The problems which abound in a study of the book of Ezekiel are apparent to scholar and layman alike. For the latter, questions arise mainly in the interpretation of the book, owing to its highly visionary character. For the former, other difficulties appear in the contents of the book, such as the dating, the literary style and locale. Such matters seldom bother the reader who is not initiated into the mysteries of literary criticism. In ancient times the rabbis recognized the possibility of misunderstanding the symbolism of Ezekiel and did not allow the first chapter of Ezekiel to be read in the synagogue services. Jerome reports that in his day, about 425 A.D., there was a regulation among the jews forbidding anyone under 30 years of age to read either the beginning or the end of the book. The opposite extreme to such caution has often been displayed by more modern students of prophecy, who have built quite detailed schemes of eschatology on certain chapters of Ezekiel.
The prophecy is a fairly closely-knit composition, so much so that many literary critics have said that Ezekiel’s own work has been radically revised and edited. Some sections of the book bear a poetic or near-poetic form while others are in very staid prose. This has given rise to the speculation that Ezekiel was a poet and that only the poetic sections and those which may, by changing the text, be forced into a poetic mold are the writings of Ezekiel. Thus, Gustav Holscher assigns about 170 verses out of 1,273 verses in the book to Ezekiel, while H. G. May in The Interpreter’s Bible more generously gives about sixty percent of the book to the prophet. The methods of analysis used in this type of criticism are so subjective that other scholars have reacted against them. Such men as G. A. Cooke, in the International Critical Commentary, R. H. Pfeiffer in his Introduction to the Old Testament and C. F. Howie in a thesis, The Date and Composition of Ezekiel maintain that the book comes substantially from Ezekiel himself. It is this writer’s opinion that although the text of the prophecy has suffered in the course of transmission more than most other biblical books, yet Ezekiel is the author of the book and he himself is very likely the person who arranged the contents in their present order and thus gave the book its unity.
Ezekiel lived and wrote among the Jewish exiles in Babylon, according to several references in the book itself, cf. 1:1; 11:22–25; 40:1, 2. He was of a priestly family and no doubt spent considerable time as a youth in or near Jerusalem. He was one of those who were exiled by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C. and he seems to have begun his public ministry about five years later. The Jews enjoyed a good deal of freedom in Babylon, since they were allowed to build their own homes, operate their own businesses and exercise, within limits, their own religion. From the prophecy of Jeremiah we learn that there was communication with Jerusalem and that some of the exiles did not expect to have to remain in Babylon very long. In the earlier period of his ministry it was Ezekiel’s task to disillusion these folk and to warn of Jerusalem’s downfall. Later Ezekiel became a comforter to his people, preaching the promise of restoration.
Outline Of The Prophecy
The book seems to fall rather easily into two main divisions which correspond to the two periods of the prophet’s ministry and to the twofold nature of his work.
I. The Declaration of Judgment
A. Dedication of Ezekiel to his prophetic office, chap. 1–3:21.
B. Denunciations of Judah and Jerusalem, 3:22–24:27.
1. The prophet as a sign to the people, chaps. 4; 5; 12.
2. Prophecies against Israel, chaps. 6; 7; 13.
3. Visions of the casting off of Israel, chaps. 8–11.
4. A warning that intercession is useless, chap. 14.
5. Parables about apostate Israel, chaps. 15–19.
6. The final doom of Jerusalem in picture and parable, chaps. 20–24.
C. Prophecies against the nations, chaps. 25–32.
II. The Declaration of Salvation
A. The prophet as God’s watchman, chap. 33.
B. The false shepherds and the Good Shepherd to come, chap. 34.
C. The historic enemy, Edom, to be destroyed, chap. 35.
D. Promise of a restored and regenerate Israel, chap. 36.
E. Vision of Israel raised to new life, united under David and confirmed in an everlasting covenant, chap. 37.
F. The conflict of the ages, Gog versus God, chaps. 38–39.
G. Vision of the new kingdom, chaps. 40–48.
The student will discover that the first division is not devoid of promise for Israel, and the second does not consist entirely of promises of safety. It is evident that there has been a general grouping of subject matter and the whole prophecy is well-organized as a composition.
Themes Of Ezekiel
A comparison of the prophecy of Ezekiel with that of Jeremiah shows that the two men discussed several of the same themes, although Ezekiel almost invariably presents the topic at greater length than does Jeremiah. Common to them both are the figures of a seething cauldron, of adulterous sisters, of evil shepherds to be replaced by the Davidic king, the good shepherd. They share also the concepts of individual responsibility and of a new and final covenant to replace the Mosaic covenant. Both prophets inveigh against Edom, Ammon, Moab, Philistia and Egypt. It is altogether likely that Ezekiel heard many of Jeremiah’s messages before the exile from Jerusalem.
The opinion has been commonly held that prior to the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel the Flebrews had no clear-cut idea of individual responsibility. They were, supposedly, controlled by the idea of a corporate or community personality. Our two prophets both quote a proverb which had become common among their people, “The fathers ate sour grapes, but the children’s teeth are set on edge” (cf. Jer. 31:29, 30 and Ezek. 18:2–31). The people apparently were arguing that their oppression and exile were the punishment for their fathers’ sins, not their own. The answer of the prophets was that they were being punished for their own sins. The idea of community involvement is certainly found in the Old Testament and, indeed, it is a valid principle which is operative today. Neither Jeremiah nor Ezekiel is making any attempt to deny this, however.
It is in the area of the new covenant that Ezekiel has most to say. While Jeremiah mentions this covenant briefly in chapter 31 of his prophecy, Ezekiel mentions an everlasting covenant of peace in chapters 16; 36 and 37 and, by inference, in chapters 11 and 39. The era of the new covenant, as Ezekiel is given to foresee it, is one in which there is to be given to the people a new heart, 11:19; 36:26, 27. They will be a chastened, converted people, one household of faith with Samaria and Sodom, 16:60–63. At that time David, the good shepherd, will be their prince and God will have his tabernacle in their midst, 37:24–28.
Ezekiel And The Revelation
It is interesting to list the figures and symbols which occur first in Ezekiel and then in the Revelation. It is only a natural procedure in interpretation to let the two shed light upon each other. We see: The four living creatures
—Ezek. 1; Rev. 4
Command to eat a scroll and to prophesy
—Ezek. 2; Rev. 10
God’s people have a mark in their foreheads
—Ezek. 9; Rev. 7
God’s tabernacle will be with men
—Ezek. 37; Rev. 21
Battle led by Gog
—Ezek. 38; Rev. 20
Vision of the New Holy City
—Ezek. 40 ff.; Rev. 21
The river of water of life
—Ezek. 47; Rev. 22
Trees with leaves for the healing of nations
—Ezek. 47; Rev. 22
The city four-square
—Ezek. 48; Rev. 21
Gates of the city, three on each side
—Ezek. 48; Rev. 21
Each of the two books is, of course, apocalyptic and it is just for this reason that sharply varying systems of interpretation have been applied to both.
Interpretation Of Ezekiel
No attempt will be made here to offer a final answer to the different interpretations of the prophecy. Difficulties arise chiefly in the later section, where promises of a golden future are held forth to Israel.
The older liberal view, which is widely held in many quarters, is that Ezekiel envisioned a restored Israel in which the cult would be the centre of national life. He therefore drew a blueprint of what he hoped might be the situation in Judah. Although his plan was too idealistic at many points, it did provide a basis for some later legislation, so that R. H. Pfeiffer has called Ezekiel the father of modern Judaism. In other words, Ezekiel’s “visions” are to be understood quite literally even though they never could be fulfilled quite literally.
Another view which applies literalism is that of modern dispensationalism. To put the matter very tersely, it is held that Ezekiel’s prophecies apply to Israel, the nation, and Palestine, the land, literally. Since the visions have not been fulfilled literally in the past, and since the Scripture is the word of God which cannot be broken, they will be fulfilled in the future. Most dispensational brethren expect the fulfilment to take place in the period just prior to and during the millennium.
A third view tends to take matters more figuratively or symbolically, since the prophecy is so largely visionary, so full of figures of speech and symbols. The Israel which is to be restored is the spiritual Israel, not only chastened and converted Jews but Gentiles as well. The temple is symbolic, it is said, since such figures as the river of water of life and the trees of life are surely not a literal stream or literal shrubs, yet the river issues from the temple. The crux of this kind of interpretation is that Ezekiel spoke during the Mosaic economy under the figures of speech of that economy, but he pointed to the new era in Christ. The strongest argument for this position is that our Lord Jesus did inaugurate the era of the new covenant in his own blood and he is the Davidic king, the good shepherd as he himself said. Since volumes have been written on this subject, it will not be pursued further here.
There is a wealth of books and articles dealing with both the prophet and his prophecy.
Bibliography
The student will find that the available books are in general of the three schools of interpretation which are mentioned above. In the study of historical background the Interpreter’s Bible has some excellent material, though the commentary itself is given over to the analytical approach and denies much of the book to Ezekiel. The clearest presentation of the dispensational point of view is given by Arno C. Gaebelein in his commentary, which may be obtained as a separate volume or in the Annotated Bible series. Among the older commentaries which are valuable are those by C. F. Keil in the Keil and Delitzsch series, and one by Patrick Fairbairn. The latter is a thoroughgoing application of the principle of “spiritualizing.” There has recently been published a very readable but penetrating volume by H. L. Ellison, entitled Ezekiel, the Man and His Message. It is well worth much more than its moderate cost.
If one were starting a study of biblical prophecy in general it would be well for him to read Patrick Fairbairn’s Prophecy. The literalist would be infuriated at a number of points but it is wholesome for all of us to gain another point of view. E. J. Young’s My Servants the Prophets is of great help in understanding the phenomenon of Old Testament prophecy. It is recommended that anyone who wishes to approach Ezekiel seriously should use such background materials in order to employ the commentaries and a good reference Bible profitably. In this way he may come to his own conclusions in the area of interpretation and not be a mere sounding board for the ideas of others.
DAVID W. KERR
Professor of Old Testament
Gordon Divinity School
