One of the most common mistakes in teaching the Old Testament is to use the passage only as a springboard or illustration for what ends up being an exposition from the New Testament. So the challenge of teaching Ezekiel is the same for all of the Old Testament—care must be taken to expound the meaning of the Old Testament text itself rather than jump quickly into corresponding New Testament passages. New Testament texts can validate the message drawn from Ezekiel, but the message must be rooted in the meaning derived from Ezekiel itself. My use of the New Testament in this commentary is to validate the message of Ezekiel when necessary. This is done most often in passages where the message of Ezekiel strains Christian instincts about the life of believers who are in Christ. The use of the New Testament is also necessary to bring forward the message of Ezekiel to its consummation in our expectations of God’s Old Testament promises in Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Ancient Texts for Illustration
Illustrations are tools that clarify or drive home the point of a passage. They are not an end in themselves nor the framework upon which we hang the biblical message. In this commentary, I frequently quote ancient Near Eastern texts from the world of the Bible. Actually reading these texts to your audience can be effective in exposition; it helps clarify the cultural setting of the text in a way that informs meaning. The modern audience experiences more closely the impact that a particular passage would have had on the original audience. In my experience, people actually perk up when they hear these ancient voices from the past, voices they have never heard before that bring to concrete appreciation the life of the biblical world.
The Text and Translation of Ezekiel
My recommendation is always to consult three English translations when doing detailed Bible study. It is a good idea to choose at least one that is outside the translation tradition that you would normally consult. For example, the NIV, NASB, and NRSV offer a good mix. If there are no substantial differences, then it can be assumed the Hebrew text is reasonably clear and without significant difficulty. In these cases, the English versions offer a unified guide as to the meaning of the Hebrew text. However, when important differences do appear, it is due to one of three difficulties: (1) the Hebrew text has suffered in transmission over the ages, so there is discrepancy between manuscripts that witness to the original text; (2) there is a difficult grammatical expression that leaves some ambiguity as to meaning; (3) there is an unusual word meaning that remains unclear. One thing is sure, in this day of abundant English translations of the Bible, a variety of translations is present in any size of audience. This cannot be ignored. Our responsibility is to walk people through the differences, clarify when possible, and refrain from making dogmatic points on disputed readings.
It is helpful to remind people that the doctrine of inspiration does not extend to preservation of the text in the transmission process. Providentially, God has preserved for us an embarrassing overabundance of manuscript evidence for the New Testament and an adequate preservation of ancient manuscripts for the Old Testament. This includes Hebrew manuscripts as well as ancient translations, like the Old Greek that dates several hundred years before Christ. So I have endeavored to offer some explanation where significant differences appear between some of the most commonly used, modern English versions.
1. Technically, “oracle” refers to the answer received from a deity in response to a specific question for advice, but the word has come to be used commonly to refer to any divine message.
2. Based on word count, Ezekiel is second in size only to Jeremiah among the latter prophets and larger even than Psalms.
3. For a summary of the cataclysmic events surrounding the final decades of the kingdom, see Special Topic: The Last Kings of Judah at Ezek 19:1–14.
4. For discussion and defense, see Hilber, “Culture of Prophecy and Writing,” 219–41.
5. A earlier form of this statement has a pedigree stretching back through my professors, Elliot E. Johnson and Allen P. Ross, to Bruce K. Waltke.
6. The term “Jew” or “Jewish” is a common designation for the exilic community that perhaps more accurately could be called “Judean.”
7. Lyons, Introduction to the Study of Ezekiel, 79–80. The exception to proper chronological order is Ezek 29:17, where the concern for topic overrides the chronological need (see comments there).
8. Block, “Preaching Ezekiel,” 157–78. This is reprinted also in Block, By the River Chebar, 1–24. This same volume contains a number of other essays on Ezekiel that the reader might find helpful.
9. I am following here the model of application advocated by Kuruvilla, Privilege the Text!, especially 39–54.
10. Here I am influenced by a communication model called Relevance Theory. An accessible introduction can be found in Green, “Relevance Theory and Theological Interpretation,” 75–90; or Green, “Relevance Theory and Biblical Interpretation,” 266–73.
The God of Glory Calls
1:1–28
Ezekiel’s Message
The glorious God and King calls his people into submissive service.
Key Themes
• The King of Glory is ever present with his people.
• God’s glory reveals his overpowering martial and royal splendor.
• The authority of God’s call demands a response of willing submission.
Context in Ezekiel
Several times in Scripture, the call of a prophet begins with an inaugural vision of God’s glorious presence. Moses received his call from God’s presence in the burning bush (Exod 3:1–6), and Isaiah experienced an exceptional vision of God’s holy presence while in the temple (Isa 6:1–5). Although Hosea and Jeremiah did not report a vision of God’s glory, the substance of their prophetic call anticipates a central theme of their message (Hos 1:2–11; Jer 1:9–10). The visions served both to undergird the authority of the prophetic mission as well as shape the prophet’s understanding of the nature of God as it applied to his message. For Ezekiel, the vision of God’s glory commissions him with an authoritative message and leaves an indelible impression that even though Ezekiel and his fellow exiles are far removed from their homeland and the temple in Jerusalem, God is with them even in exile and seeks to prepare them for future, kingdom work.
How eager Ezekiel was to comply with the Lord’s call is disputed.11 However, reluctance to carry out a painful task should not be confused with resistance. Moses, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were reluctant, but Jonah was resistant. But unlike these others, Ezekiel offers no excuses. Even Isaiah’s response, “Here I am,” does not imply that he relished the seemingly fruitless ministry ahead of him (cf. Isa 6:11). When Isaiah asked God, “How long,” he used a phrase that connotes lament (e.g., Pss 6:4;
