a flock [elsewhere in the MT], only of erring humans.” Thus, its use here appears to be a creative invention of the author and/or editor of this unit. This further implies that the leaders of Israel being condemned here are not only guilty of exploiting the people, but also guilty for the religious sins of the people in worshiping Yahweh improperly or for worshiping other deities on the high places. This is extremely significant in light of the heavy emphasis on idolatry in Ezekiel. Ezekiel arguably treats idolatry as the most egregious sin of Israel, addressing the people so often in the prophetic corpus as a “rebellious house.” However, one cannot ignore that there are other texts in which idolatry is treated alongside sins of violence and exploitation of neighbor, in this regard the text most clearly related to Ezek 34 being Ezek 22, where one encounters the condemnation of corporate Israel (i.e., both leaders and others) through the metaphor of the “bloody city” (cf. the parallel term of address “House of Israel” in 22:18). The addressee in Ezek 22 alternates between Israel’s various leaders (princes in vv. 6, 27; priests in v. 26; prophets in vv. 25, 28) and more general references to the city’s inhabitants as “men of slander” (v. 9), “people of the land” (v. 29), or simply men via ambiguous 3rd masculine singular and/or plural verbs

248

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!” tered; and no one was seeking and no one was searching for them.5 7 Therefore, shepherds, hear the word of Yahweh. 8 As I live, says the Lord Yahweh, because my flock became plunder, and my flock became food for all the beasts of the field since they were without a shepherd, and my shepherds did not seek my flock, but the shepherds tended themselves, and have not tended my flock;

(vv. 7, 8, 9, 10, 12). However, the general and corporate guilt of the city’s inhabitants is made clear by the use of the ‫וְ ִאיש … וְ ִאיש‬, “one [does x] … and another [does y],” pattern in 22:11 and especially in the 3rd and 2nd masc. pl. terms of address to the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the oracle of 22:17–22: ‫כ ָּלם‬, ֻּ “all of them” (v. 18); ‫כ ְּל ֶכם‬, ֻּ “all of you” (v. 19); and ‫א ְת ֶכם‬, ֶ “you,” in vv. 19, 20, 21, 22. In spite of the prevalence of corporate condemnation throughout much of Ezek 3–24 generally, there are also explicit teachings on individual accountability (cf. 7:16; 18:30; 20:7; 33:20) and other metaphorical references to unfaithful kings (cf. Ezek 17:1–21). However, here in Ezek 34, in direct contrast to the emphasis on individual accountability in the argument immediately prior in Ch. 33, one finds a shift in the locus of responsibility from individual to leader, a theme one finds nowhere else in the Ezekiel corpus except Ch. 22. This is best explained by positing that here in Ezek 34 the author primarily has in mind the sins of the pre-exilic, “pre-scattering” period in the Israelite kingdom’s history, in which the nation’s sins were altogether so immense that corporate punishment was justified, even if the more guilty parties were Israel’s leaders. In this light, Ezek 34 should be understood as beginning with a brief metaphoric review of Israel’s monarchic period, which was characterized by the failure of all her shepherds (i.e., kings, priests, and prophets) as well as the failure of her stronger sheep (i.e., Jerusalem’s other more powerful inhabitants, perhaps the wealthy), the latter which will be the subject of the next section, namely 34:20–22. 5 Since both roots ‫ דרש‬and ‫ בקש‬may imply the cultic consultation of a deity, they may serve as double entendres here, implying the lack of consultation with Yahweh for direction during the period leading up to Jerusalem’s destruction. Cf. HALOT 1:152–153. As noted above, Ezek 22 also condemns Israel’s religious leaders (priests and prophets) for dereliction of duty.

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

249

9 Therefore, shepherds, hear the word of Yahweh, 10 Thus says the Lord Yahweh, behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will reclaim my flock from their hand, and I will remove them from tending the flock, and the shepherds will tend themselves no more, and I will deliver my flock from their mouths, and they will no longer be food for them. 11 For thus says the Lord Yahweh, behold, I myself will seek out my flock and I will search for them. 12 As a shepherd searches for his herd on the day he is in the midst of his scattered flock, thus shall I search for my flock and I will deliver them from all the places where they were scattered abroad on a day of cloud and darkness. 13 And I will bring them out from the foreign peoples, and I will gather them from the foreign lands, and I will bring them to their own land, and I will tend them upon the mountains of Israel, beside the streams and in all the dwellings of the land. 14 On good pasture I will tend them, and the mountain heights of Israel will be their meadowland; there they will lie down in a good meadow and rich pasture; they will graze upon the mountains of Israel. 15 I will tend my flock and I will cause them to lie down, says the Lord Yahweh. 16 The lost I will seek, and the strays I will cause to return, and the injured I will bind up and the sick I will strengthen,6 but

Here, the verbs of v. 4 that were used to list the neglected duties of Israel’s prior shepherds are used, in reverse order, in a chiastic fashion to highlight Yahweh’s provision for all of Israel’s needs. However, the closing list is not perfectly parallel, since it appears that the prior references to “the weak” and “the sick,” who before were “strengthened” and “healed” respectively, have here been combined. Thus, in v. 16, Yahweh strengthens the sick. 6

250

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!” the fat one and the strong one I will exterminate; I will tend that one7 with justice.

Literally, “I will tend her/it” (fs suffix), referring to the preceding two fs nouns: “the fat one” and “the strong one.” In the following section of text (i.e., vv. 17–22), there is a development of the motif of fat versus lean sheep that seems to expand the scope of those who have exploited the flock to include the rich. Thus, the contrast of “haves” and “havenots,” represented by the “fat” and the “strong,” here encompasses the larger society. This development or shift in scope need not preclude my translation above that understands vv. 1–16 as being more concerned with Israel’s kings, and vv. 17–22 as being more concerned with the larger population. Thus, I have chosen to translate the pair of singular absolute adjectives as having one, single referent in v. 16, namely, the king (i.e., “the fat and the strong one”), which is in agreement with the fs suffix of the verb in the phrase ‫א ְר ֶענָ ה ְב ִמ ְש ָפט‬, ֶ “I will tend her/it (i.e., that one), with justice.” Therefore, in my translation, the referent for the fs suffix of the verb ‫ ֶא ְר ֶענָ ה‬is the immediately preceding fs direct object(s) “the fat and the strong.” However, this does not require one to understand the fs form as referring only to one king. “The fat and the strong” should still be understood collectively as referring to Israel’s kings rather than simply the fat and strong members of the society at large. If the direct objects in v. 16 were intended to refer to a collective of fat and strong ones among all the people, one might expect a collective fp or mp suffix for the verb ‫רעה‬, such as one finds in the prior section of vv. 12–15 in relation to the form ‫צֹאנִ י‬, “my [Yahweh’s] flock,” which demonstrates the use of a fs noun (‫ )צֹאן‬with 1cs possessive suffix, the noun understood here as a collective. In reference to ‫( צֹאנִ י‬v. 12), one finds numerous instances of 3mp and 3cp suffixes and/or verb forms (“them/they”). For example, cf. ‫וְ ִה ַצ ְל ִּתי ֶא ְת ֶהם‬, “and I will deliver them” (v. 12); ‫נָ פֹצּו‬, “they have been scattered” (v. 12); ‫אתים‬ ִ ‫הֹוצ‬ ֵּ ְ‫ו‬, “and I will bring them out” (v. 13); ‫א ְר ֶעה א ָֹתם‬, ֶ “I will tend them” (v. 14); ‫יצם‬ ֵּ ‫א ְר ִב‬, ַ “I will make them lie down” (v. 15; 3mp suffix), etc. In 34:16, the author is still focusing primarily on the unique role of the king, but the metaphor of sheep and shepherd subtly shifts so as to treat the human shepherd/king as a member of the flock that has grown strong and fat at the others’ expense. The following section (vv. 17–22) then begins to expand the metaphor of “fat” and “strong” to include other members of society that exploit the poor. 7

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

251

17 But you are my flock. Thus says the Lord Yahweh, behold, I am judging between sheep and sheep, between rams and goats. 18 Is there so little good pasturage about you for grazing, that you must trample the remains of your pasturage with your feet? And while you drink clear waters, you must foul that which remains with your feet? 19 So that my flock must graze upon the trampling of your feet, and drink the fouled waters of your feet? 20 Therefore, thus says the Lord Yahweh unto them, behold, I myself will judge between fat sheep and lean sheep. 21 Because with hip and with shoulder you have pushed aside, and with your horns you have butted all the weak, such that you have scattered them to the outskirts. 22 But I will bring deliverance to my flock, and they will no longer be as prey, for I will judge between sheep and sheep. 23 And I will raise up over them a single shepherd, and he will tend them — my servant David. He will tend them, and he will be a real shepherd to them. 24 I, Yahweh, will be their god, and my servant David will be a ruler8 in their midst; I, Yahweh, have spoken. 25 And I will cut with them a covenant of peace and I will bring to an end the dangerous beast in the land that they may dwell in the wilderness in security, and sleep in the forests. 26 And I will establish them and the environs of my hill as a blessing, and I will send down the rain in its season; they will be showers of blessing. 27 And the tree of the field will produce its fruit, and the earth will yield its produce, and they will be secure upon their land, and they will know that I am Yahweh when I break the bars of

8

Translating ‫ נָ ִׂשיא‬as “ruler,” one divinely appointed and sanctioned.

252

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!” yoke [that are] upon them and I deliver them from the hand of the ones exploiting them. 28 And never again will they be plunder for the nations, nor will the beasts of the land feed upon them, and they will dwell in safety and nothing will terrify them. 29 I will establish for them a planting of renown, and never again will they perish from famine in the land, and never again will they bear the reproach of the nations. 30 And they will know that I, Yahweh their god, am with them;9 and these are my people, the House of Israel, says the Lord Yahweh. 31 For you are my flock; you are the human flock of my pasture; I am your god, says the Lord Yahweh.’”

Ezekiel 34 follows the subunit of 33:23–33, which includes a final word of judgment on the homeland of Israel in vv. 23–29, and a word of encouragement to the prophet in vv. 30–33, claiming that his reputation will be redeemed when Jerusalem’s judgment arrives. Verses 23–29 reflect the knowledge that survivors were living among the ruins of Jerusalem who believed it was now their right to take possession of vacated lands (v. 24). In vv. 28–29, as a punishment for the idolatry of the Judean remnant, Yahweh promises to make the homeland utterly desolate and therefore empty of all life (cf. vv. 25–26). As Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 295, points out, “Three Hebrew mss., LXX, and Syr. omit ‘ōtām, ‘with them.’” Including it in translation throws off not only any sense of balance with the following phrase “and these are my people,” but also it is out of harmony with so many other instances of the recognition formula in Ezekiel where the phraseology is simply: “I am Yahweh.” However, such disharmony alone should not preclude the more difficult reading. The emphasis here is more than simply recognizing Yahweh’s sovereignty. Instead, this passage emphasizes Yahweh’s solidarity with his beleaguered people. He will once again dwell among them in the Promised Land, thereby fully restoring the identity of the people, and restoring a positive reputation for them among the nations. 9

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

253

Ezekiel 34 makes it clear who will possess the homeland in the future, and affirms the exiles’ covenant with Yahweh by means of the metaphor of the shepherd-king. The chapter also gives a new explanation for who is responsible for the exile, how a repeat of the disaster may be avoided in the future (cf. 36:25–28), and even what the long-term benefits of returning to the homeland will be. Ezek 34 is comprised of three main parts:10 1) verses 1–16, an oracle of salvation for the scattered sheep of Israel that begins as a woe oracle for Israel’s previous shepherds. The oracle ends with the promise that Yahweh will take direct control of his flock. 2) Verses 17–24 are an oracle of salvation for the exiles that continues to develop the sheep/shepherd metaphor, taking the predominant form of a judgment oracle against members of the flock who are abusive. The oracle is directed against the wealthier members of the former Judahite society, but as Zimmerli argues, it may also have in mind wealthier members of the Israelite society in exile.11 This oraFor a discussion of this arrangement with a slightly different thematic approach, cf. Durlesser, The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel, 126. 11 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 214, argues against limiting the addressees in 34:1–24 to “the leaders of the people in exile or in Judah-Jerusalem or, even further back, of those of the northern kingdom of Israel … [because] … the oracle is directed to the history of Israel as a whole.” Regardless, the vision of restoration in Ezek 37:15–28, which has a number of shared themes with Ch. 34, has in mind a more comprehensive restoration of both northern and southern kingdoms, promising their reunification under “one shepherd” (i.e., a Davidic King in v. 24; cf. 34:23–24). Ezek 37 also promises the establishment of a covenant of peace (v. 26; cf. 34:25), includes a reaffirmation of the covenant (v. 27; cf. 34:17, 24, 30, 31), and promises that Yahweh will dwell once again in the midst of his people (v. 26: “I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever”). However, unlike Ezek 34, there is no reference in Ch. 37 to Yahweh favoring one geographical region of Israel over another for the site of his dwelling (cf. 34:26: “I will establish them and the environs of my hill as a blessing”). On Yahweh’s dwelling place as a hill, Cf. 1 Sam 7:1; 10:5, 10; 2 Sam 6:3, 4. Isaiah refers to Mount Zion as a hill: “the mountain of the daughter of 10

254

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

cle ends with a promise of new human leadership for the people in the form of a Davidic ruler. 3) Verses 25–31 elaborate on the new future Yahweh has in store for his battered flock. It includes a new covenant of peace between god and people that results in a blessed land that will never fail to provide the necessary resources for the people’s prosperity. It ends by reaffirming Yahweh’s ongoing covenant with Israel. To date, James Durlesser offers the most thorough analysis of the rhetorical arrangement of Ezek 34.12 The first subunit of vv. 1– 16 serves the dual purpose of pronouncing judgment on Israel’s former kings, and promising salvation for the people scattered as a result of the kings’ negligence and/or exploitation. The most formal structural element for this section is the inclusio of vv. 4 and 16, which frames the unit with “an extended chiastic reversal” of the sheep’s fortunes.13 The same language used to describe the shepherds’ mistreatment or neglect of the sheep in v. 4 is used to describe the divine shepherd’s more appropriate treatment of the flock in v. 16. The judgment against the bad shepherds in v. 16 refers to them as “the fat and the strong.” Verses 1–16 contain “contrasting summaries” of the behavior of Israel’s human shepherds and that of Israel’s divine shepherd, indicting the former in v. 4 with the charge: “But with harshness Zion, the hill of Jerusalem” (Isa 10:32); “Mount Zion and on its hill” (Isa 31:4). There are also multiple references to the term “every high hill,” a derogatory designation for forbidden, rival worship sites (cf., e.g., 2 Kgs 17:10; Isa 30:25; Jer 2:20; Ezek 6:13; 20:28). In a passage most scholars consider the precursor to Ezek 34, Jeremiah laments that “My people have become lost sheep; their shepherds have caused them to wander on the mountains; turning them from mountain to hill, they wander about; they have forgotten their bedding place” (50:6). In light of these traditions, which almost certainly lie behind Ezek 34, it seems safe to assume that Yahweh’s reference to “my hill” in 34:6 refers to Mt. Zion in Jerusalem and is intended to set up an explicit contrast to rival worship sites (“every high hill” in 34:6). 12 Durlesser, The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel, Ch. III, 111– 148. 13 Durlesser, The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel, 126.

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

255

and cruelty you have driven them,” and highlighting Yahweh’s responsible seizure of control in v. 16 with the claim: “I will tend that one with justice.”14 However, what is highlighted most at the conclusion of the oracle in v. 16 is Yahweh’s sovereignty over the flock, including his sovereignty over its former shepherds. This sovereignty will be demonstrated most profoundly when the deity takes direct control of the sheep and brings them back home, treating them with compassion. It will also be demonstrated by his harsh judgment of the exploitative shepherds. There is a subtle and implicit shift in the metaphor of sheep and shepherd that occurs in v. 16, whereby the abusive, human shepherd/king now finds himself just another sheep in the divine shepherd-king’s flock, albeit a fat and strong one. Yahweh as true owner takes control of the entire flock, and begins exercising his sovereignty by punishing the human kings. The argument here blames Israel’s kings for causing the exile of the rest of the flock, which reflects an important shift in Ezekiel’s rhetoric. No longer focusing on the guilt of the exiles and on Yahweh’s just behavior in scattering them to foreign lands, Ezek 34:1–16 condemns Israel’s rulers for scattering the flock (v. 5). “The only line in … [vv. 14 and 16] which [rhetorically] stands without parallel is the line in v 16 in which Yahweh says, ‘The fat and the strong one I am going to destroy.’”15 Ironically, this message of destruction serves as the heart of an oracle of salvation for the exiles. Somewhat like that found in the OAN, it presents the judgment of one’s enemy as a message of hope for the oppressed Italics mine, for emphasis. Cf. Durlesser, The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel, 127. Durlesser interprets the 3fs suffix here in reference to the entire flock, but this ignores the immediately preceding feminine singular absolute adjectives in the very same verse referring to “the fat and the strong.” Despite highlighting the importance of the contrasting statements that supposedly “proclaim the message of the oracle in summary form” (127–128), Durlesser apparently misunderstands the way in which these statements are designed to contrast the abusive sheep, which Yahweh will judge, and the abused sheep, which he promises to rescue. 15 Durlesser, The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel, 128. I translate this phrase: “the fat and strong one I will exterminate.” 14

256

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

members of the Israelite community. The enemy may be a native rather than a foreign king, but the solution (Yahweh’s exercise of justice) is the same as that found in the OAN. Because Yahweh is truly a god of justice, and a true shepherd, the lost sheep of Israel will be reclaimed and cared for properly. The emphasis here on Yahweh’s saving work as divine shepherd suggests that the argument in vv. 1–16 is primarily judicial and ethical. It is designed to encourage the reader to affirm the judgment of its former kings and, by way of contrast, to more highly esteem Yahweh as divine king, who will reverse their fortunes. This argument is assisted by way of the “middle hinge” at v. 8 that acts as a “causal clause” designed to repeat the prior accusations and heighten the sense of sinfulness and guilt on the part of the bad shepherds immediately prior to Yahweh’s announcement of punishment.16 Here Yahweh swears by his own life and clarifies that the reason for his direct intervention on behalf of the flock is purely a concern for justice, because they have been mistreated and neglected by those in authority over them. What follows in vv. 10– 16 is a series of 1cs verbs with Yahweh as subject, an example of form and function in harmony as the deity promises to exercise his authority to rule over his flock. Yahweh will personally initiate and fulfill the promises. His life is the guarantee of their fulfillment. This personal involvement of the deity in shepherding the flock contrasts rather blatantly with what many scholars consider the precursor for Ezekiel’s use of the shepherd/sheep metaphor, namely, Jer 23, where Yahweh, after returning his flock “to their fold” (v. 3), places his sheep under the care of new shepherds: “I will set shepherds over them who will care for them” (v. 4).17 Here in Ezekiel, Yahweh at least temporarily tends his flock himself prior to appointing a new human shepherd in the form of a Davidic ruler (vv. 23–24), who will behave as a human king should.18

Durlesser, The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel, 131. Following Durlesser’s argument and translation in The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel, 133–134. 18 Durlesser, The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel, 134, following Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 216. 16 17

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

257

Durlesser, following Zimmerli, also points out that the oracle ends at v. 16 in such a way as to provide a “hinge device between vv 2–15 and vv 17ff.,” this being the theme of justice.19 Zimmerli considers the term ‫“ ִמ ְש ָפט‬the key-word which dominates the discussion that follows: the reference to the justice of Yahweh’s judgment against his flock.”20 This second so-called hinge links the two units of vv. 1–16 and vv. 17–22 by means of an overlapping theme. “A keyword from one unit at the extreme of an adjoining unit [serves] to signal the connection between the two units.”21 However, justice serves as more than simply a keyword to connect two units of text in Ezek 34. Rather, it is an overarching theme for the entire chapter that clarifies the nature of Yahweh’s kingship. Durlesser argues that the “use of second person pronouns in vv 1–16” implies that the prophet understood the addressees of the opening oracle to have been present in the exilic audience. 22 One reason for rejecting this position is the tendency of Ezekiel’s oracles to be directly addressed to their object in the second person, whether that object is present or far away.23 This is typical of ancient Israelite prophecy and probably ancient Near Eastern proph-

Durlesser, The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel, 134, following Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 212. Cf. also Hals, Ezekiel, 249. 20 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 212. 21 Durlesser, The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel, 134, citing H. Van Dyke Parunak, “Transitional Techniques in the Bible,” JBL 102:4 (1983): 525–548 (532). 22 Durlesser, The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel, 138. 23 Cf., for example, the judgment oracle against Edom in 35:1–15 that begins: “Mortal, set your face against Mount Seir, and prophesy against it, and say to it, ‘Thus says the Lord Yahweh, “Behold, I am against you, Mount Seir, and I will stretch out my hand against you and make you a desolation and a waste” (vv. 1–2). Cf. also the salvation oracle addressed to the mountains of Israel in 36:1–15, which begins: “Son of man, prophesy to the mountains of Israel. Say, ‘Mountains of Israel, hear the word of Yahweh’ (v.1).” Both oracles make use of second person address. 19

258

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

ecy in general.24 Regardless, Durlesser is correct in interpreting 34:17–24 as an expansion of the implied audience of vv. 1–16.25 In this second subunit the object of judgment is not the shepherds, but those sheep (i.e., citizens of Israelite society) that exploited their fellow sheep. This change in theme is designed to surprise an audience already favorably disposed toward the speaker for judging the abuses of Israel’s ruling class in the prior subunit.26 Durlesser considers this a typical component of the so-called “halving technique” in “Ezekelian allegory.”27 In such cases, the theme in the first half of an allegorical text gets “alter[ed]” in some significant way in the latter half of the unit. In Ezek 34, vv. 1–16 first seek to win the favor of the exilic reader by blaming Israel’s evil kings for scattering them to foreign lands, promising the destruction of the exploiters. The oracle concludes positively by promising that Yahweh will rescue the scattered sheep (vv. 11–16). However, the following oracle takes a dramatic turn by elaborating metaphorically the way other privileged members of the Judean society have exploited their fellow citizens.

Cf., for example, Balaam’s prophecies about Israel, in which he apparently seeks a mountaintop view of the Israelite camp in order to issue his blessings/curses in Num 22:41; 23:13, 27–28. Note also that, if the object of one’s prophetic utterance is not present, one might not only utter prophecy in the direction of the object, but also deliver the prophetic word in the vicinity of the object through the vehicle of a scroll. In the case of Jer 51:59–64, Jeremiah has an emissary carry his prophetic words to Babylon and read his oracle against this nation there in a foreign land, before then flinging the scroll into the Euphrates. This latter action not only serves as a symbolic action for the “sinking” of Babylon (v. 64), but it also prevents the scroll from being confiscated and burned, perhaps before the outcome of the prophecy can be magically averted by destroying the scroll (cf. Zedekiah’s destruction of one of Jeremiah’s scrolls in 36:20–32). 25 Durlesser, The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel, 138. 26 Durlesser, The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel, 139. 27 Durlesser, The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel, 139. 24

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

259

Here, the divine shepherd scrutinizes a much broader segment of society, an event previously depicted in Ezek 20:37–38. In both 34:17–22 and 20:37–38 the scattered people are gathered by the divine shepherd and the rebellious or sinful members are purged (cf. 20:38). Also linking the two is a reaffirmation of the covenant bond between Yahweh and Israel (20:37; 34:24–25, 30–31). In the second subunit of Ch. 34 (vv. 17–24), the chief focus of Yahweh’s judgment in the previous unit (i.e., Israel’s kings) shifts to the “rams” (i.e., stronger members of the flock in v. 17). The temporal focus of vv. 1–16 is upon Israelite society prior to the disruption of the monarchy in 587/586 BCE, when Zedekiah was captured and replaced by the so-called governor Gedaliah (cf. 2 Kgs 25:22–23). And one could argue that vv. 17–24 should likewise be understood as referring to the situation in Israel prior to 587/586. However, it is intriguing to consider how the emphasis on “rams and goats” (v. 17) and “fat sheep and lean sheep” (v. 20) might also apply to an exilic audience, especially if that audience contained, as most scholars attest, a significant number of formerly elite Judahite citizens.28 It may be the case that Ezekiel 34 condemns the formerly elite members of the society in order to answer questions that have arisen among the formerly poor members about the punishment of exile “fitting the crime.” In other words, prior explanations for the exile that emphasize Yahweh’s just punishment of idolatry and violence (cf. 7:11, 23; 8:17; 12:19; 22:26) may have proved ineffective for the poorer members of the exilic community, who would have perceived themselves more as innoMost of the Israelites originally deported with the priest Ezekiel in 597 BCE would not have been considered the weak and poor members of Judean society prior to their capture by Babylon. It was their privileged position in King Jehoiachin’s administration that led to their exile in the first place during the initial, non-violent takeover of Jerusalem. It is possible that the makeup of the exilic community significantly changed over time, perhaps with the influx of new exiles after the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. It is also possible that, over time, the exilic community became economically stratified, as some members of the community found ways to assimilate to Babylonian society. But there is little archaeological evidence to clarify the nature of exilic life under Babylonian rule. 28

260

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

cent victims, caught up in Yahweh’s indiscriminate judgment. Ezekiel 34 responds by blaming the powerful members of the former society for driving the weaker sheep away. But a question remains whether the metaphors of fat and lean sheep merely apply to the former Israelite society. The shift in Ezek 34 whereby the bulk of responsibility for the exile is placed upon Israel’s kings and the rich raises the question of how individual accountability relates to corporate accountability in the larger prophetic book. This relationship appears not to be perfectly clear or consistent. Since both types of rhetoric remain in the final form of the book, it is likely the case that each serves as a snapshot of different rhetorical situations, and different rhetorical solutions, in the ongoing life of the exilic community. The indictment of the rams (v. 17) and fat sheep (v. 20) refers to a mistreatment of others in relation to the resources that sustain life (food and water in vv. 18–19; good land in v. 21), suggesting that some other form of exploitation by the “fat and strong” members of society is in mind than that perpetrated by Israel’s kings. The strong sheep hoard natural resources so that the weaker are left with nothing on which to live. Yahweh promises to judge between them and weed out the fat and strong. 29 Whether or not the exploitation refers to events prior to exile, during exile, or both, cannot be conclusively proved. However, the theme of weeding out or purging the exilic community in the wilderness has already appeared in 20:38, and seems to be an ongoing means of encouraging the exiles to remain faithful in a foreign land. The second subunit, then, extends the indictment for exploitation to other members of the Judahite community, perhaps even to some in the exilic community. It also promises a future in which an appropriate human (Davidic) shepherd will rule over the flock. In this future, Yahweh will be acknowledged as the true shepherd of Israel. The third subunit of vv. 25–31 has been labeled a coda by Durlesser, which he understands as a concluding piece that blends In keeping with the metaphor, it is ironic that the fat and the strong sheep do themselves harm, because these are the more likely candidates for culling a herd. 29

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

261

prior themes from the preceding subunits.30 The term can imply an extra or added section of text not structurally necessary to the socalled original piece, but designed to give additional information. Its structural necessity to what precedes it is a matter of debate. The fact that the material in vv. 25–31 is included in the final form of Ezek 34 suggests that, from the final author’s or editor’s perspective, the material is necessary to communicate the overall, intended message. The material in vv. 25–31 expands on what precedes it, but moves beyond the parallel structure of the sheep and shepherd metaphor in 1–24. Thus, on purely literary and thematic grounds, the third sub-unit is deserving of the term coda. However, rhetorically speaking, vv. 1–24 are already moving in the direction of vv. 25–31, the latter of which is their climax and culmination. While expansive, these verses are the dramatic conclusion of what precedes them, and therefore should be seen as more than just an appendix to the rest of the chapter. This concluding section begins by promising a new covenant with Israel immediately after having reaffirmed the ancient covenant in v. 24 with the words, “I, Yahweh, will be their god.” That v. 25 promises a new covenant is made clear by the use of the verb ‫וְ ָכ ַר ִּתי‬, “and I will cut,” a root traditionally used to denote the establishment of a covenant between two parties.31 In addition, the covenant of peace mentioned here refers not to the Abrahamic covenant, but rather to “an older biblical and ancient Near Eastern motif associated with the primeval era,” whose “original function … was to signify a cessation of hostility toward humankind by the gods after the former revolted.”32 The ramifications of this new covenant, which apparently functions alongside of or synthetically with the old covenant, are that Israel will dwell securely in the Promised Land, having nothing further to fear from foreign nations, wild animals, famine, and the Durlesser, The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel, 143. Cf. G. F. Hasel, “‫ ָכ ַרת‬kārat,” TDOT 7:339–352, especially 349– 352. Cf. also M. Weinfeld, “‫ ְב ִרית‬berîth,” TDOT 2:253–279. 32 Bernard F. Batto, “The Covenant of Peace: A Neglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif,” CBQ 49 (1987): 187–211. 30 31

262

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

anger of their god. Israel’s reputation will be redeemed in the eyes of the nations, and Yahweh will dwell again with his people, protecting them in the future from the leadership of bad shepherds. The people will acknowledge Yahweh’s ownership of them when they have been rescued from those who have exploited them. The rhetoric of vv. 25–31 is twofold. It gives a new cause for the exile in its condemnation of the elite members of society, and it promises a reversal of fortune for the weaker members, who, like simple sheep, were led astray or driven off their land. Rather than take responsibility here for causing the exile himself, Yahweh is merely depicted as providing the solution by bringing back the exploited sheep and protecting them. The unit moves from an initial focus upon the neglect of Yahweh’s “hired hands,” the human shepherds in whose charge Yahweh had placed his flock, to focus upon the benefits in store for the neglected sheep when Yahweh seizes control of them. Interestingly, the question of why Yahweh, if fully capable of intervening on behalf of the weaker sheep in the future, would wait until this particular moment in history to assert his sovereignty by removing the bad sheep and shepherds is not addressed. Why not do so before the sheep were scattered? Why not prevent their exploitation in the first place? Ezekiel neither raises nor answers these questions. In contrast to the bulk of Ezek 1–24, Ezek 34 reflects a much more positive tone toward the scattered sheep of Israel. However, in both Chs. 20 and 34 Yahweh’s more direct rule over his people is understood to be a necessity if the people are to have a better future. Yahweh’s seizing control of his people in Ezek 20 predominantly emphasizes Israel’s guilt and necessary punishment. There, one encounters the people being gathered like a scattered flock (v. 34), scrutinized by their shepherd (“made to pass under the rod” in v. 34), and culled of the bad sheep (v. 38). Chapter 20 concludes by promising the return of the “whole House of Israel” (v. 40) to the land and Yahweh’s accepting their worship on his “holy mountain” (v. 40), but the text also clarifies that those who will constitute Israel will be only be the ones who prove themselves worthy during the wilderness experience of exile by avoiding idolatry. Thus, salvation is promised, but only for some. Throughout Ezek 20, the chief emphases are Israel’s idolatry and Yahweh desire to redeem the honor of his name (vv. 41, 43–44).

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

263

By way of contrast, Ezek 34 depicts a much more gracious, caring, and discriminating god, who primarily blames Israel’s rich and powerful for causing the exile, and which especially targets Israel’s kings for condemnation. This more discriminating judgment may follow from further reflection among the exiles and/or the author of this material on the way Yahweh judges his people, embracing here an approach focused more on individual rather than corporate behavior. However Ezek 8–11 depicts Yahweh placing a protective mark on the righteous prior to Jerusalem’s destruction, and both Ch. 18 and Ch. 33 emphasize individual responsibility amidst explicit calls for repentance. In Ch. 34, the exiles as a whole are primarily treated as victims that Yahweh will rescue. While the first two subunits emphasize the Israelite community only, the final subunit (vv. 27–28) broadens the focus of the exiles’ persecution to include the enslavement and mistreatment perpetrated by “the nations.” Verse 29 even emphasizes the shame endured not by Yahweh, but by his people, and promises a reversal of this situation. The end of the unit, and its culmination, is a reaffirmation of the covenant, and a reaffirmation that Israel and the Land belong to Yahweh in a series of 1st person singular pronominal suffixes: “my people” (v. 30), “my sheep,” and “my pasture” (v. 31). Strategically speaking, the unit as a whole is geared toward judicial and ethical matters, with an epideictic purpose. Yahweh’s sovereignty is the implicit vehicle by which he seizes control of his flock, but redeeming the honor of his name, unlike Ch. 20, is not the explicit concern. Reaffirming the covenant and healing the flock are the explicit reasons given for Yahweh’s intervention in Ch. 34. The “covenant of peace” (v. 25) hints at lingering concerns over Yahweh’s anger and enmity with his people, and the text as a whole responds by clarifying that Yahweh’s anger is directed toward a limited segment of the society. The purpose of this is to allow the exilic reader to identify with the exploited segment of Israelite society, and to identify with Yahweh as the ultimate agent of Israel’s punishment, who comes here as judge only of the “fat” and “strong,” and as deliverer of the “weak.”

264

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Rhetorical Situation Ezekiel 34’s new allocation of responsibility for Israel’s covenant failures suggests a different rhetorical situation than that found elsewhere in the corpus, but no explicit details are given about the particular sitz im leben to which the oracle responds. Thematically speaking, this material departs radically from earlier material, where Yahweh is said to have caused the exile, bringing Israel into “the wilderness of the peoples” in order to execute judgment upon them (20:34–35). The House of Israel as a whole in Ezek 20 is said to have repeated the idolatrous sins of their ancestors (vv. 30–31), including offering sacrifices “on every high hill” (v. 28; cf. 34:6). Yahweh acted with “wrath poured out” (20:33, 34), gathering his people into the wilderness rather than their homeland, in order to purge the rebels from among them (20:38). After this new period of wilderness “wandering,” Yahweh promises to collect the scattered people (20:41), who will be mindful of their rebellious ways (20:43) when they are treated not on the basis of what they deserve, but for the sake of redeeming Yahweh’s dishonored name (20:44). All of this differs markedly from Ezek 34, where the scattering of exile is conflated with the people’s wandering upon the mountains as a result of royal neglect: “they were scattered because they were without a [real] shepherd … My flock went astray on all the mountains and on every high hill, and across the entire face of the earth” (vv. 5–6b); “my flock became food for all the beasts of the field since they were without a shepherd” (v. 8). Here, the blame for Israel’s wandering, scattering, and defenselessness before the so-called “beasts of the field” (i.e., foreign oppressors), is placed squarely at the feet of their own kings. In Ezekiel 34, Yahweh claims, “I will deliver my flock from their [the shepherds’] mouths” (v. 10), suggesting that the shepherds of Israel are as great a threat to the life of the sheep as the wild “beasts” (v. 28). It may even imply, rather ironically, that the exile serves as a means of (divine?) deliverance for the people, deliverance from their local, native oppressors. Yahweh goes on to say, “I will deliver them [the sheep] from all the places where they were scattered abroad on a day of cloud and darkness, and I will bring them out from the peoples” (vv. 12– 13a). Here, it is admitted that the exile is an unfortunate event, “a day of cloud and darkness,” but again, in contrast to Ch. 20, it is not treated as explicitly designed and orchestrated by Yahweh. Al-

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

265

so, Yahweh will punish only the bad shepherds and privileged sheep, not the entire flock, and Yahweh will rescue those who have been scattered and victimized. The second sub-unit (vv. 17–24) seems to have more in common thematically with the promise of judgment in 20:33–38. Here, in 34:17, Yahweh scrutinizes his entire flock, with an emphasis upon his sovereignty by way of ownership: “But you are my flock” (emphasis mine). This parallels the reaffirmation of sovereignty in terms of kingship in 20:32: “As I live, says the Lord Yahweh … I will be king over you.” The judging that takes place in 34:17–24, like that of Ch. 20, is of the entire flock, but Ezek 34 is not concerned as much with idolatry. Instead, attention is placed upon economic exploitation. The divine solution of providing a faithful Davidic king for the future ties vv. 17–24 to vv. 1–16, and suggests that a king who properly shepherds his people will not allow some sheep to dominate the others. Finally, the promises of salvation in Ch. 20 and Ch. 34 have a very different tone. Both passages are concerned with Yahweh’s people acknowledging his sovereignty as a result of his intervention (cf. 20:38, 42, 44; 34:27, 30), and with reaffirming the covenant (cf. 20:37; 34:24, 30–31). But Ezek 20 is more concerned with justifying Yahweh’s punishment of his people and with redeeming Yahweh’s universal reputation: “I will be sanctified among you in the eyes of the nations” (v. 41); “You will feel self-loathing in your faces on account of all the evil deeds which you have committed” (v. 43). In contrast, Ezek 34 ends on a less self-serving note for Yahweh. Here, the deity is more focused on the well being of the people for their own sake, promising their unending safety and security (vv. 25, 27, 28), and the fruitfulness of the land (vv. 26, 27, 29). Yahweh even promises to redeem Israel’s reputation rather than his own: “I will establish for them a planting of renown” (v. 29), which represents quite a theological departure from other salvation sections that are more concerned to emphasize Israel’s continuing shame (cf. 20:43; 36:32; 43:10–11). All of this confirms that the argument in Ezek 34 is distinctive in two key ways: the location of blame for the exile, and the sense of genuine care Yahweh exhibits for his scattered flock. These suggest a rhetorical situation in which earlier forms of preaching that primarily emphasize Israel’s collective guilt, individual responsibil-

266

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

ity, and Yahweh’s concern for his own reputation, were no longer effective. The preaching of individual responsibility simply did not correlate well with the seemingly collective nature of exilic punishment. Ezekiel 34 provides an alternative way of viewing the exile not simply as divinely orchestrated justice, but as an opportunity for divine rescue. This is not to ignore the emphasis on Yahweh’s sovereignty over his people in Ezek 34. Twice one encounters the language of divine ownership of the flock: “But you are my flock” (v. 17); “For you are my flock; you are the human flock of my pasture; I am your god, says the Lord Yahweh” (v. 31). However, the benefit of Yahweh’s exercise of sovereignty here is primarily for the sheep, not the divine shepherd. This is especially clear in the conclusion of Ch. 34, which sounds a note of tenderness, something entirely lacking in Ezek 20. Here, Yahweh unashamedly claims ownership of his people without any reference to the way they have defamed him with their sin. The reaffirmation of the covenant, at least on the surface, is purely for the sake of reassuring the people that they have a positive future with their god. Yahweh’s judging activity in Ch. 34, unlike that of Ch. 20, sets up an explicit contrast between various categories of the House of Israel: the shepherds, the privileged sheep, and the weaker, exploited sheep. Its sympathies lie with the scattered flock, which is promised salvation as a result of the same sovereignty by which Yahweh would exercise judgment on the exploitative shepherds and sheep — divine ownership of the flock and divine ownership of the land (cf. “my flock” and “my pasture” in v. 31). In sum, Ezek 34 accentuates the positive intervention of the divine shepherd, who comes to rescue his sheep. Like Ezek 20, a purging judgment of the Israelite society is an important focal point. However, in Ezek 34 it is the exploitative leaders and the exploitative rich that need to be cast out, rather than the idolaters. And this need to cleanse the society should not distract attention from the overwhelmingly positive slant of Ezek 34 as a whole, compared to the predominantly negative slant of Ezek 20. For those in the audience who viewed themselves as the unjustly scattered sheep, Ezek 34 provides a way to reject a former way of life that took advantage of the weak, and embrace the deity who will champion the cause of justice by restoring their fortunes.

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

267

Ezekiel 34 signals a new stage in the prophet’s preaching to the exiles, and a new strategy focusing more on restoration than judgment. Hence it is quite fitting for the first chapter of the larger salvation unit of Chs. 34–48. Yahweh’s ethos among his people is still a central concern, but the theme of justice begins here to be replaced by the theme of grace. It makes sense that ongoing loyalty to Yahweh among the exiles would eventually require a more positive rhetoric. Otherwise, morale would suffer and assimilation would prove even more tempting. However, prior to envisioning the future, Ezek 34 envisions the past in a way that temporarily ignores Yahweh’s sovereignty in order to place blame for the exile elsewhere. The metaphors of abusive shepherds and fat sheep imply, rather simplistically, that Yahweh was temporarily an absent landlord/owner who should not be held responsible for the exploitative behavior of Israel’s shepherds and the stronger animals in the flock. This highlights that Ezekiel contains some amount of inconsistency in its treatment of Yahweh’s responsibility for and sovereignty over the exile. Shifts in the rhetoric of the book most likely reflect changes in the attitudes of the exilic community to which the oracles strategically sought, over time, to respond, sometimes by placing emphasis on divine control of the past, sometimes by focusing on divine control of the future. Like other salvation passages in the corpus, Ezek 34 presents a conditional hope for the future. Even though all the scattered sheep will initially be re-gathered, only some will be left to enjoy the benefits of the divinely designed future after Yahweh’s scrutiny. By stratifying the exilic community into those either condemned or favored by Yahweh, a community that may have been stratified already on the basis of some emergent, exilic economy is encouraged toward an egalitarian distribution of what were no doubt limited resources in Babylon. The oracle is suggestive of an audience that represents a blend of formerly privileged and formerly underprivileged Israelites now residing together in exile. Yet some still have lessons to learn about what Yahweh’s covenant requires. Some must learn to dissociate themselves from their former, exploitative practices, especially now that all of Yahweh’s sheep reside together in the wilderness, at the mercy of the wild beasts. The social ethics that governed pre-exilic Israel must now be abandoned for Yahweh’s just politics.

268

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

In light of this teaching, it is reasonable to assume that Ezekiel’s audience contained a number of people who had exploited the poor prior to exile, and may even have continued to exploit fellow exiles, perhaps hoarding resources that would otherwise have met the needs of the entire community. Yahweh’s condemnation of this reflects a concern for the unity of the scattered flock, all of which are now at the mercy of the wild beasts. Unity may only be achieved through the mutual acknowledgment of Yahweh’s sovereignty and ethics. In the future that Ezek 34 envisions, there will be an abundance of resources, and safety from further external threats. The current demoralization of the people will be reversed, and Yahweh will fulfill his covenant duties, erasing any doubt about his loyalty as divine shepherd. Admittedly, Yahweh’s responsibility for the sheep’s situation prior to and during the scattering is never addressed. But neither is Israel’s idolatry treated here as the main cause of the exile. Instead, the focus is on how Yahweh will reverse his people’s fortunes, for their sake alone. Whatever the exact nature of the rhetorical situation behind this text, it clearly calls for a more sympathetic portrait of the deity than has thus far been encountered, except perhaps in the promises of 11:14–20.33 Apparently, at the time Ezek 34 was composed, the preaching of Yahweh’s sovereignty in terms of divine justice and divine honor needed to be balanced by an unqualified sense of divine concern for the plight of the people. If the sheep were to heed the voice of their divine shepherd calling them back to covenant loyalty, there needed to be assurances that the covenant was still intact, that the deity would prevent any future scattering of the flock, that the sheep would return to graze on their own land, and

However, it should be noted that even the promises of 11:14–20 are immediately followed in v. 21 by a reminder that Yahweh will appropriately punish the idolaters, and the promise of a new heart and spirit in v. 19 is for the purpose of making the people more obedient to Yahweh’s statutes and ordinances (v. 20). Here, their status as Yahweh’s covenant people is dependent upon their obedience. 33

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

269

that the land would provide for their needs better than the wilderness of Babylon. This hints at an ongoing fear of assimilation. Since the focus here is not on idolatry, but economic exploitation, even faithful Yahwists among the former Judean elites could identify themselves as the “fat sheep,” and therefore worthy of divine retribution. In addition, Ezek 34’s blame of Israel’s kings for driving the flock to seek “greener pastures” on the high places softens earlier charges of idolatry that are often leveled against the entire “House of Israel.” Thus, here the wandering of the citizens to “every high hill” results from the failure of Israel’s kings to ensure an equitable and just society even though Yahweh had already provided the necessary resources. Ultimately, Ezek 34 allows even the formerly privileged sheep to find a place in Yahweh’s flock, if they will begin to identify more with, and stop mistreating, the weaker members of the flock. In sum, the so-called “answers” provided by Ezek 34 suggest the existence of the following questions among the implied audience: How can all of the exiles really be guilty of idolatry, and therefore deserving of deportation? Is Yahweh really more concerned with justice and his own reputation than with the fate of his suffering people? When will hostilities between Yahweh and Israel cease? Is Israel’s covenant still intact? Can Israel’s poor really be blamed for seeking divine assistance elsewhere? If Yahweh is truly a god of justice, should he not champion the cause of the weak and downtrodden? What follows is a detailed analysis of the strategies by which Ezek 34 answers these questions. Rhetorical Strategies: Logos/Ethos/Pathos Any discussion of the rhetorical strategies in Ezek 34 must address the central role played by the sheep and shepherd metaphor. The use of the shepherd metaphor to speak of human and divine kings was prevalent in the ancient Near East, traceable all the way back to Sumerian times.34 The title of shepherd denotes the responsibilCf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 213–214; Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 279–282; and Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37 (AB 22A; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 707–709, including footnotes for specific references to the primary literature. 34

270

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

ity of the king “to promote the welfare of the people” and “to cause justice to prevail in the land.”35 The royal and moral implications of the metaphor would have been readily apparent to Ezekiel’s intended audience. By first applying the title of shepherd to the exploitative kings of Israel, then expanding the sheep metaphor to include a category of exploitative citizens, an important contrast is created by which Yahweh’s fulfillment of the moral duties of a true shepherd becomes the rhetorical highlight of the passage. An important component of this contrast is to offer a revised explanation for the scattering of the sheep that primarily faults Israel’s kings, rather than the individual or Israel as a whole. The contrast is designed to move the audience to dissociate themselves from prior political regimes and abandon any lingering hope for a purely political solution to the exile. Any solution that fails to acknowledge the superiority and priority of Yahweh’s kingship over his people should likewise be abandoned. The path to a secure future in the Promised Land will be through Yahweh’s more direct shepherding of his people, and by his people listening to the voice of their true master and owner. This highlights the importance of two distinct qualities of Yahweh’s characterization in Ezek 34: 1) his sovereignty, which includes the power to punish or bless his people; and 2) his desire to bless those who will submit to his authority. Traditionally, scholars have recognized the significance of the latter in this passage, especially evident in the deity’s care for the weak and the lost sheep. But recently, Baruch Schwartz and Andrew Mein have at-

Such language is found explicitly in the prologue to Hammurabi’s law code. Cf. Theophile J. Meek (trans.), ANET, 164. The concept is also found in ancient Egypt, where one finds the formula “the god has chosen the king to be the shepherd of Egypt and the defender of the people.” On this topic, cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 281, following A. Erman and H. Ranke, Ägypten und ägyptisches Leben im Altertum (Tübingen: Mohr, 1923), 73. Block also refers to D. Müller, “Der gute Hirte: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte ägyptischer Bildrede,” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 86 (1961): 126–144. 35

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

271

tempted to balance this traditional approach by focusing more attention on the ramifications of Yahweh’s sovereignty in the text. These scholars argue that too much emphasis has been placed on Yahweh’s sympathy for his people as the key, divine motivation. Schwartz claims that “YHWH’s ultimate decision to restore his people’s fortune is not the result of any change in their feelings or behavior towards him or in his disposition toward them.” 36 Instead, according to Mein’s summation, “the oracles of restoration are more or less of a piece with the oracles of judgment.”37 In other words, Yahweh’s depiction throughout Ezekiel should be seen as consistently focusing on divine sovereignty, justice, and even selfinterest, rather than divine compassion. Mein surveys ancient practices of shepherding, and explores the plasticity of the shepherd/sheep metaphor in an attempt to arrive at a new conclusion concerning Yahweh’s motivation for rescuing his sheep in Ezek 34. He references David Clines’s work on Psalm 23 to remind the reader that most sheep, however lovingly cared for by their shepherds, “eventually” find their way “up to the house of the Lord. And we all know why sheep go to the house of the Lord.” 38 As Mein puts it, “sheep are rarely if ever farmed for their own good, but only to meet some human (or perhaps divine) need.”39 Mein also references Marc Z. Brettler’s evaluation of Yahweh in Ezek 34 as a “discriminating Shepherd” (vv. 17–21) who judges between sheep and sheep,40 in an attempt to see more emphasis in Ezek 34 on Yahweh’s judging activity. Baruch J. Schwartz, “Ezekiel’s Dim View of Israel’s Restoration,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives (ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong; SBLSymS 9; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 43–67 (55). 37 Andrew Mein, “Profitable and Unprofitable Shepherds: Economic and Theological Perspectives on Ezekiel 34,” JSOT 31:4 (2007): 493–504 (493). 38 David J. A. Clines, “Varieties of Textual Indeterminacy,” Semeia 71 (1995): 17–29 (19). 39 Mein, “Profitable and Unprofitable Shepherds,” 495. 40 Mein, “Profitable and Unprofitable Shepherds,” 496, following Marc Z. Brettler, “The Metaphorical Mapping of God in the Hebrew Bible,” in Metaphor, Canon and Community: Jewish, Christian and Islamic Ap36

272

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Mein then refers to the work of Ferdinand Deist for his understanding of the cultural world that lies behind the shepherd metaphor of Ezek 34: The contracting owner, Yahweh, confronts the hired hands (royal court, bureaucrats) for not having fulfilled their contract: … like Yahweh, any farmer would have fired and punished such hired hands and personally taken over the care of the flock from them.41

Mein concludes that this understanding of contractual relations between owners and workers in the sheepherding industry, along with the repeated use of the term ‫צֹאנִ י‬, “my flock,” which serves not as a “term of endearment,” but a “reminder of ownership … serves to distance Israel’s human shepherds from the true owner of the flock.”42 Even the transformation of “the whole of the land … to pasture” ultimately serves to benefit the owner rather than merely the flock itself.43 Thus, Ezek 34 is about Yahweh reclaiming his lost property and restoring his own fortunes, rather than about a loving god rescuing and restoring the fortunes of his people. In light of the emphasis on divine reputation and sovereignty elsewhere in Ezekiel, which suggests that Yahweh’s identity is as threatened by the exile as Israel’s, Mein offers an intriguing interpretation, but one that should not be carried too far. If the security of Yahweh’s flock is ultimately promised in order to serve the needs of the deity, such as in promoting the divine reputation, nothing is explicitly said about this in Ezek 34, an important point of contrast with Ezek 20. In fact, here it is the reputation of the sheep that is redeemed from the reproach of the nations, not Yahweh’s (cf. v. 29). While Yahweh’s sovereignty over Israel is certainly proaches (ed. Ralph Bischoffs and James Francis; New York: Peter Lang, 1999), 219–232 (224). 41 Ferdinand E. Deist, The Material Culture of the Bible: An Introduction (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 164. Cf. also Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Social World of Ancient Israel: 1250–587 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 66. 42 Mein, “Profitable and Unprofitable Shepherds,” 500. 43 Mein, “Profitable and Unprofitable Shepherds,” 500.

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

273

an important theme in Ezek 34, and concern for Yahweh’s reputation is the chief motivator for the deity rescuing and restoring his people in Ezek 20 and 36, the explicit emphasis here is on the benefits of the sheep. Perhaps in an attempt to overcome the theological difficulty presented by what appear to be contrasting images of Yahweh in different sections of the Book of Ezekiel, Mein has overstated his case. At the heart of Ch. 34’s rhetoric is what Perelman refers to as an “argument by comparison,” in which the so-called argument by authority (i.e., the flock belongs to Yahweh) is only a part. 44 The comparison between the divine owner of the flock and the flock’s hired leaders involves more than mere authority. It also includes an intense focus upon the advantages and disadvantages of being under each authority’s care. Thus, Yahweh’s promise to reverse the current sufferings of the flock is intended to move the members of the herd to think favorably of the owner’s leadership and to pass their own judgment on those who have previously exploited them. In addition, the degree to which the future promises outweigh anything the past had ever provided suggests a further attempt to move the audience away from looking longingly toward the past, and to condemn that past in favor of a return to covenant fidelity with Yahweh. Whatever political model of prosperity the past may have offered should now be reevaluated and abandoned in favor of a theological solution that consists of exclusive loyalty to the divine shepherd, who alone has the best interests of the sheep at heart. This strategy of comparison works in conjunction with another rhetorical strategy of providing a “causal link.”45 In this case, the cause is found in Ezek 34’s explanation for the exile, which is treated with an implicit “cause-effect” model.46 Israel’s shepherds and fat sheep were abusive and drove the flock elsewhere. The text subtly synthesizes via the shepherd-sheep metaphor the movement of the flock to the high places for illicit worship and the movement of the flock to other lands via the exile without addressing Yah-

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 242–248. Cf. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 263–266. 46 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 267. 44 45

274

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

weh’s role whatsoever. Yahweh is merely an absent owner, and no real agent at all, until he comes to rescue the flock. This does contrast greatly with other texts that depict Yahweh as the active agent who caused the exile and the destruction of Jerusalem, an argument designed to reinforce the deity’s sovereignty over even the most disastrous events in the nation’s history. The particular emphasis on cause and effect in Ezek 34 glosses over the divine role until the temporal focus of the chapter turns toward the future. Now that the flock is scattered, Yahweh will come to judge the abusive shepherds, weed out the domineering sheep, and heal the lame. Here, Yahweh is the cause only of Israel’s restoration, not their demise. This change in rhetorical strategy rightly places Ch. 34 within the larger salvation section in spite of the strong emphasis on judging bad shepherds and abusive sheep. Divine sovereignty in Ezek 34 is less about Yahweh’s prerogative to judge than it is about his authority and power to save. This is the direction in which vv. 1–24 lead the reader, and it is confirmed by the oracle’s conclusion, which reflects another layer of contrast in addition to comparing divine and human shepherds, and strong and weak sheep. Here, the contrast is between “then and now,” that is, between the fortunes of the past under exploitative kings and a future Yahweh promises for his weak and injured flock. As a result, verses 25–31 also highlight another layer of dissociative rhetoric, in this case, argumentation designed to move the reader to dissociate himself from any notion of the past in which Yahweh’s kingship was eclipsed by that of the human monarch. A statement that appropriately describes the rhetorical function of utopian promises in Ezek 34:25–31 is the following: In general, pictures of a golden age, past or future, of paradise lost or hoped for–whether it is a matter of the good old days or of happiness to be found elsewhere–work to the disadvantage of the time or the country in which one is actually living.47

47

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 245.

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

275

Ezekiel 34 implicitly compares the “now” of life in exile with the “then” of the former life in Judah. But both are eclipsed by the new “then” of a future back in the homeland to which the exilic audience may look for hope. This hope is intended to sustain faith in Yahweh “for now,” so that there may truly be the possibility of the future “then” that Yahweh promises. In the meantime, the text depicts a situation whereby the sheep’s exploitation did not cease with their relocation to Babylon. Even though now far removed from Israel’s exploitative kings, some are still being abused by their own kind, which push the weaker sheep “to the outskirts” (v. 21). These lean sheep may look forward to being re-gathered by their divine owner, separated from the abusive members of the herd, and returned to their original pasture in the Land of Israel. Yahweh’s more direct oversight is the final solution to past and present suffering. This highlights another implicit form of rhetoric at work in Ezek 34, that of “ends and means.” If the sheep truly want restoration, especially a restoration in the grand terms depicted by vv. 25– 31, the only means presented is by listening to the voice of Yahweh and dissociating themselves from the abusive practices and unbalanced community of the dominant sheep. Ironically, while a good many of the exiles were likely composed of Judean elites who would have been more appropriately categorized as the “fat [ones]” prior to their deportation, their current situation in exile represents a reversal of fortune that should encourage them to identify with the exploited. Apparently, this lesson has not been learned, and the exilic community, like the former Judean society, is still stratified along economic lines.48 The rhetoric of Ezek 34 encourages the audience to mimic Yahweh, who clearly favors the weak and downtrodden. Because the text leaves the identities of the various categories of sheep ambiguous, room remains for the audience to place themselves in whichever category they choose. The exploiter is encouraged to 48 Regrettably, Ezekiel does not clarify the nature of the exilic economy. Perhaps there was inequity in the distribution and use of land granted by the Babylonians for exilic cultivation.

276

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

associate with the exploited in order to avoid judgment. The exploited are expected to identify with Yahweh because he promises to reverse their fortunes. Another rhetorical strategy here is to offer the reader two important levels of comparison known as “anti-model” and “model” in the form of bad and good shepherds, and bad and good sheep. 49 The purpose is to create a new relationship between the ideal models — the ideal shepherd and the ideal sheep — and lead to a rejection of the anti-models. Yahweh, the ideal shepherd, offers to those who would play the role of the ideal sheep, the opportunity to have an ideal future. This future is presented as the pinnacle of the rhetorical movement, and is dependent upon the sheep agreeing with the divine shepherd that they are in need of rescue and that he is indeed their only source of hope. The rhetoric culminates in promises of benefit for those who affirm this ideal shepherd-sheep relationship between themselves and Yahweh. There is assurance that the traditional covenant relationship is still in effect, and will continue to be so, and there is a promise that a new covenant of peace with the deity will ensue, one that results in idyllic conditions for the covenant people when they return to their homeland. Concerning the future Ezek 34 envisions for the battered sheep, Bernard Batto has traced the origin of the promised “covenant of peace” well beyond the biblical material. This particular covenant refers to a concept occurring broadly in ancient Near Eastern primeval myths. Its “original function … was to signify a cessation of hostility toward humankind by the gods after the former revolted against the gods at creation.”50 The removal of hostility between creator and creature purposely brings to mind the “covenant with all flesh” that was established following the Noahide flood of Gen 9:8–17.51 Tracing the Genesis flood myth back to the ancient Mesopotamian text of Atrahasis, Batto believes the earlier myth involves a covenant of peace On the strategy of “model” and “anti-model,” cf. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 362–371. 50 Batto, “Covenant of Peace,” 187, 189. 51 Batto, “Covenant of Peace,” 189. 49

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

277

whereby the gods promise never to forget that they nearly destroyed all humanity with a flood.52 This covenant is established along with a sign that serves as a reminder to the god(s) and humans that hostilities between the two have ceased, and will not (at least in the same fashion) be resumed.53 Interestingly, here in Ezek 34 there is no mention of a particular sign that will represent the cessation of hostility between Yahweh and his flock, although the transformation of the people into a “planting of renown” in 34:29, such that they will never again “bear the reproach of the nations,” may serve this purpose. Batto believes there is a second primeval myth that contributes to the concept of the biblical covenant of peace, and its pattern involves an attempt by a goddess to slay humanity because of their rebellion against the gods. 54 The two prime examples are an Egyptian text named “The Deliverance of Mankind from Destruction” and an Ugaritic text (CTA 3) from the Baal Cycle.55 In Batto’s Batto, “Covenant of Peace,” 195. Batto refers to the attempt to annihilate humanity with a flood as “primeval pattern A,” seeing Atrahasis as the “paradigm” for all later versions. 53 In the case of Atrahasis, the sign is the “fly-necklace” around the goddess Nintu’s neck, which apparently symbolizes the way the gods swarmed about the sacrificial animal offered by Atrahasis when his boat landed after the flood. As such, while not denying the superior power of the gods, it does suggest a somewhat delicate balance between the roles of creator and creature, in which the survival of each covenant partner is a mutual concern. Cf. Batto, “Covenant of Peace,” 194–195; Cf. also Anne Kilmer, “The Symbolism of the Flies in the Mesopotamian Flood Myth and Some Further Implications,” in Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner (ed. Francesca RochbergHalton; New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1987), 175–180. In the Genesis flood, Yahweh places a bow (rainbow) in the clouds to symbolize that he has put down his weapon, and will never again vent his anger against humanity with a flood. 54 Batto, “Covenant of Peace,” 196. 55 Batto, “Covenant of Peace,” 196–197. For the Egyptian text, cf. J. A. Wilson, ANET (3rd ed.), 10–11; M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature Volume II: The New Kingdom (Berkeley: University of California, 1976), 52

278

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

reconstruction of the Baal myth’s conclusion, which is not well preserved, “there is a planting of peace on the earth and the attainment of cosmic harmony resulting from the establishment of divine rule.”56 The first preserved episode comes from CTA 3, iii, 11–14 and records Baal’s command to Anat to cease hostilities with humanity: Remove war from the earth; Set mandrakes [or love] in the ground, Pour peace into the heart of the earth; Rain down love in the heart of the fields.57

Batto concludes that “Baal’s desire to plant peace and love in the earth should be understood as a statement of reconciliation … not only with a chastened humankind but also with all the earth, which had become polluted by association with the ‘sinners’ — the same situation as in Genesis 6:5–7 (J) and 6:11–13 (P).”58 The myth ends with the heavens “answering” the earth (CTA 3, iii, 17–25) by providing the storm and rain necessary for the earth’s fertility, which Batto believes is suggestive of a newfound cosmic harmony.59 Batto also believes it is no accident or mere coincidence that we find the same theme reflected in the eschatological vision of Hos 2:23–25: And it will happen on that day, says Yahweh, that I will answer the heavens, and they will answer the earth, and the earth will 197–199; H. Brunner, “Die Vernichtung des Menschengeschlechts,” in Religionsgeschichtliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 35–38; C. Maystre, “Le livre de la vache du ciel dans les tombeaux de la vallée des rois,” BIFAO 40 (1941): 53– 115. 56 Batto, “Covenant of Peace,” 196. 57 Batto, “Covenant of Peace,” 198. Commenting on the word translated “mandrakes,” Batto, idem, 198, n. 37, points out that they “were thought to have love-producing qualities and are therefore appropriately watered by peace and love (see following bicolon).” 58 Batto, “Covenant of Peace,” 199. 59 Batto, “Covenant of Peace,” 199.

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

279

answer the grain, and the new wine, and the fresh oil, and they will all answer Jezreel. And I will sow her for myself in the land, and I will have pity on Lo-ruhamah, and I will say to Loammi, “You are my people,” and he will say, “You are my God.”60

According to Batto, this divine “planting of peace” is a “submotif within Primeval Pattern B,” and was “a known, functioning motif in the ancient Near East” that occurs “within that context of the removal of every form of hostility from the land (or earth) and the concomitant advent of paradisaic conditions.”61 In his estimation, there is a “similarity of form and content” between not only Hos 2:23–25 and Ezek 34:25–29, but also Lev 26:3–6, where we read the following covenant stipulations: If in my statutes you walk, and my commandments you keep and do, then I will give your rains at their [appointed] time, and the earth will give her produce, and the tree of the field will give its fruit. The threshing will outlast for you the vintage, and the vintage will outlast the sowing, and you will eat your bread to fullness, and you will dwell in safety in your land. And I will establish peace in the land, and you will lie down, but nothing will cause fear; and I will remove the evil beast from the land, and the sword will not pass through your land.62

Batto believes that all of these passages essentially involve the same motif, which is confirmed by the fact that the verb ‫נתן‬, “to set, appoint, give, hand over,” is sometimes used, including in Ezek 17:5, “in the sense of ‘to plant’ or ‘to sow,’” allowing one to translate Lev 26:6 not as “I will establish peace in the land,” but “I will plant peace in the earth.”63 Granting this argument to Batto, and acknowledging that the results of Yahweh’s blessings are very similar in all three texts, one should still recognize that the reasons for such blessings are not the Batto, “Covenant of Peace,” 200. Batto, “Covenant of Peace,” 201. 62 Batto, “Covenant of Peace,” 202–203 (the translation is my own). 63 Batto, “Covenant of Peace,” 203. 60 61

280

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

same. In Leviticus 26, the blessings spoken of by Yahweh are the reward for covenant faithfulness on the part of Israel, which represents a significant contrast to Gen 9, Hos 2, and Ezek 34, where the blessings simply result from the unconditional promise of Yahweh. Regardless, the promise of paradise-like conditions following Yahweh’s new covenant of peace with Israel should be understood as a synthetic adaptation of the two primeval traditions recognized by Batto. As Batto rightly argues, “planting peace is part and parcel of a theme of idyllic conditions on earth resulting from a divine covenant.”64 The significance of such rhetoric in Ezek 34 is that Yahweh alone has the power to secure a prosperous future for those who remain his “flock,” and this future will be characterized by the cessation of hostilities between god and people. For those who felt powerless to avoid the scattering of exile, and now feel powerless to cope with its effects, Yahweh will come as guarantor of the covenant blessings, and as caretaker, rescuing his helpless herd from those who would exploit them further. Yahweh’s commitment to his flock is affirmed multiple times through the language of ownership: “my flock” occurs 10 times in vv. 1–16; 3 times in vv. 17–24, including emphatically in v. 17: “But you are my flock!” (emphasis mine); and finally one last time, again rather emphatically in v. 31: “For you are my flock; you are the human flock of my pasture.” But in contrast to Mein’s argument, the ownership language is not intended so much to emphasize Yahweh’s property rights, but rather Yahweh’s promised faithfulness to his covenant people. Yahweh can be depended on to redeem his people in glorious ways, as the material that follows in the remaining chapters elaborates. A question may arise at this juncture concerning the earlier rhetoric of “cause and effect” in Ezek 34 in relation to the exile. If 34:1–16 offers an alternative explanation for the exile in opposition to earlier argumentation that credited Yahweh with scattering his people, and instead places blame on Israel’s kings for dispersing the Batto, “Covenant of Peace,” 203. Batto, idem, 204, also notes the connection between the return of paradise to the earth and the “building of the temple,” both in Ezekiel (cf. 47:1–12) and in the Baal myth. 64

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

281

flock, how does this fit with the closing emphasis on a future covenant of peace between Yahweh and his people? Does not the covenant of peace suggest, to some degree, that Yahweh’s hostility toward his people was still the real cause of the exile? Does not this particular way of envisioning the future, as the cessation of hostility between god and people, suggest that Yahweh was in control of Israel’s destiny all along, and that even the weak and exploited sheep, those whom Yahweh promises to rescue, still need assurances that the deity’s anger has been assuaged, once and for all? This does appear to be the case. Ezekiel 34 presents the reader a complex and not entirely consistent theology that seeks to retain the position that Yahweh is sovereign over his people’s fate, but also seeks to acquit Yahweh of any responsibility. Once the sinful, abusive, and guilty members of Israelite society have been purged, Yahweh will relate to his people in an entirely new way, establishing a new covenant of peace with those who remain. This includes Yahweh providing a more appropriate and righteous king to rule over the people, apparently one that will not exploit them and not draw down the deity’s wrath. This seems to be the most appropriate way to understand the text, given its lack of consistent logic in handling the causes for the exile. Like much of the larger prophetic book, Ezek 34 chiefly serves to build the ethos of Yahweh for the epideictic purpose of encouraging and strengthening the faith of the exilic community. Yahweh’s reputation, which is not explicitly addressed here as it is in other salvation passages, is built upon the just punishment of Israel’s neglectful leaders, and his taking more direct control of their future so that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. However, one must wonder if the past mistakes should not include Yahweh’s failure to rule over his people more directly from the beginning, especially in light of the narrative of 1 Sam 8, where Yahweh is depicted as acquiescing to Israel’s demand for a monarchy. The divine reputation is implicitly bolstered in Ezek 34 by Yahweh’s promise to champion the cause of the weak and powerless, rescuing them and restoring their fortunes. Covenant language is used here not to justify the exile as Yahweh’s appropriate punishment for Israel’s covenant failures, but rather to highlight Yahweh’s commitment to fulfilling the divine responsibilities of the covenant suzerain. The benefits that are explicitly discussed are

282

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

solely for meeting the needs of the vassal, not the divine sovereign. However, this does not mean that an implicit purpose of the material is not the benefit Yahweh’s ethos receives among the sheep he promises to shepherd. The pathos of the passage includes a tone of anger and moral indignation expressed toward the neglectful shepherds/kings of Israel who, by implication, have failed to understand and fulfill their duty to care for the people they were “hired” to rule. Similarly, there is moral outrage at the selfish practices of the fat sheep/richer members of the community in vv. 18–21, which finds its satisfaction in vv. 17 and 22–24 when Yahweh scrutinizes and judges his flock. The metaphors of Ezek 34 suggest that the reversal of the flock’s fortunes has, in some way, already begun with the people’s deliverance from their own oppressive shepherds/kings: “I will deliver my flock from their mouths, and they will no longer be food for them.” This may serve as a subtle apology for the exile. From this perspective, Yahweh rescues his people from the ravenous appetite of their own kings by bringing them into the wilderness. But this line of interpretation is not thoroughly developed. If the people have been “rescued” from one threat, they now find themselves dwelling among foreign beasts, and perhaps being exploited by members of their own community, from which they now need rescuing again. The emphatic statement, “But you are my flock,” in v. 17 may be directed to the former kings, the current leaders of the exilic community, and perhaps even the king(s) of Babylon as a reminder of Yahweh’s authority and ownership. Another emotional appeal is found in Yahweh’s attitude toward the weak and oppressed, and the hope inspired by his promises to them. The same divine authority and ownership that serve as the basis of threat for the shepherds and fat sheep are a source of confidence for the rest of the flock, which Yahweh will bring home, heal, feed, and protect. They will be restored as a result of Yahweh enacting his own agenda for the sheep, not by any plan initiated by the stronger members of the flock, who, like the shepherds before them, have only their own best interests in mind. Under Yahweh’s leadership, nothing will ever again “terrify” or threaten his people (v. 28). The honor and reputation of the people, damaged by their humiliation before the nations, will be redeemed when Yahweh makes of them a “planting of renown” (v.

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

283

29). This, along with Ezek 36:30 and 36:34–35, is one of only a handful of places in Ezekiel where any emphasis is placed on restoring the honor of the Israelites, as opposed to emphasizing Yahweh’s honor: I will increase the fruit of the tree and the crop of the field, so that you will no longer suffer the disgrace of famine before the nations (v. 30) … the desolate land will be cultivated instead of lying desolate before the eyes of all who pass through. And they will say, “This land that had been desolate has become like the Garden of Eden; and the ruined cities that were desolate and destroyed, are [now] fortified and inhabited” (vv. 34– 35).

Yet, even here in Ezek 36 we are reminded that Yahweh’s restoration is not for Israel’s sake, but for the sake of Yahweh’s reputation: “You should know [that] it is not for your sake [that] am I doing [this], says the lord Yahweh. Be ashamed and disgraced for your ways, House of Israel!” (36:32). Hence, Ezek 34 stands alone in its uniquely positive rhetoric concerning the honor of the people of Israel, which may in fact call into question whether its intended function should be understood as anything more than just another attempt to build the ethos of Yahweh. The reminders of the covenant relationship between god and people in Ezek 34 serve to strengthen the faith and hope of the audience in their patron deity: “I, Yahweh, will be their god” (v. 24); “I, Yahweh their god am with them” (v. 30); “I am your god” (v. 31). Bolstering this sense of belonging to Yahweh is the promise to rescue the people in v. 27, purposely couched in language borrowed from the exodus tradition in order to remind them of their history with their divine patron: “and they will know that I am Yahweh when I break the bars of yoke that are upon them and I deliver them from the hand of the ones exploiting them.”65 These pathos appeals are designed to strengthen a sense of commitment on the part of the audience to the care of Yahweh, Cf. Lev 26:13: “I am Yahweh, your god, who delivered you from the land of Egypt, from being slaves for them, and who broke the bars of yoke that were upon you, and made you walk upright.” 65

284

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

and cultivate an attitude of detachment from the former kings, from those in the community who exploit their fellow sheep, and from the land (i.e., “wilderness”) in which they now reside. The promised restoration will eclipse any suffering the flock has thus far endured, and any life they might eke out in Babylon. These emotional appeals are designed to assist the ethosrelated purpose of the passage. The reputation and trustworthiness of Israel’s kings and lay leaders is contrasted with the leadership and values of Yahweh. The people at large are treated here not as criminals or as Yahweh’s enemy, but as Yahweh’s personal property, and as Yahweh’s covenant partner that has been wronged by the deceitful and conniving “hired hands.” As stated previously, the text conveniently ignores any responsibility on Yahweh’s part for appointing the kings and for failing to intervene on behalf of the weaker sheep until now. Ezekiel 34 depicts Yahweh not as the justifiably angry god whose patience with his people as a whole has run out, whose justice must be assuaged, and whose reputation must be redeemed, such as one finds elsewhere in the corpus. Rather, Yahweh appears here as a devoted and faithful king, whose judging activity is primarily on behalf of the flock, rather than against them. The establishment of a new covenant of peace with the flock signals, here at the beginning of the salvation oracles, the cessation of conflict between suzerain and vassal, god and people, and is intended to make them favorably disposed to participating in the divine plan for their future, which is elaborated in Chs. 35–48. The overarching logic of the text is to introduce a cost-benefit strategy that surfaced already in Ezek 11 and Ezek 20 concerning the bright future imagined for Yahweh’s faithful exilic remnant, and that continues implicitly throughout the remainder of the corpus. While many of the salvation texts continue to emphasize the redeeming of Yahweh’s honor at the expense of Israel’s, they make the role of the shamed vassal far more appealing than any other available option (like assimilation). The potential long-range benefits of remaining faithful to Yahweh in exile outweigh the potential cost of abandoning him. In summation, Ezekiel 34 offers a new perspective on the cause of the exile and signals a new disposition on the part of Yahweh toward the meeker members of his covenant community. In addition to affirming the old covenant, a new one is promised. It

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

285

is a covenant of peace that draws upon the tradition of the primeval planting of peace. For Israel, Yahweh’s rescue will culminate in the establishment of a new, harmonious relationship between deity, land, and people that signifies a new, fresh beginning after the cessation of divine hostility. The pastoral, paradise-like future promised in vv. 25–29 will be brought about by the deity alone, not by any effort on the part of the sheep. Rhetorical Synthesis In a series of rather loosely connected episodes, Ezek 34–48 allows the reader to catch glimpses of the restoration available to those who will remain the patrons of Yahweh in Babylon. Ezekiel 34 is the first in this series, and a number of its themes receive development and elaboration in later material. Here, the kingship of Yahweh is imagined in an authoritative, but much more intimate and caring way than in Ezek 20, where the deity was previously imagined as manifesting himself “with outstretched arm and wrath poured out.” While one does find in Ezek 34 the judgment and condemnation of former Israelite kings and community elites, the rhetorical movement is in the direction of hope and salvation for the rest of the community. As a result of Yahweh’s reaffirmation of the covenant and promise to deliver a new era of peaceful relations with his people, those who play the role of faithful sheep will find sustenance, security, and rest. Ezekiel 34 responds to various concerns about corruption among the ruling and elite members of the former Israelite community. The Promised Land, which is envisioned as a wasteland in 33:28, has its corrupt leaders weeded out in Ch. 34 in preparation for the divine shepherd to lead his flock back home. A new Davidic leader is promised for a land that will, in the future, provide plenty of rich, safe grazing for Yahweh’s people. The arguments of the text suggest lingering doubts about whether the punishment of the exile truly fit the so-called crime in all cases. The text suggests that the exile serves as a way to rescue the people temporarily while Yahweh cleanses the land of corruption in lieu of a new start in which the weaker members of the former society will graze safely

286

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

in a “rich pasture” (v. 14). In this sense, Ezek 34 reflects a more egalitarian ethic. It is designed to appeal to the masses of disenfranchised, disempowered, and disillusioned exiles, if they can dissociate themselves from the exploitative practices of the past.66 The rhetoric in Ezek 34 denotes a shift from primarily blaming all the exiles and defending Yahweh’s punishment of them as just, to promising rescue to those who will submit to Yahweh’s supposedly ongoing authority. The more positive focus of the later chapters of the book suggests an ongoing need to retain the loyalty of the exiles to Yahweh as their captivity dragged on. It is possible that, as the hope for return to the homeland seemed ever more unrealistic, the promises of restoration necessarily became more utopian in nature. Ezekiel 34 represents a unique way of imagining Yahweh’s kingship. Yahweh’s fulfillment of the shepherd’s care-giving responsibilities represents another form of argument by and for divine ethos. Yahweh plays the role of avenger, protector, healer, sustainer, and guarantor of the future. He destroys the enemies of the weaker members of the community, and fulfills the ancient covenant responsibilities of the suzerain to his vassal. He promises a new covenant of peace that will never allow a repeat of the exile. The purpose of Ezek 34’s rhetoric is more epideictic in purpose than either judicial or deliberative. Judicial rhetoric is present — the audience is called to pass judgment on certain aspects of its own past and present — but deliberative rhetoric is absent in any explicit form. The audience is not called to perform any particular, measurable action. Instead, the reader is implicitly encouraged to place faith, hope, and trust in the deity who acts solely for the sake of the sheep. Divine self-interest, such as the reader finds in those passages emphasizing explicit honor-shame rhetoric, is not present. However, even though it is not Yahweh’s reputation or name that is explicitly in focus, the passage does build the deity’s ethos with the image of a god motivated solely by concern for his people’s well being. The ethos of Yahweh increases as the intended reader For a list of the former Judean society’s abuses, Ezek 22:29 lists extortion, robbery, oppression of the poor and needy, and taking advantage of travelers/sojourners. 66

RHETORIC OF YAHWEH AS SHEPHERD

287

identifies with the lean sheep rather than the fat. The long-term advantage of doing so is to allow one to become a recipient of the divine blessings that Yahweh will provide for his scattered flock. In the meantime, for those still living outside of the Promised Land, the triangle of identity represented by deity-land-people is preserved.

CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSION This book has attempted to provide a thorough examination of the rhetoric of divine kingship in the Book of Ezekiel. It has analyzed those passages in which Yahweh’s kingship is implicitly or explicitly a key element of the argumentation. This has been in recognition of the fact that, in most rhetorical endeavors, implicit arguments are the dominant mode. This approach has demonstrated the importance of the motif of Yahweh’s kingship for understanding a significant amount of Ezekiel’s rhetoric. The analysis here supports the idea that the chief crisis lying behind the Book of Ezekiel was a crisis of identity among the exiles arising from their disillusionment with Yahweh. Following Israel’s exile and the destruction of their homeland was, this crisis, at its core, was theological in nature. By emphasizing Yahweh’s Great Kingship, Ezekiel explains that Israel’s current travails fall within the domain of Yahweh’s sovereign rule over his people and over other nations. The catastrophic events of the early sixth century BCE were not merely to be endured by Yahweh and his people, but were primarily orchestrated by Yahweh as punishment for idolatry and/or as a means of purifying and preserving a remnant community for an incredible, future act of divine restoration. One of the unique contributions of the current project, in addition to its more detailed analysis of rhetorical strategies related to Yahweh’s kingship, is in the area of rhetorical methodology. While several key components of rhetorical analysis have already become somewhat standard for application in the field of biblical studies, there is still room for scholars to place a great deal more emphasis on the myriad techniques of human argumentation, as this book has sought to demonstrate by drawing upon the work of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca. This book has also sought to clarify the relationship between, on the one hand, the biblical text as an historical product reflecting 289

290

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

the historical context of its composition, and on the other hand, extra-biblical evidence for understanding the rhetorical situation behind the text. I have argued here that, although extra-biblical sources can shed important light on the situation behind a biblical text, the biblical text itself, as an historical artifact and as a unique piece of rhetoric, must be considered primary for determining the rhetorical situation of the text. This is because each text has its own unique perspective on history and its own unique concerns, and each therefore provides the most dependable window through which to view that perspective and those concerns. Scholars who intend to use rhetorical analysis need to acknowledge the full complexity of the relationship between extra-textual historical evidence that might lie behind a text, and the text itself as a historical and sometimes multi-layered rhetorical product. In conclusion, this book has provided a more thorough rhetorical analysis of the topic of divine kingship than any found in prior biblical scholarship. It has shown how truly important the topic is for understanding the larger rhetorical purposes of Ezekiel. It has also shown that, by and large, the topic of divine kingship in Ezekiel serves to build or rebuild the ethos of Yahweh in response to the exilic crisis. Thus, the rhetoric of Yahweh’s kingship in Ezekiel should be understood as an ethos-oriented argument. The purpose of the rhetoric is epideictic, seeking to preserve the ethos and identity of Yahweh and his patrons by encouraging the exiles to keep faith with their divine patron in a foreign land, rather than abandon Yahweh for the gods of the nations. It does so by highlighting Yahweh’s sovereignty, honor, justice, and grace in spite of Israel’s covenant unfaithfulness. Yahweh is depicted as lord not only of the exile, but of all nations, all space, and all time, and therefore is the only reasonable foundation and focus for Israelite faith in the present and in the future.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackroyd, Peter R. Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968. Albertz, Rainer. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period (vol. 2: From the Exile to the Maccabees. Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. ———. Israel in Exile: the History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. Translated by David Green. Society of Biblical Literature Studies in Biblical Literature 3; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 1–19. Word Biblical Commentary 28. Dallas: Word Books, 1994. ———. Ezekiel 20–48. Word Biblical Commentary 29. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1990. ———. “The Structure and Intention of Ezekiel 1.” Vetus Testamentum 43 (1993): 145–161. Alt, Albrecht. “The Formation of the Israelite State in Palestine.” Pages 171–237 in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Translated by Robert A. Wilson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966. Aristotle. The “Art” of Rhetoric. Translated by John Henry Freese. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994. Assman, Jan. Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997. Astour, Michael. “Ezekiel’s Prophecy of Gog and the Cuthean Legend of Naram Sin.” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 567–579.

291

292

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Baltzer, Klaus. The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings. Translated by David E. Green. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Barr, James. “‘Thou are the Cherub’: Ezekiel 28:14 and the PostEzekiel Understanding of Genesis 2–3.” Pages 213–223 in Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honor of Joseph Blenkinsopp. Edited by Eugene C. Ulrich and Joseph Blenkinsopp. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 149. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Batto, Bernard F. “The Covenant of Peace: A Neglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987): 187– 211. ———. “Paradise Reexamined.” Pages 33–59 in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective. Scripture in Context IV. Edited by K. Lawson Younger, Jr., William W. Hallo, and Bernard Batto. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 11. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1991. ———. “The Reed Sea: Requiescat in Pace.” Journal of Biblical Literature 102:1 (1983): 27–35. ———. Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1992. Bechtel, Lyn M. “The Perception of Shame within the DivineHuman Relationship in Biblical Israel.” Pages 79–92 in Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory of H. Neil Richardson. Edited by Lewis M. Hopfe. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994. ———. “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 49 (1991): 47–76. Beckman, Gary M. “Hittite Treaties and the Development of the Cuneiform Treaty Tradition.” Pages 279–301 in Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006. Bickerman, Elias J. “The Babylonian captivity.” Pages 342–358 in vol. 1of The Cambridge History of Judaism. Edited by W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Bidmead, Julye. The Akitu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia. Gorgias Dissertations: Near Eastern Studies 2; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2004.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

293

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezekiel. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990. Block, Daniel I. “Beyond the Grave: Ezekiel’s Vision of Death and Afterlife.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 2 (1992): 113–141. ———. The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 1–24. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, 1997. ———. The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, 1998. ———. “Divine Abandonment: Ezekiel’s Adaptation of an Ancient Near Eastern Motif.” Pages 15–42 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 9. Edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. ———. The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology. 2nd edition. Evangelical Theological Society Studies. Grand Rapids, MI/Leicester, England: Baker Academic/Apollos, 2000. Boadt, Lawrence. Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32. Biblica et orientalia 37. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980. ———. “The Function of the Salvation Oracles in Ezekiel 33 to 37.” Hebrew Annual Review 12 (1990): 1–21. ———. “Mythological Themes and the Unity of Ezekiel.” Pages 211–231 in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by L. J. de Regt, J. de Waard, and J. P. Fokkelman. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum; Eisenbrauns, 1996. ———. “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgment.” Pages 182–200 in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation. Edited by Johan Lust. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 74. Leuven: Leuven University Press; Uitgeverij Peeters, 1986. Bodi, Daniel. The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 104. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitatsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. ———. “Les gillûlîm chez Ézéchiel et dans l’Ancien Testament, et les différentes practiques cultuelles associées à ce terme.” Revue Biblique 100:4 (1993): 481–510.

294

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Bonnet, C. Melqart. Cultes et mythes de l’Héraclès Tyrien en Méditerranée. Sacra pagina 8. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters; Presses Universitaires de Namur, 1988. Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 15 vols. Translated by John T. Willis. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974– 2006. Brandes, Stanley. “Reflections on Honor and Shame in the Mediterranean.” Pages 121–134 in Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean. Edited David D. Gilmore. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Society, 1987. Brettler, Marc Zvi. God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 76. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989. ———. “The Metaphorical Mapping of God in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 219–232 in Metaphor, Canon and Community: Jewish, Christian and Islamic Approaches. Edited by Ralph Bischoffs and James Francis. New York: Peter Lang, 1999. Brown, John Pairman. Ancient Israel and Ancient Greece: Religion, Politics, and Culture. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Brunner, H. “Die Vernichtung des Menschengeschlechts” Pages 35–38 in Religionsgeschichtliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Buttrick, George A. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 5 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. Clements, Ronald E. God and Temple. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965. Clifford, Richard J. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. Harvard Semitic Monographs 4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. Clines, David J. A. “Varieties of Textual Indeterminacy.” Semeia 71 (1995): 17–29. Coats, George W. Rebellion in the Wilderness: the Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions of the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968. Cogan, Mordechai. Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah, and Israel in the Eight and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 19. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

295

Collins, John J. “The Development of the Exodus Tradition.” Pages 144–155 in Religious Identity and the Invention of Tradition: Papers Read at a Noster Conference in Soesterberg, January 4–6, 1999. Edited by Jan Willem Van Henten and Anton W. J. Houtepen. Studies in Theology and Religion 3. Assen, Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum, 2001. Cooke, G. A. The Book of Ezekiel. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1960. Corral, Martin Alonso. Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre: Historical Reality and Motivations. Biblica et orientalia 46. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2002. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. London; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Dandamayev, M. A. “Babylonia in the Persian Age.” Pages 326– 342 in vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of Judaism. 4 vols. Edited by W. D. Davies et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984–2006. Davis, Ellen. Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 78. Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1989. Day, John, ed. King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 270. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Deist, Ferdinand E. The Material Culture of the Bible: An Introduction. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Dick, Michael B., ed. Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: the Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Durlesser, James Arthur. “The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pittsburgh, 1988. Dus, Jan. “Melek Sōr-Melqart? (Zur Interpretation von Ez 28:11– 19).” Archiv Orientální 26 (1958): 179–185. Engnell, Ivan. Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1943. Erman, A. and H. Ranke. Ägypten und ägyptisches Leben im Altertum. Tübingen: Mohr, 1923.

296

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1953. Fish, T. “The Murashu Tablets.” Pages 95–96 in Documents from Old Testament Times. Edited by David Winton Thomas. London; New York: T. Nelson, 1958. Fishbane, Michael. “Sin and Judgment in the Prophecies of Ezekiel.” Interpretation 38 (1984): 131–150. Fitzpatrick, Paul E. The Disarmament of God: Ezekiel 38–39 in Its Mythic Context. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 37. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2004. Fohrer, Georg, and Kurt Galling. Ezechiel. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 1. Tübingen: Mohr, 1955. Frankfort, Henri. Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society & Nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948. Freedman, David Noel, ed. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Freedy, K. S. and D. B. Redford. “The Dates of Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian, and Egyptian Sources.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 90 (1970): 462–485. Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, 1973. Gilmore, David D. “Introduction: the Shame of Dishonor.” Pages 2–21 in Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean. Edited David D. Gilmore. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Society, 1987. ———. “Honor, Honesty, Shame: Male Status in Contemporary Andalusia.” Pages 90–103 in Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean. Edited David D. Gilmore. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Society, 1987. George, Mark K. “Body Works: Power, the Construction of Identity, and Gender in the Discourse on Kingship.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1995. Glatt-Gilad, David A. “Yahweh’s Honor at Stake: A Divine Conundrum.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 98 (2002): 63–74. Gowan, Donald E. Theology in Exodus: Theology in the Form of a Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

297

Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel, 1–20. Anchor Bible 22. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1983. ———. Ezekiel, 21–37. Anchor Bible 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. ———. Understanding Exodus. New York: Behrman House, 1969. Habel, Norman C. “Form and Significance of the Call Narratives,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77:3 (1965): 297– 323. Hallo, William W. “Texts, Statues and the Cult of the Divine King.” Pages 54–66 in Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 30. Edited by J. A. Emerton. New York: E. J. Brill, 1988. Hallo, William H. and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., eds. The Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions, Monumental Inscriptions, and Archival Documents from the Biblical World. 3 vols. Boston: Brill, 2003. Hals, Ronald M. Ezekiel. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature 19. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989. Hanson, Paul D. “Israelite Religion in the Early Postexilic Period.” Pages 485–508 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. Haran, M. “The Ark and the Cherubim: Their Symbolic Significance in Biblical Ritual.” Israel Exploration Journal 9 (1959): 30– 38, 89–94. ———. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. Hendel, Ronald. Remembering Abraham: Culture, Memory, and History in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Hillers, Delbert R. “Rite: Ceremonies of Law and Treaty in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 351–364 in Religion and Law. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Hooke, S. H. Myth, Ritual, and Kingship: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the Ancient Near East and in Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958. Horney, Karen. Neurosis and Human Growth: The Struggle Toward SelfRealization. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1991.

298

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Huffmon, Herbert B. “The Treaty Background of Hebrew Yada’.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 181 (1966): 31– 37. Hurowitz, Victor. “From Storm God to Abstract Being: How the Deity Became More Distant from Exodus to Deuteronomy.” Bible Review 14:5 (1998): 40–47. Jeremias, Jorg. Theophanie: die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 10. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977. Josephus, Flavius. Jewish Antiquities. 9 vols. Translated by Ralph Marcus and H. St. J. Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library 489– 490. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1998. Joyce, Paul M. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 482. New York: T & T Clark, 2009. ———. “King and Messiah in Ezekiel.” Pages 323–337 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 270. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Katzenstein, H. J. The History of Tyre. From the Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C.E. until the Fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 539 B.C.E. 2nd ed. Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev, 1997. Keel, Othmar. Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: eine neue Deutung der Majestatsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 84/85. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977. ———. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Keel, Othmar and Christoph Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Kennedy, George. Comparative Rhetoric: An Historical and CrossCultural Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. ———. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Studies in Religion. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

299

Kilmer, Anne. “The Symbolism of the Flies in the Mesopotamian Flood Myth and Some Further Implications.” Pages 175–180 in Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner. Edited by Francesca RochbergHalton. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1987. Klein, Ralph W. Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. ———. Ezekiel: The Prophet and His Message. Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament. Edited by James L. Crenshaw. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988. Kohn, Risa Levitt. “‘With a Mighty Hand and an Outstretched Arm’: The Prophet and the Torah in Ezekiel 20.” Pages 159– 168 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corrinne L. Patton. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 31. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Kutsko, John F. Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel. Edited by William Henry Propp. Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 7. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Lambert, W. G. “Kingship in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Pages 54–70 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 270. Edited by John Day. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Langer, S. Philosophy in a New Key. 4th edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960. Launderville, Dale. “Ezekiel’s View of the Netherworld in Comparative Perspective.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL. Washington, D.C., November 19, 2006. Lemche, Niels Peter. The Israelites in History and Tradition. Library of Ancient Israel. London: SPCK; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998. Levenson, Jon D. Sinai & Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. Lichtheim, M. Ancient Egyptian Liteature Volume II: The New Kingdom. Berkeley: University of California, 1976. Lipschits, Oded. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005.

300

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Liverani, Mario. Israel’s History and the History of Israel. Bible World. Translated by Chiara Peri and Philip R. Davies. London; Oakville: Equinox, 2007. ———. “The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire.” Pages 297–317 in Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires. Edited by Mogens Trolle Larsen. Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 7. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979. Machinist, Peter. “Literature as Politics: The Tukulti-Ninurta Epic and the Bible.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38 (1976): 455–482. Mackay, C. M. “The King of Tyre.” Church Quarterly Review 117 (1934): 239–258. Malamat, Abraham. The History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues. Boston: Brill, 2004. Malina, Bruce J. and Jerome H. Neyrey. “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World.” Pages 25–65 in The Social World of Luke-Acts. Edited by Jerome H. Neyrey. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991. Matthews, Victor H. and Don C. Benjamin. Social World of Ancient Israel: 1250–587. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Maystre, C. “Le livre de la vache du ciel dans les tombeaux de la vallée des rois.” Bulletin de l’Institute français d’archéologie orientale 40 (1941): 53–115. McCarthy, Dennis J. McCarthy. Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament. Rome: Pontificio Ist Biblico, 1963. Mendenhall, George E. “Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East,” Biblical Archaeology 17 (1954): 26–46, 49–76. Mein, Andrew. “Profitable and Unprofitable Shepherds: Economic and Theological Perspectives on Ezekiel 34.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31:4 (2007): 493–504. Mettinger, Tryggve, N. D. “Israelite Aniconism: Developments and Origins.” Pages 173–204 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Karel Van Der Toorn. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1997. ———. No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in its Ancient Near Eastern Context. Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series 42. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

301

———. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies. Translated by Frederick H. Cryer. Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series 18. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1982. ———. “YHWH SABAOTH — The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne.” Pages 109–138 in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays: Papers Read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 5–7 December, 1979. Edited by Tomoo Ishida; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982. Miller, Patrick D. The Religion of Ancient Israel. Library of Ancient Israel. Edited by Douglas A. Knight. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000. ———. “The Sovereignty of God.” Pages 406–421 in Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 267. Edited by David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Mills, Watson E. Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1990. Moore, Erika. “A Rhetorical Analysis of the Use of Popular Sayings in the Book of Ezekiel.” (Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 2003. Müller, D. “Der gute Hirte: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte ägyptischer Bildrede.” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 86 (1961): 126–144. Neusner, Jacob and William Scott Green, eds. Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period: 450 B.C.E. to 600 C.E. New York: Macmillan Library Reference, 1996. Newsome, James D., Jr. By the Waters of Babylon: An introduction to the History and Theology of the Exile. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979. Niditch, Susan. “Ezekiel 40–48 in a Visionary Context.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (1986): 208–224. Niehaus, Jeffrey J. God at Sinai: Covenant and Theophany in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995. ———. “In the Cool of the Day?” Pages 397–399 in Gary D. Pratico and Miles V. Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Hebrew Grammar. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001. Nobile, Marco. “Beziehung zwischen Ez 32, 17–32 und der GodPerikope (Ez 38–39) im Lichte der Endredaktion.” Bibliothe-

302

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

ca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 74 (1986): 255– 259. ———. “Ez 38–39 ed Ez 40–48: i due aspettie complementari del culmine di uno schema cultuale di fondazione.” Anton 62 (1987): 141–171. Nonnos. Dionysiaca. 3 vols. Translated by W. H. D. Rouse. Loeb Classical Library 313. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963. Noth, Martin. The History of Israel. Rev. ed. Translated by Peter R. Ackroyd. New York: Harper and Row, 1960. Oded, Bustenay. “Judah and the Exile.” Pages 435–488 in Israelite and Judaean History. Edited by John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977. Odell, Margaret S. “‘Are You He of Whom I spoke by My Servants the Prophets?’ Ezekiel 38–39 and the Problem of History in the Neobabylonian Context.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pittsburgh, 1988. ———. “An Exploratory Study of Shame and Dependence in the Bible and Selected Near Eastern Parallels.” Pages 217–233 in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective: Scripture in Context IV. Edited by K. Lawson Younger, Jr., William W. Hallo, and Bernard F. Batto. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 11. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon Press, 1991. ———. Ezekiel. Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005. ———. “The Inversion of Shame and Forgiveness in Ezekiel 16.59–63.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 56 (1992): 101–112. Ollenburger, Ben C. Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 41. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1987. Olyan, Saul M. “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and its Environment.” Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996): 201–218. Parrot, A. Ninevah and Babylon. London: Thames and Hudson, 1961. Parunak, H. Van Dyke. “Transitional Techniques in the Bible.” Journal of Biblical Literature 102:4 (1983): 525–548. Patte, Daniel. “Charting the Way of the Helmsman on the High Seas: Structuralism and Biblical Studies.” Pages 165–190 in

BIBLIOGRAPHY

303

The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God’s Control of Human Events, Presented to Lou H. Silberman. Edited by James L. Crenshaw and Samuel Sandmel. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1980. Pemberton, Glenn D. “The Rhetoric of the Father: A Rhetorical Analysis of the Father/Son Lectures in Proverbs 1–9.” Ph.D. diss., The Iliff School of Theology/The University of Denver, 1999. Penchansky, David. Twilight of the Gods: Polytheism in the Hebrew Bible. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Translated by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. London/Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1971. Peristiany, Jean G. and Julian Alfred Pitt-Rivers. Honour and Shame: the Values of Mediterranean Society. The Nature of Human Society Series. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966. Pitt-Rivers, Julian A. “The Anthropology of Honour.” Pages 1–17 in The Fate of Shehem, or The Politics of Sex: Essays in the Anthropology of the Mediterranean. Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 19. Edited by J. A. Pitt-Rivers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Polak, F. “Theophany and Mediator: The Unfolding of a Theme in the Book of Exodus.” Pages 113–147 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation. Edited by Marc Vervenne. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press; Uitgeverij Peeters, 1996. Pritchard, James Bennet. Ancient Near Eastern Texts: Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969. Propp, William H. Exodus 1–18. Anchor Bible 2. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Provan, Iain, et al. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville; London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. Rad, Gerhard von. Deuteronomium-Studien. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 58. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947. Raitt, Thomas M. A Theology of Exile: Judgment/Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977. Redford, D. B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992.

304

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Renaud, Bernard. La theophanie du Sinai: Ex 19–24: exegese et theologie. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1991. Renz, Thomas. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. Boston; Leiden: Brill, 2002. Richter, Sandra L.The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: lešakkēn šemô šām in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2002. Ringgren, Helmer. “Behold Your King Comes.” Vetus Testamentum 24:2 (1974): 207–211. Roberts, J. J. M. “In Defense of the Monarchy: The Contribution of Israelite Kingship to Biblical Theology.” Pages 377–396 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. ———. “Solomon’s Jerusalem and the Zion Tradition.” Pages 163–170 in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period. Edited by Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 18; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. ———. The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002. ———. “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition.” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 329–44. ———. “The Enthronement of Yhwh and David: the Abiding Theological Significance of the Kingship Language of the Psalms.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64:4 (2002): 675–686. ———. “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire.” Pages 93–108 in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays: Papers Read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 5–7 December, 1979. Edited by Tomoo Ishida. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982. Rohland, Edzard. “Die Bedeutung der Erwählungstraditionen Israels für die Eschalologie der alttestamentlichen Propheten.” D.Theol. diss., University of Heidelberg, 1956. Ryken, Leland, Jim Wilhoit, Tremper Longman, Colin Duriez, Douglas Penney, and Daniel G. Reid, eds. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1998. Schwartz, Baruch J. “Ezekiels Dim View of Israel’s Restoration.” Pages 43–67 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

305

Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 9. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Ska, Jean L. “La place d’Ex 6, 2–8 dans la narration de l’Exode.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94 (1982): 530–548. Smith, Daniel L. The Religion of the Landless: The Sociology of the Babylonian Exile. Bloomington: Meyer-Stone Books, 1989. Smith, G. V. “The Concept of God/the Gods as King in the Ancient Near East and the Bible.” Trinity Journal (1982): 18–38. Smith-Christopher, Daniel. A Biblical Theology of Exile. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2002. ———. “Reassessing the Historical and Sociological Impact of the Babylonian Exile (597/587–539 BCE).” Pages 7–36 in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Edited by James M. Scott. Journal for the Study of Judaism: Supplement Series 56. New York: Brill, 1997). Sparks, Kenton L. Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: a Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005. ———. Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study of Ethnic Sentiments and Their Expression in the Hebrew Bible. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998. Stansell, Gary. “Honor and Shame in the David Narratives.” Semeia 68 (1996): 55–79. Stordalen, T. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 25. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000. Strong, John T. “Ezekiel’s Oracles against the Nations within the Context of His Message.” Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1993. Tadmor, Hayim. “Autobiographical Apology in the Royal Assyrian Literature.” Pages 36–57 in History, Historiography, and Interpretation. Edited by H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984. ———. “Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East: A Historian’s Approach.” Pages 127–152 in Humanizing America’s Iconic Book. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. Thompson, J. A. “The Significance of the Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Pattern.” Tyndale Bulletin 13 (1963): 1–6.

306

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

Toorn, Karel van der, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd revised edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Boston: Brill, 1999. Tuell, Steven. Ezekiel. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. ———. The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48. Harvard Semitic Monographs 49. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Vanderhooft, David S. The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets. Harvard Semitic Monographs 59. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Walls, Neal H., ed. Cult Image and Divine Representation in the Ancient Near East. American Schools of Oriental Research Books Series 10; Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2005. Weeks, Noel. Admonition and Curse: The Ancient Near Eastern Treaty/Covenant Form as a Problem in Inter-cultural Relationships. London: T & T Clark International, 2004. Whitelam, Keith W. “Israelite Kingship. The Royal Ideology and its Opponents.” Pages 119–139 in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study. Edited by R. E. Clements. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Wiseman, D. J. Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, Schweich Lectures, 1983. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Wright, George Ernest and David Noel Freedman (eds.). “The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 152–154, 159, 164, and 169–171 in The Biblical Archaeology Reader I. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1961. ———. The Biblical Archaeologist Reader. 3 vols. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1961–1970. Wyatt, Nicolas. “Arms and the King: The Earliest Allusions to the Chaoskampf Motif and their implications for the Interpretation of the Ugaritic and Biblical Traditions.” Pages 151–189 in ‘There’s such Divinity doth Hedge a King’: Selected Essays of Nicolas Wyatt on Royal Idelogy in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature. Society for Old Testament Studies Monograph Series. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2005. ———. Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition. Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur 13. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

307

———. Religious Texts from Ugarit. 2nd edition. Biblical Seminar 53. London; New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24. Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. Edited by Frank Moore Cross and Klaus Baltzer with the assistance of Leonard Jay Greenspoon. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. ———. Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48. Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Translated by James D. Martin. Edited by Paul D. Hanson with Leonard Jay Greenspoon. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. ———. I Am Yahweh. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Edited by Walter Brueggemann. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

INDEX BIBLICAL REFERENCES Genesis 1:2 1:27–30 2–3 2:15–17 3:8 3:24 6:5–7 6:11–13 9 9:8–17 9:14 9:14–16 15 15:12–16 17 17–18 27:27–29 28:13–15 32:29 50:25

105 105 202–3, 216, 230, 292, 305 105 105–6 219 278 278 280 276 105 120 66 105 66 105 66 66 66 219

Exodus 1–18 1:13–14 3 3:1–4:17 3:8 3:13–22 3:14–15 3:17 3:19

176, 303 247 34, 177 106 81 35 106 81 34

3:20 4:1–9 6 6:1 6:1–8 6:1–9 6:2 6:2–8 6:2–9 6:6 6:7 6:8 7:5 7:17 8:10 8:22 9:13–16 9:14 9:16 9:29 10:2 13:19 14:4 14:18 15 15:1–18 15:3 15:4–10 15:16 15:17 15:18 16:6 16:12

309

179 35 34, 175, 177 34 175 35 34 66, 106 34 34, 179 35, 82, 179 176 35, 177 35, 177 35, 177 35, 177 179 35, 177 35 35 35 219 35, 177, 185 35, 177 148 82 148 148 179 123, 148 72–3, 148 35 35, 179

310 17–18 18:11 19 19:2–8 19:5–6 19:9 19:9–21 20 20:1–24:8 20:2 23:20–30 24:10 25:8 25:8–9 25:8–22 25:10–22 29:46 31:1–18 31:13 32

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

32:1–35 32:7–8 32:11 32:12 33:7–11 36:1 37:1–9

185 35 81 66 106 106 106 160 66 148, 156, 179 81 104 123 66 166 66 35 66 35 146, 160, 165, 181 106 165 34 156 66 123 66

Leviticus 4:5–6 11:44 17–26 18:2 18:4 18:5 18:30 19:3 19:4 19:10 19:25 19:31 19:34 19:36

123 179 156 179 179 156 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179

20:7 20:24 23:22 23:43 24:22 25:17 25:38 25:43 25:46 25:53 25:55 26 26:1 26:3–6 26:6 26:13 26:17 26:24 26:28 26:30 26:41 26:43

179 179 179 179 179 179 179 247 247 247 179 280 179 279 279 179, 283 139 139 139 139 139 139

Numbers 4:15 4:30 10:10 11:15 13–14 15:39–40 15:41 22:41 23:13 23:21 23:27–28

123 107 179 202 156 178 179 258 258 72 258

Deuteronomy 1:26–43 3:24 4:34 5:6 5:15 5:24 6:21

162 34 34 148, 179 34 202 34

INDEX 7:8 7:19 9 9:4–6 9:26 11:2 26:8 28 29:6 31:6 31:10–13 31:17–18 32:18 32:20 33:4–5 44:25 [Eng. 24]

34 34 162 162 34 34 34 139 179 138 178 138 79 138 72 138

Joshua 1:5 6:24 18:1 24:32

138 67 67 219

Judges 8:22–23 18:31

72 67

1 Samuel 7:1 8 8:7 9:16 10:1 10:5 10:10 12:22 13:14 25:30 31:4–13

253 79, 281 72 205, 207 205, 207 253 253 138 205, 207 205, 207 218

2 Samuel 5:6–10 6 6:3

66 66 253

311 6:4 7 7:1–17 7:4–16 7:8 7:12–17 7:21 22:11

253 79, 89 66–7 81 205, 207 76 205, 207 105

1 Kings 6 6:1 8:1 6:13 8:10–11 8:11 8:14 14:7 8:53 8:57 9:1–9 9:9 14:7 14:15 14:23 16:7

67 66 173 138 173 173 173 205 66 138 67 173 207 78 78 205, 207

1 Chronicles 11:2 16:31 17:7 28:4

205, 207 139 205, 207 205, 207

2 Chronicles 6:5 24:20

3 205, 207 138

Ezra 9:9

3, 29 138

Nehemiah 9:28

29 138

312 Job 38:1 40:6

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

105 105

Psalms 2 67, 79 2:2–8 76 2:6 77 18 74 18:11 [Eng. 10] 105 18:13 [Eng. 12] 105 23 271 24 74 29:1–11 105 29:10–11 139 42:4 [Eng. 3] 138 42:11 [Eng. 10] 138 44:5–8 [Eng. 4–7] 139 46 74 46:2–8 [Eng. 1–7] 89 46:3 74 46:5 74 46:7 74 47 74 48 74 48:3–4 74 48:4–8 [Eng. 3–7] 89 48:5–7 74 50:3–4 105 68 74 68:17 77 68:24 72 72 67 74:12–15 64 74:12–17 75 76 70, 74 76:4 74 76:4–6 [Eng. 3–5] 89 76:6–7 74 77:18–19 [Eng. 77:17–18] 105 78:60 138 78:67–69 77 78:68 81 78:68–69 70

79:10 82 82:17 89:9–10 89:27 94:14 95:2–5 96:3–10 96:10 97:1–2 97:2–5 99:1 101:1–8 104:29 110:3 115:2 125:1 132:13 132:13–17 137:1–9 137:4

138 74 220 64 76 138 75 75 139 76 105 139 76 138 76 138 70 70, 81 77 88 89

Proverbs 1–9

303

Isaiah 2:1–4 2:6 4:5 6:1 6:1–13 6:4 6:6–7 6:9–13 8:17 10:32 14 19:1 23:9 24:23 27:1 30:25 31:4 46:1–2

69 138 105 105 103, 105 105 105 105 138 254 45 105 185 70 64 254 254 138

INDEX 51:9–11 54:8 55:4 59:2 64:6 [Eng. 7]

64 138 205, 207 138 138

Jeremiah 2:20 7:2–15 7:29 12:7 14L9 23 23:3 23:4 23:33 23:39 27:3 29 29:1–23 29:4–6 31:12 36:20–32 37:5 44:16–18 48:7 49:3 50–51 50:6 51:59 51:59–64

254 78 138 138 138 256 256 256 138 138 211 88 84 135 70 258 211 93 138 138 45 254 211 254, 258

Lamentations 1:8 185 5:19–22 88 5:20 138 Ezekiel 1 1–3

28 v, 23, 26, 28, 32, 41, 78, 83, 96, 106, 109, 111, 119, 120–1, 124,

313

1–24

1–32 1–33 1:1 1:1–2 1:1–3 1:1–3:11 1:2 1:3 1:3–3:11 1:3b–4 1:4 1:4–28 1:4–3:15 1:5–12 1:13–14 1:22–25 1:23–25 1:26–28 1:28 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:8 2:9–3:3 2:9–3:4 2:10 3–24 3:2–3 3:3

128, 130, 134, 137–8, 238 v, 8, 10, 18, 21, 25, 26, 30–3, 37–9, 41, 50, 59, 83, 88, 96–7, 116, 118, 123, 125, 128, 145, 174, 179, 196, 210, 215, 239, 243, 261–2 26, 46, 108, 109 49 27, 94, 107 94 102 28 107 20, 94, 107 28 104 101, 102 102 v, 101–2, 107, 121–2 104 104 104 104 104 110, 112, 118, 238 32, 108, 110 32 32 32 112 106 102, 106 248 110 102

314 3:7 3:8–9 3:9 3:11 3:12 3:14 3:15 3:16 3:16–21 3:16–27 3:16–24:27 3:18 3:19 3:21 3:21–27 3:22 3:23 3:26 3:26–27 3:27 5:6 5:7 5:8 5:9 5:11 5:11–17 5:13 5:14–15 6:4 6:5 6:6 6:7 6:9 6:10 6:11 6:13 6:14 7:3 7:4 7:8

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!” 118 128 32 28 28, 102, 108, 110, 238 20, 102, 110, 112 101, 102 32, 101, 102 119 113 103 113 119 31, 119 38 20 108, 238 37 194 32, 102, 119, 120 32, 38 38 228 114 114, 223 176 174 228 114, 170, 223 114, 170, 223 114, 170, 223 174 114, 170, 223 174 114 114, 170, 174, 223, 254 174 114 174 114

7:9 7:11 7:15 7:16 7:18 7:20 7:23 7:27 8–11

8:1 8:1–3 8:1–18 8:1–11:13 8:1–11:25 8:4 8:5–18 8:6 8:9 8:10 8:11 8:12 8:13 8:14 8:15 8:17 8:22 8:22–23 9:1–11 9:3 9:3–6 9:4 9:8

174 114, 259 182 248 48 114, 223 114, 259 174 v, vi, 23, 26– 9, 32–3, 41, 78, 83, 96, 101, 104, 111–12, 114, 120–5, 127– 30, 132, 134, 136–8, 139, 140–1, 165, 173, 238, 263 20, 27, 84, 95, 124–5, 164–5 121 120, 126 124 28 238 122 114 114 35, 114, 170, 223 20, 173 20, 122, 127, 138, 140 114 173 114 114, 259 35 72 120 238 123 114 127

INDEX 9:9 9:14 10:1–22 10:4 11 11:1 11:1–13 11:4–13 11:7–11 11:10 11:12 11:13 11:14–20 11:14–21 11:14–24 11:15 11:16 11:17 11:17–20 11:18 11:18–20a 11:18–21 11:19 11:19–20 11:20 11:20b 11:21 11:22 11:22–23 11:23 11:24 11:24–25 11:25 12 12:1 12:2 12:3 12:9 12:13 12:15 12:16 12:19

127, 138, 140 177 120–1 238 20, 44, 284 121 121 112 182 74 38, 174 124, 126–7 28, 31, 125, 268 121, 128 123 89, 127, 140 28–9, 108, 123, 130, 141 28, 123 29 114, 123, 223 29 141 53, 123, 138 83, 98, 135 38, 123 29 125, 128, 223 140, 238 120 122, 238 121 121 121 20 121 32 32 32 214 174 114, 174, 228 114, 259

315 12:20 12:25 13:9 13:14 13:21 13:22 13:23 14 14:1 14:1–8 14:3 14:4 14:4–20 14:5 14:6 14:7 14:8 14:10–11 14:18 14:22–23 14:23 15 15:7 16 16:8 16:12 16:14 16:20 16:22 16:27 16:36 16:43 16:50 16:51 16:52 16:53–55 16:54 16:58 16:59–62 16:59–63

174 32 174 174, 205, 207 174 38 174 124, 161, 163 20, 84, 95 160 114, 170, 223 114, 170, 177, 223 176 114, 161, 170, 223 38, 114, 163, 170, 223 114, 160, 170, 223 161–2, 174 31, 38 177 31 174 7 174 7 81 114 228 172 114 48 114, 170, 223 114 114 114 48 31 48 114 81 31

316 16:60–63 16:61 16:62 16:63 17 17:1–10 17:1–21 17:1–24 17:3 17:5 17:11–24 17:12 17:12–20 17:13 17:13–21 17:15 17:16 17:16–24 17:18–19 17:19–21 17:20 17:21 17:22 17:22–24 17:23 17:24 18 18:5–9 18:5–20 18:6 18:9 18:11 18:12 18:13 18:14–18 18:15 18:17 18:19 18:21 18:21–23 18:21–32 18:24 18:25 18:27–28

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!” 31 49 174 49 7, 235 235 215, 248 235 236 279 235 32, 214 83 226 211 211 214, 236 176 236 236 214 174 236 31, 236 236 236 97, 113 31 31 114, 170, 223 38 35 114, 170, 223 114 31 114, 170, 223 38 38 38 31 38 114 83, 96 31

18:29 18:30 18:31 19 20

20:1 20:1–3 20:1–29 20:1–33 20:1–44 20:2–32 20:3 20:3–44 20:4 20:5 20:5–7 20:5–29 20:5b 20:6 20:7 20:7–8 20:7b 20:8 20:9 20:11 20:13 20:12 20:14 20:16

83, 96 248 98 7 17, 33, 36, 44, 46, 59–60, 96, 98, 245–7, 154, 156–8, 160–2, 164–9, 172, 174, 181, 187–8, 190–1, 210, 239, 262, 264–6, 272–3, 284–5 27, 84. 95 20 155, 158–9 96 vi, 93, 150 33 84 176 114, 159 179 176 190 156 156 114, 170, 179, 223, 248 146 156 32, 114, 170, 223 35, 49, 173, 180, 228 38, 156 32, 38, 156 174 35, 49, 173, 180, 228 38, 114, 170, 223

INDEX 20:18 20:19 20:19a 20:20 20:21 20:22 20:23 20:24 20:25 20:25–26 20:26 20:28 20:30 20:30–31 20:31 20:32

20:33 20:33–35 20:33–38 20:34 20:34–35 20:34–38 20:34–44 20:37 20:37–38 20:38 20:39 20:40–44 20:41 20:42 20:43

38, 114, 170, 223 38, 169 156 174 32, 38, 156 35, 49, 173, 180, 228 145 38, 114, 170, 223 38, 53, 156 157 174 176, 254, 264 114, 223 264 114, 170, 223 33, 41, 50, 90, 115, 171, 209–10, 215, 223, 265 34, 115, 166– 7, 171, 190, 264 83 265 264 264 162 31, 179 81, 171, 259, 265 259 162, 171, 174, 223, 259–60, 264–5 35, 114, 163, 170,173, 223 31, 125 228, 264 174, 265 264–5

317 20:44 20:45–49 21 21:1–24:14 21:3 21:5 21:8–32 21:18–24 21:19 21:21 21:27 22 22:2 22:3 22:4 22:11 22:16 22:17–22 22:18 22:19 22:20 22:21 22:26 22:29 23 23:7 23:30 23:36 23:37 23:39 23:49 24 24:1 24:2 24:2–14 24:3 24:14 24:17 24:21 24:22 24:24 24:25–27

35, 49, 180, 264 154 201 154 83 177 235 83 214 214, 223 83, 214 20, 247–8 114 114, 171, 223 114, 171, 223, 228 114, 248 174, 228 248 247–8 248 248 248 114, 259 286 7 114, 171, 223 171, 223 114 171, 223 171, 223 171, 174, 223 174 27 214 83, 214 32 154 194 194, 198 179 174 195

318 24:27 25–28 25–32

25–48 25:1–17 25:3 25:5 25:7 25:8 25:10 25:10–22 25:11 25:12 25:15 25:17 26 26–28 26:1 26:1–21 26:2 26:6 26:7 26:7–14 26:15–21 26:21 27 27:3 27:4–25 27:5 27:26–27 27:28–36 27:36 28 28:1 28:1–10 28:2

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!” 103, 174, 194 196 v, 7–10, 18, 21, 25–6, 30, 40, 88, 115, 196 10, 31 197 197 177 177 197 228 66 177 197 197 177 204 115 27, 197–8 198 199, 205 177 214 199, 213 228 200, 205 7, 204 199 199 236 199 199, 228 200, 205 10, 12, 24, 174, 200, 205, 208–9, 215 200 199–200, 204–8, 211, 214, 216 200, 205, 209, 217, 228

28:2b 28:5 28:6 28:9 28:11 28:11–19

28:12 28:12–14 28:13 28:13–15 28:14 28:15–17 28:16 28:16–19 28:17 28:18–19 28:19 28:20–24 28:22 28:23 28:24 28:24–26 28:25 28:25–26 28:26 29 29–32 29:1 29:1–6a 29:1–23 29:3 29:3–16 29:6 29:6–7 29:8–16 29:9

214 205, 217 217 209, 217 200, 204–5 vi, 42, 193, 199–201, 203–8, 213, 216, 219, 221–3, 228, 230–1, 233–5, 238 200, 228 204 232, 238 66 202 204 205, 211, 217 49 211 204 200, 204, 228 209 177 177 174 195 228 31, 43, 195, 209 174 10, 229 233 27, 198 7 84 200, 214 206 177, 201 212 207 177, 200, 206, 214

INDEX 29:16 29:17 29:17–19 29:17–31 29:18–19 29:21 29:46 30:1–12 30:4 30:10 30:10–11 30:13 30:19 30:20 30:23 30:24 30:25 30:26 31

31:1 31:1–18 31:2b–9 31:3 31:4 31:5 31:6 31:8 31:9 31:10 31:10–18 31:15 31:15–18 31:16–18 31:18 32

174, 201 27, 95, 198 95, 199, 213 198 214, 224 174 35 201 201 214 201 114, 171, 201, 223 177 27, 198, 228 201 214 177, 214 177, 201, 227–8 24, 42, 96, 200–1, 219, 227–8, 230, 233–8 27, 198 vi, 193, 224, 235, 238 228 236 236 236 236 236 230, 232, 238 209 228 228, 236–7 228 237 237–8 v, 7–10, 18, 21, 25–7, 30, 39–40, 42, 44, 46, 50, 83, 88,

319

32:1 32:1–16 32:9 32:9–10 32:11 32:15 32:16 32:17 32:18–32 32:24–30 32:29 33 33–48 33:1–20 33:11 33:15 33:17 33:20 33:21 33:21–22 33:22 33:23–29 33:23–33 33:25 33:26 33:27–29 33:28 33:29 33:30–33 33:33 34

108, 115, 154, 174, 194–8, 210, 233, 239, 293, 301 27, 198, 227 7, 206 228 228 201, 214 177 228 27, 198 237 49 66 v,7, 26, 30, 53, 88, 97, 193, 215 v, 8, 18, 31, 196 194, 209 246 38 83, 96 83, 96, 248 27, 108, 198, 209 194 20 31 252 114, 171, 223 114 108, 176 285 114, 174 94, 108 108 v, vi, 3, 7, 53, 96–7, 157, 180, 245–8, 253–4, 257, 260–77, 280– 6

320 34–48

34:1–10 34:1–16 34:1–24 34:1–31 34:5 34:6 34:11–16 34:14 34:16 34:17 34:17–21 34:17–22 34:17–24 34:18 34:18–21 34:20 34:20–22 34:21 34:22–24 34:23–24 34:24 34:24–25 34:25 34:25–29 34:25–31 34:26 34:27 34:28 34:29 34:30 34:30–31 34:31 35–48 35:1

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!” v, 21, 26, 30, 31, 49–50, 88, 224, 240, 267, 285 31 255, 258, 265, 280 253, 274 vi, 246 255 254 258 255, 286 250, 255 253, 259, 265–6, 280, 282 271 250, 259 258–9, 265, 280 280 282 259 31, 248 275 282 253 253, 265, 283 259 253, 265 279, 285 274–5 253, 265 174, 253, 265, 283 265, 283 228, 265, 272, 277, 283 253, 265, 283 259, 265 266, 280 284 257

35:1–2 35:1–15 35:1–36:15 35:4 35:4–15 35:9 35:12 35:15 36

36:1 36:1–15 36:1–36 36:3 36:3–7 36:6–7 36:11 36:15 36:15–30 36:16–23 36:16–32 36:16–38 36:18 36:19–23 36:20 36:20–23 36:21 36:21–22 36:22 36:23 36:24 36:24–38 36:25 36:25–28 36:26 36:26–27 36:26–29 36:27 36:30 36:31 36:31–32

257 31, 257 46 177 176 177 177 177 vi, 24, 53, 96, 181, 193, 240–2, 273, 283 257 181, 240, 242, 257 181 242 228 242 174 228, 242 242 240, 242 141 46 114, 171, 223 183 49, 173 35, 158, 228 173 240 173, 180 173 283 46 114, 171, 223 253 53, 98, 138 83 179 283 228, 283 114, 242, 283 189

INDEX 36:32 36:34–35 36:35 37 37:1–14 37:15–23 37:15–28 37:24 37:24–28 37:25 38–39 38–48 38:1–39:20 38:12 38:16 38:23 39:6 39:7 39:20 39:21 39:22 39:23 39:24 39:25 39:27 39:28 39:29 40–43 40–48

40:1 40:1–43:11

49, 180, 242, 265, 283 283 241 253 46 46 46, 253 46 46 47 9–10, 33, 71, 74, 107 9 31 71 177 177 177 35, 49, 173, 177, 228 31 228 174 138, 177, 228 138 35, 49, 173 228 174 138 39, 47, 78, 83, 96, 112, 136– 7 v, vi, 23, 26– 9, 47, 101, 104, 107, 111–12, 129– 30, 134, 138, 141, 238, 241, 301–2, 306 20, 27, 95, 129 47–8

321 40:1–43:1–12 40:2 40:4 40:46 43–48 43:1–12 43:2 43:4 43:5 43:7 43:7–8 43:8 43:9 43:10 43:10–11 43:10–12 43:10–46:24 43:11 43:11–12 43:12 43:12–46:24 43:13–46:27 43:19 44:1 44:3 44:4 44:6 44:7 44:10 44:12 44:13 44:15 44:24 45:7–9 45:16–17 45:22–25 46:2–18 46:24 46:27

vi, 29, 129– 30, 133–4, 142, 173, 241 137, 241 130 137 3, 4 vi, 129 238 238 238 136, 173 35, 49 173 30 30, 130–1 49, 189, 242, 265 137 94 48, 130 53 29, 129–30, 133–4, 142, 173, 241 48 131 137 123 137 238 114 114 114, 171, 223 114, 223 49 137 38 137 137 137 137 48, 94 131

322 47 47:1–12

47:12 47:13–48:29 47:13–48:34 47:13–48:35 48

48:1–35 48:8 48:10 48:11 48:21 48:21–22 48:29 48:34 48:35 Daniel

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!” vi, 24, 96, 193, 240–1 29, 48, 112, 130, 137, 142–3, 173, 241–2, 280 123 137 130 48 v, vi, 3–4, 8– 10, 18, 21, 23, 26–31, 38–9, 44, 46–50, 88, 97, 101, 104, 107, 111–12, 129–30, 133– 4, 138, 141, 174, 195–6, 224, 238–241, 243, 245, 267, 284–5, 291, 293, 301–2, 306–7 137 123 123 137 123 137 137 130 29, 48, 108, 132, 173 3

Hosea 2 2:23–25 11

280 278–9 79

Joel 2:17 3:2–8 3:17

138 214 70

Amos 1:2 2:4–5 22

105 105 173

Obadiah 1:21

70

Micah 1–4 3:4 3:11 4:7 7:10

69 138 89 70, 139 138

Nahum 1:3b 3:10

105 185

Habakkuk 3:4 3:11

105 105

Zechariah 8:3 9:14

70 105

SUBJECTS A Abandonment/departure 10, 23, 26, 28, 50, 73, 89, 93, 96, 114, 117–18, 120–43, 157–9, 164–5, 171–2,

186, 188–9, 192, 209–10, 226, 267, 270, 273, 284, 290, 293

INDEX Abomination(s) 27, 114, 120, 122, 125, 128–9, 150, 159–61, 163, 168, 172 Akitu (Babylonian New Year) 27, 77, 132, 292 Allegory 7, 227, 229, 235, 258 Ancient Near East xi, 4–5, 8– 10, 16–17, 26, 29, 32, 38, 63–5, 67–70, 72–3, 77, 81, 87, 103, 105, 117–19, 139–40, 142, 147, 173, 176, 178, 186, 188, 207, 209–10, 230–1, 257, 261, 269, 276, 279, 292–3, 295–306 Annihilation 127, 129, 168, 172, 179–81, 183, 218– 19, 223, 233, 277 Apologetics 11, 117, 134, 139, 147, 282, 305 Appearance-reality 116, 168, 170–1 Aristotle 17–18, 20, 23, 42, 52, 291 Ark of the Covenant 64, 66, 77–8, 82, 117–18, 140, 165–6, 173, 297 Asshur 72, 89, 104 Assimilation 10–12, 15–16, 19, 32, 34, 36, 86, 89–90, 92, 95–6, 98, 114, 120, 135–6, 167, 191–2, 240, 259, 267, 269, 284 Association 113, 126, 136, 172, 177, 276, 278, Assyria 63, 72, 83–6, 89, 146, 188, 191, 211–12, 225–6, 228–35, 237–8, 294, 300, 305 B Baal 47, 63, 133, 277–8, 280 Babylon 3–6, 9, 10–12, 14– 15, 19, 27, 32, 36, 40–3,

323 45, 51, 53, 61, 63, 73, 77, 80, 82–6, 88–92, 95–9, 101–2, 107, 114, 116– 123, 127–8, 132, 135–6, 138, 141, 160, 165–7, 169, 177, 187, 191–2, 197–9, 201, 210–15, 220, 229, 234–6, 258–9, 267, 269, 275, 282, 284–5 Bad laws 53, 157 Bow/rainbow 104, 118, 120, 277, Breath of YHWH 119, 223 C Chaos 5, 9–10, 33, 39, 42, 47, 64, 68–72, 74–6, 91–2, 143, 157, 221 Cedar (tree) 225, 230, 232, 234–7 Chaoskampf (combat myth) 9, 47, 68, 75, 133, 147 Chariot throne 102, 104, 118–19, 121 Cherub(im) 42, 77, 104, 119, 140, 202–6, 208, 216–19, 221, 234, 292, 297, 301 Chiasm 249, 254 Coherence (rhetorical) 2, 10, 11, 14, 25, 53, 58, 59, 61, 204 Consistency 2, 16, 19, 26–7, 30–1, 36, 38, 44, 46, 52– 3, 58–9, 78, 84, 95–6, 98–9, 135, 137, 145–6, 150, 155, 157–60, 162, 164, 167–9, 172, 182, 188–90, 192–3, 196, 198, 204, 212, 235, 238–9, 243, 250, 271, 281, Covenant 7–8, 16–17, 29, 31– 4, 36, 38, 41, 46–7, 49– 50, 54, 62, 66–7, 70, 74, 76, 79–83, 90, 93, 95,

324

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

104–6, 117–18, 121, 123, 125, 129, 132, 134–9, 141, 145–147, 150, 153, 155–7, 160, 163, 165–6, 168–72, 175–80, 183, 185–90, 192, 196, 236, 241, 245–6, 251, 253–4, 259, 261, 263–9, 273, 276–81, 283–6, 290, 292, 300–302 Cyrus (of Persia) 3, 85, 94, 118, 135 Cyrus Cylinder 209 D David/Davidic (King) 3, 46, 62, 64, 66–7, 70, 73–8, 81–2, 89, 150, 251, 253– 4, 256, 260, 265 Date formula(s)/dating 3, 26–7, 74, 90, 94–5, 121– 2, 124, 129, 130, 132, 134, 147, 164, 198, 227– 9, 233, 235, 296 Dead (salt) Sea 241 Deliberative Rhetoric 22, 30, 38, 48–9, 52–3, 119–20, 125, 129, 162–4, 286 Deuteronomic 16, 67, 72, 172–3, 298, 303–4 Dirge (see Lament) Disputation 102, 121, 197, 220, 243 Dissociation 113, 120–1, 126, 129, 136, 167–8, 171–2, 267, 270, 274–5 Dragon 9, 64, 75, 147–8, 292 Divine warrior 33, 47, 64, 66, 68–9, 82, 102, 106, 118– 19, 148, 150, E Editing/editors 1, 2, 27–8, 40, 55, 60, 82, 84, 94–6,

98, 102, 107, 121–2, 124, 131, 154, 171, 195, 247, 261, 303 Eden 96, 106, 143, 202–3, 216, 219–20, 225, 227, 230–2, 234, 238–9, 241– 2, 283, 305, Edom 31, 41, 43, 46, 177, 196–7, 211, 215, 257 Egypt 4, 10, 27, 34–6, 40, 42– 3, 45, 49, 63, 66, 82, 86, 95–6, 106, 115, 148–9, 151, 153, 155, 168, 175, 177, 179–80, 191, 195, 197–201, 206–7, 209–15, 223–4, 227–39, 247, 270, 277, 283, 291, 293, 296, 299, 303 Epideictic Rhetoric 22, 26, 29–30, 37–8, 47, 50–2, 54, 99, 111, 132, 164, 167, 175, 191, 208, 222, 233, 243, 263, 281, 286 Ethos (Rhetoric) 11, 15, 17, 20, 23, 25–6, 30, 37–9, 44–6, 48–9, 52–5, 62, 80–1, 93, 101, 103, 109– 10, 112, 117–19, 124–6, 128–9, 134–5, 138, 141– 2, 145, 147, 150, 156–7, 162, 164, 166–7, 172, 183, 187, 189–90, 193, 196, 208, 215, 237, 239, 242–3, 246, 267, 269, 281, 281–4, 286, 290 Ethnicity 85–7, 305 Exile (Babylonian) 3, 5, 7, 8, 9–12, 14–15, 19, 21, 22, 29–32, 37, 39, 44, 50, 55, 59, 61–2, 66, 69, 81–99, 102, 107–8, 114, 116– 121, 127, 129, 134–5, 138, 141, 143, 145, 150, 157, 159, 164–5, 170,

INDEX 177, 180–3, 192, 196, 211, 214, 253, 259, 266– 8, 273–5 Exodus 13, 17, 24, 28, 34–6, 66–7, 82, 96, 105–6, 123, 128, 143, 145–92, 207, 283, 295–8, 303 F Fertility 17, 48, 71, 78, 142, 230, 241–2, 246, 278 Foreign nations 7, 21, 27, 30– 1, 37, 41–2, 44–5, 133, 169, 177, 195, 205, 215, 222, 233, 238, 243, 245 Freedom (divine/human) 26, 28, 52–4, 84, 98, 104, 108, 115–16, 118, 124, 141, 175, 191, 232 G Gedaliah 259 Genre 6, 13, 22–5, 29–30, 33, 42, 50–1, 54,–5, 200, 222 Gillulim (dung piles) 114, 146, 170, 223, 293 Glory/Chabod (of Yahweh) 26, 28–9, 64, 78, 101–2, 108, 110, 112, 115–16, 120, 122, 128, 130, 136, 140–1, 173, 191, 216, 232, 238 Gog 9, 31, 39, 47, 71, 174 Great King (Yahweh) 69, 73– 5, 177, 193, 201, 207, 214, 216, 222, 234, 239, 289, 302 H Hand/arm of YHWH 20, 34, 55, 94, 106, 121, 153, 175–6, 179, 227, 285, 299

325 Hardening of the heart 156– 57, 182, 201–22 Heaven 16, 28–9, 33, 68–9, 71–2, 77–8, 90, 93, 102– 4, 108–10, 114, 118, 139, 142, 173, 225–6, 278, 295, 299, 301 Hierarchy 4, 16, 72, 89, 185, 299 Historical context 22–3, 57– 99, 105, 139, 156, 189, 209–10, 290 Holiness 30–1, 48, 53, 81, 85, 131–4, 136–7, 142, 148, 154, 156, 158, 173, 181– 2, 202, 216, 219–20, 240 Honor 13, 15, 24, 38, 46, 49– 50, 55, 65, 91, 112, 115, 132–4, 138, 145–6, 155– 6, 158–9, 162, 164, 168– 9, 172, 180, 183–92, 215–16, 218–19, 228, 232, 237, 242, 262–4, 268, 282–4, 286, 290, 294, 296, 300, 302, 305 Hope 8, 21, 25, 28–9, 31, 41– 2, 44–5, 52, 78, 95, 103, 123, 125, 127–9, 131–4, 136, 139, 163, 172, 195, 197, 208, 211–12, 221– 22, 229, 233–4, 237, 240, 255, 267, 270, 274–6, 282–3, 285–6 Hubris 40–2, 44, 199–201, 205, 207–8, 211, 214, 217–18, 226, 228–30, 235 I Identity 8, 11, 14–16, 19, 25, 32, 35–6, 51–2, 55, 62, 66–7, 79–89, 91–3, 99, 107, 114, 119, 134–5, 137, 139, 142–3, 146–50,

326

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

170, 172, 182, 186, 188– 92, 215, 240, 243, 245, 252, 272, 287, 289–90 Ideology 1–2, 6, 13, 15, 18– 19, 22, 39, 47, 55, 57–9, 61–76, 81–3, 86–91, 95, 98, 146, 221, 300, 306 Idol/Idolatry 15–16, 19, 21, 30, 32–3, 36, 38, 41, 50, 67, 83, 90, 95–6, 103, 105, 113–16, 122–6, 128–9, 133, 136, 146, 149, 151–4, 158–66, 168–70, 172, 175, 178–9, 181, 190, 201, 232, 239, 243, 247, 252, 259, 262, 264–6, 268–9 Illustration 109, 111, 115, 215–16, 222–3, 231, 234–5, 238 image (cultic) 34, 77–8, 90, 114–16, 118, 139, 143, 159, 160–1, 165–6, 169– 71, 223, 295, 298, 300, 306 Incomparability 45, 133, 166, 210, 230, 238 Incompatibility 167–70, 172, 220–1, 223, 234–5, 238– 9 Inviolability 17, 82, 88 J Jehoiachin 5, 107, 215, 235–6, 259 Jerusalem 11, 14–15, 27–8, 30–2, 36–7,39, 66–7, 70– 1, 74–6, 78, 81–2, 88–94, 104–5, 108, 114, 120–40, 165, 173, 193–9, 209–12, 229, 235, 239, 248, 252– 4, 259, 262–3 Judgment 7–8, 15, 21–2, 26– 7, 29–31, 33–4, 36, 38–

40, 42–7, 49, 54, 96, 102–3, 105, 108–9, 112– 13, 117, 120–1, 123, 125–129, 131, 135, 139, 141, 151–3, 156, 158–9, 161–4, 167, 169, 172, 175, 179, 182, 191, 193– 6, 198–9, 204, 208–210, 224, 227–9, 233, 238–40, 243, 246, 251–60, 263–7, 271, 273–4, 276, 282, 284,–6 Judicial Rhetoric 15, 22, 25–6, 30, 33, 37–8, 44–5, 47– 50, 52, 103, 109, 120, 145, 159, 162, 164, 186, 208, 233, 256, 286 K Kingship 4–6, 9, 11–14, 18, 21, 23–4, 26, 33, 50, 52, 62–9, 71–4, 79–83,99, 101, 108, 158–9, 162, 171, 193,243, 246, 257, 265, 270, 274, 285–6, 289–90, 295–7, 299, 304, 306 Knowledge/acknowledgement (of Yahweh) 11, 13, 26, 29–31, 34–8, 45, 47, 50, 52, 55, 62, 96, 123, 132, 134, 138, 140–1, 151–2, 154, 158–9, 161, 164, 173–9, 182, 190–1, 228, 236, 241, 243, 251–2, 260, 262, 265, 268, 270, 283 L Lament 42, 89, 102, 106, 199–211, 204, 220, 222– 3, 226, 228, 231, 254, Logos (rhetoric) 20–1, 23

INDEX M Marduk 10, 73, 89–90, 132–3 Masoretic Text (MT) 2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 55, 60, 62, 133, 154, 156, 201, 203, 204, 226, 247 Melqart 197, 205–6, 214, 218, 294 Mesopotamia(n) 63, 65, 72, 77, 84–5, 89, 115, 118, 139, 161, 234, 276–7, 292, 299–300, Murashu Documents 85–6, 90, 296 Myth 8–10, 12–13, 33, 39, 42, 63–64, 71, 75, 78, 86–7, 105, 133, 147–8, 276–8, 280 N Nagid 46–7, 199, 205, 207, 216 Name (divine) 9, 13, 24, 34– 6, 49, 53–4, 106, 132, 149, 151–2, 154–8, 162, 164, 168, 172–3, 175, 179–80, 182, 240, 262–4, 286, 304 Nasi 200–201, 251 Navel (of the earth) 71 Nebuchadnezzar/Nebuchadrezzar 5, 42, 85, 90, 95, 122, 195, 197–9, 201, 205, 211, 213–15, 224, 226, 235–6 Nippur 85–6 O Oath 16, 170, 176, 305, OAN (Oracles vs. foreign nations) 7–10, 14, 27, 31, 34, 37, 39–45, 49, 115, 154, 174–5, 177, 193– 201, 204–15, 223–4, 228,

327 230, 233–4, 238–41, 243, 245, 255–6, 293, 295, 305 P Paradise 13, 24, 74, 78, 96, 137, 143, 193, 196, 204, 208, 215–220, 231–2, 234, 238–44, 274, 279– 80, 285, 292 Pathos (rhetoric) 20–1, 23, 125, 221, 237, 282–3 Patronage 10, 15–16, 18–19, 33, 35–6, 41, 46, 52, 55, 60, 62, 66, 70–71, 78–81, 87–9, 93, 102, 115, 117– 18, 128, 132, 134, 141, 143, 148, 158–9, 166, 168–9, 171–2, 181, 189, 205–8, 210, 214–16, 224, 237, 243–4, 283, 285, 290 Pelatiah 112, 124 Persia 3, 29, 84–6, 90, 92, 94, 118, 167, 295 Perspective 5, 11, 15–16, 19, 25, 30, 37, 42–3, 57–9, 76, 81, 94, 98, 105, 108, 118, 122, 127, 159, 181, 183, 187–8, 190–1, 196, 203, 209, 220, 228–9, 240, 282, 284, 290 Pharaoh (King of Egypt) 82, 148, 175, 198, 200, 206, 212, 214, 224–38 Phoenicia 42–3, 45, 77, 195, 197, 209, 212, 214 Presence (divine) 13, 23, 26– 30, 32–3, 35–7, 48, 66–7, 70, 75–8, 82, 88–9, 91, 101–33, 143, 166, 172–4, 180, 217, 223, 299 Priest(hood) 3, 5, 26–7, 49, 66, 68, 78, 82, 90, 94–6,

328

“I WILL BE KING OVER YOU!”

106–7, 117, 121, 137–9, 142, 173, 202, 247–8, 292 Promised Land 33, 41, 43, 46, 48, 82, 127–30, 132–3, 135–7, 139, 143, 145, 159, 162, 182, 209–10, 240, 243–4, 252, 261, 270, 285, 287 Q Qumran 13 R Rebellion 16, 21, 26, 30, 32, 36, 38, 40, 52, 59, 93–4, 96–7, 103, 105–7, 113, 116–18, 120–1, 126, 128, 135, 138, 141, 145–7, 151–3, 155–9, 162, 165, 169, 171, 177, 180, 195, 199, 201, 211, 214–16, 226, 233, 236, 238–9, 247, 259, 264, 277 Recognition Formula 13, 35– 6, 51, 54, 132, 156, 173– 8, 191, 227, 252 Redaction (see Editing/editors) Reputation 10, 15, 17–18, 24– 5, 27, 33, 35–6, 44, 46, 49, 53–4, 137–8, 145, 147, 149–51, 153, 155, 157–9, 163–5, 167–9, 171–5, 177, 179–83, 185, 187–89, 191–2, 197, 214, 223, 228, 237–42, 252, 262, 265–6, 269, 272, 281–2, 284, 286 Rhetorical Analysis 4–7, 12, 18–19, 22, 25, 52, 57, 60, 134, 191, 240, 289–90

Royal Ideology/Theology 47, 62–4, 66, 69–77, 81–2, 87, 292, 305–6 S Salvation 8, 24, 26, 31, 35, 39–40, 43–4, 46, 48–9, 53–4, 75, 95, 112, 121, 123–6, 128, 139, 141, 158–9, 163, 167, 179, 183, 190, 195–6, 209–10, 236, 243, 245, 253–5, 257, 262, 265–7, 274, 281, 284–5 Sanctuary 29, 64, 82, 123, 126, 129, 138, 140, 194, 197, 253 Seir (Mount) 257 Septuagint (LXX) 2, 13, 71, 201, 203 Shame 13, 24, 30, 38–9, 46, 48–9, 53, 97, 130–3, 136–8, 142, 180, 183–90, 192, 215, 218–19, 228, 232–3, 237, 241–3, 263, 265–6, 283–4, 286, 292, 294, 296, 300, 302–3, 305 Sheep/flock (metaphor) 97, 241, 245–287 Shepherd (metaphor) 24, 31, 46, 157, 245–287, 300 Sidon 42–3, 177, 196, 209, 211, 215 Sinai 28, 67, 81, 96, 103, 105– 6, 149, 156, 166, 176, 178, 294, 299, 301, 304 Storm 28, 101, 104–6, 119, 278 Sovereignty (Divine) 2, 8–12, 15–17, 25–6, 28–9, 31–5, 37–9, 41, 44–5, 47, 50, 52–5, 60, 62, 75, 80, 83, 88, 98–9, 101, 103–4,

INDEX 108–12, 115–17, 125–6, 128, 131–2, 134, 137, 141–2, 145–7, 158, 160, 162–3, 167, 172, 174, 177, 179–80, 190–97, 206, 208, 210, 216–17, 222, 228, 235, 238–9, 243, 252, 255, 262–3, 265–8, 270–2, 274, 281– 2, 289–90 Suzerainty Treaty 16, 176

329 Utopia 30, 45, 48, 95, 142, 224, 274 V Visionary material 3,8–9, 23, 26–33, 38–9, 41, 47–9, 53, 55, 77–8, 82–3, 94–5, 101–42, 155, 165, 173, 223, 237–8, 241–2, 245, 253, 278, 293, 298, 301

T Theophany 28, 96, 102–6, 108–10, 118, 141, 149, 298, 301, 303 Throne (of Yahweh) 26, 28, 32–3, 64, 76–8, 83, 101– 2, 104–6, 109, 117–19, 121, 136, 148, 207, 301, 304 Tyre 27, 40, 42–3, 45, 49, 95, 115, 177, 195–201, 204– 224, 228, 232–4, 236, 238–9, 295, 298, 300

W Wife (of Ezekiel) 37, 198 Wilderness 75, 128, 133, 145– 6, 149, 151–3, 155–6, 162, 165–6, 169, 172, 180–1, 251, 260, 262, 264, 267, 284, 294 Wood and stone 33, 41, 54, 59–60, 90, 115, 146, 153, 159, 164–5, 170–1, 189, 191, 209–10 Word event formula(s) 101– 2, 121, 199, 204, 227, 231

U Ugarit 13, 47, 63, 133, 277, 306–7 Underworld/Sheol 13, 24, 71, 193, 196, 206, 215, 219, 227, 231–4, 237–8, 243 Unity (Rhetorical) 7–10, 12, 60

Z Zadokite 3, 95, 137 Zedekiah 5, 211, 215, 235–6, 258–9 Zion 37, 64–5, 70–6, 78, 81– 2, 88–9, 117, 119, 150, 176–8, 182, 201, 253–4, 299, 302, 304